Architectural diminishment ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Has TV been responsible for repetition in architecture ?

Have clubs attempted to duplicate that which they see on TV ?

Has grooming replaced architectural features as the object of the viewers eye ?

[BCrosby]

Pat -

The answers are, in order:

Yes
Yes
Yes

It's not just seeing the courses on TV that is detrimental to the public's notion of what good architecture is. Even more pernicious is the way the typical commentator talks about golf courses. It is, with a couple of exceptions, appallingly misinformed, full a thoughtless cliches and hews tightly to the USGA/PGA party lines.

The other aspect to this is that tremendous pressure is brought to bear on announcers not to criticize the host course on air. Print journalists don't have that excuse.

Bob

[Andy Hughes]

CBM/Raynor certainly were into repetition before TV came along.

Maybe some repetition is just recognition of good architectural concepts and the repeating of them. Is the redan or a cape hole included on lots of courses because of TV, or because architects have a finite number of concepts at their disposal?

[JESII]

Has TV been responsible for repetition in architecture ?
Yes, to a certain extent, but not solely responsible.[/color]

Have clubs attempted to duplicate that which they see on TV ?
Yes, It happens in virtually every avenue of life. The negative impact you imply evolves from a lack of education on the part of the clubs decision makers.[/color]

Has grooming replaced architectural features as the object of the viewers eye ?
YES! [/color]

[Michael Moore]

On the one hand it has been argued by many here, convincingly, that architectural features are for the most part flattened on television and are therefore incomprehensible.

On the other hand, it seems that, with the disappearance of the miniature black and white television and the advent of the gigantic high definition plasmatated screen, one's attention would inevitably be drawn towards the green green grass of the PGA Tour and away from her many interesting humps and bumps.

[Patrick_Mucci]

CBM/Raynor certainly were into repetition before TV came along.

How many courses do you feel were affected by their template designs ?

How many courses do you think are affected by what's seen on TV ?[/color]

Maybe some repetition is just recognition of good architectural concepts and the repeating of them.
Could you identify those architectural concepts worth repeating that you've seen on TV ?[/color]

Is the redan or a cape hole included on lots of courses because of TV,

Which redans and capes have you seen televised ?[/color]

or because architects have a finite number of concepts at their disposal?

If the best courses are provided by the land wouldn't that account for an infinite number of concepts ?[/color]

[Mike McGuire]

Has grooming replaced architectural features as the object of the viewers eye ?

Pat -

Brad Klein told me recently that for most golfers grooming does equal architecture.

Unfortunately, (because of TV?)  the path leading one from wanting green and soft, to finding it more interesting to use a firm slope to direct a ball, will not be taken by many.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

What peaked my interest was a remark made by a commentator during the final match of the U.S. Am at Newport between Tiger and Buddy.

He didn't have a clue with respect to fast and firm and the lack of a fairway irrigation system at Newport.

He remarked that the course was getting brown and in desperate need of lots of rain, not understanding how wonderful Newport plays when it's brown, or brownish-yellowish-green.

To the masses that viewed the match, some of these commentators are viewed as all-knowing, hence, it was the worst possible message to diseminate.

Green, Green and more green, with lots of flowers and fancy mowing patterns seems to be the overriding theme of these presentations.

Last wednesay I played with a fellow who will be his club's next President.  He was commenting on the nice flowers around the clubhouse grounds and remarked that he intended to plant lots of flowers and flowering shrubs around his course.

As we arrived at every tee and green I asked him if he saw any flower beds or ornamental plantings.   He didn't.
I told him that if he wanted to see those things that he should go to the Bronx Botanical Gardens and not golf courses.

He remarked how he had seen so many nice flowers and plantings on TV when he was watching golf tournaments.

It dawned on me that TV was selling the sizzle, not the steak.
And that the average viewer sees only what the camera focuses on.

I like the fact that Golfweek allows Brad Klein the opportunity to highlight the architectural aspects of golf courses, it's unfortunate that TV doesn't make an attempt to do the same.

[Mike McGuire]

Should I would have said "In the USA " when characterizing golfers as wanting green and soft? I have only played outside the US in Ireland a couple rounds, and I forget this website has a global audience.

Is The Masters telecast the main culprit?

[David_Elvins]

Pat Mucci,

I think one of the problems with TV is that it does not pick up well what many believe to be the essence of good golf architecture -contour.  

It is only the courses with the boldest features that translate well to TV, allowing the TV viewer to actually see the strategy of a golf hole for himself.

I have no doubt that the proliferation of water hazards on modern courses is partly due to the fact that the boldness of the feature makes it an excellent strategic feature for TV and it has been copied from there

Likewise with maintenance.  St Andrews during the British Open looks like a flat brown cow paddock on TV and you could easily convince any TV viewer that the only reason they play there is for historic reasons.  Whereas, the greeness, the water and the very dramatic contouring of Augusta and TPC Sawgrass translate well to TV.  

Most golfers only experience the great courses on TV so it can be assumed that the love of green can be partly attributed to the fact that that is what looks good and what is noticable on TV.  A player can easily tell if his course rates as highly on greenness as the one on TV but he will have a lot harder time telling you if the internal green contours are as good.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I'd agree that contour is muted and color accentuated.

One of the reasons that I was disappointed that NGLA wasn't awarded the Walker Cup was the exposure that pronounced architectural features would get.

Deep bunkers, contoured greens, the Sahara, Alps and Redan would have made for a unique presentation.

I think you're also right in that water seems to be very photogenic, and as such, an attractive nuisance.

[David_Elvins]

David,
I think you're also right in that water seems to be very photogenic, and as such, an attractive nuisance.

I think it is more than just the fact that water is photgenic.  I think as an architectural feature it translates well to TV.  The level of risk in any risk reward situation is generally greater than a bunker which makes for exciting TV.  Also the black and white nature of the hazard, you either went in it or you didnt, (and  GENERALLY nothing in between) translates well in that the viewer can easily see and relate to a situation with out having to be told by the commentator how difficult a shot is.

[Jim Nugent]

I think one of the problems with TV is that it does not pick up well what many believe to be the essence of good golf architecture -contour.  

It is only the courses with the boldest features that translate well to TV, allowing the TV viewer to actually see the strategy of a golf hole for himself.

I read that HDTV solves that problem: you see contours in vivid 3-D perspective.