With regards to Tiger's shirt, Nike have not been able to fill demand since he first wore the mock back at Torrey pInes 3 yeras ago, and I see no problem with it at least it looks smart...much better than Lehman in his Dockers

With regards to the Phil snub, I think you guys are reading too much into it, I know the guys dont like eachother, but with all that emotion going on, I do not think there was any intent on Tiger's part at all...from my limited contact with the guy that does not gel with his personality..competitive yes..petty certainly not.

I am a huge Tiger fan however....as long as he continues to work on what he is working on..that huge block will be there off the tee and occasionally with his iron game as well....hell..that tee shot on 17 was a full 50 yards fron the centre of the fairway...anda simple 8 iron on 18 25 yards offline...a super win..but it serves to mask the swing problems that still exist.
But that is how good he is..he can win despite that, awesome talent and resolve.
Ther are not many who could hit those two shots on 17 and 18 and then come back with the two he hit in the playoff..pure guts and determination.
Cuddos to diMARCO...great efoort and equally high in the guts department.

Perhaps it takes more courage to lay up.  One runs the risk of being second-guessed, as well as putting extreme pressure on the third shot.  For every Chip Beck, there's a DiMarco and Toms - not to mention a Billy Joe Patton.

Maybe Tiger should have laid up on 13 and 15 from where he was...but far be it for me to second guess a guy who made 25 birdies on the week (and 12 bogeys).  Maybe he could have cut down on the bogeys with a bit more conservative play, but who knows if it would have eliminated just as many, if not more of the birdies.  Live by the sword, die by the sword.

So 218 was the number to the green, not the pin.  That helps me understand it.  Lanny Wadkins seemed to be in "keeping-up-with-the-Johnny-Millers" mode when he said DiMarco was playing for 2nd.

Luckily here in Spain I got to watch the coverage on the BBC...no ads, no Lanny, and a bit more diversity in their coverage.  They actually showed a lot of non-Tiger/DiMarco golf, of course focusing on the Brits.  Lots of action from Donald, Howell, Clarke, Poulter (and his numerous shanks  ).  They also showed the final 9 of the 3rd round, on a 2 hour delay.

Very similar to David Toms in the PGA at Atlanta a couple years ago.  And he was right, he laid up, stuffed a wedge, and made birdie, just like Toms.  

Just a nit, but Toms made a par 4.  I think most of the criticism of DiMarco and Beck is rooted in the 15th being a 500-yard par 5.

First of all, great toooonamint to say the least. I thought Feherty had the best line yesterday. Tiger was up four on the fourth hole when David broke this one out, "He is in that lonely place he loves so much right now." That's great stuff.

How many times did Lanny say, "That's a heck of a play" yesterday??

If you are watching a horse race do you want to watch the horses with a chance of winning, or do you want the TV cameras to spend precious time on the two plugs battling for 16th place on their way to the glue factory?

CBS had PLENTY of time to show more golf than they did, from more golfers, without missing anything important in the Woods/DiMarco "match." They must have spent at least a quarter of their TV time watching Tiger and Chris walk, watching Tiger and Chris stare into the distance, watching Tiger and Chris line up putts, watching Tiger and Chris contemplate club selection. Granted, some of this stuff is compelling viewing (e.g., club selection at 13 and 15), but most of it isn't.

Yes, I wanted to see the also-rans play some golf. Of course, I'm an oddball geek golf fan, and no one arranges telecasts to suit oddball geek golf fans. We're not a mass market; the Up Close and Personal audience is.

My problem with the leaders-only style of golf telecast, by no means unique to CBS at the Masters  (the sort of telecast where the only time they break away is to show a shot that you already know, before you see it, is a BRILLIANT shot -- or, if it's Mickelson making his second putt on 16, you know it's going to be a miss, quite possibly followed by another miss), is that such telecasts fail to show off the difficulties and perils of the golf course and the game. The leaders, by definition, are the guys who aren't getting into so much trouble as the other guys. Since they never show you how those glue-factory candidates are messing up, you can't fully appreciate how impressively the leaders are playing.

Just for example: How many shots did we get to see into 15 yesterday? Two? I didn't see every minute of the telecast, but I don't remember seeing any other than Woods's and DiMarco's. (Saw some THIRD shots, including Lehman and Donald -- but I don't remember any seconds.) How can viewers properly appreciate DiMarco's choices if they haven't even seen others playing from similar positions, with varying results?

I used to think the criticism of Lanny was somewhat unwarranted, but I'd have fired him on the spot for the idiotic "playing for second" comment. He was 1 shot off the lead, not 4 back in need of an eagle. What an idiot Lanny is.

Coverage was mediocre, though it's not hard to understand why they didn't show much of the others. I'm a big fan of Retief, Luke and Immelman - love their rhythmic swings, all 3 seem like class guys - but when you're way out, you're not going to show up on a broadcast where Tiger is in the lead. Sorry, but that is reality.

All in all, another entertaining Masters. Be nice if it were firm and fast someday, but apparently Mother Nature doesn't share that dream.

Dan (et. al.)

Good point re: getting to see others hit crucial shots.  That's one problem with a two-horse race.   Multi-contender Masters' are much better in that reard (and many others).

Over here in old Blighty we saw more of the also rans than youse guys did, due to the lack of commercials.  There was quite a bit of Retief, particularly on the back nine.  I know because he was in my fanstasy pool and I was following him.

Sort of agree with you and others about the excessive time on the non-golf shots, but with the rest of the field going backwards, I'd personally rather get a glimpse into the psychology of the leaders than watch (say) Luke Donald hit a drive on 17.

PS--thank god we didn't get Lanny over here.

Damn, I wish we could get the BBC feed here in the US, you overseas people don't realize how lucky you are!  But as it was, I'm glad for my Tivo so I could watch movies during the Masters and then spend 8 minutes every half hour catching up on the last 30 minutes of coverage since they wasted so much time just doing their usual brainless kiss-Tiger's-ass prattle and watching Tiger toss grass in the air.  I think between Saturday and Sunday I watched three complete 2 hour movies and the entire telecast itself during 8 hours or so of the telecast.  That shouldn't be close to possible when there are as few commercials as there are for the Masters!!

Quote from: Rich Goodale on April 11, 2005, 07:17:13 AM

If you are watching a horse race do you want to watch the horses with a chance of winning, or do you want the TV cameras to spend precious time on the two plugs battling for 16th place on their way to the glue factory?

CBS had PLENTY of time to show more golf than they did, from more golfers, without missing anything important in the Woods/DiMarco "match." They must have spent at least a quarter of their TV time watching Tiger and Chris walk, watching Tiger and Chris stare into the distance, watching Tiger and Chris line up putts, watching Tiger and Chris contemplate club selection. Granted, some of this stuff is compelling viewing (e.g., club selection at 13 and 15), but most of it isn't.

My problem with the leaders-only style of golf telecast, by no means unique to CBS at the Masters  (the sort of telecast where the only time they break away is to show a shot that you already know, before you see it, is a BRILLIANT shot -- or, if it's Mickelson making his second putt on 16, you know it's going to be a miss, quite possibly followed by another miss), is that such telecasts fail to show off the difficulties and perils of the golf course and the game. The leaders, by definition, are the guys who aren't getting into so much trouble as the other guys. Since they never show you how those glue-factory candidates are messing up, you can't fully appreciate how impressively the leaders are playing.

Just for example: How many shots did we get to see into 15 yesterday? Two? I didn't see every minute of the telecast, but I don't remember seeing any other than Woods's and DiMarco's. (Saw some THIRD shots, including Lehman and Donald -- but I don't remember any seconds.) How can viewers properly appreciate DiMarco's choices if they haven't even seen others playing from similar positions, with varying results?

Damn right CBS had plenty of time to show more golf than they did. (See my post in "No TV coverage of last 9 holes..." thread).
They averaged one shot every 75 seconds!!! What about the time(s) while Tiger and Chris D. were walking down the fairways between shots, or when Tiger was looking at putts from 14 different angles?? Do we really need to watch that??
ZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Show da shots CBS.

The greatest (IMO) golf course, strategically-minded, that we will see on tour all year, the chance for the network, not to mention the host committee, to show it off, and they just don't. Where's the anaylsis of #13...or #15?? The green on #14?? The green on #16?? Opportunity there...opportunity lost.

Sorry Rich, I couldn't buy that horse race comparison. Not too many horse races with 50 horses running around a beautifully sculpted race track.

Tiger and Chris D.? A++
CBS and its telecast? D

JJ


P.S. Wonder if I can get BBC sports on my dish next year? In Hi-Def. Ooooooooooo.........

Did anyone hear Lanny say that Tiger would be lucky to get his chip on #16 within DeMarco's ball? I am almost positive I heard him say that. It seems like Lanny was VERY quiet for several minutes after Tiger chipped in. It is hard to talk while eating crow!