Minnesota Majestic

[onemilemore]

So, why was the interview content better after The Majestic than after Järva?

I think that the reason why the content was better during Terry's interview was because Rick was speaking to Terry, answering his questions, not staring through a camera lens, into oblivion, like after Järva.



Amanda Balionis was doing all the post-round interviews for the PGA this past weekend for NBC/TNT and they showed her while interviewing all of her subjects. And the players spoke to her (not into the camera) while answering her questions and she got important details about their rounds. Those interviews were excellent. (Of course, leaving the camera on a nice looking reporter is a lot easier decision to make than leaving the camera on Terry. )

Of all the post game interviews I've seen (NFL, NBA, F1, Soccer, etc.) the subjects all maintain engagement with the interviewer throughout. Camera's might zoom in during the answer sometimes, or even during the question too, but the subject is still always speaking to the interviewer.



Absolutely agree the interviewer is not the subject. And as the subject, Ricky came across way better during Terry's interview (no zoom) than during Avery's interview (with zoom.)

And I also agree that Terry shouldn't be the subject during interviews. But I also don't know too many folks who would say that Avery (with all of his distracting tics, gestures, foibles and general aggro-infomercial/pitch-man delivery) doesn't draw at least some of the audience's attention away from whoever he's interviewing and, as a result, making himself kind of the subject too.

I guess my quarrel isn't with the zoom, specifically, but with where the subject is looking while answering the interviewer's questions. After a question is posed, the subject shouldn't then break engagement with the interviewer and stare into the camera to give their answer. It's jarring visually. Awkward. And it's not just with Rick. I've noticed the same thing happens at a bunch of the pre-tournament interviews that DGWT posts - I'm remembering McBeth.

Whatever. Jussi obviously has his play book that prescribes all of this and I respect that. After all, I'm still watching. And that final round at Järva, and specifically hole 18 was the absolute sickest finish of the season. So the joke's on me, I guess. Lol.

Doing this on my phone so I won't break this whole thing down, but I think we're in agreement on the main point that the interview subject is the one who the focus should be on. I didn't catch the World Tour one, but I am betting Rick got nervous and didn't know he should still look at Avery instead of the camera. NFL players are much more media savvy and know to look at the interviewer and pretend the camera isn't there. I'm wondering if the cameraman could move somewhere less intrusive as well and still get the shot, so it is less distracting and less likely to take away from the interview subject's engagement.

We could probably go on for days about the nuances of this stuff. Suffice to say I'd rather have the interviewer off camera (but I also get incredibly distracted by Terry's nod-and-look-to-the-camera move, so that informs my opinion as well).

 

[corin_brown]

Polecats are awesome, Corin. Pick a different punishment.

Lol, I know, I know. I love my "canned ham." I just threw it in there b/c I know most people think it's an absurd disc.

 

[jvphobic]

First a question about the technology. There are 3 cameras rolling, one on screen live at a time (or 2 when split screen). Is the video from all 3 cameras saved or only what's shown on my screen? If it's all saved you can always show the "missed ace" later. Maybe even on that fancy replay system. If we only get to keep the video that shows up on my screen then it's hard to say what is best on wooded holes.

I'm a fan of the mid-flight hard cut. Maybe a bit tough to do on the tightest BRP type holes for disc tracking, but on slightly more open "fairway" holes the cut looks great - thrower view and cut to basket view.

Also, did anyone give any love for the "info bar" at the bottom powered by UDisc? Player name, current score, fairways hit, greens hit etc. that was awesome. Also the scrolling score bar with up to date scores in real time. (Speed it up about double speed) those were all awesome, and recommendations we had.

I think that same info bar could have hole info and/or hole map and you'd have all the bases covered from a viewer experience into what is going on.

I like when the players talk to the camera about the hole, strategy, etc. What if Dana, Val, Nate and crew did a little "chalk talk" pointing at a hole map and pointing out landing zones, hazards, attack strategy. That would be killer.

With current tech we can only record what is being shown live. There are ways to record the other cameras, we currently don't use that because we have no one to edit that footage on the fly if we did catch something like that. More people is more money. We do record local on the cameras in case cool **** happens, we have a good looking copy.

The UDisc lower thirds are great! With my new software we could finally support the scroll at the bottom. (I will speed it up next show).

As far as talking chalk, so to speak, that is kinda why we have the hole previews with the pros. There is a graphic I have access to that shows hole map and info, but the BRP ones are ugly as sin and I made the executive decision to not use them. But I love all the stats that UDisc provides us on the fly. It adds a lot of depth to the story. I am not looking forward to Worlds where we won't have all these stats on hand.

 

[corin_brown]

Dude that was a total miss.

Yeah, I said it was a miss. Here:

I was referring to Nate's miss on the last playoff hole.

He missed his spot by 5 or 6 inches,

See, here's where I think we have to agree to disagree. I think he missed his spot by four or five inches. No way he missed by six inches. No way.

and on those baskets that putt is spitting out, chaining out, or whatever else you want to call it WAY more often then its dropping in.

Nah. I think it's dropping in close to 50% of the time. Besides, I thought you said the % of that throw going in was irrelevant to this discussion? Whatever.

The fact that he hit chains

... and a lot of the rim of the tray too...

doesn't change the fact that it was a miss, pure and simple. I'm sure nate would agree

Yeah, Nate would definitely agree that he missed that putt.

Ok, all joking aside, what the big deal again?

 

[Pbmercil]

Ok, all joking aside, what the big deal again?

Nothing really. To me, a spit out, chain out, bounce out, or whatever else you call it implies that it was a relatively good putt that got unlucky. As opposed to Nate's putt, which was a TERRIBLE putt that happened to catch some chains.

I don't really care to bicker about the semantics. How much did he miss by, how often is that putt falling in or dropping out, yada yada yada, I don't care.

What are we arguing about? Why are we arguing?

 

[Pbmercil]

Just to clarify; when I say Nate missed his putt, I don't really care about the fact that it ended up in or out. Crap happens in disc golf. Bad putts drop in and good putts pop out all the time. When I say Nate missed, I mean he missed the spot he was trying to hit with his putter by enough to make the outcome of his putt irrelevant. its about process, not result.

 

[Jenga54]

Yeah, I said it was a miss. Here:

See, here's where I think we have to agree to disagree. I think he missed his spot by four or five inches. No way he missed by six inches. No way.

Nah. I think it's dropping in close to 50% of the time. Besides, I thought you said the % of that throw going in was irrelevant to this discussion? Whatever.

... and a lot of the rim of the tray too...

Yeah, Nate would definitely agree that he missed that putt.

Ok, all joking aside, what the big deal again?

I'm so glad that's all figured out. Your reputation was on the line but I think it's ok now.

 

[ScottyLove]

The PGA has no set standard of playoff method other than maintaining the same tee off order dictated by the last hot round.

Totally incorrect... watch or play more ball golf. Our PDGA does it this way, but the PGA puts numbers in a cap and the players DRAW for order in the playoff. The person drawing #1 has the CHOICE on teeing off first. After that hole, traditional honors if it's not sudden death.

I will also state that almost 100% of the time, the player chooses to go first. That's what competitors do. Put the pressure on the next guy by making your confident shot. I would always go first in any situation.

 

[sidewinder22]

Totally incorrect... watch or play more ball golf. Our PDGA does it this way, but the PGA puts numbers in a cap and the players DRAW for order in the playoff. The person drawing #1 has the CHOICE on teeing off first. After that hole, traditional honors if it's not sudden death.

Maybe 50% incorrect on that quoted statement, I apparently don't watch enough stick golf that make it to playoffs to have actually seen them draw for tee honors, and I certainly do not play stick golf.

I do believe that I am correct about different methods of playoffs from different events. Some events match score cards without a playoff, basing the tiebreak winner on the scores of the last 9 holes of the tournament. Some events do sudden death from the first playoff hole. Some events do aggregate 3 or 4 hole series playoff and then go to single hole sudden deaths if tied after the aggregate 3 or 4 hole series. And some events will do an extra day 18 hole aggregate round playoff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playoff_(golf)

 

[blackcatsmith]

Nate's last OT putt was a straight up miss... why even argue this?

 

[blackcatsmith]

He had already missed a 10' for the win, you don't think he could miss a 20' for the tie?

 

[DanJon]

Nate's last OT putt was a straight up miss... why even argue this?

Because after it's over, people always end up making these tournament threads about themselves and their opinions/expertise.

 

[Consult20]

Here are some better angles of Nate's and Ricky's key putts, from Eagle's VLOG:

(Jump to 4m22seconds if it doesn't automatically go there)

 

[gdub58]

Totally incorrect... watch or play more ball golf. Our PDGA does it this way, but the PGA puts numbers in a cap and the players DRAW for order in the playoff. The person drawing #1 has the CHOICE on teeing off first. After that hole, traditional honors if it's not sudden death.

This is not correct. The player drawing the #1 goes first - there is no choice involved.

I have watched playoffs with four players, and they don't go down the line and ask each player what order they want to tee off. It's purely based on the number drawn.