2017 USDGC

[JTacoma03]

Going with this thought, what would be your ideal set up? You and Nate? You and Avery? You and Jerm? You and someone else?

IMO it's a two-fold issue to solve - first is finding good chemistry in the pairing, and the second is fitting the commentary style to the video format.

This is why I think a play-by-play or host role is so important. You have to have someone signing you in/out of commercial breaks, posing the right kind of questions or lead-in statements at the right moments, matching the vocal tone for the pair to what's happening on screen, knowing how to 'volley' the conversation at the right pace, etc.

One example is the very beginning - often when it's two pros it sounds like a podcast intro, "Hey guys, how's it going? We're here at..." vs using an intro to set the tone of the event. A sunny weekend in Vegas in February is very different from a rainy October final round, for example, so those intros should sound different.

All of the guys you mentioned are good candidates, and very different in their styles. I also really like Doss. He's well-informed about sports in general, and his disc golf pedigree is unquestionable. On top of that he has no problem telling it like it is, without being disrespectful.

I also like going on the track with Ian, because I tend to migrate to the analyst role and let him host.

Hope I didn't ramble too much there...

I know of which I speak.

I read this in Gandalf's voice and it cracked me up. Just thought I'd mention that.

Apparently there was a video team on chase card; really looking forward to that event. Jamie, any word on who will be commentating, or did you say that would be a surprise?

Working on that still. It was a last minute decision so nobody was prepared.

 

[robdeforge]

Um, yeah. Broadcast/Journalism degree, over 25 years experience doing radio play-by-play...mainly football and basketball, other sports as well. I know of which I speak.

:doh: next time I'll be sure to make it more more obvious that I'm asking a rhetorical question.

 

[jedwards]

• Followed the next 2 holes barefoot, that got some looks.

Didn't run into you this year - but I can assure you that you were not the only shoeless spectator...we saw about a dozen.

• Everybody was pretty happy for Nate, it was a touching ending to the tourney. Philo in particular seemed like a really class act and McBeth seemed really happy for Nate (kind of contrary to the myth of him being a "competitor to a fault" that gets tossed around). Ricky on the other hand, was clearly burning inside and was gutted by the loss (he was a gracious loser too, though, not trying to sound like he stormed off the course pouting or anything).

 

[SD86]

One thing I noticed on the coverage was a more limited use of statistics. I find that Big Jerm sometimes overdoes it with the stats, using them to the extent that they distract from providing other forms of analysis (such as on disc flight, choices players made, etc.) Going down the stats rabbit hole can also throw off the timing where the comments end up behind the action.

I wondered if this was a "production" decision made by SpinTV or USDGC/DGWT or Innova. I thought there was a marked difference in how much they went to the stats compared with something like their recent coverage of Green Mountains Championship. They didn't completely ignore the stats -- number of birdies, hardest/easiest hole rankings -- but I sensed that the cut back. Purposeful?

I also found the "Pillars of Justice" snark to be hilarious. They changed the name to the Pillars of something else for round four, but it was equally hilarious. It was clear that Big Jerm thought they were stupid, but he handled his criticism well, I thought.

^^^ All this.

I noticed that there were less statistics, but also that they seem to be much more selective in which stats they chose to show. For example, they wanted to show why Nate Sexton had a big lead, so they showed stats where Nate was crushing others...

Also agree on the "Pillars of Justice". Wow, those were gimmicky. I hope they don't do that again in future USDGC Championships...

 

[SD86]

Disc Golf Commentary is entirely too soft. Always has been.

You never hear anyone ever question why someone chose a certain shot or point out when someone throws a poor shot as to why or what they did wrong.

It's always extremely positive or "unfortunate"

I don't watch post-coverage disc golf b/c it's too cheesy and too positive.

Oh, I dunno.... Sexton is not afraid to tell his co-commentator "that wasn't your best effort".

Plus, sometimes they don't know why someone threw a bad shot, and err on the side of discretion in their comments.

 

[DiscJunkie]

Also agree on the "Pillars of Justice". Wow, those were gimmicky. I hope they don't do that again in future USDGC Championships...

Hole 9's Drop Zone was mentioned a few times during the commentary, and not in a positive light.
As the commentators inferred, it's not that hard for a guy of normal height, but watching Paige get down on her knees to throw her approach from the Drop Zone...that was weird.

Throwing through the cross-bracing on the supports. Really??
We are definitely heading for the concrete hippo and the spinning windmill (aka mini golf).

 

[BrotherDave]

Man, some of you guys are even more critical of commentating than I am, that's rough.

I agree with the folks that like the pro & pro commentary and don't need play by play (it is edited film, I can see every shot and don't need it described to me). I love Big Jerm, he's probably my #1 precisely b/c he geeks out over course design (I'd rather hear how a certain hole is a soft par 4 rather than how so and so screwed up throwing his disc into the tree). Sexton is fantastic as well and together they're an indomitable force of insight and humor. I don't even mind Avery Jenkins as long as he doesn't sound like he's just funneled 4 red bulls.

The only thing I'm not crazy about is the long-winded discussion of such and such hole being the 5th hardest hole, etc. I like the stats and the mentions, just not the "Guess what this hole ranked." "Third hardest?" "Nope, tenth hardest." "Really?" Blah blah blah. If they could work the difficulty ranking into the hole preview via drone parts that would be great so Jerm and Nate wouldn't feel pressured to bring it up so much maybe (or if time is too limited for this, save last year's tourney stats and put them on there, I dunno).

I also disagree with people that think the pros are too nice when commentating on bad shots by fellow pros, I think they do a good job. Jerm fully busted out in laughter when Simon threw a <40' worm burner during the Nantucket Open and gave Simon the appropriate amount of hell for it, it was great. The only time I can think of the pros being too kind commentating on other pros was maybe when two FPO were doing commentary but A) FPO is a much more familiar, smaller field so being critical on fellow players would be magnified tenfold and B) I'd still rather hear the gals' side of women's disc golf.

I was okay with the Pillars of Justice. They seemed maybe a tad random and I guess that's why the pros didn't like them but I wouldn't throw the concept out just yet. I do think there is a better solution somewhere.

 

[Flick Maniac]

I liked the Mozzarella Sticks name better because thats exactly what they looked like.

 

[bhadella]

I liked the Mozzarella Sticks name better because thats exactly what they looked like.

The pretzel rods of justice?

 

[Zanguini]

I liked the pillars of justice, i do think they should have been outside the bullseye though, that was kind of ridiculous. I mean the bullseye is that for a reason right?

 

[JTacoma03]

Hole 9's Drop Zone was mentioned a few times during the commentary, and not in a positive light.

I don't personally have a problem with putting the drop zone behind that support structure. It creates the same challenge as a tree in the way, blocking both the straight and RHBH hyzer approach.

The issue I take is how close the dropzone was to the structure itself. I get that they're trying to make it a more thin margin for error on the RHBH anny, but I just think it was a bit too cozy in there.

Now how about a theoretical...

Given that the re-design of that hole (moving the basket up significantly closer to the tee and into the center of that field) was to allow more Eagle opportunities and promote risk/reward, I personally feel stroke/distance would have been acceptable on that hole. There were essentially two layup zones (short LH hyzer from the tee, and pin high way out right against the outfield wall of the stadium) - so you have 3 total options depending upon how aggressive you want to be and how your game is built. S/D would accomplish the same amount of punishment without forcing an awkward drop zone.

 

[DiscJunkie]

I don't personally have a problem with putting the drop zone behind that support structure. It creates the same challenge as a tree in the way, blocking both the straight and RHBH hyzer approach.

I respect your opinion, as always.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I also don't like tees that are pointed at trees only a few feet away, another feature that I disliked about Hole 9.
Of course, Winthrop Gold is not the only course to employ this tree-directly-in-front-of-tee "gimmick", but still don't like it.
Also understand that I may be in the minority, still despise this lazy, gimmicky approach to designing difficulty into DG courses.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I respect your opinion, as always.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I also don't like tees that are pointed at trees only a few feet away, another feature that I disliked about Hole 9.
Of course, Winthrop Gold is not the only course to employ this tree-directly-in-front-of-tee "gimmick", but still don't like it.
Also understand that I may be in the minority, still despise this lazy, gimmicky approach to designing difficulty into DG courses.

Seen it before myself and I have to agree that I hate it just as much. This is a great example and I can't stand it:

Hole 4 long at Flaherty Park.

 

[DiscJunkie]

Dave, that IS ugly.
I had just played Elon Eager Beaver a few days ago.
Hole 2 Longs, the tree is even closer than it looks.

 

[jeremyhilss]

Hole 13 Powder Mill, Marquette MI, and Hole (?) Silver Creek, Harvey MI. The tree is touching the teebox on both those holes.

 

[Major Tomahawk]

I liked the Mozzarella Sticks name better because thats exactly what they looked like.

I think it should have been called the wailing wall for the crybabies.

 

[lyleoross]

I don't personally have a problem with putting the drop zone behind that support structure. It creates the same challenge as a tree in the way, blocking both the straight and RHBH hyzer approach.

The issue I take is how close the dropzone was to the structure itself. I get that they're trying to make it a more thin margin for error on the RHBH anny, but I just think it was a bit too cozy in there.

Now how about a theoretical...

Given that the re-design of that hole (moving the basket up significantly closer to the tee and into the center of that field) was to allow more Eagle opportunities and promote risk/reward, I personally feel stroke/distance would have been acceptable on that hole. There were essentially two layup zones (short LH hyzer from the tee, and pin high way out right against the outfield wall of the stadium) - so you have 3 total options depending upon how aggressive you want to be and how your game is built. S/D would accomplish the same amount of punishment without forcing an awkward drop zone.

I'm not poking at you, that is, legitimate question since you were there. What did the pros say about the setup? I got the impression that Jeremy didn't like it, but he's only one voice. Also, when is your piece with AJ coming out? I want more of that kind of coverage. In-depth looks at courses and holes on the ground. Good idea.

 

[JTacoma03]

I'm not poking at you, that is, legitimate question since you were there. What did the pros say about the setup? I got the impression that Jeremy didn't like it, but he's only one voice. Also, when is your piece with AJ coming out? I want more of that kind of coverage. In-depth looks at courses and holes on the ground. Good idea.

It was probably the most disliked change to the course.

Some pros weren't fans of the changes to 2 and 13, but overall I think the consistent disagreement was with 9's DZ.

I'm finalizing the chase card coverage which will go up tonight, then I'll start into that mountain of footage which is the mini-series (including the qualifying round). I think we shot about 500GB for that project . I'm hoping to get that done within the month. Looking forward to feedback/critique on that style of project.

 

[ThrowBot]

Seen it before myself and I have to agree that I hate it just as much. This is a great example and I can't stand it:

Hole 4 long at Flaherty Park.

That actually looks pretty cool. Good way to use that unique tree; gives you multiple options but none appear to be too easy!

I personally don't mind the "obstacle-right-in-front-of-tee" type design element. (As long as there's at least 1 fair sized gap.) If it's a fair challenge, and everyone faces the same challenge, I don't have a problem with it.

However, it does go against a sort of tacit convention, which is that on most holes you can comfortably throw from any point on the front of the tee. A very close obstacle limits that freedom; you have more constraints on your throw.

 

[lyleoross]

It was probably the most disliked change to the course.

Some pros weren't fans of the changes to 2 and 13, but overall I think the consistent disagreement was with 9's DZ.

I'm finalizing the chase card coverage which will go up tonight, then I'll start into that mountain of footage which is the mini-series (including the qualifying round). I think we shot about 500GB for that project . I'm hoping to get that done within the month. Looking forward to feedback/critique on that style of project.

I like those style of projects and think they are a key component missing in coverage.

If people haven't watched the final round card coverage of USDGC, they should. The commentary is quite good. Casual but with insight to the players and course. Very nice.

BTW, I didn't miss you catching out Ian on knowing his SoCal player profiles.