I like his analysis but I just can’t seem to get over that he looks like he’s 15 years old. 
2 Likes
He’s by far one of the best race analysts covering the pro peloton. Trying to suffer through a Cyclingtips race recap is another story. I’m not too sure on his personal racing background, but he gets it, and he’s been doing this for years. I recall his stuff back even when Cosmo was the go to “recap” guy. Benji and him clearly have a grasp on the inner workings and dynamics that play out during a race, and beyond that, a season. I can fully understand the critiques of the lack of videos on the Youtube versions, but as mentioned, gaining the rights to those clips certainly won’t come cheap, and I think he can continue to work around that if that isn’t something they’re interested in, or can justify, doing.
With all that said, I could see a lane for him to help grow the sport by educating the spectators. Whether its through interviews, or breakdowns of highlights for one of the broadcasters, I could see him getting to that point if he wants to. To do this, he’d have to dumb it down a bit as his audience at this point is clearly the race savvy cyclist, but I’d feel more confident that he could do this better than say Bob Roll, or any of the hacks NBC has tried over the past few years. (aside from Matthew Keenan, as he is brilliant)
I used to watch his videos a couple of years ago. He was a big Sagan fan at the time (he was in his prime and great to watch). Found them interesting at the start, but he made some absolute howlers - so bad that after 2 or 3 of them I just gave up.
I really like NorCal. Chris Horner is absolutely brilliant as well.
1 Like
I wonder about Lanterne Rouge. His vids are very polished and appear well made. His commentary seems valid on its face, although it’s often a bit glib. But what are his qualifications? Does he have racing experience? I can’t tell if he’s on Strava. How is one to know if his analysis is sharp or stupid? Chris Horner’s vids are less polished, but we know that he speaks from a wealth of actual pro racing experience. Jeff Linder (norcal) is a racer and much of his commentary regards his own races. So, I know I can trust Horner and Linder. But Lanterne Rouge? He has no bio on his Youtube site and why doesn’t he publicize his real name?
1 Like
Does it matter? There are plenty of people who are more than qualified enough commenting on other sports like soccer/football without having been a pro.
While I don’t watch them regularly, LR’s videos have exceptionally high production quality, he is tagging riders, explaining the situation from a 1,000 m view, the editing is tight and the content generally quite entertaining. And didn’t he have a contract as a professional commentator at some point?
4 Likes
Does racing experience matter? It’s a factor, sure. I’m not saying it’s impossible to provide solid race commentary without racing experience, but it would be unusual. It seems obvious that most sports commentators have experience in the sport. That’s really no different from any endeavor involving specialize knowledge.
I agree that LR’s videos are well made, but I am not qualified to judge the quality of his insight.
And rightly so because Remco is a beast
Everybody covering racing after the fact all seem to say the same stuff anyway.
My favorite cycling journalists are The Cycling Podcast.
The guy that seems to give the most insightful commentary is Johan Bruyneel. He’s on Armstrong’s podcast. Putting the checkered doping past aside, he practically calls the stage the day before with eerie accuracy.
2 Likes
https://www.linkedin.com/in/pbroe/
Perhaps I was mistaken, but I got the impression from one of the LR podcasts that he’s actually representing some pros as an agent. Which makes his team reviews even more fascinating "…that guy’s a waste of money, not worth his salary… this other rider is a bargain, I bet they’re paying him peanuts… " etc.
1 Like
Last spring he put out a video that gives at least a sketch of good background
If you are interested in short summary his work is by far the best.
I often watch the long highlights on GCN+ and then LR summary as he shares insights that you could grasp only if you examine the full race.
3 Likes
There is only one channel that correctly identifies thermonuclear attacks though.
10 Likes
I recall him telling viewers a few years ago in the early days of LR that he is from some sort of legal background (lawyer, solicitor - something like that). His “qualifications” are an obsessive interest in watching and following bike racing, coupled with his analytic approach to things developed from his professional training and career.
From what I recall, the success of his channel has now taken over from his legal career, to the point that he’s either quit his job altogether or is now just a few hours per week.
2 Likes
Thanks for that video! Best, honest, discussion I heard about doping.
1 Like
Well, I am a lawyer and based on LR’s photo, I’ve probably been a lawyer almost as long as LR has been alive. But that doesn’t make me qualified to comment on pro cycling - rather, it only makes me qualified to comment on a very, very narrow slice of US law that affects no more than a few thousand people engaged in a niche business. And if it’s true that LR represents pro cycling teams as a lawyer or agent, and then goes on Youtube to criticize riders from other teams, that seems like a serious ethical conflict as an attorney and an indication of bias as a commentator. Maybe the rules governing lawyers in Australia are different than the US, but if a lawyer at my firm did this they would get the boot. From the perspective of providing race commentary on Youtube, if LR has an economic interest in certain teams through his work as a lawyer or agent, then he should disclose that prominently in every video and on his channel.
Just to reiterate: I agree that LR’s videos are well made and I don’t challenge his analysis because I freely admit that I am unqualified to do so. All I know about bike racing is what I learned dragging my son to races for 3 years when he was a junior and what I’ve learned watching pro races, Youtube commentary on racing, magazine articles, etc.; in other words - not much. I appreciate content from creators who integrate their own racing and riding into their videos, like Norcal Cycling, Vegan Cyclist, Brian Davis Races, and current and former pros like Chris Horner, Phil Gaimon, GCN, Dylan Johnson, Chris Froome, etc. I find this type of content less opaque and easier to evaluate because the basis for the claims of authority made by these creators is fully disclosed.
I will watch the video linked above to see what it says LR’s background. However, fwiw, in my opinion LR should be more up front about his cycling-related qualifications and he should publish his real name on his Youtube channel.
Where has LR mentioned that he is a lawyer for a team, and then goes on a bashes other teams on his YouTube channel?
I think @Cavasta only meant that he is doing more YouTube and less lawyer stuff now since his channel is growing?
Either way, I love the analysis that LR is doing. Just because someone doesn’t race bikes themselves doesn’t make them less qualified to comment on something. Of course there are certain subjects might not be as accurate as if we were to as the rides themselves.
2 Likes
Nonsense….having a deep knowledge of the sport does not require actual racing experience as a pro. Knowledge is not based on physical capabilities.
Does Joe Buck have extensive experience as a professional football or baseball player? How about Mike Greenburg’s deep NBA playing experience? Did Al Michaels have a HoF playing career?
Closer to the sport, Phil Liggett was never a professional cyclist and, IIRC, was really only a recreational rider with limited racing experience.
11 Likes
These exceptions prove the rule.
LOL….those “exceptions” are just the tip of the iceberg.
Conversely, I can list a whole host of cycling commentators that were professionals and suck at commentating……Bob Roll, Christian Vandevelde, Chris Horner, etc. All are just god awful.
Unless of course you don’t really understand the sport and then those buffoons sound like geniuses.
3 Likes
“If he’s not a former professional he’s not qualified to talk about bike races and should be up front about what his college degree was in” is one of the oddest topics I’ve ever seen here.
“He’s not a former world touring musician, he’s not qualified to talk about records”
“He’s not a former professional chef, he’s not allowed to rate restaurants”
“She’s not a former movie director, she’s not allowed to review movies”
I mean, none of those statements have any merit.
16 Likes