The Opens (U.S. and British) 2017

[Mal]

In addition to his shortcomings as an announcer Joe Buck is a pompous jerk

I'm not all that exercised by this. In the article he was open about describing a far worse example of putting his foot in his mouth, his remorse and how he sent someone flowers and an apology, and mentioned that he'd probably apologize to Koepka personally, too.

He was certainly a little flippant in a few of those quips, though, which I can see as off-putting. Something along the lines of "Yeah, I felt badly about that, but you know? Mistakes happen, and we're trying to convey a lot of information in a short amount of time and on occasion we get it wrong. I think it's too bad one minor thing like that overshadows the other 9 hours of coverage in some peoples' minds in the age of twitter" would have gone over better. He wanted to flip off the instant analysis bashers and dudebros all up in his face about something that in the grand scheme of things was nothing, but ended up coming off like he was callous about the girlfriends themselves.

Anyway, the bigger issue is the production goof itself. They had close to an hour while Koepka finished the last several holes to get the script right for the 18th green, not to mention all the time between Saturday's finish and Sunday at around noon to get the book ready for a dozen guys with a legitimate chance to win. I don't necessarily blame Buck for not knowing that the info. handed to him on the girlfriend was incorrect, although Nantz and Hicks and the guys who actually follow the tour around probably wouldn't have needed the research, and would have known she was no longer in the picture. But that no one on the production team had the info. right, and never thought to ask the former PGA professionals on the analysis staff, who are obviously super plugged in to that sort of stuff, to chime in, is a good indication that coming in 1x/year to cover a sport is not a good idea.

[Rich]

My wife asked me what Holly Sonders brings to golf coverage.

Umm, male viewers?

[Tripping William]

I'm not all that exercised by this. In the article he was open about describing a far worse example of putting his foot in his mouth, his remorse and how he sent someone flowers and an apology, and mentioned that he'd probably apologize to Koepka personally, too.

He was certainly a little flippant in a few of those quips, though, which I can see as off-putting. Something along the lines of "Yeah, I felt badly about that, but you know? Mistakes happen, and we're trying to convey a lot of information in a short amount of time and on occasion we get it wrong. I think it's too bad one minor thing like that overshadows the other 9 hours of coverage in some peoples' minds in the age of twitter" would have gone over better. He wanted to flip off the instant analysis bashers and dudebros all up in his face about something that in the grand scheme of things was nothing, but ended up coming off like he was callous about the girlfriends themselves.

Anyway, the bigger issue is the production goof itself. They had close to an hour while Koepka finished the last several holes to get the script right for the 18th green, not to mention all the time between Saturday's finish and Sunday at around noon to get the book ready for a dozen guys with a legitimate chance to win. I don't necessarily blame Buck for not knowing that the info. handed to him on the girlfriend was incorrect, although Nantz and Hicks and the guys who actually follow the tour around probably wouldn't have needed the research, and would have known she was no longer in the picture. But that no one on the production team had the info. right, and never thought to ask the former PGA professionals on the analysis staff, who are obviously super plugged in to that sort of stuff, to chime in, is a good indication that coming in 1x/year to cover a sport is not a good idea.

Yeah, I give Buck a bit of a pass for the post-comment comments, if only because they were made on the Dan Patrick Show. Anyone who watches DPS recognizes that biting sarcasm and exaggeration are part of the schtick. K has been at his sarcastic best on the Show, for instance.

Whoever handed Buck the "card," though, really biffed it.

[cato]

Yeah, I give Buck a bit of a pass for the post-comment comments, if only because they were made on the Dan Patrick Show. Anyone who watches DPS recognizes that biting sarcasm and exaggeration are part of the schtick. K has been at his sarcastic best on the Show, for instance.

Whoever handed Buck the "card," though, really biffed it.

It is bad form to blame a mistake on a subordinate. Always.

[rsvman]

The thing is, the mistake about the girlfriend isn't the issue, at least not to me. He sucked all four days. He was insufferable about 25%, mediocre 50%, decent about 15%, and good maybe 10% of the time. If he moved those percentages in a positive direction, most people would give him a pass about the girlfriend snafu. IMO.
The only announcer I know that would never, ever mess up a girlfriend thing is Musberger.

[duke79]

The thing is, the mistake about the girlfriend isn't the issue, at least not to me. He sucked all four days. He was insufferable about 25%, mediocre 50%, decent about 15%, and good maybe 10% of the time. If he moved those percentages in a positive direction, most people would give him a pass about the girlfriend snafu. IMO.
The only announcer I know that would never, ever mess up a girlfriend thing is Musberger.

Agree with your percentages here. I could normally overlook the GF snafu BUT he was, IMHO, just awful for the entire tournament. He should NOT be doing a golf telecasts. Can we bring back Jim McKay?

[Jeffrey]

I think we may differ in our tolerances/perspective, however. Your earlier post seemed to sound like you were already concerned with the last 7 being all different players, as a damper on popularity. I'm OK with it for the time being, but think if that trend pushed out to 3 or 4 years without a repeat it could leave the game a little driftless.

IMO, the game needs a few great stars frequently competing for the majors. I doubt 7 different winners for the last 7 majors helps ratings.

You motivated me to look up ratings to see if my urgency concerns were valid. This is from 2016, but my rating concerns appear valid.

"It also ranks as the second-lowest rated final round of the event since at least 1981. The U.S. Open has now earned its three lowest final round ratings in the past three years, with last year’s 4.2 ranking third and 2014’s 3.0 dead last."

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016...lf-viewership/

[rthomas]

IMO, the game needs a few great stars frequently competing for the majors. I doubt 7 different winners for the last 7 majors helps ratings.

You motivated me to look up ratings to see if my urgency concerns were valid. This is from 2016, but my rating concerns appear valid.

"It also ranks as the second-lowest rated final round of the event since at least 1981. The U.S. Open has now earned its three lowest final round ratings in the past three years, with last year’s 4.2 ranking third and 2014’s 3.0 dead last."

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016...lf-viewership/

A lot of this has to do with Tiger being out. Without Tiger, the popularity of the golf game has declined, both watching and playing.

[Mal]

IMO, the game needs a few great stars frequently competing for the majors. I doubt 7 different winners for the last 7 majors helps ratings.

You motivated me to look up ratings to see if my urgency concerns were valid. This is from 2016, but my rating concerns appear valid.

"It also ranks as the second-lowest rated final round of the event since at least 1981. The U.S. Open has now earned its three lowest final round ratings in the past three years, with last year’s 4.2 ranking third and 2014’s 3.0 dead last."

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016...lf-viewership/

Thanks for those numbers. I guess we have to ask in what way, and why, we care about ratings (or don't care about them). I guess I only care to the extent that lack of popularity of golf as a televised sport has longterm negative impact on the quality of the players. Sort of the opposite of how (again, IMHO) there's a huge mass of incredibly good players on tour right now, many of whom plausibly wouldn't be there had it not been for Tiger Woods elevating the sport's popularity from '97 onward. If the game goes into a period where no one's watching, I don't care in some respects because I love the sport and will continue to follow it regardless. I don't need it to be "popular," and I couldn't care less that a million bandwagoners who only followed Tiger may be gone now. Makes it easier to get on a course for the rest of us. But, if the longterm result is less kids choosing golf over football or baseball, it could have a negative impact on the professional game.

I suspect rthomas is right, though. Two years ago Jordan Spieth was 21 years old and the hottest commodity in the game, having just destroyed everyone at the Masters in only his second start, and followed it up by winning the U.S. Open. This was on the heels of Rory McIlroy winning his 3rd and 4th majors in the British and PGA the prior summer. So the tournament getting historically low TV ratings that year was not due to a lack of buzz around a couple of elite players. It's the disappearance of a lot of the Tigermaniacs.

[Jeffrey]

A lot of this has to do with Tiger being out. Without Tiger, the popularity of the golf game has declined, both watching and playing.

Yep, IMO, the game needs a few great stars frequently competing for the majors. I think rivalries and fan favorites help ratings.

[Indoor66]

Thanks for those numbers. I guess we have to ask in what way, and why, we care about ratings (or don't care about them). I guess I only care to the extent that lack of popularity of golf as a televised sport has longterm negative impact on the quality of the players. Sort of the opposite of how (again, IMHO) there's a huge mass of incredibly good players on tour right now, many of whom plausibly wouldn't be there had it not been for Tiger Woods elevating the sport's popularity from '97 onward. If the game goes into a period where no one's watching, I don't care in some respects because I love the sport and will continue to follow it regardless. I don't need it to be "popular," and I couldn't care less that a million bandwagoners who only followed Tiger may be gone now. Makes it easier to get on a course for the rest of us. But, if the longterm result is less kids choosing golf over football or baseball, it could have a negative impact on the professional game.

I suspect rthomas is right, though. Two years ago Jordan Spieth was 21 years old and the hottest commodity in the game, having just destroyed everyone at the Masters in only his second start, and followed it up by winning the U.S. Open. This was on the heels of Rory McIlroy winning his 3rd and 4th majors in the British and PGA the prior summer. So the tournament getting historically low TV ratings that year was not due to a lack of buzz around a couple of elite players. It's the disappearance of a lot of the Tigermaniacs.

I watched the Open and find that almost all of the players there are what I would characterize as vanilla. There is not personality on display so there is very little to be excited about. All of them can hit it 350. I cannot relate to 165 yd 9 irons. I cannot relate to 300+ yard 3 woods. Technology has taken the pro game beyond the level of all but the few elite amateurs to identify with. That was happening with Tiger, but he at least brought some emotion.

[Mal]

I watched the Open and find that almost all of the players there are what I would characterize as vanilla. There is not personality on display so there is very little to be excited about. All of them can hit it 350. I cannot relate to 165 yd 9 irons. I cannot relate to 300+ yard 3 woods. Technology has taken the pro game beyond the level of all but the few elite amateurs to identify with. That was happening with Tiger, but he at least brought some emotion.

That is some fine "man shakes fist at clouds" right there (I should know, being a frequent author in the genre ).

First of all, people have been saying this since time immemorial. Weekend golfers were marveling/complaining in the '60's and '70's about how Jack Nicklaus hit it 25% further than they did and they couldn't relate. This was probably even moreso the case with those who'd grown up with Byron Nelson and were themselves now swinging 15% slower than they used to (but hadn't yet adopted graphite shafts to accommodate for that slowdown). That was repeated with the advent of metal woods, and again when John Daly showed up, and I'm sure happened back in the day when the first steel shaft adapters ditched their hickory sticks.

Second, the technology innovation over the last 25 years has disproportionately benefitted amateurs. Everyone's gotten a distance boost from ball and club material advances, but the introduction of giant, toaster on a stick drivers, and irons with sweet spots the size of a small apple, helps you and me more than it does Phil Mickelson, who's hit approximately 3 million golf balls in his career and doesn't need all the added forgiveness.

Third, you're way overstating things. [Perhaps knowingly so as to make your point, I suppose.] Dustin Johnson's leading the PGA tour this season in average drive distance at...312 yards. They cannot all hit it 350. In fact, if it's not a big downhill hole where a ball will run for 75 yards or more if you can just carry it 285 to get to the slope (like 4 or 5 of the holes at Kapalua, where a third of the 375+ megadrives are seen every year), very few players on tour can reach 350. Koepka has the highest percentage of 320+ drives this year, at barely over 30%. And they're not regularly launching 300 yard fairway woods.

I'm in my early '40's and a 7.3 index, so hardly what anyone would consider an "elite" amateur player. But I consistently drive the ball 285-290, can put it out there 305-310 if I catch it right, and pull a 6 iron for a 200 yard approach. The distance is not what differentiates me from the median tour player, who'd have 10 yards on me off the tee on average, and oftentimes though not always one less club on an approach shot. It's three other things that make them close to a stroke a hole better than me: (1) their ball striking with the irons; (2) their sand and chipping prowess, and (3) their putting.

Re: the vanilla personality theory, beauty's in the eye of the beholder to some degree. I've complained for years that a lot of pro golfers are automatons with no discernible personality, and it seems especially prevalent amongst American players. Mickelson and Woods, in their own unique ways, are exceptions to that rule. So too are some of the current stars, though - Spieth is the gritty, Terminator-like assassin when he's in the running; Reed is a total bulldog who feeds off emotion; no one would deny that Bubba's a pretty unique character, etc. But it's not like before Tiger Woods came along and started fist pumping and pointing at birdie putts it was a festival of bright personalities out there. I mean, it was Davis Love and Brad Faxon and Corey Pavin. One of the biggest differences I've seen in the last decade or so, though, is something of a dulling of the Europeans. Nice as they seem, Justin Rose, Henrik Stenson and Martin Kaymer have zero charisma. Rory's throttled it back big time, Poulter's well past his prime, Westwood's about as exciting a personality as Lee Janzen. They're a far cry from their predecessors in terms of entertainment value.

[Tripping William]

At the risk diverting away from this truly fascinating (I mean that sincerely; no snark) discussion about the state of today's professional golf, and without knowing exactly where else to put this news, it appears that Phil Mickelson and Bones Mackay are going their separate ways after 25 years together. Phil's brother, Tim, will be on Lefty's bag the rest of this year.

All good things come to an end some time . . . .

[rasputin]

That is some fine "man shakes fist at clouds" right there (I should know, being a frequent author in the genre ).

First of all, people have been saying this since time immemorial. Weekend golfers were marveling/complaining in the '60's and '70's about how Jack Nicklaus hit it 25% further than they did and they couldn't relate. This was probably even moreso the case with those who'd grown up with Byron Nelson and were themselves now swinging 15% slower than they used to (but hadn't yet adopted graphite shafts to accommodate for that slowdown). That was repeated with the advent of metal woods, and again when John Daly showed up, and I'm sure happened back in the day when the first steel shaft adapters ditched their hickory sticks.

Second, the technology innovation over the last 25 years has disproportionately benefitted amateurs. Everyone's gotten a distance boost from ball and club material advances, but the introduction of giant, toaster on a stick drivers, and irons with sweet spots the size of a small apple, helps you and me more than it does Phil Mickelson, who's hit approximately 3 million golf balls in his career and doesn't need all the added forgiveness.

Third, you're way overstating things. [Perhaps knowingly so as to make your point, I suppose.] Dustin Johnson's leading the PGA tour this season in average drive distance at...312 yards. They cannot all hit it 350. In fact, if it's not a big downhill hole where a ball will run for 75 yards or more if you can just carry it 285 to get to the slope (like 4 or 5 of the holes at Kapalua, where a third of the 375+ megadrives are seen every year), very few players on tour can reach 350. Koepka has the highest percentage of 320+ drives this year, at barely over 30%. And they're not regularly launching 300 yard fairway woods.

I'm in my early '40's and a 7.3 index, so hardly what anyone would consider an "elite" amateur player. But I consistently drive the ball 285-290, can put it out there 305-310 if I catch it right, and pull a 6 iron for a 200 yard approach. The distance is not what differentiates me from the median tour player, who'd have 10 yards on me off the tee on average, and oftentimes though not always one less club on an approach shot. It's three other things that make them close to a stroke a hole better than me: (1) their ball striking with the irons; (2) their sand and chipping prowess, and (3) their putting.

Re: the vanilla personality theory, beauty's in the eye of the beholder to some degree. I've complained for years that a lot of pro golfers are automatons with no discernible personality, and it seems especially prevalent amongst American players. Mickelson and Woods, in their own unique ways, are exceptions to that rule. So too are some of the current stars, though - Spieth is the gritty, Terminator-like assassin when he's in the running; Reed is a total bulldog who feeds off emotion; no one would deny that Bubba's a pretty unique character, etc. But it's not like before Tiger Woods came along and started fist pumping and pointing at birdie putts it was a festival of bright personalities out there. I mean, it was Davis Love and Brad Faxon and Corey Pavin. One of the biggest differences I've seen in the last decade or so, though, is something of a dulling of the Europeans. Nice as they seem, Justin Rose, Henrik Stenson and Martin Kaymer have zero charisma. Rory's throttled it back big time, Poulter's well past his prime, Westwood's about as exciting a personality as Lee Janzen. They're a far cry from their predecessors in terms of entertainment value.

Many of my favorite golfers, over a long stretch of time, have been the Spaniards.

[Tripping William]

Many of my favorite golfers, over a long stretch of time, have been the Spaniards.

Me, too, although I can only name six of them (Seve, Jose Maria, Sergio, Angel-Jimenez, Rafa, and Rahm).

[DUKIECB]

At the risk diverting away from this truly fascinating (I mean that sincerely; no snark) discussion about the state of today's professional golf, and without knowing exactly where else to put this news, it appears that Phil Mickelson and Bones Mackay are going their separate ways after 25 years together. Phil's brother, Tim, will be on Lefty's bag the rest of this year.

All good things come to an end some time . . . .

Wow! That is very surprising as they seemed to have one of the closest player / caddie relationships I can remember. Any speculation as to why?

[killerleft]

Wow! That is very surprising as they seemed to have one of the closest player / caddie relationships I can remember. Any speculation as to why?

I'll speculate. Bones was bent all out of shape because Phil passed up a chance to win a US Open, and on a wide-open course with perfect greens that would have suited Phil's game as perfectly as any Open venue ever. I base this on nothing other than my own disappointment that Phil didn't participate this year.

[Indoor66]

I'll speculate. Bones was bent all out of shape because Phil passed up a chance to win a US Open, and on a wide-open course with perfect greens that would have suited Phil's game as perfectly as any Open venue ever. I base this on nothing other than my own disappointment that Phil didn't participate this year.

I have to respect his resolve to honor his daughter on, probably, the biggest day of her short life.

[chris13]

Rumor I read somewhere on the Internet

Bones wants to keep caddying full time and Phil is going to start playing fewer events. Look for Bones to pick up Jon Rahm's bag (Phil's brother is Rahm's agent).

[killerleft]

I have to respect his resolve to honor his daughter on, probably, the biggest day of her short life.

As do I.