I agree with Premium pretty much. While his catchphrases annoy the hell out of me, I can see why people may think they're funny or entertaining. His play-by-play is for the most part fine. But I don't like him as an analyst at all. This includes his radio show, his blog, and nowadays he even brings up his bias during games. In these situations he makes an ass of himself and looks like a complete MLSE tool. He doesn't have a shred of credibility as an analyst/radio host.
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">o.k. valid argument, i agree with most of it. although, how about his child like stunts? blogging about the sherm run-in; remember the non-reaction to vince dunking against the raps for the first time?</div> i have no problem with what he said about sherm in his blog. he basically just recapped his opinion on the situation, and then gave sherm nothing but respect and praise. although i do agree with sherm on this one, i cant fault chuck for having his own opinion...especially when he ends his bit about the whole thing with "That's the beauty of ball... we agree to disagree. Canada Basketball is fortunate to have Sherm involved with its program. " like i said...i dont mind chuck...but i can find friend with anyone who seems to love the raps as much as i do even if they do say moronic things at times lol
TJ Ford was reported by Milwaukee fans to be bad at finishing when he comes barrelling down the lane. All his missed layups reminded me a little of Milt Palacio except he didn't throw it as hard at the backboard lol. Don't be too surprised by it, unless he improves that area, it should happen throughout the year. He needs to focus more on passing than trying to be a scorer. 8 shots a game max for him lol.
<div class="quote_poster">Premium Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">i have no problem with what he said about sherm in his blog. he basically just recapped his opinion on the situation, and then gave sherm nothing but respect and praise. although i do agree with sherm on this one, i cant fault chuck for having his own opinion...especially when he ends his bit about the whole thing with "That's the beauty of ball... we agree to disagree. Canada Basketball is fortunate to have Sherm involved with its program. " like i said...i dont mind chuck...but i can find friend with anyone who seems to love the raps as much as i do even if they do say moronic things at times lol</div> catch his radio show from 1-4 on the fan; i tried to for a few months and then i found him to be the most disingenuous human being alive. first off, a little know fact about him is that he's one of those ultra-conservative, born again christians, cut from the same mold as pat robertson, jerry falwell (sp.) and those morons on the 700 club. moreover, a few years ago when lenny wilikins was on the hot-seat, swirsky wasn't critical of him all year, even when vince famously could be seen yelling at lenny when he was taken out of a game. however, 2 weeks before the end of the regular season- chuck began his attack on lenny in the broadcasts, i believe peddie put him up to it to create a public cushion for firing a hall of famer in wilikins, which they did at the end of the season.
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">remember the non-reaction to vince dunking against the raps for the first time?</div> *VC gets past his defender with an amazing 360 layup* Chuck (in a soft monotone voice): "Vince with the bucket...." That was a classic moment in Swirsky homerisms! And about the whole being a bias broadcaster issue, yes there's no problem with having your home announcer showing bias for your team, but Chuck just takes it way too far sometimes. I've seen opposing broadcasters cheer when their guy scores or get pissed with they think the refs messed up a call on one of their guys, but rarely have I seen them take it to the next level that Chuck does. e.g. when he endlessly bashes an opposing team's play, meanwhile the Raps are playing equally bad (they showed an old bobcats game where he kept going on on how the Bobcats looked exhausted and implying that it should be an easy win, meanwhile the game came down to the wire and we nearly lost).... I also hate how he rips an opposing player non-stop if he doesn't like the guy... and who can forget the ultimate in Swirsky homerism, The Kobe Incident. I like the good stuff he brings to the table (like his enthusiasm, quirky catchphrases, and chemistry w/ his fellow broadcasters), but I can only tolerate his extreme homerisms for so long. I'd prefer to have Eric Smith switching places w/ the Swirsk... he's smart, funny, and a great play-by-play guy... The games would be much more enjoyable to watch with him on board imo.
<div class="quote_poster">dunksworth Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> I'd prefer to have Eric Smith switching places w/ the Swirsk... he's smart, funny, and a great play-by-play guy... The games would be much more enjoyable to watch with him on board imo.</div> i prefer swirsky over eric smith; smith is one of those humber college rejects. plus, a friend of a friend who's in sports journalism (i can't name him out of respect for my friend) tells me eric is the most jealous journalist he's ever encountered.
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">i prefer swirsky over eric smith; smith is one of those humber college rejects. plus, a friend of a friend who's in sports journalism (i can't name him out of respect for my friend) tells me eric is the most jealous journalist he's ever encountered.</div> Do you not like Eric Smith or do you prefer Swirsk over him for play-by-play? He's actually worth listening to on the air (haven't really listened to him doing a game). The guy is not bias towards the Raptors, has a realistic view of things in the NBA and is pretty smart on top of it. It's not like he's annoying or anything. Unless you met him in real life or something. If you know who Mike Wilner is (he's what to Fan 590 Blue Jays as what Eric was two the Fan2 years ago), he's like the basketball version of him. And just out of curiousity, what uni did your friends friend goto?
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">i prefer swirsky over eric smith; smith is one of those humber college rejects. plus, a friend of a friend who's in sports journalism (i can't name him out of respect for my friend) tells me eric is the most jealous journalist he's ever encountered.</div> What does that have to do with his play-by-play ability? We're not choosing him to be our friend or anything. Regardless of his education/personality outside the booth, Smith is decent play-by-play commentator who's actually pretty insightful and reasonable with his opinions on the the Raps. Plus he always seems to build an entertaining chemistry with his partner, regardless of how bad they may be (eg: Paul Jones). btw, Mike Wilner's a badass. How many times does he shut down a casual fan on his radio show?
<div class="quote_poster">P.A.P. Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> And just out of curiousity, what uni did your friends friend goto?</div> its a friend of a friend and i believe he went to ryerson. and i do prefer swirsky over smith <div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">What does that have to do with his play-by-play ability? We're not choosing him to be our friend or anything. Regardless of his education/personality outside the booth</div> education is important cause it gives u perspective. i want a commentator who understands the sport they cover and the broader perspective behind the game. for instance- most players are either from inner city america or europe, well i want my commentator to understand the socio-economic realities of the players they cover.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">education is important cause it gives u perspective. i want a commentator who understands the sport they cover and the broader perspective behind the game. for instance- most players are either from inner city america or europe, well i want my commentator to understand the socio-economic realities of the players they cover.</div> When would that ever come up in conversation during a basketball game? Seems better suited for a thesis paper than a basketball commentary. I don't think I've ever heard an analyst/commentator discuss that during the course of a game and, IMO, it would be ridiculously off-topic. So I don't know how you can hold that against Smith, especially when the Swirsk wouldn't be able to comment on that either. Besides, that's too much of a generalization to be a legitimate topic to discuss, anyways.
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">When would that ever come up in conversation during a basketball game? Seems better suited for a thesis paper than a basketball commentary. I don't think I've ever heard an analyst/commentator discuss that during the course of a game and, IMO, it would be ridiculously off-topic. So I don't know how you can hold that against Smith, especially when the Swirsk wouldn't be able to comment on that either. Besides, that's too much of a generalization to be a legitimate topic to discuss, anyways.</div> appreciation for the topic u cover is an imperative. and you're wrong- swirsky makes an effort to understand his subject manner, e.g. from chuck i learnt that allen iverson supports 20 + friends and family, plus, hes on a first name basis with all raptor players and their families. i dunno know if know this but swirsky has covered jalen rose, anthony parker, rod strickland .... since they were teenagers. what eric's pedigree? oh yeah he covered the community college all star game, covering ronyell white, who works as ymca's youth coordinator these days
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">appreciation for the topic u cover is an imperative. and you're wrong- swirsky makes an effort to understand his subject manner, e.g. from chuck i learnt that allen iverson supports 20 + friends and family, plus, hes on a first name basis with all raptor players and their families. i dunno know if know this but swirsky has covered jalen rose, anthony parker, rod strickland .... since they were teenagers. what eric's pedigree? oh yeah he covered the community college all star game, covering ronyell white, who works as ymca's youth coordinator these days</div> Those are simple facts that could be picked up by being in the business for a while, not complex topics like you stated earlier. If you're criticizing Eric Smith's experience compared to Chuck, then yes, that's a legitimate complaint. But to make a major (and unjustified) assumption about Smith's intelligence and then build upon that to question his ability to understand the culture/background of basketball doesn't make sense. Especially when he has a far better understanding of basketball culture than Chuck does and there's no evidence to suggest that Swirsky could tackle issues like the one you stated earlier.
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">i prefer swirsky over eric smith; smith is one of those humber college rejects.</div> I hope you're not implying that just cuz he went to humber college that he's a reject. I haven't listened to much of his commentating, but when I do catch him he always comes across as insightful and funny. And if education is so important, I don't see how you'd prefer Chuck when it's apparent that in terms of bball knowledge, Smith owns him. I can't recall anything that Chuck has said on air that was in the least bit insightful.
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> Chuck does and there's no evidence to suggest that Swirsky could tackle issues like the one you stated earlier.</div> an university education does, well at least it gives u the analytical tools that assist u in tackling such issues.
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">an university education does, well at least it gives u the analytical tools that assist u in tackling such issues.</div> You're still generalizing/assuming something that could easily prove to be false. Plus, you've yet to address when these issues would come up during a game for a commentator. Those examples of what Chuck brought up were simple facts.
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">an university education does, well at least it gives u the analytical tools that assist u in tackling such issues.</div> Well, what if Chuck went to Brock for Aboriginal Studies and Eric Smith went to, I don't know, Humber for sports journalism? How relevant is a degree for Aboriginal Studies when commentating on basketball? To me, an university education is overrated for a subject like this. Just because you have a degree doesn't mean that you didn't "buy" it... I've met both Jack Armstrong and Paul Johnson (at Ontario Place no less), both were very well-spoken, and both listed Eric Smith as one of the top Raptors TV staff who knows his stuff really well.
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You're still generalizing/assuming something that could easily prove to be false. Plus, you've yet to address when these issues would come up during a game for a commentator. Those examples of what Chuck brought up were simple facts.</div> o.k. lets get into particulars. first off basketball games are spontaneous events- u have an idea of whats going to occur but most of it is random, e.g. in the fred jones incident, jones claimed there may have been intent on the part of the new jersey player because of a prior history in college. who do u think would more qualified to garner that as events transpired, smith or swirsky? to that end, an university education transmits different methodologies in research, which here is tantamount to different investigative techniques in journalism. i do agree smith is much more relatable to young fans but to mature, university educated, middle class fans who occupy the expensive seats, smith has as much sophistication as the cleaners at their place of work.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post"> i do agree smith is much more relatable to young fans but to mature, university educated, middle class fans who occupy the expensive seats, smith has as much sophistication as the cleaners at their place of work.</div>If these people are watching a game on TV or listening to Smith's commentating on the radio, obviously they're not rich enough to buy the expensive tickets...
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">i do agree smith is much more relatable to young fans but to mature, university educated, middle class fans who occupy the expensive seats, smith has as much sophistication as the cleaners at their place of work.</div> You tend to overvalue a university degree way too much. Take it from someone who's been to both college and university (got my diploma, now getting my degree at UofT), uni grads have no reason at all to look down on college grads. I've met some of the smartest ppl while I was at college, smarter than a lot of UofT students (who just have good work habits, but aren't necessarily smart). I really hope u're not looking down on Smith just because he went to a community college. It's obvious that he's a fairly intelligent guy and it's even more obvious that he has more knowledge than Mr. Swirsky.
<div class="quote_poster">deception Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">o.k. lets get into particulars. first off basketball games are spontaneous events- u have an idea of whats going to occur but most of it is random, e.g. in the fred jones incident, jones claimed there may have been intent on the part of the new jersey player because of a prior history in college. who do u think would more qualified to garner that as events transpired, smith or swirsky? to that end, an university education transmits different methodologies in research, which here is tantamount to different investigative techniques in journalism. i do agree smith is much more relatable to young fans but to mature, university educated, middle class fans who occupy the expensive seats, smith has as much sophistication as the cleaners at their place of work.</div> Again, that's besides the point. Of course, on the most part, a university education would help in research/investigation techniques. But, that example is another case of experience. That knowledge would become available to a person that has been involved with the sport long enough to know that, that type of connection might exist. The same applies to your examples of A.I.'s charity, etc. They come from being around players and picking up information along the way. Swirsky may have been more likely to bring that observation up, but that's because he's been around for so long and has had more access to that information. That last paragraph ignores the reality of the situation. Are you actually suggesting that Swirsky has more complexity in his analysis of the game of basketball than Eric Smith? Swirsky is among the most simplistic I've ever listened to. He frequently falls back on ambiguous concepts like heart, motivation, desire, dedication, class, etc. to describe events during a game and falters when faced with a logical argument (eg: Sherman Hamilton). Smith, in comparison, analyzes coaching decisions, chemistry, playing style, fitness, etc.: tangible concepts that can be observed/disputed. You have it completely reversed: Chuck appeals more to the young, casual, easily excited fans, while Smith appeals more to mature, experienced, and reasonable basketball followers. I get the impression that if you had no knowledge of Smith's educational background, you would be agreeing with me right now.
