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

[ScouseJohnny]

Quote

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

I look forward with considerable eagerness to Danny Willett's career in golf broadcasting, a decade or so from now.

Edited July 12, 2017 by ScouseJohnny

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

I look forward with considerable eagerness to Danny Willett's career in golf broadcasting, a decade or so from now.

Say what you want… the guy has experience and knowledge winning a major championship.

That gives him a leg up. Doesn't mean he'd be a great announcer. Just that he has that going for him.

I think it's important. Not the most important, but important.

[David in FL]

31 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

I look forward with considerable eagerness to Danny Willett's career in golf broadcasting, a decade or so from now.

Not to worry.  Orville Moody will show him the ropes.  

[dennyjones]

1 hour ago, David in FL said:

Not to worry.  Orville Moody will show him the ropes.  

Only if he comes back in zombie form.

[David in FL]

3 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

Only if he comes back in zombie form.

Ha!  I forgot he finally died a while back!

I guess Paul Lawrie will have to take over!

[saevel25]

I'm not sure winning should be a requirement. Just PGA Tour experience is valuable. I think playing in majors gives enough knowledge and experience to how hard it is to win a major.

I voted no. An Analyst should  have a good depth of knowledge of the PGA Tour. There is only a certain amount of knowledge you can gain with out actually being on the PGA Tour.

[MRR]

On 7/12/2017 at 9:04 AM, 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.

Taking this as the actual question, I still say "no".

For those of you voting "yes", I have a followup question;

The main reason given for "yes" is that the only way anyone can understand what the players are going through is by personal experience at that level.  Winning a regular tournament is not enough.  Coming close at a Major is not enough.  Winning the Superbowl (whether cheating or not) is not enough.  Similar situations are not enough.  I've never been in a Major, so I have no way to associate his words to this all-important experience.  What can a "winning" announcer impart unto me that another "non-winner" cannot?

I've had the experience of a jury coming back with either a not-guilty verdict or a 40-year verdict.  I don't see how emotions would change just because either the prosecutor or I receive a green jacket after the verdict is read.

[iacas]

@MRR, the answer has already been given.

And it's not about whether you get an article of clothing or not, it's a very different experience to win versus not to win. Look at Dustin Johnson at the U.S. Opens in 2015 and 2016. Look at Rory when he lost the Masters and then came back and won the U.S. Open. Very different emotions.

[MRR]

Just now, iacas said:

@MRR, the answer has already been given.

And it's not about whether you get an article of clothing or not, it's a very different experience to win versus not to win. Look at Dustin Johnson at the U.S. Opens in 2015 and 2016. Look at Rory when he lost the Masters and then came back and won the U.S. Open. Very different emotions.

But that's my point.  You (a "non-winner", as limitedly defined in this topic) told me to look at DJ and Rory.  I can.  I have.  Heard, Understood, Acknowledged.  I agree that they are different emotions.  I would get absolutely nothing else out of it by some "winner" from ten years ago telling me the same.

[MRR]

I'll even go one further.

You, as said "non-winner" would probably be of MORE value to me.  You could bridge the gap between a PGA major player's emotions and my personal experiences.  Nothing out there will give me the exact understanding of what the 54 hole leader feels like as his lead slowly goes away throughout day four and needs to make a ten-footer to avoid a playoff.  I do, however, know how I would feel.  You, on the other hand, being a coach and (I can only assume) player/winner of several local tournaments, can give insight into things I haven't experienced but to which I can more closely relate.

[chilepepper]

23 hours ago, David in FL said:

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

 

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

I'd actually like to see Daly get a tryout. Might add more color to the broadcast, like Feherety. To me some of the folks are just as boring as a box of rocks. 

[Patch]

I voted "no". All I think a lead analysts needs to do is know what he/she is talking about. Then, be able to share that knowledge in a way that is understandable/entertaining to their audience. Leaving most of their ego in a suit case some where would be a good thing too. It has been my past listening expierience that, that is more easily said than done. 

[iacas]

31 minutes ago, MRR said:

But that's my point.  You (a "non-winner", as limitedly defined in this topic) told me to look at DJ and Rory.  I can.  I have.  Heard, Understood, Acknowledged.  I agree that they are different emotions.  I would get absolutely nothing else out of it by some "winner" from ten years ago telling me the same.

A winner can tell you more about not only what it's like to contend, but win, and how it plays out at the time the event is occurring.

A non-winner cannot. If you put me in the booth and asked me what it was like to PLAY in a PGA Tour event, I couldn't offer anything but speculation.

A winner has a leg up on a non-winner.

[Marty2019]

I voted no.  He or she doesn't have to have a major.  

All other things being equal, of course, it helps a lot, because it confers credibility.   But I'd much rather listen to Brandel Chamblee talk about golf than Tiger Woods.   Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus are both really boring people to listen to.  

On the other hand, of course, Nick Faldo and Johnny Miller are great lead analysts and being big-time winners confers a lot of credibility to what they say, but in totality, I would say no, a lead analyst does not HAVE to have a major on his or her resume. 

[MRR]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

A winner can tell you more about not only what it's like to contend, but win, and how it plays out at the time the event is occurring.

I appreciate the attempts to give answers that could compel me to feel differently.  I really am trying to get on your side of this issue.  However, I still do not see how someone's explanation of how he felt years ago has any bearing on the how the current player(s) feel(s).  How that person won may be completely different from the status of the current match.  The relevant emotions come from the actual players in after-round interviews.  

I just cannot see actual benefit from a winning announcer.  Not trying to sway your or anyone's opinion, just trying to get an understanding.

[phillyk]

I voted no, because he doesn't need to be a major winner.  It would certainly help though when covering the majors.  Reason is that every single PGA Tour player ultimately wants to win a major and/or be ranked #1 in the world.  It's a milestone marker.  First one might be just being on tour, next is to win a PGA event, next would be to win a major, next would be to be ranked #1 in the world (doesn't have to be this, it's just an example).  How can one know what it feels like if it's never happened before.  Watching the faces of those people who get to those markers are priceless.  Like Sergio winning the Masters.  I bet he could go on and on about the challenges of trying to win and ultimately how playing in majors might now feel different because of that win under the belt.  Experience goes a long way, but they need good communication skills.  Winning a major is great, but if you can't tell a good story and relay information in a way that is fun and informative, you won't survive as a analyst.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, MRR said:

I appreciate the attempts to give answers that could compel me to feel differently.

That's not what I'm doing.

1 hour ago, MRR said:

However, I still do not see how someone's explanation of how he felt years ago has any bearing on the how the current player(s) feel(s).

It has more bearing than someone who has not shared in the experience.

1 hour ago, MRR said:

I just cannot see actual benefit from a winning announcer.

I don't know why not, but I don't care to convince you, either.

[MRR]

Just now, iacas said:

That's not what I'm doing.

Didn't mean it in a negatively.  You were answering the questions asked in an insightful way.  Attempting to see all sides is why I ask questions.