[Aagotiq]

And as the old saying goes, "Opinions are like...", well, you know the rest.

Guys like Chamblee certainly impress the masses because he looks good on camera and speaks well and the public believes that anyone with a microphone and thirty seconds of air time is automatically some kind of expert anyway. But from a player's perspective, Chamblee's street cred is virtually non-existent because his only claim to fame is winning the Greater Vancouver Open and if I'm a fellow Tour player - especially someone like Tiger, I'd politely thank him for his observations and then I'd walk away. Perception is reality and I just can't see a top-shelf player like Tiger putting a whole lot of stock in the opinions of a guy whose career consisted largely of showing up for a tournament and little else.

It's like Monday Night Football. When Jaworski and Gruden start talking "X's and O's", Tirico seems like a fish out of water because he never played a down of pro football. Thankfully, Tirico recognizes this and sticks to what he does best; play-by-play, and leaves the "been there" stuff to the players.

If Chamblee were some renowned golf instructor - like Kostis or Ledbetter, then he'd have more credibility. But Chamblee has no such credentials (to my knowledge) and since his career consisted more about making Friday evening travel plans than kissing trophies, I just don't see a whole lot of players putting a whole lot of stock in what he has to say.

From a layperson's point of view, I'm sure he comes off as some kind of Einstein. But from a player's point of view - from a jock's point of view - there has to be some "Been there, done that" angle for them to take him seriously and Chamblee's career just doesn't bear that out.


Like I said, "Opinions are like..."

and that's mine.



-JP

So a guy like Tom Purtzer who was known for years as having one of the greatest golf swings ever, but had little success on tour should not give advice on the golf swing? A great color commentator is not made because he won tournies. He is made because he is good at his job after golf.

While the only people that should really give advice are instructors, to say that because he won once and not as many as the other guys, he should not is ridiculous. Its HIS JOB TO DO SO! Your thoughts on Jaws say it all. What the heck did Jaworski ever do in his NFL career? Yet he is looked at as an expert.

He has far more thoughts and abilities than you, me, and everybody else here, yet given the opportunity most are not shy on shedding light on Tiger's game.

Your analogy that you chose with Jaws simply is perfect. He is looked at as a genius now and was an average to above average QB at best. Yet Dan Marino who was one of the best ever cannot hold a candle to him.

[Uzezqelj]

So a guy like Tom Purtzer who was known for years as having one of the greatest golf swings ever, but had little success on tour should not give advice on the golf swing? A great color commentator is not made because he won tournies. He is made because he is good at his job after golf.

While the only people that should really give advice are instructors, to say that because he won once and not as many as the other guys, he should not is ridiculous. Its HIS JOB TO DO SO! Your thoughts on Jaws say it all. What the heck did Jaworski ever do in his NFL career? Yet he is looked at as an expert.

He has far more thoughts and abilities than you, me, and everybody else here, yet given the opportunity most are not shy on shedding light on Tiger's game.

Your analogy that you chose with Jaws simply is perfect. He is looked at as a genius now and was an average to above average QB at best. Yet Dan Marino who was one of the best ever cannot hold a candle to him.

It's his job?

What job is that? To babble into a microphone all day long?

Once again, you've completely missed my point which is that from Tiger's point of view, I hardly think that he'd put a whole lot of stock in anything a no-name like Chamblee would have to say.

That's it.

Whether or not Chamblee knows what he's talking about is irrelevant - he simply has no "history".

And as far as the MNF analogy goes, I'm comparing Tirico (a civillian) to Jaworski (a player) and Gruden (a coach). In that food chain, Tirico knows to keep his mouth shut when it comes to the technicalities of playing pro football because he has no history in that regard. Tirico may very well have some great insight, but from a player's point of view that would be worthless because he's never been there. The similarity between that and Chamblee/Tiger is that Chamblee has never walked Tiger's walk, so from a player's point of view, Chamblee's credibility is less than someone like Faldo whether he knows what he's talking about or not.

Perception is reality.

And what was so great about Marino anyway? He's a nice guy, he put up a bunch of gaudy numbers, but where are the rings? The stats may prove that someone has the experience but the rings give him the street cred.

Is that fair? No. But that's the way it is.



-JP

[Aagotiq]

But Jaworski is the exact same as Chamblee. The exact same. A journeyman player that had a flash of success. Played a long time. Now is looked at by fans as an expert offering brilliant advice. The only way to get history is to state opinions and theories long enough. Exactly what Jaws has done.

The same could be said about Chamblee. The exact same thing!

[Aagotiq]

Gee, I'll bet Tiger is up nights thinking about this.


Chamblee is OK I guess but I have to laugh when I consider that that a guy who has won exactly one Tour event in an 18 year career (an obscure Canadian event at that) is offering advice to a guy who will most likely break every PGA Tour record ever established in the history of the PGA Tour before he turns 40.


-JP

How is this any different than what Jaworski does on an everyday basis.

[TouccuraLar]

It's his job?

What job is that? To babble into a microphone all day long?

Once again, you've completely missed my point which is that from Tiger's point of view, I hardly think that he'd put a whole lot of stock in anything a no-name like Chamblee would have to say.

That's it.

Whether or not Chamblee knows what he's talking about is irrelevant - he simply has no "history".

And as far as the MNF analogy goes, I'm comparing Tirico (a civillian) to Jaworski (a player) and Gruden (a coach). In that food chain, Tirico knows to keep his mouth shut when it comes to the technicalities of playing pro football because he has no history in that regard. Tirico may very well have some great insight, but from a player's point of view that would be worthless because he's never been there. The similarity between that and Chamblee/Tiger is that Chamblee has never walked Tiger's walk, so from a player's point of view, Chamblee's credibility is less than someone like Faldo whether he knows what he's talking about or not.

Perception is reality.

And what was so great about Marino anyway? He's a nice guy, he put up a bunch of gaudy numbers, but where are the rings? The stats may prove that someone has the experience but the rings give him the street cred.

Is that fair? No. But that's the way it is.



-JP

Jp,

I seriously doubt Tiger gives a crap what anybody thinks of his swing.It's what hank and him think is all that matters to tiger. Tiger has never been known to care what others say or think about him.He always proves them wrong on the course.

[Kragh]

Gee, I'll bet Tiger is up nights thinking about this.


Chamblee is OK I guess but I have to laugh when I consider that that a guy who has won exactly one Tour event in an 18 year career (an obscure Canadian event at that) is offering advice to a guy who will most likely break every PGA Tour record ever established in the history of the PGA Tour before he turns 40.

As far as announcers go, if I had to choose between Faldo and Chamblee, I'd take Faldo hands down. Faldo is funny, he's right to the point, he knows what he's talking about and he's very self-effacing. Add to that the fact that Faldo has almost won more majors than Brandel has even entered and I'll take what Nick has to say over anything Brandel (if it wasn't for the fact that they gave me a microphone, nobody would know who I am) Chamblee has to say.


What else have you got?



-JP

How many PGA tournaments did Butch Harmon or David Leadbetter win? Tournament wins mean nothing when it comes to swing analysis. I could make the argument that a guy who is not as talented a player must go far deeper into analysis out of necessity than any great player. I think Tiger's driving accuracy problem is because of his equipment not his swing. But what do I know.

[neeclindy]

Gee, I'll bet Tiger is up nights thinking about this.


Chamblee is OK I guess but I have to laugh when I consider that that a guy who has won exactly one Tour event in an 18 year career (an obscure Canadian event at that) is offering advice to a guy who will most likely break every PGA Tour record ever established in the history of the PGA Tour before he turns 40.

As far as announcers go, if I had to choose between Faldo and Chamblee, I'd take Faldo hands down. Faldo is funny, he's right to the point, he knows what he's talking about and he's very self-effacing. Add to that the fact that Faldo has almost won more majors than Brandel has even entered and I'll take what Nick has to say over anything Brandel (if it wasn't for the fact that they gave me a microphone, nobody would know who I am) Chamblee has to say.


What else have you got?



-JP

Like you say, opinions are just that.... opinions. I happen to far prefer Johnny Miller to Faldo... In fact I find Faldo a good reason to switch from golf to something else. I really DON'T like him. That's just my opinion.

I think that Chamblee is a decent analyst, he's a good speaker, and it's his job to do those things. If he isn't doing them then there is a lot of dead air, he gets fired, and someone else maybe even less qualified is babbling into the microphone. What do you really what after all? Just picture and lots of silence? It ain't gonna happen.

[Kragh]

But Jaworski is the exact same as Chamblee. The exact same. A journeyman player that had a flash of success. Played a long time. Now is looked at by fans as an expert offering brilliant advice. The only way to get history is to state opinions and theories long enough. Exactly what Jaws has done.

The same could be said about Chamblee. The exact same thing!

Did you see Jaworski play? I would take him over more than half the QBs playing today. Probably better than all but the top 5 today. I think you can know a lot about the game without being great at the game. I pitched baseball for much longer than most people play the game and although I did not play professionally I can tell you what pitch a guy is going to throw and where he is going to throw it with about 95% accuracy. You don't have to have been a great player to understand the game, that is why the greatest managers and coaches are guys who studied the game and they are not usually great players, very rarely are great players good students of any game.

[Aagotiq]

Did you see Jaworski play? I would take him over more than half the QBs playing today. Probably better than all but the top 5 today. I think you can know a lot about the game without being great at the game. I pitched baseball for much longer than most people play the game and although I did not play professionally I can tell you what pitch a guy is going to throw and where he is going to throw it with about 95% accuracy. You don't have to have been a great player to understand the game, that is why the greatest managers and coaches are guys who studied the game and they are not usually great players, very rarely are great players good students of any game.

Yeah I saw Jaws play and I would disagree 100%. His stats are average like best, and he was a journeyman QB. He is exactly what Chamblee is. Chamblee was a guy that competed at the highest level for a long period of time but never really racked up victories. Nothing wrong with that at all.

My point was, as you clearly pointed out as well, that you do not have to be at the top to give advice. If that was the case, nobody could ever point out flaws to Tiger on commentary other than a small group.

[Uzezqelj]

Like you say, opinions are just that.... opinions. I happen to far prefer Johnny Miller to Faldo... In fact I find Faldo a good reason to switch from golf to something else. I really DON'T like him. That's just my opinion.

I think that Chamblee is a decent analyst, he's a good speaker, and it's his job to do those things. If he isn't doing them then there is a lot of dead air, he gets fired, and someone else maybe even less qualified is babbling into the microphone. What do you really what after all? Just picture and lots of silence? It ain't gonna happen.

Actually, what I would like is the way they do it on the European Tour; Renton Laidlaw, one other guy, very little "chit chat" and lots of golf.

The model exists, all they need to do here is follow it.

As far as preferences go, I really like Johnny Miller too and from an analyst's point of view, there are none better. I like Faldo just as much, but for different reasons. He's astute, but not in such a didactic way as Miller - it's more like listening to a friend who really knows his stuff and has some funny stories to go with it.


-JP