| |
Main
Date: 28 Jan 2007 19:23:43
From: \R&B\
Subject: What was Nantz thinking?
|
I know there are several folks here who can't stand Jim Nantz. I am usually
his lone apologist here, as I think he's been the best golf anchor in the
business ever since he took over for Pat Summerall on CBS.
But today at Torrey Pines, he declared Tiger Woods the "winner" of the event
when there were still players on the course. Now I'll have to admit, I
wasn't following the tournament closely (I was watching the Super Bowl
highlight films on NFL Network), but I know at one point there was still at
least one player on the course behind Tiger who could have eagled 18 and
tied for the lead.
And if that's true, then, as far-fetched as it may seem, it still remained
within the realm of possibility that such a player could hole out for
double-eagle and steal the win from Woods.
You guys who watched the tournament will know the specifics and chronology
of how this unfolded better than I, but if the scenario I described is true,
it was irresponsible (and journalistically unsound) for Nantz to declare
Woods the "winner" before it was mathmatically impossible for someone to
catch him.
Randy
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2007 10:22:18
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What was Nantz thinking?
|
On Jan 29, 1:01 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1170039715.111283.296860@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 8:54 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>
> >> Hope you feel better. But I hate to inform you that I'll sleep soundly
> >> knowing that you remain just as irrelevant to me as you were before
> >> chiming
> >> in.
>
> > This should have been the first, and only, paragraph in your response
> > to someone
> > you consider to be irrelevant to you. Not the tenth...it proves his
> > point.Are you offering to proofread my posts in the future?
Proofreading your posts would require a dedicated team from Doubleday,
RB. No thanks!!
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 01:17:46
From:
Subject: Re: What was Nantz thinking?
|
On Jan 28, 11:01 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > This should have been the first, and only, paragraph in your response
> > to someone
> > you consider to be irrelevant to you. Not the tenth...it proves his
> > point.Are you offering to proofread my posts in the future?
>
> If so, thanks a bunch. I'm quite sure the readers of this newsgroups will
> feel very indebted to you.
If he makes them ten times shorter? Fuckin A.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 19:01:55
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What was Nantz thinking?
|
On Jan 28, 8:54 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> Hope you feel better. But I hate to inform you that I'll sleep soundly
> knowing that you remain just as irrelevant to me as you were before chiming
> in.
This should have been the first, and only, paragraph in your response
to someone
you consider to be irrelevant to you. Not the tenth...it proves his
point.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 02:01:08
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What was Nantz thinking?
|
"Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1170039715.111283.296860@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 28, 8:54 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>
>> Hope you feel better. But I hate to inform you that I'll sleep soundly
>> knowing that you remain just as irrelevant to me as you were before
>> chiming
>> in.
>
> This should have been the first, and only, paragraph in your response
> to someone
> you consider to be irrelevant to you. Not the tenth...it proves his
> point.
Are you offering to proofread my posts in the future?
If so, thanks a bunch. I'm quite sure the readers of this newsgroups will
feel very indebted to you.
Randy
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 17:51:20
From:
Subject: Re: What was Nantz thinking?
|
On Jan 28, 4:23 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
Something wrong, as usual. Woods won when he holed out. Snedeker had
already hit his tee shot, and he needed to sink it to tie. Everybody
else needed a zero or less on 18.
You seem to make two kinds of posts. One is like this one, where
you're indignant about something somebody did wrong, except it turns
out that your wrong and he's right. The other is where your right
about something that is obvious to everyone, but you write a long
essay on why your right.
Oh yeah, and there's the occasional post about what a great guy you
are.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 21:54:49
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What was Nantz thinking?
|
<a2mgoog@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1170035480.237248.295860@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 28, 4:23 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>
> Something wrong, as usual. Woods won when he holed out. Snedeker had
> already hit his tee shot, and he needed to sink it to tie. Everybody
> else needed a zero or less on 18.
>
> You seem to make two kinds of posts. One is like this one, where
> you're indignant about something somebody did wrong, except it turns
> out that your wrong and he's right. The other is where your right
> about something that is obvious to everyone, but you write a long
> essay on why your right.
>
> Oh yeah, and there's the occasional post about what a great guy you
> are.
Thanks for your review. I live for that stuff. Or not.
Just to set the record straight (and I shouldn't need to restate this, as I
already said it in my original post, but your reading comprehension skills
seem to be a bit lacking), I said...
* I wasn't following the tournament all that closely, and was watching
something else on TV when I happened to notice Nantz crowning Woods "the
winner" when only seconds earlier he mentioned that someone could eagle to
tie (or something like that).
* I acknowledged that you guys who were watching the tournament would have a
better grasp of the specific details. This, if you had an ounce of ability
to read between the lines, was an implied solicitation for the facts, which
I made clear I wasn't sure of.
* In my closing statement, I said "if the above scenario is true" (referring
to what I've mentioned here, too), then it was journalistically unsound of
Nantz. Note that the operative word in that statement is "if." That's why
I was soliciting more information here.
If either of us seems more intent on criticizing others just for the sport
of it, it's you. But I'm afraid you revealed yourself more than you
revealed about me. Thanks for trying, though.
Hope you feel better. But I hate to inform you that I'll sleep soundly
knowing that you remain just as irrelevant to me as you were before chiming
in.
Still, thanks for sharing.
Randy
*
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 17:47:28
From: Tighthead
Subject: Re: What was Nantz thinking?
|
On Jan 28, 4:23 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> I know there are several folks here who can't stand Jim Nantz. I am usually
> his lone apologist here, as I think he's been the best golf anchor in the
> business ever since he took over for Pat Summerall on CBS.
>
> But today at Torrey Pines, he declared Tiger Woods the "winner" of the event
> when there were still players on the course. Now I'll have to admit, I
> wasn't following the tournament closely (I was watching the Super Bowl
> highlight films on NFL Network), but I know at one point there was still at
> least one player on the course behind Tiger who could have eagled 18 and
> tied for the lead.
>
> And if that's true, then, as far-fetched as it may seem, it still remained
> within the realm of possibility that such a player could hole out for
> double-eagle and steal the win from Woods.
>
> You guys who watched the tournament will know the specifics and chronology
> of how this unfolded better than I, but if the scenario I described is true,
> it was irresponsible (and journalistically unsound) for Nantz to declare
> Woods the "winner" before it was mathmatically impossible for someone to
> catch him.
>
> Randy
I am pretty sure it was a two horse race at that point, and CH3 was
already out.
Nantz can be a bit schmaltzy, but he usually has his story straight.
I was a big Summerall fan. I now wonder how often he was gassed when
on the air. Not that that changes my opinion.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 01:43:40
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: What was Nantz thinking?
|
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:23:43 -0500, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>But today at Torrey Pines, he declared Tiger Woods the "winner" of the event
>when there were still players on the course. Now I'll have to admit, I
>wasn't following the tournament closely (I was watching the Super Bowl
>highlight films on NFL Network), but I know at one point there was still at
>least one player on the course behind Tiger who could have eagled 18 and
>tied for the lead.
At one point, they claimed it was possible for an Eagle to tie for
second after Charles Howell III was finished.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 17:21:12
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: What was Nantz thinking?
|
In article <CKmdnbCZyNEXoyDYnZ2dnUVZ_r2onZ2d@giganews.com >,
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
> I know there are several folks here who can't stand Jim Nantz. I am usually
> his lone apologist here, as I think he's been the best golf anchor in the
> business ever since he took over for Pat Summerall on CBS.
>
> But today at Torrey Pines, he declared Tiger Woods the "winner" of the event
> when there were still players on the course. Now I'll have to admit, I
> wasn't following the tournament closely (I was watching the Super Bowl
> highlight films on NFL Network), but I know at one point there was still at
> least one player on the course behind Tiger who could have eagled 18 and
> tied for the lead.
>
> And if that's true, then, as far-fetched as it may seem, it still remained
> within the realm of possibility that such a player could hole out for
> double-eagle and steal the win from Woods.
>
> You guys who watched the tournament will know the specifics and chronology
> of how this unfolded better than I, but if the scenario I described is true,
> it was irresponsible (and journalistically unsound) for Nantz to declare
> Woods the "winner" before it was mathmatically impossible for someone to
> catch him.
>
> Randy
But that's not Nantz's main problem, which is that he oozes
instead of announces. Wish we had the likes of the laconic
Summerall as anchor. I could do without Clampett and Kostis too.
But I have to say CBS is way ahead of the Golf Channel. I don't
know what it is - directing, editing, orders from above to STFU -
but Faldo is much easier to take on CBS, and Oosty, Baker-Finch
and Feherty do a nice job.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2007 01:01:58
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: What was Nantz thinking?
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:CKmdnbCZyNEXoyDYnZ2dnUVZ_r2onZ2d@giganews.com...
> I know there are several folks here who can't stand Jim Nantz. I am
usually
> his lone apologist here, as I think he's been the best golf anchor in the
> business ever since he took over for Pat Summerall on CBS.
>
> But today at Torrey Pines, he declared Tiger Woods the "winner" of the
event
> when there were still players on the course. Now I'll have to admit, I
> wasn't following the tournament closely (I was watching the Super Bowl
> highlight films on NFL Network), but I know at one point there was still
at
> least one player on the course behind Tiger who could have eagled 18 and
> tied for the lead.
>
> And if that's true, then, as far-fetched as it may seem, it still remained
> within the realm of possibility that such a player could hole out for
> double-eagle and steal the win from Woods.
>
> You guys who watched the tournament will know the specifics and chronology
> of how this unfolded better than I, but if the scenario I described is
true,
> it was irresponsible (and journalistically unsound) for Nantz to declare
> Woods the "winner" before it was mathmatically impossible for someone to
> catch him.
>
> Randy
>
Snedecker birdied the last hole (par 5) and finished 3 back. So he needed to
hole out his drive on the 18th to tie. I suspect that he had already teed
off, but maybe not.
dave
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2007 16:52:40
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What was Nantz thinking?
|
On Jan 28, 6:23 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> I know there are several folks here who can't stand Jim Nantz. I am usually
> his lone apologist here, as I think he's been the best golf anchor in the
> business ever since he took over for Pat Summerall on CBS.
>
> But today at Torrey Pines, he declared Tiger Woods the "winner" of the event
> when there were still players on the course. Now I'll have to admit, I
> wasn't following the tournament closely (I was watching the Super Bowl
> highlight films on NFL Network), but I know at one point there was still at
> least one player on the course behind Tiger who could have eagled 18 and
> tied for the lead.
>
> And if that's true, then, as far-fetched as it may seem, it still remained
> within the realm of possibility that such a player could hole out for
> double-eagle and steal the win from Woods.
>
> You guys who watched the tournament will know the specifics and chronology
> of how this unfolded better than I, but if the scenario I described is true,
> it was irresponsible (and journalistically unsound) for Nantz to declare
> Woods the "winner" before it was mathmatically impossible for someone to
> catch him.
>
> Randy
Lighten up, man. Snedeker was the only person who could catch Tiger,
and he had already laid up to a yardage:
Snedeker's 18th hole today (from pgatour.com):
Play by Play for the Par 5, 571 yards 18th Hole
Shot 1 292 yds to left fairway, 256 yds to hole
Shot 2 151 yds to right fairway, 106 yds to hole
Shot 3 111 yds to green, 14 ft to hole
Shot 4 in the hole
So he was playing for a check at that point...who can blame him.
|
|
