LIV Golf

[GB72]

Does that make any difference to how it’s watched on TV? They can still only show one shot at a time, and it will still take 4 or 5 hours to complete each round.

I guess it will make some difference in that you will have a full course to show coverage of. That may help early and late in the rounds when a triaditional start may be struggling for coverage with only a few groups to show. It could, and I emphasise could, make for more exciting coverage more akin to the middle of a round in a traditional tournament when coverage can flip from one bit of action to another as things develop on the course. This could happen from the start to the finish rather than just in the middle when the course is full in a traditional tournament.

 

[PJ87]

I guess it will make some difference in that you will have a full course to show coverage of. That may help early and late in the rounds when a triaditional start may be struggling for coverage with only a few groups to show. It could, and I emphasise could, make for more exciting coverage more akin to the middle of a round in a traditional tournament when coverage can flip from one bit of action to another as things develop on the course. This could happen from the start to the finish rather than just in the middle when the course is full in a traditional tournament.

And the end of a major last few holes when you see endless repeats of tigers chip or adverts constantly because the players are all but finished and it takes time to walk to a ball

There will always be a shot going on

 

[Bdill93]

I guess it will make some difference in that you will have a full course to show coverage of. That may help early and late in the rounds when a triaditional start may be struggling for coverage with only a few groups to show. It could, and I emphasise could, make for more exciting coverage more akin to the middle of a round in a traditional tournament when coverage can flip from one bit of action to another as things develop on the course. This could happen from the start to the finish rather than just in the middle when the course is full in a traditional tournament.

Exactly this. From 2pm until around 6.30pm there will be golf on every hole on the course. Thats a tiny window in comparison to the average tour event.

You get to see people playing "the great holes" all the time, not just when the leading group get to it.

Very interesting to me anyway!

 

[Swango1980]

So it’s still just golf fans then ? No “new” audience

Every audience is always "new". With millions of golf fans, the overall audience is constantly refreshed. Some leave as they no longer enjoy the game, or pass away. New ones join, often younger people or people just getting into the sport. It is the cycle of life.

So, the question is, will LIV golf increase that audience more than it generally was already, do nothing or decrease it? I was certainly sceptical at first, with the novelty nature of it and lack of depth in the field. However, 48 pages into this thread, and it has certainly sparked a lot of interest amongst us. Even the ones that hate the idea feel interested enough to express that opinion, and in some respects any publicity is good publicity at this stage for it. Now that DJ has signed up, and some pretty big name "has beens", it certainly adds intrigue. The politics with the PGA is interesting, with the likes of DJ withdrawing their membership. I think this fight between the PGA and LIV could be brilliant for LIV, as it will keep them front page news on the golfing headlines.

Youtube could well make it more accessible to younger fans. They'll still need probably need to get that spark for golf from somewhere else, like their parents or family getting them into the game. But, once that happens, they can then just watch golf on youtube on their TV, phones, etc for free. Mind you, if LIV takes off, is it just a matter of time before the likes of Sky offer them millions to broadcast it?

 

[GB72]

So it’s still just golf fans then ? No “new” audience

Bit lost here, can you clear up what the point is that you are making. Is it that golf coverage on a free to air media should not be tried as it will not attract new audiences. Is it that golf on a social media platform would not work in attracting new audiences so should not be tried. Is it that new formats of golf are bound to fail to attract new audiences so shoudl not be tried. Is it that golf should only be played on the recognised tours.

From my point of view, there is golf on TV this weekend on a free to air medium that I can watch and that is good enough for me. I can see the argument about the funding source, hell I can even see an argument about diluting a product by removing elements from the main tour but from a pure viewing perspective, having a sport on any form of medium can only do more good than harm even if it only brings back lapsed golf watchers like me.

 

[BubbaP]

He's right though

i'm sure there'll be thousands of viewers on youtube but it will be substantially less than if it was on terrestrial tele

Perhaps you are thinking about this with a 'UK lens' only? Many countries don't have terrestrial tv.

 

[Swango1980]

Questions:

1. Shotgun start: Whose opening drive will they choose to show? My money is on Dustin. Second option is Phil. They will probably ask Dustin to tee off first in his group, Phil 4th, so they can definitely show both. If they were both 1st to tee off, they'd have a dilemma on whose drive to show.

2. Do teams play in the same group (groups of 4). I'm guessing they will. Therefore, groups of 4 and probably longer rounds? (PGA is groups of 3 in opening days, groups of 2 at weekend)

3. If 2 or 3 players are tied going into the last hole, or close, will the broadcasters panic about whose shot they will show? You could have 2 or 3 players putting at the same time for the potential win. Commentators usually love to build the shot up, and discuss what is going through the players head as they walk down the fairway / circle the putt to size it up. There will probably be little of that with this happening with multiple golfers at the same time on different holes.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Should be fun watching everyone pile up behind Kevin Na

 

[PJ87]

Every audience is always "new". With millions of golf fans, the overall audience is constantly refreshed. Some leave as they no longer enjoy the game, or pass away. New ones join, often younger people or people just getting into the sport. It is the cycle of life.

So, the question is, will LIV golf increase that audience more than it generally was already, do nothing or decrease it? I was certainly sceptical at first, with the novelty nature of it and lack of depth in the field. However, 48 pages into this thread, and it has certainly sparked a lot of interest amongst us. Even the ones that hate the idea feel interested enough to express that opinion, and in some respects any publicity is good publicity at this stage for it. Now that DJ has signed up, and some pretty big name "has beens", it certainly adds intrigue. The politics with the PGA is interesting, with the likes of DJ withdrawing their membership. I think this fight between the PGA and LIV could be brilliant for LIV, as it will keep them front page news on the golfing headlines.

Youtube could well make it more accessible to younger fans. They'll still need probably need to get that spark for golf from somewhere else, like their parents or family getting them into the game. But, once that happens, they can then just watch golf on youtube on their TV, phones, etc for free. Mind you, if LIV takes off, is it just a matter of time before the likes of Sky offer them millions to broadcast it?

I've been talking to a few today about it. Someone was and is still dead against it morally but he is at least past the bit of just shouting sportswashing in the debate (much like fake news) and was interested how it will play out. He is a golf purest so it's not really for him anyways

Another I spoke to when he heard YouTube. Shot gun starts and 3 days he said wow that's going to make it so much easier to commit to following

 

[Depreston]

Perhaps you are thinking about this with a 'UK lens' only? Many countries don't have terrestrial tv.

Aye true

 

[GB72]

Should be fun watching everyone pile up behind Kevin Na

Fair point well made. On the other hand, perhaps a chance for the rules officials on this tour to take this by the scruff of the neck and start enforcing time penalites. Great way to make a few positive headlines by taking the sort of action that the PGA tour have been asked to take for years.

 

[GB72]

Questions:

1. Shotgun start: Whose opening drive will they choose to show? My money is on Dustin. Second option is Phil. They will probably ask Dustin to tee off first in his group, Phil 4th, so they can definitely show both. If they were both 1st to tee off, they'd have a dilemma on whose drive to show.

2. Do teams play in the same group (groups of 4). I'm guessing they will. Therefore, groups of 4 and probably longer rounds? (PGA is groups of 3 in opening days, groups of 2 at weekend)

3. If 2 or 3 players are tied going into the last hole, or close, will the broadcasters panic about whose shot they will show? You could have 2 or 3 players putting at the same time for the potential win. Commentators usually love to build the shot up, and discuss what is going through the players head as they walk down the fairway / circle the putt to size it up. There will probably be little of that with this happening with multiple golfers at the same time on different holes.

The mention of the drives is interesting. What a potentially great start to the coverage having 18 drives to sow whilst the next golfer is getting ready. A reall opportunity for wall to wall coverage from the off rather than the traditionally slow strat oto tournament coverage. May work, may not but could be a differnt viewing experience.

 

[Depreston]

Fair point well made. On the other hand, perhaps a chance for the rules officials on this tour to take this by the scruff of the neck and start enforcing time penalites. Great way to make a few positive headlines by taking the sort of action that the PGA tour have been asked to take for years.

Zero chance of that happening

 

[PJ87]

Questions:

1. Shotgun start: Whose opening drive will they choose to show? My money is on Dustin. Second option is Phil. They will probably ask Dustin to tee off first in his group, Phil 4th, so they can definitely show both. If they were both 1st to tee off, they'd have a dilemma on whose drive to show.

2. Do teams play in the same group (groups of 4). I'm guessing they will. Therefore, groups of 4 and probably longer rounds? (PGA is groups of 3 in opening days, groups of 2 at weekend)

3. If 2 or 3 players are tied going into the last hole, or close, will the broadcasters panic about whose shot they will show? You could have 2 or 3 players putting at the same time for the potential win. Commentators usually love to build the shot up, and discuss what is going through the players head as they walk down the fairway / circle the putt to size it up. There will probably be little of that with this happening with multiple golfers at the same time on different holes.

Fair point well made. On the other hand, perhaps a chance for the rules officials on this tour to take this by the scruff of the neck and start enforcing time penalites. Great way to make a few positive headlines by taking the sort of action that the PGA tour have been asked to take for years.

Or because he already has been paid a fortune, and because it's best 2 scores from a team he might speed up because that shot isn't worth as much if he misses it

 

[Sports_Fanatic]

The mention of the drives is interesting. What a potentially great start to the coverage having 18 drives to sow whilst the next golfer is getting ready. A reall opportunity for wall to wall coverage from the off rather than the traditionally slow strat oto tournament coverage. May work, may not but could be a differnt viewing experience.

Surely though players take 40 seconds to a minute to play a shot, so they just can't show those shots, perhaps two at best unless they solely show a player striking the ball and no other parts of it. Not sure I want the shots being shown that quickly.

I get to a degree shorter event but I struggle to think they'll show that much more so both at the course and on TV you're likely to see less. The only bit "interesting" is working out who is in contention if someone is at -3 but have got the easier holes upcoming vs -6 and about to play the bear pit for want of a better example. Who are the producers focusing on in that situation if their are multiple players and then can't fit it all in. Seems a challenge but then I expect they are pretty switched on at it.

 

[evemccc]

Bit lost here, can you clear up what the point is that you are making. Is it that golf coverage on a free to air media should not be tried as it will not attract new audiences. Is it that golf on a social media platform would not work in attracting new audiences so should not be tried. Is it that new formats of golf are bound to fail to attract new audiences so shoudl not be tried. Is it that golf should only be played on the recognised tours.

From my point of view, there is golf on TV this weekend on a free to air medium that I can watch and that is good enough for me. I can see the argument about the funding source, hell I can even see an argument about diluting a product by removing elements from the main tour but from a pure viewing perspective, having a sport on any form of medium can only do more good than harm even if it only brings back lapsed golf watchers like me.

Great post

 

[Imurg]

Draft is a bit of a fix then....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1534189508119433223

 

[PJ87]

Bit lost here, can you clear up what the point is that you are making. Is it that golf coverage on a free to air media should not be tried as it will not attract new audiences. Is it that golf on a social media platform would not work in attracting new audiences so should not be tried. Is it that new formats of golf are bound to fail to attract new audiences so shoudl not be tried. Is it that golf should only be played on the recognised tours.

From my point of view, there is golf on TV this weekend on a free to air medium that I can watch and that is good enough for me. I can see the argument about the funding source, hell I can even see an argument about diluting a product by removing elements from the main tour but from a pure viewing perspective, having a sport on any form of medium can only do more good than harm even if it only brings back lapsed golf watchers like me.

I really enjoyed that match between tiger and Phil with Tom Brady and peyton Manning .. it was great to watch. It was a pure money spin, it was one round. It was gimmicky.. but hell it was fun

 

[GB72]

Surely though players take 40 seconds to a minute to play a shot, so they just can't show those shots, perhaps two at best unless they solely show a player striking the ball and no other parts of it. Not sure I want the shots being shown that quickly.

I get to a degree shorter event but I struggle to think they'll show that much more so both at the course and on TV you're likely to see less. The only bit "interesting" is working out who is in contention if someone is at -3 but have got the easier holes upcoming vs -6 and about to play the bear pit for want of a better example. Who are the producers focusing on in that situation if their are multiple players and then can't fit it all in. Seems a challenge but then I expect they are pretty switched on at it.

This to me is the whole point though. We ae talking about how, it will be shown, how it will be covered, how we will understand the positions etc. Isn't it nice to have something a bit different to discuss in the buildup, something new to talk about during and after the tournament rather than the same old same old. May be awful but it is nice to actually have someting a little off from the norm to look at.

 

[garyinderry]

It will be intresting to see how they keep up with play. With so much golf going on at one time its impossible to show it all.

Following proceedings could become quite difficult for the viewer.

Time will tell. The no names will probably get very little coverage unless they do something remarkable or are in contention. Kinda like it is now.