News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Is Oakmont the Perfect Television Course?
« on: June 17, 2016, 06:12:04 AM »
Not an archi topic, but it does seem to me the television viewer, that this is perhaps the most perfect course for my viewing pleasure.

Tree lined courses don't work, as everything is defined and constrained and you really cant get a sense of the scale of the place even at Augusta.

Links courses are open, but they tend to be rather lacking in colour contrast and so again don't work so well on the screen

This place however, perhaps somewhat like Shinnecock is perfect. Wide open so you see the whole vista, lots of colour contrast so it stands out, lots of contour that works on tele, and no silly ocean views that distract from the real action.

Fox will no doubt be demanding in future that there be no trees. Its all just golf

« Last Edit: June 17, 2016, 06:13:56 AM by Josh Stevens »

mike_beene

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Oakmont the Perfect Television Course?
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2016, 11:06:57 PM »
Also less of a shadow problem on the greens late in the afternoon.

Mike Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Oakmont the Perfect Television Course?
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2016, 06:03:30 PM »
I have to say I like the FOX Sports telecast today:


  • Gil Hanse was on earlier today, talking about the architecture;
  • Zinger and Curtis Strange could be annoying in the old days, but I have been enjoying their commentary;
  • The camera work and graphics following the ball are great;
  • Joe Buck is an upgrade over Dan Hicks.
Year 2 is pretty good so far....
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us."

Dr. Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Oakmont the Perfect Television Course?
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2016, 08:50:41 PM »
I have to say I like the FOX Sports telecast today:


  • Gil Hanse was on earlier today, talking about the architecture;
  • Zinger and Curtis Strange could be annoying in the old days, but I have been enjoying their commentary;
  • The camera work and graphics following the ball are great;
  • Joe Buck is an upgrade over Dan Hicks.
Year 2 is pretty good so far....


Maybe with the mute button on.
I haven't watched much but Azinger said "what's his name was 10 shots back in '99 and was able to win when what's his name tripled 18 in the last round"
wow
have seen at least 3 shots where a backboard was in play and they cut away to the player and not to the ball which ended up significantly closer than when the cut away.
I do like the contour feature
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Oakmont the Perfect Television Course?
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2016, 08:53:39 PM »
I have to say I like the FOX Sports telecast today:


  • Gil Hanse was on earlier today, talking about the architecture;
  • Zinger and Curtis Strange could be annoying in the old days, but I have been enjoying their commentary;
  • The camera work and graphics following the ball are great;
  • Joe Buck is an upgrade over Dan Hicks.
Year 2 is pretty good so far....

Mike,

Other than Gils comments which have been interesting, I've found their coverage to be lackluster at best.

Joe Buck is clearly out of his wheel house akin to Chris Berman when he used to do them.
Zinger is just OK, but Curtis is still annoying as hell, pulling a Johnnie Miller impression by criticizing everyone and anyone...

The only cool thing is seeing the ball tracer more and more...it was fun seeing how much bend Bubba was putting on the ball.


Will Peterson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Oakmont the Perfect Television Course?
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2016, 12:22:22 AM »
The course looks amazing on TV.  I haven't seen a course that mows the fairways sideways.  They showed some replays from 2007, and they did the same that year as well.


I like the tracer, and especially the dual screen with a hole diagram with a tracer on one side and the player on the other.


I agree with the poor camera work.  Too many of the balls rolling off false edges are zoomed in so close you can't tell where or how far it's going from the hole.  They will show a player watch and not the ball as it slowly trickles on the putting surface.  On the shot that Westwood holed, they showed his face until the ball was about three feet away.  Where did it land and how did it get into the hole?  They seem to be sitting on groups walking or waiting or just sitting instead of going to other players.  I know they always limit the number of people they cover during the final round (never understood why they don't show more or use tape delay on Sundays), but they seemed to do it for much of the coverage all three days.  Why are you showing a person walk down the fairway for 40 seconds when you could show another shot?  I really didn't like how much they showed people warming up between rounds.  At one point, there were at least 8 groups on the course, but they showed Johnson hit 15 wedges on the range.  You can't tell me there wasn't a better shot that actually counted to show during this time.


I am getting fed up with the constant praise for "deliberate" players.  They aren't deliberate, they are slow.  This isn't just a Fox criticism as every network does it, but they were guilty of it today.


I also don't understand why they have to talk so much about stimp numbers.  How about just talk that they are fast?  Now every person I see for the next month is going to talk about the course they were at with greens running at 14.  I did like that Zinger corrected Faxon or Strange when they said they were at 14.  He said, "I don't think they're 14, but they do have a lot of fire."


I like that Hanse is involved to discuss design, but pretty much all the other cut aways are completely worthless.  I didn't tune in to hear a terrible interview or what people on twitter are saying.  Show more golf.


I do like the target on the screen with a yardage to the pin or trouble.  I also like the blimp show that shows the routing with arrows.  It's neat to see how the holes fit together.


Overall, I think this year is considerably better than last.  They still have some members of the team that are really, really bad.  The other network crews all have some poor members, but it seems that some of the Fox team are incompetent or seem uncomfortable on TV.

Bill_Yates

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Oakmont the Perfect Television Course?
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2016, 12:57:13 AM »
And by the way, all the announcers are getting it wrong. The right front quarter of the ninth green is not known as the "piano bench" it's called the "piano top," like the ones on grand pianos that are tilted upward. Hole locations on the "piano top" are typically the most difficult, as any putt that is not on the player's right side of the hole will be a downhill breaking putt.

Another interesting feature of the ninth green is that if the hole is cut on the "piano top," and the player is putting from the left edge of the green, the putt will travel downhill, uphill, downhill, uphill and downhill. And, it won't be straight!
Bill Yates
www.pacemanager.com 
"When you manage the pace of play, you manage the quality of golf."

Greg Beaulieu

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Oakmont the Perfect Television Course?
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2016, 09:19:02 AM »
I have fallen in love with Oakmont watching the coverage on TV this week. I still have the '94 event on VHS tape as it was the last broadcast of the US Open by the ABC crew that had covered it all the years I was growing up, and my memory of that is heat, trees, the church pews, and fast greens, but not much else. I watched everything there was to watch as well in 2007, yet do not have a memory of being as impressed and interested in the course that year. In fact I remember being somewhat confused by #17 in '07 as it was presented on NBC's coverage, which did not let me see the layout of the steeply uphill fairway and green configuration as well as Fox has done this week. I think this is a compliment to Fox and Golf Channel in terms of the amount of time they have taken to discuss the architecture and history of the course. Gil Hanse has helped in that regard, as has the presence of Bob Ford on some of the morning coverage and the features aired on Golf Channel earlier in the week about the history of the course and the tree removal program, which was a fine piece by Matt Ginella.

I really enjoy the look of the course as shown on TV this week, with the open vistas and the interesting bunkers. It is lush and green and although I know this has fallen out of favor I do enjoy the look. Even when my game was at its best I doubt I would have enjoyed taking on such a beast but it is great fun to watch the best players try their best.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Oakmont the Perfect Television Course?
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2016, 09:26:09 AM »
Brad Faxon is excellent. Gil is very good. Love the graphics and the shot-tracker. Let's have more of whomever is on the 8th hole. He has had some good lines.


OTOH, Buck sounds like the baseball/football guy he is. Zinger doesn't seem to be trying. Curtis is Curtis.


Better than last year, but Fox still has work to do. 

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Oakmont the Perfect Television Course?
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2016, 10:55:49 PM »
Brad Faxon is excellent. Gil is very good. Love the graphics and the shot-tracker.

Better than last year, but Fox still has work to do.


Faxon great but stuck playing second fiddle to morons.
coverage/shot selection production terrible
how many times did they cut to an over par player, play it off as live, and you knew they were going to hole a meaningless shot. Very little Sergio shown while he was well in the hunt. Way too much time spent watching players not hitting shots. Landry was a great story and wasn't even shown after 4th or 5th hole. Bring back Frank Chirkinian
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey