Hello, I have decided that as much as I like Dani Waldman’s feathers (I really do), her announcing needs a lot of work. Last year it was “this horse is so bloody” until I was ready to bleed and now, she just talks too much. Anyone else feel like me? I love seeing women in new positions so I don’t like being so negative about the one and only. But it is hard to watch the classes where she is droning on and on.
1 Like
Yes, I agree with you on her talking too much, but for the class I was watching, she was by herself the whole time and I thought that probably made it harder for her. That has to suck doing that alone for an entire class - I’m not sure why they would do it that way unless they couldn’t find a second person? I guess the days of Frank and Jimmy are over, which is a bummer because they were great.
5 Likes
She does talk a lot but I can appreciate her extensive knowledge of a horses breeding.
I think she’s gotten better and better. It can’t be easy, especially solo, talking into a void.
3 Likes
I haven’t seen her yet this year but I do remember this. Even before my newfound hyper-awareness of word choice, I flinched at “bloody” to describe having a lot of “blood” (maybe we can start a movement to credit Thoroughbred influences when that is the case).
1 Like
This reminds me of Deanna Phelan commentating at Spruce Meadows and repeating using “slip the reins” to mean pulling on the mouth rather than, you know, slipping the reins.
It’s interesting how certain terms can change or take on a very different meaning to some people.
2 Likes
Oh yeah! Exactly!
And I mean, it’s not that I didn’t know what she meant. I just think my “ear” (at least) has updated in some ways.
But also, FWIW, I honestly think this was the first time I had heard “bloody” used in that sense. Heretofore, it was always either the Blood Horse magazine or “has a lot of blood.” And as a child of the 80s and 90s, I don’t really remember talking about that [having “a lot of blood”] until fairly recently. Er, recently for me.
3 Likes
