Fox Coverage - US Open 2019

[DavePelz4]

Zinger is better when he has someone to playoff and challenge him. There were a few broadcasts where Faldo and Zinger worked together and you could just tell that Faldo got under his skin. It was that entertaining kind of uncomfortable.

[MaxBuck]

My problems with the Fox coverage had nothing to do with the announcers. The broadcast ignored all but 6 to 8 players, had limited shot tracer use, and odd camera angles. Plus lots of commercials.

[Lodestone]

> @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > @TServos said:

> > Only one guy in the history of sportscasting that bugged me.... John Madden.

>

> I find this remark illustrates that unanimous approval of coverage of sports will never be found. To me, John Madden is the best color guy football ever had, because I liked the knowledge of the game delivered with the passion of an average “Joe Fan”. You see things differently and there is nothing wrong with that; we have different tastes.

>

> When it comes to golf, I am of the group satisfied with 10 hours of TV coverage and people talking. I’m actually surprised that I don’t have much bad to say about Joe Buck, because he isn’t really being intrusive. Sure the broadcast team uses cliché, sure they flub names or holes, at one point one of them misnamed a hole, and corrected himself with another wrong hole, but so? The camera work has been fantastic and I have seen more coverage of players I’ve never heard of than any other tournament (and I LOVE that) But for every “Yay an Am made triple to move to +12 and I got to see it!” there’s another who would say “why am I watching some Am when Woodland just spent 10 minutes stalking a 65 footer for eagle? These guys don’t know how to capture drama, show me more leaders!”

>

> You can’t please everyone.

>

>

>

 

I liked Madden, and I don't mind Buck or Azinger, although I think I heard Azinger say "it's a beauty" a few times more than necessary. Mostly, I'm just really happy Chris Berman isn't involved. Camera angles were amazing. I've watched the ATT since it was the Crosby, and a few US Opens thrown in there. Heck, I've walked the course a couple of times (without clubs), and I never saw views like FOX showed us. And the reason they didn't show more of Woodland on Saturday is because he's a choker and a nobody and he won't be around on Sunday anyway. And now, here's Rickie chipping out of the deep rough....

[munichop]

Fox makes it easy for me- tape it, ff, mute and replay only the stuff that stands out. I watched the final round coverage in less than half the time. One thing you notice is a lot of putts. And they tend to disjoint what they show. But they don't get a lot of reps and seem to invest in gadgets more than team commentating chemistry. In many ways they suffer from what the USGA does- lack of continuous access to the PGA tour players and the rhythm of their season. It's like they are a snap shot of the game each year and struggle to reveal the larger story because the last time they broadcast everything changed. It would be the Football equivalent of showing one playoff game a year.

[lefty1978]

> @"Big Cat 3" said:

> > @lefty1978 said:

> > Thought Fox did a great job. Zero issues.

> Must not have watched ... certainly didn’t listen, those recycled clowns have the energy of a corpse

>

>

 

I did watch. You know people can have different opinions right? I never let announcers make or break my enjoyment of watching live sports.

[Titleist99]

> @MaxBuck said:

> My problems with the Fox coverage had nothing to do with the announcers. The broadcast ignored all but 6 to 8 players, had limited shot tracer use, and odd camera angles. Plus lots of commercials.

 

In my opinion the coverage wasn't bad, just different. They concentrated on the Titans that had a chance to win. You are probably use to the other networks showing all Tiger, all the time. As for the different camera angles, I found it refreshing. I thought the tournament was high drama and they nailed it.

[Choclab]

Again, I don't get why people are so annoyed. I don't like Buck, either, but at least in this setting he seems to realize golf isn't his game so he just sets the scene and lets his co-workers do most of the commentating. Strange is miles better as an on-course guy than he was in the booth with ABC, IMO. Even that Bacon guy was okay and it was interesting that he's a good player who made it into sectional qualifying. The only guy I thought was pretty spare was Faxon -- I thought he was more generic than Azinger. But still not enough to ruin the broadcast.

 

But my real question is what makes NBC or CBS so much better? Dan Hicks trying to make everyone cry a hundred times? Jimmy Roberts' stupid pieces while actual golf action is going on? Nantz being over the top solemn? McCord's goofiness?

 

I really don't get it. When Fox got the contract I feared the worst, but instead if anything it's less gimmicky and corny than NBC. Methinks some people just don't like change.

[BottleCap]

> @Choclab said:

> Again, I don't get why people are so annoyed. I don't like Buck, either, but at least in this setting he seems to realize golf isn't his game so he just sets the scene and lets his co-workers do most of the commentating. Strange is miles better as an on-course guy than he was in the booth with ABC, IMO. Even that Bacon guy was okay and it was interesting that he's a good player who made it into sectional qualifying. The only guy I thought was pretty spare was Faxon -- I thought he was more generic than Azinger. But still not enough to ruin the broadcast.

>

> But my real question is what makes NBC or CBS so much better? Dan Hicks trying to make everyone cry a hundred times? Jimmy Roberts' stupid pieces while actual golf action is going on? Nantz being over the top solemn? McCord's goofiness?

>

> I really don't get it. When Fox got the contract I feared the worst, but instead if anything it's less gimmicky and corny than NBC. Methinks some people just don't like change.

 

Showing more than 6 golfers, that's the big difference, I can turn the volume down to get past Azinger.

 

I know NBC does stupid things like show Mickelson when he's out of contention, but the lack of coverage by Fox was odd, did they blow their production budget on the drones?

 

 

[Tepop84]

Re: showing more golfers

 

There was only a couple players who had a chance to win. And it wasn’t like people were making birdies left and right. Do you want them to show someone hitting their third shot from 50 yards into a par 4?

 

[MaxBuck]

> @Tepop84 said:

> Re: showing more golfers

>

> Do you want them to show someone hitting their third shot from 50 yards into a par 4?

>

 

I don't think that's the only choice available.

[lchang]

fwiw:

https://www.golf.com/news/columns/2019/06/18/why-fox-sports-has-become-the-best-tv-broadcast-in-golf/

[MountainGoat]

> @lchang said:

> fwiw:

> https://www.golf.com/news/columns/2019/06/18/why-fox-sports-has-become-the-best-tv-broadcast-in-golf/

Good article.

 

 

[idrive]

That's the 1st positive review of the several that I've read.

We all have our own take of Fox's coverage which I thought was okay but the announcing part was (for me) truly mute worthy.

[braincramp52]

It's the same thing here year after year after year. A major rolls around and there's two or three threads all complaining about a announcer. The negativity around this place is getting to be over the top.

[Scotty1140]

I thought the overall feel was a big improvement. I could have used more pro tracer, but I can always use more pro tracer! I actually liked some the the odd camera angles they showed. A few of them gave a good perspective of the layout of the course.

 

Faxon and Strange were ok, and I thought Buck actually did a good job this year. The guy doing the post round interviews was a bit of a dud. Amanda Balionis is much better.

 

Azinger still kills me though. Zero energy, zero enthusiasm and just repeats himself over and over. Sunday he didn't go more than 5 minutes without telling us that Justin Rose just wasn't putting as well as he was Thursday through Saturday.