What do you think of Fox network coverage?

[Bucki1968]

I'm curious what everyone on these boards thinks of Fox 's coverage of the US Open? I have reserved judgement until this year, but I just don't think they do a good job. I'm not sure Joe Buck is a golf commentator. I do like Paul Azinger. It looked to me like Curtis Strange had some trouble with the interview with Brooks at the award ceremony. Holly Sonders is great to look at but I don't see the point of going to all those break away's to show some story about a player or something about various golf holes. I personally would like to see it go back to NBC or even ABC.

[Groucho Valentine]

Joe buck is unnatural commenting on golf. But besides that foxs commentary is about the same as any of the others. Fox's attempts to do "new" things in how golf is covered just come off as a juvenile attempt of trying to hard to me. 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Groucho Valentine

[zipazoid]

Given Fox only does one tournament a year, I thought they did pretty well. I've read a lot of people ragging on Joe Buck, but he was fine, imo. Basically stayed out of the way & didn't over-commentate. I thought Holly Sonders was basically the extension of the trend started by other networks of having a babe in a tight dress standing in front of graphics to show off her rockin' bod....sort of like the weather chicks on local TV stations.

Ken Brown's bits were very informative & I like his wit. Azinger came off kind of grumpy to me, Faxon seemed a little more charitable.

Loved the use of graphics, shot tracer & the like. That especially works well on a 'featureless' course like Erin Hills where it's not clear where the fairway or green was.

But in all, and given it's their only golf event they do, it was fine.

[dave s]

Not a fan of FOX golf coverage either.  It doesn't flow because they try to cram too much 'action' into every telecast minute. Compared to CBS and Golf Channel, I'd put FOX a distant 3rd.

Joe Buck is a baseball announcer by trade--not a golf guy.  The other reporters don't seem to have much of a rapport with the players, either.  I guess you can't show up one week out of the season and expect to have much of a relationship with the PGA Tour in general. Lack of relationship with Tour players comes across during the telecast and in interviews.

At the end of the day, (and like everything else) it's all about the money.  FOX bid the most $$ for US Open broadcast rights and have it for a long time. Let's all be thankful they didn't get The Masters.

[jamo]

I thought it was fine. Just fine. Nothing jumped out at me as particularly great or particularly bad.

[DeadMan]

I think Fox is just barely behind NBC for the best golf coverage. They are miles ahead of CBS. The only negative for me with them is that I don't like Joe Buck (but I don't like Nantz, at all, either, so it's a wash). Positives:

1. Great use of graphics and protracer - this is so much better than showing a golf ball against the sky.
2. I like or am neutral on all of their color guys.
3. They show a good amount of golf - not perfect, but miles ahead of CBS.
4. Brownie points segments were absolutely fanastic
5. Kept the fluff to a minimum, in my view. No shots of people fixing a hole for 5 minutes, fewer prerecorded human interest segments, and no swing analysis.

They showed golf, and lots of golf. I don't think I had any problems with their Sunday coverage beyond Joe Buck. I don't care about players' girlfriends or anything like that, so it doesn't bother me if they get that stuff wrong.

Edited June 19, 2017 by DeadMan

[nevets88]

Yeah, I'd have to say it was fine too despite all the words written on this the broadcasts on all channels are equally tired and hackneyed because the announcers have been there forever and aren't exactly a breathe of fresh air. 

The big difference is the number of shots where the trajectory was shown. I still want to see the actual ball's flight in full but if that's possible that's a long way off. The audio occasionally cut out on me too, which was annoying. Glad to hear the birds from Augusta made it over. 

[MRR]

6 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

I think Fox is just barely behind NBC for the best golf coverage. They are miles ahead of CBS. The only negative for me with them is that I don't like Joe Buck (but I don't like Nantz, at all, either, so it's a wash). Positives:

1. Great use of graphics and protracer - this is so much better than showing a golf ball against the sky.
2. I like or am neutral on all of their color guys.
3. They show a good amount of golf - not perfect, but miles ahead of CBS.
4. Brownie points segments were absolutely fanastic
5. Kept the fluff to a minimum, in my view. No shots of people fixing a hole for 5 minutes, fewer prerecorded human interest segments, and no swing analysis.

They showed golf, and lots of golf. I don't think I had any problems with their Sunday coverage beyond Joe Buck. I don't care about players' girlfriends or anything like that, so it doesn't bother me if they get that stuff wrong.

I'm not even sure one can compare a network's single coverage of a Major event to another network that covers minor events every week.  Frankly, I was hoping for a bit more out of Fox since the event was a Major, but still forgave them a lot because it's their only event.  But your points are well noted.

Something about the flow of it seemed off to me.  I cannot say if that made it worse or if it was just that I'm used to NBC's style.

1. Agreed.

3. Absolutely

5. Never cared for swing analysis, so I enjoyed the lack.  Human Interest is so hit or miss that I'm glad they didn't gamble.

 

All in all, I think the coverage was quite good.  Some of the commentary was rough, but I can forgive it.

 

Now if we can get the LPGA coverage to be similar instead of ridiculous game show moments of how much a caddie knows about the golfer.

[zipazoid]

My wife provides an interesting perspective on the quality of a golf telecast, since she really doesn't know many of the announcers by name, but she does have her favorite players (Rory, Ricky, Sneeeedeker). 

At one point, she said to me, "Who in the hell is Paul Azinger?" I said why, what did he say? "He just seems a little douchey to me...ragging on the players."

So I gave her a little bio on Zinger, mentioned that he overcame cancer & won again, that he was a scrappy player who loved knocking off the Greg Normans of the world.

She then Google'd him & told me, "Okay...he's a cancer survivor. He's okay in my book."

Edited June 19, 2017 by zipazoid

[Hacker James]

1 hour ago, Bucki1968 said:

I'm curious what everyone on these boards thinks of Fox 's coverage of the US Open? I have reserved judgement until this year, but I just don't think they do a good job. I'm not sure Joe Buck is a golf commentator. I do like Paul Azinger. It looked to me like Curtis Strange had some trouble with the interview with Brooks at the award ceremony. Holly Sonders is great to look at but I don't see the point of going to all those break away's to show some story about a player or something about various golf holes. I personally would like to see it go back to NBC or even ABC.

maybe that is the point.

[nevets88]

My takeways? I learned a little bit about hay and balloon blimps. 

[rehmwa]

They did a great job:

1 - much more plain english commentary without all the stupid "golf shot" "of the golf ball" type comments the other guys litter their comments with.  Fox cleaned it up a ton since last year.

2 - I LIKE the tracer, and the graphics.  Big improvement.  Would like to see more.

3 - good balance of watching a lot of players

4 - they didn't artificially try to manufacture sets of contention or drama, even just let the players hit without constant chatter - that's nice.

5 - The winner of it all will be the network that can filter out the 'get in the hole' comments - and that annoying airplane constantly droning - hope that pilot loses his advertising permits.  And, the winning putt of Brooks - seriously, one asshole just HAD to scream out during a 16 inch putt?  it would have been great to have silence, let it fall, and THEN the whole crowd shouts out.  COmpletely ruined the scene and the moment. Jacka$$.

Personalities:

1 - Zinger - seriously, he looked constipated the entire time, couldn't tell if he dislikes the other people and players or just has resting annoyed face.  He looks a bit like the Church Lady from SNL.  Does he hate Curtis Strange?  or is that just how he looks all the time?

2 - Faxon - good commentator, I think players responded to him well also.

4 - Buck - he tries, but I don't think this is his comfort zone

5 - Holly - good on her for staying with it as an example of fitness in life.  But the poor woman isn't really attractive like she was before all the plastic work.  She was great as natural and fit.  plastic and fit is just really, really wrong. Not much added value to the interviews.  Fox didn't give her a chance, or her ability to ask good questions is weak.

6 - Interviews - good player interviews.

7 - the color coverage (Brownie, etc) was a lot of fun actually

Edited June 19, 2017 by rehmwa

[iacas]

1 hour ago, zipazoid said:

Given Fox only does one tournament a year, I thought they did pretty well.

They cover all of the USGA's tournaments.

[Shindig]

I think it was fine.  Not great, certainly nowhere near as high quality as the first major of the year.  But Fox is getting better.

Best thing they can do without having to hire new talent at the network would be to replace Buck with someone else.  In another thread, I nominated Darrell Waltrip.  Both he and Buck work for Fox in other endeavors, and I think Waltrip would be much better for the Open, even though he's (understandably) busy elsewhere that day.

[WUTiger]

6 hours ago, rehmwa said:

4. Buck - he tries, but I don't think this is his comfort zone

6 hours ago, dave s said:

Joe Buck is a baseball announcer by trade--not a golf guy. 

Some guys just don't do golf very well, Buck being one of them. Back here in StL, there's another very good TV sports reporter named Rene Knott. (He had a dangerous bout with lung disorder circa 2015 - fortunately he had recovered). He's good on most sports, but I cringe when Rene shows up to cover local golf events. He churns out generic who's in the lead stuff which can be used for any sport, but doesn't seem to grasp deeper elements of golf.

[nevets88]

When Buck said there are a lot of minuses on the leaderboard, did that sound strange to you? Seems like I've gotten used to most announcers saying lots of red figures or players under par or something like that.

 

Maybe we've been conditioned or expect to hear certain turn of phrases and that Buck doesn't do that it sounds "funny".

[David in FL]

-  Joe Buck is terrible.

-  Even though it's a little rough, the increased use of shot tracker is nice.

-  Holly Sonders is fun to watch, as long as you turn the volume off so you can't hear her speak.

 

[Topper]

9 hours ago, DeadMan said:

I think Fox is just barely behind NBC for the best golf coverage. They are miles ahead of CBS. The only negative for me with them is that I don't like Joe Buck (but I don't like Nantz, at all, either, so it's a wash). Positives:

1. Great use of graphics and protracer - this is so much better than showing a golf ball against the sky.
2. I like or am neutral on all of their color guys.
3. They show a good amount of golf - not perfect, but miles ahead of CBS.
4. Brownie points segments were absolutely fanastic
5. Kept the fluff to a minimum, in my view. No shots of people fixing a hole for 5 minutes, fewer prerecorded human interest segments, and no swing analysis.

They showed golf, and lots of golf. I don't think I had any problems with their Sunday coverage beyond Joe Buck. I don't care about players' girlfriends or anything like that, so it doesn't bother me if they get that stuff wrong.

Nice post. Pretty much sums it up. As much as I love the endless shots of a golf ball in the sky, the extensive use of sky tracker was a nice change. And I can wait until CBS coverage to get a year's worth of commercials and fluff in a single event.