Trevor Immelman Fits the CBS Golf Template, But That Doesn't Guarantee Good TV
He’s handsome. He speaks with a foreign accent. And he has won a major championship, which makes Trevor Immelman a logical successor to Nick Faldo as CBS’ lead golf analyst. Unlike Sir Nick, whose immense credibility as a broadcaster was undermined by a penchant for delivering those thoughts in a disheveled or incomplete manner, Immelman is an affable chap whose polished delivery makes him easy to comprehend.
His promotion to the seat alongside Jim Nantz brings to mind something John Lennon once said about Ringo Starr. Asked if Ringo was the best drummer in the world, Lennon laughed and offered this priceless reply: “Best drummer in the world? He’s not even the best drummer in the Beatles!”
Trevor Immelman won twice on the PGA Tour and next year will take over one of the highest-profile gigs in golf.
Michael Madrid/USA Today
In terms of conveying sheer insight to viewers, Mark Immelman, Trevor’s older brother, clearly has been more effective in his part-time responsibilities at CBS. Although he was a terrific collegiate golfer at Columbus State, Mark never played on the PGA Tour, let alone win a Masters. Trevor’s 2008 triumph at Augusta National qualified him as a replacement for Faldo, at least in the eyes of CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus, a continuation of the network’s longstanding practice of pairing a major champion with Nantz in the 18th tower.
It’s a cockeyed mindset, one that prioritizes street cred over broadcasting ability, which isn’t to suggest the two are mutually exclusive. Johnny Miller revolutionized the lead analyst’s role at NBC long after claiming the 1973 U.S. Open and 1976 British Open. Paul Azinger has done a fine job in the same chair since Miller retired in 2019.
It’s perfectly understandable why major networks would insist on someone who excelled at the game’s highest level to assume such an important task in its golf telecasts. Then again, none of the world’s most respected political pundits ever spent a single day living in the White House. Expertise in any field is attained through years of acquired knowledge, then processed through a filter of objectivity before it has to pass the test of relevance and coherent rationale.
Some guys are much better at certain parts of the procedure than others. Faldo, for instance, never truly mastered the skill of articulating his bottomless reservoir of competitive experience. Ben Crenshaw and Ken Venturi suffered from the same shortcoming — they climbed the highest mountain but weren’t very good at telling a TV audience how they got there.
All three of those major champions legitimize the notion that CBS has reached the point of diminishing returns when it comes to choosing partners for Nantz, nor is there any reason to believe Immelman will end that trend. He has been a full-time commentator for just three years. McManus brought him aboard after a very limited tenure at TNT, where he called early-round action at three PGA Championships.
Immelman’s most obvious weakness is his apparent inability to diagnose poor shots, something his brother does quite well. Trevor’s kindhearted disposition seems to have left him with an allergy to criticizing his former colleagues. He apologizes on behalf of a player for a mistake, which many viewers simply don’t tolerate — Faldo is altogether incapable of trying to mislead the audience with some feeble excuse.
Without a sense of forthright perspective and a habit of dispensing meaningless information — revealing a hole’s pin position has become an exasperating favorite — Immelman enters his expanded role unequipped to handle the nuances of the job itself. Can he get better? Of course, but one might easily get the impression that CBS doesn’t want him to become something he isn’t. Immelman’s see-no-evil, say-no-evil style makes him ideal as the lead voice for a network that calls professional golf as if it were teaching a kindergarten class.
What’s really too bad is that Phil Mickelson would have proven perfect as Faldo’s follow-up, mixing ripe opinions and discerning observations while instilling a desperately needed edge to the CBS product. Even if Mickelson’s red-flag status were to be rescinded in a couple of years, however, his popularity factor likely will have waned to the point where he’d remain untouchable as a TV presence.
David Duval might have warranted consideration for the post Immelman will occupy at the start of 2023, but from there, realistic options are sparse. This beckons a thought: does any network need to lean on the same lead analyst every week? Wouldn’t a rota of notable ex-players competent enough to handle a half-dozen hours of weekend airtime provide an interesting diversion to the same old formula?
One of the problems with luring a household name into the television booth on a full-time basis is the time commitment that comes with it. With CBS, we’re talking about 20 weekends on the road and, frankly, most candidates made far more money as players than such aggravation would require. A roster of guest analysts makes sense in that respect. It would also open the door for non-major champions such as Paul Goydos, whose humor and offbeat sensibilities would make him an instant audience favorite.
Immelman has some work to do before he gains such acclaim. He becomes the latest example of how the template comes with a downside — a former player who was elevated to a position of high visibility based on how he looks, how he talks and what he did instead of what he’s capable of doing. If the likeable South African doesn’t work out, McManus can always ask his marquee NFL analyst if he’s up for another 20 weekends of duty with Nantz.
Doesn’t Tony Romo play a little golf?
Come to think of it, doesn’t Paul McCartney still have that lovely British lilt?
Reader feedback is encouraged at inbox@morningread.com and we may publish your letter. Click here to receive all the latest Morning Read news and commentary free in your inbox every morning.