News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Pages: [1] 2

Patrick_Mucci

Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« on: April 13, 2003, 12:28:52 PM »
Tiger Woods has a perfect uphill lie on # 3, blades the ball over the green and the announcer says that the lie wasn't good for that shot.

Tiger Woods misses a 5-6 footer and the announcer says that he put a good stroke on the putt.

Maggert hits a bad shot out of a bunker, hitting the lip/top and bouncing backwards, and the announcer says he got a bad break.

These guys are the greatest players in the world, but a little objective honesty by the announcers would be appreciated.

I've also noticed that they seem to be slightly premature in insinuating or awarding Mickelson the title on the 6th hole.

Am I the only one who has noticed the apologist mentality by the announcers ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »
Logged

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2003, 04:45:14 PM »
No, Pat, I think we are so used to their mindless sucking up to the golfers that the phenomenon is almost part of the wallpaper.

What a rare moment when Clampett actualy disagrees with Tiger's choice of driver on the 3rd hole. Otherwise, as you suggest, they are pouring syrup over eveyrthing. Makes me miss Johnny Miller.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Bruceski

Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2003, 05:50:13 PM »
Anyone else think it wrong of Tiger Woods during his post-round interview with Peter Kostis to imply Stevie Williams led him astray on the 3rd tee by encouraging the driver? Tiger then backtracked with a comment along the lines of "ultimately it's the player's call". But c'mon, his initial response was to blame his caddy.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2003, 06:03:31 PM »
How about Tiger's snit? No one made mention, that Tiger broke down mentally after the 3rd hole thru 7, was slashing away with all of his might, and just imploded like the nuclear plant in Gernobile.

What kind of reporting was that?

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

danielfaleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2003, 06:06:19 PM »
Huge mistake from Woods saying ANYTHING about defering to his caddie - he's won there before. Duh.

Announcers: had a lot of apologizing to do. Man, there was a lot of questionable play, especially course management. These guys are too used to the Milwaulkee Open and St. Jude Classic scores of 17 under par.

I mean, #12 looked like a death trap to some of them. A great course set-up really can (and shoud) expose weaknesses in a player and reward the better parts of his game (eg. Pinehurst #2 when it's USGA'd for the Open.)

Love it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

buffett_guy

Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2003, 06:08:19 PM »
The thing i heard over and over was, "he's left himself with a Very difficult shot/putt there", "i can't tell you how tough this shot is" etc. etc.

spare me



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

CHrisB

Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2003, 06:16:47 PM »
Another example of how CBS has some of the best (Oosterhuis, Feherty) and worst (Clampett, Kostis) announcers in golf. Clampett added to his legend by mentioning the azaleas that were "indigent" (which means poor or impoverished) to ANGC rather than "indigenous".

quasssi,
Peter Oosterhuis was the only commentator I heard mention the carryover effects of Tiger's mental error (no Chernobyl references but the point was made).

I thought Wadkins did well today, for him.

Bruce,
I felt a little uncomfortable hearing Tiger say that about SW (right after I was proud of him for admitting a mental error for the first time in his career)...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »
Logged

noonan

Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2003, 06:18:48 PM »
I do want the sugar coating!

I believe JM is the best color guy in the biz.....

Jim Nantz is the worst ever......

Did he ever pull out his Sunday Masters favorite phrase?

"is that a HARBINGER of things to come?

Jerry
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Carlyle Rood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Summerall and Venturi
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2003, 07:07:18 PM »
Boy, we used to slam Ken Venturi; but, he called a better tournament.  And Pat Summerall was consistently understated.  He always allowed the game to have center stage.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Richard_Macafee

Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2003, 07:45:28 PM »
Todays telecast just emphasises how good Johnny Miller really is in my opinion.

Lanny is just awful, he has nothing interesting to say, nor does he offer any insight. He just talks about the pictures that we are all seeing.

If you believed everything they say, it is hard to imagine how anyone ever makes a par at Augusta, let alone a birdie.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2003, 08:00:17 PM »
Peter Oosterhuis is among the good. Congratulations to Peter. I hope some of you write your comments to CBS.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2003, 05:43:53 AM »
See my TV review on Golfweek.com, posted Sunday night. I thought Tiger blaming Steve Williams was pretty bad, but overall, Clampett is now officially unbearable. I didn't catch the "indigent", though, that's priceless.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Jamie_Duffner

Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2003, 07:12:01 AM »
After a while I'm a bit numb to the commentating.  At least we didn't hear Clampett's patented "it's all about three things, execution, execution, execution!" (insert smiley face puking).

The thing that irked me the most was the lack of coverage of particular shots of certain players.  Is CBA anti-Mickelson?  I had to wonder what was going on at 15 on Saturday?  The gaps in coverage were astonishing.

Kostis is the worst.  His babble about how ANGC is now a "driving test" vs "it required no challenge previously" wanted to make me puke.  (again insert puking smiley face).  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

SoLa_in_NoIll

Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2003, 07:16:23 AM »
How many times did Lanny mention playing with Gene Sarazen in '70 as an amateur and walking over the Sarazen bridge with him?  I heard it at least once on each day -- Friday, Saturday and Sunday.  And Clampett felt he had to match Lanny's pairing with his own mention of playing with Snead as an amateur.  I don't mind hearing a story about this, but do I have to be reminded every day?  Why can't I just hear ruminations on the use of bikini wax on ANGC's greens?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Matt Kardash

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2003, 07:38:27 AM »
Kostis - never shuts up about how augusta is a complete test now

Clampett - he's absolutley unbearable to me....everything is "brilliant" to him...2 putting from 20 feet on 11 is some kind of form of genius to this guy

Wadkins - this guy has nothing to say, and when he says something you wish it would be him announcing his retirement.

Feherety and Oosterhuis are the only people that know what they are talking about.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
the interviewer asked beck how he felt "being the bob dylan of the 90's" and beck quitely responded "i actually feel more like the bon jovi of the 60's"

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2003, 08:09:35 AM »
A few comments:

No doubt several times the majority of golf viewers were out there saying, "What was he thinking?" when this or that bad/stupid play occurred, and the announcers just glossed over it. Worst was Maggert's decision on 12--sure it's easy to second guess but he appeared to have a 1 in 10 chance of keeping the ball on the green and he had several options--putt it to a flat lie in the bunker and then try to make 4, play sideways away from the water and then try to make 4--and there was absolutely NO commentary of any sort before or after.

Great exchange between Wadkins and Nance: As the leaders were heading to the back nine Lanny says, "There are a number of accessible pins out there on the back nine and I'd expect to see some birdies." Nance says something like, "Lanny where do you think those accessible pins are?"
Lanny, "Uh, uh, uh" Cutaway to somebody putting.

I thought the coverage on Friday was better than on the weekend, less choppy and more focused on the golf than on the announcers. How could they miss Mattiace's tee shots on 15 and 17 (even show it on tape, guys!)

Oostie is generally very good. I thought Feherty in particular did a good job considering he was talking through a clamped down steel muzzle courtesy of Hootie and the Boys.

How many times did they say "This Is Now The True Examination of Major Championship Golf," implying/stating explicitly that the changes to ANGC made it so. Gag me with a spoon...

Having said all that, it was a great show as always thanks to Weir The Lionhearted, a gutsy but star crossed Maggert, happy go lucky Lenny Mattiace and the golf course, they didn't show all Tiger's shots and I suspect I've made a few gaffes on and off the air too.

All The Best,

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »
Logged
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2003, 09:34:18 AM »

Quote

He added a few good points here and there, but he more than made up for it on the Stupid-O-Meter with that one.  

Stupid-O-Meter?  ??? Haven't heard that one in awhile either...  ;)

Regards,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2003, 09:44:21 AM »

Quote
I thought Wadkins did well today, for him.

My newspaper column has a section called "Faint praise." It's devoted to what one reader labeled "Corn Dogs" -- a Corn Dog being "an insult wrapped in a compliment."

"I thought Wadkins did well today, for him" is one of the Corn Dogs of the Year. Excellent, ChrisB!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2003, 09:49:16 AM »

Quote
Jim Nantz is the worst ever......

Did he ever pull out his Sunday Masters favorite phrase?

"is that a HARBINGER of things to come?

Yes, he did. I believe it made its annual appearance -- as reliable as the swallows of Capistrano, more reliable than the azaleas of Augusta -- either when Mattiace holed his pitch on 8 or when he sank that bomb on 10.

CBS gets a point in the plus column for immediately recognizing (and proving, with videotape) that Mattiace's putt was more or less a duplicate of Crenshaw's in '84.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Darren_Kilfara

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2003, 09:54:07 AM »
It's "N-A-N-T-Z", not "Nance" - the man may deserve your grief, but he doesn't deserve to have his name misspelled thousands of times. :)

FWIW, the BBC announcers are starting to get to me - we had Peter Alliss occasionally at his brilliant best (like when Alex Hay reentered the commentary box and Alliss said, "Like the poor, he's always with us"), but more often talking about how cruel and unfair it was when a player hit a hard short-iron that would spin back off a given tier. Hay made a number of mistakes - e.g. repeatedly asserting that Mickelson's putter was deemed illegal by the R&A on Saturday, then having to backtrack on Sunday - and generally was his fawning worst. Ken Brown was more factual but less smooth. And they had Seve Ballesteros in the booth as well on the weekend, but his efforts lacked polish and only rarely contributed insight.

The reason Oosty and Feherty are so good is that they are both polished AND know what to say. Miller should be justly praised for speaking his mind, but he sounds like an eight year-old half the time, which makes me not want to listen to him either. And don't get me started on Ewan Murray and Butch Harmon, mainstays of the Sky team here in the UK -Bruce Critchley is just about bearable, but Murray is a first-class suck-up, and you can probably guess what kind of commentator Harmon is....

Cheers,
Darren
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Jamie_Duffner

Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2003, 10:10:35 AM »
This is some funny stuff, I almost gagged on my lunch.

Unless you were brain dead, napping, or just not watching, there were several "Master's memories" and of course we saw the Tiger Woods 97 final putt about 4000 times and Nantz's most nauseating "a win for the ages,"  which I believe he's used a few times since.  I'm not sure I could scramble quick enough for the remote control to change the channel and spare myself having to hear it over and over and over again.  Talk about gag reflex.

Since we've begun talking about other network's crew, I'm surprised we haven't dragged Tommy's favorite, Curtis Strange, into the mix.  I do like Baker-Finch, understated,  knowledgable, humble, and rarely reminisces about his earlier playing days.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2003, 10:16:19 AM »

Quote
I'm surprised we haven't dragged Tommy's favorite, Curtis Strange, into the mix.

Oh, we've already dragged Curtis into the mix. In fact, we've dragged him into the mix tom after tom after tom!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

ForkaB

Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2003, 10:17:09 AM »
Darren

Spot on re: the BBC.  I had high hopes for Seve after Saturday, but he faded on Sunday as badly as Woods.  Hay is useless and Alliss is better as a side kick than the leading player, and his continuingly stupid comments on how a ball spinning back when hit too short were sophomoric.  Tis a pity....  Vis a Vis Sky, Murray and Harmon are two of the reasons that I am glad to not have succembed yet to buying a satellite dish.

All that being said, hte coverage sounds a lot bette than what was on offer on the other side of the pond.  Bring back Summerall and Venturi and McCord and Wright!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2003, 10:29:19 AM »

Quote
What's next: 22 skidoo?

It's 23 skidoo!

Even Jim Nance [sic] knows that!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Announcers - The apologists for the players ?
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2003, 10:36:53 AM »
Quote
Spot on re: the BBC....

I'll cut you (as an adopted Brit) some slack, re: "spot on."

But can you explain why so many United-States-of-Americans have gotten into the horrible, horrible habit of saying "spot on" all the time?

For me, the ubiquitous "spot on" is fingernails-on-a-blackboardish -- as bad as Mr. Clampett's (Bobby's, not Jed's) "brilliant."

And as for "Bring back Summerall and Venturi and McCord and Wright!": Is that your entry in the Corn Dog Sweepstakes? It may already be a winner!

Don't get me started on McCord! (I agree with you, by the way, about the too-plannedness of "O, Canada!" That showed the McCordian influence on the impressionable Irishman.)

MODIFIED: Oops. It was Shivas, not you, who panned "O, Canada!" I agree with HIM -- about that, and about the overemphasis on Weir's lefthandedness and Canadianness. But the media like a simple story -- eh?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »
Logged
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016
Pages: [1] 2
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back