Both. What he said was situational. Before a gymnast would start, he would say general things, but mostly score-based: he might compare the base (on paper, at that point) to gymnasts that had gone before. He might say that a gymnast was likely to go into first, but there were others coming with higher content coming up. He might say that a gymnast generally had higher bases going in, but generally didn't get the quality scores or vice versa. He might mention to expect a creative routine, or, historically, how that gymnast used to do certain skills, but now doesn't, or how a gymnast has added skills. As the competition went on, he'd also discuss how the gymnast did in other phases, for example, in the Team Competition, he left out X, but expect him to do X or to add Y in it's place, or that the gymnast was having a tough competition so far. I had context for what was about to happen in termsn of the sport, not the gymnast's favorite hobbies, or that she had a twin in synchronized swimming. During the routine, he'd point to specific skills, why they were of good quality -- the rings didn't shake, she held the position steadily -- or not so good quality -- the judges will deduct .1 for this form break, .3 for that error -- and he was particularly vigilant about explaining when he thought a gymnast might score lower because s/he wouldn't get connectivity points, which would hurt the score, and when the skater would get credit for the connections, and how many. He would explain why a skill was harder, in terms of risk, strength, flexibility, and what made the combination of skills harder. He would explain the impact to the score when something might look nice, but didn't meet a requirement, or when a requirement was missing, or when a skill had been downgraded. He might mention a gymnasts strength and weaknesses, and when his or her size might impact her ability to do specific things. He would say when he was surprised by a score, but he was pretty accurate. I don't know many details about gymnastics any more, and of course, this doesn't prove he didn't leave out critical things along the way, because he's so familiar with how things are scored, but that would be for a knowledgeable gymnastics person to determine. What I know is that I, an occasional gymnastics viewer, was engaged, did not feel condescended to, felt I had a lot of good information and context, and, in this case, actually looked forward to the commentary, and not just to snark at it or use it for a drinking game. He was also the rare commentator who did not show bias for or against specific athletes, and, considering it was for a Canadian TV station, nationalistic bias, although he was clearly happy for the Canadian athletes when they did well. He seemed genuinely thrilled for the athletes, and there was none of the "back in my day, this/that was so much better" attitude. He sounded like he truly respected what they did, and he had a lot of empathy for them. (It might help that he's not that much older than the men competing.) While he had stylistic preferences, I didn't get the impression that he was slagging athletes who didn't have his preferred qualities or harping on specific things as if they had more weight in the overall system than they did. For example, you wouldn't have concluded that gymnastics equivalent of a layback spin was the be all and end all of gymnastics excellence.