Continuing the thought of Stas Minin (by the way, I completely agree with his points) Cool is interesting to listen to. He keeps your attention. He does not flaunt his knowledge, but lets his entrance when needed, without imposing. The cool one knows how to take the audience, the cool one knows how to lure even a person who, conventionally, sees this sport for the first time. And also Cool is always ready for this particular reportage and has a strategy.
Tukhly does not have this.
There are three main differences.
1) Knowledge. These can be different types of knowledge. Knowledge of the history of sports. Understanding of the game, the ability to analyze tactics. Knowledge of how a sports team lives, how the players' relationships or their relationship with the coach are built. Reliable information about what happens to athletes, based on personal contacts, gained as a result of constant work with sources.
2) Originality of judgments. Moreover, a great sports journalist (like any journalist) expresses an opinion in such a way that it is actually knowledge expressed in more fluent language. The "rotten" journalist shares knowledge, which in reality are his opinions.
3) The ability to tell. It also implies a sense of language.
A class is a professional assessment. Class should not be confused with popularity. A popular journalist can reflect a massive demand for verbal formulation of common judgments, without having knowledge, without being original in his judgments and not possessing the talent of a storyteller.
Rotten has a lot of lyrics and his own opinion. Good has everything on the case, facts and exclusive, beautifully presented, in short. But there is an opinion that the question is actually about commentators