Paul Azinger Commentaries (MERGED)

[woodriff]

Zinger is tolerable. He’s no Johnny Millar, or Faldo. 
I always wondered if Phil would retire he could make a great commentator.  It’s unfortunate, because Phil’s radioactive at present. 
Perhaps down the road. But people have long memories on this one. 

[straightshot7]

1 minute ago, woodriff said:

Zinger is tolerable. He’s no Johnny Millar, or Faldo. 
I always wondered if Phil would retire he could make a great commentator.  It’s unfortunate, because Phil’s radioactive at present. 
Perhaps down the road. But people have long memories on this one. 

Tolerable like a mild hangover.

[mattwood]

I like him.

[FriedEgg]

NBC could ditch their entire on-air golf team and it would not bother me in the least

[Tpfol]

I'd say that Zinger is the best part of the entire NBC crew, but that's like saying who's the most attractive host of "The View"

 

[iBanesto]

Did Azinger call Fitzpatrick's 2nd shot into 18 as "sounded fat"?

 

 

[Golferpaul]

On 6/24/2022 at 1:58 PM, woodriff said:

Zinger is tolerable. He’s no Johnny Millar, or Faldo. 
I always wondered if Phil would retire he could make a great commentator.  It’s unfortunate, because Phil’s radioactive at present. 
Perhaps down the road. But people have long memories on this one. 

Time heals all things.  Nobody talks about Tigers issues from ten years ago.  Someday, they will forget about Phil's issues.

[JRS1939]

Maybe this is next for the PGA Tour

[morgan1819]

On 6/25/2022 at 7:50 AM, Tpfol said:

I'd say that Zinger is the best part of the entire NBC crew, but that's like saying who's the most attractive host of "The View"

 

[golfheaven69]

Enjoy Zinger. 

[gvogel]

Like is golf, Azinger is very one dimensional.

[chillybilly]

Possibly forest-trees stuff. We are 1 percenters of a sort - golf-mad players and golf-mad viewers who also are golf-mad internet commentators and golf-mad equipment hounds.

 

One analogy might a Led Zeppelin anorak who wants to discuss the finer points of Jimmy Page's live guitar tone over the decade.

 

But...obviously the voices are coming from the TV and we must listen to them, often against our will.

 

I have long maintained that play-by-play for football and baseball were a carryover from radio days and nobody thought to question the rather ludicrous concept of having someone describing the action when the viewer can see it just as easily and quickly himself in real time especially in the age of massive HD TVs. But, like the golf, the networks view the actual event as little more than a foundation for their ad load and self-promotion. And so they need a hype man. The problem, all too often, is that the hype man becomes self-aware, like SkyNet, and you end up with a Joe Buck.

 

The problem, or difference, with golf is that there are no uniforms - or at least no matching uniforms (with exceptions like Ryder Cup) - and players wear something different each day. So even with graphics the viewer (other than viewers like us) may not know the player by sight unless his name is Woods or Mickelson. There is also the playing field - in this case a golf course. Each course and hole are unique, strictly speaking, but they often start to look the same given that there are few basic, repetitive elements in course design. And so the 'traffic management' or 'handoff' is a necessary evil. 'To nine!' 'To eighteen!' and so on.

 

On-course commentators are useful WHEN they provide information we can't see or hear for ourselves.  But 'this one's going a little bit right' or 'it's on-line if it's the right club' are worse than useless, especially with video with tracer ribbons.

 

[gvogel]

3 hours ago, chillybilly said:

Possibly forest-trees stuff. We are 1 percenters of a sort - golf-mad players and golf-mad viewers who also are golf-mad internet commentators and golf-mad equipment hounds.

 

One analogy might a Led Zeppelin anorak who wants to discuss the finer points of Jimmy Page's live guitar tone over the decade.

 

But...obviously the voices are coming from the TV and we must listen to them, often against our will.

 

I have long maintained that play-by-play for football and baseball were a carryover from radio days and nobody thought to question the rather ludicrous concept of having someone describing the action when the viewer can see it just as easily and quickly himself in real time especially in the age of massive HD TVs. But, like the golf, the networks view the actual event as little more than a foundation for their ad load and self-promotion. And so they need a hype man. The problem, all too often, is that the hype man becomes self-aware, like SkyNet, and you end up with a Joe Buck.

 

The problem, or difference, with golf is that there are no uniforms - or at least no matching uniforms (with exceptions like Ryder Cup) - and players wear something different each day. So even with graphics the viewer (other than viewers like us) may not know the player by sight unless his name is Woods or Mickelson. There is also the playing field - in this case a golf course. Each course and hole are unique, strictly speaking, but they often start to look the same given that there are few basic, repetitive elements in course design. And so the 'traffic management' or 'handoff' is a necessary evil. 'To nine!' 'To eighteen!' and so on.

 

On-course commentators are useful WHEN they provide information we can't see or hear for ourselves.  But 'this one's going a little bit right' or 'it's on-line if it's the right club' are worse than useless, especially with video with tracer ribbons.

 

You are exactly right.  Tell me a story about something that happened away from the course, that I do not know, which increases my appreciation of what is happening on the screen.  But not a Jimmy Roberts story; the commentator should do that while I am watching the actual play.

 

Or, if you are the announcer at the 16th green, for example, tell me how you rolled a couple of putts on the same line as the player which is about to play, and there is a sneaky break in there that is hard to read.  And let's see how so and so plays it.

 

Renton Laidlaw used to do that, and it was fun to watch AND listen.  That is lost on the US announcers. 

[DCAinge]

I turn off the sound when Azinger is announcing. I liked him as a player.  As an announcer he is offensive. Biggest issue I have is he says things that are not accurate and often stupid.  His attempt to provide insight is usually off base and often a cliche. I have heard him state what player is thinking …if I was the player I would be offended 

I find it amusing when he says something he feels is insightful and his co-announcer act like they never heard him. 

[The Swanny]

I don’t mind Azinger much.  He is fine.  But the rest of the broadcast team  can go along with the split screen commercials where the commercial is about 50% bigger than the actual golf on the other side.  And the quantity of them is a bit excessive.

[jt2gt]

On 6/29/2022 at 11:38 AM, gvogel said:

You are exactly right.  Tell me a story about something that happened away from the course, that I do not know, which increases my appreciation of what is happening on the screen.  But not a Jimmy Roberts story; the commentator should do that while I am watching the actual play.

 

Or, if you are the announcer at the 16th green, for example, tell me how you rolled a couple of putts on the same line as the player which is about to play, and there is a sneaky break in there that is hard to read.  And let's see how so and so plays it.

 

Renton Laidlaw used to do that, and it was fun to watch AND listen.  That is lost on the US announcers. 

This is too much work...it's much easier to just show up in the booth, see who is in the lead and just tell us what is happening as we see it saying things like -- "is that any good, I mean is that any good" or "he's a good player, works hard" or "he's walkin it in" etc, etc.  

[bcflyguy1]

As many others have said...

[golfortennis]

28 minutes ago, jt2gt said:

This is too much work...it's much easier to just show up in the booth, see who is in the lead and just tell us what is happening as we see it saying things like -- "is that any good, I mean is that any good" or "he's a good player, works hard" or "he's walkin it in" etc, etc.  

 

You forgot the "you viewers at home will have no idea how great that shot was."  

 

But then again you are talking about golf productions where someone thinks we want to see the face of the announcer talking as they describe what is happening.  You never see anyone's face on ET broadcasts except maybe for an opening, and that seems to have gone away with Renton Laidlaw.  

[SavageCy]

On 6/25/2022 at 6:14 AM, iBanesto said:

Did Azinger call Fitzpatrick's 2nd shot into 18 as "sounded fat"?

 

 

What's your point?

[woodriff]

I’ve always felt that some of the best skills are passed forward. Some of the best commentators were and are the English. Somewhere in the past those announcing skills were not passed forward. Many announcers these days feel that they must “fill”. 
It’s just not Zinger, it’s the entire industry. The exception from time to time is baseball. Those announcers have learned that “less is more”, and it’s best applied in golf as well. 

[dcfas]

I was thinking this weekend that maybe Zinger was improving. It is likely a fine line in discussing the nuances of golf mechanics vs keeping it simple yet informative and interesting for the typical viewer. Lately it has seemed to me that when I notice something most would not, Zinger often will bring it up. So, maybe he is figuring it out.

Edited August 16, 2022 by dcfas

[FriedEgg]

What if he makes this 90 footer?

[Tony DeFrank]

Azinger is the absolute WORST.  Everthing he says is flat out wrong and uninformative.  Lately I literally hit the mute button because I can't listen to the constant idiosy - NBC, GET RID OF HIM PLEASE!!!!

[mosesgolf]

I loved Ken Venturi as an announcer

I loved Johnny Miller "          "

I loved Nick Faldo      "           "

I like Zinger

 

I disliked that obnoxious guy who got banned from the Masters. 

 

 

[Dr. Block]

Azinger tries too hard to be funny or clever at the expense of being logical and accurate. That approach is fine if you're one of the supporting cast, not so much if you're in the main seat. 

[Dr. Block]

On 8/16/2022 at 10:02 AM, woodriff said:

I’ve always felt that some of the best skills are passed forward. Some of the best commentators were and are the English. Somewhere in the past those announcing skills were not passed forward. Many announcers these days feel that they must “fill”. 
It’s just not Zinger, it’s the entire industry. The exception from time to time is baseball. Those announcers have learned that “less is more”, and it’s best applied in golf as well. 

Trevor Immelman gives me the vibe and timing of the old greats like Alliss and Wright. He also seems to understand when not to talk. I hope his star stays on the rise. 

[Krt22]

18 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

Azinger tries too hard to be funny or clever at the expense of being logical and accurate. That approach is fine if you're one of the supporting cast, not so much if you're in the main seat. 

He does try to hard, but he is also just awful at it. He for whatever reason thinks every single shot needs some profound snippet of commentary.  Combine that with his dull voice and it's nearly unbearable to watch, nails on a chalkboard level of cringe

[Dr. Block]

3 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

He does try to hard, but he is also just awful at it. He for whatever reason thinks every single shot needs some profound snippet of commentary.  Combine that with his dull voice and it's nearly unbearable to watch, nails on a chalkboard level of cringe

Agreed. 

[gripandrip]

✋ Not a fan.

[Hacker76]

Azinger is so bad I have to watch it on mute.