What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 24 Sep 2006 07:01:37
From:
Subject: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

1. The announcers SUCK!
2. Tom Lehman is a jerk.(funny I always liked him as a player)
3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
a palmer course)?
4. The competition is a gentlemans competition, would some one please
tell johnny miller to SHUT THE FUCK UP?
5. I always liked Woosie
6. Didnt Lehman realize he needed Woods or Furyck 1 and 2?
7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
think?)
8

Date: 24 Sep 2006 10:44:06
From: vocalsman
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Mr. Director:
We ignorants are your clients.If we say they suck is because we have
heard them better, much much better... and we are sure NBC has the
resources to hire the best. We know that their job is not easy, but we
just saw Phil having a bad time (he sucked) and his job is being #2 in
the world! you dig?

"R&B" wrote:
> <Andrcom@aol.com> wrote ...
> >
> > 1. The announcers SUCK!
>
>
> I get pretty tired of hearing this, as if you viewers would be any better at
> it.
>
> Tell ya what. Next time I host an RSG-ATLANTA, I will make it a point to
> get a few of my friends who do video work to come out and we'll part of the
> "tunamint" round. Then, all you RSG'ers who hate the network TV announcers
> can come to my studio and lay down your own play-by-play voiceovers to sync
> up with the edited video highlights, and we'll see if you can do any better
> with the director (me) talking in your ear the whole time.
>
> My money is on the notion that you will taking sucking to a whole new level
> never before contemplated. Why, you might even discover a newfound
> appreciation for (a.) how hard it is, and (b.) how much better the network
> announcers are than you ever really appreciated.
>
> I know it's fashionable to diss the network announcers. Certainly, I have
> my favorites and some I don't much care for. But to categorically say "the
> announcers SUCK" implies that you think it could be better. But I'm willing
> to bet that not one of you truly know what would make it better, and could
> demonstrate it yourself.
>
> Either put up or shut up.
>

Date: 24 Sep 2006 15:25:15
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"vocalsman" wrote ...
> Mr. Director:
> We ignorants are your clients.

You're not my client.

> If we say they suck is because we have
> heard them better, much much better...

"Better" is a funny word.

You say one woman looks "better" than another. I say the other woman looks
better than the one you prefer. Who is right?

Beauty is in the eye -- or in this case, the EAR -- of the beholder.

To say one announcer is "better" than another leaves much too much
unexplained. Such a declaration calls for more explanation, or at the very
least, some articulation of what it is, specifically, that makes them
DIFFERENT, not better.

Here, I'll give you a challenge. Actually, I'll give you your choice of two
challenges:

-- Option One --

Any moron can second-guess what's just happened by saying "you shouldn't
have done this" or "I didn't like that." All they're really saying is "I
didn't like it." But here's your chance to do more than merely
second-guess. I challenge you to "direct" next week's telecast. Let's see
how well you can do...

Imagine you're sitting in conference room with the TV announce crew of any
television network you wish to select. You're giving them instructions NOW
for NEXT WEEK's telecast (not picking apart their performance from last
week). You have to tell them NOT ONLY what you want them NOT to do (that's
the easy part), but more importantly, you also have to tell them what you DO
want them to do...and HOW you want it done.

Alright, bigshot, the floor is yours...

Dazzle us with your visionary directing genius.

-- Option 2 --

Or, if you'd prefer, I'll isolate, oh, say, a 5-minute segment of a golf
telecast I have on tape (and I have hundreds of them) -- or maybe some video
highlights from the '02 RSG-ATLANTA event. I'll provide you with a
"mix-minus" of the show (a "mix-minus" is all the sounds MINUS the
announcers). I'll give you a link where you can download it as a Windows
Media or Quick Time file. Then, I'll point you to a freeware site where you
can download audio recording software (if you don't already have it).
Install the software. Then you can then watch the Quick Time movie while
recording your own play-by-play audio and send it back to me. I'll sync it
up to the video and we'll make it available for RSG to see and hear. Then
we'll get to see what your idea of "better" is.

Are you man enough to accept that challenge? Or the one before it? Or
both?

Like I said earlier, either put up or shut up.

Randy

Date: 24 Sep 2006 14:57:46
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"vocalsman" <vocalsman@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159119846.618103.210840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Mr. Director:
> We ignorants are your clients.If we say they suck is because we have
> heard them better, much much better... and we are sure NBC has the
> resources to hire the best. We know that their job is not easy, but we
> just saw Phil having a bad time (he sucked) and his job is being #2 in
> the world! you dig?

Okay, Mister Wise guy, if you're so sure you know what makes them suck and
how to make them better, elaborate.

What was wrong?

How would you do it better?

And are you willing to show us how much better you'd do?

Randy

> "R&B" wrote:
>> <Andrcom@aol.com> wrote ...
>> >
>> > 1. The announcers SUCK!
>>
>>
>> I get pretty tired of hearing this, as if you viewers would be any better
>> at
>> it.
>>
>> Tell ya what. Next time I host an RSG-ATLANTA, I will make it a point to
>> get a few of my friends who do video work to come out and we'll part of
>> the
>> "tunamint" round. Then, all you RSG'ers who hate the network TV
>> announcers
>> can come to my studio and lay down your own play-by-play voiceovers to
>> sync
>> up with the edited video highlights, and we'll see if you can do any
>> better
>> with the director (me) talking in your ear the whole time.
>>
>> My money is on the notion that you will taking sucking to a whole new
>> level
>> never before contemplated. Why, you might even discover a newfound
>> appreciation for (a.) how hard it is, and (b.) how much better the
>> network
>> announcers are than you ever really appreciated.
>>
>> I know it's fashionable to diss the network announcers. Certainly, I
>> have
>> my favorites and some I don't much care for. But to categorically say
>> "the
>> announcers SUCK" implies that you think it could be better. But I'm
>> willing
>> to bet that not one of you truly know what would make it better, and
>> could
>> demonstrate it yourself.
>>
>> Either put up or shut up.
>>
>

Date: 24 Sep 2006 13:33:20
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

<Andrcom@aol.com > wrote ...
>
> 1. The announcers SUCK!

I get pretty tired of hearing this, as if you viewers would be any better at
it.

Tell ya what. Next time I host an RSG-ATLANTA, I will make it a point to
get a few of my friends who do video work to come out and we'll part of the
"tunamint" round. Then, all you RSG'ers who hate the network TV announcers
can come to my studio and lay down your own play-by-play voiceovers to sync
up with the edited video highlights, and we'll see if you can do any better
with the director (me) talking in your ear the whole time.

My money is on the notion that you will taking sucking to a whole new level
never before contemplated. Why, you might even discover a newfound
appreciation for (a.) how hard it is, and (b.) how much better the network
announcers are than you ever really appreciated.

I know it's fashionable to diss the network announcers. Certainly, I have
my favorites and some I don't much care for. But to categorically say "the
announcers SUCK" implies that you think it could be better. But I'm willing
to bet that not one of you truly know what would make it better, and could
demonstrate it yourself.

Either put up or shut up.

> 2. Tom Lehman is a jerk.(funny I always liked him as a player)

He's alright. Not as warm and fuzzy as some people thought. But he is what
he is.

> 3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
> a palmer course)?

What was wrong with the K-Club? I thought it was a fine course. You'd
think the Americans would have had an advantage playing on a more
American-style "target" course while on this road trip. But it didn't turn
out that way.

You're sounding more and more like sour grapes to me.

> 4. The competition is a gentlemans competition, would some one please
> tell johnny miller to SHUT THE FUCK UP?

Johnny Miller is not my favorite network TV announcer. But who would you
like NBC to replace him with?

Oh, and if you're so interested in "gentlemanly" behavior, why are you
wanting someone to tell Johnny Miller to "SHUT THE FUCK UP?" Is that what
you call a "gentlemanly" thing to do?

> 5. I always liked Woosie

I always concur with votes of support for short people. Heck, he's even
shorter than me.

> 6. Didnt Lehman realize he needed Woods or Furyck 1 and 2?

I am baffled by your (and Dan Hicks' and Tom Lehman's) constant talk about
the strength of the US team's #1 and #2 players, and references to it with
an implied believe that they will do well. Their records in the Ryder Cup
just don't match up with this expectation that continues to be articulated.

I think the better question is this: When are the American captains (and
media) going to wake up and realize that the #1 player in the world may very
well prove, over the course of a year in medal play events, to be
substantiated. But in an 18-hole match play event, one's world ranking
means exactly squat.

Woods has a career losing record in the Ryder Cup, if I'm not mistaken. And
if I am mistaken, I'm pretty sure he's not much over .500.

No less of authority on matchplay than the legendary Bobby Jones once said
that he feared 18-hole matches the most, as any player could get hot for a
short stretch of holes and put a match out of reach. He much preferred
36-hole matches, as he felt the true talent would prevail.

The simple truth is, a player's world ranking doesn't mean much in a single
18-hole match, and it means even less in a team match.

Stop with all the talk about how putting Tiger out early would have meant
much difference. He won his match. If he'd gone out earlier, he might have
lost against another competitor. He usually does in this event.

If I were the captain, instead of pairing #1 and #2 together, I'd have put
the #1 player with, oh, maybe the #9 player, and the #2 player with, oh,
maybe the #10 player. In that way, try to cover the team's weaknesses. If
Europe beats your #1 and #2 players who were paired together, they're
certainly not going to fear your #7 and #10 players when they draw a pairing
against them. Spread it out a little.

> 7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
> think?)

Or maybe Toms should have just conceded the match on the 2nd or 3rd hole and
saved everybody a whole lot of time and aggravation.

> 8

Eight, yes. Sometimes 9. But of all the ones you didn't mention, I'd say
11.

Randy

Date: 24 Sep 2006 20:09:15
From: rich
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:6oednaUOfYLPXIvYnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@giganews.com...

> What was wrong with the K-Club? I thought it was a fine course. You'd
> think the Americans would have had an advantage playing on a more
> American-style "target" course while on this road trip. But it didn't
> turn out that way.

I'm sire some of it was the rain that softened it up, but it seemed way too
easy. It seemed to play very short for a course of that length even with
the soft wet fairways.

> Johnny Miller is not my favorite network TV announcer. But who would you
> like NBC to replace him with?

I like MIller - particularly compared to Wadkins.

> Stop with all the talk about how putting Tiger out early would have meant
> much difference. He won his match. If he'd gone out earlier, he might
> have lost against another competitor. He usually does in this event.

Not in singles. He has a good record in singles.

> If I were the captain, instead of pairing #1 and #2 together, I'd have put
> the #1 player with, oh, maybe the #9 player, and the #2 player with, oh,
> maybe the #10 player. In that way, try to cover the team's weaknesses.
> If Europe beats your #1 and #2 players who were paired together, they're
> certainly not going to fear your #7 and #10 players when they draw a
> pairing against them. Spread it out a little.

I agree with you there, particularly in the 4-ball. But some of Tom's other
decisions were pretty strange. Playing Mickelson for 5 matches when he was
clearly not sharp? Sitting down Henry when he was one of the few playing
well? This whole rookie thing is vastly over-rated and I think the stats
over the years bear that out.

But we have to give Tom some props on his captains picks. They were among
the better records on the MAerican side. And seeing Cink squash Garcia was
worth the price of admission. Verplank's ace, while inconsequential, was a
nice bonus.

Rich

Date: 24 Sep 2006 15:11:52
From: spring
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

How about no announcers at all? Just the environment feed!. I for one do not
need anyone to tell me whats going on, its all on the graphics.
But I do like some, well maybe one or two :-)
Thank you
Bill

""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:6oednaUOfYLPXIvYnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> <Andrcom@aol.com> wrote ...
>>
>> 1. The announcers SUCK!
>
>
> I get pretty tired of hearing this, as if you viewers would be any better
> at it.
>
> Tell ya what. Next time I host an RSG-ATLANTA, I will make it a point to
> get a few of my friends who do video work to come out and we'll part of
> the "tunamint" round. Then, all you RSG'ers who hate the network TV
> announcers can come to my studio and lay down your own play-by-play
> voiceovers to sync up with the edited video highlights, and we'll see if
> you can do any better with the director (me) talking in your ear the whole
> time.
>
> My money is on the notion that you will taking sucking to a whole new
> level never before contemplated. Why, you might even discover a newfound
> appreciation for (a.) how hard it is, and (b.) how much better the network
> announcers are than you ever really appreciated.
>
> I know it's fashionable to diss the network announcers. Certainly, I have
> my favorites and some I don't much care for. But to categorically say
> "the announcers SUCK" implies that you think it could be better. But I'm
> willing to bet that not one of you truly know what would make it better,
> and could demonstrate it yourself.
>
> Either put up or shut up.
>
>
>> 2. Tom Lehman is a jerk.(funny I always liked him as a player)
>
> He's alright. Not as warm and fuzzy as some people thought. But he is
> what he is.
>
>
>> 3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
>> a palmer course)?
>
> What was wrong with the K-Club? I thought it was a fine course. You'd
> think the Americans would have had an advantage playing on a more
> American-style "target" course while on this road trip. But it didn't
> turn out that way.
>
> You're sounding more and more like sour grapes to me.
>
>
>> 4. The competition is a gentlemans competition, would some one please
>> tell johnny miller to SHUT THE FUCK UP?
>
> Johnny Miller is not my favorite network TV announcer. But who would you
> like NBC to replace him with?
>
> Oh, and if you're so interested in "gentlemanly" behavior, why are you
> wanting someone to tell Johnny Miller to "SHUT THE FUCK UP?" Is that what
> you call a "gentlemanly" thing to do?
>
>
>> 5. I always liked Woosie
>
> I always concur with votes of support for short people. Heck, he's even
> shorter than me.
>
>
>> 6. Didnt Lehman realize he needed Woods or Furyck 1 and 2?
>
> I am baffled by your (and Dan Hicks' and Tom Lehman's) constant talk about
> the strength of the US team's #1 and #2 players, and references to it with
> an implied believe that they will do well. Their records in the Ryder Cup
> just don't match up with this expectation that continues to be
> articulated.
>
> I think the better question is this: When are the American captains (and
> media) going to wake up and realize that the #1 player in the world may
> very well prove, over the course of a year in medal play events, to be
> substantiated. But in an 18-hole match play event, one's world ranking
> means exactly squat.
>
> Woods has a career losing record in the Ryder Cup, if I'm not mistaken.
> And if I am mistaken, I'm pretty sure he's not much over .500.
>
> No less of authority on matchplay than the legendary Bobby Jones once said
> that he feared 18-hole matches the most, as any player could get hot for a
> short stretch of holes and put a match out of reach. He much preferred
> 36-hole matches, as he felt the true talent would prevail.
>
> The simple truth is, a player's world ranking doesn't mean much in a
> single 18-hole match, and it means even less in a team match.
>
> Stop with all the talk about how putting Tiger out early would have meant
> much difference. He won his match. If he'd gone out earlier, he might
> have lost against another competitor. He usually does in this event.
>
> If I were the captain, instead of pairing #1 and #2 together, I'd have put
> the #1 player with, oh, maybe the #9 player, and the #2 player with, oh,
> maybe the #10 player. In that way, try to cover the team's weaknesses.
> If Europe beats your #1 and #2 players who were paired together, they're
> certainly not going to fear your #7 and #10 players when they draw a
> pairing against them. Spread it out a little.
>
>
>> 7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
>> think?)
>
> Or maybe Toms should have just conceded the match on the 2nd or 3rd hole
> and saved everybody a whole lot of time and aggravation.
>
>
>> 8
>
> Eight, yes. Sometimes 9. But of all the ones you didn't mention, I'd say
> 11.
>
>
> Randy
>

Date: 24 Sep 2006 15:27:42
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

It's been tried.

Miami vs. New York Jets NFL telecast back in the late '80s or early '90s.

It was universally panned -- even by non-industry viewers.

Randy

"spring" <s@spring.com > wrote in message
news:LLARg.22541$eW5.10327@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> How about no announcers at all? Just the environment feed!. I for one do
> not need anyone to tell me whats going on, its all on the graphics.
> But I do like some, well maybe one or two :-)
> Thank you
> Bill
>
>
> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
> news:6oednaUOfYLPXIvYnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> <Andrcom@aol.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>> 1. The announcers SUCK!
>>
>>
>> I get pretty tired of hearing this, as if you viewers would be any better
>> at it.
>>
>> Tell ya what. Next time I host an RSG-ATLANTA, I will make it a point to
>> get a few of my friends who do video work to come out and we'll part of
>> the "tunamint" round. Then, all you RSG'ers who hate the network TV
>> announcers can come to my studio and lay down your own play-by-play
>> voiceovers to sync up with the edited video highlights, and we'll see if
>> you can do any better with the director (me) talking in your ear the
>> whole time.
>>
>> My money is on the notion that you will taking sucking to a whole new
>> level never before contemplated. Why, you might even discover a newfound
>> appreciation for (a.) how hard it is, and (b.) how much better the
>> network announcers are than you ever really appreciated.
>>
>> I know it's fashionable to diss the network announcers. Certainly, I
>> have my favorites and some I don't much care for. But to categorically
>> say "the announcers SUCK" implies that you think it could be better. But
>> I'm willing to bet that not one of you truly know what would make it
>> better, and could demonstrate it yourself.
>>
>> Either put up or shut up.
>>
>>
>>> 2. Tom Lehman is a jerk.(funny I always liked him as a player)
>>
>> He's alright. Not as warm and fuzzy as some people thought. But he is
>> what he is.
>>
>>
>>> 3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
>>> a palmer course)?
>>
>> What was wrong with the K-Club? I thought it was a fine course. You'd
>> think the Americans would have had an advantage playing on a more
>> American-style "target" course while on this road trip. But it didn't
>> turn out that way.
>>
>> You're sounding more and more like sour grapes to me.
>>
>>
>>> 4. The competition is a gentlemans competition, would some one please
>>> tell johnny miller to SHUT THE FUCK UP?
>>
>> Johnny Miller is not my favorite network TV announcer. But who would you
>> like NBC to replace him with?
>>
>> Oh, and if you're so interested in "gentlemanly" behavior, why are you
>> wanting someone to tell Johnny Miller to "SHUT THE FUCK UP?" Is that
>> what you call a "gentlemanly" thing to do?
>>
>>
>>> 5. I always liked Woosie
>>
>> I always concur with votes of support for short people. Heck, he's even
>> shorter than me.
>>
>>
>>> 6. Didnt Lehman realize he needed Woods or Furyck 1 and 2?
>>
>> I am baffled by your (and Dan Hicks' and Tom Lehman's) constant talk
>> about the strength of the US team's #1 and #2 players, and references to
>> it with an implied believe that they will do well. Their records in the
>> Ryder Cup just don't match up with this expectation that continues to be
>> articulated.
>>
>> I think the better question is this: When are the American captains (and
>> media) going to wake up and realize that the #1 player in the world may
>> very well prove, over the course of a year in medal play events, to be
>> substantiated. But in an 18-hole match play event, one's world ranking
>> means exactly squat.
>>
>> Woods has a career losing record in the Ryder Cup, if I'm not mistaken.
>> And if I am mistaken, I'm pretty sure he's not much over .500.
>>
>> No less of authority on matchplay than the legendary Bobby Jones once
>> said that he feared 18-hole matches the most, as any player could get hot
>> for a short stretch of holes and put a match out of reach. He much
>> preferred 36-hole matches, as he felt the true talent would prevail.
>>
>> The simple truth is, a player's world ranking doesn't mean much in a
>> single 18-hole match, and it means even less in a team match.
>>
>> Stop with all the talk about how putting Tiger out early would have meant
>> much difference. He won his match. If he'd gone out earlier, he might
>> have lost against another competitor. He usually does in this event.
>>
>> If I were the captain, instead of pairing #1 and #2 together, I'd have
>> put the #1 player with, oh, maybe the #9 player, and the #2 player with,
>> oh, maybe the #10 player. In that way, try to cover the team's
>> weaknesses. If Europe beats your #1 and #2 players who were paired
>> together, they're certainly not going to fear your #7 and #10 players
>> when they draw a pairing against them. Spread it out a little.
>>
>>
>>> 7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
>>> think?)
>>
>> Or maybe Toms should have just conceded the match on the 2nd or 3rd hole
>> and saved everybody a whole lot of time and aggravation.
>>
>>
>>> 8
>>
>> Eight, yes. Sometimes 9. But of all the ones you didn't mention, I'd
>> say 11.
>>
>>
>> Randy
>>
>
>

Date: 24 Sep 2006 08:31:49
From: vocalsman
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Andrcom@aol.com wrote:
> 1. The announcers SUCK!

Yeah...except the lady commentator, they all suck

> 2. Tom Lehman is a jerk.(funny I always liked him as a player)

He looks like a serial killer, but maybe it was for intimidation....

> 3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
> a palmer course)?

The course is great. (Woosie changed it tho)

> 4. The competition is a gentlemans competition, would some one please
> tell johnny miller to SHUT THE FUCK UP?

Yeah, no alcohol for him please..

> 5. I always liked Woosie

Such a character...

> 6. Didnt Lehman realize he needed Woods or Furyck 1 and 2?

and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6... we got beaten yesterday

> 7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
> think?)

we got beaten yesterday..

> 8

nice

Date: 24 Sep 2006 08:23:17
From:
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

zumafan wrote:
> Andrcom@aol.com wrote:
> > 1. The announcers SUCK!
>
> Wrong. Well, except Jimmy Roberts, he always sucks.
>
> > 2. Tom Lehman is a jerk.(funny I always liked him as a player)
>
> Why?
>
> > 3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
> > a palmer course)?
>
> What is a "palmer" course?
>
> > 4. The competition is a gentlemans competition, would some one please
> > tell johnny miller to SHUT THE FUCK UP?
>
> Miller's awesome. Would you prefer Wadkins?
>
> > 5. I always liked Woosie
>
> That's nice.
>
> > 6. Didnt Lehman realize he needed Woods or Furyck 1 and 2?
>
> Would it have mattered?
>
> > 7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
> > think?)
>
> Maybe.
>
> > 8
>
> Right!

You admit to liking Johnny Miller as an announcer? You must be his
mother.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 08:11:02
From: zumafan
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Andrcom@aol.com wrote:
> 1. The announcers SUCK!

Wrong. Well, except Jimmy Roberts, he always sucks.

> 2. Tom Lehman is a jerk.(funny I always liked him as a player)

Why?

> 3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
> a palmer course)?

What is a "palmer" course?

> 4. The competition is a gentlemans competition, would some one please
> tell johnny miller to SHUT THE FUCK UP?

Miller's awesome. Would you prefer Wadkins?

> 5. I always liked Woosie

That's nice.

> 6. Didnt Lehman realize he needed Woods or Furyck 1 and 2?

Would it have mattered?

> 7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
> think?)

Maybe.

> 8

Right!

Date: 24 Sep 2006 08:08:12
From:
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Ben. wrote:
> Andrcom@aol.com wrote:
>
> > 7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
> > think?)
>
> Yes, then it would have been 14 1/2 to 8 1/2. You have a great point!
>
> > 8
>
> This is by far the best point you made.

yes and your point?

Date: 24 Sep 2006 07:50:01
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Andrcom@aol.com wrote:

> 7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
> think?)

Yes, then it would have been 14 1/2 to 8 1/2. You have a great point!

> 8

This is by far the best point you made.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 21:48:04
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Date: 24 Sep 2006 21:11:57
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Robert Hamilton wrote:

> Nationalism has caused more death and destruction that anything else.

Capitalism, territorialism, xenophobism, the Crusades and the
Inquisition are holding on the other line...they say they'll wait.
When will you be getting that clue?

Date: 25 Sep 2006 07:47:52
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

On 24 Sep 2006 21:11:57 -0700, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
>Robert Hamilton wrote:
>
>> Nationalism has caused more death and destruction that anything else.
>
>Capitalism, territorialism, xenophobism, the Crusades and the
>Inquisition are holding on the other line...they say they'll wait.
>When will you be getting that clue?

Without doubt, more death and destruction has been caused in the name
of a God of some culture or another.
___,
\o

Date: 24 Sep 2006 20:10:33
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

vocalsman wrote:
> Mr. Director:
> We ignorants are your clients.If we say they suck is because we have
> heard them better, much much better... and we are sure NBC has the
> resources to hire the best.

Who would be your dream announcing crew?

If I started my own network, I'd hire Peter Alliss, Ben Wright, Johnny
Miller & Renton Laidlaw. Oh yeah, I'd also hire Nick Faldo, who's sole
responsibility would be to sit up in the booth with Miller and say,
"Shut up, Johnny."
Jim Nance could do the sappy intros and the interviews in Butler Cabin.
Peter Kessler would do the post-round interviews. I'd let Feherty and
McCord roam the course crackin wise, and I'd put Randy Brown up in the
tower on some par-3. I'd bring back Venturi, just to tell Hogan
stories. Then I'd get restraining orders on Lanny and Azinger, making
sure they never got within 10 miles of the tournament.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 06:38:51
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

annika1980 wrote:
> vocalsman wrote:
>
>>Mr. Director:
>>We ignorants are your clients.If we say they suck is because we have
>>heard them better, much much better... and we are sure NBC has the
>>resources to hire the best.
>
>
> Who would be your dream announcing crew?
>
> If I started my own network, I'd hire Peter Alliss, Ben Wright, Johnny
> Miller & Renton Laidlaw. Oh yeah, I'd also hire Nick Faldo, who's sole
> responsibility would be to sit up in the booth with Miller and say,
> "Shut up, Johnny."
> Jim Nance could do the sappy intros and the interviews in Butler Cabin.
> Peter Kessler would do the post-round interviews. I'd let Feherty and
> McCord roam the course crackin wise, and I'd put Randy Brown up in the
> tower on some par-3. I'd bring back Venturi, just to tell Hogan
> stories. Then I'd get restraining orders on Lanny and Azinger, making
> sure they never got within 10 miles of the tournament.
>

Add the Ghost of Henry Longhurst, and I'd say you had a winning crew.

David

Date: 26 Sep 2006 05:00:00
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

On 24-Sep-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

> vocalsman wrote:
> > Mr. Director:
> > We ignorants are your clients.If we say they suck is because we have
> > heard them better, much much better... and we are sure NBC has the
> > resources to hire the best.
>
> Who would be your dream announcing crew?
>
> If I started my own network, I'd hire Peter Alliss, Ben Wright, Johnny
> Miller & Renton Laidlaw. Oh yeah, I'd also hire Nick Faldo, who's sole
> responsibility would be to sit up in the booth with Miller and say,
> "Shut up, Johnny."
> Jim Nance could do the sappy intros and the interviews in Butler Cabin.
> Peter Kessler would do the post-round interviews. I'd let Feherty and
> McCord roam the course crackin wise, and I'd put Randy Brown up in the
> tower on some par-3. I'd bring back Venturi, just to tell Hogan
> stories. Then I'd get restraining orders on Lanny and Azinger, making
> sure they never got within 10 miles of the tournament.

Ahh, Corey Pavin'd wax their collective asses..........

me

Date: 24 Sep 2006 20:01:03
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Andrcom@aol.com wrote:
> 1. The announcers SUCK!
> 2. Tom Lehman is a jerk.(funny I always liked him as a player)
> 3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
> a palmer course)?
> 4. The competition is a gentlemans competition, would some one please
> tell johnny miller to SHUT THE FUCK UP?
> 5. I always liked Woosie
> 6. Didnt Lehman realize he needed Woods or Furyck 1 and 2?
> 7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
> think?)
> 8

8. That big white splotch in the center of the handheld camera
following the first group.
C'mon, NBC, clean the Vaseline off your lens! Or perhaps some shmuck
was filming the sunrise that morning and burned out the sensor? Either
way, does NBC not have any extra cameras or lenses, or at least a pack
of lens wipes?

9. I hate those cartoonish backdrops surrounding the tees. Usually, at
a European event they are filled with advertising. This week it looked
like they were cardboard cutouts painted by 2nd graders. There is just
something asthetically displeasing about watching guys tee off beside
painted plywood. It's also very claustrophobic, causing me to have more
golf nightmares about teeing off next to a wall where I can't take the
club back. And they aren't very fan-friendly.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 21:17:40
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

What's wrong with the Ryder cup -- Nothing. Great theater and great golf.
Sure, Miller drivels -- just turn the sound down and watch the action.
Sure, I'd rather have seen in played on a classic Irish course, but the
course was fair and challenging and had plenty of risk/reward opportunities,
exactly what you want for match play, especially the team events. It's hard
to argue with the captains -- the Captains' picks all played well. The
thing went smoothly except for that screwup on dress. I don't think Lehman
could do anything about the poor showing of the US team. In fact there are
no excuses. It's not teamwork, it's not playing on a course that doesn't
suit them (couldn't ask for a course in Ireland more like a PGA tour venue)
It's not the crowd (the Euros were polite till the cup was clinched, the
only rude comments I heard were from US fans). It's not the time difference
(many of the Euros were playing in the US recently too). The European team
was and is simply better at match play.

If the US wants to win, I think there are a couple of things that could be
done to enhance their odds next time:

Schedule more match play events and skew the points system in favor of
picking the best match play players. Match play is a different form of
golf, requiring a different style and approach. The PGA tour is a war of
attrition -- you win by playing four days without major screwups.

Minimize the distractions. If possible get the players to focus on the cup
and avoid other entanglements. After looking at the performance of some of
those "never heard of them" players, I wondered whether it wasn't that the
top stars, especially the US ones, are no doubt besieged with interviews,
events to play for fees, business deals, etc. especially while in Europe.
In contrast if you are Zach Johnson or J J Henry the Ryder cup is the big
deal of your season and you damn well pay attention to it.

--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery

Date: 24 Sep 2006 15:41:52
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

> Randy ,
> In general I respect your opinion. I understand your knowledge on the
> topic. I hate listening to Johnny Miller because from start to finish
> he sounds like he is trying to hard to sound clever and rarely makes a
> remark that is eithoe clever or intelligent. If he wanted to there were
> numerous oportunities to discuss the characteristics of matchplay
> competition. At 1 point he mentioned , speaking of a 4 foot putt, " if
> somehow he can make this one go in" It makes me feel like yelling now.

So would you rather just have the announcers say the US has no chance
to win? These guys are cheering for the US, they are trying to keep
viewers as the US is getting their ass kicked. Nothing wrong with
Miller's comments.

I still don't understand why you guys don't hit MUTE.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 19:35:36
From:
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

is it from the lack of motivation on the part of the players, the reason
for losing?

and, what happened to change the 40 year - runaway?

google search----

The Ryder Cup is a golf trophy contested biennially in an event
officially called the Ryder Cup Matches by teams from Europe and the
United States.

The Ryder Cup was first competed for in 1927, with the US competing
against Great Britain.

After nearly 40 years of US dominance (Britain won only once between
1935 and 1973) it was extended to Britain and Ireland in 1973 and then
Europe in 1979, which made the Cup considerably more competitive. ...

>m h o
> v =83e

>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0~ a t t i t u d e =A0i s =A0e v e r y t h i n g ~
=A0

Date: 24 Sep 2006 20:52:29
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

<fiveiron@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:29107-45172458-1323@storefull-3312.bay.webtv.net...
is it from the lack of motivation on the part of the players, the reason
for losing?

and, what happened to change the 40 year - runaway?

google search----

The Ryder Cup is a golf trophy contested biennially in an event
officially called the Ryder Cup Matches by teams from Europe and the
United States.

The Ryder Cup was first competed for in 1927, with the US competing
against Great Britain.

After nearly 40 years of US dominance (Britain won only once between
1935 and 1973) it was extended to Britain and Ireland in 1973 and then
Europe in 1979, which made the Cup considerably more competitive. ...

>m h o
> v fe

> ~ a t t i t u d e i s e v e r y t h i n g ~

----------------------------------------

No! Really????

You had to do a Google search to learn this?

This just in Fivey...

JFK was killed in Dallas.

The Beatles broke up.

Nixon resigned.

The Berlin wall came down.

Al Gore invented the internet.

And Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman.

You really need to get out more.

Randy

Date: 24 Sep 2006 22:46:22
From: Howard9
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159106497.181433.321160@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
Andrcom@aol.com says...
> 1. The announcers SUCK!

I take it you are in the US... we had great ones.

> 2. Tom Lehman is a jerk.(funny I always liked him as a player)

He was 1st class. He did 110% of what any captain could do and did it
with dignity, quality and integrity.

> 3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
> a palmer course)?

Terrible when you lose isn't it :-)

> 4. The competition is a gentlemans competition, would some one please
> tell johnny miller to SHUT THE FUCK UP?

We were spared :-)

> 5. I always liked Woosie
> 6. Didnt Lehman realize he needed Woods or Furyck 1 and 2?

Wouldn't have made a whit of difference :-)

> 7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
> think?)

The reality is nothing would have made any difference. The US team was
outplayed, out thought and completely walloped by a far better side. Why
? who the hell knows. There is something missing in the US psyche these
days.

--
Howard

Date: 24 Sep 2006 14:24:10
From:
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

zumafan wrote:
>>
> > 3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
> > a palmer course)?
>
> What is a "palmer" course?
>

I suspect the OP is refering to the fact the the course is
unrepresentative of Irish golf......its more of the cookie cutter US
styled course.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 14:41:25
From: Don Kirkman
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

It seems to me I heard somewhere that spinn@home.com wrote in article
<1159133050.546528.265420@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >:

>zumafan wrote:

>> > 3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
>> > a palmer course)?

>> What is a "palmer" course?

>I suspect the OP is refering to the fact the the course is
>unrepresentative of Irish golf......its more of the cookie cutter US
>styled course.

You assume that just because Arnold Palmer built it?
--
Don Kirkman

Date: 24 Sep 2006 14:15:12
From:
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Andrcom@aol.com wrote:
> zumafan wrote:
> > Andrcom@aol.com wrote:
> > > 1. The announcers SUCK!
> >
> > Wrong. Well, except Jimmy Roberts, he always sucks.
> >
> > > 2. Tom Lehman is a jerk.(funny I always liked him as a player)
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > > 3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
> > > a palmer course)?
> >
> > What is a "palmer" course?
> >
> > > 4. The competition is a gentlemans competition, would some one please
> > > tell johnny miller to SHUT THE FUCK UP?
> >
> > Miller's awesome. Would you prefer Wadkins?
> >
> > > 5. I always liked Woosie
> >
> > That's nice.
> >
> > > 6. Didnt Lehman realize he needed Woods or Furyck 1 and 2?
> >
> > Would it have mattered?
> >
> > > 7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
> > > think?)
> >
> > Maybe.
> >
> > > 8
> >
> > Right!
>
> You admit to liking Johnny Miller as an announcer? You must be his
> mother.

Your original post made perfect sense.....

Date: 24 Sep 2006 14:10:09
From:
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"R&B" wrote:
> "vocalsman" <vocalsman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159119846.618103.210840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Mr. Director:
> > We ignorants are your clients.If we say they suck is because we have
> > heard them better, much much better... and we are sure NBC has the
> > resources to hire the best. We know that their job is not easy, but we
> > just saw Phil having a bad time (he sucked) and his job is being #2 in
> > the world! you dig?
>
>
> Okay, Mister Wise guy, if you're so sure you know what makes them suck and
> how to make them better, elaborate.
>
> What was wrong?
>
> How would you do it better?
>
> And are you willing to show us how much better you'd do?
>
> Randy
>
> > "R&B" wrote:
> >> <Andrcom@aol.com> wrote ...
> >> >
> >> > 1. The announcers SUCK!
> >>
> >>
> >> I get pretty tired of hearing this, as if you viewers would be any better
> >> at
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Tell ya what. Next time I host an RSG-ATLANTA, I will make it a point to
> >> get a few of my friends who do video work to come out and we'll part of
> >> the
> >> "tunamint" round. Then, all you RSG'ers who hate the network TV
> >> announcers
> >> can come to my studio and lay down your own play-by-play voiceovers to
> >> sync
> >> up with the edited video highlights, and we'll see if you can do any
> >> better
> >> with the director (me) talking in your ear the whole time.
> >>
> >> My money is on the notion that you will taking sucking to a whole new
> >> level
> >> never before contemplated. Why, you might even discover a newfound
> >> appreciation for (a.) how hard it is, and (b.) how much better the
> >> network
> >> announcers are than you ever really appreciated.
> >>
> >> I know it's fashionable to diss the network announcers. Certainly, I
> >> have
> >> my favorites and some I don't much care for. But to categorically say
> >> "the
> >> announcers SUCK" implies that you think it could be better. But I'm
> >> willing
> >> to bet that not one of you truly know what would make it better, and
> >> could
> >> demonstrate it yourself.
> >>
> >> Either put up or shut up.
> >>
> >

Randy ,
In general I respect your opinion. I understand your knowledge on the
topic. I hate listening to Johnny Miller because from start to finish
he sounds like he is trying to hard to sound clever and rarely makes a
remark that is eithoe clever or intelligent. If he wanted to there were
numerous oportunities to discuss the characteristics of matchplay
competition. At 1 point he mentioned , speaking of a 4 foot putt, " if
somehow he can make this one go in" It makes me feel like yelling now.
Our goose was cooked and I enjoyed watching it anyway. Miller by the
way has left me dry for the last 7 years as an announcer. Jimmy Roberts
has never impressed me, and as for the course in a land of ancient
courses I fail to see the reason to play on a modern course.
As for the competition they out played us and I felt Lehmans pairings
were weak and his singles matches needed to lead off with much more
strength.As far as the graphics followingis much better like a golfer
might mark on his card.

Match # / Name v Name/ hole / UP/Down(+1) (room for flag logo)

This way when the graphic was shown rather then have to really work to
figure out the matches it could have shown match 1-12 . If you follow
me this far then you can see the importance of match 1-12 and who
played each. Not as it appeared as a free for all of logos on the
screen never was it evident what match was what.BTW as for my list of
singles when you look at 10-6 we had to win as many early matches as
possible what was lehman thinking throwing woods and furyk 3 & 4 (or 4
and 5) I still have not figured it out.As far as the graphic presumably
our broadcast was for our consumption
(in the states) So why not show all america up or down? When I play and
I am scorring I score for me up or down. My only guess is the person
responcible for that graphic is not a golfer (surprise).

Date: 24 Sep 2006 18:23:01
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

<Andrcom@aol.com > wrote
> Randy ,
> In general I respect your opinion. I understand your knowledge on the
> topic. I hate listening to Johnny Miller because from start to finish
> he sounds like he is trying to hard to sound clever and rarely makes a
> remark that is eithoe clever or intelligent. If he wanted to there were
> numerous oportunities to discuss the characteristics of matchplay
> competition. At 1 point he mentioned , speaking of a 4 foot putt, " if
> somehow he can make this one go in" It makes me feel like yelling now.
> Our goose was cooked and I enjoyed watching it anyway. Miller by the
> way has left me dry for the last 7 years as an announcer.

Andy,

First of all, thanks for responding with an articulate expression of
specifics, rather than a jock-like, mindless expression merely that "they
suck."

You actually make some points worthy of discussion.

On the matter of Johnny Miller, he's never been among my favorite
commentators. My complaint with him has always been that he's viewed his
job as mandating that he play "gotcha" with players. I've never liked it
when announcers tell us what's going through a player's mind, as if they
have some telepathic way of knowing this. It's one thing to say, "whenever
I was in that position, what went through MY mind was...." and to say, in a
declarative manner, "right now, he's thinking......" as if they actually
know what another human is thinking.

Miller was hyped early on as being "frank and candid." He seemed to take
that ball and run with it, as if being critical, just for the sake of being
critical, was an endearing quality. It is anything but.

And for the record, it is also not "insightful."

>Jimmy Roberts has never impressed me,

My reasons for not liking Jimmy Roberts are purely personal, and as such,
probably don't have much relevance. But for the record, I find him to be a
smarmy, smart-alecky, condescending prick. I've met him, and he came off
that way in real life, too.

But then again, I'm sure there are many who say the same of me. So maybe
it's a case of opposites attracting, and he's just too much like me for me
to like him. I don't know.

> and as for the course in a land of ancient courses I fail to see the
> reason
> to play on a modern course.

The K Club, I believe, hosts a regular European Tour event, and as such, had
received rave reviews among the Euros who play it regularly.

I won't argue the point that playing a more typical links course would seem
more in keeping with the tradition of Euro-golf. But evidently, that's the
basis upon which courses are selected for the Ryder Cup.

Clearly, the course separated the men from the boys.

> As for the competition they out played us and I felt Lehmans pairings
> were weak and his singles matches needed to lead off with much more
> strength.

Based upon the final W-L records, Lehman didn't have much strength to play
early.

The Americans simply got spanked. The US team just got outplayed, as you
said. They had their heads handed to them. (I've just run out of tired old
phrases describing a rout.) :-)

> As far as the graphics following is much better like a golfer
> might mark on his card.
>
> Match # / Name v Name/ hole / UP/Down(+1) (room for flag logo)
>
> This way when the graphic was shown rather then have to really work to
> figure out the matches it could have shown match 1-12 . If you follow
> me this far then you can see the importance of match 1-12 and who
> played each. Not as it appeared as a free for all of logos on the
> screen never was it evident what match was what.BTW as for my list of
> singles when you look at 10-6 we had to win as many early matches as
> possible what was lehman thinking throwing woods and furyk 3 & 4 (or 4
> and 5) I still have not figured it out.As far as the graphic presumably
> our broadcast was for our consumption
> (in the states) So why not show all america up or down? When I play and
> I am scorring I score for me up or down. My only guess is the person
> responcible for that graphic is not a golfer (surprise).

I am in 100% agreement with you that the graphics NBC has used on Ryder Cup
telecasts have been inadequate for years. They simply don't provide the
information most viewers need or want.

My biggest complaint is this:

Once a match has been completed, they simply show the resulting point (or
half-points) added to the team total score. No longer do they show the
results of the individual matches...until the telecast is over.

I slept in and didn't see most of the telecast (I figured it was over
already, and was not anticipating another Brookline-type miracle).

When they show the matches (and their scores) in progress, they should also
show the results of the matches that are over from that round's competition.
But they never do. Once a match is over, you just never see the final score
of it. And they haven't for as long as I can remember. You just see that a
point has been added to the team score. That is just stupid, and ignores
the fact that viewers are constantly tuning in while the telecast is already
in progress. This is Broadcasting 101-type stuff.

Randy

Date: 24 Sep 2006 20:57:41
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <JumdnTcludCqmIrYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com >,
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:

> <Andrcom@aol.com> wrote
> > Randy ,
> > In general I respect your opinion. I understand your knowledge on the
> > topic. I hate listening to Johnny Miller because from start to finish
> > he sounds like he is trying to hard to sound clever and rarely makes a
> > remark that is eithoe clever or intelligent. If he wanted to there were
> > numerous oportunities to discuss the characteristics of matchplay
> > competition. At 1 point he mentioned , speaking of a 4 foot putt, " if
> > somehow he can make this one go in" It makes me feel like yelling now.
> > Our goose was cooked and I enjoyed watching it anyway. Miller by the
> > way has left me dry for the last 7 years as an announcer.
>
>
> Andy,
>
> First of all, thanks for responding with an articulate expression of
> specifics, rather than a jock-like, mindless expression merely that "they
> suck."
>
> You actually make some points worthy of discussion.
>
> On the matter of Johnny Miller, he's never been among my favorite
> commentators. My complaint with him has always been that he's viewed his
> job as mandating that he play "gotcha" with players. I've never liked it
> when announcers tell us what's going through a player's mind, as if they
> have some telepathic way of knowing this. It's one thing to say, "whenever
> I was in that position, what went through MY mind was...." and to say, in a
> declarative manner, "right now, he's thinking......" as if they actually
> know what another human is thinking.
>
> Miller was hyped early on as being "frank and candid." He seemed to take
> that ball and run with it, as if being critical, just for the sake of being
> critical, was an endearing quality. It is anything but.
>
> And for the record, it is also not "insightful."
>
>
> >Jimmy Roberts has never impressed me,
>
>
> My reasons for not liking Jimmy Roberts are purely personal, and as such,
> probably don't have much relevance. But for the record, I find him to be a
> smarmy, smart-alecky, condescending prick. I've met him, and he came off
> that way in real life, too.

Couldn't agree more. He spent the whole time trying to extract a
made-for-TV tear moment from Clarke and others. I was delighted when
Darren responded to Jimmy's crass intrusion into the Woosnam-Clarke
moment by simply telling him it was private. He could have added "and
none of your sleazy business", but he has more class than Jimmy, so he
didn't.

>
> But then again, I'm sure there are many who say the same of me. So maybe
> it's a case of opposites attracting, and he's just too much like me for me
> to like him. I don't know.
>
>
> > and as for the course in a land of ancient courses I fail to see the
> > reason
> > to play on a modern course.
>
> The K Club, I believe, hosts a regular European Tour event, and as such, had
> received rave reviews among the Euros who play it regularly.
>
> I won't argue the point that playing a more typical links course would seem
> more in keeping with the tradition of Euro-golf. But evidently, that's the
> basis upon which courses are selected for the Ryder Cup.

Unfortunately, Ryder Cup courses are being selected on the basis of who
offers the PGA most, so instead of Portmarnock or Royal Portrush, we get
the K-Club. Very nice, but not a classic Irish course. In two years'
time we get Celtic Manor, rather than Royal Porthcawl.

Money talks - too loud.
>
> Clearly, the course separated the men from the boys.
>
>
> > As for the competition they out played us and I felt Lehmans pairings
> > were weak and his singles matches needed to lead off with much more
> > strength.
>
> Based upon the final W-L records, Lehman didn't have much strength to play
> early.
>
> The Americans simply got spanked. The US team just got outplayed, as you
> said. They had their heads handed to them. (I've just run out of tired old
> phrases describing a rout.) :-)

Agreed. The difference in team dynamic from day 1 was amazing to witness.

William Clark

Date: 24 Sep 2006 13:53:48
From:
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Date: 24 Sep 2006 22:54:34
From: Howard9
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159131228.833659.84360@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
spinn@home.com says...
>
> Andrcom@aol.com wrote:
> > 1. The announcers SUCK!
> > 2. Tom Lehman is a jerk.(funny I always liked him as a player)
> > 3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
> > a palmer course)?
> > 4. The competition is a gentlemans competition, would some one please
> > tell johnny miller to SHUT THE FUCK UP?
> > 5. I always liked Woosie
> > 6. Didnt Lehman realize he needed Woods or Furyck 1 and 2?
> > 7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
> > think?)
> > 8
>
> I thought the american team was quite boring... I had trouble relating
> to any one of them...
>
> Initally I was for an American win but I ended up pulling for the more
> emotional Euro team.They were by far more fun to watch right from day
> one

There was no passion, no spirit. There was no camaraderie. I watched
player after player walking alone down the fairways and on the green,
while the European players chatted and compared notes on drives and
puts.

--
Howard

Date: 24 Sep 2006 13:45:27
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

rich wrote:

> But we have to give Tom some props on his captains picks. They were among
> the better records on the MAerican side. And seeing Cink squash Garcia was
> worth the price of admission. Verplank's ace, while inconsequential, was a
> nice bonus.

If I'm not mistaken, Cink was 1-1-3. Verplank was 2-0. He soundly
thumped Harrington today, which is impressive as he was up all night
last night massaging Zach Johnson's back, IYKWIM.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 13:04:49
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

You can't discuss anyhting with Brown. His only interest is ridicule.
The plan that golfers would like is easy to articulate.

Show all the golf shots. You have 12 matches going on at once. Go from
shot to shot to shot. No essays. No interviews. No shots of talking
heads. Keep up the continuity. That's what all those producers are for.
No reason to watch Furyk go through his putting pre shot routine, for
example. We should see every drive, every approach shot, every
putt...we should see them all...but we don't, and that's why golf
broadcasts generally suck.

The commentator talent should be required to follow all 12 matches in a
thing like the Ryder Cup. I wonder if some of the "talent" we see out
there could do that? Add in that the producers would have to actually
work to set it up...and get rid of producers that can't. I realize it's
a lot tougher task than a football game, but the Euro Tour guys on TGC
do a pretty good job with someone else's feed, and if they can do it,
so can NBC.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 18:47:03
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote ...
>
> You can't discuss anyhting with Brown. His only interest is ridicule.

An easy criticism. But you'll find me generally open to discussion whenever
someone articulates something intelligent to discuss, as you've done here.

> The plan that golfers would like is easy to articulate.
>
> Show all the golf shots. You have 12 matches going on at once. Go from
> shot to shot to shot. No essays. No interviews. No shots of talking
> heads. Keep up the continuity. That's what all those producers are for.
> No reason to watch Furyk go through his putting pre shot routine, for
> example. We should see every drive, every approach shot, every
> putt...we should see them all...but we don't, and that's why golf
> broadcasts generally suck.

On the surface, I tend to agree with you. I think you take it a little too
far to the extreme when you speak of cutting out such things as watching a
player go through his pre-shot routine. Makes it a little too clinical for
my taste, but that's a matter of preference.

Rob, I thought of you when I was in Chicago a few weeks ago doing
play-by-play of the PGA Championship for Turner Broadcasting. I was in the
booth calling the par-three holes for a webcast carried on AOL. Throughout
much of our coverage, the action was non-stop, as we were flying back and
forth from one hole to the next. It was a constant barrage of action. As
an announcer, it kept me on my toes, and was, frankly, at times a little
frenetic. But it certainly MOVED. I liked it.

> The commentator talent should be required to follow all 12 matches in a
> thing like the Ryder Cup. I wonder if some of the "talent" we see out
> there could do that?

Well, to be fair, I think they do. But when you say they should all
"follow" the action of all 12 matches, I'm not sure if you mean they should
mentally keep track of all 12 matches, or if you mean one team of (maybe 2)
announcers should CALL all the matches. I think that would be a little
crazy, and is asking a bit much of one team of announcers. It just gets too
confusing.

Remember, too, that not all people viewing these events are avid golf fans.
Certainly that's the core audience, but when you're talking "big" events
(the majors, Ryder Cup, WGC, etc.), you get another level of golf viewers
that can best be described as "sports enthusiasts" who occasionally like to
watch golf if the prestige of the event prompts them to have interest.
These people aren't as knowledgable about the game (or its players --
especially when you start talking about relative unknown foreign players and
an assortment of lesser-known American players, like Vaughn Taylor and Brett
Wetterich). I think if you maintained too fast a pace in jumping back and
forth, you'd lose a lot of those viewers.

One of the fundamentals I learned early on when doing golf PxP on radio was
that it's super-important to include some CONTEXT in almost every call.
Oddly, this is something that is so fundamental to sports broadcasting, I
think most viewers don't even notice it. Yet you see it in every other
sport. For instance, when watching football, you don't just say it's 3rd
down. You say it's 3rd and 7, so viewers (or listeners) know how many yards
are required on the next play to keep the drive going. In golf terms, that
means (in a medal play event) to say more than merely, "that birdie gets him
to 12-under par," but rather, to say, "that birdie gets him to 12-under par,
within 3 of the lead." Context. It's not "talking down" to viewers. It's
merely an acknowledgement that (a.) not all viewers are following it as
closely as the ones who are fanatical, and (b.) not all viewers have been
watching since the beginning of the telecast; some have just joined you.

> Add in that the producers would have to actually
> work to set it up...and get rid of producers that can't.

That's an interesting statement, and implies that certain producers (and I
think you mean "directors") are not very "golf savvy." Clearly, some are
better at it than others. None was better than Frank Chirkanian, and for my
money, no one is better at it today than Chirkanian's protege, Lance Barrow
at CBS. Maybe that's why most people agree that the CBS telecasts are, for
the most part, better than NBC's or ABC's (all the expressed dislike for Jim
Nantz's smarmy, overly-poetic scene-setters notwithstanding).

> I realize it's a lot tougher task than a football game, but the Euro Tour
> guys on TGC do a pretty good job with someone else's feed, and if they
> can do it, so can NBC.

Rob, I think what sets me off about these discussions is not so much that
people dislike what they see and hear on golf telecasts, but rather that
they dismiss it with something as unhelpful as "it sucks."

Put it in another context. Think of a musical composer who spends months,
perhaps years, penning a song. It is then recorded, either by him or by
another performer. Creative artists can expend enormous energy -- metnal,
physical and emotional -- in berthing something like a song. Then when a
"critic" dismisses it in a mere moment with "it sucks," they're not really
saying anything meaningful. What they're really saying is, "I didn't like
it." Well, you can't please all the people all the time, so for one
individual to say, "I don't like it" is not exactly a revelation of epic
proportions. It's something to be expected. What would be far more useful
in putting that criticism into some kind of context would be for the critic
to say, "I don't like that rhythm and blues music, so I naturally wasn't
going to like this song, since it was in that genre." Or to say, "The
lyrics didn't speak to my soul, I just couldn't relate to it." Or whatever.

You, at least, have offered some meaningful thoughts that help identify what
you believe are the specific areas that could be improved.

I tip my cap to you for that. Even if I don't agree with everything you
say. This stuff is, after all, pretty much a matter of taste, wouldn't you
agree?

Randy

Date: 25 Sep 2006 00:32:55
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

\"R&B\" wrote:

snippit...

Thank you for a very insightful reply!

When I think of continuity, I think of an event like the Ryder Cup, on a
substantial delay, where you do have a lot of time to put it together. Maybe
directors do that; you would know better than I about that.

I agree with you on Chirkanian.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 12:58:46
From: vocalsman
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

>Alright, bigshot, the floor is yours...

>Dazzle us with your visionary directing genius.

>-- Option 2 --

>Or, if you'd prefer, I'll isolate, oh, say, a 5-minute segment of a golf
>telecast I have on tape (and I have hundreds of them) -- or maybe some video
>highlights from the '02 RSG-ATLANTA event

You have so much time to remind yourself you are a TV director that I'm
on the verge of not believing you.
You sound like you just had a fight with your boss and you HAVE to
prove something.
Maybe you are Johnny Miller.
Save your words.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 18:06:50
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

I'll take your non-response as indication that whatever ideas you might have
about improving telecasts are, in your own mind, so abstract, that not even
you know quite what they are.

I'm all ears if you'd care to elaborate.

Randy

"vocalsman" <vocalsman@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159127926.072599.240810@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >Alright, bigshot, the floor is yours...
>
>>Dazzle us with your visionary directing genius.
>
>>-- Option 2 --
>
>>Or, if you'd prefer, I'll isolate, oh, say, a 5-minute segment of a golf
>>telecast I have on tape (and I have hundreds of them) -- or maybe some
>>video
>>highlights from the '02 RSG-ATLANTA event
>
>
> You have so much time to remind yourself you are a TV director that I'm
> on the verge of not believing you.
> You sound like you just had a fight with your boss and you HAVE to
> prove something.
> Maybe you are Johnny Miller.
> Save your words.
>

Date: 24 Sep 2006 12:51:21
From: vocalsman
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Date: 24 Sep 2006 18:24:10
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"vocalsman" <vocalsman@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159127481.081006.273790@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> "R&B" wrote:
>> "vocalsman" <vocalsman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159119846.618103.210840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> > Mr. Director:
>> > We ignorants are your clients.If we say they suck is because we have
>> > heard them better, much much better... and we are sure NBC has the
>> > resources to hire the best. We know that their job is not easy, but we
>> > just saw Phil having a bad time (he sucked) and his job is being #2 in
>> > the world! you dig?
>>
>>
>> Okay, Mister Wise guy, if you're so sure you know what makes them suck
>> and
>> how to make them better, elaborate.
>
>
> I am not a wiseguy and you are a director...so lets start to talk like
> men, not like fifth graders with the name-caliing and stuff

Sorry, I'm not a director. Not of Ryder Cup telecasts, anyway.

But thanks for the promotion.

And as far as my calling you a wiseguy, consider it a compliment. I've
always thought it was better to be a wise ass than a dumb ass.

Randy

>> What was wrong?
>>
>> How would you do it better?
>>
>> And are you willing to show us how much better you'd do?
>
> I never said "hire me I can do it" sir. I said I've heard them
> better..as I've seen Mickelson play better... clear.
>
>
>>
>> Randy
>>
>> > "R&B" wrote:
>> >> <Andrcom@aol.com> wrote ...
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. The announcers SUCK!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I get pretty tired of hearing this, as if you viewers would be any
>> >> better
>> >> at
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> Tell ya what. Next time I host an RSG-ATLANTA, I will make it a point
>> >> to
>> >> get a few of my friends who do video work to come out and we'll part
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >> "tunamint" round. Then, all you RSG'ers who hate the network TV
>> >> announcers
>> >> can come to my studio and lay down your own play-by-play voiceovers to
>> >> sync
>> >> up with the edited video highlights, and we'll see if you can do any
>> >> better
>> >> with the director (me) talking in your ear the whole time.
>> >>
>> >> My money is on the notion that you will taking sucking to a whole new
>> >> level
>> >> never before contemplated. Why, you might even discover a newfound
>> >> appreciation for (a.) how hard it is, and (b.) how much better the
>> >> network
>> >> announcers are than you ever really appreciated.
>> >>
>> >> I know it's fashionable to diss the network announcers. Certainly, I
>> >> have
>> >> my favorites and some I don't much care for. But to categorically say
>> >> "the
>> >> announcers SUCK" implies that you think it could be better. But I'm
>> >> willing
>> >> to bet that not one of you truly know what would make it better, and
>> >> could
>> >> demonstrate it yourself.
>> >>
>> >> Either put up or shut up.
>> >>
>> >
>

Date: 24 Sep 2006 12:47:40
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

It's an overblown fluff event that has no upside for the US Team. I
really can't see how players like Woods and Mickleson continue to go to
the thing. It's clearly an ordeal for them. They have nothing to prove,
but the other side thinks it is about proving something, which turned a
nice, fun kinda event into a total waste of time. Hopefully the time
will comme *SOON* tha ttop US Players pass on this thing; and end it.
European golf wants to prove something to Woods and Mickelson they show
'em their stuff in majors and the WGC events! They get 8 shots a
year...and that should be enough.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 21:03:47
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159127260.737745.177550@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> It's an overblown fluff event that has no upside for the US Team. I
> really can't see how players like Woods and Mickleson continue to go to
> the thing. It's clearly an ordeal for them. They have nothing to prove,
> but the other side thinks it is about proving something, which turned a
> nice, fun kinda event into a total waste of time. Hopefully the time
> will comme *SOON* tha ttop US Players pass on this thing; and end it.
> European golf wants to prove something to Woods and Mickelson they show
> 'em their stuff in majors and the WGC events! They get 8 shots a
> year...and that should be enough.

It's only overblown because it has become an exercise in embarrassing
futility for them. To most people, it is the most fun golf event there
is. If you have ever been to it, and seen it live, it is even more fun,
and that is exactly what the Americans have forgotten - "fun".

So climb down off the patronizing "we're above this" high horse, and
understand that the top US players will NEVER pass up on the Ryder Cup -
playing for your country is still an honor. Besides, you'd better be
winning if your going to play that card. Your mentality illustrates
exactly why the US can't get to grips with this - if I'm not winning,
then I'll take my ball and go home.

William Clark

Date: 25 Sep 2006 02:50:54
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"William A. T. Clark" wrote:

> Your mentality illustrates
> exactly why the US can't get to grips with this - if I'm not winning,
> then I'll take my ball and go home.
>
>

What evidence do you have that there is some great deal of interest in the
thing in the US? I see virtually none. Sportscenter cared more about
yesterdays game between Notre Dame and Michigan State than they did the Ryder
Cup. I said the same thing in 1999, BTW. We shall see if the US players think
it is such a big deal. The playing for your country thing is cheesy hype.
Nationalism has caused more death and destruction that anything else.

Why is it so difficult to accept that the Ryderr Cup is nothing mroe than a
*FUN* fluff sort of thing, and anyone who takes it more seriously than that
is taking it too seriously. The honor is there, of course, but it is based on
how well you do in regular tour events.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 23:12:38
From: sfb
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

ESPN - the Endlessly Self Promoting Network - Sportscenter isn't indicative
of anything as it long ago became one big commercial for ABC and ESPN
broadcasts.

"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:45174247.E3FB3DC2@att.net...
>
>
> "William A. T. Clark" wrote:
>
>> Your mentality illustrates
>> exactly why the US can't get to grips with this - if I'm not winning,
>> then I'll take my ball and go home.
>>
>>
>
> What evidence do you have that there is some great deal of interest in the
> thing in the US? I see virtually none. Sportscenter cared more about
> yesterdays game between Notre Dame and Michigan State than they did the
> Ryder
> Cup. I said the same thing in 1999, BTW. We shall see if the US players
> think
> it is such a big deal. The playing for your country thing is cheesy hype.
> Nationalism has caused more death and destruction that anything else.
>
> Why is it so difficult to accept that the Ryderr Cup is nothing mroe than
> a
> *FUN* fluff sort of thing, and anyone who takes it more seriously than
> that
> is taking it too seriously. The honor is there, of course, but it is based
> on
> how well you do in regular tour events.
>
>

Date: 24 Sep 2006 22:02:18
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:50:54 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:

>
>
>"William A. T. Clark" wrote:
>
>> Your mentality illustrates
>> exactly why the US can't get to grips with this - if I'm not winning,
>> then I'll take my ball and go home.
>>
>>
>
>What evidence do you have that there is some great deal of interest in the
>thing in the US? I see virtually none. Sportscenter cared more about
>yesterdays game between Notre Dame and Michigan State than they did the Ryder
>Cup.<clip>

Be sure to let us know when Sportscenter ever cared more about golf
than any sport. Frankly, I heard updates on the radio sports stations
about the Ryder Cup, which stunned me. They generally will mention
the majors, but nothing else.
--
___,
\o

Date: 25 Sep 2006 06:35:58
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:50:54 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>"William A. T. Clark" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Your mentality illustrates
>>>exactly why the US can't get to grips with this - if I'm not winning,
>>>then I'll take my ball and go home.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What evidence do you have that there is some great deal of interest in the
>>thing in the US? I see virtually none. Sportscenter cared more about
>>yesterdays game between Notre Dame and Michigan State than they did the Ryder
>>Cup.<clip>
>
>
> Be sure to let us know when Sportscenter ever cared more about golf
> than any sport. Frankly, I heard updates on the radio sports stations
> about the Ryder Cup, which stunned me. They generally will mention
> the majors, but nothing else.

I worked on Friday and Saturday and listenend to updates on the radio,
which were given every 10 minutes.

Not bad at all, considering Canada had no players involved :-)

David

Date: 25 Sep 2006 06:59:07
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <45174247.E3FB3DC2@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" wrote:
>
> > Your mentality illustrates
> > exactly why the US can't get to grips with this - if I'm not winning,
> > then I'll take my ball and go home.
> >
> >
>
> What evidence do you have that there is some great deal of interest in the
> thing in the US? I see virtually none. Sportscenter cared more about
> yesterdays game between Notre Dame and Michigan State than they did the Ryder
> Cup. I said the same thing in 1999, BTW. We shall see if the US players think
> it is such a big deal. The playing for your country thing is cheesy hype.
> Nationalism has caused more death and destruction that anything else.

Worldwide TV audience is over a billion - how many to watch the Spartans
choke against a mediocre ND team? I thought so. ESPN doesn't care
because NBC has the rights - ESPN would rather show the X Games, so
there status as commentators on the Ryder Cup is zilch. And if you can't
take pride in representing your country (something, incidentally, that
US PGA pros were busting a gut to get on the top 12 list to do), then
you are truly a sad little person. It has nothing to do with wars and
nationalism unless it gets into the hands of those who want to make it
more than it really is. I don't think the Europeans are about to start a
war anywhere, judging by their attitude in the final press conference.
>
> Why is it so difficult to accept that the Ryderr Cup is nothing mroe than a
> *FUN* fluff sort of thing, and anyone who takes it more seriously than that
> is taking it too seriously. The honor is there, of course, but it is based on
> how well you do in regular tour events.

Excuse me, but when I last looked, golf is just a GAME, so everything
about it is "just for fun". Nothing in golf is more significant than
that, certainly not "regular tour events". This is the crux of the
Americans' problem - they just don't understand that.

William Clark

Date: 24 Sep 2006 22:53:03
From: Howard9
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159127260.737745.177550@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
dbid@att.net says...
> It's an overblown fluff event that has no upside for the US Team.

Hilarious reaction by the losers. duh... it's a shit competition !!
where have we hard that before ? LOL

I
> really can't see how players like Woods and Mickleson continue to go to
> the thing.

To try to prove they can beat a better team.

> It's clearly an ordeal for them.

repeatedly losing can be draining.

> They have nothing to prove,

... that they can do something else except lose.. for one :-)

> but the other side thinks it is about proving something, which turned a
> nice, fun kinda event into a total waste of time.

Losing is irritating isn't it ....

> Hopefully the time
> will comme *SOON* tha ttop US Players pass on this thing; and end it.
> European golf wants to prove something to Woods and Mickelson they show
> 'em their stuff in majors and the WGC events! They get 8 shots a
> year...and that should be enough.

In other words Woods and michelson can only play one kind of tournament
and can't play as a team for nuts. Maybe they SHOULD take their toys and
run away !! it would just confirm what we suspect all along, that they
can't take the heat.

--
Howard

Date: 25 Sep 2006 00:40:38
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Howard9 wrote:

>
> In other words Woods and michelson can only play one kind of tournament
> and can't play as a team for nuts. Maybe they SHOULD take their toys and
> run away !! it would just confirm what we suspect all along, that they
> can't take the heat.
>

I don't see the problem with the obvious fact that the Ryder Cup is no big
deal in the US. It's a fact. The Americans don't think that much of it. It's
an honor to be selected for the team, but that's about it. Pro golf is about
winning 72 hole tournaments, not winning team things. The team things could
be fun, but it seems to me that the Ryder Cup is an obligation to the
Americans, not something they really look forward to, and it shows quite
obviously.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 07:01:05
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <451723BE.69ED0F29@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
wrote:

> Howard9 wrote:
>
> >
> > In other words Woods and michelson can only play one kind of tournament
> > and can't play as a team for nuts. Maybe they SHOULD take their toys and
> > run away !! it would just confirm what we suspect all along, that they
> > can't take the heat.
> >
>
> I don't see the problem with the obvious fact that the Ryder Cup is no big
> deal in the US. It's a fact. The Americans don't think that much of it. It's
> an honor to be selected for the team, but that's about it. Pro golf is about
> winning 72 hole tournaments, not winning team things. The team things could
> be fun, but it seems to me that the Ryder Cup is an obligation to the
> Americans, not something they really look forward to, and it shows quite
> obviously.

Nice try, but 100% wrong. You tried this tack two years ago, and it was
lame then.

Sorry.

William Clark

Date: 24 Sep 2006 12:24:51
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"R&B" wrote:

> > 1. The announcers SUCK!
>
>
> I get pretty tired of hearing this, as if you viewers would be any better at
> it.
>
> Tell ya what. Next time I host an RSG-ATLANTA, I will make it a point to
> get a few of my friends who do video work to come out and we'll part of the
> "tunamint" round. Then, all you RSG'ers who hate the network TV announcers
> can come to my studio and lay down your own play-by-play voiceovers to sync
> up with the edited video highlights, and we'll see if you can do any better
> with the director (me) talking in your ear the whole time.

Why is it that whenever someone dares criticize announcers, golfers,
football players, whoever, someone chimes in with "you couldn't do any
better yourself."? Andrcom didn't say he could. I couldn't. Most
couldn't. However, it's an opinion - have you ever walked out of a
movie that sucked and told someone it sucked? Could you direct it any
better? Are you a better actor? No, but you certainly are entitled to
your opinion.

FTR, I like Miller, I like the NBC crew. I think they do a fine job,
with the exception of the syrupy sophist Jimmy Roberts; nose picker
from up the street. But no one said they could do better, it's not the
point.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 15:41:52
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1159125891.351671.176260@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> "R&B" wrote:
>
>> > 1. The announcers SUCK!
>>
>>
>> I get pretty tired of hearing this, as if you viewers would be any better
>> at
>> it.
>>
>> Tell ya what. Next time I host an RSG-ATLANTA, I will make it a point to
>> get a few of my friends who do video work to come out and we'll part of
>> the
>> "tunamint" round. Then, all you RSG'ers who hate the network TV
>> announcers
>> can come to my studio and lay down your own play-by-play voiceovers to
>> sync
>> up with the edited video highlights, and we'll see if you can do any
>> better
>> with the director (me) talking in your ear the whole time.
>
> Why is it that whenever someone dares criticize announcers, golfers,
> football players, whoever, someone chimes in with "you couldn't do any
> better yourself."? Andrcom didn't say he could. I couldn't. Most
> couldn't. However, it's an opinion - have you ever walked out of a
> movie that sucked and told someone it sucked? Could you direct it any
> better? Are you a better actor? No, but you certainly are entitled to
> your opinion.

My impatience with this argument is borne from two things:

1, It happens, like clockwork, after every major and every "major-like"
event, such as the Ryder Cup.

2. Saying that the announcers "sucked" is an extremely inarticulate (and
frankly, unintelligent) way of communicating what one thinks is really wrong
with them, and in many cases, ignores the fact that much of what they do is
not stuff they do on their own, but is stuff they're TOLD to do by the
director. Of cours that's not always the case, but it often is. I'd much
rather see people articulate what they think is wrong, how they would change
it, and what their ideal method would be. Few ever do, because, honestly,
they don't really know. They only know what they don't like when they hear
it. Any monkey can do that.

Elsewhere in this thread, I have posed two challenges. I would offer the
same challenges to you...or anyone:

Challenge 1 -- Be the director. Rather than picking apart last week's show,
let's hear what you'd say in a conference room setting with your staff of
on-course announcer's for NEXT WEEK'S telecast. Tell them not only what you
don't want them to do, but what you DO want them to do...and HOW you want
them to do it. If you're so certain that your ideas are better, then you
must have some ideas. Let's hear them.

Challenge 2 -- Sometime in the next couple of weeks when I have time, I'll
go through and isolate, oh, maybe 5-minutes from a golf telecast. I'll
remove the announcers from the sound. (This may require that I overdub some
golf and crowd sound effects to create the full effect of what broadcasters
call a "mix minus," which amounts to the sound of everything BUT the
announcers. I'll encode that to a Windows Media and Quick Time file, and
point you to a link where you can download it. You can then watch that
video while recording your own play-by-play, live to digital format. If you
don't have digital audio recording software, I can point you to a link where
you can download a fairly popular freeware application that will do just
such recording. Capture your play-by-play audio to a digital file and send
it to me. I'll then sync it up to the video and post it online for all of
RSG to see and hear. This is not a test to see how "brilliant" you'll be as
a TV announcer. You're quite right in saying not everyone can be good at
it. But if their ideas are so brilliant, then the concepts behind what
they're doing (and not doing) ought to shine through their feeble
performance, and we'll be able to judge for ourselves if your ideas are as
brilliant as you would have us believe.

Personally, it's my belief that most people are only capable of saying what
they don't like. They're not generally able to articulate what it is they'd
like to see done, and how.

Here's your chance.

Man up.

Randy

Date: 24 Sep 2006 21:10:27
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <EeOdnflSldjvQovYnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@giganews.com >,
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:

> "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159125891.351671.176260@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > "R&B" wrote:
> >
> >> > 1. The announcers SUCK!
> >>
> >>
> >> I get pretty tired of hearing this, as if you viewers would be any better
> >> at
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Tell ya what. Next time I host an RSG-ATLANTA, I will make it a point to
> >> get a few of my friends who do video work to come out and we'll part of
> >> the
> >> "tunamint" round. Then, all you RSG'ers who hate the network TV
> >> announcers
> >> can come to my studio and lay down your own play-by-play voiceovers to
> >> sync
> >> up with the edited video highlights, and we'll see if you can do any
> >> better
> >> with the director (me) talking in your ear the whole time.
> >
> > Why is it that whenever someone dares criticize announcers, golfers,
> > football players, whoever, someone chimes in with "you couldn't do any
> > better yourself."? Andrcom didn't say he could. I couldn't. Most
> > couldn't. However, it's an opinion - have you ever walked out of a
> > movie that sucked and told someone it sucked? Could you direct it any
> > better? Are you a better actor? No, but you certainly are entitled to
> > your opinion.
>
>
>
> My impatience with this argument is borne from two things:
>
> 1, It happens, like clockwork, after every major and every "major-like"
> event, such as the Ryder Cup.
>
> 2. Saying that the announcers "sucked" is an extremely inarticulate (and
> frankly, unintelligent) way of communicating what one thinks is really wrong
> with them, and in many cases, ignores the fact that much of what they do is
> not stuff they do on their own, but is stuff they're TOLD to do by the
> director. Of cours that's not always the case, but it often is. I'd much
> rather see people articulate what they think is wrong, how they would change
> it, and what their ideal method would be. Few ever do, because, honestly,
> they don't really know. They only know what they don't like when they hear
> it. Any monkey can do that.

The volume of these "the commentators sucked" comments is always in
direct proportion to how badly the US team got beaten. Hence the
deafening roar this time around. Actually, I thought that Miller and
Murphy (like the American team) showed a lot of grace and class at the
end of the event. And the commentators were very even-handed all the way
through. There was so much great golf to see, and they seemed happy to
be a part of it.

Jimmy Roberts should have been dropped in the Liffey and held under,
though.

>
> Elsewhere in this thread, I have posed two challenges. I would offer the
> same challenges to you...or anyone:
>
> Challenge 1 -- Be the director. Rather than picking apart last week's show,
> let's hear what you'd say in a conference room setting with your staff of
> on-course announcer's for NEXT WEEK'S telecast. Tell them not only what you
> don't want them to do, but what you DO want them to do...and HOW you want
> them to do it. If you're so certain that your ideas are better, then you
> must have some ideas. Let's hear them.

I think that the RC presents special challenges for TV. It is so
different from the medal play tournaments because game changing events
are taking place all over the course at the same time, and each one
merits the same weight of coverage. On the other hand, it is much more
dynamic, too. If you have ever been to a RC, it like having a series of
explosions going off around you, and the cheers erupt from other holes.
Magic.
>
William Clark

Date: 25 Sep 2006 02:53:47
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"William A. T. Clark" wrote:

>
>
> The volume of these "the commentators sucked" comments is always in
> direct proportion to how badly the US team got beaten.

Funny how you raise this, but who whined incessantly for years last time they
lost. I don't think the US players really care that much, and certainly very few
Americans care about who won. To some, it was a fun event, nothing more. Why make
the big deal out of it?

Date: 25 Sep 2006 06:50:55
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <451742F4.E59693ED@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The volume of these "the commentators sucked" comments is always in
> > direct proportion to how badly the US team got beaten.
>
> Funny how you raise this, but who whined incessantly for years last time they
> lost. I don't think the US players really care that much, and certainly very
> few
> Americans care about who won. To some, it was a fun event, nothing more. Why
> make
> the big deal out of it?

There we go - when we lose it's really "just a fun" event.

Sure. Go tell that to Furyk and co.

William Clark

Date: 25 Sep 2006 16:31:21
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

William A. T. Clark <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
: In article <451742F4.E59693ED@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
: wrote:

: > Americans care about who won. To some, it was a fun event, nothing more. Why
: > make
: > the big deal out of it?
:
: There we go - when we lose it's really "just a fun" event.

Misplaced "we" there... Rob is Canadian. His team plays in
the President's Cup.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 25 Sep 2006 13:50:52
From:
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article
<clark.31-56C76E.06505525092006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu >,
"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

> In article <451742F4.E59693ED@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "William A. T. Clark" wrote:
> >
> > > The volume of these "the commentators sucked" comments is always in
> > > direct proportion to how badly the US team got beaten.
> >
> > Funny how you raise this, but who whined incessantly for years last time
> > they
> > lost. I don't think the US players really care that much, and certainly
> > very
> > few
> > Americans care about who won. To some, it was a fun event, nothing more.
> > Why
> > make
> > the big deal out of it?
>
> There we go - when we lose it's really "just a fun" event.
>
> Sure. Go tell that to Furyk and co.
>
> William Clark

Means nothing to me, win or lose. I also don't care who wins the World
series, the Super bowl, or any other championship. I view sports for
enterntainment. The result has no influence on my life so they have no
"real" importance. The Ryder Cup means no more to me than the Tavistock
Cup.

B. Martin

Date: 25 Sep 2006 16:50:15
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <marti285-6226A7.13505225092006@lenny.tc.umn.edu >,
marti285@umn.edu wrote:

> In article
> <clark.31-56C76E.06505525092006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <451742F4.E59693ED@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "William A. T. Clark" wrote:
> > >
> > > > The volume of these "the commentators sucked" comments is always in
> > > > direct proportion to how badly the US team got beaten.
> > >
> > > Funny how you raise this, but who whined incessantly for years last time
> > > they
> > > lost. I don't think the US players really care that much, and certainly
> > > very
> > > few
> > > Americans care about who won. To some, it was a fun event, nothing more.
> > > Why
> > > make
> > > the big deal out of it?
> >
> > There we go - when we lose it's really "just a fun" event.
> >
> > Sure. Go tell that to Furyk and co.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> Means nothing to me, win or lose. I also don't care who wins the World
> series, the Super bowl, or any other championship. I view sports for
> enterntainment. The result has no influence on my life so they have no
> "real" importance. The Ryder Cup means no more to me than the Tavistock
> Cup.
>
> B. Martin

That is consistent - they are all only games. It's the guys that say the
RC means nothing, only the PGA Tour standings are important, that are
not.

William Clark

Date: 25 Sep 2006 15:46:47
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

<marti285@umn.edu > wrote in message
news:marti285-6226A7.13505225092006@lenny.tc.umn.edu...
> In article
> <clark.31-56C76E.06505525092006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <451742F4.E59693ED@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "William A. T. Clark" wrote:
>> >
>> > > The volume of these "the commentators sucked" comments is always in
>> > > direct proportion to how badly the US team got beaten.
>> >
>> > Funny how you raise this, but who whined incessantly for years last
>> > time
>> > they
>> > lost. I don't think the US players really care that much, and certainly
>> > very
>> > few
>> > Americans care about who won. To some, it was a fun event, nothing
>> > more.
>> > Why
>> > make
>> > the big deal out of it?
>>
>> There we go - when we lose it's really "just a fun" event.
>>
>> Sure. Go tell that to Furyk and co.
>>
>> William Clark
>
> Means nothing to me, win or lose. I also don't care who wins the World
> series, the Super bowl, or any other championship. I view sports for
> enterntainment. The result has no influence on my life so they have no
> "real" importance. The Ryder Cup means no more to me than the Tavistock
> Cup.
>
> B. Martin

I think if I lived in Minnesota, I'd feel the same.

Twins: I don't think so.
Vikings: Uhhhh....no.
Pro Golfers: Lumpy, and that's about it.

But I'll bet you're glued to the set watching the ice fishing championships.
zzzzzzzzzz

(Nothing personal, just a good natured poke from a southerner who's glad he
doesn't have to dig out from under 6 feet of snow every winter.)

Randy

Date: 25 Sep 2006 15:03:45
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:YbedneJOCI2Ir4XYnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> I think if I lived in Minnesota, I'd feel the same.
>
> Twins: I don't think so.

AL champs, you watch.

> Vikings: Uhhhh....no.

Probably correct, buy hey, the Packers are in our league.
> Pro Golfers: Lumpy, and that's about it.

Don't forget Lehman.
>
> But I'll bet you're glued to the set watching the ice fishing
> championships. zzzzzzzzzz

I watch ice fishing all the time. Beats bowling and golf.
>
> (Nothing personal, just a good natured poke from a southerner who's glad
> he doesn't have to dig out from under 6 feet of snow every winter.)
>
I wish we'd get that much snow. Been a few years now.

Date: 24 Sep 2006 20:47:34
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:

: Challenge 2 -- Sometime in the next couple of weeks when I have time, I'll
: go through and isolate, oh, maybe 5-minutes from a golf telecast. I'll
: remove the announcers from the sound. (This may require that I overdub some
: golf and crowd sound effects to create the full effect of what broadcasters
: call a "mix minus," which amounts to the sound of everything BUT the
: announcers. I'll encode that to a Windows Media and Quick Time file, and
: point you to a link where you can download it. You can then watch that
: video while recording your own play-by-play, live to digital format. If you
: don't have digital audio recording software, I can point you to a link where
: you can download a fairly popular freeware application that will do just
: such recording. Capture your play-by-play audio to a digital file and send
: it to me. I'll then sync it up to the video and post it online for all of
: RSG to see and hear.

I am so all over this. But then I prove every week on the
radio that I don't mind sucking.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 24 Sep 2006 18:48:38
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3g9fpnI7bsN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
> : Challenge 2 -- Sometime in the next couple of weeks when I have time,
> I'll
> : go through and isolate, oh, maybe 5-minutes from a golf telecast. I'll
> : remove the announcers from the sound. (This may require that I overdub
> some
> : golf and crowd sound effects to create the full effect of what
> broadcasters
> : call a "mix minus," which amounts to the sound of everything BUT the
> : announcers. I'll encode that to a Windows Media and Quick Time file,
> and
> : point you to a link where you can download it. You can then watch that
> : video while recording your own play-by-play, live to digital format. If
> you
> : don't have digital audio recording software, I can point you to a link
> where
> : you can download a fairly popular freeware application that will do just
> : such recording. Capture your play-by-play audio to a digital file and
> send
> : it to me. I'll then sync it up to the video and post it online for all
> of
> : RSG to see and hear.
>
> I am so all over this. But then I prove every week on the
> radio that I don't mind sucking.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/

Consider it done. Not today. Maybe later rather than sooner. But when I
get time, I'll piece together a little segment that you, and anyone else who
wishes to play "the home game" can.

I'm sure the world of broadcasting will be better for it.

Randy

Date: 25 Sep 2006 00:12:41
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:0T3g9fpnI7bsN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
: >
: > : Challenge 2 -- Sometime in the next couple of weeks when I have time,
: > I'll
: > : go through and isolate, oh, maybe 5-minutes from a golf telecast. I'll
: > : remove the announcers from the sound. (This may require that I overdub
: > some
: > : golf and crowd sound effects to create the full effect of what
: > broadcasters
: > : call a "mix minus," which amounts to the sound of everything BUT the
: > : announcers. I'll encode that to a Windows Media and Quick Time file,
: > and
: > : point you to a link where you can download it. You can then watch that
: > : video while recording your own play-by-play, live to digital format. If
: > you
: > : don't have digital audio recording software, I can point you to a link
: > where
: > : you can download a fairly popular freeware application that will do just
: > : such recording. Capture your play-by-play audio to a digital file and
: > send
: > : it to me. I'll then sync it up to the video and post it online for all
: > of
: > : RSG to see and hear.
: >
: > I am so all over this. But then I prove every week on the
: > radio that I don't mind sucking.
:
: Consider it done. Not today. Maybe later rather than sooner. But when I
: get time, I'll piece together a little segment that you, and anyone else who
: wishes to play "the home game" can.
:
: I'm sure the world of broadcasting will be better for it.

Oh, you have no idea how much better it won't be! :)

Seriously, though... you touched upon a point earlier in a
response to Rob about something most viewers never consider:
that the broadcasters must tailor their commentary to inform
a specific type of audience. In golf, that usually means the
casual golf fan who knows a birdie from a bogey, but doesn't
necessarily understand the significance of a plugged lie in
a bunker, or the importance of being below the pin on certain
greens.

A broadcast for an audience of hardcore golfers would look and
sound totally different than anything we've actually seen,
though I suppose the BBC approach might be somewhat close in
that they assume that the viewer showed up already knowing
something of the players and doesn't need a metanarrative
constructed where the meaning of the competition beyond the
action on the course is explained -- IOW, no essay pieces
about Tiger after Earl's passing, for instance. The hard-
core fan already knows about that story all he wants to know.
(Usually.)

So, I may take this and do two or three different versions
of it, with different audiences in mind, just to demonstrate
what a huge difference that makes.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 24 Sep 2006 14:07:21
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3g9fpnI7bsN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> I am so all over this. But then I prove every week on the
> radio that I don't mind sucking.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/

When was the last time you played any RatDog?

Date: 24 Sep 2006 21:21:22
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

glfnaz <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:0T3g9fpnI7bsN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > I am so all over this. But then I prove every week on the
: > radio that I don't mind sucking.
:
: When was the last time you played any RatDog?

Get a haircut, hippie!

(Who is RatDog?)

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 24 Sep 2006 21:01:30
From: David
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

On 24 Sep 2006 07:01:37 -0700, Andrcom@aol.com wrote:

>1. The announcers SUCK!

Then ignore them.

>2. Tom Lehman is a jerk.(funny I always liked him as a player)

Lehman is probably a nice guy.

>3. The golf course sucks (how stupid in the land of enchantment to play
>a palmer course)?

That golf course was f**king awesome. I would love to play there.
One of the nicest, and toughest courses I have ever seen.

>4. The competition is a gentlemans competition, would some one please
>tell johnny miller to SHUT THE FUCK UP?

Won't work.

>5. I always liked Woosie

Woosie is a workingman, probably why a lot of people like him.

>6. Didnt Lehman realize he needed Woods or Furyck 1 and 2?

Would not have mattered. The US team was outclassed from the start.

>7. Maybe Toms should have made Monty putt out earlier in the match (ya
>think?)

Would not have mattered.

>8

You're right. There was a lot of incredible golf played over the
three days. The singles matches were unbelievable. Anyone who can
claim that Ryder Cup play is boring must not really enjoy golf. The
crowd was unbelievable! Was there anyone who had dry eyes after Clark
finished off his singles match today?

All in all, a great three days of golf with some of the most
spectacular golf seen this year.

David

Date: 24 Sep 2006 18:06:56
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159106497.181433.321160@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >
Andrcom@aol.com wrote:

Hope you didn't spend too much time on this. Oh, we all know Johnny
sucks. His comment from a few years back when Justin dropped the winning
putt,on Ryder Saturday,, "Leonard should watch the match on tv."

Date: 25 Sep 2006 09:46:38
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Jack Thompson wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
>
> >
> > When you and I play for fun, golf is a game. When they play the Ryder
> > Cup, golf is a game; the only value there is the fun of it. Take that
> > away, and there is no point to it. The regular tour events are
> > business. It's a totally different thing. To be good, you have to get
> > over the fun idea and be able to prepare and play well when it counts.
> > This should not be news to anyone.
> >
>
> So what you're saying is because money isn't involved and the players
> have to work together to achieve a common goal, that makes it less
> significant than regular tour events?

Why do you have to reinterpret what I said? It is quite clear. Playing
for fun and playing as your profession are two different things. You
can have fun playing for your profession, but the pressure is a lot
different. I mentioned nothing about any sort of common goal. That is
your spin.

>
> The people who enjoy the Ryder Cup like it for those very reasons
> (among others). You obviously prefer the everyone out for themselves
> and lots of cash, but the Ryder Cup is special to me and others because
> it's one time where selfishness doesn't rule in golf.
>
I said nothing about money. You want to obsess on other people and
their money, that's you. I could care as little for someone else's
money as whether they win the Ryder Cup.

> >
> > Nationalism is always at the root of the death and destruction we see;
> > regardless of any other factor it's always our group of doorknobs is
> > better than your group of wicker baskets. God is always on "our" side
> > becasue "we" say so. "We" are always getting cheated out of something
> > because "we" want it. People need to behave the way "we" want them to,
> > have to have "our" religion, have "our" poltical system. Whatever.
> > Usually some megalomaniac nutcase like Chavez or Amenidijad behind it
> > in the end, and it really has nothing to do with religion, resource or
> > anything else, just the greater glory ofd those in power. There is no
> > "we" that is better than anyone else. "We" in sports causes a lot of
> > destruction and death every year. People need to be able to play a
> > simple fun golf match without it being blown out of proportion so that
> > some "we" can say "we" are better than some "they". Most people could
> > care less.
>
> Yes, that's the most negative interpretation of "we." But "we" also
> involves looking out for others in your group, sacrificing your own
> needs and desires, and doing what's best for the majority

There is no other interpretation. Look out for all others, not just
"us". A bunch of guys get together for some golf, dchoose up sides and
play for the fun of it. That's the Ryder Cup. There is nothing more to
it.

> Golf is normally a very selfish sport, but the Ryder Cup shows a
> different side to these players. Some relate well to anyone and team
> play only enhances their games, while others show that their style in
> individual tournaments does not translate well when playing with
> someone else. They have to actually relate to others.
>
> You see this as making it an insignificant game. I see it as making it
> a very significant world class sporting event.

You are as free to hold your opinion as I am to hold mine. The Ryder
Cup to me is a fluff event that means virtually nothing to the golf
world. It could be meaningful in a sporting sense if others didn't blow
it out of proportion...but they do, and it makes them look catty.

Geoff Ogilvy does not think he is the best golfer to have played in the
US this year because he won the US Open. Tiger Woods is the best golfer
to have played in Britian this past year, and not because he won the
British Open. Lacking silly nationalistic poltical spin, just seeing
the obvious, these statements are easy to understand. That you play in
the Ryder Cup is a measure of your standing as a golfer. Winning or not
is not. Monty is still an ofer in any event including the top players
in the world, for example. Woods, Toms, Mickleson, Olazabal, Ogilvy,
Micheel, Furyk, Woosnam, Seve, Faldo, are not...all these players can
say they topped the best at least once....and that's the real measure.
The Ryder Cup is nowhere near that, IMHO.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 14:37:17
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159202798.758204.23660@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> Jack Thompson wrote:
> > The_Professor wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > When you and I play for fun, golf is a game. When they play the Ryder
> > > Cup, golf is a game; the only value there is the fun of it. Take that
> > > away, and there is no point to it. The regular tour events are
> > > business. It's a totally different thing. To be good, you have to get
> > > over the fun idea and be able to prepare and play well when it counts.
> > > This should not be news to anyone.
> > >
> >
> > So what you're saying is because money isn't involved and the players
> > have to work together to achieve a common goal, that makes it less
> > significant than regular tour events?
>
> Why do you have to reinterpret what I said? It is quite clear. Playing
> for fun and playing as your profession are two different things. You
> can have fun playing for your profession, but the pressure is a lot
> different. I mentioned nothing about any sort of common goal. That is
> your spin.

Oh, so you don't think that these professional golfers don't see what
Ryder Cup success has done for the game? It attracts bigger TV audiences
than the majors, so you think that the golfers don't realize that
playing well there adds greatly to their endorsement value?

>
> >
> > The people who enjoy the Ryder Cup like it for those very reasons
> > (among others). You obviously prefer the everyone out for themselves
> > and lots of cash, but the Ryder Cup is special to me and others because
> > it's one time where selfishness doesn't rule in golf.
> >
> I said nothing about money. You want to obsess on other people and
> their money, that's you. I could care as little for someone else's
> money as whether they win the Ryder Cup.

Then what is the special value of tour events over this? Why do four
rounds of medal play produce a better measure of a player than head to
head matchplay, for a team? Seems to me that the great ones should be
able to do both.
>
> > >
> > > Nationalism is always at the root of the death and destruction we see;
> > > regardless of any other factor it's always our group of doorknobs is
> > > better than your group of wicker baskets. God is always on "our" side
> > > becasue "we" say so. "We" are always getting cheated out of something
> > > because "we" want it. People need to behave the way "we" want them to,
> > > have to have "our" religion, have "our" poltical system. Whatever.
> > > Usually some megalomaniac nutcase like Chavez or Amenidijad behind it
> > > in the end, and it really has nothing to do with religion, resource or
> > > anything else, just the greater glory ofd those in power. There is no
> > > "we" that is better than anyone else. "We" in sports causes a lot of
> > > destruction and death every year. People need to be able to play a
> > > simple fun golf match without it being blown out of proportion so that
> > > some "we" can say "we" are better than some "they". Most people could
> > > care less.
> >
> > Yes, that's the most negative interpretation of "we." But "we" also
> > involves looking out for others in your group, sacrificing your own
> > needs and desires, and doing what's best for the majority
>
> There is no other interpretation. Look out for all others, not just
> "us". A bunch of guys get together for some golf, dchoose up sides and
> play for the fun of it. That's the Ryder Cup. There is nothing more to
> it.

And that is precisely what makes it so important. It makes it a game
again, that you play not just for yourself, but for others, too.

>
> > Golf is normally a very selfish sport, but the Ryder Cup shows a
> > different side to these players. Some relate well to anyone and team
> > play only enhances their games, while others show that their style in
> > individual tournaments does not translate well when playing with
> > someone else. They have to actually relate to others.
> >
> > You see this as making it an insignificant game. I see it as making it
> > a very significant world class sporting event.
>
> You are as free to hold your opinion as I am to hold mine. The Ryder
> Cup to me is a fluff event that means virtually nothing to the golf
> world. It could be meaningful in a sporting sense if others didn't blow
> it out of proportion...but they do, and it makes them look catty.

No, you decry it, and it makes you look whiny, and a sore loser.
>
> Geoff Ogilvy does not think he is the best golfer to have played in the
> US this year because he won the US Open. Tiger Woods is the best golfer
> to have played in Britian this past year, and not because he won the
> British Open. Lacking silly nationalistic poltical spin, just seeing
> the obvious, these statements are easy to understand. That you play in
> the Ryder Cup is a measure of your standing as a golfer. Winning or not
> is not. Monty is still an ofer in any event including the top players
> in the world, for example. Woods, Toms, Mickleson, Olazabal, Ogilvy,
> Micheel, Furyk, Woosnam, Seve, Faldo, are not...all these players can
> say they topped the best at least once....and that's the real measure.
> The Ryder Cup is nowhere near that, IMHO.

Your first two sentences contradict each other, but no matter. Ogilvy
and Woods were the best medal play players in the US and GB,
respectively, during the week of these two Opens. Period. A month later
- who knows? All we know is that last week a team of Europeans knocked
the stuffing out of the highest ranked Americans in a team matchplay
event. Period. Oh, yes, and it was great television.

William Clark

Date: 25 Sep 2006 09:33:38
From:
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup? Ping Jack Thompson

John van der Pflum wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2006 09:02:22 -0700, "Jack Thompson"
> <jacqueszmonkey@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Birdie Bill wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 8 The Captain should also be given a pick to exclude someone who
> >> would otherwise automatically qualify. I'm thinking Lefty.
> >
> >They could send him to Exile Island.
>
> Are you the "Throwin' Samoan (sic?)" ?
> --
>
> jvdp
> Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi

good one.
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 25 Sep 2006 09:02:22
From: Jack Thompson
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Birdie Bill wrote:

>
> 8 The Captain should also be given a pick to exclude someone who
> would otherwise automatically qualify. I'm thinking Lefty.

They could send him to Exile Island.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 12:28:47
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup? Ping Jack Thompson

On 25 Sep 2006 09:02:22 -0700, "Jack Thompson"
<jacqueszmonkey@aol.com > wrote:

>
>Birdie Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> 8 The Captain should also be given a pick to exclude someone who
>> would otherwise automatically qualify. I'm thinking Lefty.
>
>They could send him to Exile Island.

Are you the "Throwin' Samoan (sic?)" ?
--

jvdp
Myke Plough-in-skee is not mentioned in this thread.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 25 Sep 2006 08:58:38
From: Jack Thompson
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

The_Professor wrote:

>
> When you and I play for fun, golf is a game. When they play the Ryder
> Cup, golf is a game; the only value there is the fun of it. Take that
> away, and there is no point to it. The regular tour events are
> business. It's a totally different thing. To be good, you have to get
> over the fun idea and be able to prepare and play well when it counts.
> This should not be news to anyone.
>

So what you're saying is because money isn't involved and the players
have to work together to achieve a common goal, that makes it less
significant than regular tour events?

The people who enjoy the Ryder Cup like it for those very reasons
(among others). You obviously prefer the everyone out for themselves
and lots of cash, but the Ryder Cup is special to me and others because
it's one time where selfishness doesn't rule in golf.

>
> Nationalism is always at the root of the death and destruction we see;
> regardless of any other factor it's always our group of doorknobs is
> better than your group of wicker baskets. God is always on "our" side
> becasue "we" say so. "We" are always getting cheated out of something
> because "we" want it. People need to behave the way "we" want them to,
> have to have "our" religion, have "our" poltical system. Whatever.
> Usually some megalomaniac nutcase like Chavez or Amenidijad behind it
> in the end, and it really has nothing to do with religion, resource or
> anything else, just the greater glory ofd those in power. There is no
> "we" that is better than anyone else. "We" in sports causes a lot of
> destruction and death every year. People need to be able to play a
> simple fun golf match without it being blown out of proportion so that
> some "we" can say "we" are better than some "they". Most people could
> care less.

Yes, that's the most negative interpretation of "we." But "we" also
involves looking out for others in your group, sacrificing your own
needs and desires, and doing what's best for the majority.

Golf is normally a very selfish sport, but the Ryder Cup shows a
different side to these players. Some relate well to anyone and team
play only enhances their games, while others show that their style in
individual tournaments does not translate well when playing with
someone else. They have to actually relate to others.

You see this as making it an insignificant game. I see it as making it
a very significant world class sporting event.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 13:48:00
From:
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159199918.067884.213670@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"Jack Thompson" <jacqueszmonkey@aol.com > wrote:

> The_Professor wrote:
>
> >
> > When you and I play for fun, golf is a game. When they play the Ryder
> > Cup, golf is a game; the only value there is the fun of it. Take that
> > away, and there is no point to it. The regular tour events are
> > business. It's a totally different thing. To be good, you have to get
> > over the fun idea and be able to prepare and play well when it counts.
> > This should not be news to anyone.
> >
>
> So what you're saying is because money isn't involved and the players
> have to work together to achieve a common goal, that makes it less
> significant than regular tour events?
>
> The people who enjoy the Ryder Cup like it for those very reasons
> (among others). You obviously prefer the everyone out for themselves
> and lots of cash, but the Ryder Cup is special to me and others because
> it's one time where selfishness doesn't rule in golf.

> Yes, that's the most negative interpretation of "we." But "we" also
> involves looking out for others in your group, sacrificing your own
> needs and desires, and doing what's best for the majority.
>
> Golf is normally a very selfish sport, but the Ryder Cup shows a
> different side to these players. Some relate well to anyone and team
> play only enhances their games, while others show that their style in
> individual tournaments does not translate well when playing with
> someone else. They have to actually relate to others.
>
> You see this as making it an insignificant game. I see it as making it
> a very significant world class sporting event.

I don't agree at all that selfishness is not involved. I see the
responses by fans as a different kind of selfishness. They want the
players to hold it in the same regard. Won't happen in many cases.

Certainly, if the Ryder cup did not involve selfishness then there would
not have been any negative response to the exuberance of the Americans
some years back when they were accused of poor sportsmanship. The
negative thoughts were all driven by selfish views of the act.

The Ryder cup is no more important to me than any other exhibition,
including the Tavistock Cup. What signifance is there to an Amerian vs
European team? Nothing can be concluded about merit of the players or
the countries involved. It is one group of "friends" playing another
group of "friends" in golf. So what?

Has nothing to do with money. It is just that the results mean
absolutely nothing.

B. Martin

Date: 25 Sep 2006 17:03:34
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <marti285-1C9CCD.13480025092006@lenny.tc.umn.edu >,
marti285@umn.edu wrote:

> In article <1159199918.067884.213670@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Jack Thompson" <jacqueszmonkey@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The_Professor wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > When you and I play for fun, golf is a game. When they play the Ryder
> > > Cup, golf is a game; the only value there is the fun of it. Take that
> > > away, and there is no point to it. The regular tour events are
> > > business. It's a totally different thing. To be good, you have to get
> > > over the fun idea and be able to prepare and play well when it counts.
> > > This should not be news to anyone.
> > >
> >
> > So what you're saying is because money isn't involved and the players
> > have to work together to achieve a common goal, that makes it less
> > significant than regular tour events?
> >
> > The people who enjoy the Ryder Cup like it for those very reasons
> > (among others). You obviously prefer the everyone out for themselves
> > and lots of cash, but the Ryder Cup is special to me and others because
> > it's one time where selfishness doesn't rule in golf.
>
> > Yes, that's the most negative interpretation of "we." But "we" also
> > involves looking out for others in your group, sacrificing your own
> > needs and desires, and doing what's best for the majority.
> >
> > Golf is normally a very selfish sport, but the Ryder Cup shows a
> > different side to these players. Some relate well to anyone and team
> > play only enhances their games, while others show that their style in
> > individual tournaments does not translate well when playing with
> > someone else. They have to actually relate to others.
> >
> > You see this as making it an insignificant game. I see it as making it
> > a very significant world class sporting event.
>
> I don't agree at all that selfishness is not involved. I see the
> responses by fans as a different kind of selfishness. They want the
> players to hold it in the same regard. Won't happen in many cases.
>
> Certainly, if the Ryder cup did not involve selfishness then there would
> not have been any negative response to the exuberance of the Americans
> some years back when they were accused of poor sportsmanship. The
> negative thoughts were all driven by selfish views of the act.
>
> The Ryder cup is no more important to me than any other exhibition,
> including the Tavistock Cup. What signifance is there to an Amerian vs
> European team? Nothing can be concluded about merit of the players or
> the countries involved. It is one group of "friends" playing another
> group of "friends" in golf. So what?
>
> Has nothing to do with money. It is just that the results mean
> absolutely nothing.
>
> B. Martin

Agreed, it is nothing more than a game.

William Clark

Date: 25 Sep 2006 08:02:46
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

William A. T. Clark wrote:

> then you are truly a sad little person. It has nothing to do with wars and
> nationalism unless it gets into the hands of those who want to make it
> more than it really is. I don't think the Europeans are about to start a
> war anywhere, judging by their attitude in the final press conference.
>
> Excuse me, but when I last looked, golf is just a GAME, so everything
> about it is "just for fun". Nothing in golf is more significant than
> that, certainly not "regular tour events". This is the crux of the
> Americans' problem - they just don't understand that.
>

I guess this says it all to me. I just call it like I see it. I really
don't care that much for the Ryder Cup, and don't see anyone else
caring, and that is and has always been my comment come this time in
the history of human beings. You having to resort to calling me a "sad
little man" speaks for itself on this issue. Why, because I don't see
the Ryder Cup as being that meaningful? Why should I, or anyone else.
There is no way 1 billion people watched the Ryder Cup. Talk about OTT
nonsense! Where did you get that number?

When you and I play for fun, golf is a game. When they play the Ryder
Cup, golf is a game; the only value there is the fun of it. Take that
away, and there is no point to it. The regular tour events are
business. It's a totally different thing. To be good, you have to get
over the fun idea and be able to prepare and play well when it counts.
This should not be news to anyone.

Why do Americans have to "understand" anything to suit you? If
Americans are so awful, why don't you go somewhere where the culture is
more in tune with your world view? It couldn't be that the living and
working conditions in say Britain aren't as good as in Columbus, could
it...or no one in your favorite land will hire to to a position that
suits your ego?

Nationalism is always at the root of the death and destruction we see;
regardless of any other factor it's always our group of doorknobs is
better than your group of wicker baskets. God is always on "our" side
becasue "we" say so. "We" are always getting cheated out of something
because "we" want it. People need to behave the way "we" want them to,
have to have "our" religion, have "our" poltical system. Whatever.
Usually some megalomaniac nutcase like Chavez or Amenidijad behind it
in the end, and it really has nothing to do with religion, resource or
anything else, just the greater glory ofd those in power. There is no
"we" that is better than anyone else. "We" in sports causes a lot of
destruction and death every year. People need to be able to play a
simple fun golf match without it being blown out of proportion so that
some "we" can say "we" are better than some "they". Most people could
care less.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 14:28:17
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159196566.190034.163010@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> > then you are truly a sad little person. It has nothing to do with wars and
> > nationalism unless it gets into the hands of those who want to make it
> > more than it really is. I don't think the Europeans are about to start a
> > war anywhere, judging by their attitude in the final press conference.
> >
> > Excuse me, but when I last looked, golf is just a GAME, so everything
> > about it is "just for fun". Nothing in golf is more significant than
> > that, certainly not "regular tour events". This is the crux of the
> > Americans' problem - they just don't understand that.
> >
>
> I guess this says it all to me. I just call it like I see it. I really
> don't care that much for the Ryder Cup, and don't see anyone else
> caring, and that is and has always been my comment come this time in
> the history of human beings. You having to resort to calling me a "sad
> little man" speaks for itself on this issue. Why, because I don't see
> the Ryder Cup as being that meaningful? Why should I, or anyone else.
> There is no way 1 billion people watched the Ryder Cup. Talk about OTT
> nonsense! Where did you get that number?

Quote from the NEC Ryder Cup site for the 2002 RC:

"The scale of the event, combined with the heightened state of
international security, created a series of unique logistical
challenges. With 180,000 spectators and a global television audience of
one billion, coupled with the continued terrorist threat, the issues of
safety and security were paramount.

The NEC security team worked in partnership with Warwickshire Police at
The Belfry, taking responsibility for site security during the build-up
and breakdown as well as during the tournament itself. This involved
perimeter security, mobile patrols, security of the players
accommodation and security of the course."

And that is four years ago.

So it rather looks as though your claim that you "don't see anyone else
caring" is a little hollow.

>
> When you and I play for fun, golf is a game. When they play the Ryder
> Cup, golf is a game; the only value there is the fun of it. Take that
> away, and there is no point to it. The regular tour events are
> business. It's a totally different thing. To be good, you have to get
> over the fun idea and be able to prepare and play well when it counts.
> This should not be news to anyone.

There is no point to any game - that's why they are called "games". What
deeper philosophical meaning do you impute to the 84 Lumber Open? If
there is no money involved, it has no value? Ridiculous.
>
> Why do Americans have to "understand" anything to suit you? If
> Americans are so awful, why don't you go somewhere where the culture is
> more in tune with your world view? It couldn't be that the living and
> working conditions in say Britain aren't as good as in Columbus, could
> it...or no one in your favorite land will hire to to a position that
> suits your ego?

Aaaah, the "if you don't agree with me, why don't you move somewhere
else" tactic? Pretty lame. I am answering the question that has been
posed as to why the US team, for all their highly ranked players, seem
unable to translate it to the RC match play format (or any match play
format, for that matter. See the recent World Matchplay for early US
exits). You might not like the answer, but I have seen nothing in your
replies that indicate any better explanation. Instead you respond with
some silly cliched nonsense, that "it really isn't golf" anyway. Right.
>
> Nationalism is always at the root of the death and destruction we see;
> regardless of any other factor it's always our group of doorknobs is
> better than your group of wicker baskets. God is always on "our" side
> becasue "we" say so. "We" are always getting cheated out of something
> because "we" want it. People need to behave the way "we" want them to,
> have to have "our" religion, have "our" poltical system. Whatever.
> Usually some megalomaniac nutcase like Chavez or Amenidijad behind it
> in the end, and it really has nothing to do with religion, resource or
> anything else, just the greater glory ofd those in power. There is no
> "we" that is better than anyone else. "We" in sports causes a lot of
> destruction and death every year. People need to be able to play a
> simple fun golf match without it being blown out of proportion so that
> some "we" can say "we" are better than some "they". Most people could
> care less.

Only in America. Much of the rest of the world enjoys sports as they
should - as simply just games. Try it sometime.

William Clark

Date: 25 Sep 2006 14:48:39
From: sfb
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

If I post a quote from the Flat Earth Society will you then stay away from
the edge?

The total population of the US and Europe is only 1.1B. Unless there are lot
of Ryder Cup fans in China and India, 1B watchers seems a stretch.

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-2EE0D7.14281725092006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <1159196566.190034.163010@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>
>> > then you are truly a sad little person. It has nothing to do with wars
>> > and
>> > nationalism unless it gets into the hands of those who want to make it
>> > more than it really is. I don't think the Europeans are about to start
>> > a
>> > war anywhere, judging by their attitude in the final press conference.
>> >
>> > Excuse me, but when I last looked, golf is just a GAME, so everything
>> > about it is "just for fun". Nothing in golf is more significant than
>> > that, certainly not "regular tour events". This is the crux of the
>> > Americans' problem - they just don't understand that.
>> >
>>
>> I guess this says it all to me. I just call it like I see it. I really
>> don't care that much for the Ryder Cup, and don't see anyone else
>> caring, and that is and has always been my comment come this time in
>> the history of human beings. You having to resort to calling me a "sad
>> little man" speaks for itself on this issue. Why, because I don't see
>> the Ryder Cup as being that meaningful? Why should I, or anyone else.
>> There is no way 1 billion people watched the Ryder Cup. Talk about OTT
>> nonsense! Where did you get that number?
>
> Quote from the NEC Ryder Cup site for the 2002 RC:
>
> "The scale of the event, combined with the heightened state of
> international security, created a series of unique logistical
> challenges. With 180,000 spectators and a global television audience of
> one billion, coupled with the continued terrorist threat, the issues of
> safety and security were paramount.
>
> The NEC security team worked in partnership with Warwickshire Police at
> The Belfry, taking responsibility for site security during the build-up
> and breakdown as well as during the tournament itself. This involved
> perimeter security, mobile patrols, security of the players
> accommodation and security of the course."
>
> And that is four years ago.
>
> So it rather looks as though your claim that you "don't see anyone else
> caring" is a little hollow.
>
>
>>
>> When you and I play for fun, golf is a game. When they play the Ryder
>> Cup, golf is a game; the only value there is the fun of it. Take that
>> away, and there is no point to it. The regular tour events are
>> business. It's a totally different thing. To be good, you have to get
>> over the fun idea and be able to prepare and play well when it counts.
>> This should not be news to anyone.
>
> There is no point to any game - that's why they are called "games". What
> deeper philosophical meaning do you impute to the 84 Lumber Open? If
> there is no money involved, it has no value? Ridiculous.
>>
>> Why do Americans have to "understand" anything to suit you? If
>> Americans are so awful, why don't you go somewhere where the culture is
>> more in tune with your world view? It couldn't be that the living and
>> working conditions in say Britain aren't as good as in Columbus, could
>> it...or no one in your favorite land will hire to to a position that
>> suits your ego?
>
> Aaaah, the "if you don't agree with me, why don't you move somewhere
> else" tactic? Pretty lame. I am answering the question that has been
> posed as to why the US team, for all their highly ranked players, seem
> unable to translate it to the RC match play format (or any match play
> format, for that matter. See the recent World Matchplay for early US
> exits). You might not like the answer, but I have seen nothing in your
> replies that indicate any better explanation. Instead you respond with
> some silly cliched nonsense, that "it really isn't golf" anyway. Right.
>>
>> Nationalism is always at the root of the death and destruction we see;
>> regardless of any other factor it's always our group of doorknobs is
>> better than your group of wicker baskets. God is always on "our" side
>> becasue "we" say so. "We" are always getting cheated out of something
>> because "we" want it. People need to behave the way "we" want them to,
>> have to have "our" religion, have "our" poltical system. Whatever.
>> Usually some megalomaniac nutcase like Chavez or Amenidijad behind it
>> in the end, and it really has nothing to do with religion, resource or
>> anything else, just the greater glory ofd those in power. There is no
>> "we" that is better than anyone else. "We" in sports causes a lot of
>> destruction and death every year. People need to be able to play a
>> simple fun golf match without it being blown out of proportion so that
>> some "we" can say "we" are better than some "they". Most people could
>> care less.
>
> Only in America. Much of the rest of the world enjoys sports as they
> should - as simply just games. Try it sometime.
>
> William Clark

Date: 25 Sep 2006 16:52:35
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <3smdnb7dCvIauYXYnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

> If I post a quote from the Flat Earth Society will you then stay away from
> the edge?
>
> The total population of the US and Europe is only 1.1B. Unless there are lot
> of Ryder Cup fans in China and India, 1B watchers seems a stretch.
>
Hey, take it up with the Ryder Cup organizers (PGA and EPGA), and the
sponsors. It's their figure.

William Clark

Date: 25 Sep 2006 05:55:24
From:
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

"R&B" wrote:
> "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159125891.351671.176260@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > "R&B" wrote:
> >
> >> > 1. The announcers SUCK!
> >>
> >>
> >> I get pretty tired of hearing this, as if you viewers would be any better
> >> at
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Tell ya what. Next time I host an RSG-ATLANTA, I will make it a point to
> >> get a few of my friends who do video work to come out and we'll part of
> >> the
> >> "tunamint" round. Then, all you RSG'ers who hate the network TV
> >> announcers
> >> can come to my studio and lay down your own play-by-play voiceovers to
> >> sync
> >> up with the edited video highlights, and we'll see if you can do any
> >> better
> >> with the director (me) talking in your ear the whole time.
> >
> > Why is it that whenever someone dares criticize announcers, golfers,
> > football players, whoever, someone chimes in with "you couldn't do any
> > better yourself."? Andrcom didn't say he could. I couldn't. Most
> > couldn't. However, it's an opinion - have you ever walked out of a
> > movie that sucked and told someone it sucked? Could you direct it any
> > better? Are you a better actor? No, but you certainly are entitled to
> > your opinion.
>
>
>
> My impatience with this argument is borne from two things:
>
> 1, It happens, like clockwork, after every major and every "major-like"
> event, such as the Ryder Cup.
>
> 2. Saying that the announcers "sucked" is an extremely inarticulate (and
> frankly, unintelligent) way of communicating what one thinks is really wrong
> with them, and in many cases, ignores the fact that much of what they do is
> not stuff they do on their own, but is stuff they're TOLD to do by the
> director. Of cours that's not always the case, but it often is. I'd much
> rather see people articulate what they think is wrong, how they would change
> it, and what their ideal method would be. Few ever do, because, honestly,
> they don't really know. They only know what they don't like when they hear
> it. Any monkey can do that.
>
> Elsewhere in this thread, I have posed two challenges. I would offer the
> same challenges to you...or anyone:
>
> Challenge 1 -- Be the director. Rather than picking apart last week's show,
> let's hear what you'd say in a conference room setting with your staff of
> on-course announcer's for NEXT WEEK'S telecast. Tell them not only what you
> don't want them to do, but what you DO want them to do...and HOW you want
> them to do it. If you're so certain that your ideas are better, then you
> must have some ideas. Let's hear them.
>
> Challenge 2 -- Sometime in the next couple of weeks when I have time, I'll
> go through and isolate, oh, maybe 5-minutes from a golf telecast. I'll
> remove the announcers from the sound. (This may require that I overdub some
> golf and crowd sound effects to create the full effect of what broadcasters
> call a "mix minus," which amounts to the sound of everything BUT the
> announcers. I'll encode that to a Windows Media and Quick Time file, and
> point you to a link where you can download it. You can then watch that
> video while recording your own play-by-play, live to digital format. If you
> don't have digital audio recording software, I can point you to a link where
> you can download a fairly popular freeware application that will do just
> such recording. Capture your play-by-play audio to a digital file and send
> it to me. I'll then sync it up to the video and post it online for all of
> RSG to see and hear. This is not a test to see how "brilliant" you'll be as
> a TV announcer. You're quite right in saying not everyone can be good at
> it. But if their ideas are so brilliant, then the concepts behind what
> they're doing (and not doing) ought to shine through their feeble
> performance, and we'll be able to judge for ourselves if your ideas are as
> brilliant as you would have us believe.
>
> Personally, it's my belief that most people are only capable of saying what
> they don't like. They're not generally able to articulate what it is they'd
> like to see done, and how.
>
> Here's your chance.
>
> Man up.
>
> Randy

Randy,
If you are offering me a microphone, watch out what you wish for.
Andy

Date: 25 Sep 2006 12:18:29
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

I can agree with you, but IMHO, it is selfish to make too much of these
groups, especially when you use it to try to set yourself above the
rest. The US Tour does more for charity than just about any other
sporting organization. I wonder what St. Judes Children's hospital in
Memphis would be without the US PGA Tour?

You can see the selfishness of another poster talking about knocking
the stuffing out of the highest ranked US team ever. What's the point
to that? I have yet to find anyone who cared to have an opinion who
thought htat this years team was anything but weak with respect to this
event. Looking at reality, European golf is much weaker than say 1990.
The only major champion on the Euro Ryder Cup team was Olazabal, and he
is more than a little long in the tooth golfwise. A far cry from teams
that had guys like Lyle, Woosnam, Faldo, and Seve. European golfers
eeem only to be able to win on their own tour. Aussies, South Africans
and Americans win when the best get together. It's been a long time
since Lauries win at Carnoustie. Funny thing is that back in those
days, the Ryder Cup really was a vindication for European golf, and
they had the horses on their team to make it meaningful. I cannot
beleive for a moment any Euro player, even Monty, would run around
saying he is better than TIger Woods or Phil Mickelson because the
Euros won the Ryder Cup. It's a ridiculous statement.

I wonder though, how many Ryder Cup wins would Monty give for a solid
approach on 18 on the 72nd hole of the US Open this year...or for solid
play on those holes he messed up at St. Andrew's a couple of yeqars
ago...how many Ryder Cup wins would it be worth to him to be have had
beaten Tiger Woods by a stroke or two to win The Open Championship at
St. Andrews?

IMHO, it's pretty petty and selfish to hold up the Ryder Cup and say
this is as meaningful as The Open Championship. It's a putdown of the
people who do win The Open Championship, and it's not their fault that
European golfers don't win it very often....and all they really have is
the Ryder Cup.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 12:05:13
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1159196566.190034.163010@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> Quote from the NEC Ryder Cup site for the 2002 RC:
>
> "The scale of the event, combined with the heightened state of
> international security, created a series of unique logistical
> challenges. With 180,000 spectators and a global television audience of
> one billion, coupled with the continued terrorist threat, the issues of
> safety and security were paramount.

...and what that clearly means is that they are carried on networks
that reach a billion. If everyone who could watch the Ryder Cup did, a
billion would watch. The issue is how many did watch. The 180,000
spectators is the total gate over all the days spectators were allowed.
It's not like 180,000 different people went there as spectators. They
wouldn't fit if nothing else.

You don't have "footbal hooligans" in the US. Fans don't murder
referees in the US. Why you would present such an obvious false
statement about who takes sport too seriously and who does not is
revealing, because you have to know better.

It's a lot easier to be a member of a group that just plays a sport for
the fun of it. Lots of support. Lots of hugs. It's a lot harder to
stand alone and deliver the goods when it counts. Anyone can be part of
a fun group out for a good game of golf with nothing on the line, like
the Ryder Cup. The reason for social behavior is not reflected at all
in sports. Social behavior is about working together to get things
done, and each indivudual makes his contribution. A crew builds a house
a lot better than one person would, if they all work to do their best.
If the electrician fails, or the plumber fails, they all fail. If the
same crew plays a golf match with the people building the house across
the street, it doesn't really mean anything. It's fun. Woohoo, but it's
nothing beyond that. IMHO, Americans are much more realistic about this
than anyone else. They can root for their favorite team and not carry
it any further than that a lot better than peoples in other nations,
who see this stuff much more as a matter of personal pride. What should
be the matter of personbal pride is the actual work they do.

Anyways, thats enough for me for thus cycle. Nationalism in all it's
manifestations is evil, and thats no exaggeration in any sense.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 17:02:22
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159211113.390283.115800@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1159196566.190034.163010@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >
> > Quote from the NEC Ryder Cup site for the 2002 RC:
> >
> > "The scale of the event, combined with the heightened state of
> > international security, created a series of unique logistical
> > challenges. With 180,000 spectators and a global television audience of
> > one billion, coupled with the continued terrorist threat, the issues of
> > safety and security were paramount.
>
> ...and what that clearly means is that they are carried on networks
> that reach a billion. If everyone who could watch the Ryder Cup did, a
> billion would watch. The issue is how many did watch. The 180,000
> spectators is the total gate over all the days spectators were allowed.
> It's not like 180,000 different people went there as spectators. They
> wouldn't fit if nothing else.

Semantics - the important thing is how many people watched some or all
of the RC. If you have a problem with the figure, take it up with the RC
organizers and sponsors - it's their number.
>
> You don't have "footbal hooligans" in the US. Fans don't murder
> referees in the US. Why you would present such an obvious false
> statement about who takes sport too seriously and who does not is
> revealing, because you have to know better.

Oh, no? Where have you been? The hockey coach killed by an angry parent,
the football parent who ran on the field and knocked down a 12-year old
kid, burning cars and dumpsters after big college football games,
drunken fights in the stands at NFL games, and so on. Geography and
ticket prices dictate that large groups of fans cannot travel as they do
to soccer in Europe, but that's abut the only difference. How much fan
violence was their at this Summer's World Cup, given that over 1M fans
went to games? Little or none. Besides, I don't recall saying that was
how sport should be treated - I said it is all just a game.
>
> It's a lot easier to be a member of a group that just plays a sport for
> the fun of it. Lots of support. Lots of hugs. It's a lot harder to
> stand alone and deliver the goods when it counts.

What do you have to "deliver"? It just depends on how desperately you
have to win. "Delivering" a good time as a form of relaxation is what
golf and other games are about. Good heavens, they are not life and
death.

>Anyone can be part of
> a fun group out for a good game of golf with nothing on the line, like
> the Ryder Cup. The reason for social behavior is not reflected at all
> in sports. Social behavior is about working together to get things
> done, and each indivudual makes his contribution. A crew builds a house
> a lot better than one person would, if they all work to do their best.
> If the electrician fails, or the plumber fails, they all fail. If the
> same crew plays a golf match with the people building the house across
> the street, it doesn't really mean anything. It's fun. Woohoo, but it's
> nothing beyond that. IMHO, Americans are much more realistic about this
> than anyone else. They can root for their favorite team and not carry
> it any further than that a lot better than peoples in other nations,
> who see this stuff much more as a matter of personal pride. What should
> be the matter of personbal pride is the actual work they do.

I have no problem with that - it's your claim that somehow the PGA Order
of Merit is of major significance, while winning the RC is just a game
that I challenge. In the scheme of things, some phony "ranking" for a
single aspect of a game is of absolutely no consequence to anything
important. It's still just a game.
>
> Anyways, thats enough for me for thus cycle. Nationalism in all it's
> manifestations is evil, and thats no exaggeration in any sense.

Whatever.

William Clark

Date: 26 Sep 2006 07:18:23
From: johnty
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Jack Thompson wrote:
> johnty wrote:
>
> >
> > Is your claim that the "British fans are norotiously the worst" based
> > purely on what you make up, or did you hear some guys talk down at the
> > bar as well?
>
> Ok, I'll give you three links more geared towards the Br...err...
> English.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4789954.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/798576.stm
> http://www.harrisinteractive.com/europe/news/2006/worldcupfans.asp
>
> So I'd say their being "notoriously the worst" is true, at least in
> Europe.
>

Do you have any deep understanding of this, or are you just using press
bites thrown up by Google?

While England football is not trouble free, efforts made by decent fans
and the authorities over the last few years have made significant
improvements, but the past reputation and the focus of the media makes
it look a lot worse than is currently the case. A number of other
European countries have a worse problem these days.

Almost anything gets the tabloid press headlines if England are
involved, but surely your sharp awareness of football incidents will
recall the press coverage given, for instance, to the two men from
Leeds, England who were stabbed to death by the genuinely notorious
fans of Galatasaray, Turkey. The same fans who stabbed (but did not
kill, thankfully) an Arsenal (London) fan in Denmark just months later.

Check out the Italian's shameful home record, for example Inter Milan
or Fiorentina.
How about the Ultras from Holland and Germany?
How about the overt racism in Spain, so bad their own government had to
intervene?

Are these better or worse than having a hundred or so fans arrested for
drunkeness or a brawl involving a few broken glasses and a couple of
thrown chairs?

Date: 26 Sep 2006 01:57:05
From: Jack Thompson
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

johnty wrote:

>
> Is your claim that the "British fans are norotiously the worst" based
> purely on what you make up, or did you hear some guys talk down at the
> bar as well?

Ok, I'll give you three links more geared towards the Br...err...
English.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4789954.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/798576.stm
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/europe/news/2006/worldcupfans.asp

So I'd say their being "notoriously the worst" is true, at least in
Europe.

Now are they actually the worst? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure you could
find statistics to back up either side. But they're certainly near the
top.

What started this was my response to "only in America." Yes, America
certainly has its share of violence related to sports, but lots of
other countries hardly take everything as "only a game."

Date: 26 Sep 2006 00:58:35
From: johnty
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Jack Thompson wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> >
> > Only in America. Much of the rest of the world enjoys sports as they
> > should - as simply just games. Try it sometime.
> >
>
> Yeah, right. It's much worse in Europe, especially with British fans.
>
> http://www.emergency.com/wldcup98.htm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5081684.stm
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/15/sportsline/main1714956.shtml
>

Your links do not back up your claim about British Fans (by which you
mean English fans). English fans were involved but the stories concern
other European countries fans' more.

> At this year's World Cup, more than 400 people were arrested in Germany
> after clashes around the World Cup match between the host nation and
> Poland.

Yes, nearly all of them either Poles or Germans!

>
> In the two worst incidents, English fans battled local French North
> Africans for three days in Marseille,

Let's ignore the French police quote about most of the damage being
caused by local youths -- it doesn't fit your prejudice.

>
> German hooligans beat a French policeman nearly to death.

Ah, those "British" fans again....

The last season statistics for the English football premier division
show a total attendance of 26 million, with approximately 2,700
arrests. That's about 0.01 percent.

Is your claim that the "British fans are norotiously the worst" based
purely on what you make up, or did you hear some guys talk down at the
bar as well?

Date: 26 Sep 2006 14:14:33
From: Howard9
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159257515.402326.294370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
johnty1@hotmail.com says...
> Is your claim that the "British fans are norotiously the worst" based
> purely on what you make up, or did you hear some guys talk down at the
> bar as well?
>

His point is really that he wished the focus would move away from the
Ryder Cup trouncing.

LOL

--
Howard

Date: 26 Sep 2006 07:02:16
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159257515.402326.294370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Jack Thompson wrote:
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Only in America. Much of the rest of the world enjoys sports as they
> > > should - as simply just games. Try it sometime.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, right. It's much worse in Europe, especially with British fans.
> >
> > http://www.emergency.com/wldcup98.htm
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5081684.stm
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/15/sportsline/main1714956.shtml
> >
>
> Your links do not back up your claim about British Fans (by which you
> mean English fans). English fans were involved but the stories concern
> other European countries fans' more.
>
>
> > At this year's World Cup, more than 400 people were arrested in Germany
> > after clashes around the World Cup match between the host nation and
> > Poland.
>
> Yes, nearly all of them either Poles or Germans!
>
>
> >
> > In the two worst incidents, English fans battled local French North
> > Africans for three days in Marseille,
>
>
> Let's ignore the French police quote about most of the damage being
> caused by local youths -- it doesn't fit your prejudice.
>
>
> >
> > German hooligans beat a French policeman nearly to death.
>
>
> Ah, those "British" fans again....
>
>
> The last season statistics for the English football premier division
> show a total attendance of 26 million, with approximately 2,700
> arrests. That's about 0.01 percent.
>
> Is your claim that the "British fans are norotiously the worst" based
> purely on what you make up, or did you hear some guys talk down at the
> bar as well?

Careful, you're in danger of bursting his particular bubble of prejudice.

William Clark

Date: 26 Sep 2006 00:24:59
From: Jack Thompson
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Howard9 wrote:

>
> A completely hilarious reply when you consider that the US hardly takes
> part in ANY international sport and rarely hosts an international event.
> It can only dream of a sport like football that encompasses almost the
> whole world and brings dozens of international teams and millions of
> fans to the host country.
>

What the hell are you babbling on about? The US hosted the World Cup in
1994 and the Summer Olympics in 1996 and 1984.

As far as the US hardly taking part in ANY international sport? Were
you shooting for the most ignorant post ever?

Anyway, the point was about the fans, not the host countries. And the
British fans are notoriously the worst.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 26 Sep 2006 07:06:32
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159255499.419967.252390@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"Jack Thompson" <jacqueszmonkey@aol.com > wrote:

> Howard9 wrote:
>
> >
> > A completely hilarious reply when you consider that the US hardly takes
> > part in ANY international sport and rarely hosts an international event.
> > It can only dream of a sport like football that encompasses almost the
> > whole world and brings dozens of international teams and millions of
> > fans to the host country.
> >
>
> What the hell are you babbling on about? The US hosted the World Cup in
> 1994 and the Summer Olympics in 1996 and 1984.
>
> As far as the US hardly taking part in ANY international sport? Were
> you shooting for the most ignorant post ever?
>
> Anyway, the point was about the fans, not the host countries. And the
> British fans are notoriously the worst.

Well, I'm sorry to tell you that Sports Illustrated now places the US in
the traditionally British "gallant loser" category after the weekend.
The RC stays in Europe, the US is bounced out of the Davis Cup, the US
basketball team can't even medal at the World Championships, the US
baseball team likewise, the US soccer team is bounced out of the World
Cup at the first hurdle. Ouch.

I think we need to figure this team sport thing out better.

William Clark

Date: 25 Sep 2006 22:48:35
From: Jack Thompson
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

William A. T. Clark wrote:

>
> Only in America. Much of the rest of the world enjoys sports as they
> should - as simply just games. Try it sometime.
>

Yeah, right. It's much worse in Europe, especially with British fans.

http://www.emergency.com/wldcup98.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5081684.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/15/sportsline/main1714956.shtml

At this year's World Cup, more than 400 people were arrested in Germany
after clashes around the World Cup match between the host nation and
Poland.

At the 1998 World Cup, at least 3,200 people were injured in tournament
violence; 400 people hospitalized. Police arrested more than 700.

In the two worst incidents, English fans battled local French North
Africans for three days in Marseille, and German neo-Nazis clashed with
police in Lens.

German hooligans beat a French policeman nearly to death.

At the 2000 European Championship, co-hosted by Belgium and the
Netherlands, 945 Britons were arrested for soccer violence. The most
severe rioting was in Charleroi and Brussels and led to European soccer
administrators threatening England with expulsion from the tournament.

Date: 26 Sep 2006 07:01:13
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159249715.418321.59960@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"Jack Thompson" <jacqueszmonkey@aol.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> >
> > Only in America. Much of the rest of the world enjoys sports as they
> > should - as simply just games. Try it sometime.
> >
>
> Yeah, right. It's much worse in Europe, especially with British fans.
>
> http://www.emergency.com/wldcup98.htm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5081684.stm
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/15/sportsline/main1714956.shtml
>
> At this year's World Cup, more than 400 people were arrested in Germany
> after clashes around the World Cup match between the host nation and
> Poland.

400 out of how many? Actual attendance at the games was 3,353,655, plus
others who travelled but did not have tickets for the games. That's one
for about every 10,000 fans attending games - I think any city would
settle for crime figures that low. And these arrests were almost all for
drunkenness, rather than violence.
>
> At the 1998 World Cup, at least 3,200 people were injured in tournament
> violence; 400 people hospitalized. Police arrested more than 700.

That's eight years ago - times change. Besides, I have outlined the
particular reasons for soccer's issues, and I would simply say to them,
too, that it is only a game.

William Clark

Date: 26 Sep 2006 23:02:06
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

William A. T. Clark wrote:

> 400 out of how many? Actual attendance at the games was 3,353,655, plus
> others who travelled but did not have tickets for the games.

I reckon more than 400 got arrested during the Sydney Olympics.

Come to think of it, there'd be that many arrested over two weeks in
Sydney *without* the Olympics.

--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 2006 21:19:20
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <OjiSg.36870$rP1.33987@news-server.bigpond.net.au >,
Colin Wilson <nowhere@nospam.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> > 400 out of how many? Actual attendance at the games was 3,353,655, plus
> > others who travelled but did not have tickets for the games.
>
> I reckon more than 400 got arrested during the Sydney Olympics.
>
> Come to think of it, there'd be that many arrested over two weeks in
> Sydney *without* the Olympics.

Thank you. At least someone understands.

William Clark

Date: 26 Sep 2006 08:01:34
From: Howard9
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

In article <1159249715.418321.59960@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
jacqueszmonkey@aol.com says...
>
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> >
> > Only in America. Much of the rest of the world enjoys sports as they
> > should - as simply just games. Try it sometime.
> >
>
> Yeah, right. It's much worse in Europe, especially with British fans.
>
> http://www.emergency.com/wldcup98.htm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5081684.stm
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/15/sportsline/main1714956.shtml
>
> At this year's World Cup, more than 400 people were arrested in Germany
> after clashes around the World Cup match between the host nation and
> Poland.
>
> At the 1998 World Cup, at least 3,200 people were injured in tournament
> violence; 400 people hospitalized. Police arrested more than 700.
>
> In the two worst incidents, English fans battled local French North
> Africans for three days in Marseille, and German neo-Nazis clashed with
> police in Lens.
>
> German hooligans beat a French policeman nearly to death.
>
> At the 2000 European Championship, co-hosted by Belgium and the
> Netherlands, 945 Britons were arrested for soccer violence. The most
> severe rioting was in Charleroi and Brussels and led to European soccer
> administrators threatening England with expulsion from the tournament.
>

A completely hilarious reply when you consider that the US hardly takes
part in ANY international sport and rarely hosts an international event.
It can only dream of a sport like football that encompasses almost the
whole world and brings dozens of international teams and millions of
fans to the host country.

Yeah.. humiliating defeat really brings out the saddest form of excuses.

--
Howard

Date: 27 Sep 2006 00:40:06
From: Jack Thompson
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Howard9 wrote:
> In article <1159257515.402326.294370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> johnty1@hotmail.com says...
> > Is your claim that the "British fans are norotiously the worst" based
> > purely on what you make up, or did you hear some guys talk down at the
> > bar as well?
> >
>
> His point is really that he wished the focus would move away from the
> Ryder Cup trouncing.
>

Actually, in another newsgroup I'm defending the quality of the
European Tour. I just thought the comment that only America takes
sports too seriously was silly, and by singling out the English, it's
turned into this.

Date: 27 Sep 2006 00:30:25
From: Jack Thompson
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

William A. T. Clark wrote:

>
> Careful, you're in danger of bursting his particular bubble of prejudice.
>

For someone who stated:

<<Only in America. Much of the rest of the world enjoys sports as they
should - as simply just games. Try it sometime. >>

...you really aren't one to talk.

Date: 27 Sep 2006 00:25:54
From: Jack Thompson
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?

Howard9 wrote:
> In article <1159255499.419967.252390@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> jacqueszmonkey@aol.com says...
> >
> > Howard9 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > A completely hilarious reply when you consider that the US hardly takes
> > > part in ANY international sport and rarely hosts an international event.
> > > It can only dream of a sport like football that encompasses almost the
> > > whole world and brings dozens of international teams and millions of
> > > fans to the host country.
> > >
> >
> > What the hell are you babbling on about? The US hosted the World Cup in
> > 1994 and the Summer Olympics in 1996 and 1984.
>
> Woooo... two events in eight years... amazing !!
>

Wooo...which country has hosted them more in recent years?

I listed the top two sporting events in the world. There are endless
international competitions that are hosted by the US. You can look them
up yourself.