Does a lead analyst need to have a major on the résumé?

[nevets88]

Just reposting a poll that was in Geoff Shackelford's blog. Try and vote before reading the results of his poll. If the answer is no, than is it multiple wins, 1 win, no wins, or just someone who is charismatic, smart and good with words with a deep knowledge of all aspects of the game will do?

[Golfingdad]

No wins are necessary.  Notah Begay could become a fine lead analyst IF he could develop all of those other characteristics. ;)

[NCGolfer]

No.  The only thing they can't talk about are the feelings they had down the stretch in a major but they can still reflect on the feelings, anxiety, etc.

I just prefer a solid person that can call a spade a spade and not try and elevate themselves over the people they are talking about.

[krupa]

Not so long as he's insightful and well-spoken.

[Ernest Jones]

No majors required. Just be good at what you do on air. Some of the current major winners get a little too wrapped up in telling "their" story instead of "the" story. 

I have to say though, I love Faldo. Big, goofy ass Brit. Sometimes he's absolutely hilarious. Think he would be a fun guy to share some adult beverages with. 

[jamo]

It would probably help, but I wouldn't say it's required.

[David in FL]

No.  The qualities you mentioned are much more important than wins, major or otherwise.

[rehmwa]

Personality and delivery.  Presentable.

that's about it - keep the audience engaged and that's a good rep.

[iacas]

I voted yes, because if the poll actually asked what it says everyone should vote no. So I took it more as an "is it important" and I think it is.

[David in FL]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

I voted yes, because if the poll actually asked what it says everyone should vote no. So I took it more as an "is it important" and I think it is.

I'm curious.  Why?  What does a major winner bring to the table solely a result of having won a major?

[dennyjones]

I agree with the majority of the group, a major win isn't required.  I want the lead analyst to personable, knowledgeable and entertaining.   

 

This isn't a requirement in other sports, although it helps.   Al Michaels, and Mike Tirico are exceptions but most are at least ex-players. 

Edited July 12, 2017 by dennyjones

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I'm curious.  Why?  What does a major winner bring to the table solely a result of having won a major?

Knowledge and experience, which I think is important for a lead analyst.

[JxQx]

I voted no, I feel it is pretty irrelevant but that's because I don't put any weight on how analysts think other players feel. People feel/handle situations differently. I'd say it'd be better if the analysts knew the players very well more so than won a major (playing in one is though), then they would have a better idea on thought process, emotions, etc.

[jamo]

16 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

I agree with the majority of the group, a major win isn't required.  I want the lead analyst to personable, knowledgeable and entertaining.   

 

This isn't a requirement in other sports, although it helps.   Al Michaels, and Mike Tirico are exceptions but most are at least ex-players. 

They're not analysts though, they're color commentators.

[skydog]

Yea like @iacas said, I voted based on 'is it important' and I think the answer is yes. I think it adds more credibility  to the commentator and allows them to speak their mind (within reason) without fear of the 'well he never won a major' trump card from detractors.

It's a  problematic example but I'll use the example of Brandel Chamblee. He's well spoken and knowledgeable about the game (at least the history...not trying to debate his knowledge of the swing) but the credibility of his comments is always drawn into question because his lack of a resume. Now of course he has made some outlandish comments to get attention (like I said, problematic example) but he makes plenty of well thought out arguments as well that lose credibility because he never did much with his career and people are quick to point that out.

Edited July 12, 2017 by skydog

[David in FL]

59 minutes ago, iacas said:

Knowledge and experience, which I think is important for a lead analyst.

I agree that knowledge and experience is important, but how does winning a major add to that?  Hell, John Daly won 2.

 

15 minutes ago, skydog said:

Yea like @iacas said, I voted based on 'is it important' and I think the answer is yes. I think it adds more credibility  to the commentator and allows them to speak their mind (within reason) without fear of the 'well he never won a major' trump card from detractors.

It's a  problematic example but I'll use the example of Brandel Chamblee. He's well spoken and knowledgeable about the game (at least the history...not trying to debate his knowledge of the swing) but the credibility of his comments is always drawn into question because his lack of a resume. Now of course he has made some outlandish comments to get attention (like I said, problematic example) but he makes plenty of well thought out arguments as well that lose credibility because he never did much with his career and people are quick to point that out.

There can be a big difference between "never did much", and "not winning a major"...

Edited July 12, 2017 by David in FL

[MRR]

 

22 minutes ago, skydog said:

Yea like @iacas said, I voted based on 'is it important' and I think the answer is yes. I think it adds more credibility  to the commentator and allows them to speak their mind (within reason) without fear of the 'well he never won a major' trump card from detractors.

10 hours ago, NCGolfer said:

No.  The only thing they can't talk about are the feelings they had down the stretch in a major but they can still reflect on the feelings, anxiety, etc.

I think both those opinions state the same thing and give a perfect example of why one would say "yes" or "no".  Personally, I hate the "he's afraid", "here's how I felt" part of the commentating.  Since that is pretty much the only reason that winning at all is beneficial, I voted no.  I'd rather listen to a well-spoken individual than someone who has simply "won".

Those out there who voted "yes";  good, you are their intended market.  It's not like I'm going to turn off the TV just because I dislike a single announcer.  Two of them together?  Maybe.  But my money won't be missed.

I watch the LPGA a lot and despise the former-player-commentary almost as much as the moronic "how well does the caddie know the player" shtick.

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I agree that knowledge and experience is important, but how does winning a major add to that?

Uhhhhh… do you have the knowledge or experience of winning a major?

Neither do others who haven't.