Brandel Chamblee Q&A: Tiger's fatal swing flaw

[pjcedog]

Gee, I'll bet Tiger is up nights thinking about this.


Chamblee is OK I guess but I have to laugh when I consider that that a guy who has won exactly one Tour event in an 18 year career (an obscure Canadian event at that) is offering advice to a guy who will most likely break every PGA Tour record ever established in the history of the PGA Tour before he turns 40.

As far as announcers go, if I had to choose between Faldo and Chamblee, I'd take Faldo hands down. Faldo is funny, he's right to the point, he knows what he's talking about and he's very self-effacing. Add to that the fact that Faldo has almost won more majors than Brandel has even entered and I'll take what Nick has to say over anything Brandel (if it wasn't for the fact that they gave me a microphone, nobody would know who I am) Chamblee has to say.


What else have you got?



-JP

How many PGA tournaments did Butch Harmon or David Leadbetter win? Tournament wins mean nothing when it comes to swing analysis. I could make the argument that a guy who is not as talented a player must go far deeper into analysis out of necessity than any great player. I think Tiger's driving accuracy problem is because of his equipment not his swing. But what do I know.

 

[Fourputt]

Gee, I'll bet Tiger is up nights thinking about this.


Chamblee is OK I guess but I have to laugh when I consider that that a guy who has won exactly one Tour event in an 18 year career (an obscure Canadian event at that) is offering advice to a guy who will most likely break every PGA Tour record ever established in the history of the PGA Tour before he turns 40.

As far as announcers go, if I had to choose between Faldo and Chamblee, I'd take Faldo hands down. Faldo is funny, he's right to the point, he knows what he's talking about and he's very self-effacing. Add to that the fact that Faldo has almost won more majors than Brandel has even entered and I'll take what Nick has to say over anything Brandel (if it wasn't for the fact that they gave me a microphone, nobody would know who I am) Chamblee has to say.


What else have you got?



-JP

Like you say, opinions are just that.... opinions. I happen to far prefer Johnny Miller to Faldo... In fact I find Faldo a good reason to switch from golf to something else. I really DON'T like him. That's just my opinion.

I think that Chamblee is a decent analyst, he's a good speaker, and it's his job to do those things. If he isn't doing them then there is a lot of dead air, he gets fired, and someone else maybe even less qualified is babbling into the microphone. What do you really what after all? Just picture and lots of silence? It ain't gonna happen.

 

[pjcedog]

But Jaworski is the exact same as Chamblee. The exact same. A journeyman player that had a flash of success. Played a long time. Now is looked at by fans as an expert offering brilliant advice. The only way to get history is to state opinions and theories long enough. Exactly what Jaws has done.

The same could be said about Chamblee. The exact same thing!

Did you see Jaworski play? I would take him over more than half the QBs playing today. Probably better than all but the top 5 today. I think you can know a lot about the game without being great at the game. I pitched baseball for much longer than most people play the game and although I did not play professionally I can tell you what pitch a guy is going to throw and where he is going to throw it with about 95% accuracy. You don't have to have been a great player to understand the game, that is why the greatest managers and coaches are guys who studied the game and they are not usually great players, very rarely are great players good students of any game.

 

[JB]

Did you see Jaworski play? I would take him over more than half the QBs playing today. Probably better than all but the top 5 today. I think you can know a lot about the game without being great at the game. I pitched baseball for much longer than most people play the game and although I did not play professionally I can tell you what pitch a guy is going to throw and where he is going to throw it with about 95% accuracy. You don't have to have been a great player to understand the game, that is why the greatest managers and coaches are guys who studied the game and they are not usually great players, very rarely are great players good students of any game.

Yeah I saw Jaws play and I would disagree 100%. His stats are average like best, and he was a journeyman QB. He is exactly what Chamblee is. Chamblee was a guy that competed at the highest level for a long period of time but never really racked up victories. Nothing wrong with that at all.

My point was, as you clearly pointed out as well, that you do not have to be at the top to give advice. If that was the case, nobody could ever point out flaws to Tiger on commentary other than a small group.

 

[JPsuff]

Like you say, opinions are just that.... opinions. I happen to far prefer Johnny Miller to Faldo... In fact I find Faldo a good reason to switch from golf to something else. I really DON'T like him. That's just my opinion.

I think that Chamblee is a decent analyst, he's a good speaker, and it's his job to do those things. If he isn't doing them then there is a lot of dead air, he gets fired, and someone else maybe even less qualified is babbling into the microphone. What do you really what after all? Just picture and lots of silence? It ain't gonna happen.

Actually, what I would like is the way they do it on the European Tour; Renton Laidlaw, one other guy, very little "chit chat" and lots of golf.

The model exists, all they need to do here is follow it.

As far as preferences go, I really like Johnny Miller too and from an analyst's point of view, there are none better. I like Faldo just as much, but for different reasons. He's astute, but not in such a didactic way as Miller - it's more like listening to a friend who really knows his stuff and has some funny stories to go with it.


-JP

 

[JPsuff]

How is this any different than what Jaworski does on an everyday basis.

It's not.

But Jaworski isn't pointing out tragic flaws in the mechanics of top-shelf QB's.



-JP

 

[JPsuff]

Jp,

I seriously doubt Tiger gives a crap what anybody thinks of his swing.It's what hank and him think is all that matters to tiger. Tiger has never been known to care what others say or think about him.He always proves them wrong on the course.

That's exactly my point!

If someone walked up to Tiger one day and told him that Brandel Chamblee figured out what's wrong with his driver swing, you'd have to give Tiger about thirty or forty seconds to stop laughing long enough to say "Thanks, I'll keep that in mind".


-JP

 

[JB]

It's not.

But Jaworski isn't pointing out tragic flaws in the mechanics of top-shelf QB's.



-JP

OMG, you need to watch ESPN more often. He does this everyday. he was pointing out flaws with Tom Brady earlier in the year, Peyton Manning last week against San Fran, etc...

Your point seems to be changing. First it was that Chamblee was not qualified because he only won one event and used Jaws as an example of a guy in the know. Only guys like Miller and Faldo should or guys that have "street cred". The next step was that your point was that Tiger just does not care.

 

[JPsuff]

OMG, you need to watch ESPN more often. He does this everyday. he was pointing out flaws with Tom Brady earlier in the year, Peyton Manning last week against San Fran, etc...

I meant to write that differently.

What I mean is that he and all the other talking heads do that all the time, but not in the "Aha!" way that Chamblee is coming across - as if he's had some kind of epiphany.

And personally, I don't really listen to the ESPN chatterheads because they all say the same things week in and week out so it all becomes a blur after a while.


-JP

 

[provisional]

I watched quite a bit of the European Tour this weekend since it came on later in the evening. I found those announcers to be more interesting to listen to. Pretty sure it was their delivery, and/or style of talking they made them easier to listen to.

The problem I see with golf announcers is they just don't have a lot to work with. The viewer sees everything they are talking about. If the viewer knows anything about golf, they don't need the talking head to tell them the player hit/missed a fairway, hit/missed a green in regulation, or any of the other possibilities of golf shots. With other sports, there is more going on during a play, that a viewer misses. So the golf announcers has to come up with other stuff, that they think might be interesting, to justify them being there. The network thinks they have to have someone "in the booth" to keep folks tuned in, so we don't have to watch so in so pro golfer walk down the fairway. I say let the on course people, and those in the towers do all the announcing. More "on course" interviews. So what if "pro golfer" gets annoyed when asked a question while walking between shots.

It's too bad we don't have Howard Cosell around to do play by play, and/or on course interviews during a golf match.

 

[Vegan702]

I watched quite a bit of the European Tour this weekend since it came on later in the evening. I found those announcers to be more interesting to listen to. Pretty sure it was their delivery, and/or style of talking they made them easier to listen to.

The problem I see with golf announcers is they just don't have a lot to work with. The viewer sees everything they are talking about. If the viewer knows anything about golf, they don't need the talking head to tell them the player hit/missed a fairway, hit/missed a green in regulation, or any of the other possibilities of golf shots. With other sports, there is more going on during a play, that a viewer misses. So the golf announcers has to come up with other stuff, that they think might be interesting, to justify them being there. The network thinks they have to have someone "in the booth" to keep folks tuned in, so we don't have to watch so in so pro golfer walk down the fairway. I say let the on course people, and those in the towers do all the announcing. More "on course" interviews. So what if "pro golfer" gets annoyed when asked a question while walking between shots.

It's too bad we don't have Howard Cosell around to do play by play, and/or on course interviews during a golf match.

Good post prov. I personally think we don't need the guys in the booth, or at least not 2-3, just 1 guy is fine and it can be somebody like Jim Nance in addition to the on course announcers. Golf is a sport that isn't widely watched by people who do not play golf, and those that do watch are smart enough to figure out was is happening and don't need their hands held throughout the entire show.

 

[JB]

Avid golfers never like the commentary, but the casual fan needs it. And that who watches most of the golf.

 

[Fourputt]

Actually, what I would like is the way they do it on the European Tour; Renton Laidlaw, one other guy, very little "chit chat" and lots of golf.

The model exists, all they need to do here is follow it.

As far as preferences go, I really like Johnny Miller too and from an analyst's point of view, there are none better. I like Faldo just as much, but for different reasons. He's astute, but not in such a didactic way as Miller - it's more like listening to a friend who really knows his stuff and has some funny stories to go with it.


-JP

What little I've had the chance to watch a European broadcast, I tended to find it chopped up and hard to follow. I felt like they jumped around too much in trying to show more golf. I'd like to see a blending of the styles. Less irrelevant swing analysis chatter and fewer inane, repetitious "interviews",... and more golf without quite as much dizzying hopscotch as the European broadcasts I've seen.

I really get tired of the graphic animations for the green slopes (give me better camera angles instead) and slow motion, multi angle swing breakdowns for every player on the leaderboard. I really don't care that the reason Tiger hit his drive 30 yards into the woods is because he twitched his little finger at the top of his backswing... I can't see what they are talking about anyway, and while they are wasting time with that, they could be showing two or three shots from other players.

I really DO like when they get the microphone close enough that we can overhear the chatting between the players and caddies, and I wish we could have more of that. Listening in on the pre-shot thought processes is far more interesting to me than being shown some invisible swing hitch that caused a shot to miss the green by 10 feet.

 

[JPsuff]

I watched quite a bit of the European Tour this weekend since it came on later in the evening. I found those announcers to be more interesting to listen to. Pretty sure it was their delivery, and/or style of talking they made them easier to listen to.

The problem I see with golf announcers is they just don't have a lot to work with. The viewer sees everything they are talking about. If the viewer knows anything about golf, they don't need the talking head to tell them the player hit/missed a fairway, hit/missed a green in regulation, or any of the other possibilities of golf shots. With other sports, there is more going on during a play, that a viewer misses. So the golf announcers has to come up with other stuff, that they think might be interesting, to justify them being there. The network thinks they have to have someone "in the booth" to keep folks tuned in, so we don't have to watch so in so pro golfer walk down the fairway. I say let the on course people, and those in the towers do all the announcing. More "on course" interviews. So what if "pro golfer" gets annoyed when asked a question while walking between shots.

It's too bad we don't have Howard Cosell around to do play by play, and/or on course interviews during a golf match.

That's a good point and something which has become worse in the last five or so years. There seems to be some sort of "rule" now in television which mandates that there be no "dead air" at all. That has always been the cardinal rule of radio because if you're not talking, then people think they've missed the station and keep moving, but television has always had the advantage of showing an image which for the most part says everything that needs to be said and the commentary was simply an add-on.

But these days, people are so distracted and "multi-tasking" (or simply out of the room or reaching for the remote at the first sign of a lull) that the networks feel that an image on a screen is not enough - that there has to be a voice explaining things to keep your attention focused on what they're offering.

Add to that the pseudo-celebrity status imbued upon these talking heads and they begin to see themselves as the stars of the show and that they, rather than the subject of the show, are the reason why people tune in.

Not.


Seriously...NOT!

Howard Cosell along with Meredith and Gifford were a once in a lifetime oddity; three guys with three distinct personalities and agendas who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. But as boisterous as they sometimes were, they never stepped all over the game because the game was why people tuned in. But ever since then, the networks all seem to be trying to recapture that magic and in my opinion, they never have. The advent of technology and "instant" analysis hasn't helped because that's just created more opportunities to stray from the subject of why anyone's here in the first place (the game) and has instead created more marketing, (Minolta Biz-hub, blah, blah, blah) or more pseudo-celebrity (the "color analyst) and then of course the "need" to then discuss their findings at length, ad nauseum.

Perhaps a completely "silent" telecast might not work (because the commentators do serve a stage-setting purpose), but the incessant yakkity yak has got to stop, along with the pointless and needless interviews as well as the microscopic analysis of every breath and twitch. Like most other things, extremes don't work and the real "solution" lies somewhere in between them. As far as technology is concerned, I think a good rule to follow is that just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean that you OUGHT to do it. Yes we can spin around the field or the course and start from satellite orbit and zoom to a single blade of grass, but do we really have to? Is that enhancing the broadcast or just showing off your technical prowess?

Just show me the game, give me the basic situation and then shut up and let me watch.



-JP

 

[wedstuntpuller]

I like David Faherty, except when he is always ragging on my bad shots in Tiger 2010 on the 360...

 

[vman]

Chamblee talks a lot of sense about Tiger`s technique and I`m sure he realises and acknowledges that he`s talking about the best golfer ever.As the best Tiger is going to come under more scrutiny than others and is judged by a standard that is way beyond the norm.Whether Chamblee is best qualified to do this or not is hard to judge as we don`t know the summit of his knowledge but I assume as a former PGA Tour player he knows a thing or two.
Commentating on golf must be incredibly difficult as there`s so much dead time.I think most of the guys do a great job but I know they`re not going to please everyone all the time but that`s just life.