Do The McEnroe's Want To Announce Golf?
Reader Jim asked that question after watching week one of the ESPN2 telecasts of U.S. Open tennis.
Listening to the famous brothers or the CBS team of John McEnroe-Dick Enberg-Mary Carillo or ESPN2's Cliff Drysdale or even the opinionated analysts on The Tennis Channel, and I can't help but wonder if part of tennis' resurgence should be credited to the compelling television coverage?
(Whatever they've done to slow down serves hasn't hurt.)
The number one thing we all hear from non-golfers: our sport is so boring to watch. Yet no one was watching tennis a few years ago, and while Federer and Nadal have helped, they are no Tiger and Phil.
While I understand that tennis produces generally more intelligent and quirky characters when golf produces drones, there is no way that tennis should be more compelling when golf has beautiful venues and its fair share of characters and the world's most famous athlete?
The two sports passed each other a few years ago when golf's trajectory was up and tennis was so far down, but now it seems to be going the other direction again. After a dreadful few weeks on CBS, the Deutsche Bank telecast on NBC restored some dignity to the game by showing us more shots, providing more spirited announcing and lending that sense of urgency missed in the week's prior.
So am I overestimating the impact of the network's presentation styles in how people view a sport? Profound thoughts on this vital topic, please.
Monday, September 7, 2009 at 08:35 PM
Reader Comments (34)
People love to see Tiger win, as the ratings prove, but they don't share a loss with him, do they? They don't respond to his humanity. So the best place to go for that is Phil, who is likely to vomit on himself and fall asleep just when it's getting interesting.
Tennis, on the other hand, can be very sexy. Not always, but right now it is. The rivalry between Federer and Nadal is good to watch. Their contrasting physiques, styles and records create expectation and anticipation. This has no match in golf at the moment.
Federer crying, Nadal's body (think Marvel Comics). It really is good stuff.
The last sexy golfer was Arnold Palmer, no? And before that, Walter Hagen? It's not a good record in the sex appeal stakes.
You've acknowledged the role of those two tennis players, but in what sense do they come up short of Tiger and Phil? Should Federer shout "Fucking prick" at five million teenage boys? And who's pushing it physically to get to the top, Nadal or Phil?
I think it's a no contest.
Tall
Russian
Blondes
Fair point, but is it possible that the telecast quality only drives people to watch Tiger, instead of the joys of watching a good tournament? To put it another way, weren't some people starting to tune into the Azinger-Faldo telecasts just because their back and forth was so fun? Some might say that's a bad thing, but I don't, especially during those weeks when the leaderboard isn't very inspiring.
I don't agree about Phil's work ethic and I think in recent years that it's been proven he works very hard, some say maybe trying too hard. I just think both are more dynamic personalities, especially to Americans. Federer is classy, no doubt, but Nadal is hard for me to get excited about. Same with Roddick, but I grew up with McEnroe, Connors, Martina and Chrissy.
Longy,
Oh yes, there's that too!
Hawkeye,
I agree and I thought that was was very apparent today with NBC (which you didn't get to see). Many more shots than CBS shows. Huge difference. Makes the interruptions much less offensive.
The TV companies,the players and the administrators need to take a long hard look at things-take away Tiger and there's not much left.
In the first round, Roger Federer played Devon Britton, ranked 1,360. That's like Tiger playing world # 1,360 Uttam Singh Mundy, from India. And that match seems like it was a month ago. I cannot see Henry Longhurst (RIP) donating too many nouns and verbs to describe those matches.
But, I do love the McEnroe brothers.
I have been wondering how I can replace my hockey activity and I think Golf is the answer!
Your little guides are really good and have helped me visualise myself as a golf player rather than restricting myself to the driving range.
Thanks!
To be honest, it was the a part of dinner conversations for two evenings.
And.... We received a rather nasty e-mail telling me to essentially shut up, it was fun to watch Rory do something out of the ordinary.
My reply to that is, I was not stopping him, rather pointing out, before the fact I might add, that he was making a BIG MISTAKE.
So, interesting to see that at least one viewer prefers bland commentary that does not question the players choices and how those choices will have effects on the remainder of the round.
BTW, I think John McEnroe is the best sports announcer in any sport!!!
And yes, I am a huge tennis fan
More compelling full shots and less 2 foot putts make a better broadcast. Every time I turned the sound on Dan Hicks was blathering on about something irrelevant, so I just kept it off. It also helped that there were a lot of players in the mix, a good reason the show lots of action.
John
That said, what golf does have going for it, when the executives make the right decisions in coverage, is the ability to watch a ton of different athletes facing different situations. When you get to a grand slam final, even one that is as riveting as Wimbledon, you're stuck with the same two guys for the entire day. The built-in variety should increase viewership, I would think...
CBS golf has degenerated into some sort of weird entertainment show- it badly needs a shake -up that makes the action the focal point, not their on-air "talent".
By chance did that email come from a Mr. W. Uihlein from Fairhaven, Mass? LOL.
Golf on tv needs more of its announcers telling like it is and offering competent insight as to why the player may be making a choice on a certain shot whether or the choice is good or bad one. Regardless of whose skin it might get under. And yes that means you Tiger as well.
Keep telling like it is. It makes for a more interesting telecast to have differing points of view debated.
(1) Show more action. (Cover every shot Tiger hits, even when he is out of contention. Fine. But show more shots from everybody else.)
(2) More shot-tracker after shots. It's a great techology, and I'd like more of it.
(3) Show graphics of a hole illustrating where the player should aim to hit it from the tee. When they get to wherever, show where they are and where they should aim to hit it next. The coverage always assumes we know the holes. Except at Augusta, we generally don't.
(4) Let announcers question choices. Jay Townsend's story is disturbing.
Before i took up golf i thought watching it was pretty boring: the bit where the camera shows the sky and no sight of the ball at all (the Beeb still manage this effortlessly); a player crouching to study the line of a putt (mmmn! how exciting!) Only after i was hooked did TV golf appeal, although now i'm sated with same-old-same-old coverage, golf has to become sexy again...
I too play hockey and golf (although I am a scratch golfer, but a mediocre hockey player). You will find much of the skills are transferable. But, pay attention to the role of the club relative to the stick. Whereas in hockey you need to have a great deal of foward drive to really get the shaft to bend and hit a good slapper, in golf, the weight shift needs to be more restrained. I have an especially strong weight shift and its something I constantly work to keep tamed. Remember, the club can load and unload on its own if properly swung. Good luck.
Tennis's problem and its benefit, tv wise, is that its usually one match at one time. I watched the Oudin match yesterday to see what the buzz was about, but turned off the Federer match because who wants to watch someone get beaten into submission. At least with golf, if someone is 21 strokes ahead, they can focus on the battle for second or something.
Even the Robert Gamez cold top with a 3-wood was free of critical commentary and brought the following description: "folks he was trying to keep that one low into the wind and caught it in the neck"
Huh?!?
US Open Tennis- Tony Bennet sitting next to Nicole Kidman last night, Now that is exiting TV!
US Open Golf- Some white guy in Cargo shorts with a beer yelllng "In the hole". Huh?
They move their feet before a serve as it is quicker to get going when your feet are moving as opposed from a standstill
Players make bad swings, hit bad shots. They get called out. Less frequent is what Jay is describing as hitting a player for bad decision-making. I think its great when they do, unless its Johnny Miller. Then its, "That was a poor shot. What I always did was [anecdote about his playing days and a shout out to his 65 children]. And, on the very rare occasion when I did hit a bad shot, I never cussed." Zzzz. I can only think of a handful of instances where a player took a risky decision (and pulled the shot off) and still got criticized. Celebrated for the physical skill, but not the thinking. Its easy to criticize the shot when its rattling in the trees, but I can think of two shots Phil did 1) skipping a ball across the water and 2) playing a shot backwards from a hill that were absolutely idiotic, but did manage to work. No criticism.
I think tennis is also helped by having good players right now. Fed's the best of all time. Nadal is best on clay of all time. Murray is rising (the McIlroy of tennis!). Djokovic is solid. Roddick can cause issues for the best.
Let's face it -- after Tiger, we have a bunch of suck. And Tiger couldn't be more boring if he tried. I can't remember who said it, but the quote was "Tiger is a 50-year old white man trapped in a black man's body." I thought it was perfect.
Seriously, Jim Courier is also a good announcer and he, John and Patrick MacEnroe are way more compelling announcers than Wadkins, Strange, or Venturi ever were for golf. No disrespect for previous triumvirate as players, but they were awful as announcers. Faldo and Miller are tolerable.
I'm a longtime tennis fan and player who's been to a dozen US Opens and the current crop of announcers really get into the players' minds and don't say the obvious things the golf announcers do - like he's got plenty of green to work with. Ouch.
Maybe it's an age thing - tennis players retire much earlier and are still pretty young so they're not always saying back in the day we did things like this or that or way back when FIGJAM.
Golf is just plain not made for TV broadcasting and made worse by the blimps, CEOs, mush pieces and commercials, plus there is just way too much downtime towards the end of a round when there are fewer players to cover.
Even if you got rid of all that mush, which would be a godsend, the pace is just too slow.
If TV sets get even bigger and sharper and somehow, networks figure out a way to track the entire shot trajectory from the golfers POV without a big arrow *and* viewers can switch from hole to hole, that would make watching alot more compelling.
I'm done with Feherty and McCord too. Both are clearly knowledgable and capable, and used to be funny, but their acts have worn thin and it's tiring to constantly have to wade through all the BS to get to the analysis.
I think Johnny Miller is great.
No, Geoff, you are not...please keep pounding on this topic...televised golf is in bad shape.
BTW, have you seen the new edition of The Book? Nice! But whose getting the royalties?
E.B. White,
for this evening.
You never wrote about the pluralization of proper nouns.
Anyway, in the discussion above, Strunk is correct. As for the apostrophe: numbers, maybe. Proper names, no.
Not really important or pertinent, I guess, but, hey -- blogs are the new books, God help us, so we might as well get it right! You know, for posterity's sake. A posterity that will undoubtedly peruse this comments section with slack-jawed wonder at the greatness that was Western civilization in the early 21st century.
I very much enjoy your commentary on the PGA European Tour events. However, In connection with Rory McIlroy's choice of driver on the 6th hole at Crans, while you were within your rights to criticize that choice of club and astutely supported your point by questioning how many times Rory could have made the shot if he had a bucket of balls, your statement that Rory's caddy was at fault and was not up to the level of Tour caddies was a gratuitous insult and unfair to the caddy. You had no idea what the caddy suggested to Rory and had no basis for making the statement. When you are on the public airwaves, you have an obligation to treat people fairly. Rory is 20 years old and like other 20 year olds sometimes makes decisions on his own despite what others around him may think or recommend, all the more so because he is exceptionally talented and has confidence in his ability.Controlling a 20 year old is not an easy task. With the passage of time Rory will become more sensitive to risk-reward analysis and thereby lower his already low scores.