US Open Ratings Second Worst Ever

I was expecting worst ever, but Kaymer's run away was hard to beat. I enjoyed Pinehurst a lot more though.

https://sports.yahoo.com/2017-u-s-open-ratings-second-worst-ever-151518973.html

I saw predictions for as low as 3.1 on Sunday, so a 3.6 isn't so awful.

What a shock.... Not.

Combine a garbage, extremely boring course with no hazards and a sub-par TV production, and nobody watches.

USGA caved to a small percentage of people who whined about tough courses. Glad that they paid the price. Time to get the main event off these mini-tour caliber courses and play a real venue next year.

What a shock.... Not.

 

Combine a garbage, extremely boring course with no hazards and a sub-par TV production, and nobody watches.

 

USGA caved to a small percentage of people who whined about tough courses. Glad that they paid the price. Time to get the main event off these mini-tour caliber courses and play a real venue next year.

Also, time for this forum to get an ignore button feature.

What a shock.... Not.

 

Combine a garbage, extremely boring course with no hazards and a sub-par TV production, and nobody watches.

 

USGA caved to a small percentage of people who whined about tough courses. Glad that they paid the price. Time to get the main event off these mini-tour caliber courses and play a real venue next year.

 

Also, time for this forum to get an ignore button feature.

Amen!

I'd say one of the least watched final majors rounds in Europe. 1.30/2 am finish and really not worth staying up for unless you are a hardcore golf fan.

Phil must be shaking his head thinking he might have won this Open.

The most recognized name in golf (currently) is not playing, the second most recognized name (also currently) is not playing, the top three in the world don't make the weekend .... it's hard for anyone but the hardcore to get interested. A Tiger-Phil weekend might have been a record setter. DJ-Day would have been memorable. My non-golf fan wife asked me "who are these guys?".

People like excitement and this Open wasn't that exciting. A guy who destroyed the course and who pretty much had it won by the mid way point of day 4, no OB/hazards, no "feature holes" and I can see why it felt like a let down. I still enjoyed it, but I don't think it was as fun to watch as The Masters of '17.

Not surprising

Totally agree with you and predicted that since Friday. Also add to the fact that except for Fowler, no big names on the leaderboard. It was like a web.com tournament. Have not heard from anyone that I know, that thought this felt or performed like a US Open major. Sad....

What a shock.... Not.

 

Combine a garbage, extremely boring course with no hazards and a sub-par TV production, and nobody watches.

 

USGA caved to a small percentage of people who whined about tough courses. Glad that they paid the price. Time to get the main event off these mini-tour caliber courses and play a real venue next year.

What a shock.... Not.

 

Combine a garbage, extremely boring course with no hazards and a sub-par TV production, and nobody watches.

 

USGA caved to a small percentage of people who whined about tough courses. Glad that they paid the price. Time to get the main event off these mini-tour caliber courses and play a real venue next year.

*You* watched the whole thing ; )

What a shock.... Not.

 

Combine a garbage, extremely boring course with no hazards and a sub-par TV production, and nobody watches.

 

USGA caved to a small percentage of people who whined about tough courses. Glad that they paid the price. Time to get the main event off these mini-tour caliber courses and play a real venue next year.

 

Also, time for this forum to get an ignore button feature.

 

Amen!

Good news everyone! We have that feature already!

Under your username in the top right, when you pull the menu down there's a link to "Manage Ignore Prefs". If you click there, you can add any username you might like to ignore. Only downside is I think you still see the posts when someone else quotes them, but it's better than nothing!

What a shock.... Not.

 

Combine a garbage, extremely boring course with no hazards and a sub-par TV production, and nobody watches.

 

USGA caved to a small percentage of people who whined about tough courses. Glad that they paid the price. Time to get the main event off these mini-tour caliber courses and play a real venue next year.

Nice hot take! Garbage course? How is that for hyperbole.

The fact is that people don't watch tournaments to see the course except, in my opinion, Augusta and Pebble Beach (in the U.S.).

The poor ratings were due to the weak leaderboard. Maybe if the course hadn't kicked the a** out of Rory McIlroy, Jason Day, Dustin Johnson, Jordan Spieth, Henrik Stenson, and Adam Scott, there would have been more excitement and higher ratings on Sunday.

What a shock.... Not.

 

Combine a garbage, extremely boring course with no hazards and a sub-par TV production, and nobody watches.

 

USGA caved to a small percentage of people who whined about tough courses. Glad that they paid the price. Time to get the main event off these mini-tour caliber courses and play a real venue next year.

 

Also, time for this forum to get an ignore button feature.

 

Amen!

 

Good news everyone! We have that feature already!

 

Under your username in the top right, when you pull the menu down there's a link to "Manage Ignore Prefs". If you click there, you can add any username you might like to ignore. Only downside is I think you still see the posts when someone else quotes them, but it's better than nothing!

Thank you!

Yesterday was pretty boring.... I ended up choosing to do some work around the house over watching a good portion of it. Sunday on a major should be about making a charge, that's why the Masters is so great. Watching a bunch of guys try not to mess up for 18 holes is not nearly as entertaining.

This tracks nicely with my opinion that parity is not good for the game of golf. If we want to grow the game, it has to be popular enough with the casual spectator that he's tempted to pick up the game himself. And with a different one and done winner every week, you're never going to reach that level of popularity. The casual golf fan needs to see names that he recognizes, especially at the majors which are the tournaments that the casual fan is most likely to tune in for. I must admit also that seeing journeymen win is not exactly gripping television for even a dedicated fan like myself. For all the buzz about Koepka in golf media, before the US Open he had been on tour for four years and won once. He was, and probably still is, a journeyman.

It would be tantamount to the NBA having 150 different teams and they all played .500 ball. Who would tune in for that? I think the technological advances in equipment have not only democratized golf at the amateur level but the professional level as well. There is much less gap between the top players in the game and the players who round out the top 100. Back in the day, when persimmon and balata ruled the fairways, there was a much bigger gap between the top and the middle. I think it would be much easier for the truly great modern players to dominate if equipment was dialed back a bit. Then you wouldn't have a guy like Brian Harmon, who is like 5'8, 100 and nothing lbs at the top of the US Open leaderboard reaching 650 yard par 5s in two. Now get off my lawn.

I enjoyed this one the most since 2012 @ Olympic ... but that's just me. I liked the course. My only gripe is Joe Buck ... whom I'm mostly desensitized to by now.

Fox Sports needed to have someone onsite at Phils daughters graduation ceremony...this would have garnered at least a ratings spike...missed the boat

This tracks nicely with my opinion that parity is not good for the game of golf. If we want to grow the game, it has to be popular enough with the casual spectator that he's tempted to pick up the game himself. And with a different one and done winner every week, you're never going to reach that level of popularity. The casual golf fan needs to see names that he recognizes, especially at the majors which are the tournaments that the casual fan is most likely to tune in for. I must admit also that seeing journeymen win is not exactly gripping television for even a dedicated fan like myself. For all the buzz about Koepka in golf media, before the US Open he had been on tour for four years and won once. He was, and probably still is, a journeyman.

 

It would be tantamount to the NBA having 150 different teams and they all played .500 ball. Who would tune in for that? I think the technological advances in equipment have not only democratized golf at the amateur level but the professional level as well. There is much less gap between the top players in the game and the players who round out the top 100. Back in the day, when persimmon and balata ruled the fairways, there was a much bigger gap between the top and the middle. I think it would be much easier for the truly great modern players to dominate if equipment was dialed back a bit. Then you wouldn't have a guy like Brian Harmon, who is like 5'8, 100 and nothing lbs at the top of the US Open leaderboard reaching 650 yard par 5s in two. Now get off my lawn.

Parity is not good for attracting non golfers to watch golf tournaments. Non-fans want to see Tiger or whoever takes his place dominate the field, they want to witness greatness.

Even most of my golf buddies didn't bother watching the round yesterday, 1) it was Fathers Day and they were with family, 2) They didn't care about anyone in the Top 10 with the slight exception of Fowler.

I think the technological advances in equipment have not only democratized golf at the amateur level but the professional level as well. There is much less gap between the top players in the game and the players who round out the top 100.

 

Back in the day, when persimmon and balata ruled the fairways, there was a much bigger gap between the top and the middle. I think it would be much easier for the truly great modern players to dominate if equipment was dialed back a bit.

I disagree with this. I have seen 1960's golf and the simple fact of the matter is this- Once you got past the top 20 or so guys in 1960 you were left largely with a bunch of dudes equivalent in skills as today's web.com guys, or perhaps lower.

I once saw Raymond Floyd in a TV interview talking about the differences between the modern players (this was around 1995) and the guys who were on TOUR when he first turned pro. Raymond said about 25% of the guys back in 1960 were able to get up and down from greenside bunkers with any regularity. These days it's almost automatic unless a player has an unfortunate stance or lie.

The players today are simply better across all aspects of the game. The teaching/instruction is better (more scientific) and much more accessible, and the fitness of these guys is on an entirely different level compared to what we saw in 1960.

I know it's probably obvious, but I saw on Golf Channel that Spieth's Masters, Day's PGA, Stenson's Open, and this US Open all broke scoring records. That's great when an all timer type of player does it, but pro golf is actually not only destroying current ratings...it's ruining its History.

Spieth and Day were exciting wins, point given, but they've gone away. There's no staying power in 7 straight first time major champions. Brooks Koepka got 8 majors in him..? Doubt it. In fact, my money says he won't win another! So this US Open will be remembered for nothing. Not a great way to go if you're pro golf.

Golf's ratings have been Nose diving for some time. This is the new norm. I wish it was otherwise but I love golf so I don't care.

The average sportsman wants to watch dominance and we live in the era of attrition. 7 first time major winners in a row. People want history.

I think that the biggest problem was that it was essentially over by 12. Koepka developed a 4 stroke lead and it boring. If Rickie had made a challenge and it was undecided going down the stretch, there would have been a compelling reason to watch.

Serious question;

I'm assuming it's for TV reasons but why in the world do they make these guys wait until 4 freaking PM before they're teeing off? It's kind of ridiculous.

Random brain spillage here...

There's no doubt that Phil near the top on Sunday would've boosted ratings. The leaderboard was pretty boring, I agree.

Koepka seems like a good guy but he added absolutely nothing to the climax of this event. Zero.

Hell, it was like someone died at the end.

Yeah, Joe Buck's in love with his own voice. The rest are fine in my book.

I did feel like Fox was trying some new things, in my opinion, to appeal to a younger audience with more graphics, info, etc. I was fine with that. We hafta try new things to see what sticks.

I'll also take this time to say that I thought Bubba's Oakley commercial, with his son, was pretty cool.

Serious question;

 

I'm assuming it's for TV reasons but why in the world do they make these guys wait until 4 freaking PM before they're teeing off? It's kind of ridiculous.

Yep, TV. A later start means prime time coverage on the densely populated east coast.

This tracks nicely with my opinion that parity is not good for the game of golf. If we want to grow the game, it has to be popular enough with the casual spectator that he's tempted to pick up the game himself. And with a different one and done winner every week, you're never going to reach that level of popularity. The casual golf fan needs to see names that he recognizes, especially at the majors which are the tournaments that the casual fan is most likely to tune in for. I must admit also that seeing journeymen win is not exactly gripping television for even a dedicated fan like myself. For all the buzz about Koepka in golf media, before the US Open he had been on tour for four years and won once. He was, and probably still is, a journeyman.

 

It would be tantamount to the NBA having 150 different teams and they all played .500 ball. Who would tune in for that? I think the technological advances in equipment have not only democratized golf at the amateur level but the professional level as well. There is much less gap between the top players in the game and the players who round out the top 100. Back in the day, when persimmon and balata ruled the fairways, there was a much bigger gap between the top and the middle. I think it would be much easier for the truly great modern players to dominate if equipment was dialed back a bit. Then you wouldn't have a guy like Brian Harmon, who is like 5'8, 100 and nothing lbs at the top of the US Open leaderboard reaching 650 yard par 5s in two. Now get off my lawn.

I'm old enough to remember when people thought Tiger's dominance was killing the game and the (balata) ball was going too far.

I think the technological advances in equipment have not only democratized golf at the amateur level but the professional level as well. There is much less gap between the top players in the game and the players who round out the top 100.

 

Back in the day, when persimmon and balata ruled the fairways, there was a much bigger gap between the top and the middle. I think it would be much easier for the truly great modern players to dominate if equipment was dialed back a bit.

 

I disagree with this. I have seen 1960's golf and the simple fact of the matter is this- Once you got past the top 20 or so guys in 1960 you were left largely with a bunch of dudes equivalent in skills as today's web.com guys, or perhaps lower.

 

I once saw Raymond Floyd in a TV interview talking about the differences between the modern players (this was around 1995) and the guys who were on TOUR when he first turned pro. Raymond said about 25% of the guys back in 1960 were able to get up and down from greenside bunkers with any regularity. These days it's almost automatic unless a player has an unfortunate stance or lie.

 

The players today are simply better across all aspects of the game. The teaching/instruction is better (more scientific) and much more accessible, and the fitness of these guys is on an entirely different level compared to what we saw in 1960.

And I take the exact opposite view. I think if you took the bottom 50 guys in the top 100 today and plopped them down in the 70s with persimmon, balata, and sweet spots the size of dimes, they wouldn't be on Tour, they'd be folding shirts in a pro shop in Poughkeepsie. Ever see those throw-back videos where they have modern pros hit persimmon? Even using the modern ball they're not moving it out there much further than the guys in the 70s. And the guys in the 70s were using balata. The guys before the technology boom were producing commensurate scoring averages to the modern player while hitting 5 and 6 irons into the par fours and playing legitimate three-shot par fives, while the modern guys are hitting flip wedges into the par fours and rarely, if ever, playing a par five that they can't reach. So with all the modern advantages a player has, massive distance gains due to technology, pristine turf conditions, ease of travel, less financial insecurity, sports psychologist, nutritionist, personal trainer, full swing coach, short game coach, putting coach, video, trackman, yardage books that are accurate to within a foot thanks to GPS, the same caddy week to week, all of those advantages enable mediocre guys to stay on Tour cashing their hundred thousand dollar checks for coming in 12th or whatever. Modern players aren't as good because they don't have to be. Equipment mitigates their shortcomings and massive checks blunt their ambition.