and Pacific Dunes? The golf was pretty good, the venues were spectacular, but the Fox broadcasts were pretty gosh darn dreadful...
Shack takes a shot at summing up his reactions, so let's piggyback on those and I'll clarify and respectfully disagree where I see fit. First, his obligatory opening statement to the jury:
As for the second Fox Sports telecast, I watched all of the women's four-ball after the Fox PR department took exception with my relaying of your men's four-ball feedback last week and my status as a Golf Channel employee. Which I am not.
Anyway, while I'm not going to focus on too many particulars, some are worth pointing out because discouraging but predictable themes are emerging in the Fox-USGA partnership. It's certainly unfair to gauge the Fox Sports effort coming off the pinnacle of golf telecasts (The Players), especially in a year that was a particularly strong showing from the peacock.
You have to love that they immediately cried "Conflict of Interest," when none exists....but I'll disagree with Geoff about NBC being an unfair comparison. I'm sure his intention is to was to note that you can't expect them to hit that level of quality in their first two broadcasts, but that is exactly how the USGA sold the contract, that it was based upon dissatisfaction with the incumbent and a need to shake things up.
Back to Shack:
--Four-ball match play is not a television friendly format. Especially when you know little about the protagonists. And the protagonists are obnoxiously slow. The 36-hole-a-day format did not give television folks time to get to know the players well enough before their matches. So Fox did little to make them stand out. That wouldn't bother me except...
I agree in spades about the latter, but I certainly don't believe that fourball is a bad format on TV. The problem was no doubt worse in the woman's event, where at the risk of sounding xenophobic there were a surfeit of Korean names and similar-looking young ladies. I'd be more charitable to Fox had I seen them at least try to address this problem...
 |
| The real 11th hole. |
--Pacific Dunes and Bandon were neglected. There was almost nothing about the course architecture, nothing from Bandon founder Mike Keiser, nothing from the architects and not a thing that I learned about this magnificent course. Yes there were many reminders of "breathtaking" views and the need to come there to experience it all. And BBC-like wide shots of the scenery as not much happened. This would be fine except that the USGA has repeatedly mentioned the move to Fox was going to give them a chance to work with a broadcaster that would dig beneath the surface and really tell us the stories of golf course design. That didn't happen at one of the world's best layouts. And one we won't see on television again for several years, if at all (depending on where the 2020 U.S. Amateur is played).
True that. My favorite moment was when the players reached the Par-3 11th, one of the more spectacular short holes on the planet, and they mistakenly ran a flyover of the equally-spectacular Par-4 13th, which was greeted with silence. Cuing the wrong tape is gonna happen, but did anybody in that control room know it and how about saying something?
--Good sound is hard to come by. You really gain an appreciation for the work of NBC andCBS in the sound department after watching the early Fox efforts. The sound of the ocean near the cliffside holes was not as pleasant as you might guess and the show open sounded like it was recorded in a tin shed. Not a great first impression to a telecast, which also featured Shane O'Donoghue and Juli Inkster sitting far apart. Awkward vibe.
well, pretty much anything involving Juli was awkward, I hate to have to say. I believe that audio is where the biggest advances have been made in golf broadcasting recently, but obviously the USGA begs to differ.
--Wide is good, except when it's not. We love width in our course designs and when the architecture is as good as Pacific Dunes, we want to see a lot of it. But the camera theme seemed to be width at all costs. There wasn't enough in the way of seeing player faces or even their swings up close. The wide angle thing even caught other Fox cameras in shots:
Exactly. Plus, they stuck with their wide shots and never zoomed in where there was interesting detail...I noticed it particularly on the Par-3 14th, a hole that is off the water but sits beautifully against the back of a large dune. They only showed it at such a wide angle that the viewer missed all of the interesting land features.
The 14th green - up close and visible.
--The USGA logo is on nearly every graphic. The USGA has made clear that Fox Sports is a "game-changer" for them because they'll get to promote themselves better than had they been on NBC/ESPN/Golf Channel. You know, those little-seen broadcast networks. Unfortunately this means getting a distracting USGA on player name graphics and constantly in the top right of the screen. A branding expert surely said this would be productive. Couple that with only one PSA running through the telecast multiple times, throw in a forced stand-up of USGA President Tom O'Toole superimposed over a Bandon backdrop and top it off with a butchering of the winner's name by the committee member presenting the trophy, and it's a reminder that making the telecast about the USGA can backfire if the product is poor.
They have FedEx Cup fever, Geoff, it's just that as a governing body (as opposed to a commercial enterprise) it all seems a bit unseemly...
--Innovative telecast touches match the minimalist design. Baby steps is the theme for producer Mark Loomis, but considering the touting of a fresh approach mentioned again recently by Greg Norman and Joe Buck, it's odd that we haven't seen many innovative elements in action. Some of the camera angles were nice. The live drone shots from day one were amazing (not seen day two). And the use of the drone around wildly contoured greens was especially helpful. The other promising graphic touch--on screen yardages--offered a reminder of 96 yards to clear a bunker on a 240 yard shot, just the kind of thing that will irritate golfers if appearing on the U.S. Open telecast:
I think this a great new feature and we'll chalk the top photo as a misfire...and hope they have it resolved in a month.
--Holly Sonders was not there. Considering this was a big and very important hire of a beloved figure in the game, it's hard to fathom that Sonders is not at all eight USGA events telecast by Fox. She was named by a USGA staffer as one of the best reasons for the new TV deal, yet Fox could not bring her to Bandon?
I think we can find common ground that if Holly Sonders played any role in the award to Fox that we need a new governing organization for our sport. Sheesh! But my take is that everyone up to Buck and The Shark should have been there, because, to channel my inner Tiger, these guys desperately need reps.
Here's Geoff's rousing coda:
This brings me to the bigger point: Frank Hannigan long warned that the USGA wanted too desperately to be loved. That's why they will never roll back the ball, which would so help with all of their noble and vital sustainability efforts.
I can only imagine what our late great friend would say seeing that this desire to be branded, respected, talked about and loved as centerpiece of the relationship with Fox, especially graphically, where the reminders are blatant. Furthermore, it's a dangerous approach if the viewer senses the telecast is a branding opportunity for the organization instead of telling the story of the players, courses and people involved in deciding our national championships.
On the other hand, it was a really big check and it cleared.
.jpg)
Get it