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

[David in FL]

Just now, iacas said:

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

Huh?  Of course not.  Neither do you, but that's not even remotely relevant to this discussion.

 The question remains.  What knowledge and experience do you think someone gets solely on the basis of winning a major that would make them a better analyst than someone who otherwise has the same credentials with that one exception?

I'm not arguing your opinion.  I'm just struggling to understand it.

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Huh?  Of course not.  Neither do you, but that's not even remotely relevant to this discussion.

Of course it is. The relevance is that an analyst who has never won a major championship has no knowledge or experience of what it takes or feels like or any of that to have won a major championship.

23 minutes ago, David in FL said:

The question remains.  What knowledge and experience do you think someone gets solely on the basis of winning a major that would make them a better analyst than someone who otherwise has the same credentials with that one exception?

Answered above.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, jamo said:

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

I certainly agree with your point, however, I think you got your lingo mixed up.  Analyst and color commentator are the same guy.  Michaels and Tirico are, I presume, called Lead commentators or lead announcers I think.

[jamo]

5 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I certainly agree with your point, however, I think you got your lingo mixed up.  Analyst and color commentator are the same guy.  Michaels and Tirico are, I presume, called Lead commentators or lead announcers I think.

You're right. Tirico and Michaels are play-by-play announcers.

[Golfingdad]

Just now, jamo said:

You're right. Tirico and Michaels are play-by-play announcers.

LOL ... I couldn't think of "play by play" this morning either.  Need more coffee.

BTW, @Ernest Jones brought up a good point - if said major winner is too focused on his experience, then I could see how not only is that not going to be helpful to the broadcast, but it could actually be a detriment.

[DaveP043]

I voted with the majority, I don't think a win in a major is necessary, the other qualifications (overall knowledge, personality, ability to speak clearly and concisely) are much more important.  I think significant experience as a tour pro is helpful, and familiarity with the players is a big plus.  I've heard major winners who are dull, or who speak in cliches, or who are all about their own experiences, and that's not helpful.   I think having contended in a major is a big plus, winning a major can add even more credibility, but to me having won a major isn't a requirement.

[Wally Fairway]

While I get Iacas point, I also don't really get it.
Because does that mean that they would be a better lead analyst for majors, whereas a tour winner would be just as good being a lead analyst for regular tour events?
But wait not all majors are the same - so could a PGA Champion winner really have insight on winning the Masters or the Open Championship? I mean they won "a" major - but not this major.

I think people can be insightful without having won - I think Phil can talk about pressure of winning a US Open, maybe even more than say Glover, G Mac, Simpson, etc. who have all won one.
Heck I think there are players who could talk about it more that Ben Curtis, Mike Weir or Shaun Micheel - but that's just me.

[JetFan1983]

Wow. I voted yes, and our side is currently losing 4 to 28?? Lol! Daaaaamn, well... at least we have Erik on our team. Time to form a phalanx and yell "this is Sparta," guys!

When it comes to stuff like golf instruction, I'm a firm believer in "playing ability does not equal teaching ability." They are two separate things, and people who believe in the mantra, "those who can do, do. Those who cannot, teach," are entirely misunderstanding that teaching in of itself is a talent all its own. 

And while I do think that applies to a large extent to lead analysis for a golf tournament, I also think it's important that said lead analyst has been through the meat grinder of a major tournament and ultimately -- Arnold from Predator style -- lived to tell the tale.

 Not only that, but I think if you have a major championship on your resume, you have more of a free reign to criticize the greatest players in the game without receiving petulant backlash from them. There's always the possibility that your criticism of their decisions will be thrown back in your face on the grounds that you never won one:

Now, is Rory right here? Probably not. But having won a major sort of gives one a magical twitter proof vest when throwing shade at golfers you think are screwing up. 

Now, granted I also believe that this theoretical major championship winning analyst also needs to actually be decent at, you know, analyzing stuff. Greg Norman is a pretty good example of someone with a major who was pretty bad as a commentator. But Johnny Miller, Nick Faldo? I think it brings something extra to the table that I as a viewer appreciate sometimes. So, while maybe it isn't 100% necessary, I do think it is a very important bullet point that firmly separates an analyst from others of his ilk. 

[StefanUrkel]

Absolutes are rarely correct statements

[ScouseJohnny]

Knowing how persnickety some people at the Sand Trap are about the "new ball flight rules" etc, I'd have thought such technical awareness would be far more important in a "lead analyst" than having won a major back in the day.  I'm pretty confident there are major winners out there still preaching the old mantras, if you asked them.

I know he's not a major winner, but he's still likely a better golfer than anyone at this board, and there are videos on Youtube of Poulter teaching the "how to hit a draw and bend it round the trees," by sharing concepts that would send some here into apoplexy.

Isn't a "lead analyst" (or any analyst) someone who can offer high-level objective analysis? Having played the game at the highest level may provide some of that expertise, but perhaps it isn't everything?

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by ScouseJohnny

[DaveP043]

30 minutes ago, JetFan1983 said:

There's always the possibility that your criticism of their decisions will be thrown back in your face on the grounds that you never won one:

 But having won a major sort of gives one a magical twitter proof vest when throwing shade at golfers you think are screwing up. 

This is where I differ from many of the other posters, I pay little to no attention to the twitter-verse.  I don't care if an announcer gets criticized, I care about the quality of his on-air work.  

Just a semi-related aside, I wonder if a analyst who has come close in a number of majors but never won might be an even better selection.  He can help explain how it feels to have things slip away, perhaps better than the guy who has won a few times.

BTW, I love the phrase "twitter-proof vest". 

[MRR]

40 minutes ago, JetFan1983 said:

 Not only that, but I think if you have a major championship on your resume, you have more of a free reign to criticize the greatest players in the game without receiving petulant backlash from them. There's always the possibility that your criticism of their decisions will be thrown back in your face on the grounds that you never won one:

I get your point, but I think you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.  Why should I not get an opinion about something just because I've never been in a major?  Why should a player attempt to discredit attack an announcer just because that announcer doesn't have his resume?  (Had to remove "discredit" because a golfer should be discrediting detractors... by actually playing well.

But, sure; if you are in the camp where you need a certain credential in order to vocalize opinions, then winning a major is an important thing.

I think Rory's response speaks volumes about him.  I hope Rory never tries to send food back at a restaurant, since he doesn't have any Michelin Stars.

Edited July 12, 2017 by MRR

[Hoganman1]

I voted "no" almost solely because of Colin Montgomerie. I love hearing him as a commentator and truly hope some network will put him "in the booth" when he retires from playing a regular schedule. 

[Shooting29]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

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

 

3 hours ago, iacas said:

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

Neither do others who haven't.

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Of course it is. The relevance is that an analyst who has never won a major championship has no knowledge or experience of what it takes or feels like or any of that to have won a major championship.

Answered above.

So a person should apply that same line of thought when seeking a teaching pro for lessons? No, we know that answer. One need not be able to execute in order to analyze or teach.

[JetFan1983]

43 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

BTW, I love the phrase "twitter-proof vest". 

Haha, thanks 

43 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

This is where I differ from many of the other posters, I pay little to no attention to the twitter-verse.  I don't care if an announcer gets criticized, I care about the quality of his on-air work.  

Just a semi-related aside, I wonder if a analyst who has come close in a number of majors but never won might be an even better selection.  He can help explain how it feels to have things slip away, perhaps better than the guy who has won a few times.

You're probably right about that, and that's probably one of the many reasons why I love Charles Barkley as an analyst, although even Charles is unsafe from the crybaby attacks of former champions haha:

(if you can't watch this or don't have the time, the executive summary is Shaq throwing shade at Charles for having never won a ring and thus all his opinions are meaningless in this situation)

I'm actually on Charles's side here.

41 minutes ago, MRR said:

I get your point, but I think you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.  Why should I not get an opinion about something just because I've never been in a major?  Why should a player attempt to discredit attack an announcer just because that announcer doesn't have his resume?  (Had to remove "discredit" because a golfer should be discrediting detractors... by actually playing well.

But, sure; if you are in the camp where you need a certain credential in order to vocalize opinions, then winning a major is an important thing.

I think Rory's response speaks volumes about him.  I hope Rory never tries to send food back at a restaurant, since he doesn't have any Michelin Stars.

No no, you totally still get to have an opinion, as do I or anyone. But publicly criticizing Poulter for example is much easier to get away with if your resume is stronger than his. If you're a major champ and you're ripping Poulter, he can't be a crybaby and make you the news with him by Tweeting insults at you.

Honestly though, I do think it's cool that so many people don't think it matters; I'm not sure that opinion would be shared among the game's great players, but knowing we regular folk generally feel it doesn't matter is pretty cool to me. 

I do appreciate though for example, when just before the playoff this year at the Masters, they could just ask Nick what it was like to mentally prepare yourself for a sudden death playoff for a green jacket. Or when someone wins a British, that Azinger (despite only having won a PGA) can bring up his memories of the emotion or overcoming the pressure, etc. 

So it's probably not necessary, but I think it adds something important. 

---

PS- Re: my This is Sparta joke, obviously I don't speak for the other "yes" voters. I was just adding some levity to the convo. 

Edited July 12, 2017 by JetFan1983

[boogielicious]

I think for Major broadcasts, it is very desirable to have a commentator who has won a major, but not a requirement. For the other tournaments, I don't think it is as necessary. I voted no because Steve said to vote before reading! 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Wally Fairway said:

While I get Iacas point, I also don't really get it.
Because does that mean that they would be a better lead analyst for majors, whereas a tour winner would be just as good being a lead analyst for regular tour events?
But wait not all majors are the same - so could a PGA Champion winner really have insight on winning the Masters or the Open Championship? I mean they won "a" major - but not this major.

The major winners still have more insight into what it takes - more knowledge, more experience - than the non-major winners.

Major winners are Tour winners. Plus, there aren't many major winners who didn't also win a Tour event.

The more you accomplish in the game, the more knowledge and experience you have. That's all I'm saying. Nicklaus can comment more insightfully into what it takes to win a major than Chesson Hadley. So can Rory.

So can Andy North.

All else being equal, I think it's important for a commentator to have that knowledge and experience.

1 hour ago, ScouseJohnny said:

Knowing how persnickety some people at the Sand Trap are about the "new ball flight rules" etc

Brief aside, but jeez, man… when was the last time that even came up as a major point of discussion? I think your opinion of this joint is pretty outdated.

1 hour ago, ScouseJohnny said:

I know he's not a major winner, but he's still likely a better golfer than anyone at this board, and there are videos on Youtube of Poulter teaching the "how to hit a draw and bend it round the trees," by sharing concepts that would send some here into apoplexy.

So? That's about instruction, and bad information. He's not an instructor, so I can only blame him so much.

1 hour ago, ScouseJohnny said:

Isn't a "lead analyst" (or any analyst) someone who can offer high-level objective analysis? Having played the game at the highest level may provide some of that expertise, but perhaps it isn't everything?

The guy who has won major(s) has more knowledge and experience than the guy who hasn't.

48 minutes ago, Shooting29 said:

So a person should apply that same line of thought when seeking a teaching pro for lessons? No, we know that answer. One need not be able to execute in order to analyze or teach.

I realize your efforts here, but… kinda, sure, yeah. A pro should be able to demonstrate the things he's asking students to do. It's a big part of the stuff I work on in practice. I just finished a lesson where I demonstrated pretty damn well "holding off the clubface" while hitting a draw.

Teaching is not commentating on how you feel when you're walking down the 16th fairway with a one-shot lead. The best teachers have the knowledge and experience of working on a swing change, or practicing properly, or hitting the shot the way they're trying to teach their student to hit it.

So yeah, I would say that you want the same type of thing - that it's also pretty important - to ask the same thing of an instructor.

If you were shooting for "your instructor has to be a major winner in order to coach a major winner," then that's not at all the same thing. Sports psychologists don't have to have walked down the 16th fairway with a one-shot lead (though Dr. Bhrett McCabe played college baseball at a high level, and I think that gives him a leg up), because they've spent years studying their subject material. They have the knowledge and experience.

---

And again, remember please… if I voted the way the poll was worded, I'd say "no, not required." But I voted as if the question was asking whether I thought it was important. I think it is important. So important nothing else matters if your major win total is zero? No. But important enough that the candidate with major victory(ies) has a leg up on the ones who don't.

[Hategolf]

No.

A topic, not even worth discussing...I'm out.