The Ridiculousness of Today's Golf Media

Bermuda BobAnalyst IIJune 23, 2011

On the heels of this year's US Open, I think it's time to take a serious look at our present Golf Media and ask some questions about the quality of coverage we are being provided. 


1.     COMMENTATOR "SPEAK" - Unnecessarily Changing Things

All too often these guys in the booth, on the course, and in the studio find the need to sound unique, different, or "hip."   So many of them have decided to re-invent the language.   Here are some of those hideous attempts:

"He's a great striker of the ball."   or   "He's a great putter of the ball" 

No, folks !!!  This is a feeble attempt at time-proven comments, which are complimentary, not awkward, and convey their ideas completely and succinctly.   They ought to say:

"He's a great ball striker."  or  "He a great putter."



2.     COMMENTATOR "SPEAK" - Changing Terminology

This is a problem which started with former CBS Commentator Kenny Venturi, who realized one day that contemporary players no longer carry clubs made of the same materials he did.  So, he decided to coin new names for them.  

Unfortunately, today's Golf Commentators embraced Kenny's ridiculous assertions of the time tested terms of centuries-old golf.

Here is my favourite:

Fairway "Metals"   -  What's wrong with calling your "Fairway Woods" in the way we have always referred to them ???

I had a set of Fibreglass "Woods" once.   Should I have called them "Fairway Fibreglasses" ???

No, that would be absurd !!!

"Irons" were originally forged by a Blacksmith, who used iron.   Today, our "Irons" are cast of a variety of steels or a combination thereof.   Should we change our terminology to call "Irons" to "Steels" ???

No, that would be absurd !!!

Let's get back to the basics of golf, speak plainly, and not continue this absurd trend started by a guy who was simply wrong so to do !!!




I admit that I was raised during the days of Johnny Carson, who never appeared in a suit on his nightly Tonight Show because he felt that a suit was too formal.   It also gave him a chance to showcase his clothing line.  The only "suit" he ever wore was a tuxedo for special events.

Every member of the powers-that-be at the Masters wear a blazer.  They do not wear a suit.

So, why then do the networks dress up their commentators in suits ???   Dark suits nonetheless. Suits are for businessmen, who are expected to dress according to their place in the business world.   

My point is that commentators are there to enhance what we can already see on our TV screens, and maybe give us a feel of the course and conditions.  They are usually former players, or career sports broadcasters.  

So, why do we see these guys dressed in suits ???  They not only look ridiculous, but they look uncomfortable.   

Then, every so often, they take their jackets off, which then makes things just worse.  A "jock" in a suit now reveals that:  (A) He has not sized his shirt sleeves properly, and (B) He does not know how to tie a tie properly.   It is so much "lipstick on a pig"  !!!

Don't they all look like they are taking themselves much too seriously ???   Wouldn't they look better all wearing the same sport shirt similar to the golfers they are covering ???   I don't care what the venue or event is, no sports personality needs ever wear a suit and tie !!!


4.     COMMENTATOR "Obsessions"

I understand that when there's an event where the winner is running away with the tournament, the things to talk about dwindle to (A) the rest of the field, (B) past winners, and (C) ancillary aspects going on at the venue.  

So, why, if Tiger is NOT playing, must every other utterance be a comparison to him ???  

If Tiger cannot, regrettably, be playing because of injury, or because the event does not strike his fancy, why is it necessary to fixate on him ???

Let's get real guys ...Tiger will be back some day ... and that's when it's time to talk about him ... and not until !!!