• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Joe Buck and Greg Norman will be golf's new broadcast team (nwt)

Liquid Karma said:
You guys think Miller is full of himself on NBC...wait until Greg Norman, who has made a career out of self promotion, gets behind the mike.
Click to expand...

I like Johnny Miller. He just tells it like it is and doesn't sugar caot things. Golfers hate it when he tells the truth when they are actually choking out there.
 
Norman will suck. Azinger would be entertaining, at least.
 
deacz said:
Norman will suck. Azinger would be entertaining, at least.
Click to expand...

Azinger has been okay at best. Miller is much better.

And yes, Summerall and Venturi were the best golf combo ever. Venturi had a great voice and was insightful without necessarily being overly critical.
 
Nantz went down the drain when he called Mickelson's 2010 Masters win "a win for the family," a direct shot at Tiger and his scandal year. While I'm certainly a Phil fan and no great defender of Tiger, Nantz had just gotten divorced and had an affair with a much younger woman. Glass houses and all that.

Is Joe Buck that twerpy little baseball shit? Christ, Tirico would be a better pick.
 
94Deac said:
Nantz went down the drain when he called Mickelson's 2010 Masters win "a win for the family," a direct shot at Tiger and his scandal year. While I'm certainly a Phil fan and no great defender of Tiger, Nantz had just gotten divorced and had an affair with a much younger woman. Glass houses and all that.

Is Joe Buck that twerpy little baseball shit? Christ, Tirico would be a better pick.
Click to expand...

He could have also said it because Phil's wife and mother were going through cancer...
 
Not only is this an odd broadcast combo, it's Buck that will make a Major unwatchable and listening even worse. That smugness and that voice give me hives.
 
cville deac said:
Azinger has been okay at best. Miller is much better.
Click to expand...

True, but Miller ain't going to Fox. Azinger is the best available option that I can think of, and he wouldn't just talk about himself the whole time like Norman inevitably will.

As for the "win for the family" bit, that clearly related to Mickelson's wife's and mother's issues. Those were well-publicized (as things typically are with Phil) and any thought that it related to Tiger is a huge stretch.
 
deacz said:
As for the "win for the family" bit, that clearly related to Mickelson's wife's and mother's issues. Those were well-publicized (as things typically are with Phil) and any thought that it related to Tiger is a huge stretch.
Click to expand...

Read the link and history. There's nothing "clear" about it. As I said- "could've" but the history is undeniable as was the timing. And even if you do buy that load, still doesn't change Nantz being somewhat hypocritical, having just ditched his family.
 
94Deac said:
Read the link and history. There's nothing "clear" about it. As I said- "could've" but the history is undeniable as was the timing. And even if you do buy that load, still doesn't change Nantz being somewhat hypocritical, having just ditched his family.
Click to expand...

The article does not even mention Mickelson's family's health issues at the time. There had been a ton of press about it, yet no mention given it was the most likely reason for the comment. And, it's a Bleacher Report article about golf.

No argument about Nantz being hypocritical or anything else, however, given his own issues. He is a cheeseball, especially at Augusta. I just fail to see how the Tiger angle is nearly as plausible as the health angle. But now I have wasted 5 minutes arguing about it. . .
 
deacz said:
The article does not even mention Mickelson's family's health issues at the time. There had been a ton of press about it, yet no mention given it was the most likely reason for the comment. And, it's a Bleacher Report article about golf.

No argument about Nantz being hypocritical or anything else, however, given his own issues. He is a cheeseball, especially at Augusta. I just fail to see how the Tiger angle is nearly as plausible as the health angle. But now I have wasted 5 minutes arguing about it. . .
Click to expand...

Article doesn't mention it because, as most observers thought, it was shot at Tiger- which, you have to admit, was an exponentially more prominent story on the golf landscape than Phil. Still, the idea that it was about Phil's family still makes the point. Nantz is saying "Phil wins one for his family, which Tiger has pissed away." Ultimately, given Nantz's history, the "win for the ages" might've been his better choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top