[Slag_Bandoon]

1...(Shackelford), ?Is asking the players to think going to be deemed unfair soon!??[/i].
2... He then claims that Clampett acted as if the bounce was ?terribly unfair?.
3... Maybe it?s just me, but I certainly didn?t get that impression.  

Jeremy, #1 is a question.
           #2 is an observation on behaviour and is...
           #3 exactly what your statement is.

  Sports reporters must be held accountable for what they say.  Not by network management, or Golf Courses (Augusta Fear Factor), but by us.   GCA.com rocks!

[Dan Kelly]

From Clampett's point of view, of course it matters that both Love and Weir hit identical shots and one bounced into the back bunker while the other only bounced to the fringe and spun back to the hole. Same shot, significantly different outcome -- what's an announcer supposed to say?

Both the players and the announcers have been out there all week. Clampett was assigned to the 14th hole, so he'd seen shots come into that hole location all day. If his gut reaction is that Weir's ball reacted in a way other balls had not been reacting Sunday, I don't think saying so is a capital offense. He wasn't saying the golf course sucks or "firm and fast" sucks or Weir made the right decision. He was pointing out a distinction between the result of Weir's shot and the others he'd seen that day and that week.

And Weir did not bellyache.

If anyone made a dumb shot on 14 it was Love, who was protecting a lead and saw Weir's ball bounce over the green, then went ahead and hit the same shot. That tells me these guys are so dialed in to the course conditions from day to day that Love simply didn't believe he'd get the same result that Weir did. Or, in effect, he came to the same conclusion Clampett did: Weir got a bad bounce.

Perfect.

Kudos to you, too, Jeremy Glenn -- for pointing out that "unfair" and "unlucky" are worlds apart.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Well, I hate to drag this one on, but since I taped the golf I went back and watched the 15th hole portion again, and I just can't agree Rick. Love's ball landed in a considerably different location than Weir's. 3-4 yards short of the hole. Weir almost pin high, big difference there when you are talking about a Sunday hole location and players using a sand wedge. Weir played a poor shot and did not deserve a good result. Call it unfair, unlucky, awful, but ultimately, a poor play and the announcers did not point that out, which leaves viewers thinking the golf course was at fault, not the golfer. That's not good for golf, the original point of this thread.

Dan,
Thanks for aiding the discussion. Kudos.
Geoff

[JohnH]

This may be of unimportance, but it seems to me that Weir's shot landed close to the hole.  Let's not forget that 80-100 people had walked around that hole location before Weir even got there.  Could it be out of the realm of possibility that wear and tear coupled with the hint (or lack thereof) of irrigation during tournament week contributed to firm conditions around the hole?  Unlucky?  I don't think so --- it's called golf.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Jeremy,
Sorry, missed your post.

I'd submit an essay on unfair v. unlucky to Ran here or perhaps Golf Digest, I'm sure it would make for a fascinating read. It's not a subject that I'm as passionate about as you clearly are.

I don't quite know why you think I'm confusing the public, and I wasn't trying to create controversy, but I sense from your tone that you may have another reason for getting so worked up over me and my post?  I was just pointing out Clampett's comments and how the might misinform some viewers. I saw it as a bad play by Weir which was not pointed out. You don't deserve a lucky bounced landing the ball pin high to a back pin on a firm golf course during the final round of a Tour event. Do you? If so, then golf really is losing its character.
Geoff

[John Bernhardt]

I loved how the course played and enjoyed watching Love and others take on a higher shot flight plane to adjust to and hold the firmer greens. I thought the Clampet comment was ridiculous and compounded by the fact he is/was a good player.

[Dan Kelly]

Dan,
Thanks for aiding the discussion. Kudos.
Geoff

You're most welcome.

[TEPaul]

I really didn't know there was supposed to be a "fair" or "unfair" in golf. As for "lucky" or "unlucky" (good bounce or bad bounce), I thought that was just all part of the concept in golf of, "That's the way the ball bounces."

God help us if they really do try to create consistency on a golf course to offer the degree of "fairness" that some seem to want and demand.

Putting something over a golf course to prevent wind or rain in the name of "fairness" will probably be next.

Did you know that William Flynn actually designed an indoor golf course but he put trapdoors all over to create the unexpected and mirrors in it too to create deception so apparently his client must not have accepted it? Or else his cleint was badly hurt testing it out!

[Dan Kelly]

As for "lucky" or "unlucky" (good bounce or bad bounce), I thought that was just all part of the concept in golf of, "That's the way the ball bounces."

God help us if they really do try to create consistency on a golf course to offer the degree of "fairness" that some seem to want and demand.

I'm sure Bobby Clampett would agree with every word of that.

He thought it was an unlucky bounce (that Weir's ball hit a particularly impregnable spot on the green), and he said so. I don't think he said: "Gee, that was an unlucky bounce -- and it's PEBBLE BEACH'S FAULT! THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN ON ANY GOLF COURSE ANYWHERE!"

Who's wanting and demanding "fairness"?

[Rick Shefchik]

Geoff --

I don't have the tournament taped, so I'll take your word for it that Love's shot hit 3 yards shorter than Weir's. Still, the margin of error we're talking about -- probably less than 10 feet -- is a very small one, even for a pro of Love's ability, to take the chance he took.

I guess it's possible Love mis-hit his shot as well, but it still looks to me that Love surmised Weir's ball got an extra-hard bounce that his experience told him was unlikely to happen twice. Otherwise, why not lay up 20 feet below the hole and eliminate the possibility of going over? As it turned out, Love's ball hopped all the way onto to the fringe before drawing back to the hole. If he hit the shot he wanted to hit, I'm sure he didn't expect that. I don't think he's that reckless.

But my reaction to the Clampett comment really doesn't involve Love's shot, since it was a spontaneous remark made right after Weir's ball hopped into the bunker. I believe Clampett was reacting to a result that he hadn't seen all day. He's camped out at the 14th hole, watching ball after ball come in to the pin, and then Weir hits a shot that Clampett apparently expected to hold the green, based on what he'd already seen, but it ends up in the bunker. He expressed surprise, and called it a bad break.

I liked the way the course was set up -- the harder and faster the better, in my view. And I don't disagree with anyone that Weir's bounce was just the breaks of the game. I just don't think Clampett's comment negates either of those opinions.

[CHrisB]

So many announcers play up the "these guys are good" theme so much that it may not even enter their mind that perhaps the pro didn't hit the shot exactly as he planned it.

Case in point--upon seeing the ball bounce over the green, Clampett's immediate reaction is "Wow, bad break!" without even considering that it might have been a mishit by Weir.  Say what you want about Venturi, but he would at least try to explain how a shot/result like that could happen.  Something like, "Look out!  Wow, that really hit firm.  I don't know if he caught it a little thin on the clubface or if it just hit a firm spot near the hole, but if he hit it well and got that bounce, then that's just a bad break.  He's not acting very surprised, so that tells me he must have just mishit it or carried it farther than he wanted to..."

Instead it's instantly "Wow, bad break" and "we haven't seen that kind of bounce all day", as if every shot comes in the same and is struck exactly as the pro intended.  No offense if you're related to him, but Clampett is in my opinion the worst announcer on TV today (but at least he's not trying to make up words anymore!).

[Justin_Zook]

I think Mr. Shackelford was simply giving an example of how a small, simple comment, from announcers who should otherwise know better, can contribute the the gradual unintentional brainwashing of Joe Chunker.

Dont focus on the actual shot and comments on that shot, focus on how many of these instances can contribute to the mis-education of the public about the game and its sometimes brutal charm.

Justin

[Gene Greco]

My interpretation of the shot by Weir and the ensuing remark by Clampett seems as clear to me now as it did at the time.

Weir gambled big time and lost, and all was as fair as fair can be.

Many of the pros played dial it in golf on that shot, some pulled the rip cord and spun it back to the front of the green after landing just short of the hole, Weir's bounced over off the less sloped area at pin high.

If Weir wanted the ball close to the pin he might have used some thought and imagination in creating the shot necessary to accomplish that end.

A hooded wedge or 9 iron can be used to play a "skip-stop" to a sloped elevated pin bounced off the front part of the green allowing the ball to move up the slope and nestle comfortably next to the hole.

This is called "shot making" as opposed to "dial it in golf". It is what was needed to minimize the chances of an unfavorable result in a pressing situation.

Clear thought and execution was lacking, not a shortage of any form of good fortune. Weir's shot selection and the accompanying "critique" were both in error.      

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()