Brandel Chamblee: Will Flap Lips For Food

On the scale of respectability, Brandel Chamblee is now one step above a crack whore.

This has gotten to the point of awkwardness. Brandel Chamblee has nothing left to say, yet he continues to collect a hefty paycheck for saying it.

As viewers and readers, are we supposed to take Chamblee seriously? Or, are we supposed to chuckle because we’re in on the joke and recognize Chamblee as an overpaid version of a common Internet troll? Or, are we supposed to pridefully say, “It’s simple commerce; Chamblee says what Golf Channel’s advertisers and industry partners tell him to say”?

I don’t know the answer, but it can’t possibly be to take him seriously.

For the better part of the past year, Chamblee told us (“Is Logic Extinct?“) over and over that Tiger Woods needed to go back to the Harmon or Haney swing. However, Chamblee ignored the fact that Woods publicly stated he made his latest change because the Harmon/Haney swings were no longer viable due to injury concerns. Chamblee’s oversight is tantamount to a mathematician overlooking the matter of two plus two equaling four.

Or maybe he was just trolling. Certainly, last year when Chamblee gave Woods an “F” for on-course cheating, his quick reversal made the whole episode look like a publicity stunt.

Which brings us to Chamblee’s latest offering, the column he posted yesterday at GolfChannel.com. Here’s the final paragraph, Chamblee’s “money shot”:

Who should be his [Woods’s] next coach is likely the difference between him breaking Jack’s major record or not and because of what he means to golf, that decision means a lot to the game. This is all precisely why I hope his next teacher’s name is Tiger.

Okay, when it comes to propaganda, recall this: the propaganda is in the assumptions, not in what is expressly stated. So, toss aside the idea that Woods should be his own coach. Maybe that’s a good idea, maybe it’s a bad idea, maybe it doesn’t matter. Whatever the case, it’s of no concern to the propaganda Chamblee is pushing.

Let’s work backward on Chamblee’s claim:

  • Woods’s “decision” is vitally important and “means a lot to the game.”
  • This is because of what “[Woods] means to golf.”
  • He means so much to golf because he might break “Jack’s major record.”
  • Woods’s “decision” will “likely” determine whether he breaks Jack’s record.

Alright, how about a reality check?  The odds for Woods breaking Nicklaus’s record are 25-1. The odds for Rory breaking Nicklaus’s recard are 6-1. Those odds are from this USA Today story which also points out that “McIlroy winning 14 more majors is four-times as likely as Tiger winning four more majors.”

When it comes to breaking Jack’s record, the world has moved on, but the Golf Channel refuses to do so. They are adamant about continuing their Only Tiger Matters bullshite coverage.

Rory is the story, but Golf Channel just can’t accept that, so they try to trick people into believing Woods catching Nicklaus is not only a possibility, but a “likelihood.”

Well, as long as Woods becomes his own coach, mind you.

Think it through.   The world certainly does not expect Woods to catch Jack, so if this Big Important coaching decision “likely” determines whether Woods will or will not catch Jack, it means, if he self-coaches, he will “likely” catch Jack. Most of the world doesn’t think the decision makes a damn bit of difference as Woods is old and injury-prone and can’t be expected to catch Nicklaus regardless of what he does.

I didn’t do a good job of explaining, but the bottom line is that Chamblee has implicitly stated if Woods self-coaches, he will “likely” break Nicklaus’s record. Which is why I say Chamblee has reached a new low. On the scale of respectability, Brandel Chamblee is now one step above a crack whore.

I am sure you see why the Golf Channel wants to sell this nonsense. It allows them to follow another Woods “story” to the exclusion of legitimate golf coverage. Consider: Woods says “hi” to David Ledbetter on the range; Golf Channel can drop all coverage of that week’s tournament to obsess over what that “hi” might mean. They can trot out Chamblee, who will say if Woods hires Ledbetter, he won’t break Jack’s record, but that he “likely” will if he self-coaches. Gosh, gee, this is important because it has such a bearing on that Jack Nicklaus record thing and all.

Again, the man most likely — to use Chamblee’s word — to break Jack’s record is not Tiger Woods, but rather Rory McIlroy. That is a very inconvenient truth for the Golf Channel.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Brandel Chamblee: Will Flap Lips For Food

  1. Anonymous says:

    Most analysts are NOT grasping how difficult it is to CHANGE your golf swing over and over again…..If anything, changing swings is usually NOT a good thing, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee success……Your brain is not simply able to reset itself like a computer, so past information, like old golf swings, mechanics, ect. are still in there….

  2. Brian Penn says:

    Lanny, nailed it again, thanks. Golf Channel must be bleeding viewers/cash to continually pimp Woods in every way possible. I can’t wait in a year or two for “Live from Isleworth, it’s Big Break Tiger!” You know it’s comin’

  3. Anonymous says:

    I think it’s a bit pre-emptive to be giving Rory better odds of breaking Jack’s majors record than Tiger. Although it does look like Rory is dipping into the Nike ‘Juice’ as well so who knows…

  4. Anonymous says:

    Lanny,
    I have a question for you and i’m being sincere, why does GC continue to push Woods so hard? Whats the advantage? I know they continue to live in the past but would it not benifit them to advertise/promote the best and hottest golfer in the world right now or the rest of the young talent on tour that have a bright future ahead? I mean when they do show so called “Tiger Highlights” its his bad shots, club slamming, cursing, walking off a course, yelling, missing the cut, etc. Its a bit of a paradox that I do not understand. Maybe its my own ignorance but what is the upside here? WHy do they continue to shove him down our throats? In any other sport when a player is playing horrible or past his prime they just dump him and move on.

    • lannyh says:

      I think about this a lot, and I don’t really know. Someone somewhere thinks it will mean more money either to the company (a valid point) or to themselves (a self-serving political decsion). Businessmen, for all their talk about the shareholders and boards of directors calling the shots, often make decisions that bad for the company, but good for their own bank account.

      Maybe some guy fought tooth-and-nail to go the All Tiger All The Time route. It worked well for a while, and he got promoted to a high position, call it Golf Division President. Another guy, younger and poised to rapidly climb the corporate ladder, now is saying, “Guys, I think that decision cannibalized our future. We should have had broader coverage; we’d be so much better off now. We’ve got to stop this Woods obsession because we’re just digging a deeper and deeper hole.”

      Well, the Golf Divison president collects a big check, and he is not about to step aside for the young upstart to take his place, so he doubles down on his Tiger Woods bet.

      That’s just one example, and you might have those kinds of political battles going on all up and down the line.

      It’s also common for guys to be quarter oriented. Maybe the Golf Division President is feeling heat. Someone else has already laid out an alternative strategy to his, and he is now hoping to have a blowout quarter to “prove” he knows what he’s doing. So he tells them, “We have 80 percent Woods coverage, up it to 95 percent!” Hoping he’ll have good ratings this quarter, not giving a darn about alienating potential long-term viewers.

      Also, today’s society, our pop culture, is very driven by personalities. It takes a lot of money — and other factors, including luck — to pop someone to the top of the heap. To me, Tim Duncan has had a far more successful career than Lebron James, but Lebron is the “successor to Michael.” Sarah Palin became an accidental celebrity. So the political entertainment industry is never going to give her up. But, if the sports media machine had come up with an angle to talk about Duncan 24/7, he’d be “the star,” and there would have been no need to go All Lebron All The Time.

      They have pushed this idea about Woods that “you either love him or hate him,” hoping people will indeed choose one or the other.

      I don’t know. I could ramble on about this all day. The thing is, in theory the media has a church/state divide. So Editorial would say, “Guys, we’re not writing schlock just to please advertisers. We would lose our credibility.” Nowadays, though, it doesn’t seem like any of the supposed journalists care about credibility and integrity. You see a headline like, “Bear Drives Car Into Skyscraper.” You click on it, and you find something about a bear character in a video game. It’s like the jounalists are beggars, begging for clicks so they can get a paycheck. Thus my title about Brandel “will work for food.”

      Sometimes I’m watching something like the Greater Greensboro Open, and few big names are playing. Only hardcore golf fans are watching. Out of the blue, Woods’s name comes up. I think, Are they deliberately trying to tick off viewer? To push them into that “hate” camp they have defined and created? Because Woods fans are going to comprise about 0.05 percent of viewers at that event. They brag “I only watch when Tiger plays.”

      I guess, if you forced me to come up with my one best answer, I’d say it’s short term thinking at the expense of the long term good of televised golf, because the guys in charge now will be long retired when it comes time to pay the piper. They thought they’d be selling “Will Tiger Catch Jack?” for another ten years, or worst case scenario, Woods would break the record early and they would have gone, “Enjoy it now because you’ll never see one this great again.”

      I’d like to see them make a decision to treat Woods the same way they do Kuchar or Furyk until Woods wins another major. Rory was going for three big events in a row, two of them majors, and the golf media made Tiger Woods their big story. Rory is casually, with no malice, speaking of Woods in the past tense, and yet the …. Okay, I’ve ranted long enough.

  5. Henny B says:

    Thanks a lot for answering my question. The Duncan/James comparrison really cleared it up. And let’s not forget my personal favorite “With the shape he’s in and his athletic ability, Tiger will be competing in majors until he’s sixty” LOL Give me a break! Also Lanny don’t forget Mike Souchak, he was a pro back in the 1950’s and 1960’s he played both golf and football at Duke University.

    • lannyh says:

      I did not know about Souchak! I’ll add him to my list of “frail, country-club non-athletes.” Perfect timing because I’m putting a piece together (very slowly…) on the claim (bogus, as I see it) that today’s golfers are “better athletes.” Thanks much.

  6. Lina says:

    Nobody wants to see and watch and listen to arrogant Brandell Chamblee anymore.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s