From: anne@boombox.micro.umn.edu (Anne Bilek)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: US Open - General Observations
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:29:24 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1a2


In article <1992Sep11.164121.2118@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Clark L.
Coleman, clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.211612.29861@news2.cis.umn.edu> Anne Bilek 
><anne@boombox.micro.umn.edu> writes:

[stuff deleted]
>>
>>Yeah, don't you hate it when people who have only a passing interest in
>>the sport watch it?  I know the fact that mere neophytes are watching
>>detracts from my enjoyment of the sport!
>
>It detracts from your enjoyment, but you may not realize it. Have you
>seen all the complaints on this newsgroup over the years about how the
>TV broadcasts almost never show doubles matches? Why do you suppose that
>is --- are the TV networks stupid?
>
>No, they know who the audience is.  In addition to the hard core fans
>like myself, there are many people who play occasionally and only watch
>occasionally.  Then there is even a larger group: people who never play
>at all, and watch once or twice a year.  I suspect you fall into the
>second group, not the third group, and you have misinterpreted what I
>was saying.

Your suspicions betray you.  I found your first posting objectionable
because you seemed to want to hierarchize tennis fans, placing yourself
in the top hierarchy, of course.  Here you are saying that there are
"hard core" fans (read: the superior fan), the "occasional" fan, and the
lumpish proletariat.  Of course you'd have to assume I'm part of the
second or third group, because one of your own (the "hard core") would
understand the trauma that you face everytime you turn on the television,
right?  Wrong.  There are plenty of fans who know just as much trivia as
you, who are just as eager to watch two relative unknowns play each other
as you, and who have just as much passion for the sport as you ... and
who can deal with the poor quality of the telecasts.

>I personally know of many people who watch Wimbledon and/or the U.S. Open
>who don't even play tennis once a year.  These people don't want to see
>tips about how to hit a backhand or a drop shot. They don't care about
>doubles, either.  And they really don't want to invest the time in
>watching tennis matches between two up and coming players who are not yet
>famous.  Having talked to many such people, I know this for a fact, and
>I don't criticize them for it.  If they aren't big tennis fans, well, I
>am not a big fan of certain other sports. No big deal.
>
Pardon me, but you *are* criticizing them for it, simply by stating that
they don't want tennis tips, don't want doubles, don't even play the
game!  And remember, these are the very folks who are detracting from
your enjoyment of the telecast.

>The big deal, however, is that the TV program directors think they must
>appeal to the lowest common denominator of their audience.  I think they
>are wrong, and the nonplaying fan could tolerate a few tennis tips (like
>we used to get from Vic Braden and others) because they don't last very
>long.  I reject the idea that you must only broadcast things that appeal
>to close to 100% of the audience, but there are obviously TV programmers
>who accept that idea.
>
Yes, TV caters to the lowest common denominator, or as I'd like to think
of it, the widest possible audience.  Have you ever noticed that there
are more beginners out on the public courts after Wimbledon or the U.S.
Open?  Many people are inspired to take up tennis after seeing a good
match on TV (although few are motivated to bone up on their tennis
trivia).  If it gets them interested in the game I don't care if they
only turned on the TV to get a good look at Steffi's legs.  Whereas you
would rather have "higher quality" viewers (whatever that may mean), I
would rather have more viewers, which means more people interested in
tennis, which will ultimately improve the sport.  The two (quality and
quantity) aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, although I think your
posts imply that they are.

I'm not saying that the announcers don't occasionally get their facts
screwed up, or that the telecasts don't sometimes stink... they do.  I'd
rather see two unknowns playing than watch Monica Seles demolish some
poor qualifier.  But I object to sentiments such as "The people who
aren't really tennis fans can probably turn off their TV sets and the
rest of us can enjoy it" (from your first post).  I wish those people
would stay tuned and learn a little more about tennis.  But I get the
feeling that your sense of superiority (as a hard core tennis fan, of
course :) is reinforced when the masses change the channel to football.

[... more stuff deleted...]

>>Excuse me, but I would prefer that the announcers cater to the casual
>>viewer rather than to the die-hard types waiting in front of their
T.V.'s
>>with a Player's Guide to catch a mistake.  That's how people get
>>interested in a sport - by having the basics explained.  One of the main
>>problems with tennis is that it has always seemed somewhat
exclusionary. 
>>Your post only reinforces that.
>
>No, you misunderstood.  TV does not cater to the casual player, but to
the
>fan who is not even a player.  Most viewers of TV football and baseball
>do not actually play, so they don't spend time showing tips from the pros
>on how to punt a football or throw a curveball.  Most viewers, including
>myself, just wouldn't care.
>
>But tennis is supposed to be much more of a participation sport than
these
>other TV sports.  So, we should get lots of tips on how to improve our
>games, and insights into what the pros do differently with their shots,
>and coverage of the doubles and mixed doubles we often play ourselves
>on weekends. Yet, I rarely see anything of the kind at a grand slam event
>on network TV --- the ones with the biggest audiences.
>
Gee, I seem to remember hearing the USA announcers explain how Agassi
uses the whole baseline on his serve.  Also explaining how Stefan Edberg
hits a kick serve.  Also explaining the strategy of hitting cross court
rather than down the line.  And not so long ago I saw some tennis tips...
was it during Wimbledon?  I think it was.  You're right: not many
baseball or football fans play baseball or football.  However, a lot of
tennis fans play tennis.  I think TV caters to the fan as player much
more in tennis than in other sports.

>As for getting interested in tennis, I got interested by watching the old
>Public Broadcasting System (PBS) coverage in the 1970's.  I remember the
>incredible winning streak of Guillermo Vilas in the summer of 1977. 
Being
>PBS, they didn't have commercials, so they showed tennis tips and lots of
>slow motion replays during the court changes after every odd game.  It
also
>gave the announcers time to talk about something interesting.
>
>But, these were minor tournaments, on PBS, with relatively small viewing
>audiences. I don't remember any fluff at all, and I do remember seeing
>lots of doubles whenever the singles matches finished earlier than
expected.
>Imagine --- doubles on TV, and it wasn't even grand slam doubles! I
remember
>Bud Collins -- I thought he was better in those days, but maybe it was
just
>because I was young. I remember tennis tips from Vic Braden, and also a
>series of prerecorded tips from famous players.
>
>I think that you would like the same things I liked, and you are just not
>catching my meaning when I say "casual fans".  I didn't say "casual
players",
>and I didn't mean "casual players."
>
Read my post again, Clark.  I didn't say "players", I said "viewers". 
And I caught your meaning alright.  There's no problem with wanting the
quality of tennis broadcasts to increase.  It's when you want the "casual
viewers" to tune out so that the ueber-fans can watch in peace that my
hackles start to rise.

[more deleted]
>>>
>>I think it would be great if the ignorant masses would watch.  Then
maybe
>>it would be on network television and I wouldn't have to pay for cable. 
>>Then I could talk about a match with actual living people instead of
>>having to read a newsgroup to participate in such a discussion.  I'm
>>sorry if tennis and television is too democratic for you.  Too bad it
>>can't go back to being the sport of kings.
>
>
>Well, it is easy to paint my criticisms as snobbish.  We are all snobbish
>about different things.  Millions of editorialists, writers, TV
commentators,
>and ordinary citizens have criticized the effects of targeting the lowest
>common denominator in an audience.  This applies to popular music, to the
>fact that teenagers in shopping malls in the summertime have too much
time
>and money on their hands and all the movies get made to please them
instead
>of adults, to criticisms of the lowest common denominator network TV
programs,
>the tabloid style coverage of politics, the reduction of political debate
>to sound bites (documented to be ever shorter over the last 30 years),
etc.
>You can try to hide all this behind the sacred cow word "democratic", but
>let those who have never shared in these criticisms of the effect of
lowest
>common denominator popular culture throw the first stone.  Anyone who
>has honestly never felt critical of these trends is certainly not
snobbish,
>I guess, but I suggest that terribly low standards are a bigger problem
>in today's world than snobbishness.
>
I was referring specifically to your post, not to the state of the world
at large.  But since you bring it up, yes, I do consider democracy a
"sacred cow".  Other people don't have the same tastes that I have, and
that often causes me pain :), but I would rather have a trashy democracy
than a high-brow totalitarian state (I believe that many Nazis were
renowned art lovers).  What worries you more: low standards or the fact
that the too many people are watching your game?

[more stuff deleted]

>"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
>|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)


-----
anne bilek
university of minnesota
anne@boombox.micro.umn.edu
-----
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis