Sky's coverage of The Open wins Sports BAFTA

[HomerJSimpson]

The last paragraph is rubbish, Ken Brown rolling balls on greens, I take it that's not a gimmick?
Many events, including The Masters, overseas broadcasters have to take host nation feed, so at no time did the BBC just show Golf.
You are completely against Sky and instead of congratulating them on winning a major award, which the BBC coverage never did, you look for negatives, winning the BAFTA can mean increased awareness, sponsorship etc which could be good for the game.

Well put. Ken on the greens is not only old hat (same thing dressed up differently every year) but the commentary is old and dated and I have no time for Cotter. I would rather listen to Beem, Harmon etc week in week out. Whether the anti-sky on here like it or not the BBC dumped the Open early and made their intent on coverage very clear. Sky just reacted by taking it up a year earlier than expected and clearly produced a top level event that was worthy of a BAFTA. Like most things those against will never leave their entrenched spot and enhance what's on offer and fall back on the "not growing the game" argument. It's there if people want to watch it. If not or you don't have access to the Sky pictures blame the BBC for ruthlessly dumping most mainstream sport

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Well put. Ken on the greens is not only old hat (same thing dressed up differently every year) but the commentary is old and dated and I have no time for Cotter. I would rather listen to Beem, Harmon etc week in week out. Whether the anti-sky on here like it or not the BBC dumped the Open early and made their intent on coverage very clear. Sky just reacted by taking it up a year earlier than expected and clearly produced a top level event that was worthy of a BAFTA. Like most things those against will never leave their entrenched spot and enhance what's on offer and fall back on the "not growing the game" argument. It's there if people want to watch it. If not or you don't have access to the Sky pictures blame the BBC for ruthlessly dumping most mainstream sport

I have no issue with people prefering BBC over Sky, but at least be honest in the post, last night the the Sky coverage from The Players was a pain in the a$$ as it was NBC feed and its biase was awful, Alex Noren finished around top ten and we didn't see him once.
Adverts, hate them, but without Sky we'd have literally have 4-5 golf events to watch a year.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Those filler spots, whether Ken or Sky, would exist whatever and you don't actually miss any golf. They happen when the US are on advert breaks, if it is US feed, or to add to the viewing experience. The live golf is recorded and then we catch up without being aware, nothing missed. I find most of those fillers interesting and they add to the programme.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Those filler spots, whether Ken or Sky, would exist whatever and you don't actually miss any golf. They happen when the US are on advert breaks, if it is US feed, or to add to the viewing experience. The live golf is recorded and then we catch up without being aware, nothing missed. I find most of those fillers interesting and they add to the programme.

:thup:

 

[Hobbit]

Do I want to watch the embodiment of the dour, old fashioned side of golf, i.e. the Beeb, or do I want shot tracer?

Well done Sky for dragging golf coverage into the modern era.

As for Alliss and Co, yes I enjoy them, really do enjoy them. But that's more because I grew up in the age when golf coverage resembled the lounge at an old golf club. The choice is comfy slippers or running spikes...

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Those filler spots, whether Ken or Sky, would exist whatever and you don't actually miss any golf. They happen when the US are on advert breaks, if it is US feed, or to add to the viewing experience. The live golf is recorded and then we catch up without being aware, nothing missed. I find most of those fillers interesting and they add to the programme.

The Open is the feed of Sky - lots of breaks for adverts or to show a gimmick or an interview etc - all going on whilst live golf was happening. The BBC had the odd Ken Brown , quick flash of the leaderboard and back to the golf.

You don't need fillers during the Open coverage - it's 13 hours non stop golf with the coverage at the hands of Sky.

During the Masters they had someone at the Sky cart - changed over to the BBC and they were showing the live golf going on - Ken and his stuff was done during the breaks - Sky ad in their own breaks away from the golf.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The Open is the feed of Sky - lots of breaks for adverts or to show a gimmick or an interview etc - all going on whilst live golf was happening. The BBC had the odd Ken Brown , quick flash of the leaderboard and back to the golf.

You don't need fillers during the Open coverage - it's 13 hours non stop golf with the coverage at the hands of Sky.

During the Masters they had someone at the Sky cart - changed over to the BBC and they were showing the live golf going on - Ken and his stuff was done during the breaks - Sky ad in their own breaks away from the golf.

And the ad breaks are limited to 60 seconds and 4 per hour if I remember correctly as part of their deal. Hardly intrusive and certainly not a lot

 

[Hacker Khan]

I have no issue with people prefering BBC over Sky, but at least be honest in the post, last night the the Sky coverage from The Players was a pain in the a$$ as it was NBC feed and its biase was awful, Alex Noren finished around top ten and we didn't see him once.
Adverts, hate them, but without Sky we'd have literally have 4-5 golf events to watch a year.

There was an interesting interview wit the guy in the US who runs the TV production on The Shackhouse podcast the other day. And he said his intention was to show at least meaningful shot from every player in the field.

 

[Raesy92]

Skys coverage of The Open was absolutely superb, much better than the BBC coverage. Those that say otherwise is probably because they have some sort of dislike to Sky rather than the coverage they produced.

 

[Hobbit]

I have no issue with people prefering BBC over Sky, but at least be honest in the post, last night the the Sky coverage from The Players was a pain in the a$$ as it was NBC feed and its biase was awful, Alex Noren finished around top ten and we didn't see him once.
Adverts, hate them, but without Sky we'd have literally have 4-5 golf events to watch a year.

You must have been making your cocoa. I remember seeing Noren.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

You must have been making your cocoa. I remember seeing Noren.

They showed him at the beginning, he then dropped a few shots and coverage disappeared, following it in the PGA App he turned it around a bit but the coverage didn't.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The Open is the feed of Sky - lots of breaks for adverts or to show a gimmick or an interview etc - all going on whilst live golf was happening. The BBC had the odd Ken Brown , quick flash of the leaderboard and back to the golf.

You don't need fillers during the Open coverage - it's 13 hours non stop golf with the coverage at the hands of Sky.

During the Masters they had someone at the Sky cart - changed over to the BBC and they were showing the live golf going on - Ken and his stuff was done during the breaks - Sky ad in their own breaks away from the golf.

:rofl: THEY WON A BAFTA FOR THAT COVERAGE :rofl:

Please show what the BBC won for all the years they showed The Open.

As for your Masters comment it went both ways, I watched Sky on my Laptop and BBC on the TV and at times BBC went to interviews or hole flyovers while Sky had Golf on.

 

[Piece]

Dare I say that the youngsters of today, the ones who will takeover from most of us, want to see the gizmos, tech and gadgets in the game. Sky are trying to fulfil this and should be applauded in bringing the game into the 21st century. It is a shame that they only broadcast to a minority.

 

[Region3]

I think I can hear the fingers warming up for an assault on the keyboards

Whatever the rights and wrongs, Sky do a very good job of covering sport and that is what the award is for. The rest is another issue that we both agree has been done to death :thup:

Well that didn't take long did it.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Well that didn't take long did it.

You sound surprised

 

[Hosel Fade]

How much of that was because of Stenson and Mickelson rather than their actual production, can't remember much about the broadcast to be honest.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

How much of that was because of Stenson and Mickelson rather than their actual production, can't remember much about the broadcast to be honest.

It beat off both The Olympics and Para-Olympics and the 6 Nations match between England and Wales.

It recognised the whole coverage and some of the innovations never seen on UK TV before, I was surprised it was the first time the opening tee shot has ever been shown live on
UK TV, it had 13 hours of live coverage, as much as the final pairing was superb, it was the production of the whole event that was recognised.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

How much of that was because of Stenson and Mickelson rather than their actual production, can't remember much about the broadcast to be honest.

Prob the same when cricket won one year when it was the final day of an ashes test or when Wimbledon won when Murray won - the action and the drama add to it all - it was a final day that was amazing duel.

It can go among those greats like Eastenders , Mrs Browns Boys and Ant and Dec who have all won multiple BAFTA's

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Prob the same when cricket won one year when it was the final day of an ashes test or when Wimbledon won when Murray won - the action and the drama add to it all - it was a final day that was amazing duel.

It can go among those greats like Eastenders , Mrs Browns Boys and Ant and Dec who have all won multiple BAFTA's

When people praise Sky and you comment, do you look in the mirror and see Shivas talking about Poulter?

 

[craigstardis1976]

As a relative newbie to golf can someone please explain to me what the attraction of Peter Alliss (if there ever was any) actually was? There are bits on YouTube where he says something amusing but looking at some back in the day tournaments on there, his voice sounds like it never quite broke properly (it just sounds like a guttural croak now.) He seemed to present himself as very stockbroker belt, friend of the stars type. Was this kind of personality endearing to the British people in the 60's through the 90's. He has always struck me as a man who came into a lot of money through his work, has never quite got used to it and cant help but telling others how things were better in his day (he probably thought The Quatermass Experiment was too daring for TV) with the assumption that everyone lives, thinks and breathes the way he does. What is the appeal of the man?

Just count yourself lucky you are not faced with the nasally whine and OTT sentimentality, soppiness and groveling creature that is Jim Nantz on CBS.