Has the art of editing/producing a live golf tournament been lost?

Thread starter #1

IainP

Tour Rookie
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
3,082
Location
Oxfordshire
I suppose it's subjective. My conclusion from the last few weeks is there seems to be a preference for staying with a player or group for period of time, whether they be chatting, walking, faffing about, holing a 1 foot putt - rather than jumping to some golf elsewhere and then coming back.
Maybe it's thought that is telling more of a story for those being featured.
Personally I prefer to see more golf.
To clarify this isn't directed at any tour, country or broadcaster.
What say you...
 

Traminator

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
4,716
No I think it just keeps getting better.

What has changed though, is that instead of enjoying watching the golf, more and more people seem to half-heartedly watch whilst desperately trying to find ways of slagging off the coverage on the Internet.

Frankly I find the constant criticising of the coverage and commentators rather boring and idiotic.
 

Imurg

Grand Slam Winner
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
29,351
Location
Aylesbury Bucks
I suppose it's subjective. My conclusion from the last few weeks is there seems to be a preference for staying with a player or group for period of time, whether they be chatting, walking, faffing about, holing a 1 foot putt - rather than jumping to some golf elsewhere and then coming back.
Maybe it's thought that is telling more of a story for those being featured.
Personally I prefer to see more golf.
To clarify this isn't directed at any tour, country or broadcaster.
What say you...
Its possibly down to fewer cameras out on the course, fewer personnel in general..
Especially if its a pretty small event or, probably better put, not such a major one.
 
Thread starter #4

IainP

Tour Rookie
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
3,082
Location
Oxfordshire
Its possibly down to fewer cameras out on the course, fewer personnel in general..
Especially if its a pretty small event or, probably better put, not such a major one.
I did wonder, but this partly struck me during the masters where I had the web coverage running on my tablet - so was seeing shots there.
Plus earlier today I regularly saw one player from a group but not the other two (only 1 shot diff in score).
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
3,478
Location
Moonpig
I watch a fair bit of PGA tour via US coverage on CBS, its decent enough, you just have to tune out Jim Nantz and his emotional tales. I think Gary McCord has left now
 
Thread starter #7

IainP

Tour Rookie
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
3,082
Location
Oxfordshire
I always enjoy watching.
I did pick up on @pokerjoke comments on the Wilco thread (felt like featured groups) and it reasonated. I was looking out for a player from the 3rd last group out. He finished tied 4th with six birdies and they showed one putt on the 18th only.
Like I wrote it is subjective. I recall once where there was maybe too much jumping about (for me) and it was tricky to follow the thread.
Just passing the time and giving tram an opportunity for a rant 😉 (hope he wasn't watching the golf at the time 😂)
 

jimbob.someroo

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
1,651
Location
Ealing, London
I have no issue with the coverage itself at the moment. It's tough with covid and where cameras / crews can actually get to en masse. I also quite like watching more of a handful of players, as you get to see how they build a round etc, and get to see hear their thinking about why they've hit certain shots. Chopping between groups, you only really get to see tee shots, made putts and flagged approaches.

That said, I'm getting increasingly frustrated at commentators / pundits who seemingly have a lack of interest in keeping up with stats and trends (and facts). A few weeks ago Rob Lee and another (maybe Simon / Radar) spent the whole build up and mid-round links at the Zozo only talking about how it was between Thomas and Rahm, and that nobody else could compete - only for Cantlay (who was never more than a shot or two behind) to go on and win. Cantlay was playing great golf in a group or two ahead, and looked brilliant throughout the week - ignoring him was just laziness as they'd obviously done research on Rahm / Thomas and nobody else ahead of going live.

Today on the ET, when talking about the new SA lad that's hitting it miles, one of the commentators said: "you don't need to lengthen the courses, just grow the rough and people won't hit it so far". There's a million different things wrong with that statement (not least the fact that the guy they were moaning about was down the absolute centre of the fairway - where there'll never be rough). But enough strokes gained stats etc have shown over recent years that being 100 yards out in the rough is almost always preferable to being 150 out in the fairway. If you narrow the fairways EVERYBODY misses, but the short guys are even more at a disadvantage. None of that is speculative, it's literally fact - but again, they don't bother to do the research and so say things like the above - which in turn, make the more casual golfer think what they're saying is correct ... and make very bored locked-down golfers like me, take angrily to forums to whinge about it.
 

Swinglowandslow

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
1,537
I have enjoyed the coverage given by Sky of all the recent golf.
There must be limits to choice if the number of cameras is limited, if the production team numbers are smaller, etc.
Then there are the limits put by the USA television hosts.
So, all in all, they do a pretty good job.
Especially at the Masters when some of the camera angles were really revealing.
As to watching mainly( only) the leaders, it is a competition with winners and losers.
When watching horse racing the cameras rarely move back to the also rans, especially in the closing stages.
So it is with golf.
What isn't very thrilling is that if the highlights are not long, then the editing tends to just show one putt after another. Now,that is boring.
 

MarkT

GM Forum Editor
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
483
Think the coverage has been amazing since coming back, so few people working on the programmes so a lot more repetition in terms of opinions and probably less pre-tournament bits with the players. When things get a bit more back to normal would like to be told a bit more about certain player's game from stats rather than the usual perceptions. Think Sky needs something different away from the old boys' network but one for the future

Sounds a bit cliched but have found their company and coverage quite reassuring through all this - and, without wanting to sound like Colin Controversial, I still like Mark Roe!
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Messages
2,828
Location
Glasgow
I suppose it's subjective. My conclusion from the last few weeks is there seems to be a preference for staying with a player or group for period of time, whether they be chatting, walking, faffing about, holing a 1 foot putt - rather than jumping to some golf elsewhere and then coming back.
Maybe it's thought that is telling more of a story for those being featured.
Personally I prefer to see more golf.
To clarify this isn't directed at any tour, country or broadcaster.
What say you...
Things that annoy me.

Showing a player on a hole, then not showing them complete that. I'm sure the broadcasters want to avoid this, so in many cases try to limit how many players they are showing in any one period. It doesn't bother me if they show stuff recorded to avoid that.

Failing to pick up a player making a run or otherwise involved in the tournament but, as you say, showing other guys doing not very much. One of the things that annoys me is if Tiger is playing on a Sunday, but doesn't have a chance of winning - broadcasters would still show all of his shots or devote as much time as if he was in the leading groups. I'd say I've noticed much less of this in recent years, so likely they've adjusted a bit. Tiger still gets more coverage, which is fair enough, but he doesn't seem to dominate the broadcast as much.

A similar thing used to really annoy me when the BBC covered the Masters or the Open, where they would give disproportionate coverage to GB&I players. 'here's Chris Wood's approach to the 16th...' so what!?
The guy is tied 20th while the leaders are on the 3rd hole, lets see that.

I think all in all, the broadcasters do a decent job. US stuff is heavily limited with adverts, but Sky do well piecing it together.
 

MarkT

GM Forum Editor
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
483
Agreed on the Tiger bit, if he's not in contention then it's of no real interest. I did quite like it back in the day when you used to get a sneak peek of Howard Clark or whoever playing the Masters - thank god for the new Masters site/app where you just watch your favourites play all 18
 

sunshine

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
2,080
One of the things that annoys me is if Tiger is playing on a Sunday, but doesn't have a chance of winning - broadcasters would still show all of his shots or devote as much time as if he was in the leading groups
Ultimately, Tiger is still the biggest name in golf. The broadcasters need to show what the armchair fans want to see, which is wall to wall Tiger. The viewers who would rather watch Matt Fitzpatrick making a late surge up the leaderboard are in the minority.
 

sunshine

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
2,080
Think the coverage has been amazing since coming back, so few people working on the programmes so a lot more repetition in terms of opinions and probably less pre-tournament bits with the players. When things get a bit more back to normal would like to be told a bit more about certain player's game from stats rather than the usual perceptions. Think Sky needs something different away from the old boys' network but one for the future

Sounds a bit cliched but have found their company and coverage quite reassuring through all this - and, without wanting to sound like Colin Controversial, I still like Mark Roe!
Good points... until you mentioned Roe :LOL:
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Messages
2,828
Location
Glasgow
Ultimately, Tiger is still the biggest name in golf. The broadcasters need to show what the armchair fans want to see, which is wall to wall Tiger. The viewers who would rather watch Matt Fitzpatrick making a late surge up the leaderboard are in the minority.
Appreciate that. And perhaps seeing a lot of average golf from Tiger in recent years has actually devalued his appeal somewhat and he isn't getting quite the same amount of coverage.

Obviously Tiger is still a big draw but he's no longer the best player.

I'd argue that showing a Matt Fitzpatrick surge, or equivalent, is good for the game as it raises the profile or more players. So the next time Fitzpatrick, or whoever, is playing, a few more viewers feel an affinity with him. I certainly have a much greater affinity for Sungjae Im having watched a lot of him at the Masters, even though I'd seen plenty of him before.

Ultimately I love golf and watching it. But I do need a few recognisable names to be on show... albeit I'm sure my list of recognisable names is far greater than a lot of other peoples.

It's a big hill to get over for a casual fan as you need to invest the time, watch quite a bit, read the social media etc.
And one that golf struggles with hugely as we are in a post Tiger era and it seems someone different wins almost every major. Far easier in the past when it was Tiger v Phil, Vijay, Duval etc. People could easily set up as a Tiger fan, or root for the underdog.

Now even the top players hardly ever end up competing for the same tournament. Rory v DJ or Rory v Brooks should happen far more often than it has.
 

sunshine

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
2,080
I'd argue that showing a Matt Fitzpatrick surge, or equivalent, is good for the game
I'm not arguing with you, but that's not what people want to see.

A majority would rather see a glimpse of Tiger warming up on the range, walking through the car park, tying his shoelaces, blowing his nose, rather than live on course footage of almost any golfer outside the world top 20. In the words of the big man, it is what it is.
 

HomerJSimpson

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
67,217
Location
Bracknell - Berkshire
I'm prepared to cut the coverage some slack with diminished crew, and if playing in the US limited feed to deal with. I thought the SA coverage was good apart from the female commentator that made Roe look good. I am sure once Covid passes and we get back to normality coverage will get back to normal. In which case I've not got too many issues aside from poor commentating. The ET tour has been good (pre-Covid and full coverage) at switching to players coming through the pack, certainly better than the US
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Messages
2,828
Location
Glasgow
I'm not arguing with you, but that's not what people want to see.

A majority would rather see a glimpse of Tiger warming up on the range, walking through the car park, tying his shoelaces, blowing his nose, rather than live on course footage of almost any golfer outside the world top 20. In the words of the big man, it is what it is.
They can and should do both.

The broadcasters have to see their business post Tiger and unless they can get more people to watch the players who will be competing, then they are going to have a smaller audience and have missed an opportunity to grow it as every tournament that Tiger plays, is one more closer to his last.

It's a bit like boxing... sure people pay to see Joshua v Klitschco, but they put an undercard on so that when these guys aren't around there might be enough other boxers that have gotten a bit of exposure to become a draw in their own right.

But from what I hear and see, I don't think the broadcasters care. They just show what's on and don't think many steps ahead.
 

Slab

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
8,160
Location
Port Louis
Has the art been lost? Did we ever have it done to an art?

It sure as hell wasn’t watching those guys in plus 4’s running about at 2½ x normal speed narrated by Mr Cholmondley-Warner
It wasn’t when we had a fixed camera on wooden tripod showing a players tee shot, bending down for a tee and the camera stays on them with no chance of seeing the ball in flight/land
Was this around the time when commentary wasn’t done live but 100% added in a studio after the event
Was it really when cameramen weren’t practiced enough in filming to even follow a ball in flight being played out a bunker without a very wide angle lens
Maybe it was when we couldn’t even see a long putt ball rolling on the green until the camera zoomed right in when it was just 3’ to go with the drawl of a monotone presenter

At what point could we honestly say that live golf has ever been produced & edited to a level higher than it is right now?
 

sunshine

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
2,080
They can and should do both.

The broadcasters have to see their business post Tiger and unless they can get more people to watch the players who will be competing, then they are going to have a smaller audience and have missed an opportunity to grow it as every tournament that Tiger plays, is one more closer to his last.

It's a bit like boxing... sure people pay to see Joshua v Klitschco, but they put an undercard on so that when these guys aren't around there might be enough other boxers that have gotten a bit of exposure to become a draw in their own right.

But from what I hear and see, I don't think the broadcasters care. They just show what's on and don't think many steps ahead.
I hear you, but Tiger plays so rarely these days that they want to extract every possible minute of him they can. There might not be many more tournaments featuring Tiger again so they have to cash in while they can.

I see Tiger has signed up to the parent/child tournament in Florida next month. Will be very interesting to see coverage of that event explode.
 
Top