Is radio more thrilling for sports coverage?

So, I missed watching the Indy 500 on TV. First, it was the local station covering the bad weather instead of playing the broadcast. Then, the power went out.

Fortunately, I remembered that they streamed the radio broadcast. It was thrilling to listen to.

(Note: Yes, I could have watched it on Peacock, but I'm tired of paying for additional services.)

I used to listen to the radio all the time as a kid because we didn't have cable. I loved listening to MRN/PRN broadcasts of NASCAR races over the radio as well as Mets games (RIP, Bob Murphy). Something about a broadcast of a sporting event just seems more exciting on the radio.

(Note: This is not a knock on the Indy 500 TV crew or that of the Mets - they're good, too, IMO.)

Maybe it's that element of mystery that comes with not being able to see it firsthand, but instead through the voice of that eyewitness .... and how your imagination needs to fill in the gaps.

Or, maybe, I'm just over-romanticizing radio.

What are your thoughts?

IMHO they both suck.  Announcers are now conditioned to hyper-inflate the commentary to make up for what the actual event lacks.  I wish there was an option on TV to watch the event with no commentary at all.  90% of the potential audience would hate it, though. 

I think there's a certain gusto or ego or something that gave old-school radio coverage charm.

Sometimes I like to listen to recorded radio broadcasts from a few decades ago just for fun, but I'll have to try listening to a race broadcast on radio.

When I am at the Rolex 24 I have IMSA radio playing on my headphones while I am walking around shooting photos. I enjoy the radio coverage while trackside to add some more context to what is happening on track around me. 

Last year I went to an Baltimore O's game and thought that the in person experience might be better with a play-by-play.  But that was just me.

I find the radio coverage to be more engaging than TV, whether it's baseball, football, or hockey. 

My theory is it engages more of your brain, since (at least in my case) my brain is converting the announcers play-by-play into a mental image of the events. 

I still watch the NHL playoffs on TV, but if I'm in the car I'll turn on the radio broadcast.  The benefit of radio during the playoffs is you can choose which teams broadcast you want, rather than the national broadcast present on TV after the first round. 

I think it is safe to say that baseball is almost better on the radio.  Having some visuals for auto racing seems like it adds a lot though.

As noted, the detailed play by play of radio (when done right) can add a LOT to an event, even if you are already watching it.  Certainly a better way to watch a football or baseball game in person.  One of the issues with say, the Indy 500, is trying to keep track of which car is which (liveries can be hard to remember and pick out) and a good play by play can help with that.  I would say one of the issues with a radio only version is if you are interested in tracking particular drivers that are not in the lead, or doing something exciting at the time (though that can still be a tough on TV).

stroker said:

IMHO they both suck.  Announcers are now conditioned to hyper-inflate the commentary to make up for what the actual event lacks.  I wish there was an option on TV to watch the event with no commentary at all.  90% of the potential audience would hate it, though. 

I don't know why in this day and age that streams can't have switchable audio channels, one for the live track action and different commentary tracks.

To some extent, listening on the radio is like reading a book. You can fill in the details and create the image in your head.

But I'm going to say no. When we moved to the country we had an antenna, which meant that we didn't get half the hockey games we wanted to watch. Also being at least an hour and a half from the station we needed a really good radio, which we got in the GE Superadio. That piece of hardware also gave us another fun hobby on non hockey days, called DXing. Anyway, we spent ten years listening to games on the radio, and watching them on TV at the same time, and while there are some elements of the radio broadcast that are good, I prefer TV by a lot.

No offense, but I've heard and seen your hockey coverage in the US and it's really, really bad.

In reply to Peabody :

The national stuff is terrible. I cannot for the life of me understand why people think Eddie Nocheck is worth listening to. I was happy when the Blackhawks cut ties with him, or he with them, however it happened. Nice guy. Annoying announcer at best. 
 

I would pay $500 a season if I could get just the video without board ads and with live sound on the ice, no announcers.  
 

I remember a glitch on a Blackhawks broadcast back when they first returned to tv after $Bill died, and we had just that for probably a minute and a half. I still remember it to this day as the most enjoyable viewing experience, for the viewing itself, that I've ever seen for hockey. 

In reply to Peabody :

I get an NHL package on cable, so I often have the choice of watching either the home team or the visiting team telecasts. When Canadian teams are playing  (I'm Canadian) I'll always watch the CBC/TSN/SportsNet feed rather than the US feed. 

In reply to mtn :

Yes, to eliminating the augmented reality ads on the boards and ice. They are annoying at best and many times distracting. 

Peabody said:

To some extent, listening on the radio is like reading a book. You can fill in the details and create the image in your head.

I think it used to be the case that radio broadcasts were better, because the radio guys were helping to paint a much more vivid picture. I used to listen to Chuck Kaiton's radio broadcast while watching the Hurricanes play.

There is now a trend where teams are simulcasting the TV feed to radio and what works for the TV feed leaves much to be desired for radio. It's saving the teams money, though.

Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:

Peabody said:

To some extent, listening on the radio is like reading a book. You can fill in the details and create the image in your head.

 

I think it used to be the case that radio broadcasts were better, because the radio guys were helping to paint a much more vivid picture. I used to listen to Chuck Kaiton's radio broadcast while watching the Hurricanes play.

There is now a trend where teams are simulcasting the TV feed to radio and what works for the TV feed leaves much to be desired for radio. It's saving the teams money, though.

Yeah. TV on radio just doesn't work as well. There are two distinct styles of broadcasting required. On radio, it didn't happen unless the announcer said it did. On TV, the broadcaster needs to take care in not over-describing the scene.

I will say this, some of the best TV broadcasters, though, started in radio. For example, Vin Scully. However, he understood the differences between TV and radio. For example, his call of Kirk Gibson's home run in the World Series. Note his silence. Let the pictures do the talking.

 

Theater of the mind. 

I tend to listen to race broadcasts while I am working in the garage on Sunday's. The PRN coverage of the NASCAR races make even red flag conditions sound exciting. I would agree that having to imagine the visuals being described to me is a part of it, but the other part is the broadcasters have to keep talking. Silence on the radio doesn't sell well. They have to paint a vivid picture on the fly and they get just as excited as the fans in the stands.

If I sit down to watch a race, chances are I have been working on other stuff most of the day and relaxing in front of the TV turns into a nap. If I can keep doing stuff and listen, then I am still being productive.

I stream the PRN coverage thru the NASCAR app and ignore the team communications channels.

I have spent enough time listening to drivers complain about silly little issues or been subject to them going off on the team when they should be focused on the cars and track. One driver in particular had a habit of going off the deep end and the crew chief would simply key the radio for 30 seconds, check to see if the driver was still yelling  and key it again if needed. It kept the channel quiet and let the driver get it out of his system while we figured out the next adjustment.

On the other hand, listening to an OLD Indy 500 winner and team owner on the radio was the best. He had/has no filter and it was the most entertaining transcript to read, if I did not have a chance to listen to his team radio during an event.

I'm not a fan of golf at all, but I can't imagine listening to it on the radio.  I'd rather listen to paint drying.  

For the other sports, sure there's romantic nostalgia to it.  Both the Phillies and Flyers had long time legendary announcers when I was growing up.  Listening to them on AM radio is one of my fondest childhood memories.

I much prefer the radio for baseball and football, also growing up listening to Bob Murphy at night on WHN then the Fan.  We didn't have MRN up here but always listened on vacation. Eli Gold had probably the best broadcast voice for racing. 

I honestly don't listen to radio anymore.  But I do think great sports announcers are a dying breed.  I absolutely love the track announcers at Triple Crown events.