Sky v BBC

First topic message reminder :

Now that The Open has finally finished (more on that later) I thought I'd start the discussion thread that several suggested we should have. Here's my initial two-penn'orth.

1. The BBC coverage  on the commentary side seemingly aimed at people who have never watched golf on TV - or anywhere else - before. Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious!!
2. The editing and camera work were dreadful. Many times the pictures cut from someone just about to putt (having lingered on them lining it up for 30 seconds or so) only to cut away to someone else lining up a shot. Time and again we saw a tee shot, only for the cameraman to miss where it ended up. The classic was one of Sergio's shots which Mark James was convinced must have landed in a greenside bunker because no-one could see it, only for them to be puzzled that Sergio's putt from the back of the green was his second shot. He'd obviously overshot the green and everyone had missed it. And you can't blame the poor visibility with the modern technology at their disposal - unless they haven't invested in any.
3. Who on earth where the numpties who were doing the interviews and on-course bits (apart from Ken Brown and his bloody rubber duck)? They certainly don't appear to have any golfing credentials and had no credibility in my eyes. At least I was able to record it on Sky+ (or pause the live coverage to do something else) and then whizz through the boring bits. Why did they bother to charter a plane to give those pointless overhead shots (mostly obliterated by clouds)? That must have cost the licence fee-payers a pretty penny!
4. The timing of the coverage was pretty poor - if they can clear the schedules for tennis at Wimbledon, why can't they do the same for The Open? Peter Alliss was trumpeting that they will be showing highlights once Sky take over the coverage in 2017 (I read in my paper yesterday that there are suggestions the BBC don't want it next year so may pass it to Sky a year early) so why didn't they show highlights this time, especially on the days when most people work? I had to go out on Monday evening for a previous engagement and so set Sky+ to record the coverage only to discover that they had swapped channels for the play-off so I missed it completely!!!!!

Anyone else want to have a gripe?

liverbnz wrote:

MustPuttBetter wrote:You can choose not to have a tv

You're right, although that also includes a laptop, phone, tablet or any other device that can watch or record live programming. You also have to go through a quite arduous process in order to do so - opt out of your licence that is.

You have to opt out of viewing any of the various formats of 'tv' correct.
Just like if you choose not to pay income tax you have to make sure you do not have any of various forms of income.
Or if you choose to not pay the road fund licence you have to not use the various types of vehicle.

To opt out you either fill in this form - https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/cs/no-licence-needed/about.app - doesn't seem too arduous, or err, don't pay

As I said earlier I can't see that it's more or less of a choice than anything else.

super_realist wrote:Sounds like a fishwives tale.

"More developed"? Norn Irn, are you kidding? That's the most backward region of the UK

You'll find no disagreement from me on that!

LadyPutt wrote:Now that The Open has finally finished (more on that later) I thought I'd start the discussion thread that several suggested we should have. Here's my initial two-penn'orth.

1. The BBC coverage  on the commentary side seemingly aimed at people who have never watched golf on TV - or anywhere else - before. Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious!!

Seriously? I would have thought it pretty sensible to assume that at least some of your audience, numbering millions, might well not be familiar with everything there is to do with golf. If Sky don't cater for that possibility, they're worse than even I thought.

LadyPutt wrote:2. The editing and camera work were dreadful. Many times the pictures cut from someone just about to putt (having lingered on them lining it up for 30 seconds or so) only to cut away to someone else lining up a shot. Time and again we saw a tee shot, only for the cameraman to miss where it ended up. The classic was one of Sergio's shots which Mark James was convinced must have landed in a greenside bunker because no-one could see it, only for them to be puzzled that Sergio's putt from the back of the green was his second shot. He'd obviously overshot the green and everyone had missed it. And you can't blame the poor visibility with the modern technology at their disposal - unless they haven't invested in any.

I disagree (although Mark James is awful) completely. The limited times I've watched golf on Sky, they do exactly the same cutaways from time to time when someone is about to putt. And, yes, you can blame the poor visibility and the wind and the TV towers moving in that wind etc etc etc. Listening to you, anyone would think Sky is infallible in everything they do - they aren't, they're just as pants at the points you raise but I have to listen to their enormously moronic 'experts' to boot.

LadyPutt wrote:3. Who on earth where the numpties who were doing the interviews and on-course bits (apart from Ken Brown and his bloody rubber duck)? They certainly don't appear to have any golfing credentials and had no credibility in my eyes. At least I was able to record it on Sky+ (or pause the live coverage to do something else) and then whizz through the boring bits. Why did they bother to charter a plane to give those pointless overhead shots (mostly obliterated by clouds)? That must have cost the licence fee-payers a pretty penny!

What a ludicrous statement! Who are you to know and/or comment on their 'credentials'? You, personally, don't know who they are so therefore, they're rubbish? Seriously? Yeah, because it's much better to have an old ex-pro, thick as pig merde but because he might have been a decent player in his time, he gets the gig? I give you Monty as an example of the brilliance of this sort of appointment process - utter sh!t. The same can be said of 99% of Sky's football 'experts' - almost all ex-pros and almost uniformly bollox. Old pros never die, they just get a jolly at Sky. Maybe it's the Sky audience - too dumb to listen to someone who knows what they're actually talking about, but does recognise a famous ex-player's face "Ug! Me know him! Sky good!".

LadyPutt wrote:4. The timing of the coverage was pretty poor - if they can clear the schedules for tennis at Wimbledon, why can't they do the same for The Open? Peter Alliss was trumpeting that they will be showing highlights once Sky take over the coverage in 2017 (I read in my paper yesterday that there are suggestions the BBC don't want it next year so may pass it to Sky a year early) so why didn't they show highlights this time, especially on the days when most people work? I had to go out on Monday evening for a previous engagement and so set Sky+ to record the coverage only to discover that they had swapped channels for the play-off so I missed it completely!!!!!

Technophobe are we? Watch it on iPlayer after the event. Alternatively, do as someone else suggested and use that series record thingy option which worked for him. Basically, get over it. Given the money the BBC have to invest in this, they do at least as well as Sky would for more. We'll see (or rather, we won't see as Sky have stuff all viewer coverage cf. the BBC) what Sky do with it in the future.

LadyPutt wrote:Anyone else want to have a gripe?

Not against the BBC Open coverage, no. Your views on the default, no questions asked brilliance of Sky? Certainly.

Davie wrote:LP will be well and truly off Rose-Tinted-Spectacles-with-Blue-Shorts' Christmas card list now!

:yawn:

Davie wrote:Personally I can't fault a thing she says...

You do surprise me...

super_realist wrote:Furthermore, even if you have a tv, you can choose not to pay your tv licence. You simply don't have to let the TV licencing bods in or be in the position where they can prove you have a tv, i.e seeing it through the window.

In unlikely circumstances they can obtain a search warrant with a power of entry. This is a last resort (they say).

I would think that's been revoked now that not having a TV licence has been decriminalised.

navyblueshorts wrote:

LadyPutt wrote:Now that The Open has finally finished (more on that later) I thought I'd start the discussion thread that several suggested we should have. Here's my initial two-penn'orth.

1. The BBC coverage  on the commentary side seemingly aimed at people who have never watched golf on TV - or anywhere else - before. Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious!!

Seriously? I would have thought it pretty sensible to assume that at least some of your audience, numbering millions, might well not be familiar with everything there is to do with golf. If Sky don't cater for that possibility, they're worse than even I thought.

LadyPutt wrote:2. The editing and camera work were dreadful. Many times the pictures cut from someone just about to putt (having lingered on them lining it up for 30 seconds or so) only to cut away to someone else lining up a shot. Time and again we saw a tee shot, only for the cameraman to miss where it ended up. The classic was one of Sergio's shots which Mark James was convinced must have landed in a greenside bunker because no-one could see it, only for them to be puzzled that Sergio's putt from the back of the green was his second shot. He'd obviously overshot the green and everyone had missed it. And you can't blame the poor visibility with the modern technology at their disposal - unless they haven't invested in any.

I disagree (although Mark James is awful) completely. The limited times I've watched golf on Sky, they do exactly the same cutaways from time to time when someone is about to putt. And, yes, you can blame the poor visibility and the wind and the TV towers moving in that wind etc etc etc. Listening to you, anyone would think Sky is infallible in everything they do - they aren't, they're just as pants at the points you raise but I have to listen to their enormously moronic 'experts' to boot.

LadyPutt wrote:3. Who on earth where the numpties who were doing the interviews and on-course bits (apart from Ken Brown and his bloody rubber duck)? They certainly don't appear to have any golfing credentials and had no credibility in my eyes. At least I was able to record it on Sky+ (or pause the live coverage to do something else) and then whizz through the boring bits. Why did they bother to charter a plane to give those pointless overhead shots (mostly obliterated by clouds)? That must have cost the licence fee-payers a pretty penny!

What a ludicrous statement! Who are you to know and/or comment on their 'credentials'? You, personally, don't know who they are so therefore, they're rubbish? Seriously? Yeah, because it's much better to have an old ex-pro, thick as pig merde but because he might have been a decent player in his time, he gets the gig? I give you Monty as an example of the brilliance of this sort of appointment process - utter sh!t. The same can be said of 99% of Sky's football 'experts' - almost all ex-pros and almost uniformly bollox. Old pros never die, they just get a jolly at Sky. Maybe it's the Sky audience - too dumb to listen to someone who knows what they're actually talking about, but does recognise a famous ex-player's face "Ug! Me know him! Sky good!".

LadyPutt wrote:4. The timing of the coverage was pretty poor - if they can clear the schedules for tennis at Wimbledon, why can't they do the same for The Open? Peter Alliss was trumpeting that they will be showing highlights once Sky take over the coverage in 2017 (I read in my paper yesterday that there are suggestions the BBC don't want it next year so may pass it to Sky a year early) so why didn't they show highlights this time, especially on the days when most people work? I had to go out on Monday evening for a previous engagement and so set Sky+ to record the coverage only to discover that they had swapped channels for the play-off so I missed it completely!!!!!

Technophobe are we? Watch it on iPlayer after the event. Alternatively, do as someone else suggested and use that series record thingy option which worked for him. Basically, get over it. Given the money the BBC have to invest in this, they do at least as well as Sky would for more. We'll see (or rather, we won't see as Sky have stuff all viewer coverage cf. the BBC) what Sky do with it in the future.

LadyPutt wrote:Anyone else want to have a gripe?

Not against the BBC Open coverage, no. Your views on the default, no questions asked brilliance of Sky? Certainly.

Davie wrote:LP will be well and truly off Rose-Tinted-Spectacles-with-Blue-Shorts' Christmas card list now!

:yawn:

Davie wrote:Personally I can't fault a thing she says...

You do surprise me...

So I started the thread to encourage debate - seems I got what I wanted (with a touch of barb). No point in continuing because we'll never agree

LadyPutt wrote:So I started the thread to encourage debate - seems I got what I wanted (with a touch of barb). No point in continuing because we'll never agree

I would politely suggest, that you were asking for the barbs with your original phrasing! We can continue but I suspect you're right, I don't think we'll agree. I'll be genuinely interested though (through my hooky internet feed) to see what Sky make of The Open. I think it's a massive mistake and potentially a huge future detriment to the wider game for the R&A to have sold out over this. In general, I'm also not a fan of Sky's general approach to sports, with all their OTT graphics, whizzing noises and ex-pro 'experts', many of whom don't know which way is up. They do some good stuff but I guess I just prefer a lower key approach than they typically offer.

navyblueshorts wrote:

LadyPutt wrote:Now that The Open has finally finished (more on that later) I thought I'd start the discussion thread that several suggested we should have. Here's my initial two-penn'orth.

1. The BBC coverage  on the commentary side seemingly aimed at people who have never watched golf on TV - or anywhere else - before. Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious!!

Seriously? I would have thought it pretty sensible to assume that at least some of your audience, numbering millions, might well not be familiar with everything there is to do with golf. If Sky don't cater for that possibility, they're worse than even I thought.

LadyPutt wrote:2. The editing and camera work were dreadful. Many times the pictures cut from someone just about to putt (having lingered on them lining it up for 30 seconds or so) only to cut away to someone else lining up a shot. Time and again we saw a tee shot, only for the cameraman to miss where it ended up. The classic was one of Sergio's shots which Mark James was convinced must have landed in a greenside bunker because no-one could see it, only for them to be puzzled that Sergio's putt from the back of the green was his second shot. He'd obviously overshot the green and everyone had missed it. And you can't blame the poor visibility with the modern technology at their disposal - unless they haven't invested in any.

I disagree (although Mark James is awful) completely. The limited times I've watched golf on Sky, they do exactly the same cutaways from time to time when someone is about to putt. And, yes, you can blame the poor visibility and the wind and the TV towers moving in that wind etc etc etc. Listening to you, anyone would think Sky is infallible in everything they do - they aren't, they're just as pants at the points you raise but I have to listen to their enormously moronic 'experts' to boot.

LadyPutt wrote:3. Who on earth where the numpties who were doing the interviews and on-course bits (apart from Ken Brown and his bloody rubber duck)? They certainly don't appear to have any golfing credentials and had no credibility in my eyes. At least I was able to record it on Sky+ (or pause the live coverage to do something else) and then whizz through the boring bits. Why did they bother to charter a plane to give those pointless overhead shots (mostly obliterated by clouds)? That must have cost the licence fee-payers a pretty penny!

What a ludicrous statement! Who are you to know and/or comment on their 'credentials'? You, personally, don't know who they are so therefore, they're rubbish? Seriously? Yeah, because it's much better to have an old ex-pro, thick as pig merde but because he might have been a decent player in his time, he gets the gig? I give you Monty as an example of the brilliance of this sort of appointment process - utter sh!t. The same can be said of 99% of Sky's football 'experts' - almost all ex-pros and almost uniformly bollox. Old pros never die, they just get a jolly at Sky. Maybe it's the Sky audience - too dumb to listen to someone who knows what they're actually talking about, but does recognise a famous ex-player's face "Ug! Me know him! Sky good!".

LadyPutt wrote:4. The timing of the coverage was pretty poor - if they can clear the schedules for tennis at Wimbledon, why can't they do the same for The Open? Peter Alliss was trumpeting that they will be showing highlights once Sky take over the coverage in 2017 (I read in my paper yesterday that there are suggestions the BBC don't want it next year so may pass it to Sky a year early) so why didn't they show highlights this time, especially on the days when most people work? I had to go out on Monday evening for a previous engagement and so set Sky+ to record the coverage only to discover that they had swapped channels for the play-off so I missed it completely!!!!!

Technophobe are we? Watch it on iPlayer after the event. Alternatively, do as someone else suggested and use that series record thingy option which worked for him. Basically, get over it. Given the money the BBC have to invest in this, they do at least as well as Sky would for more. We'll see (or rather, we won't see as Sky have stuff all viewer coverage cf. the BBC) what Sky do with it in the future.

LadyPutt wrote:Anyone else want to have a gripe?

Not against the BBC Open coverage, no. Your views on the default, no questions asked brilliance of Sky? Certainly.

Davie wrote:LP will be well and truly off Rose-Tinted-Spectacles-with-Blue-Shorts' Christmas card list now!

:yawn:

Davie wrote:Personally I can't fault a thing she says...

You do surprise me...

This response is surely a wind up. Nobody is naturally this pompous and patronising, are they?

raycastleunited wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LadyPutt wrote:Now that The Open has finally finished (more on that later) I thought I'd start the discussion thread that several suggested we should have. Here's my initial two-penn'orth.

1. The BBC coverage  on the commentary side seemingly aimed at people who have never watched golf on TV - or anywhere else - before. Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious!!

Seriously? I would have thought it pretty sensible to assume that at least some of your audience, numbering millions, might well not be familiar with everything there is to do with golf. If Sky don't cater for that possibility, they're worse than even I thought.

LadyPutt wrote:2. The editing and camera work were dreadful. Many times the pictures cut from someone just about to putt (having lingered on them lining it up for 30 seconds or so) only to cut away to someone else lining up a shot. Time and again we saw a tee shot, only for the cameraman to miss where it ended up. The classic was one of Sergio's shots which Mark James was convinced must have landed in a greenside bunker because no-one could see it, only for them to be puzzled that Sergio's putt from the back of the green was his second shot. He'd obviously overshot the green and everyone had missed it. And you can't blame the poor visibility with the modern technology at their disposal - unless they haven't invested in any.

I disagree (although Mark James is awful) completely. The limited times I've watched golf on Sky, they do exactly the same cutaways from time to time when someone is about to putt. And, yes, you can blame the poor visibility and the wind and the TV towers moving in that wind etc etc etc. Listening to you, anyone would think Sky is infallible in everything they do - they aren't, they're just as pants at the points you raise but I have to listen to their enormously moronic 'experts' to boot.

LadyPutt wrote:3. Who on earth where the numpties who were doing the interviews and on-course bits (apart from Ken Brown and his bloody rubber duck)? They certainly don't appear to have any golfing credentials and had no credibility in my eyes. At least I was able to record it on Sky+ (or pause the live coverage to do something else) and then whizz through the boring bits. Why did they bother to charter a plane to give those pointless overhead shots (mostly obliterated by clouds)? That must have cost the licence fee-payers a pretty penny!

What a ludicrous statement! Who are you to know and/or comment on their 'credentials'? You, personally, don't know who they are so therefore, they're rubbish? Seriously? Yeah, because it's much better to have an old ex-pro, thick as pig merde but because he might have been a decent player in his time, he gets the gig? I give you Monty as an example of the brilliance of this sort of appointment process - utter sh!t. The same can be said of 99% of Sky's football 'experts' - almost all ex-pros and almost uniformly bollox. Old pros never die, they just get a jolly at Sky. Maybe it's the Sky audience - too dumb to listen to someone who knows what they're actually talking about, but does recognise a famous ex-player's face "Ug! Me know him! Sky good!".

LadyPutt wrote:4. The timing of the coverage was pretty poor - if they can clear the schedules for tennis at Wimbledon, why can't they do the same for The Open? Peter Alliss was trumpeting that they will be showing highlights once Sky take over the coverage in 2017 (I read in my paper yesterday that there are suggestions the BBC don't want it next year so may pass it to Sky a year early) so why didn't they show highlights this time, especially on the days when most people work? I had to go out on Monday evening for a previous engagement and so set Sky+ to record the coverage only to discover that they had swapped channels for the play-off so I missed it completely!!!!!

Technophobe are we? Watch it on iPlayer after the event. Alternatively, do as someone else suggested and use that series record thingy option which worked for him. Basically, get over it. Given the money the BBC have to invest in this, they do at least as well as Sky would for more. We'll see (or rather, we won't see as Sky have stuff all viewer coverage cf. the BBC) what Sky do with it in the future.

LadyPutt wrote:Anyone else want to have a gripe?

Not against the BBC Open coverage, no. Your views on the default, no questions asked brilliance of Sky? Certainly.

Davie wrote:LP will be well and truly off Rose-Tinted-Spectacles-with-Blue-Shorts' Christmas card list now!

:yawn:

Davie wrote:Personally I can't fault a thing she says...

You do surprise me...

This response is surely a wind up. Nobody is naturally this pompous and patronising, are they?

I couldn't possibly comment!

George1507 wrote:BBC - any day for me. I just can't stand those Sky muppets sitting round in their lounge suits statin' the bleedin obvious.

The woman with the short skirt and heels has some appeal, but it really shouldn't and I'm getting way too old for that.

Just when something interesting looks like it could happen, there's a commercial break and I get Bernard Gallagher trying to sell me some golf insurance (yet again) or Phil Mickelson trying to sell me a trip to California (even yet again). Then we are back with the golf again, and someone telling me that "he isn't going to like that" when his ball disappears into a bush. Or "he caught it a little fat" as it plops into the water 60 yards short of the green. Then it's back to the short skirt who is interviewing somebody I've never heard of, then back to Bernard Gallacher and Phil Mick, then back to the bleedin' obvious for another five minutes. Then I get fed up and go down to the pub.

Give me the BBC please. Maybe politically incorrect, maybe risque, but it doesn't treat me like I'm imbecilic and even if the Open coverage doesn't start at 6.30am, what I get is plenty for me.

Like the cricket, I'm sure the decision to remove golf from terrestrial tv will cost the game in the medium and long run, and in 20 years we'll be wondering where all the golfers went.  

For the most part I agree with your observations George, although the one thing about commentators on any channel in any sport is that they all state the obvious. "It's a goal!" no really?

I think the BBC could do a great job, it's just that over the last few years they have taken their eye off the ball (sometimes literally) and allowed quality to slip because it at the top golf is not important to the corporation.

LadyPutt wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LadyPutt wrote:Now that The Open has finally finished (more on that later) I thought I'd start the discussion thread that several suggested we should have. Here's my initial two-penn'orth.

1. The BBC coverage  on the commentary side seemingly aimed at people who have never watched golf on TV - or anywhere else - before. Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious!!

Seriously? I would have thought it pretty sensible to assume that at least some of your audience, numbering millions, might well not be familiar with everything there is to do with golf. If Sky don't cater for that possibility, they're worse than even I thought.

LadyPutt wrote:2. The editing and camera work were dreadful. Many times the pictures cut from someone just about to putt (having lingered on them lining it up for 30 seconds or so) only to cut away to someone else lining up a shot. Time and again we saw a tee shot, only for the cameraman to miss where it ended up. The classic was one of Sergio's shots which Mark James was convinced must have landed in a greenside bunker because no-one could see it, only for them to be puzzled that Sergio's putt from the back of the green was his second shot. He'd obviously overshot the green and everyone had missed it. And you can't blame the poor visibility with the modern technology at their disposal - unless they haven't invested in any.

I disagree (although Mark James is awful) completely. The limited times I've watched golf on Sky, they do exactly the same cutaways from time to time when someone is about to putt. And, yes, you can blame the poor visibility and the wind and the TV towers moving in that wind etc etc etc. Listening to you, anyone would think Sky is infallible in everything they do - they aren't, they're just as pants at the points you raise but I have to listen to their enormously moronic 'experts' to boot.

LadyPutt wrote:3. Who on earth where the numpties who were doing the interviews and on-course bits (apart from Ken Brown and his bloody rubber duck)? They certainly don't appear to have any golfing credentials and had no credibility in my eyes. At least I was able to record it on Sky+ (or pause the live coverage to do something else) and then whizz through the boring bits. Why did they bother to charter a plane to give those pointless overhead shots (mostly obliterated by clouds)? That must have cost the licence fee-payers a pretty penny!

What a ludicrous statement! Who are you to know and/or comment on their 'credentials'? You, personally, don't know who they are so therefore, they're rubbish? Seriously? Yeah, because it's much better to have an old ex-pro, thick as pig merde but because he might have been a decent player in his time, he gets the gig? I give you Monty as an example of the brilliance of this sort of appointment process - utter sh!t. The same can be said of 99% of Sky's football 'experts' - almost all ex-pros and almost uniformly bollox. Old pros never die, they just get a jolly at Sky. Maybe it's the Sky audience - too dumb to listen to someone who knows what they're actually talking about, but does recognise a famous ex-player's face "Ug! Me know him! Sky good!".

LadyPutt wrote:4. The timing of the coverage was pretty poor - if they can clear the schedules for tennis at Wimbledon, why can't they do the same for The Open? Peter Alliss was trumpeting that they will be showing highlights once Sky take over the coverage in 2017 (I read in my paper yesterday that there are suggestions the BBC don't want it next year so may pass it to Sky a year early) so why didn't they show highlights this time, especially on the days when most people work? I had to go out on Monday evening for a previous engagement and so set Sky+ to record the coverage only to discover that they had swapped channels for the play-off so I missed it completely!!!!!

Technophobe are we? Watch it on iPlayer after the event. Alternatively, do as someone else suggested and use that series record thingy option which worked for him. Basically, get over it. Given the money the BBC have to invest in this, they do at least as well as Sky would for more. We'll see (or rather, we won't see as Sky have stuff all viewer coverage cf. the BBC) what Sky do with it in the future.

LadyPutt wrote:Anyone else want to have a gripe?

Not against the BBC Open coverage, no. Your views on the default, no questions asked brilliance of Sky? Certainly.

Davie wrote:LP will be well and truly off Rose-Tinted-Spectacles-with-Blue-Shorts' Christmas card list now!

:yawn:

Davie wrote:Personally I can't fault a thing she says...

You do surprise me...

This response is surely a wind up. Nobody is naturally this pompous and patronising, are they?

I couldn't possibly comment!

Can we stop copying and pasting this one, it's hurting my hand

raycastleunited wrote:This response is surely a wind up. Nobody is naturally this pompous and patronising, are they?

Actually Ray, given the overtly antagonistic original post, it seems to be in keeping with the tone don't you think? I have to say, I've had to work jolly hard to become this pompous and patronising old boy. Nice to know I succeeded. Wouldn't have wanted all the hard work to go to waste.

MustPuttBetter wrote:

LadyPutt wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LadyPutt wrote:Now that The Open has finally finished (more on that later) I thought I'd start the discussion thread that several suggested we should have. Here's my initial two-penn'orth.

1. The BBC coverage  on the commentary side seemingly aimed at people who have never watched golf on TV - or anywhere else - before. Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious!!

Seriously? I would have thought it pretty sensible to assume that at least some of your audience, numbering millions, might well not be familiar with everything there is to do with golf. If Sky don't cater for that possibility, they're worse than even I thought.

LadyPutt wrote:2. The editing and camera work were dreadful. Many times the pictures cut from someone just about to putt (having lingered on them lining it up for 30 seconds or so) only to cut away to someone else lining up a shot. Time and again we saw a tee shot, only for the cameraman to miss where it ended up. The classic was one of Sergio's shots which Mark James was convinced must have landed in a greenside bunker because no-one could see it, only for them to be puzzled that Sergio's putt from the back of the green was his second shot. He'd obviously overshot the green and everyone had missed it. And you can't blame the poor visibility with the modern technology at their disposal - unless they haven't invested in any.

I disagree (although Mark James is awful) completely. The limited times I've watched golf on Sky, they do exactly the same cutaways from time to time when someone is about to putt. And, yes, you can blame the poor visibility and the wind and the TV towers moving in that wind etc etc etc. Listening to you, anyone would think Sky is infallible in everything they do - they aren't, they're just as pants at the points you raise but I have to listen to their enormously moronic 'experts' to boot.

LadyPutt wrote:3. Who on earth where the numpties who were doing the interviews and on-course bits (apart from Ken Brown and his bloody rubber duck)? They certainly don't appear to have any golfing credentials and had no credibility in my eyes. At least I was able to record it on Sky+ (or pause the live coverage to do something else) and then whizz through the boring bits. Why did they bother to charter a plane to give those pointless overhead shots (mostly obliterated by clouds)? That must have cost the licence fee-payers a pretty penny!

What a ludicrous statement! Who are you to know and/or comment on their 'credentials'? You, personally, don't know who they are so therefore, they're rubbish? Seriously? Yeah, because it's much better to have an old ex-pro, thick as pig merde but because he might have been a decent player in his time, he gets the gig? I give you Monty as an example of the brilliance of this sort of appointment process - utter sh!t. The same can be said of 99% of Sky's football 'experts' - almost all ex-pros and almost uniformly bollox. Old pros never die, they just get a jolly at Sky. Maybe it's the Sky audience - too dumb to listen to someone who knows what they're actually talking about, but does recognise a famous ex-player's face "Ug! Me know him! Sky good!".

LadyPutt wrote:4. The timing of the coverage was pretty poor - if they can clear the schedules for tennis at Wimbledon, why can't they do the same for The Open? Peter Alliss was trumpeting that they will be showing highlights once Sky take over the coverage in 2017 (I read in my paper yesterday that there are suggestions the BBC don't want it next year so may pass it to Sky a year early) so why didn't they show highlights this time, especially on the days when most people work? I had to go out on Monday evening for a previous engagement and so set Sky+ to record the coverage only to discover that they had swapped channels for the play-off so I missed it completely!!!!!

Technophobe are we? Watch it on iPlayer after the event. Alternatively, do as someone else suggested and use that series record thingy option which worked for him. Basically, get over it. Given the money the BBC have to invest in this, they do at least as well as Sky would for more. We'll see (or rather, we won't see as Sky have stuff all viewer coverage cf. the BBC) what Sky do with it in the future.

LadyPutt wrote:Anyone else want to have a gripe?

Not against the BBC Open coverage, no. Your views on the default, no questions asked brilliance of Sky? Certainly.

Davie wrote:LP will be well and truly off Rose-Tinted-Spectacles-with-Blue-Shorts' Christmas card list now!

:yawn:

Davie wrote:Personally I can't fault a thing she says...

You do surprise me...

This response is surely a wind up. Nobody is naturally this pompous and patronising, are they?

I couldn't possibly comment!

Can we stop copying and pasting this one, it's hurting my hand

No!

George1507 wrote:the one thing about commentators on any channel in any sport is that they all state the obvious. "It's a goal!" no really?

What about "that's a great golf shot" favoured by Mark Roe in particular? What else would it be???

To be fair he's usually talking about Tiger, LP .. so it could easily be a a "carp shot"

LadyPutt wrote:

George1507 wrote:the one thing about commentators on any channel in any sport is that they all state the obvious. "It's a goal!" no really?

What about "that's a great golf shot" favoured by Mark Roe in particular? What else would it be???

Yes! That one always annoys me. I'd like it if someone pulled out a baseball bat and smacked it down the fairway with that.

And they always refer to the ball as 'the golfball', just to make sure I know it isn't a ping pong ball presumably.

Lee Westwood is a great 'driver of the golf ball' apparently. So not the fella that took me to the airport last week then.

navyblueshorts wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:This response is surely a wind up. Nobody is naturally this pompous and patronising, are they?

Actually Ray, given the overtly antagonistic original post, it seems to be in keeping with the tone don't you think? I have to say, I've had to work jolly hard to become this pompous and patronising old boy. Nice to know I succeeded. Wouldn't have wanted all the hard work to go to waste.

Actually, although the original post from LP was heavily critical of the BBC, it wasn't antagonistic at all, whereas your post was massively antagonistic, to the point where I considered it was possibly a wind up. Unless you have previously announced on this forum you are head of BBC sport, or unless of course I don't understand the meaning of the word antagonistic.

Fair point Ray. My use of "antagonistic" was probably not what I was after. Was my reply massively antagonistic? Probably. Wind up? No. Two of the original points made little objective sense and the previous discussion on the the Open thread got a bit 'excited' so I'm probably guilty of over-stepping here. I'll stand by the main thrust of the reply though, even if I could have worded it in a less antagonistic manner.

Sky for me, purely because I'm tired of listening to Alliss reminiscing and criticising players shots, "in my day" grrrrr

As both use the same TV feed, the same technology, including shot tracker. So what's the difference ?.

More people watch the BBC golf coverage, take the Masters this this year. 10 million watch the coverage. 8 million watched the Beeb. 2 mill watched Sky...

SetupDeterminesTheMotion wrote:As both use the same TV feed, the same technology, including shot tracker. So what's the difference ?.

More people watch the BBC golf coverage, take the Masters this this year. 2.6 million watch the coverage. 2 million watched the Beeb. 0.6 mill watched Sky...

Interesting - where do you get these figures from?

gw wrote:Sky for me, purely because I'm tired of listening to Alliss reminiscing and criticising players shots, "in my day" grrrrr

Personally, I think most of the time he's dead right when he criticises the players. He doesn't criticise when it's clear what they were trying to do, but it doesn't come off. But - for example - Adam Scott slogging it out of bounds on the 18th at St Andrews is just terrible, and if Scott didn't know it already, maybe Peter Alliss pointing it out might help him a bit. He's a professional golfer, not a weekend golfer for goodness' sake.

And it's great that Peter Alliss announces club centenaries and the like - whether you like it or not, golf's strength is the army of club golfers out there. Without them, there's no elite level amateur game, no pro tours, no Majors, no golf industry and no golf as we know it. I think the clubs deserve some recognition, and happily Peter Alliss provides it.

And I can remember things Alliss has said - I can watch a whole evening of Sky golf and remember nothing at all that was said. The sports commentary equivalent of elevator music.

Well yeah I think anyone who knows the basics of golf would agree that a pro golfer should be able to hit a fairway that's 100 yards wide, it's not that. It's the criticism he gives out when a player for example hit's a different style shot than he used to, and it doesn't quite come off......"It was a 1 iron under the wind in my day".

At one point Irvine was desperately looking to the crew to help her as she didn't have a clue what he was going on about.

I don't mind it when the commentators criticise a player. Faldo does it sometimes, Alliss too. They are supposed to add insight and if they don't agree with the shot they should call it, instead of sycophantic bleating and endless superlatives (see Mark Roe, but the best example is football on Sky where every goal is a "fantastic shot" or "a great finish" regardless of whether it was off the shin from 2 yards or a defensive howler).

While we are talking about Adam Scott I vaguely remember him standing on the 18th tee at Lytham with a 3 wood and the commentator (Alliss again?) questioning his club choice, and even sounding concerned. I know it was stating the obvious when everyone else was hitting iron off the tee but it was useful to hear!

Bob_the_Job wrote:

SetupDeterminesTheMotion wrote:As both use the same TV feed, the same technology, including shot tracker. So what's the difference ?.

More people watch the BBC golf coverage, take the Masters this this year. 10 million watch the coverage. 8 million watched the Beeb. 2 mill watched Sky...

Interesting - where do you get these figures from?

Mistyped the numbers, but have amended them...came from Golf International Magazine.

SetupDeterminesTheMotion wrote:

Bob_the_Job wrote:

SetupDeterminesTheMotion wrote:As both use the same TV feed, the same technology, including shot tracker. So what's the difference ?.

More people watch the BBC golf coverage, take the Masters this this year. 10 million watch the coverage. 8 million watched the Beeb. 2 mill watched Sky...

Interesting - where do you get these figures from?

Mistyped the numbers, but have amended them...came from Golf International Magazine.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics!

Why is the BBC not showing coverage of the Women's British Open until 1pm today? Will they keep this coverage when The Open goes to Sky or is it joint package? Not sure if I've read anything about it.

Sky have signed the rights to show live coverage from 2017, with the BBC having a one hour highlights show in the evening.

Another one gone, sadly.

News breaking today that BBC has asked R and A to be released from the contract and Sky will take over Open coverage now from 2016!

Good spot Davie.

I thought the BBC's 2015 Open coverage was below par. Not surprising as they had already decided to call it a day. No point limping on for another year.

Hard to polish a turd. The Open is a pretty hopeless tournament due to where it's played. Good riddance. Maybe SKY can exert some pressure on the R&A to force a bit more drama by getting better venues involved.

It remains terrible news that sky have the open, but loosing it one year early doesn't deepen the blow significantly.

Do you watch much sport Mac? I find it pretty tiresome. Just background stuff for me.

Great stuff that Sky have got the Open a year earlier! BBC's coverage to me was outdated!

The main sports I watch are F1, football and some golf. I usually watch golf in the background instead of fully focusing on it. But with F1 and football I am happy to be fully engaged in watching it.

I will occasionally watch other sports like moto-gp, gp2, other motorsports, athletics or big events.

I am sure you do find watching sport tiresome but you have mentioned this several times as if you think it should be universally true that watching sport is dull. Which is an odd position to take. Why do you care what other people watch for entertainment?

sirbenson wrote:Great stuff that Sky have got the Open a year earlier! BBC's coverage to me was outdated!

What are the hallmarks of outdated golf coverage and what makes sky's coverage not outdated?

I'm not going to miss out but I think this is terrible, just because it's part of the general squeezing of the Beeb. Murdoch has Cameron in his pocket, and it's shameful.

Hate sky and BT sports. Really wish the BBC held onto the British Open. BBC is a great channel and always enjoy their coverage.

SmithersJones wrote:I'm not going to miss out but I think this is terrible, just because it's part of the general squeezing of the Beeb. Murdoch has Cameron in his pocket, and it's shameful.

What's it got to do with Cameron?

David Cameron is the prime minister, his party has vocal members wanting to cut the BBC. They have already started making cut backs at the Beeb. Unfortunately Golf is a very low priority, and therefore disposable. It has a lot to do with Cameron and the Tory party, I really would be surprised, if anyone was not aware of this.

If you think that the BBC and its golf coverage is something which reaches the highest section of government, you're a bit misguided. They've got better things to discuss.

To think that any party would waste any time considering what sports are included in the BBC coverage is frankly laughable. It's a decision that is made by the BBC management, not Parliament or a Governing party. Golf costs too much, takes too long and doesn't get enough viewers. Simple as that.

I dont think anyone has said its the Tories going after the BBC golf coverage, just that the lack of golf coverage, is a symptom of the Tory cuts on the BBC. If they did not have cuts then there would be no reason for them to get rid of the golf.

There's been golf cuts (and all sorts of other cuts) on the BBC for YEARS.

I remember there used to be TONS of golf on the BBC (Wentworth Matchplay, Scottish Open, Ryder Cup, British Masters, BMW), much of it cut well before either this Tory government or the previous Tory/Lib Dem coalition.

It's very Guardian to blame the Tories for something that didn't begin with them.

THe BBC is a preposterously overblown and inefficient organisation.

super_realist wrote:

THe BBC is a preposterously overblown and inefficient organisation.

I'd like to see Sky produce half of what the BBC puts out across TV, Radio and Web for the tiny sum we all have to pay for the TV Licence. Inefficient? In what universe?

I've known people who work there, it's one of the most over-managed and over-staffed organisation going often reported in the media and by the people who work there, which is what usually happens in state owned organisations. Have you ever seen how many people they take for OB's?

The TV licence is over £100, every household with a TV has to have one. That's a huge amount of money.

Do you really think that the BBC only has licences as income?

The BBC sells its programmes all over the world.

GunsGerms wrote:The BBC sells its programmes all over the world.

Exactly.

The BBC could probably afford to keep the golf if it really wanted to, but not enough people watch it to justify the cost of it.

Plenty of programmes have been axed over the years.

How many people watch it?

GunsGerms wrote:How many people watch it?

1.4m average in 2014 which is pitiful considering how much they must have to pay for it, and how much it costs them to do the broadcast. More people probably watch Gardeners World.