Masters TV coverage

[Jim Johnson]

Curious as to what y'all thought of the TV coverage of this year's Masters...


JJ

[Doug Ralston]

I thought it was better than previous years, in the we actually got to see the front nine. Something Hootie would not allow.

Also, the Tiger haters must be ecstatic, because not only did he putt horribly [for him], and not win, but they showed all of the shots of the others in contention too.

I still would like to see a Women's Major played there, just to break that barrier, but I was overall fairly satisfied.

Doug

[RJ_Daley]

I thought it was very good.  And, the graphics and special technical things like the shot tracking and all, just keeps getting better.  I have no complaints, and I enjoy all the commentators abilities.  I think the coverage was by default more balanced regarding a fair amount of time on all the others in contention, rather than just Tiger, all the time, since Tiger wasn't a front runner.  

[Joe Bausch]

Hmm, I could write paragraphs on this topic.   

My big wish for The Masters tv coverage is more cameras.  For instance, that permanently mounted camera behind the 14th green completely distorts how severe that green must be.  Did you see how big a whack Tiger had to give the putt he had there otday?!  A handheld shot from behind that putt would really show how uphill that must be.

And can I make a fantasy announcer trade?  I'm confident Nantz is a nice guy but he is not my cup of tea.  Not at all, and I bet I'm not in a tiny minority.  Can I trade Nantz for Ben Wright?  I really miss him.  And to  think Vern Lundquist stole his "yes sir" line in the 1986 Masters.   

[Bob_Huntley]

Curious as to what y'all thought of the TV coverage of this year's Masters...


JJ

in TV Land

Curious as to what y'all thought of the TV coverage of this year's Masters...


JJ

JJ,

I did not watch this in HDTV as CBS and Dish Network seem unable to work something out about Local Coverage, as a result I had a tough time discerning where the hit ball hit the green and some of its roll to the pin.

I must say that Jim Nance is the most oleaginous announcer in TV Land. He makes a golf toonamint into a some sort of High Church service and Tiger Woods as its Pope.

Bob

[Kirk Gill]

I must say that Jim Nance is the most oleaginous announcer in TV Land. He makes a golf toonamint into a some sort of High Church service and Tiger Woods as its Pope.

I second that emotion.

[RJ_Daley]

Sir Boab, upon my return from the dictionary shelf, I can see where you would say he is a bit oily, syrupy or fawning flatterer...    Yet, would the masters of the Master's toon-a-mint have it any other way, including peans recited over the holy grounds?  This year, they had ESPN join the festivities, along with ESPN (and I'm sure the master's) pick of Mike Tirico handle some of the pontifications from the inner sanctums of the Bultler Cabin.  Where, Tirico promptly genuflected and gave praise to all that is good and reverant of the history and traditions of the Masters, (and in his sitting there - how far we've come, baby).  

Which announcers would you pick for the Masters (TM) approved duty who can stand and deliver the required psalms and odes to the sweet Carolina in the pines blessed ground?  

[Jfaspen]

Loved the shot-track technology.. Interesting to see Flesch's drive on 10 and Immelman's shot on 16 via that technology.. 

Thought a tad too much attention was given to Tiger, but it was obviously done for the ratings.. And he ended up 2nd, so it's tougher to 2nd guess.

I'd like Feherty to do more than the 15th, even if that wasn't possible due to his injury this year.

Payne does a much better job than Hootie at the green jacket ceremony.. "Ohh look, they're coming in now..." 4 years in a row :lol

I'm happy with CBS's coverage.. I loved Masters.org this year for it's coverage and quality.

jf

As an aside, I thought Immelman's reaction on 18 was muted to say the least..

[Jim Johnson]

Okay, he goes...

Every year it seems, I'm somehow disappointed with coverage of all of the majors, whether it's CBS, or NBC, or whoever.

I've whined about this before, but in all of the 5 (?) hours of TV coverage on the Sunday round, it's amazing to me how little is shown of golfers actually "hitting" their golf shots. Whether it's showing them standing around, hitching up their pants, or gazing into the tops of the trees to get a feel for the wind, or sipping from their Gatorade bottle, so little of actual golf shots is shown.

And the networks always seem to zone in on the 3 or 4 guys closest to the leader, and that's it. I see that Stewart Cink finished in a tie for 3rd, yet I don't think he really appeared on the TV screen until into the back nine. Jimenez shot an amazing 68, in blustery conditions, 4 SHOTS BETTER THAN THAT TIGER GUY, yet I don't recall seeing much, if any, of him, all day. Harrington? Romero? Yes, yes, I know...let's watch the leaders. Well, I'm just saying that between showing shots of the leaders, show (some) shots of these "other" guys, instead of the pants hitching and the tree gazing and the Gatorade sipping.

And Vern Lundquist, he seemed a bit lost out there today. I have no idea what he was thinking when Immelman hit it in the water on 16...

JJ

[Phil McDade]

I did see a relatively new camera angle on 17 -- which looks on TV as non-descript, and apparently isn't -- when they showed a chip from way over the right side of the green. The trajectory stuff, on another thread, is a terrific addition.

But, having reserved Sundays for one sermon, I really couldn't watch the opening 5-10 minutes of the broadcast. I literally turned off the TV; CBS has gone off the deep end with its reverence for the place and its coverage.

[David Stamm]

Curious as to what y'all thought of the TV coverage of this year's Masters...


JJ

in TV Land

Curious as to what y'all thought of the TV coverage of this year's Masters...


JJ

JJ,

 
I must say that Jim Nance is the most oleaginous announcer in TV Land. He makes a golf toonamint into a some sort of High Church service and Tiger Woods as its Pope.

Bob

Well said, Bob. It's certainly nauseating at times....

[Bill_McBride]

I thought it was very good.  And, the graphics and special technical things like the shot tracking and all, just keeps getting better.  I have no complaints, and I enjoy all the commentators abilities.  I think the coverage was by default more balanced regarding a fair amount of time on all the others in contention, rather than just Tiger, all the time, since Tiger wasn't a front runner. 

"....since Tiger wasn't a front runner."

Hello, Dick, he finished second!  That's Tiger, doesn't play well, only makes 2 putts all day, misses some little ones he never misses, and finishes second.

[David Stamm]

BTW, that's TW's 5th second place finish in a major. When his career is over I'm sure he'll have close to the same as JN, so that argument of who was better based on this will be thrown out. He'll probably finish between 12-16.

[Wayne_Kozun]

The computer graphics of the holes were amazing - it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between CG and live shots.

I wish they would lighten up on the schmaltz.  At times it is really getting hard to take.  More golf, less talk - we missed Tiger's biggest putt of the day.

CBS seemed to completely miss when Immelman hit it in the water on 16 - they thought it was in the bunker.  How could they miss that?

[Wade Whitehead]

I'm not sure what's worse: Jim Nantz's idolatry of Augusta National and their membership or the nauseating commentaries offered by Jim Huber and Rich Lerner on other networks.

WW

[RJ_Daley]

Maybe the announcers all do the sychophant thing about the ANGC and smear it on thick for the invites throughout the rest of the year.   

[Kirk Gill]

When it comes to the actual coverage of the GOLF, the camerawork and the angles they used were often stellar. I felt like they keep giving a better and better sense of the hilliness of the course, although I'd appreciate more ground-level shots of the greens, especially 16. I still feel like I don't have a strong sense of that green. I'd love a ground-level shot from the area where Tiger made his famous recovery shot, as the typical overhead shot that they have always used doesn't reveal the contour.

[jeffwarne]

BTW, that's TW's 5th second place finish in a major. When his career is over I'm sure he'll have close to the same as JN, so that argument of who was better based on this will be thrown out. He'll probably finish between 12-16.

David,
Tiger's got 13 wins-5 seconds-almost a 3-1 ratio

so if he's going to get "12-16 seconds"   you're saying he's going to get 34-40 majors?
wow- if that's the case,
I don't think # of second places will be needed to needed to determine if he was better than Jack

Why are you "sure he'll have close to the same amount as Jack?"

I enjoyed the coverage,although the commercials seemed more than year's past (but WAAAY less than any other event) Masters.org was great

[Jim Thompson]

Perhaps with all of the Masters talk about wanting input ion how to better the game they'd consider modifications that help one of the top issues in golf:  time required to play a round.  Average round at the Masters was what?  Never mind.  Or the excessive costs required to maintain greens above economic speeds.  Never mind.    Or maybe the continuous alterations needed to keep up with technology.  The Masters sets the standard for the general public golfers “ideal course” in the US, and the amount of information provided about the costs to present that is pretty poor.  I’m not saying that ANGC shouldn’t present the course they do for the tournament, but it sure would be nice if they’d show the nation some of those dormant drought photos, a maintenance expense listing and some real topo data.   I really appreciated the 3-dimensional renderings they used during the telecast.  Perhaps a few of the general population players will realize how much undulation is in those greens and that all of the speed isn’t just a result of mowing height.  That would be a good thing.  But cost to play and pace of play are the two biggest limiting factors when it comes to growing the game in the US.

2 cents….

[BuckeyeinBuffalo]

I really like the new ball traectory tracking. I am sure this is something we will see more of in the future.  It reminds me of the networks placing digital yard markers at the 10 yard lines (and goal-line) for football.

I bought a new 42' Samsung digital TV this year and was totally blown away by the picture that came on my screen when ESPN HD showed the masters earlier in the afternoon / evening this week. 

What is wrong with CBS? I am bothered that CBS has not gone digital yet, and my coverage of the masters and also the NCAA Tourney were terrible.  It comes across worse than my former analog / tube tv.

Old Dale

 



 

[Kevin_Reilly]

Old Dale, you might not have HD locals...check with your cable/sat provider.  The broadcast for me (Dish) was great HD on both CBS and the earlier rounds on ESPN.

[Tim_Cronin]

Old Dale,
   I don't know where you live, but almost all CBS affiliates now broadcast in both analog (which we've had forever) and digital. Is your cable system feeding the CBS affiliate's HD channel? It will be on a different spot on your cable system from the regular CBS affiliate.
   Likewise, the digital (HDTV) signal is a different channel from the regular channel over the air.
   Here in Chicago, the regular channel is on over-the-air Ch. 2 and the digital channel is on Ch. 3. On cable where I live, it's 2 and 189, respectively.
   Sorry you missed it.

[Jim Thompson]

I'm glad another Chicagoan is on here for this analogy.  The Masters today is the United Center.  Before these changes, it was the Chicago Stadium.

EXACTLY!

[RJ_Daley]

I agree Jim.  Would it really be a diminishment of the mystique of the ANGC, if they had some sort of disclaimer when presenting all this idyllic conditioning, if they said, "don't try this at your home course.... your superintendent undoubtedly works hard to give you the best conditions your budget can afford... but the Masters, and the way we present our toon-a-mint is for one week only... you can't expect results like that all the time with far less resources than we have..."

[Jim Thompson]

I agree Jim.  Would it really be a diminishment of the mystique of the ANGC, if they had some sort of disclaimer when presenting all this idyllic conditioning, if they said, "don't try this at your home course.... your superintendent undoubtedly works hard to give you the best conditions your budget can afford... but the Masters, and the way we present our toon-a-mint is for one week only... you can't expect results like that all the time with far less resources than we have..."

I think it would actually enhace the toonamint unlike any others perception.  To come out and say matter of factly that to be invited into this field is to be allowed to experience conditions... unlike any other, provided by a budget... unlike any other, and that the course will be closing in a couple weeks... unlike any other... would in effect be transparency and a benefit to the game as a whole, you guessed it, unlike any other.