New Graphic on NBC Telecasts

[Golfingdad]

And I'm sorry, but the whole "explaining what par" is argument is ridiculous.  The new graphic doesn't "explain" it,

I'm all for educating people new to the game, but I think you have to assume that viewers have some sort of basic knowledge of the sport when they tune in, and I would argue that putting 1  2  3  4   on the screen actually makes it MORE confusing to the casual viewer than just putting Par 4 up there like they used to.

I don't know that I'd agree 1 2 3 4 is more confusing than Par 4 ... but I do agree that it's not less confusing for the really casual viewers.  If somebody doesn't know what par is, they're not going to intuitively know what 1 2 3 4 is either.  It's only because I generally know the basics about golf that I can figure out, without explanation, what the new graphic signifies.

Over time, though, people may learn, but no graphic is going to help somebody who doesn't even know what par means.

[ejimsmith]

I too ini

I don't know that I'd agree 1 2 3 4 is more confusing than Par 4 ... but I do agree that it's not less confusing for the really casual viewers.  If somebody doesn't know what par is, they're not going to intuitively know what 1 2 3 4 is either.  It's only because I generally know the basics about golf that I can figure out, without explanation, what the new graphic signifies.

Over time, though, people may learn, but no graphic is going to help somebody who doesn't even know what par means.

you're really stretching your argument here.  find me someone that doesn't know what par means?  you won't find them.  i'll even let you include people that have never seen golf before, and bet they know what par means.

and if, somehow, you find an alien that crash landed on earth, has never seen a human before, that we can agree doesn't know what par means, would take about 30 seconds to figure it out and never need to know again.

extra and redundant information doesn't help, it hurts.  if they have a graphic that says '2nd shot', and also have a 2 with a circle around it, that must mean something different because why would they need to tell me the same thing twice?

i'd rather see more of the golf then have the top-right corner of my tv overloaded with redundant information.

[Golfingdad]

you're really stretching your argument here.  find me someone that doesn't know what par means?  you won't find them.  i'll even let you include people that have never seen golf before, and bet they know what par means.

and if, somehow, you find an alien that crash landed on earth, has never seen a human before, that we can agree doesn't know what par means, would take about 30 seconds to figure it out and never need to know again.

extra and redundant information doesn't help, it hurts.  if they have a graphic that says '2nd shot', and also have a 2 with a circle around it, that must mean something different because why would they need to tell me the same thing twice?

i'd rather see more of the golf then have the top-right corner of my tv overloaded with redundant information.

I'm not sure you understood what I wrote.

1. I wasn't making MY argument with that post, I was agreeing with albatross that 1 2 3 4 would not help somebody who didn't know what par means.
2. I also never suggested that there were any people out there that don't know what par means, just that if there were, the new graphic wouldn't help them.  Again, that is not advancing my argument in the least.
3. Thanks for telling me that it's redundant and some people do not like tiny TV graphics in the corner of the screen that block out a few fans and a couple of bushes.  I totally did not know that.  I wish somebody would have mentioned that before in this thread.

[iacas]

It's grown on me. But only in situations where they don't use the bottom area to day something like "for birdie" when 3 is highlighted out of 4. Or "2nd shot" when the 2 is highlighted. In those cases it's still dumb. Like this, I think is fine.

[DEsler]

I too ini

you're really stretching your argument here.  find me someone that doesn't know what par means?  you won't find them.  i'll even let you include people that have never seen golf before, and bet they know what par means.

and if, somehow, you find an alien that crash landed on earth, has never seen a human before, that we can agree doesn't know what par means, would take about 30 seconds to figure it out and never need to know again.

extra and redundant information doesn't help, it hurts.  if they have a graphic that says '2nd shot', and also have a 2 with a circle around it, that must mean something different because why would they need to tell me the same thing twice?

i'd rather see more of the golf then have the top-right corner of my tv overloaded with redundant information.

I've met several people who have told me they do not know what par means.  I don't know why you would just assume everyone knows what par means.  Most people probably have heard the term but that does not mean they know what it really means.  The world is a big place and believe it or not, golf is not a universally understood sport.

To the question about where I was when golf was on and I had no idea about what was going on, the one that sticks out to me was during the 2012 Ryder cup and I was at the South Point sports book in Vegas to watch football.  Every NFL game was on as was the Ryder cup and I had no clue what was going on if I didn't ask.  There have been other occasions in clubhouses where the sound was down and it was just basically people hitting shots but that was several years ago.

I think it's fine but if you guys really don't like it, here is a list of contacts at NBC sports.

http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/sports/nbcsports/contacts

[Ernest Jones]

I've stayed out of this debate as I didn't get to watch any golf last weekend but I've been watching all day today and I like the new graphic. It's clean, concise and quick to read.

[Missouri Swede]

I've met several people who have told me they do not know what par means.  I don't know why you would just assume everyone knows what par means.  Most people probably have heard the term but that does not mean they know what it really means.  The world is a big place and believe it or not, golf is not a universally understood sport.

But is the graphic being put up for those people who don't know what par means?  If they don't even know one of the basic terms of golf scoring, then is that the target audience?

My first thought would be that people who don't even know "par" won't be the people watching TGC/NBC (in which case, don't design the graphics for them).

Unless the suggestion is that this is a form of "outreach" to those who wouldn't otherwise watch golf; to make the game a little more understandable to those who are watching it in passing (e.g., sports bar, sports book, visiting the home of a relative who's watching).

[DEsler]

But is the graphic being put up for those people who don't know what par means?  If they don't even know one of the basic terms of golf scoring, then is that the target audience?

My first thought would be that people who don't even know "par" won't be the people watching TGC/NBC (in which case, don't design the graphics for them).

Unless the suggestion is that this is a form of "outreach" to those who wouldn't otherwise watch golf; to make the game a little more understandable to those who are watching it in passing (e.g., sports bar, sports book, visiting the home of a relative who's watching).

That was just my guess when I first saw it. I could be completely off base.  It just follows what I know of the "logic pattern" of TV executives.

[Steelhead]

Thank you I thought it was just me How ridiculous How many times do I need to to see 3,and then 3rd shot,and then for birdie Displaying 1 on a tee shot is absolutely the worst Really? It's his first shot? Thank you so much for clarifying that

[albatross]

Thank you

I thought it was just me

How ridiculous

How many times do I need to to see 3,and then 3rd shot,and then for birdie

Displaying 1 on a tee shot is absolutely the worst

Really? It's his first shot? Thank you so much for clarifying that

Ha ha.  This guy gets it ^^

[9iron]

And here is yet another way they've displayed it.  So now we're talking about showing it 3 different ways.  This one has the number 2 highlighted AND it says second shot underneath it. This one doesn't say it's a Par 4.  The old way told you everything you needed to know. That can't be argued. The old graphic told you the hole number,  par for the hole, the distance, and what shot the player was taking.  That's all you need, even with the volume off.

Correct. This graphic doesn't tell us any more than the old graphics told us. I can tell from this new graphic that this is a par 4 hole, but I would have also known that from the old graphic. I would add that you either have to know how this system works OR they have to include the bottom line telling you that this is the second shot. Merely highlighting the 2 would make me ask if he is laying 2 or if this is his 2nd shot.

Highlighting the 1 on the tee shot isn't telling the viewer anything they wouldn't already know. The tee shot is obviously always the first shot.

[9iron]

As a UI, user interface, designer I think its a great way to display the par for the hole.  You dont always know if a player is shooting his second to the green or had to punch out from the trees...

This graphic tells you instantly what the par is and how many strokes the player is on.

Its relevance to everybody watching the telecast, unlike some stat that 90% of the TV audience doesn't understand or need to know.

If the graphic shows Tiger Woods hitting into a a par 4 from 171 yards with the 3 highlighted and never once mentions how he is on his 3rd shot, are you going to be happy if they don't show you how the player got into trouble? If they never mention his sideways punch out from the trees, might you think they are mistaken and that he is really hitting 2? Because if he is truly hitting 3 then aren't you going to expect them to show you what happened? How he hit his drive way right and had to punch out?

You see where I'm going with this? The graphic will actually cause you confusion, perhaps even disbelief, if they don't back it up with some sort of explanation for why he is on 3 instead of 2. The explanation is somewhat required for the viewer to trust the graphic or at least understand what transpired. There is now way I'm happy knowing Woods is on his 3rd without them showing me what happened.

BTW, they use the same exact graphic in baseball.

[iacas]

It's grown on me. But only in situations where they don't use the bottom area to day something like "for birdie" when 3 is highlighted out of 4. Or "2nd shot" when the 2 is highlighted. In those cases it's still dumb.

The red situations still happen far too frequently.

Eliminate those and I can get on board with it.

[dsc123]

Maybe they just include both now as a bridge to the new graphic or as an explanation.  I like the new graphic, though.

[Golfingdad]

Correct. This graphic doesn't tell us any more than the old graphics told us. I can tell from this new graphic that this is a par 4 hole, but I would have also known that from the old graphic.

Right, I agree, but this conflicts with what you said in the next post.

I would add that you either have to know how this system works OR they have to include the bottom line telling you that this is the second shot. Merely highlighting the 2 would make me ask if he is laying 2 or if this is his 2nd shot.

Highlighting the 1 on the tee shot isn't telling the viewer anything they wouldn't already know. The tee shot is obviously always the first shot.

These two statements directly conflict with each other.  If it's "obvious" that its his first shot when he's on the tee and the 1 is highlighted, then why would highlighting the 2 make you ask if he is laying 2 or if this is his second shot??

Originally Posted by 9iron

If the graphic shows Tiger Woods hitting into a a par 4 from 171 yards with the 3 highlighted and never once mentions how he is on his 3rd shot, are you going to be happy if they don't show you how the player got into trouble? If they never mention his sideways punch out from the trees, might you think they are mistaken and that he is really hitting 2? Because if he is truly hitting 3 then aren't you going to expect them to show you what happened? How he hit his drive way right and had to punch out?

You see where I'm going with this? The graphic will actually cause you confusion, perhaps even disbelief, if they don't back it up with some sort of explanation for why he is on 3 instead of 2. The explanation is somewhat required for the viewer to trust the graphic or at least understand what transpired. There is now way I'm happy knowing Woods is on his 3rd without them showing me what happened.

No, I don't understand where you are going with that at all. Old graphic or new graphic, you would know that it's a Par 4 and it's Tiger Woods' 3rd shot from 171 yards, you'd know the hole number and you'd know the length of the hole. Nothing more, nothing less. The new graphic requires no more "explanation" of how they got to the point they are than the old graphic.

The red situations still happen far too frequently.

Eliminate those and I can get on board with it.

Maybe they just include both now as a bridge to the new graphic or as an explanation.  I like the new graphic, though.

Yeah, I've wondered the exact same thing.  It does happen a lot, like Erik said, and perhaps that's all it is - an easy way for them to explain exactly what the new graphic is telling you.  Over time, perhaps they'll get rid of that portion of the bottom line because it's redundant, or perhaps they're just waiting to figure out what to replace it with.  Because that line is there anyway, showing the distance of the shot on the right edge.

On the other hand, I realize it doesn't matter all that much, because you can't rely on these graphics that much either way.  They cut between shots so frequently that sometimes the graphic never goes up at all.  I realized this over the weekend when I was trying to show it to my wife to get her take.  (She thinks watching golf on tv is really stupid so her opinion wouldn't matter anyway )

---

See what I did there Erik??

---

I said before that I'd be excited to find out what my ever-opinionated dad had to say on the subject, but @Ernest Jones I was highly disappointed.  He was entirely ambivalent.  "Uh, it's alright."  That was about the extent of it.

[Ernest Jones]

If the graphic shows Tiger Woods hitting into a a par 4 from 171 yards with the 3 highlighted and never once mentions how he is on his 3rd shot, are you going to be happy if they don't show you how the player got into trouble? If they never mention his sideways punch out from the trees, might you think they are mistaken and that he is really hitting 2? Because if he is truly hitting 3 then aren't you going to expect them to show you what happened? How he hit his drive way right and had to punch out?

You see where I'm going with this? The graphic will actually cause you confusion, perhaps even disbelief, if they don't back it up with some sort of explanation for why he is on 3 instead of 2. The explanation is somewhat required for the viewer to trust the graphic or at least understand what transpired. There is now way I'm happy knowing Woods is on his 3rd without them showing me what happened.

BTW, they use the same exact graphic in baseball.

The old graphic never told you what happened with the previous shot(s) either.

---

Just to be an a-hole I'm editing this post just to point out that @barney ****ed u p his formatting in his post!

BAN HIM!!!!!!!

[pumaAttack]

Wonder if CBS or ESPN does anything new with their graphics for the Masters.

[Golfingdad]

Wonder if CBS or ESPN does anything new with their graphics for the Masters.

Yeah, we've been on a bit of an NBC/TGC run lately so it will be interesting to see if CBS has any new tricks.

Then again, this new NBC graphic isn't earth shattering, so CBS will probably change nothing and nobody will care. :)