Good Sports Podcasts golf or otherwise

Deeper Blue · 12-02-2021 12:43pm

Hoppermcgrath wrote: »

I don’t think they give Lawrie enough airtime at all. He is the guy on team who has had the long career on Tour and can talk with authority on all aspects of pro golf, yet often they appear to defer to Fionn, who with the greatest of respect has no more idea than the rest of us on the realities of playing pro golf.

This annoys me too.

I'd much rather hear Lawrie give his take on something from a player's perspective for a few minutes rather than one of Fionn's interminable soliloquies.

Yet we almost always get the latter first and foremost.

redzerdrog · 12-02-2021 1:58pm

They mentioned a current Tour pro coming on board too? Do we know who?

I probably will pay it is the price of a coffee a month so quite reasonable.

How does patreon work? Is the podcast just now on that platform or will I still be able to listen through podcast republic?

DuckSlice · 12-02-2021 2:40pm

redzerdrog wrote: »

They mentioned a current Tour pro coming on board too? Do we know who?

I probably will pay it is the price of a coffee a month so quite reasonable.

How does patreon work? Is the podcast just now on that platform or will I still be able to listen through podcast republic?

Two time winner on the PGA tour it mentioned wasnt it? GMAC? Not sure how many wins he has.

finglashoop · 12-02-2021 2:44pm

unplayable wrote: »

Golf weekly going behind a paywall. Wow could this be joes main thing going forward if it takes off.

that's me done.

i refuse to pay for any podcast tbh.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 12-02-2021 3:05pm

finglashoop wrote: »

that's me done.

i refuse to pay for any podcast tbh.

That's silly, people wonder why there is so much disinformation and poorly researched publications online.

It's in some ways because sensationalist clickbait s*** is the only means of generating revenue.

I pay for 5 media sources and that's all I use. It's an auto filter for noise amd you don't suffer from a paradox of choice.

If you think it's good and you can afford to pay, you should.

willabur · 12-02-2021 3:09pm

Skye Rhythmic Infantryman wrote: »

That's silly, people wonder why there is so much disinformation and poorly researched publications online.

It's in some ways because sensationalist clickbait s*** is the only means of generating revenue.

I pay for 5 media sources and that's all I use. It's an auto filter for noise amd you don't suffer from a paradox of choice.

If you think it's good and you can afford to pay, you should.

100% agree

Raisins · 12-02-2021 3:22pm

I don’t think I’ll pay for it but I’m on the fence. The reason I’m on the fence is because they’ve never given the product for free that they’re about to charge for so it’s impossible to say if it’s worth it. I might try it for a month. There were no monday pods or Lawrie golf tips and the interviews were often on OTB already and then thrown into the pod feed. This is a new venture.

I don’t think there will be enough value in it. Joe, Nathan and Fionn are standard punters who are watching what we’re watching and doing this as a hobby. They’re not attending the tour events and they’re not full time dedicated to golf like NLU or even full time dedicated to the podcast itself like second captains. That’s grand if it’s free but they want us to pay the same price as second captains it shouldn’t be a hobby. I’m not convinced.

Miley Byrne · 12-02-2021 3:34pm

I listen to it the odd time now only. Used to listen to it a lot more in the past. It's just not a great pod any more unfortunately. Fionn has no place there really. He just adds nothing that any random golfer off the street couldn't add. While Lawrie knows what he's talking about obviously, he comes across as a bitter ex pro on so many occasions.

I'm not so sure what to say about Joe to be honest. When he started out on OTB he was likeable and easy to listen to but I think he has gotten stale or something. Maybe it's just me, I dunno.

Also to be comparing Golf Weekly to NLU or Second Captains is just madness. Both are streets ahead of it in so many ways

finglashoop · 12-02-2021 3:47pm

Skye Rhythmic Infantryman wrote: »

That's silly, people wonder why there is so much disinformation and poorly researched publications online.

It's in some ways because sensationalist clickbait s*** is the only means of generating revenue.

I pay for 5 media sources and that's all I use. It's an auto filter for noise amd you don't suffer from a paradox of choice.

If you think it's good and you can afford to pay, you should.

why is it silly?
because you think paid for media is somehow better?

very few "independent journalists" anymore.

i dont use any click bait sites.

i dont mind an ad on a podcast that i can forward through.

i can afford it but choose not to pay for ANY podcast. Ability to afford something doesnt automatically mean you should pay it.

I pay for a golf club membership even though i cant play due to restrictions over the last year as it is still of value to me.

second captains is an example of a pod i also listened to but wouldnt pay for. havent listened to rogan since his move to a singular provider.

There is no disinformation or poor research once you magically pay for a pod via patreon?

gypsy79 · 12-02-2021 4:02pm

finglashoop wrote: »

why is it silly?
because you think paid for media is somehow better?

very few "independent journalists" anymore.

i dont use any click bait sites.

i dont mind an ad on a podcast that i can forward through.

i can afford it but choose not to pay for ANY podcast. Ability to afford something doesnt automatically mean you should pay it.

I pay for a golf club membership even though i cant play due to restrictions over the last year as it is still of value to me.

second captains is an example of a pod i also listened to but wouldnt pay for. havent listened to rogan since his move to a singular provider.

There is no disinformation or poor research once you magically pay for a pod via patreon?

Yup in fact paying for limited podcasts/media outfits like you suggests that you love that echo chamber you live in (oops not finglashoop, the person he was replying to)

That insufferable c**t Ger Gilroy is perfect example of this

Another point is they would want improve the production qualities. Yesterdays pod jumped back 30 seconds and repeated itself at least twice. Although that is good for a Newstalk production to only have that happen twice

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 12-02-2021 4:06pm

finglashoop wrote: »

why is it silly?
because you think paid for media is somehow better?

very few "independent journalists" anymore.

i dont use any click bait sites.

i dont mind an ad on a podcast that i can forward through.

i can afford it but choose not to pay for ANY podcast. Ability to afford something doesnt automatically mean you should pay it.

I pay for a golf club membership even though i cant play due to restrictions over the last year as it is still of value to me.

second captains is an example of a pod i also listened to but wouldnt pay for. havent listened to rogan since his move to a singular provider.

There is no disinformation or poor research once you magically pay for a pod via patreon?

No I didn’t say paid for media is magically better but it is generally better if you bother to research it.

I think automatically dismissing a media that you have to pay for which is what you’re doing now is very silly. I completely stand by that.

If the source is good enough to listen to for free then why not listen to it when it’s not free?
If you’re only listening to it because it’s free then that’s a bad reason to consume it at all.

Researching your media and in many cases paying for the media is an automatic curator which is what I said.

Some media that I pay for, I don’t technically have to pay for but I choose to do it because it means that the source is more likely to remain in the format that I enjoy.

I never said that you can’t afford anything or that just because you can afford you should pay for it, that’s a personal choice so let’s not pretend I said something that I didn’t.

Obviously you’re right that disinformation doesn’t automatically disappear if media is paid for but fair to assume that paid for media is of a higher quality than free media.

The NewYorker is better than Vox/The Guardian, TheEconomist is better than NYT, you generally do pay for quality but it’s not guaranteed.

Curate and if desired/required, pay for it if you choose, don’t just consume because it’s free and dismiss it when’s it’s not.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 12-02-2021 4:10pm

gypsy79 wrote: »

Yup in fact paying for limited podcasts/media outfits like you suggests that you love that echo chamber you live in (oops not finglashoop, the person he was replying to)e

That’s complete drivel.

Paying for media doesn’t mean an auto echo chamber. Sources I choose to pay for fall on both sides of the political/social spectrum by design so in fact I have curated it in such a way not to be an echo chamber.

Raisins · 12-02-2021 4:19pm

gypsy79 wrote: »

Yup in fact paying for limited podcasts/media outfits like you suggests that you love that echo chamber you live in (oops not finglashoop, the person he was replying to)

That insufferable c**t Ger Gilroy is perfect example of this

Another point is they would want improve the production qualities. Yesterdays pod jumped back 30 seconds and repeated itself at least twice. Although that is good for a Newstalk production to only have that happen twice

I actually really like listening to Ger Gilroy, think he’s one of the best presenters on OTB.

Even if you don’t agree these repeatedly visceral insults are weird. Maybe deep down you love him...

finglashoop · 12-02-2021 4:31pm

Skye Rhythmic Infantryman wrote: »

No I didn’t say paid for media is magically better but it is generally better if you bother to research it.

I think automatically dismissing a media that you have to pay for which is what you’re doing now is very silly. I completely stand by that.

If the source is good enough to listen to for free then why not listen to it when it’s not free?
If you’re only listening to it because it’s free then that’s a bad reason to consume it at all.

Researching your media and in many cases paying for the media is an automatic curator which is what I said.

Some media that I pay for, I don’t technically have to pay for but I choose to do it because it means that the source is more likely to remain in the format that I enjoy.

I never said that you can’t afford anything or that just because you can afford you should pay for it, that’s a personal choice so let’s not pretend I said something that I didn’t.

Obviously you’re right that disinformation doesn’t automatically disappear if media is paid for but fair to assume that paid for media is of a higher quality than free media.

The NewYorker is better than Vox/The Guardian, TheEconomist is better than NYT, you generally do pay for quality but it’s not guaranteed.

Curate and if desired/required, pay for it if you choose, don’t just consume because it’s free and dismiss it when’s it’s not.

the new yorker is a long way from three golf fans talking about golf one of whom thinks hes more of an expert than the actual ex pro they have on the showand i wouldnt pay for fionn davenports opinion on golf.

media is everywhere both free and behind a paywall so i dont need to pay for it and use the cost as some tool to curate my interests.

Another example is the athletic, some will pay some wont but is it actually value considering the discounts to join up? i assume they need paid up "subscribers" to generate income somewhere else with the numbers? maybe im wrong and my 1 euro a month for 6 months will pay for all the journalists they have.

gypsy79 · 12-02-2021 4:35pm

Raisins wrote: »

I actually really like listening to Ger Gilroy, think he’s one of the best presenters on OTB.

Even if you don’t agree these repeatedly visceral insults are weird. Maybe deep down you love him...

Ah I just tired of him interwining SJW into every possible sports story. Never missing an op to rail against Trump

His talking in a mock Eamon Dunphy accent is what grinds my gears the most

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 12-02-2021 4:38pm

finglashoop wrote: »

the new yorker is a long way from three golf fans talking about golf one of whom thinks hes more of an expert than the actual ex pro they have on the showand i wouldnt pay for fionn davenports opinion on golf.

media is everywhere both free and behind a paywall so i dont need to pay for it and use the cost as some tool to curate my interests.

Another example is the athletic, some will pay some wont but is it actually value considering the discounts to join up? i assume they need paid up "subscribers" to generate income somewhere else with the numbers? maybe im wrong and my 1 euro a month for 6 months will pay for all the journalists they have.

I was just giving those as examples of media sources within the same domain.

I just find it odd that if you care so little about his opinion then why listen? That
Anyway, more to the point, the attitude generally of “I’ll never pay for a podcast” is fundamentally the wrong attitude.

You’re obviously not alone and I’m not getting on to you or anything, I just think people should be more willing to pay for the content that they like no matter the medium.

A source going behind a paywall shouldn’t be an automatic reason to dismiss it, if it’s no longer value that’s one thing but unfortunately many people take the line of no matter what I’ll never pay.

srfc d16 · 12-02-2021 4:44pm

Around 50% of their content is Rory McIlroy, 20% Tiger and 10% Spieth so they would really want to improve their output if they want to get a decent number of subscribers.
They are fans and talk like fans which I have no issue with. As far as I can tell they are mainly fans of the 3 mentioned and are happy to ignore almost everyone and everything else which I do have an issue with

12-02-2021 5:16pm

srfc d16 wrote: »

Around 50% of their content is Rory McIlroy, 20% Tiger and 10% Spieth so they would really want to improve their output if they want to get a decent number of subscribers.
They are fans and talk like fans which I have no issue with. As far as I can tell they are mainly fans of the 3 mentioned and are happy to ignore almost everyone and everything else which I do have an issue with

A couple of them are only playing Golf a wet week as well so no real knowledge of the history of the game or equipment or technology etc. They really only want to discuss what is in the news that week or what happened with the previous weeks tournament.

finglashoop · 12-02-2021 5:20pm

Skye Rhythmic Infantryman wrote: »

I was just giving those as examples of media sources within the same domain.

I just find it odd that if you care so little about his opinion then why listen? That
Anyway, more to the point, the attitude generally of “I’ll never pay for a podcast” is fundamentally the wrong attitude.

You’re obviously not alone and I’m not getting on to you or anything, I just think people should be more willing to pay for the content that they like no matter the medium.

A source going behind a paywall shouldn’t be an automatic reason to dismiss it, if it’s no longer value that’s one thing but unfortunately many people take the line of no matter what I’ll never pay.

i suppose i subscribed when it came out and kept it but now with the choice of payment or stop listening - ill stop listening.

why is it the wrong attitude to not pay for a podcast?

blue note · 12-02-2021 5:29pm

Exactly wrote: »

A couple of them are only playing Golf a wet week as well so no real knowledge of the history of the game or equipment or technology etc. They really only want to discuss what is in the news that week or what happened with the previous weeks tournament.

That's actually a good thing in some ways because you get that perspective. What I like about the show is that they're real amateurs. And they talk about the amateur game. I do enjoy hearing about the professional stuff, but talking about golf I'd tend to be more interested in club stuff that pga tour.

Raisins · 12-02-2021 5:33pm

The sound and production quality will have to improve no end if they want to charge for it.

Peter Lawrie calling in from outside the school gates or down the back of a ditch on the driving range and the rest of the lads sounding like they’re on Mars will have to change. The sound quality of podcasts is generally poor. Way way behind paid content like second captains.

That’s only ok when it’s free. We’ll see if they’ll be bothered to produce something that sounds better than newstalk podcasts.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 12-02-2021 5:39pm

finglashoop wrote: »

i suppose i subscribed when it came out and kept it but now with the choice of payment or stop listening - ill stop listening.

why is it the wrong attitude to not pay for a podcast?

Good media requires research & investment, if it doesn't have a backer and consumers are unwilling to finance it then in order to be produced it will automatically gravitate towards producing content which generates the most revenue(clicks).

As poster above just mentioned, Tiger & Rory appear to make up the bulk of this one because they likely lead to the highest user engagement which in turn generates revenue.

If the need to generate revenue is largely removed, the topics don't need to focus on clicks, they can focus on delivering better quality golf content.

It's not an attitude about podcasts, it's an attitude towards paid media. We all love free stuff, it's just in recent decades, media largely focused on sensationalism, pessimism(not so much golf) and quick delivery over quality.

Look at the headlines Tiger, Rory, Trump; they're all click grabbers.
I just believe that if you think something is good quality and worth listening to, it really is worth considering pay for, that's all.

finglashoop · 12-02-2021 5:51pm

Skye Rhythmic Infantryman wrote: »

Good media requires research & investment, if it doesn't have a backer and consumers are unwilling to finance it then in order to be produced it will automatically gravitate towards producing content which generates the most revenue(clicks).

As poster above just mentioned, Tiger & Rory appear to make up the bulk of this one because they likely lead to the highest user engagement which in turn generates revenue.

If the need to generate revenue is largely removed, the topics don't need to focus on clicks, they can focus on delivering better quality golf content.

It's not an attitude about podcasts, it's an attitude towards paid media. We all love free stuff, it's just in recent decades, media largely focused on sensationalism, pessimism(not so much golf) and quick delivery over quality.

Look at the headlines Tiger, Rory, Trump; they're all click grabbers.
I just believe that if you think something is good quality and worth listening to, it really is worth considering pay for, that's all.

if it was worth it Newstalk would invest in it properly no?

posters above have pointed out quality issues with sound etc.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 12-02-2021 5:58pm

finglashoop wrote: »

if it was worth it Newstalk would invest in it properly no?

posters above have pointed out quality issues with sound etc.

Perhaps but that was never my point, I’m just speaking to an unwillingness to pay for any podcast.

I believe people should be willing to pay for it if they think it’s good, if it’s not-as I said earlier- then that’s a separate thing.

I wouldn’t pay for it but if I thought it was good enough then I would.

gypsy79 · 12-02-2021 6:02pm

Joe Rogan was one of my favourite podcasts. My listening has nearly gone to zero because it is on a different app

So I wont pay for one not in my top 10.

Newstalk are going further and further downhill. Large part of it is...you pay crap then you get....

Pdoghue · 12-02-2021 6:07pm

Raisins wrote: »

The sound and production quality will have to improve no end if they want to charge for it.

Peter Lawrie calling in from outside the school gates or down the back of a ditch on the driving range and the rest of the lads sounding like they’re on Mars will have to change. The sound quality of podcasts is generally poor. Way way behind paid content like second captains.

That’s only ok when it’s free. We’ll see if they’ll be bothered to produce something that sounds better than newstalk podcasts.

I agree that the sound/production quality on the Newstalk golf podcast has been shocking. That's why I gave up on it. Nothing to do with being free or paid.

On the other hand, the Newstalk podcast documentaries are excellently produced and have super sound quality - all free.

blue note · 12-02-2021 6:21pm

The market for them is very small. Basically they're aiming at irish golfers in their 30s/40s. That's not a big group.

PARlance · 12-02-2021 7:49pm

Miley Byrne wrote: »

I listen to it the odd time now only. Used to listen to it a lot more in the past. It's just not a great pod any more unfortunately. Fionn has no place there really. He just adds nothing that any random golfer off the street couldn't add. While Lawrie knows what he's talking about obviously, he comes across as a bitter ex pro on so many occasions.

I'm not so sure what to say about Joe to be honest. When he started out on OTB he was likeable and easy to listen to but I think he has gotten stale or something. Maybe it's just me, I dunno.

Also to be comparing Golf Weekly to NLU or Second Captains is just madness. Both are streets ahead of it in so many ways

It's definitely not just you with regards Joe. I was a big fan at that start but somewhere along the way, something changed. I'm not quite sure what that was but an authentic and natural style seemed to turn into something very contrived. I think he started to take himself too seriously, as if he started to take bits from other presenters and tried to copy what he thought was good. I haven't listened in years. He's even worse on TV imo.

Never listened to it with Lawrie but I do remember his interview about his coke addiction... coca cola. It was a weird and interesting one, but I wouldn't have put him down as a personality for radio.

Needless to say, I won't be subscribing. I hope they sorted out the sound quality, that was a major issue at the time.

fullstop · 12-02-2021 9:42pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

11th March they said will be first one that has to be paid for.

Not sure I'll sign up for it to be honest. 3 of them are really just fan boys of golf really. Yes they might work in broadcasting but they don't offer any insight to the sport only their own opinion. I do enjoy listening to Peter Lawrie though and his thoughts and experiences.

I prefer some of the other podcasts where they have different guests on each episode and you get a different perspective on things.

Agree with this. Outside of Lawrie (who I find painful) the other lads don’t really have any good insight to give, it’s more of a chat and a bit of craic. Definitely not worth paying for and I can see it dying off after this decision.

The comparison with NLU is pretty moot, as someone said those lads are full time at it and they can also call on tour pros for hour-long interviews. Production quality with them is very good, and when listening to Golf Weekly I find myself constantly turning the radio up or down depending on who is speaking.

People saying you have to pay for good content is true, to an extent. I pay for The Athletic, but I’m paying for people who can give in-depth analysis and knowledge on their field...with no ads. GW already run ads, so why not just add a couple more in and monetize it that way?

Bill Ponderosa · 12-02-2021 10:25pm

No other golf podcast that I know of is behind a pay wall so I'm surprised with this move.

Obviously the lads want to cash in but the timing is all wrong imo, in the middle of a pandemic, Golf courses closed, and the start of a major recession.

I'm not sure the interest is there to be honest, wasn't it only last year they had to cancel their big trip to Abu Dhabi and only limited numbers were needed there.

Will be interesting to see how they get on, as most have said there are alot better golf podcasts out there so I won't be subscribing. I'd imagine they'll still have to cover golf as part of OTB show around the big tournaments.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 12-02-2021 10:35pm

fullstop wrote: »

People saying you have to pay for good content is true, to an extent. I pay for The Athletic, but I’m paying for people who can give in-depth analysis and knowledge on their field...with no ads. GW already run ads, so why not just add a couple more in and monetize it that way?

I pay for ESPN+, I have done so for years, basketball is my primary sport so plenty of value there for me but anecdotally the volume of content gone behind that paywall in recent years has grown exponentially.
More of the free analysts now gone behind so it’s nearly a relative must have for the site.

I see more & more are going behind Paywalls, a couple of podcasts I have listened to in recent years for example like Farnam street, David McWilliams or Sam Harris.
It starts in relatively innocuous way, perhaps an AMA behind a paywall or exclusive questions, slowly full podcasts begin to go behind.

So many podcasts out there now and as mentioned earlier, this has a small target audience, I’d say their ad revenue is pretty small.

Benny Cake · 13-02-2021 7:45pm

Signed up today and glad to do so, I've had ten years of free, enjoyable content and have no issue spend 4 odd euro a month.

Running Balance · 14-02-2021 9:58am

I recall them slightly sneering at second captains when they went on patreon.

I cant see this working really. I just wouldnt have thought the content is there.

The golf season is only 5 / 6 months long so maybe people might join for that period of the year.

I'm out!!
(Wont miss the constant referral to Lawrie and solicitors - flogging a "joke")

tropics001 · 16-02-2021 10:57am

i am a big podcast listener in general. i have a few that i already throw a few quid a month to on patreon so adding golf weekly isn't a big deal. it does sound like the podcasts will only be available on the patreon app though, so that sounds like a bit of a pain. some of my other podcasts do an ad-free version on patreon.

it's interesting. i'm OK with the decision, although i was not OK a few months ago when NLU put their message board behind a $90 a year paywall, i didn't pay for that. not exactly sure what the difference is. i suppose i felt the NLU move was a naked cash grab whereas i am OK to support golf weekly after years of free content.

redzerdrog · 16-02-2021 11:23am

On patreon Golf Weekly states that the benefit is early access to podcast. I wonder does this mean they will still be aired on newstalk at the weekend

blue note · 16-02-2021 11:29am

I'd assume newstalk will still cover golf, but you'll probably get the main stuff, but not the whole podcast. So if the ryder cup is on you'll get the interview with Paul mcginley, but not the 40 minutes either side of it.

Raisins · 16-02-2021 1:16pm

blue note wrote: »

I'd assume newstalk will still cover golf, but you'll probably get the main stuff, but not the whole podcast. So if the ryder cup is on you'll get the interview with Paul mcginley, but not the 40 minutes either side of it.

That’s like setting up a paid rugby podcast where Brian O’ Driscoll’s opinion is free but you’ve to pay to hear what Ger Gilroy and Eoin Sheehan think.

wardides · 16-02-2021 1:26pm

Find it mad that they've done this. I think I would understand if there was a Newstalk Patreon & it went behind that, but it's a spin off hour of a commercial radio station. The 4e is fairly trivial, but not if you have someone who's paying for a few already. Thought Fionn's comparison to the pro v ball was a bit silly as well, i'd probably not play with that ball if all the other golf balls where free to be honest..

I think another poster has hit the nail on the head, quick to slag off the guys at Second Captains when they went via Patreon. Charging almost the same but with one you get 1 podcast a week (4 times a year you get a bonus one), revolving one sport that generally only has major interest 34ish weeks of a year vs second captains average of about 5 podcasts a week, alongside some great content from other journalists, special guests, players chair etc.

Mad decision, but expect they'll get a few thousand subs which will make it worthwhile vs what they're getting at the minute.

Running Balance · 16-02-2021 10:33pm

I wonder how many people will subscribe / what would their breakeven be.

I would have thought 2000 members x €4 × 10 months (reduced from 12 as no one cares about the sony open and like) = 80k giving them each 15k after expenses?

I doubt they will hit 2000 but best of luck to them.

I hate the arguement all for the price of a coffee or a pint. Yeah my mortgage is only 200 pints a month. My sky is 40 coffees a month. My coffee is 6 pints a week. Such a stupid justification like people dont know what a euro or pounds value is.

Arnold54321 · 16-02-2021 11:06pm

I’m a fan of the show but doubt they’ll get 500 subscribers. People buy so many different subscriptions these days, another on a golf podcast is just too much. I may be in the minority but really enjoy listening to Peter Lawrie, people forget he had 10 good years on tour. Seems like a decent chap too.

unplayable · 25-02-2021 7:57pm

todays podcast my god. fionn needs to be reeled in he is steamrolling the chats. and his self serving bull**** at the end my god he is become insufferable. he alone is putting me off the pod.

Deeper Blue · 26-02-2021 12:46am

unplayable wrote: »

todays podcast my god. fionn needs to be reeled in he is steamrolling the chats. and his self serving bull**** at the end my god he is become insufferable. he alone is putting me off the pod.

He's insufferable, every time he chimes in I want to switch off. It'd be a great podcast without him

I see Troy Merritt is their PGA tour insider, wonder how that came about.

finglashoop · 26-02-2021 12:53am

Deeper Blue wrote: »

He's insufferable, every time he chimes in I want to switch off. It'd be a great podcast without him

I see Troy Merritt is their PGA tour insider, wonder how that came about.

they said a sponsor contacted them is how it came about

golfer79 · 26-02-2021 12:54am

I said it before a few pages back but I can’t believe they persist with Fionn. I know I don’t anymore.

gypsy79 · 26-02-2021 9:42am

Audio quality was brutal this week too

Reminded 30 seconds about 6-7 times in second half then finished mid sentence when considering Shane’s chances this week

Fionns anti Trump jabbering is right up newstalks alley. Her Gilroy is senior in there for ffs

CackHand · 26-02-2021 12:53pm

I agree on Fionn. Again I'm sure he is a lovely man but every episode he clearly researches a couple of stats and squeezes them into the show no matter how obtrusive to the flow of the show the point is, often applying a dramatic pause. It comes across very 'look at me, i'm smart'.

This week he pulled Lawrie up on the reduced participation in golf over the Tiger era, it came across so smug.

I like the balance of the other lads. OK they are just like us and don't really know that much about golf, but I like that in a podcast. Just normal guys talking about stuff that ultimately isn't very important.

Bgiraffe · 26-02-2021 2:42pm

I think I've listened to nearly every Golf Weekly podcast they've done and enjoyed them, particularly when Conor Deegan was on, a top amateur and a nice chap. I doubt I'll sign up, partly because money is tight, partly because there's so much decent free content out there. But I'll miss it each week.

On the Fionn point, I give him credit for always coming to the show well prepared with his research done. He's an excellent communicator and did a good job of making sense of the new handicap situation for instance a few months ago. However, and I don't know if it was just me, but I found that almost every time he interacted with Peter Lawrie it was in a negative way or in a way that seemed to argue the toss of what Lawrie had just said. Found that strange as Peter Lawrie is the man with the stripes on his arm in that room in terms of golf experience and knowledge.

CMcsporty · 26-02-2021 5:25pm

I like Fionn
Just saying!

Haven't listened in a while. Has it gone to subscription or something?

willabur · 26-02-2021 7:09pm

i like fionn also...

gees, feels good to get that off my chest

Bill Ponderosa · 26-02-2021 7:32pm

Fionn is very self righteous, unbearable at times, especially when he's goes off on one.

Good Sports Podcasts golf or otherwise

Comments