"I like watching golf as much as the next sentient being, but four hours of it from the third round of a 32-man event? It's too much, and it leads to bad TV." **
/Every member of the SI Golf Plus team--except for Steve the night janitor (who forgot his login name)-- piled onto golf.com's new weekly email roundtable to kick around Geoff Ogilvy's win at Kapalua. Weighing in at a hefty three pages - a novel by online standards - Gary Van Sickle opened up the conversation with concerns about, ironically, the length of Golf Channel's telecast.
While I love the chance to watch live golf in the evening, that doesn't mean I want to watch it the entire evening. What is this, the U.S. Open? I like watching golf as much as the next sentient being, but four hours of it from the third round of a 32-man event? It's too much, and it leads to bad TV.
Alan Shipnuck, senior writer, Sports Illustrated: Is a four-hour telecast too much? Obviously, yes ... every other week of the year. But I love watching the Mercedes because the course makes for thrilling golf, the surfers and spouting whales are a fun diversion, and I'm usually ready to plug back in after months without a meaningful golf tournament. But the mood quickly passes, and then I prefer a shorter telecast to assist my DVR'ing.
I agree that the oversaturation was too much even with those stunning views and much improved production values thanks to Brandt Packer and Jack Graham.
But a greater concern for the PGA Tour should be the burden these excessive telecasts have on the announce teams and the potential created for idiotic commentary. I contended last year that the Kelly Tilghman's back alley lynch remark was largely a product of the announce conditions (too many hours to fill, too many executives wanting ESPN-cutesy humor that is not Tilghman's strongsuit).
This year Rich Lerner was charged with killing time via lengthy interviews and as was pointed out here, Boo Weekley came dangerously close to saying something embarrassing. Readers also noted that Lerner, innocently killing time, may have crossed a line in questioning Davis Love about his return to Hawaii.
As readers pointed out, Golf Channel's sycophantic coverage of Anthony Kim signing autographs and driving off in his courtesy car bordered on the ridiculous. Throw in way too much time for Mark Rolfing to fulfill his obligations to whoever in Hawaii is paying for raves, and the Mercedes Championship was a reminder that more telecast hours do not necessarily translate to a better "product." At four hours with announcers who can only say so much, the pacing is setting the stage for a product liability disaster.
**Dave Seanor at examiner.com takes issue with another Rolfing comment, this one about drug testing.
It came shortly after Love declined to be interviewed by Rich Lerner because he had been summoned for a post-round drug test. To add context, Lerner noted that two trainers with whom he had spoken last year said tests were unlikely to reveal any use of performance enhancing drugs on Tour. Then the commentary shifted to Nick Faldo, Kelly Tilghman and Rolfing.
“What I don’t like about it is the fact that at the end of a round, you sign a scorecard that says ‘I shot 72 today,’ which means you played by the rules,” Rolfing said. “That was the score you shot. All you have to do is sign the card and that’s your score.
“Why do you have to submit to a drug test?” he continued. “Why can’t you just sign a piece of paper and say I didn’t take drugs that are banned and are in this book (PGA Tour Anti-Doping Program Manual). It’s against the grain of our game.”
Not only was Rolfing‘s remark incredibly naïve, but it also betrayed his woefully shallow understanding of the issue.
Yes, golf prides itself on the collective integrity of its players, but it is ludicrous to think golfers are somehow exempt from human frailty.
What next? Is Rolfing going to tell us golfers don’t cheat on their wives or girlfriends? They never roll through stop signs?
