Greg Norman Out as FOX Sports Lead Golf Analyst

[jbishop15]

15 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

You don't think that Buck has the capability to improve this year?  It was his first time (with golf) as well.

He'll improve somewhat but he's just a poor announcer in general. 

[mchepp]

14 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

You don't think that Buck has the capability to improve this year?  It was his first time (with golf) as well.

I will admit some of Buck's hand offs were tragic. He does that pretty well in football and baseball but he is generally handing off to one person. In golf there were like 4-5 hand offs he needed to make and often the person, most often Norman had no idea what to say. Like he would sometimes just ask Greg's opinion without any background. Like "what do you think Greg"? Uhhhhh....yeah, I think... Just bad.

I will say, I think Azinger will do better with the poor hand off, due to his experience in the booth but Buck has to get better at handing off. 

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

You don't think that Buck has the capability to improve this year?  It was his first time (with golf) as well.

Buck has to work at it, golf isn't baseball or football.  I'm not an expert but I'd guess that golf is tougher because it's so produced.

In football and baseball you can get into a tempo, you're watching the game and you know when there's going to be action and a lull.  With golf, the production truck is covering the entire course and Buck has to be able to react to the shots as the producers are sending clips to his screen.

[Gunther]

It seems not many watched the LPGA US Open.  Fox's coverage improved dramatically in only their 2nd big event.  To the point that I dubbed it already the best golf coverage on TV.  Adding Zinger is only going to help them get that much further ahead.  

Buck is awesome, effects fantastic, but most important, they seemed to have more cameras and provided much more coverage of golf shots than the othe networks.  Maybe 12-15 shots between commercials where NBC might have 4 or 5.  Fewer packages and less watching the player analyze putts.  Shot to shot to shot.  I thought it was great and I have no doubt they'll be even better this year.

[nevets88]

To add insult to injury, Azinger also denied Norman a major with an unlikely holeout. 

[natureboy]

8 hours ago, nevets88 said:

To add insult to injury, Azinger also denied Norman a major with an unlikely holeout. 

I'm sure someone else will pick him up for something so he can season a bit as a broadcaster. He's got a pretty full plate with his businesses so I don't think he's gonna suffer too badly.

[Golfingdad]

17 hours ago, newtogolf said:

Buck has to work at it, golf isn't baseball or football.  I'm not an expert but I'd guess that golf is tougher because it's so produced.

In football and baseball you can get into a tempo, you're watching the game and you know when there's going to be action and a lull.  With golf, the production truck is covering the entire course and Buck has to be able to react to the shots as the producers are sending clips to his screen.

I'm not an expert either, but I think you're making a very unfair comparison.  Buck has been doing baseball and football for many, many years, and he'd been doing golf, basically, for ONE TOURNAMENT.  I don't think he broadcasted the World Series or Super Bowl before having a lot of experience in regular games.  Given that, I think he did quite well, and expect nothing but improvement for this year.

16 hours ago, Gunther said:

It seems not many watched the LPGA US Open.  Fox's coverage improved dramatically in only their 2nd big event.  To the point that I dubbed it already the best golf coverage on TV.  Adding Zinger is only going to help them get that much further ahead.  

Buck is awesome, effects fantastic, but most important, they seemed to have more cameras and provided much more coverage of golf shots than the othe networks.  Maybe 12-15 shots between commercials where NBC might have 4 or 5.  Fewer packages and less watching the player analyze putts.  Shot to shot to shot.  I thought it was great and I have no doubt they'll be even better this year.

You reminded me of the real disappointment of last years US Open production, and it was the difficulties they had following the ball, not the announcers.  The ball would get airborne and the camera would just lose it, or they'd cut to another camera that hadn't found it.  That was frustrating.  But it's another item that I fully expect them to be better at this year.  And like you said, they already improved immensely for the Womens Open and for the Senior Open.

Further, I believe it was @mchepp who pointed out that the ball following issues were likely more to do with Chambers Bay than Fox, as he'd remembered a US Amateur on NBC from a few years back having the same issue.

I'm very excited for Oakmont this year and not at all worried about Fox.  I wasn't worried even when Norman was still involved either. 

[Patch]

I voted not sure. Then again  I don't watch that much TV golf as it is. When I do, the mute button is usually doing  it's job. 

[ghalfaire]

I am not sure if it is a good move or not.  Depends upon who replaces Greg.

[natureboy]

8 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

You reminded me of the real disappointment of last years US Open production, and it was the difficulties they had following the ball, not the announcers.  The ball would get airborne and the camera would just lose it, or they'd cut to another camera that hadn't found it.  That was frustrating.

This has me wondering, did you find watching the pro tracer shots any less exciting than the following the ball shots? I'd much rather they not try to follow the ball and be able to show it landing and coming to rest versus trying to track it and lose it so you don't know what's going on.

I figure the following the ball in the air shot developed as a way to add some dynamic motion to golf telecasts to make them more 'exciting' or add the element of motion in other sports. Personally, a ball flying against a background of sky or trees with no context doesn't really add anything because I can't see where it's going relative to the target. Sure it's cool that you can see how fast it's going, but one of these camera shots out of 10 would be enough for me plus maybe a few overhead blimp shots thrown in. I'd rather a whole lot of pro tracer shots from the tee, green, or drive landing area perspectives because it tells me a lot more about whether it was a good or not good shot and that gives me more immediate information about the impact on a player's round and their position in the tournament.

[boogielicious]

8 hours ago, natureboy said:

This has me wondering, did you find watching the pro tracer shots any less exciting than the following the ball shots? I'd much rather they not try to follow the ball and be able to show it landing and coming to rest versus trying to track it and lose it so you don't know what's going on.

I figure the following the ball in the air shot developed as a way to add some dynamic motion to golf telecasts to make them more 'exciting' or add the element of motion in other sports. Personally, a ball flying against a background of sky or trees with no context doesn't really add anything because I can't see where it's going relative to the target. Sure it's cool that you can see how fast it's going, but one of these camera shots out of 10 would be enough for me plus maybe a few overhead blimp shots thrown in. I'd rather a whole lot of pro tracer shots from the tee, green, or drive landing area perspectives because it tells me a lot more about whether it was a good or not good shot and that gives me more immediate information about the impact on a player's round and their position in the tournament.

I like the shot tracer because I shows me how the best players in the world set up and the ball flight they use. It can be over done, but unless the sky is perfectly blue, it is hard to follow the ball. I do like when the cut over the the ball in mid flight and show the landing. 

[Marty2019]

On 1/19/2016 at 6:14 PM, newtogolf said:

There was plenty of blame to go around at Fox, Norman was only partially responsible for a poor initial effort by Fox.  I know everyone loves Joe Buck but he struggled and I think that impacted Norman.

I'm not sure Azinger does much better if Buck is still in the booth.  I also hope they do something better with Holly as those interviews were painful to sit through with the volume on.

The only problem I have with Holly Sonders is that she is incredibly distracting.   When she does an interview, I'm so hypnotized, it's like the interviewee is talking but they could be speaking in French.  

It was the same way when she was on the Golf Channel with Martin Hall.  He'd be explaining how to hit more 6 foot putts, but she'd be standing there on camera and I'd be so focused on her, it would be like Martin Hall wasn't even there. 

 

[colin007]

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I like the shot tracer because I shows me how the best players in the world set up and the ball flight they use. It can be over done, but unless the sky is perfectly blue, it is hard to follow the ball. I do like when the cut over the the ball in mid flight and show the landing. 

 

ProTracer FTMFW.  i love it.  i think it should be used 300% more.  i also love the overhead shots from way out that show the curvature of the ball and the whole flight with the hole.

[nevets88]

Azinger it is.

Paul Azinger to take over lead golf analyst role at Fox Sports

Quote

Azinger will sign a multi-year contract and will partner in the booth with Joe Buck. Their producer is Mark Loomis, who as the coordinating producer at ABC made the decision at the 2004 Tour Championship to team Azinger and Faldo, along with anchor Mike Tirico. 

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/paul-azinger-to-take-over-lead-golf-analyst-role-at-fox-sports

 

Fish Out of Water: The Shark Sinks

Ouch. Tough assessment, but accurate imho.

Quote

The Shark was touted as the new voice—the man best able to provide the overview during the telecast given his prominent standing in the game as a top tier player for many years. The sad reality is that Greg was ill-prepared for the role. During key moments of the ’15 U.S. Open he failed to add anything of depth or meaning, often with long periods of silence and when eventually speaking only doing so in reaction to what others were saying. In short, the man who was hailed initially as a new voice had developed self-inflicted bouts of stage fright and allowed key moment after key moment to simply go unnoticed. Often when Norman did speak his contributions were fairly pedestrian in scope and limited in his overall golf knowledge of the different players—save those from his native land of Australia.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1949307-fish-out-of-water-the-shark-sinks/

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, nevets88 said:

Azinger it is.

Paul Azinger to take over lead golf analyst role at Fox Sports

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/paul-azinger-to-take-over-lead-golf-analyst-role-at-fox-sports

 

Fish Out of Water: The Shark Sinks

Ouch. Tough assessment, but accurate imho.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1949307-fish-out-of-water-the-shark-sinks/

The assessment is accurate - but in fairness I think the reaction should be tempered given the fact that he was only given ONE chance.  We get on NFL owners for having quick triggers and firing high profile coaches after only two seasons - but this was basically one game.

That said, they're in good hands with Azinger.

[nevets88]

Off topic

Spoiler

Never thought I'd be quoting the Epoch Times for golf. Weird. But it does tend to be all over the place.

 

[nevets88]