What Golf Announcers Could Learn from Wimbledon

[Scratch-Hopeful]

Yes, I'm over-reacting by posting a forum topic about it. Ooooh.

I'm only saying that you're overreacting (not even that much, should have included that) by saying that the golf announcers can learn from them. Sure, if the sports were similar from a broadcasting standpoint I could see where you were going with it but they just aren't. But I do agree with your final paragraph to an extent in that sometimes more of the actual sport needs to be shown (much like ESPN when they are covering pretty much any sport).

[nevets88]

In the NBC booth, there's 2 former tennis pros and one color guy, so there's less temptation for the color guy to talk nonstop. Speaking as a former avid tennis player, McEnroe and Carillo are very good announcers.

Miller/Faldo are good and way better than Venturi/Strange, imho, but McEnroe/Carillo are a tad better announcers than Miller/Faldo. This, talking from a tennis players point of view. They both make very good comments, for example, Rafa's choice of string tension and racket head size and how much time exactly is available to play before there's no light. Also better interviewers as well.

As someone said before, there is too much dead time during golf telecasts when the players have to walk to their ball or between putts or deliberate players and the American tendency, in this anti-intellectual climate, is to steer away from the silence that leads to thinking. That's my pet theory.

Tiger Wood's victory was pretty darn amazing, but the adrenaline rush during the mens final topped the US Open by just a hair. I'll be looking forward to the US Open more than I will the PGA provided we have another Federer/Nadal matchup. Nike is sure hoping for a Federer win to keep that Federer/Woods thing going.

[iacas]

As someone said before, there is too much dead time during golf telecasts when the players have to walk to their ball or between putts or deliberate players and the American tendency, in this anti-intellectual climate, is to steer away from the silence that leads to thinking. That's my pet theory.

Again, I wish people would read what I wrote. I'm not talking about during all four hours of coverage. I'm talking about during the waning moments, when it's all on the line. Let the drama unfold itself.

The tennis people weren't quiet the first two hours of the match - just the last 5-10 minutes. And that's all I'm asking golf announcers to learn here. After Tiger wedged onto the 18th green on Sunday, did we really need to hear anything from an announcer from that moment on until about a minute after he'd made the putt to force a playoff? No.

[Cleveland Gunmetal]

Again, I wish people would read what I wrote. I'm not talking about during all four hours of coverage. I'm talking about during the waning moments, when it's all on the line. Let the drama unfold itself.

I did read what you wrote

Yes, golf has more downtime between actual shots, but there's lots of things they could fill the time with. I'd love to hear more player-caddie conversations. They could even show MORE GOLF SHOTS rather than the four we see between commercial breaks nowadays. And golf doesn't have to have NO talking - I'd still like to know the yardages, the wind, and maybe what club someone finally chooses. But beyond that, I don't need to hear a bunch of talking. Let the drama of the moment sell itself more frequently.

Didn't you write this? Seems like you're talking about more than just the waning moments here.

I do understand your point. I agree with that. Tiger at Bay Hill or on Sunday at the US Open, no talking needed. My point is it doesn't necessarily come down to only one guy on the last hole or 2 guys going to down the 18th in a head to head situation like in tennis. I would like less talking during the dramatic moments. That isn't always just the last 5 minutes but those moments may be more difficult to capture. One example for me is the Koch 'better than most' call on Tiger's chip in on 16th at Augusta. Silence, with the crowd building up would have been perfect. And obviously nobody here is calling for no talking .

[iacas]

Didn't you write this? Seems like you're talking about more than just the waning moments here.

I did, yep, and that's my mistake. I too was getting off topic and wandering into general golf coverage. That's been discussed many times here, so it's not something I really want to get back into again.

What golf could learn from Wimbledon was strictly related to the "endgame" and the drama inherent in silence from the announcers.

[PianoSteve]

I'd love to hear more player-caddie conversations.

Yes, yes, yes!! I agree totally. I think a lot of us could learn so much by hearing those conversations, rather than commentators guessing about what the guy is thinking.

On the flipside, I wonder if making those player/caddie conversations audible would lead to a sharp increase in fines for onscreen profanity

[TCCcaddie]

I agree that there should be a little less talking but i love hear commentators like Jim Nantz and Bob Costas talk because they are really true wordsmiths. The way that they commentate is almost like poetry sometimes.

[Guest]

My wife made the comment some time ago about how it seems like the golf announcers are trying to sell you the game of golf. 99% of the people watching already know the game and how good these guys are, so every shot can't be the best one ever. Let the golf speak for its self.

I know plenty of guys who play but don't watch it on TV (only the highlights) because they "DRAMA IT UP" with all the talk, and then only show shots from 6 guys. I'd rather see David Duval hit bad shots then see Tiger's swing analized and compared to 20__'s swing 10 times a round.

I sometimes watch soccer ( I don't play it or care to) but I pretty much know that if these guys are at this level(on ESPN) they are probably better than average. I watch because its a sport(and probably no other sport I like better is on) not to be TALKED into liking it.