Which is the Toughest?

Al Michaels, right, and Ken Dryden called
the Miracle on Ice in 1980 on ABC

A minor debate popped up on the socials yesterday, beginning with the legendary Al Michaels.

Al, of course, has been a football broadcaster for 50 years, as well as working extensively in baseball, along with some basketball and hockey.

He has numerous legendary calls, including his work in the Super Bowl, World Series, and, of course, his "Miracle" call in the 1980 Winter Olympic Hockey tournament.

But during a recent interview with Dan Patrick, Michaels admitted that he feels hockey -- specifically, on radio -- is the hardest to broadcast.

I've asked this question to students for years, always curious what they think the most difficult sport is to call. Hockey is frequently mentioned until I demonstrate the mechanics of broadcasting baseball. That, in fact, has been an accepted answer for years.

Sure, preparation blah blah blah, but it's still knowing when to thread the information in, how to thread it in, and, most of all, how to make it sound conversational.

I find soccer to be the toughest, mostly due to still finding my voice with the sport but I think I've come a long way.

But hockey? Nah, it's literally describing. I mean, that's the first law of it, be it audio, video, or a hybrid.

As a radio call, you can't get every pass unless the game has that slow of a pace. Most games I call don't play like that, so I try to hit all that I can, but it's more important to know who and which team has the puck.

And I find baseball easy because it's so embedded in my blood. Pitch, swing, defense, and details. But, still, it's a balance of not talking too much or drifting too far between pitches.

Of course, this is all just opinion and mine is no more correct than anyone else. It's not an absolute. It's amazing how many struggle with that concept.

For me, baseball, football, hockey, and basketball are all fairly fluid for me. I don't want to say they're "easy" but I suppose there is something to that. I try to find a good rhythm to each one of them but they have so many differences. Football means calling the play and getting out of the way for the analyst (if I have one). 

Basketball and hockey play differently in having time for the analyst to talk while play is in motion but the general rule is I take over as things get close to the net or when a player takes a shot. It's hard to explain it but it works.

Years ago, WGCH decided to do a lacrosse game and, initially, I wasn't going to be on it. But, ultimately, I wound up at Greenwich High for the game, initially working the first half on the sideline before calling it in the second half.

Before the game, I had to figure out how to call it.

Ultimately, I took the lessons I learned in calling hockey and applied them to lacrosse. I've done the same with other sports as well.

That's where I figured out soccer also. As terrified as I was at first, I found my rhythm. I found my style.

So this debate really isn't one to take such a harsh stance on. Everyone has their own take.

To that end, I'll call lacrosse tomorrow and Friday before getting back to baseball on Saturday.