The Match: Tiger vs. Phil Showdown for $9M

[TN94z]

6 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

I didn't watch this, and never really planned to once it turned out to be a $20 PPV, but was the production really as bad as it seemed from reading on golf Twitter? They were complaining about pretty much everything (although the most complaints were about talking over Tiger/Phil/caddies). I think there was a lot of hope that this production would be unique and less like a CBS broadcast, so maybe it was complaints that it turned out to be a pretty rote broadcast. Thoughts from people that watched it?

 

What I noticed from my limited watching was that the they did talk over that caddie/player conversations but what annoyed me was that one of them, I'm not sure who it was, was breathing in the mic like crazy! That got on my nerves so bad. I think the whole production could have been done better.

I had a terrible experience trying to watch it. I was out of town so I set it to record from my Directv app. When I got home, it was not recorded. I just assumed maybe I didn't hit confirm (although, I knew I had) when I ordered. So I tried to buy the replay from my remote. Said that it was purchased but never would play. So, I tried to get it via the website, Same results. I called Directv and the lady I spoke with ordered it, checked that it was ordered and showed that I was billed, and still could not get it to play. They sent me to their tech support and after multiple resets, it still wouldn't play and I was told that there were many, many people having issues with the broadcast. So he refunded the charges. About an hour later, it started playing. I watched through 13 and it got late so I set it to record the rest. We sat down to finish the next day and the broadcast had stopped again...haha. It was a terrible experience that I will not go through again.

[rehmwa]

2 hours ago, TN94z said:

What I noticed from my limited watching was that the they did talk over that caddie/player conversations but what annoyed me was that one of them, I'm not sure who it was, was breathing in the mic like crazy! That got on my nerves so bad. I think the whole production could have been done better.

That was Phil and/or Tiger nearly every time, not the talking heads.  And it never adds to the experience, true.

Edited November 26, 2018 by rehmwa

[rehmwa]

3 hours ago, DeadMan said:

This is a really good point, and it's something that turned me off to this format from the beginning. First of all, having two guys bring their A-games at the same time is going to be tough, even for guys as talented as Phil and Tiger.

Here's the related stats to find the odds of either vs both being "ON" (Article from 2016)  (though it's about winning tournaments, not about individual rounds.)  (note they are the TOP 2 on the list)

• Tiger Woods: 79 wins in 324 events -- 24.2 percent
• Phil Mickelson: 42 wins in 542 events -- 7.75 percent

https://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/tiger-woods-pga-tour-winning-percentage-is-still-an-absurd-statistic/

1 in 4 for Tiger, 1 in 13 for Phil.  Assume the 'wins' had 1 or 2 "hot" days to push them over tyop.....so 1 in 8 for Tiger.....1 in 26 for Phil  (at his best, Tiger had a stretch of 38 tournaments and won 20?)

then a lot of math and statistics >>>>>>  (magic)  >>>>>>  they'd have to do this a LOT before both are on the same day, or even 1 is on that day.  They need a leveling format to do this.....maybe 2 on 2 match play to bring it out..... it would also encourage more player chatter which was very needed

 

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by rehmwa

[Vinsk]

18 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

Here's the related stats to find the odds of either vs both being "ON" (Article from 2016)  (though it's about winning tournaments, not about individual rounds.)  (note they are the TOP 2 on the list)

• Tiger Woods: 79 wins in 324 events -- 24.2 percent
• Phil Mickelson: 42 wins in 542 events -- 7.75 percent

https://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/tiger-woods-pga-tour-winning-percentage-is-still-an-absurd-statistic/

1 in 4 for Tiger, 1 in 13 for Phil.  Assume the 'wins' had 1 or 2 "hot" days to push them over tyop.....so 1 in 8 for Tiger.....1 in 26 for Phil  (at his best, Tiger had a stretch of 38 tournaments and won 20?)

then a lot of math and statistics >>>>>>  (magic)  >>>>>>  they'd have to do this a LOT before both are on the same day, or even 1 is on that day.  They need a leveling format to do this.....maybe 2 on 2 match play to bring it out..... it would also encourage more player chatter which was very needed

 

 

Good stuff there. I think the dopey and unfunny Peter Jacobsen actually just forgot the players were on mics. He just blabbed on and on.

[Wally Fairway]

So when do they announce the rematch?

 

Spoiler

I can't imagine they would try it with other players; nobody brings the interest like Tiger.
Although it would be interesting to see the Skins Game come back with the right 4 players (I'd pick Tiger (42) , Rory (29) , Jordan (25)  & DJ (34) ... maybe JT instead of Spieth)

 

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

So when do they announce the rematch?

I don't think a Skins game would be all that interesting. It's hit-and-giggle golf. That's why the old Skins game, while kinda entertaining, fell flat eventually. Nobody really cared all that much.

[Wally Fairway]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

I don't think a Skins game would be all that interesting. It's hit-and-giggle golf. That's why the old Skins game, while kinda entertaining, fell flat eventually. Nobody really cared all that much.

IMO - nobody cared because it became old and tired, as it ran for 26 years. So I would say that people cared for a while, especially when it started with Jack, Arnie, Player & Watson as the participants. By the end it was KJ Choi, Steven Ames, Phil and Rocco Mediate.

 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

IMO - nobody cared because it became old and tired, as it ran for 26 years. So I would say that people cared for a while, especially when it started with Jack, Arnie, Player & Watson as the participants. By the end it was KJ Choi, Steven Ames, Phil and Rocco Mediate.

Right, so two things:

1. Over-saturation.
2. Players didn't care that much.

Neither of those have changed - we get to see Rory about all we want, all year, and Rory probably wouldn't get out of bed for $20k let alone a chance to win part of a relatively small pot.

That's what was different about Tiger/Phil:

1. People can't get enough Tiger.
2. $9M was a lot of reasons to care.

[TN94z]

3 hours ago, rehmwa said:

That was Phil and/or Tiger nearly every time, not the talking heads.  And it never adds to the experience, true.

Well, that's what I thought until one instance when the breathing was going on and Pat Perez started talking and it stopped. While he was talking, he did it again and it was the exact same.  My boy said he heard it over the top of Tiger and Phil's mics. It wasn't Phil's breathing...totally different cadence. Phil's breathing was pretty obvious..lol. And we couldn't hear Tiger at ll.

Either way, it was annoying.

[rehmwa]

clearly no one ever wants to hear Pat Perez breathing

[iacas]

Yay!

I still wouldn't have cared if they didn't refund me. It's a bonus that they did.

[CaseyD]

This was very reminiscent of the early UFCs before Dana White got involved. Very raw, unorganized seeming. The potential is there if it can survive a couple mediocre airings. 

[dennyjones]

I just received a notice from Bleacher Report that they will refund my cost.    OK....Better than a kick in the shins.  

[Vinsk]

17 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

I just received a notice from Bleacher Report that they will refund my cost.    OK....Better than a kick in the shins.  

Me too. But I really thought it was worth $20. I didn’t care either way but...at least they’re keeping their word. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

Me too. But I really thought it was worth $20. I didn’t care either way but...at least they’re keeping their word. 

Right. I wouldn't have been unhappy. I paid the price and got what I paid for. I was content.

[boogielicious]

Xfinity gave refunds too. 

[iacas]

Brandel didn't like The Match:

The Match didn't grow the game; it demeaned it | Golf Channel

---

The Match was supposed shows us a side of Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson that we had never seen. It was supposed to grow the game. It did neither.

I'll insert my reminder, here, that Brandel's job is to stir up shit, and he's really good at his job.

[Vinsk]

“we know more about Tiger and Phil than we need to know..”

I personally don’t care to know anymore about Tiger beyond what I can gather from watching interviews and reading books about him. This was a golf match.

“Had this really been about getting to see a side of them that we know nothing about, interviews at their respective homes, living their lives, to fill in the down-time between shots would have been a nice touch.”

That could be done in many different formats if that was the point. Again, this was a one on one golf match. Besides, not much filler time with Jacobsen’s motor mouth.

As always golf is difficult to predict. Maybe some more chatting between Phil and Tiger would’ve been interesting. But I think each really wanted to win. Had Tiger been two or three up after 9 I think he would’ve done some bantering. 

I think Brandlee is being a bit over dramatic about it. But as @iacas stated ....he stirs the pot.