I love the Olympics and I try to watch as much as I can (pesky work gets in the way).

I was in gymnastics as a child and my sister was an elite gymnast but quit before her first chance at the Olympics.  I don't know how long Daggett has been a commentator (I remember Athens) but he is horrible. He is completely biased based on previous performances that the majority of viewers haven't seen.

If Daggett likes someone, he raves about the complexity of the moves and rarely (if ever) comments on a wobble or a missed landing. If he doesn't like someone, all he points out is their mistakes or where he says they have missed this particular move in practice or at Nationals. Now, if someone makes a mistake or falls, it might be helpful (at that time) to know that this is an element they have faltered on before or how much of a deduction it will be. To go on incessantly about how they messed up previously and then when it's perfect to give them a grudging "good/solid routine" is not what I want from my commentators.

It would help if NBC would pair him with anyone good but the other analyst, usually female, is always someone totally unknown who parrots Daggett's style and the non-gymnast anchor is no help because he doesn't know what he's doing.

Now, the swimming commentator,  Rowdy Gaines, is fantastic.  The weightlifting guys, Pete Pranica-play-by-play & Shane Hamman-analyst, make this sport more fun to watch.  They are wonderful about letting us know what the issues are for the athletes and seem to be genuinely happy for anyone who wins.

Maybe it's a function of the type of sport being called. When it's objective (who's the fastest, who lifts the most, etc) is it easier to focus on the issues they all face and comment in a humane way? When it's subjective (gymnastics, boxing, diving, dressage, etc) does this mean the commentators can't help becoming biased and bitchy?