Not all commentators are as bad as you think

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
Curtis Strange and Paul Azinger, I thought, were excellent. Insightful commentary and impeccable timing on some comments. Particularly when Azinger said Mickelson should give that little 2 footer his full attention before missing it. Then saying Bones' pep talk was a good thing because Phil's screw ups tend to come in bunches. Also, I liked Strange's analysis of Clarke's swing on 14 before his tee ball. He said "Darren Clarke's not a player who has to worry about undercutting it right. He gets on top of the ball and drives the shaft."

Still think Tour players dont know what they're talking about? You know who you are.:)
And Mike Tirico is simply the best. Does he ever make a mistake?
 
Curtis Strange and Paul Azinger, I thought, were excellent. Insightful commentary and impeccable timing on some comments. Particularly when Azinger said Mickelson should give that little 2 footer his full attention before missing it. Then saying Bones' pep talk was a good thing because Phil's screw ups tend to come in bunches. Also, I liked Strange's analysis of Clarke's swing on 14 before his tee ball. He said "Darren Clarke's not a player who has to worry about undercutting it right. He gets on top of the ball and drives the shaft."

Still think Tour players dont know what they're talking about? You know who you are.:)
And Mike Tirico is simply the best. Does he ever make a mistake?

I had to get a towel when Strange commented on Darren Clarkes swing. It was an impeccable analysis.
 
The less swing analysis they do the better. Kostis and Miller have been been giving us ridiculous reasons for years as to why these guys miss their 290 yard drives 10 yards right or left. Strange made a comparison of Tom Watson and Tom Lewis and stated the main difference was how Lewis "held the angle" and that Watson used to hold the angle as well as anyone when he was younger. I almost fell off my chair. Watson has always released this angle from the start of the downswing, and it's probably the main reason he sweeps the ball off the ground with little or no divot, and hits high, low spin shots.
 
I don't believe tour players would be successful at teaching high handicap golfers.

They would probably be better at teaching the short game, and how to deal with pressure.
 
I agree. I really didn't pay much attention to Strange, but thought Zinger did a good job. I actually appreciate him asking Watson about the keys to playing in British Open weather conditions without trying to crowbar his own thoughts. Most commentators, even the non-golfers, tend to do the opposite. I mean...who do you want to learn from...Tom Watson who owns the British Open or some guy in the booth that has never won the British Open? Zinger got that...good job. Refreshing to hear.

I also think he said some simple things, but important things and just enough so they are not so ambiguous that it confuses the viewer. Things like 'the best sand players all have longer backswings and short follow thrus and the worst bunker players have shorter backswings and long follow thrus.'

As far as swing analysis goes, I didn't watch any of it by Strange or Azinger. But, I think most of the tiime any announcer would be better off trying to ask the player and his coach what they are doing, what they feel the weaknesses and strengths of the swing are and go on from there. That way people shouldn't get insulted and if it's 'wrong' or 'non-factual', then it's the player and his coach that are 'wrong' and 'non-factual' instead of the announcer.





3JACK
 
I usually can't watch the British Open because the commentary is so boring but this year on the brief coverage I seen I believe Curtis and Azinger were pretty insightful and did well. My question is other than the current guys, what previous great player do you think/would like to see that has great swing knowledge, charisma, intellect and transition well into the commentary box?
 
Curtis Strange and Paul Azinger, I thought, were excellent. Insightful commentary and impeccable timing on some comments. Particularly when Azinger said Mickelson should give that little 2 footer his full attention before missing it. Then saying Bones' pep talk was a good thing because Phil's screw ups tend to come in bunches. Also, I liked Strange's analysis of Clarke's swing on 14 before his tee ball. He said "Darren Clarke's not a player who has to worry about undercutting it right. He gets on top of the ball and drives the shaft."

Still think Tour players dont know what they're talking about? You know who you are.:)
And Mike Tirico is simply the best. Does he ever make a mistake?


You had me at hello, and lost me at Mike Tirico.
 
As far as swing analysis goes, I didn't watch any of it by Strange or Azinger. But, I think most of the tiime any announcer would be better off trying to ask the player and his coach what they are doing, what they feel the weaknesses and strengths of the swing are and go on from there. That way people shouldn't get insulted and if it's 'wrong' or 'non-factual', then it's the player and his coach that are 'wrong' and 'non-factual' instead of the announcer.

3JACK

They should do this. It would be more interesting to the viewer to be getting information from the teacher/player rather than an announcer's opinion.
 
I usually can't watch the British Open because the commentary is so boring but this year on the brief coverage I seen I believe Curtis and Azinger were pretty insightful and did well. My question is other than the current guys, what previous great player do you think/would like to see that has great swing knowledge, charisma, intellect and transition well into the commentary box?

Has Lee Trevino ever done commentary? Tom Watson?
Greg Norman would be interesting to listen to i would think.
 
The less swing analysis they do the better. Kostis and Miller have been been giving us ridiculous reasons for years as to why these guys miss their 290 yard drives 10 yards right or left. Strange made a comparison of Tom Watson and Tom Lewis and stated the main difference was how Lewis "held the angle" and that Watson used to hold the angle as well as anyone when he was younger. I almost fell off my chair. Watson has always released this angle from the start of the downswing, and it's probably the main reason he sweeps the ball off the ground with little or no divot, and hits high, low spin shots.

Agree entirely. If Watson "held is angle" we would have never heard of him!
 
The less swing analysis they do the better. Kostis and Miller have been been giving us ridiculous reasons for years as to why these guys miss their 290 yard drives 10 yards right or left. Strange made a comparison of Tom Watson and Tom Lewis and stated the main difference was how Lewis "held the angle" and that Watson used to hold the angle as well as anyone when he was younger. I almost fell off my chair. Watson has always released this angle from the start of the downswing, and it's probably the main reason he sweeps the ball off the ground with little or no divot, and hits high, low spin shots.

Fair points - well made. As a side note, I've got Watson's latest book and the swing sequences from now and 30 years ago show that he holds his lag way deeper into the downswing now than he used to. He's also now digging trenches with his 5 iron.
 
Fair points - well made. As a side note, I've got Watson's latest book and the swing sequences from now and 30 years ago show that he holds his lag way deeper into the downswing now than he used to. He's also now digging trenches with his 5 iron.
Maybe Tom will give Curtis a copy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top