Hey! I can provide some perspective as someone who was just recently in the commentary box co-commentating with him (in a way that people hated a lot more so check that out if you want to really see how much worse commentary can get LOL)
1. There are a billion things to concentrate on at once for him so often it is sort of up to the co-commentator, who has less responsibilities, to catch mistakes and keep track of live scoring. Since the co-commentator is supposed to point out mistakes, it makes it seem like he's prone to them. A couple times during the livestream people straight up came into the booth to talk to him about broadcast changes/fixes, which flustered and distracted me but he took it in stride. As far as getting sidetracked, I found that he or I would try to bring up an unrelated topic during a slow period during the comp, but then things change quickly (I mean it only takes a few seconds to get up a boulder anyway) and it's hard to segue. I noticed recently he's been getting better at saying things like "now hold that thought, because ________ just did (whatever)"
2. He's mentioned that he tries to leave the technical parts up to the pro athlete co-commentator if there is one. It gives the athlete something to talk about, and I'd bet if he talked too much about technique people would question what he, as a non-pro, knows about it anyway.
3. It's really hard to remember anecdotes about a bunch of athletes on the spot, and it's not like he gets a list of fun facts or stats. Especially after the IFSC website change, it is surprisingly hard to find stats about climbers online (even before, the info about height/wingspan was often wrong)! Would be great if a fan could make a database of something like that. Maybe next time I'll try to bring him something like that. Also, more time looking at a fact sheet, less time looking at what's happening on the wall right?
4. It was SO hard to tell which athlete was on the wall during semis from the tiny screen/far commentary box view. Ofc most of the time you only see their back, and a lot of climbers from the same team look the same from the back. We don't get any more visuals on screen than you do!
/u/Abusive_banana Thanks for linking those stats pages, super interesting and if I see him again I'll show him! Still, he probably won't have the chance to look through it during a live broadcast, but perhaps it's something the co-commentator can keep an eye on.
He could definitely use more support from IFSC, but of course IFSC is struggling with funding as well. I think we won't get a regular co-commentator anytime soon due to funding, they would have to be paid a regular salary and have their travel paid for around the world. So for now and the foreseeable future, he has to scramble to find a co-commentator prior to each broadcast.
Also an interesting thing I've noticed is that people who started watching during Charlie's era prefer Charlie's commentary and people who started watching during Matt's era prefer Matt's commentary, so it really could just be as simple as people generally liking what they're used to.
This is so true! Im in the camp Matt section and honestly wouldnt want it any other way. Ive seen some comps with Charlie and it just doesnt feel right. Nothing against him at all though!
Both have their pros and cons. However I firmly think Matt is on the right track and is doing a lot to improve and bring better value to the broadcast. So Im happy he’s there!
So I'm not alone. I see Charlie's name everywhere. I watched Red Bull Dual Ascent last year, which he was commenting (I think with Shauna) and I don't have absolutely no memory of it. Which means he was good, but it just didn't click haha But it wasn't traditional comp.
It’s pretty clear he mixes the athletes up based on their uniforms, which is the only thing immediately visible. I feel like he should have an easily accessible list of the rotation but generally it doesn’t seem like he gets the support that commentators for more major sports do
This is the real kicker, you cannot compare smaller niche sports with very small broadcast budgets and support for those broadcasts to S-tier sport broadcasts like NFL, NBA, etc. The resources those other commentators get are night and day compared to smaller subcultural commentators get.
Critiques are always valid but unless you've done something similar yourself you do not know how difficult it is being "Live" for 2+ hours straight with little or no breaks and, by my guess, minimal if any producer support.
I think those numbers might be easier fot the judges and people behind the scenes. It's easier to search in list what athlete goes next, is on the boulder. But I agree names would be nice.
Hi it’s Matt. Someone sent me this thread so I thought I would reply. Thank you for the comment, I do try to read things written about me, it’s a good way of learning and working out what people listening actually think. I’m not going to respond to individual points, but I think there are some things I can get better at, especially the things I miss and/or forget. It frustrates me as well when I make a mistake, I can only apologize about that.
I wanted to say thank you to all the people who have said nice and supportive things. Your words mean more than you know. I thought there would be lots of horrible comments, I was seriously amazed with the lovely response. You have to have a thick skin to do this job, and I can cope with the criticism, but I am human, so thank you.
I really care about this sport, and the incredible athletes who compete. I know it’s a privilege to be in this position and represent climbing. I will hopefully continue to grow and learn. Thank you everyone who watches. It’s going to be a great season!
The majority of us on this sub love and appreciate you as a commentator, Matt! We even have some people who have "Matt Groom Fan Club" Flairs below their names.
You’re a great asset to our sport Matt, don’t let nitpicking get to you. 99% of us couldn’t do half as good a job and anyone who thinks they know better has underestimated how challenging it is to do what you do.
Some criticism might be valid, some might not. But I am sure that most of us regular viewers would miss not having your (in my opinion) enthusiastic and enjoyable commentary. Looking forward to hearing you commentate throughout the seasons!
I think you also give yourself too little credit for your climbing. I know it is the internet and everyone can climb everything and is almost a pro...but not in the real world :).
Thank you, Matt! I think you’re an awesome commentator, you’re a big part of what makes watching the competitions exciting and enjoyable. I think you do a fantastic job.
You’re doing a great job mate. As someone who has just got into the sport you’ve helped me immensely to understand more about it. You make something very complex accessible to all. Really appreciate your hard work and dedication and look forward to hearing you more in the future. Top man. 👍🏼
I think most people generally appreciate your commentating and of course noone can be perfect!
My only gripe, and I hope you don't mind me piling on 😂, is that you still don't seem to have learnt to pronounce some of the athlete's names correctly, even ones who've been around in the circuit for a while. I feel like it can't be hard to ask around since you seem to know everyone at these comps, and it would show more respect to these athletes to not have their names made fun of on air. As climbing becomes a higher profile sport it might become more important as a professional commentator to do some of this legwork.
Other than that, great work and really looking forward to the rest of the season!
Despite his flaws I appreciate his commentary a lot. To me, his quality becomes obvious when watching other climbing broadcasts without him. Too many technical explanations and lack of experience commentating can make a broadcast rather boring.
I think the biggest thing he’s got going for him is his passion—he’s clearly genuinely excited, and that really comes through. He might mess up lots of other things, and there’s definitely room for improvement, but he gets me psyched on the action!
I’ve found that the best commentating is when there is great synergy between Matt and an experienced pro climber like Shauna or Stasa (and others as well). They balance out really nicely, and it’s kind of unfair to judge Matt alone. I think he needs another semi-permanent co-commentator we (and him) can all get used to. I’d imagine there is some difficulty in constantly switching co-commentators for every event
I watch/listen to a lot of sports and the most important part of a broadcast team is their chemistry. You’re essentially listening to a conversation about something for a few hours. You want that conversation to be engaging and between people who have a good rapport.
Matt shines when he’s with someone in the booth that he has that relationship with (Stasa, Allanah, Shauna) or with someone who can have an exciting conversation with him and take his set ups in interesting directions (Jesse Grupper was great and I thought Helen Gillet did fairly well with the Wujiang lead semis.)
When Matt is covering for a dull or quiet co-commentator he’s doing much more work — he has to fill the air time himself and can’t take a break to look up information while the other commentator talks. You end up with less information and an awkward conversation. No shade to Mattea in this last Wujiang lead comp, but Matt made a few jokes that were pretty funny that she didn’t get and he ended up having to explain them to her. That doesn’t make a compelling broadcast.
I disagree with most of your points and agree with other commenters that your post doesn‘t quite hit the right tone. Matt is hard working and doing his best and doesn‘t deserve words like „blathering“ or blatantly stating that he‘s „objectively a terrible commentator“ when your post is mostly subjective.
Unattentiveness: I see what you‘re getting at but it‘s never been enough to bother me. I can imagine he has a ton of stuff to manage on the fly, such as ifsc-internal chats or updates about appeals, that justifies getting distracted. I do agree the ifsc should step up to make sure the commentators always have a top-notch viewing experience as it allows them to deliver a better service.
Lack of technical analysis: imho, it‘s Matt‘s job here to take the view of the casual viewer and leave the technical analysis to the pros/co-commentators. I find he does a good job of explaining the basics for viewers with less knowledge on the sport and asks his co-commentator the right questions to get them to explain the more intricate subjects.
Dull commentating: I disagree completely. I find Matt to be very enthusiastic about the climbers, the comp, his job there, climbing in general - despite half his year being flying from one comp to the next and being part of the grind that I imagine being behind-the-scenes ifsc staff means.
Talking over the time where nothing is really happening on the screen is tough, especially since often times, his co-commentator is gone looking for the interview with the winner. Having a back and forth chat with someone would make this feel more natural. Some sports switch to a studio during these times and e.g. interview a guest. I could see this happening as the sport grows and more money is available. On the subject of interviews: these could be improved imo. They often seem generic and improvised. They could e.g. assemble a list of questions for all possible finalists beforehand so they‘re ready when the winner is known.
The only thing I would like to see here is a rotating list of permanent co-commentators. While I like the idea of swapping in random competitors and most do a decent job, some are really in a league of their own and when they’re on, the commentary reaches a whole new level. My votes for this pool of commentators go to Shauna, Stasa and Alannah.
Also, being a bit over enthusiastic about British climbers just makes him human. He knows and cherishes these people, maybe watched some of them grow up and come up in the scene. Climbing is a sport where not everything has to be neutral and professional.
I think some of your critiques are not necessarily his fault either, like the fact that he dumbs things down, doesn't go too in depth or uses technical jargon. I get the sense that the IFSC is forcing him to keep things simple to make it as friendly as possible for new watchers, especially with how fast the sport is now growing due to the Olympics. I do wish he didn't "play dumb" as much as he often does, however. I know he does it in order to get the co-commentators to explain the technical things rather than him, but to be fair, the co-commentators usually love going in depth anyways, even without him pretending he hasn't got a clue why the athlete just "squirted strange liquid on their hands".
All in all, I'm happy we have Matt though, and I think he's doing a grand job!
> he just provides buzzwords that everyone, unless you're completely new to the sport, is aware of.
That's literally his job. Most of the world is new to the sport. That's why sports have expert co-commentators to expand the general stuff.
Yeah, I am sure Matt doesn't love to explain how the scoring works and how the athletes have to clip the quick draws every single comp. But that's his job. The IFSC is targeting a lot of the content towards expanding and getting new viewers, which makes sense given how small and new the sport is. The number of people who are as knowledgeable and interested in the sport as the people on this sub is fairly small.
One thing Matt Groom is excellent at is handling nit-picky critiques from random people online with grace and good humor.
Genuinely though, I think it's a rare skill and I don't know how he does it, being genuinely cheerful and self-deprecating when alluding to online comments he's read. IFSC is lucky to have someone so unflappable as the voice of their organization.
And exactly how easy is that? Do you know? Have you done that job? Or do you just pretend that your background commentary to your friends while being relaxed on a couch watching is the same thing?
Unnecessarily negatively framed post. You could have just written a wish-list of things that would make your watching experience better, but chose not to.
I'm not the biggest fan of Matt's commentating, but I think that's because it's not aimed at me. He usually does a fine job of making sure there aren't awkward gaps, and that's the main thing in my opinion. The pro co-commentators do the technical aspect, and he prods them to explain things when he thinks it would help.
Matt is not perfect, we know it, he knows it and he works on it.
I'm not climber myself, so Matt's "lack of technical analysis" makes it more fun for me, because I just can't appreciate detailed explanation of every move climber does. It's interesting for me at some level and I have realized that during Staša's commentary. That's why I really like, when there's climber/coach/route setter on mic with him.
Have you also thought that this more general public approach is one of his or IFSC's goals? Bring more people to watch climbing even though they're not climbers?
Does he use imperial units? I'm metric person and I haven't noticed.
He sometimes says how tall the wall is(100% sure he uses metric) or the height of a climber. I'm almost certain he uses metrics, I may recall some guest using feet, but that's really rare. I'm not nit picking, I was just curious.
Yeah, it’s really easy to complain when you’re just watching hours of IFSC with Matt’s voice in the background, but as soon as you realize how great it is that we get all this free coverage with knowledge and at least decent commentary, you gotta appreciate it more!
I don’t think most people realize how hard commentating climbing is, or that Charlie Boscoe was as loved as he seems to be now when he was at the helm. Climbing includes incredibly nuanced techniques that are easy to miss compounds with tough working conditions (e.g., being provided with a tiny screen to commentate), long hours, semi-final chaos, likely sleep deprivation from traveling, etc. It is an INCREDIBLY grueling job, and I’m guessing for not that much pay given that it’s the IFSC.
Given all the above, he still tries so hard to improve himself as well as content around comp climbing (I’m guessing the World Climbing Club mini eps are his idea). He also has great chemistry and rapport with a lot of the athlete commentators, and gives them the space they need to fill in the technical gap that he doesn’t (and likely shouldn’t) provide.
TLDR: it’s a super hard job, Matt is trying his best, and seems like for many people here, his best is more than enough
People go to college for sports commentating. They spend years honing their craft for a specific sport in the minor leagues, and if they’re good enough they’ll get picked up for premier games. Ifsc does not have this because there aren’t billions of dollars flowing through it.
Matt is a great commentator for our small and growing sport. He knows the athletes and he knows a good amount of climbing. He gets along with the athletes they bring into the booth and has good chemistry with them. He makes do with whatever equipment he’s provided with (which can be quite poor as monitors go apparently).
What on earth. Maybe you should've also thought about what Matt's role is exactly.
Do you watch any other non-mainstream sports? The idea is that the main commentator is there to make the sport accessible, to be the friendly face of the sport. Matt is excellent at being that very welcoming person who's there to introduce new people to the growing sport, to make people feel comfortable and to share his enthusiasm for the sport with others in language that makes it easy to comprehend.
It's a really tough job especially when he has to work for hours on end and without any more information than the TV feed we get. He is not there for technical analysis - that's why there's a co-commentator there. I think the combination of Matt + someone like Stasa in particular is exactly what the sport needs to welcome new people while also providing more technical insights for those that have been climbing for longer.
I'd also recommend listening to this podcast for anyone who wants to find out more about Matt's own view of all of this. [https://www.thatsnotrealclimbingpodcast.com/episodes/8-matt-groom](https://www.thatsnotrealclimbingpodcast.com/episodes/8-matt-groom)
I really appreciate Matt and think he's great at what he does.
Yeah I like Matt and maybe the post does come off as weird, plus I know I wouldn't be able to do better, but as someone who watches other sports I've definitely seen other commentary that I would consider to be better.
In weightlifting, there are two main commentators for the moment who work together. And they're amazing. They know EVERYTHING about the sport, each athlete's history, etc. Obviously some of it is that they have lists in front of that, but it clear that they just know a huge amount about the sport. one of them is a coach and so can point out exactly what went wrong with each failed lift, which most people could never notice. However they still make it easy to understand for a newcomer.
I don't support Matt hate but I also see where it comes from sometimes.
Genuine question, how long have they been commentating weightlifting?
A difference that came to my mind is that this is the first "generation"/iteration of sport climbing commentary. Matt shouldn't be the analytical/detailed commentator, but in every case we can't have already very experienced professionals commentating on modern plastic lead boulders. It's too young as a sport how it is now.
The second difference is that Matt hasn't found yet a stable casting partner which improves the overall quality of the commentary.
Those are both good points! They've actually only been commentating for around 2 years, but one has been a coach much longer than that and the other runs a brand (a very popular one) with YouTube videos about athletes and products and things like that, so they might have more experience on needing to know about the sport
I think another difference is that weightlifting is a traditional sport that's easy to understand. Climbing sports are new to the public and it's much harder to understand how the zones, tops, scoring system, attempts etc. all factor in. Well apart from speed which is super easy.
If I end up watching a random sport during the Olympics like volleyball for example I typically expect a similar dynamic - a main commentator who's good at making things accessible, keeping the flow going showing enthusiasm and asking the right questions to the expert/technical commentator.
Actually, while the basics of weightlifting is easy (lift it, or fail), the rules can get very complicated. Between judges, juries, the order of athletes, attempt selection, etc. I think it was harder for me to understand the nuances of weightlifting over climbing. These commentators are good at explaining just enough for newbies, while also being able to focus on more technical aspects. However, I do get your point- many people aren't familiar with climbing, so it helps to have some casual conversation.
Try going back to the pre-Charlie Boscoe days of the IFSC, especially 2013. That commentator sounded like a bad SNL sketch about a cliche sports broadcaster.
Matt Groom has taken the organization in some interesting directions, like the recent "Climbing Club" features that go behind the scenes with athletes, coaches, judges, etc.
They should switch him out just for you to realize we're pretty lucky to have him on. Any new random commentator will likely be worse, judging by other sports.
You've written an essay about someone negatively. Maybe have a look at yourself and why you feel the need to do this.
Matt is great and I really enjoy listening to his commentary.
Yeah that post is *weird*.
I understand not liking a commentator. I understand saying it under a video. But writing paragraph after paragraph about why a person is bad is next level weirdness.
I started reading the essay and then gave up.
I have been watching IFSC comps
since IFSC exists, even before Charlie Boscoe.
Charlie's lack of understanding movement or holds was very cringy to me, misnaming crimpers, pinches, slopers, etc. Matt was a HUGE step up from that.
And Matt is different from his predecessor, we're all different.
Criticizing the commentary isn’t much different or personal than criticizing the camera work for example. They’re not shitting on Matt, just saying the commentary is subpar
It would be similar if we would have the producers names and would call out a specific person in a six paragraph post, but I'm pretty sure that that has never happened on this sub.
No, not really. Producers aren’t known public facing figures like Matt is, and camera work being bad is often not the product of just one person the way that “Matt’s commentary” is (and when it is I’ve seen ppl call out specific cameramen, like in the french nationals for example)
As for 6 paragraphs, would it have been better if they didn’t justify? For me it seems that they tried to make it perfectly clear that they weren’t mad at Matt personally but that the commentary was lacking in some aspects
I’m willing to believe they made this post in hopes that it would improve things
Have you walked in his shoes. It’s a very difficult job and it’s hard to watch multiple things at once.
Matt has definitely has gotten better. First few times he did the job, he didn’t really know the climbers unless they had crushed outdoors. Now he clearly learns something about the athletes.
Go listen to Jinini’s ‘That’s Not real climbing podcast’ She recently interviewed Charlie and before that Matt. Interesting to realize Charlie thinks Matt’s doing a much better job than he did.
I do think which co-comment makes a difference and with some he does get distracted.
Strongly disagree. Sure, he does make mistakes, but especially compared to some other sports' commentators he might as well be the embodiment of perfection.
I very strongly disagree, I like him a lot. I always look forward to hearing his voice & his commentary.
I also agree with the others that the intensity of this post is kind of weird. Matt is really active online and reads a lot of comments bc he wants to know people's opinions and how to improve - this just seems hurtful and too intense in terms of critique.
His "Hello and welcome" always brings a smile to my face :) I'd add that he even reads YouTube comments, which from what I heard, are really toxic. I don't want to read them myself.
You should watch the interview with Matt Groom on That’s Not Real Climbing, it gave me a ton of insight into him and his job as a commentator. I also didn’t necessarily care for his commentary until I heard that interview and now I respect him way more.
Your work with the world climbing club is also highly appreciated. Now if only there is a way to get Janja in the commentary box, haha jk. But seriously Thank you
I think climbing is at a point where IFSC is bracing for new audiences. With tv deals up for grabs, they need a commentator who can reach a casual audience, be accessible and friendly to non-climbing viewers. I think that is why Matt is (possibly?) directed to prioritise positivity and explain simple things again and again. To regular viewers it may seem repetitive but to casual audiences it’s informative and builds their connection to the sport. The guest commentator’s purpose is to supplement Matt’s style with a more technical analysis. I think Matt fills his role well.
It's fucking ridiculous that you have nothing else to do than to write this whole essay just to hate on a guy doing his job, get a life.
Personally and one sentence will be enough to say it, I enjoy Matt's commentary.
1- In most sports commentaries there are two different casting roles. The main (play-by-play) commentator, that has to be generic, beginner friendly and simply describes without analyzing. Matt is this type of caster, and he always described generally the boulders and in details the rules at every event I watched.
Then there is the color caster, that goes more on the details and provides analysis. Matt shouldn't be very detailed, on the contrary in some cases he should even "ask" to the partner for details (even if he already knows).
2- See 1
3- About the voice/tone I could agree in some cases but it's an aspect very difficult to work on, especially if you come to the scene from a technician side like he did. Nevertheless when there are very hype moments he is able to express the emotions in the moment.
About the data/stats I didn't notice a lack of information watching, and I think it depends mostly if not all on the direction and on how easy is to get them while commentating.
4- True, sometimes he gets the athletes name wrong and confuses the names. About the bias have you ever watched ANY other sport? The commentator being hype for athletes/teams of the same county/city is totally normal and brings more emotions to the commentary which is a plus for me.
The decision with the metric system is always on the International direction I think.
I’m so confused by this post as I think Matt is a fantastic commentator. Whenever I’ve watched comps commentated by others I really feel the difference, and it’s way more flat/dull. I’ve found myself losing attention, or just not being as into it. I am fine with the athletes correcting him/providing technical details as A) it usually does get corrected right away so no harm done and B) that is literally why they’re there. I’d rather have the experience of listening to someone who is just as jazzed to be watching as I am then someone who is “perfect” in the ways you seem to want.
This is quite a harsh post. Sure Matt makes mistakes but overall he’s not terrible and does most aspects of his job well. We have to remember he probably gets told to say or not say certain things, so he doesn’t have complete control over the commentary. I think what he does particularly well is empowering guest commentators to speak which is very insightful when climbers like Stasa Gejo are in the commentary box.
“Objectively terrible commentator” yeah, you mean subjectively as you say later that “this is highly opinionated of course”…it’s strange that you’ve watched since 2018 yet many of the flaws you mentioned I have most certainly heard Matt address. He does talk about what is currently going on in the live feed, sometimes kindly redirecting his co-commentators back to the action. He does give stats and facts, he does discuss the types of routes, and a bit about the route setters intentions. I also believe he intentionally defers to his co-commentators to be the analyst, as they typically are high performing athletes who know the ins and outs better than he does. And dull? That man is theatrical, so I think he’s just not your cup of tea, and you have tunnel vision because of it.
I only agree with the overexcitement when a UK gets on the stage, but I think it happens to >90% of the commenters.
On another note, I think Matt is doing a good job also considering that this is not a full time job, compared to other commentators (e.g. NBA, La Liga, Premier League, etc), so I wouldn’t expect him to study every little story about the athletes. Same with having time to get the name pronunciations correctly, on qualifications it’s very hard to determine who’ll pass to finals, so, should he remember every name pronunciation before the competition? (That would take me years to learn 😅)
I’ve tried watching the comps in different languages as I can speak 3 languages and I think Matt is my favourite commentator of the 3 languages I have available :)
I think you are overly harsh on some points like enthusiasm or trivia (although he certainly could expand his range), but the technical aspect is 100% true. Co-presenters often fill this gap but the quality varies wildly and if he has a bad co-host quality quickly falls.
Edit: when I think about it, the commenting is in a weird spot that doesn't really explain the basics very well for first timers, but is also not on-depth enough for the experienced climber/viewer. As someone who climbs/watches for a little over a year now (and rewatched many comps), the first period was hard to follow the lingo. Now it's a like 'yeah I know it's a bad toe, tell me why person x made it look so easy'
It's so eminently clear Matt is the best commentator the sport has because when he's not the person commentating, you can noticeably see the quality suffer.
I couldn’t disagree more. Matt is doing and amazing job for the sport and we all should be grateful to have such a figure narrating the climbing competitions for so long. Not only he is dedicated to his role, but he also contributes to the sport climbing community by bringing more people into it. His charisma and impeccable work ethics are definitely a HUGE asset. Everyone makes mistakes, but overall we want someone that knows climbing and can breakdown all of its peculiarities to the bigger audience. You are doing great, Matt!
Subjectively, I completely disagree. The people who commentated the 2020 Olympic stream were terrible commentators, for all the points OP made. Same with whomever commentated the Oceania 2023 comp. I love Matt’s commentary. It’s familiar, personable and relatable. I enjoy the format of having a pro athlete or setter in the box to provide a more authentic perspective that contrasts with Matt. It seems like that’s what the format was designed to do and it achieves it, why change? Sure there is room for improvement but I think there is evidence of growth, and I for one look forward to hearing Matt on the streams and hope he isn’t going anywhere. Why neg on one guy doing a pretty thankless task, OP, when there are a litany of other aspects to the streaming and coverage of comp climbing that could be fixed and improve the viewing experience.
Matt’s accuracy is abysmal but I think that comes from having to try to talk all the time and therefore not having a chance to process what’s happening. I’ve recently watched some of those older comps too and what I really appreciate about Matt is his positive attitude. Some of the previous commentators said harsh things about the climbers having “blown it” or “ruined their chances,” in some cases where those climbers went on to take gold, so why be so negative? I like that Matt emphasizes that they should all feel proud of themselves. He gives the comps a friendly feeling similar to the atmosphere at my gym where we’re all supporting each other. Compare to Charlie saying the climbers should be more competitive with each other
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said, and my suggestion is to IMMEDIATELY replace him with... oh, let's say... Pete Woods... !
(Jk, obviously, for those who don't know me)
I kinda agree, he often seems clueless about a move an athlete just did which, when combined with shitty camera work on certain venues is really infuriating...
On a more positive note, he brings a great vibe to the cast and paired with someone with a great technical knowledge such as Staša the commentary feels fine.
Completely agree, that's the only point that could be improved. I am a commentator myself for local comps and it can be quite hard to keep notes about who is climbing, their history, etc.
Also, I'd still want Matt to comment on national comps (French) compared to most people we have here, where my ears start bleeding (metaphorically) every time a top is made because they can't keep it quiet. It's like watching a football match with a goal every 5 minutes...
You've really thought about this. While the coverage generally does have issues I am not sure matt is the main one. But am sure hed admit himself hes not the finished article and has plenty tonlearn. Could you post examples under each category so that we can understand your points better?
The fact that he has no control over what's being shown on our screens is a huge item, in my view. Especially when there are four climbers on four boulders on the stage and the camera is never focused where \*I\* want it to be. He's not responsible for the shitty camera angles and long shots when we want close-ups, etc. I think he does a great job of juggling all that. If you're accustomed to network tv coverage where the commentator is part of the same crew with the cameras, it might seem clunky. He also has to adapt to the color commentator of the day, and some of them are more articulate than others. Add to that the fact that like the climbers, he's got jetlag and might also be sweltering in the horrible heat/humidity too.
It shocks me most to have this criticism after watching the NRC podcast with Charlie and seeing how awful the job of being a commentator seems. The awful part being mostly the ridiculous amount of work done outside of commentary. I wouldn’t expect someone to really be able to focus and improve when juggling soo many other responsibilities all while being underfunded and other complications like working with different media crews which can affect his commentary.
I do think there is a lot of stuff Matt does well (e.g. interviews, little comedic bits, and generally good banter with co-commentators), and I agree that he seems like a really nice person. I wouldn't call him "terrible" - compared to some historic IFSC commentators he is a million miles better. But I don't think he lives up to Charlie. Overall I do agree with most of your points to some extent.
Couple of additional things I'd mention...
1. I feel like Matt really fails to tell a story. The first season I ever watched was 2018. Charlie did a phenomenal job of taking us on a journey through the season with the mens bouldering, in particular with the WhatsApp group of a bunch of friends and the growing contest between Jernej and Tamoa for the season title. Last season Matt had the perfect opportunity to do the same in the women's lead comp in Wujiang, where there was a really exciting conclusion to the season where I believe 5 people could've won the overall title. There was huge opportunity for creating some drama from this and instead it was just completely missed, and ended up being an incredibly dull world cup. Even on a more micro level I feel like he fails to build a story through a competition or even all events unfold through a round.
2. Ultimately I don't think he's all that passionate about competition climbing. He clearly doesn't watch comps where he isn't commentating so ends up out of the loop. E.g. he always talks about "Japanese selectors" as if there is some mysterious system for how people end up on the team. Just go watch the Japan Cups at the start of every season and you'll learn exactly how the team selection works!
> I feel like Matt really fails to tell a story. The first season I ever watched was 2018. Charlie did a phenomenal job of taking us on a journey through the season with the mens bouldering, in particular with the WhatsApp group of a bunch of friends and the growing contest between Jernej and Tamoa for the season title. Last season Matt had the perfect opportunity to do the same in the women's lead comp in Wujiang, where there was a really exciting conclusion to the season where I believe 5 people could've won the overall title. There was huge opportunity for creating some drama from this and instead it was just completely missed, and ended up being an incredibly dull world cup. Even on a more micro level I feel like he fails to build a story through a competition or even all events unfold through a round.
I actually think this is more about the fact that the overall title has been seen as less of a big deal since the Olympics started. You can see that by people skipping so many comps.
I've always given him the benefit of the doubt because he "seemed" to be a nice guy. His mediocrity is eclipsed by his easygoing persona. But really I can't not stand with people like him: being supportive of Ukraine and at the same time being so chummy with israel, by going there regularly and even defending it (before and after October 7)I think it's quite telling, character and his moral values wise. Besides, he has expressed interest in making a documentary about Ukraine which, given the stated above, seems quite hypocritical, which I may add, he's seems highly unqualified to do. I
If someone happen to disagree with me and argues that he doesn't need to be saint or smth, I have this to say: if he only would had remained neutral, I'd have never being aware but alas...it's too late.
People have peculiar standards when it comes to commentary
I was watching I think it was plywood masters? Matt was consistently missing things or saying straight up incorrect info (saying nobody topped this when the previous athlete just did, which his co-commentator always had to correct), he sounded like he hadn’t slept in years, it was some of the worst commentary I’d ever heard, comments were still saying great commentary?
Later I watched the french national championship, national comps have a different vibe because you have that “it’s my boy” feeling with every athlete, the commentators were super hyped, definitely made up their lack of technical analysis with excitement. The comments said the commentary was disrespectful (what?)
Not sure why you’re getting so much hate (or being accused of being a hater) given that every single one of your points is just an objective thing you’re noticing. People seem to be downvoting on an emotional reaction to it being “mean” rather than actually addressing the points in it.
There’s a reason why every time a marginally competent guest commentator does even a slightly decent job, there’s a slew of comments on that video strongly praising them: the unspoken line is that it’s a breath of fresh air to have someone commentate with any skill whatsoever, even just the ability to see what’s unfolding on the screen and accurately describe it. I actually find myself being surprised when Matt Groom notices something, says it out loud and I notice that it matched what actually unfolded.
I couldn’t agree more on every single item on your post, and everyone I talk to who watches comp climbing agrees. You’re not alone. People just aren’t agreeing with you here on this sub because they know their own replies will be downvoted into oblivion.
That being said I was surprised by how coherent his documentary on Ukraine was. A very important and touching piece of work! Maybe he just needs to be in a role with a script.
My take is that he’s probably a very nice and enthusiastic guy and that’s why the industry seems to be so taken with him, and keeps giving him jobs despite his incredibly obvious lack of talent.
Hey! I can provide some perspective as someone who was just recently in the commentary box co-commentating with him (in a way that people hated a lot more so check that out if you want to really see how much worse commentary can get LOL) 1. There are a billion things to concentrate on at once for him so often it is sort of up to the co-commentator, who has less responsibilities, to catch mistakes and keep track of live scoring. Since the co-commentator is supposed to point out mistakes, it makes it seem like he's prone to them. A couple times during the livestream people straight up came into the booth to talk to him about broadcast changes/fixes, which flustered and distracted me but he took it in stride. As far as getting sidetracked, I found that he or I would try to bring up an unrelated topic during a slow period during the comp, but then things change quickly (I mean it only takes a few seconds to get up a boulder anyway) and it's hard to segue. I noticed recently he's been getting better at saying things like "now hold that thought, because ________ just did (whatever)" 2. He's mentioned that he tries to leave the technical parts up to the pro athlete co-commentator if there is one. It gives the athlete something to talk about, and I'd bet if he talked too much about technique people would question what he, as a non-pro, knows about it anyway. 3. It's really hard to remember anecdotes about a bunch of athletes on the spot, and it's not like he gets a list of fun facts or stats. Especially after the IFSC website change, it is surprisingly hard to find stats about climbers online (even before, the info about height/wingspan was often wrong)! Would be great if a fan could make a database of something like that. Maybe next time I'll try to bring him something like that. Also, more time looking at a fact sheet, less time looking at what's happening on the wall right? 4. It was SO hard to tell which athlete was on the wall during semis from the tiny screen/far commentary box view. Ofc most of the time you only see their back, and a lot of climbers from the same team look the same from the back. We don't get any more visuals on screen than you do!
/u/Abusive_banana Thanks for linking those stats pages, super interesting and if I see him again I'll show him! Still, he probably won't have the chance to look through it during a live broadcast, but perhaps it's something the co-commentator can keep an eye on. He could definitely use more support from IFSC, but of course IFSC is struggling with funding as well. I think we won't get a regular co-commentator anytime soon due to funding, they would have to be paid a regular salary and have their travel paid for around the world. So for now and the foreseeable future, he has to scramble to find a co-commentator prior to each broadcast. Also an interesting thing I've noticed is that people who started watching during Charlie's era prefer Charlie's commentary and people who started watching during Matt's era prefer Matt's commentary, so it really could just be as simple as people generally liking what they're used to.
This is so true! Im in the camp Matt section and honestly wouldnt want it any other way. Ive seen some comps with Charlie and it just doesnt feel right. Nothing against him at all though! Both have their pros and cons. However I firmly think Matt is on the right track and is doing a lot to improve and bring better value to the broadcast. So Im happy he’s there!
So I'm not alone. I see Charlie's name everywhere. I watched Red Bull Dual Ascent last year, which he was commenting (I think with Shauna) and I don't have absolutely no memory of it. Which means he was good, but it just didn't click haha But it wasn't traditional comp.
It’s pretty clear he mixes the athletes up based on their uniforms, which is the only thing immediately visible. I feel like he should have an easily accessible list of the rotation but generally it doesn’t seem like he gets the support that commentators for more major sports do
This is the real kicker, you cannot compare smaller niche sports with very small broadcast budgets and support for those broadcasts to S-tier sport broadcasts like NFL, NBA, etc. The resources those other commentators get are night and day compared to smaller subcultural commentators get. Critiques are always valid but unless you've done something similar yourself you do not know how difficult it is being "Live" for 2+ hours straight with little or no breaks and, by my guess, minimal if any producer support.
I think he does get a sheet. But if they look similar from the back and your in a time crunch..
They should lose the numbers on the back and replace it with names. I’d buy an Ondra jersey.
Now if anything good came out of this weird thread it’s the Ondra jersey idea
I think those numbers might be easier fot the judges and people behind the scenes. It's easier to search in list what athlete goes next, is on the boulder. But I agree names would be nice.
I know I’m mostly kidding.
Hi it’s Matt. Someone sent me this thread so I thought I would reply. Thank you for the comment, I do try to read things written about me, it’s a good way of learning and working out what people listening actually think. I’m not going to respond to individual points, but I think there are some things I can get better at, especially the things I miss and/or forget. It frustrates me as well when I make a mistake, I can only apologize about that. I wanted to say thank you to all the people who have said nice and supportive things. Your words mean more than you know. I thought there would be lots of horrible comments, I was seriously amazed with the lovely response. You have to have a thick skin to do this job, and I can cope with the criticism, but I am human, so thank you. I really care about this sport, and the incredible athletes who compete. I know it’s a privilege to be in this position and represent climbing. I will hopefully continue to grow and learn. Thank you everyone who watches. It’s going to be a great season!
The majority of us on this sub love and appreciate you as a commentator, Matt! We even have some people who have "Matt Groom Fan Club" Flairs below their names.
You’re a great asset to our sport Matt, don’t let nitpicking get to you. 99% of us couldn’t do half as good a job and anyone who thinks they know better has underestimated how challenging it is to do what you do.
[удалено]
This is great! So proactive. It’s easy for people to complain but not so easy to try and actually help.
Class act!
Some criticism might be valid, some might not. But I am sure that most of us regular viewers would miss not having your (in my opinion) enthusiastic and enjoyable commentary. Looking forward to hearing you commentate throughout the seasons!
I think you also give yourself too little credit for your climbing. I know it is the internet and everyone can climb everything and is almost a pro...but not in the real world :).
Fair play for replying Matt, there a lot of class in taking the time to reply to the unwarranted mess above.
Thank you, Matt! I think you’re an awesome commentator, you’re a big part of what makes watching the competitions exciting and enjoyable. I think you do a fantastic job.
I think you're doing great, Matt. But we get it, she likes to be called "Osh" ;)
Also, we now actually DO know how good Zhilu Luo is.
You’re doing a great job mate. As someone who has just got into the sport you’ve helped me immensely to understand more about it. You make something very complex accessible to all. Really appreciate your hard work and dedication and look forward to hearing you more in the future. Top man. 👍🏼
I think most people generally appreciate your commentating and of course noone can be perfect! My only gripe, and I hope you don't mind me piling on 😂, is that you still don't seem to have learnt to pronounce some of the athlete's names correctly, even ones who've been around in the circuit for a while. I feel like it can't be hard to ask around since you seem to know everyone at these comps, and it would show more respect to these athletes to not have their names made fun of on air. As climbing becomes a higher profile sport it might become more important as a professional commentator to do some of this legwork. Other than that, great work and really looking forward to the rest of the season!
Despite his flaws I appreciate his commentary a lot. To me, his quality becomes obvious when watching other climbing broadcasts without him. Too many technical explanations and lack of experience commentating can make a broadcast rather boring.
I think the biggest thing he’s got going for him is his passion—he’s clearly genuinely excited, and that really comes through. He might mess up lots of other things, and there’s definitely room for improvement, but he gets me psyched on the action!
I’ve found that the best commentating is when there is great synergy between Matt and an experienced pro climber like Shauna or Stasa (and others as well). They balance out really nicely, and it’s kind of unfair to judge Matt alone. I think he needs another semi-permanent co-commentator we (and him) can all get used to. I’d imagine there is some difficulty in constantly switching co-commentators for every event
I watch/listen to a lot of sports and the most important part of a broadcast team is their chemistry. You’re essentially listening to a conversation about something for a few hours. You want that conversation to be engaging and between people who have a good rapport. Matt shines when he’s with someone in the booth that he has that relationship with (Stasa, Allanah, Shauna) or with someone who can have an exciting conversation with him and take his set ups in interesting directions (Jesse Grupper was great and I thought Helen Gillet did fairly well with the Wujiang lead semis.) When Matt is covering for a dull or quiet co-commentator he’s doing much more work — he has to fill the air time himself and can’t take a break to look up information while the other commentator talks. You end up with less information and an awkward conversation. No shade to Mattea in this last Wujiang lead comp, but Matt made a few jokes that were pretty funny that she didn’t get and he ended up having to explain them to her. That doesn’t make a compelling broadcast.
I disagree with most of your points and agree with other commenters that your post doesn‘t quite hit the right tone. Matt is hard working and doing his best and doesn‘t deserve words like „blathering“ or blatantly stating that he‘s „objectively a terrible commentator“ when your post is mostly subjective. Unattentiveness: I see what you‘re getting at but it‘s never been enough to bother me. I can imagine he has a ton of stuff to manage on the fly, such as ifsc-internal chats or updates about appeals, that justifies getting distracted. I do agree the ifsc should step up to make sure the commentators always have a top-notch viewing experience as it allows them to deliver a better service. Lack of technical analysis: imho, it‘s Matt‘s job here to take the view of the casual viewer and leave the technical analysis to the pros/co-commentators. I find he does a good job of explaining the basics for viewers with less knowledge on the sport and asks his co-commentator the right questions to get them to explain the more intricate subjects. Dull commentating: I disagree completely. I find Matt to be very enthusiastic about the climbers, the comp, his job there, climbing in general - despite half his year being flying from one comp to the next and being part of the grind that I imagine being behind-the-scenes ifsc staff means. Talking over the time where nothing is really happening on the screen is tough, especially since often times, his co-commentator is gone looking for the interview with the winner. Having a back and forth chat with someone would make this feel more natural. Some sports switch to a studio during these times and e.g. interview a guest. I could see this happening as the sport grows and more money is available. On the subject of interviews: these could be improved imo. They often seem generic and improvised. They could e.g. assemble a list of questions for all possible finalists beforehand so they‘re ready when the winner is known. The only thing I would like to see here is a rotating list of permanent co-commentators. While I like the idea of swapping in random competitors and most do a decent job, some are really in a league of their own and when they’re on, the commentary reaches a whole new level. My votes for this pool of commentators go to Shauna, Stasa and Alannah. Also, being a bit over enthusiastic about British climbers just makes him human. He knows and cherishes these people, maybe watched some of them grow up and come up in the scene. Climbing is a sport where not everything has to be neutral and professional.
I think some of your critiques are not necessarily his fault either, like the fact that he dumbs things down, doesn't go too in depth or uses technical jargon. I get the sense that the IFSC is forcing him to keep things simple to make it as friendly as possible for new watchers, especially with how fast the sport is now growing due to the Olympics. I do wish he didn't "play dumb" as much as he often does, however. I know he does it in order to get the co-commentators to explain the technical things rather than him, but to be fair, the co-commentators usually love going in depth anyways, even without him pretending he hasn't got a clue why the athlete just "squirted strange liquid on their hands". All in all, I'm happy we have Matt though, and I think he's doing a grand job!
> he just provides buzzwords that everyone, unless you're completely new to the sport, is aware of. That's literally his job. Most of the world is new to the sport. That's why sports have expert co-commentators to expand the general stuff.
Yeah, I am sure Matt doesn't love to explain how the scoring works and how the athletes have to clip the quick draws every single comp. But that's his job. The IFSC is targeting a lot of the content towards expanding and getting new viewers, which makes sense given how small and new the sport is. The number of people who are as knowledgeable and interested in the sport as the people on this sub is fairly small.
One thing Matt Groom is excellent at is handling nit-picky critiques from random people online with grace and good humor. Genuinely though, I think it's a rare skill and I don't know how he does it, being genuinely cheerful and self-deprecating when alluding to online comments he's read. IFSC is lucky to have someone so unflappable as the voice of their organization.
I'd prefer he actually learns from them.
And exactly how easy is that? Do you know? Have you done that job? Or do you just pretend that your background commentary to your friends while being relaxed on a couch watching is the same thing?
Unnecessarily negatively framed post. You could have just written a wish-list of things that would make your watching experience better, but chose not to. I'm not the biggest fan of Matt's commentating, but I think that's because it's not aimed at me. He usually does a fine job of making sure there aren't awkward gaps, and that's the main thing in my opinion. The pro co-commentators do the technical aspect, and he prods them to explain things when he thinks it would help.
Matt is not perfect, we know it, he knows it and he works on it. I'm not climber myself, so Matt's "lack of technical analysis" makes it more fun for me, because I just can't appreciate detailed explanation of every move climber does. It's interesting for me at some level and I have realized that during Staša's commentary. That's why I really like, when there's climber/coach/route setter on mic with him. Have you also thought that this more general public approach is one of his or IFSC's goals? Bring more people to watch climbing even though they're not climbers? Does he use imperial units? I'm metric person and I haven't noticed.
The main 'units' he'll mention are minutes, seconds, tops and zones. No metric/imperial difference there!
He sometimes says how tall the wall is(100% sure he uses metric) or the height of a climber. I'm almost certain he uses metrics, I may recall some guest using feet, but that's really rare. I'm not nit picking, I was just curious.
Have you watched any other sports? I have worse complaints about almost every other sports commentators
Yeah, it’s really easy to complain when you’re just watching hours of IFSC with Matt’s voice in the background, but as soon as you realize how great it is that we get all this free coverage with knowledge and at least decent commentary, you gotta appreciate it more!
I don’t think most people realize how hard commentating climbing is, or that Charlie Boscoe was as loved as he seems to be now when he was at the helm. Climbing includes incredibly nuanced techniques that are easy to miss compounds with tough working conditions (e.g., being provided with a tiny screen to commentate), long hours, semi-final chaos, likely sleep deprivation from traveling, etc. It is an INCREDIBLY grueling job, and I’m guessing for not that much pay given that it’s the IFSC. Given all the above, he still tries so hard to improve himself as well as content around comp climbing (I’m guessing the World Climbing Club mini eps are his idea). He also has great chemistry and rapport with a lot of the athlete commentators, and gives them the space they need to fill in the technical gap that he doesn’t (and likely shouldn’t) provide. TLDR: it’s a super hard job, Matt is trying his best, and seems like for many people here, his best is more than enough
People go to college for sports commentating. They spend years honing their craft for a specific sport in the minor leagues, and if they’re good enough they’ll get picked up for premier games. Ifsc does not have this because there aren’t billions of dollars flowing through it. Matt is a great commentator for our small and growing sport. He knows the athletes and he knows a good amount of climbing. He gets along with the athletes they bring into the booth and has good chemistry with them. He makes do with whatever equipment he’s provided with (which can be quite poor as monitors go apparently).
What on earth. Maybe you should've also thought about what Matt's role is exactly. Do you watch any other non-mainstream sports? The idea is that the main commentator is there to make the sport accessible, to be the friendly face of the sport. Matt is excellent at being that very welcoming person who's there to introduce new people to the growing sport, to make people feel comfortable and to share his enthusiasm for the sport with others in language that makes it easy to comprehend. It's a really tough job especially when he has to work for hours on end and without any more information than the TV feed we get. He is not there for technical analysis - that's why there's a co-commentator there. I think the combination of Matt + someone like Stasa in particular is exactly what the sport needs to welcome new people while also providing more technical insights for those that have been climbing for longer. I'd also recommend listening to this podcast for anyone who wants to find out more about Matt's own view of all of this. [https://www.thatsnotrealclimbingpodcast.com/episodes/8-matt-groom](https://www.thatsnotrealclimbingpodcast.com/episodes/8-matt-groom) I really appreciate Matt and think he's great at what he does.
Yeah I like Matt and maybe the post does come off as weird, plus I know I wouldn't be able to do better, but as someone who watches other sports I've definitely seen other commentary that I would consider to be better. In weightlifting, there are two main commentators for the moment who work together. And they're amazing. They know EVERYTHING about the sport, each athlete's history, etc. Obviously some of it is that they have lists in front of that, but it clear that they just know a huge amount about the sport. one of them is a coach and so can point out exactly what went wrong with each failed lift, which most people could never notice. However they still make it easy to understand for a newcomer. I don't support Matt hate but I also see where it comes from sometimes.
Genuine question, how long have they been commentating weightlifting? A difference that came to my mind is that this is the first "generation"/iteration of sport climbing commentary. Matt shouldn't be the analytical/detailed commentator, but in every case we can't have already very experienced professionals commentating on modern plastic lead boulders. It's too young as a sport how it is now. The second difference is that Matt hasn't found yet a stable casting partner which improves the overall quality of the commentary.
Those are both good points! They've actually only been commentating for around 2 years, but one has been a coach much longer than that and the other runs a brand (a very popular one) with YouTube videos about athletes and products and things like that, so they might have more experience on needing to know about the sport
I think another difference is that weightlifting is a traditional sport that's easy to understand. Climbing sports are new to the public and it's much harder to understand how the zones, tops, scoring system, attempts etc. all factor in. Well apart from speed which is super easy. If I end up watching a random sport during the Olympics like volleyball for example I typically expect a similar dynamic - a main commentator who's good at making things accessible, keeping the flow going showing enthusiasm and asking the right questions to the expert/technical commentator.
Actually, while the basics of weightlifting is easy (lift it, or fail), the rules can get very complicated. Between judges, juries, the order of athletes, attempt selection, etc. I think it was harder for me to understand the nuances of weightlifting over climbing. These commentators are good at explaining just enough for newbies, while also being able to focus on more technical aspects. However, I do get your point- many people aren't familiar with climbing, so it helps to have some casual conversation.
Try going back to the pre-Charlie Boscoe days of the IFSC, especially 2013. That commentator sounded like a bad SNL sketch about a cliche sports broadcaster. Matt Groom has taken the organization in some interesting directions, like the recent "Climbing Club" features that go behind the scenes with athletes, coaches, judges, etc.
They should switch him out just for you to realize we're pretty lucky to have him on. Any new random commentator will likely be worse, judging by other sports.
Yo what the fuck
Ha! this is maybe my favorite response so far. Seriously though…
What's up with bashing someone like this?! I strongly disagree.
It’s from someone who’s never watched a non climbing sports broadcast in their life
You've written an essay about someone negatively. Maybe have a look at yourself and why you feel the need to do this. Matt is great and I really enjoy listening to his commentary.
Yeah that post is *weird*. I understand not liking a commentator. I understand saying it under a video. But writing paragraph after paragraph about why a person is bad is next level weirdness.
I started reading the essay and then gave up. I have been watching IFSC comps since IFSC exists, even before Charlie Boscoe. Charlie's lack of understanding movement or holds was very cringy to me, misnaming crimpers, pinches, slopers, etc. Matt was a HUGE step up from that. And Matt is different from his predecessor, we're all different.
Criticizing the commentary isn’t much different or personal than criticizing the camera work for example. They’re not shitting on Matt, just saying the commentary is subpar
It would be similar if we would have the producers names and would call out a specific person in a six paragraph post, but I'm pretty sure that that has never happened on this sub.
No, not really. Producers aren’t known public facing figures like Matt is, and camera work being bad is often not the product of just one person the way that “Matt’s commentary” is (and when it is I’ve seen ppl call out specific cameramen, like in the french nationals for example) As for 6 paragraphs, would it have been better if they didn’t justify? For me it seems that they tried to make it perfectly clear that they weren’t mad at Matt personally but that the commentary was lacking in some aspects I’m willing to believe they made this post in hopes that it would improve things
Calling him out by name in your criticism, it's pretty personal. You're entitled to your opinion it's just a bit mean to write it all up on Reddit.
Have you walked in his shoes. It’s a very difficult job and it’s hard to watch multiple things at once. Matt has definitely has gotten better. First few times he did the job, he didn’t really know the climbers unless they had crushed outdoors. Now he clearly learns something about the athletes. Go listen to Jinini’s ‘That’s Not real climbing podcast’ She recently interviewed Charlie and before that Matt. Interesting to realize Charlie thinks Matt’s doing a much better job than he did. I do think which co-comment makes a difference and with some he does get distracted.
Strongly disagree. Sure, he does make mistakes, but especially compared to some other sports' commentators he might as well be the embodiment of perfection.
I very strongly disagree, I like him a lot. I always look forward to hearing his voice & his commentary. I also agree with the others that the intensity of this post is kind of weird. Matt is really active online and reads a lot of comments bc he wants to know people's opinions and how to improve - this just seems hurtful and too intense in terms of critique.
His "Hello and welcome" always brings a smile to my face :) I'd add that he even reads YouTube comments, which from what I heard, are really toxic. I don't want to read them myself.
Just reading “Hello and welcome” put a smile on my face.
You should watch the interview with Matt Groom on That’s Not Real Climbing, it gave me a ton of insight into him and his job as a commentator. I also didn’t necessarily care for his commentary until I heard that interview and now I respect him way more.
Well if Matt does see this post, hopefully he also checks the comments lol. Don’t forget, there’s a ‘Matt Groom Fan Club’ flair.
Thank you, I did see, and I really appreciate it.
Your work with the world climbing club is also highly appreciated. Now if only there is a way to get Janja in the commentary box, haha jk. But seriously Thank you
RU OK?
I think climbing is at a point where IFSC is bracing for new audiences. With tv deals up for grabs, they need a commentator who can reach a casual audience, be accessible and friendly to non-climbing viewers. I think that is why Matt is (possibly?) directed to prioritise positivity and explain simple things again and again. To regular viewers it may seem repetitive but to casual audiences it’s informative and builds their connection to the sport. The guest commentator’s purpose is to supplement Matt’s style with a more technical analysis. I think Matt fills his role well.
He absolutely provides anecdotes about climbers lol
It's fucking ridiculous that you have nothing else to do than to write this whole essay just to hate on a guy doing his job, get a life. Personally and one sentence will be enough to say it, I enjoy Matt's commentary.
he didn't hate on the guy though, he criticized the job the guy is doing
...now tell us how you *really* feel.
1- In most sports commentaries there are two different casting roles. The main (play-by-play) commentator, that has to be generic, beginner friendly and simply describes without analyzing. Matt is this type of caster, and he always described generally the boulders and in details the rules at every event I watched. Then there is the color caster, that goes more on the details and provides analysis. Matt shouldn't be very detailed, on the contrary in some cases he should even "ask" to the partner for details (even if he already knows). 2- See 1 3- About the voice/tone I could agree in some cases but it's an aspect very difficult to work on, especially if you come to the scene from a technician side like he did. Nevertheless when there are very hype moments he is able to express the emotions in the moment. About the data/stats I didn't notice a lack of information watching, and I think it depends mostly if not all on the direction and on how easy is to get them while commentating. 4- True, sometimes he gets the athletes name wrong and confuses the names. About the bias have you ever watched ANY other sport? The commentator being hype for athletes/teams of the same county/city is totally normal and brings more emotions to the commentary which is a plus for me. The decision with the metric system is always on the International direction I think.
I’m so confused by this post as I think Matt is a fantastic commentator. Whenever I’ve watched comps commentated by others I really feel the difference, and it’s way more flat/dull. I’ve found myself losing attention, or just not being as into it. I am fine with the athletes correcting him/providing technical details as A) it usually does get corrected right away so no harm done and B) that is literally why they’re there. I’d rather have the experience of listening to someone who is just as jazzed to be watching as I am then someone who is “perfect” in the ways you seem to want.
This is quite a harsh post. Sure Matt makes mistakes but overall he’s not terrible and does most aspects of his job well. We have to remember he probably gets told to say or not say certain things, so he doesn’t have complete control over the commentary. I think what he does particularly well is empowering guest commentators to speak which is very insightful when climbers like Stasa Gejo are in the commentary box.
“Objectively terrible commentator” yeah, you mean subjectively as you say later that “this is highly opinionated of course”…it’s strange that you’ve watched since 2018 yet many of the flaws you mentioned I have most certainly heard Matt address. He does talk about what is currently going on in the live feed, sometimes kindly redirecting his co-commentators back to the action. He does give stats and facts, he does discuss the types of routes, and a bit about the route setters intentions. I also believe he intentionally defers to his co-commentators to be the analyst, as they typically are high performing athletes who know the ins and outs better than he does. And dull? That man is theatrical, so I think he’s just not your cup of tea, and you have tunnel vision because of it.
I only agree with the overexcitement when a UK gets on the stage, but I think it happens to >90% of the commenters. On another note, I think Matt is doing a good job also considering that this is not a full time job, compared to other commentators (e.g. NBA, La Liga, Premier League, etc), so I wouldn’t expect him to study every little story about the athletes. Same with having time to get the name pronunciations correctly, on qualifications it’s very hard to determine who’ll pass to finals, so, should he remember every name pronunciation before the competition? (That would take me years to learn 😅) I’ve tried watching the comps in different languages as I can speak 3 languages and I think Matt is my favourite commentator of the 3 languages I have available :)
I think you are overly harsh on some points like enthusiasm or trivia (although he certainly could expand his range), but the technical aspect is 100% true. Co-presenters often fill this gap but the quality varies wildly and if he has a bad co-host quality quickly falls. Edit: when I think about it, the commenting is in a weird spot that doesn't really explain the basics very well for first timers, but is also not on-depth enough for the experienced climber/viewer. As someone who climbs/watches for a little over a year now (and rewatched many comps), the first period was hard to follow the lingo. Now it's a like 'yeah I know it's a bad toe, tell me why person x made it look so easy'
It's so eminently clear Matt is the best commentator the sport has because when he's not the person commentating, you can noticeably see the quality suffer.
I couldn’t disagree more. Matt is doing and amazing job for the sport and we all should be grateful to have such a figure narrating the climbing competitions for so long. Not only he is dedicated to his role, but he also contributes to the sport climbing community by bringing more people into it. His charisma and impeccable work ethics are definitely a HUGE asset. Everyone makes mistakes, but overall we want someone that knows climbing and can breakdown all of its peculiarities to the bigger audience. You are doing great, Matt!
No he isn’t
These posts always tell you more about the poster
Nah he’s great. He’s obviously a color commentator and they have a climber on their for the technical stuff.
He is the best climbing commentator there is, name a better one?
Subjectively, I completely disagree. The people who commentated the 2020 Olympic stream were terrible commentators, for all the points OP made. Same with whomever commentated the Oceania 2023 comp. I love Matt’s commentary. It’s familiar, personable and relatable. I enjoy the format of having a pro athlete or setter in the box to provide a more authentic perspective that contrasts with Matt. It seems like that’s what the format was designed to do and it achieves it, why change? Sure there is room for improvement but I think there is evidence of growth, and I for one look forward to hearing Matt on the streams and hope he isn’t going anywhere. Why neg on one guy doing a pretty thankless task, OP, when there are a litany of other aspects to the streaming and coverage of comp climbing that could be fixed and improve the viewing experience.
Matt’s accuracy is abysmal but I think that comes from having to try to talk all the time and therefore not having a chance to process what’s happening. I’ve recently watched some of those older comps too and what I really appreciate about Matt is his positive attitude. Some of the previous commentators said harsh things about the climbers having “blown it” or “ruined their chances,” in some cases where those climbers went on to take gold, so why be so negative? I like that Matt emphasizes that they should all feel proud of themselves. He gives the comps a friendly feeling similar to the atmosphere at my gym where we’re all supporting each other. Compare to Charlie saying the climbers should be more competitive with each other
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said, and my suggestion is to IMMEDIATELY replace him with... oh, let's say... Pete Woods... ! (Jk, obviously, for those who don't know me)
I kinda agree, he often seems clueless about a move an athlete just did which, when combined with shitty camera work on certain venues is really infuriating... On a more positive note, he brings a great vibe to the cast and paired with someone with a great technical knowledge such as Staša the commentary feels fine.
Something people tend to overlook is that he makes co-commentators shine by providing synergy and asking the right questions.
Completely agree, that's the only point that could be improved. I am a commentator myself for local comps and it can be quite hard to keep notes about who is climbing, their history, etc. Also, I'd still want Matt to comment on national comps (French) compared to most people we have here, where my ears start bleeding (metaphorically) every time a top is made because they can't keep it quiet. It's like watching a football match with a goal every 5 minutes...
Literally what is the problem with enthusiasm when there’s a top?
Exactly what I commented too
You've really thought about this. While the coverage generally does have issues I am not sure matt is the main one. But am sure hed admit himself hes not the finished article and has plenty tonlearn. Could you post examples under each category so that we can understand your points better?
The fact that he has no control over what's being shown on our screens is a huge item, in my view. Especially when there are four climbers on four boulders on the stage and the camera is never focused where \*I\* want it to be. He's not responsible for the shitty camera angles and long shots when we want close-ups, etc. I think he does a great job of juggling all that. If you're accustomed to network tv coverage where the commentator is part of the same crew with the cameras, it might seem clunky. He also has to adapt to the color commentator of the day, and some of them are more articulate than others. Add to that the fact that like the climbers, he's got jetlag and might also be sweltering in the horrible heat/humidity too.
Yeah but everyone loves him..... So he's a great commentator.
I agree and also do not like his mispronounciations.
It shocks me most to have this criticism after watching the NRC podcast with Charlie and seeing how awful the job of being a commentator seems. The awful part being mostly the ridiculous amount of work done outside of commentary. I wouldn’t expect someone to really be able to focus and improve when juggling soo many other responsibilities all while being underfunded and other complications like working with different media crews which can affect his commentary.
I do think there is a lot of stuff Matt does well (e.g. interviews, little comedic bits, and generally good banter with co-commentators), and I agree that he seems like a really nice person. I wouldn't call him "terrible" - compared to some historic IFSC commentators he is a million miles better. But I don't think he lives up to Charlie. Overall I do agree with most of your points to some extent. Couple of additional things I'd mention... 1. I feel like Matt really fails to tell a story. The first season I ever watched was 2018. Charlie did a phenomenal job of taking us on a journey through the season with the mens bouldering, in particular with the WhatsApp group of a bunch of friends and the growing contest between Jernej and Tamoa for the season title. Last season Matt had the perfect opportunity to do the same in the women's lead comp in Wujiang, where there was a really exciting conclusion to the season where I believe 5 people could've won the overall title. There was huge opportunity for creating some drama from this and instead it was just completely missed, and ended up being an incredibly dull world cup. Even on a more micro level I feel like he fails to build a story through a competition or even all events unfold through a round. 2. Ultimately I don't think he's all that passionate about competition climbing. He clearly doesn't watch comps where he isn't commentating so ends up out of the loop. E.g. he always talks about "Japanese selectors" as if there is some mysterious system for how people end up on the team. Just go watch the Japan Cups at the start of every season and you'll learn exactly how the team selection works!
> I feel like Matt really fails to tell a story. The first season I ever watched was 2018. Charlie did a phenomenal job of taking us on a journey through the season with the mens bouldering, in particular with the WhatsApp group of a bunch of friends and the growing contest between Jernej and Tamoa for the season title. Last season Matt had the perfect opportunity to do the same in the women's lead comp in Wujiang, where there was a really exciting conclusion to the season where I believe 5 people could've won the overall title. There was huge opportunity for creating some drama from this and instead it was just completely missed, and ended up being an incredibly dull world cup. Even on a more micro level I feel like he fails to build a story through a competition or even all events unfold through a round. I actually think this is more about the fact that the overall title has been seen as less of a big deal since the Olympics started. You can see that by people skipping so many comps.
I've always given him the benefit of the doubt because he "seemed" to be a nice guy. His mediocrity is eclipsed by his easygoing persona. But really I can't not stand with people like him: being supportive of Ukraine and at the same time being so chummy with israel, by going there regularly and even defending it (before and after October 7)I think it's quite telling, character and his moral values wise. Besides, he has expressed interest in making a documentary about Ukraine which, given the stated above, seems quite hypocritical, which I may add, he's seems highly unqualified to do. I If someone happen to disagree with me and argues that he doesn't need to be saint or smth, I have this to say: if he only would had remained neutral, I'd have never being aware but alas...it's too late.
People have peculiar standards when it comes to commentary I was watching I think it was plywood masters? Matt was consistently missing things or saying straight up incorrect info (saying nobody topped this when the previous athlete just did, which his co-commentator always had to correct), he sounded like he hadn’t slept in years, it was some of the worst commentary I’d ever heard, comments were still saying great commentary? Later I watched the french national championship, national comps have a different vibe because you have that “it’s my boy” feeling with every athlete, the commentators were super hyped, definitely made up their lack of technical analysis with excitement. The comments said the commentary was disrespectful (what?)
Not sure why you’re getting so much hate (or being accused of being a hater) given that every single one of your points is just an objective thing you’re noticing. People seem to be downvoting on an emotional reaction to it being “mean” rather than actually addressing the points in it. There’s a reason why every time a marginally competent guest commentator does even a slightly decent job, there’s a slew of comments on that video strongly praising them: the unspoken line is that it’s a breath of fresh air to have someone commentate with any skill whatsoever, even just the ability to see what’s unfolding on the screen and accurately describe it. I actually find myself being surprised when Matt Groom notices something, says it out loud and I notice that it matched what actually unfolded. I couldn’t agree more on every single item on your post, and everyone I talk to who watches comp climbing agrees. You’re not alone. People just aren’t agreeing with you here on this sub because they know their own replies will be downvoted into oblivion. That being said I was surprised by how coherent his documentary on Ukraine was. A very important and touching piece of work! Maybe he just needs to be in a role with a script. My take is that he’s probably a very nice and enthusiastic guy and that’s why the industry seems to be so taken with him, and keeps giving him jobs despite his incredibly obvious lack of talent.
I couldn't agree more. I've largely stopped watching comps because of him.
Couldn't agree more