ANGC/Masters Aesthetics - Criticism and Defense

[V. Kmetz]

I usually try not to take an antagonistic tone with any thread here as I think of myself as a guest, so I apologize if my tone seems too scolding.

In many of the Masters/Augusta threads below I am genuinely surprised and disappointed to hear even a small minority of voices express disdain for a presentation of tournament golf, that while admittedly autocratic AND anachronistic, has been the repeatedly-acknowledged gold standard by industry and casual observers.

The meat of what I'm saying is that the Masters is the single last bastion of where you the "patron" at the tournament and you the "spectator" on TV are treated with fairness and civility. 

The benefits of a precious series badge are too numerous to mention, but how about your benefits as a viewer? 

Beyond actual commercial limitation, beyond the superb "Frank Chirkanian-Cliff Roberts" production values of serenity and reverence, I also don't have to hear endless promos for "Two and Half Men" "Survivor -Timbuktu" in house promos and related commercial blather. 

Tell me another televised sporting event where you are allowed such focused concentration with a minimum of distraction or interruption.  That is solely and utterly due to Augusta's autocratic, elitist existence

I ask those who find the Masters patrician and unfairly proscriptive, have you been to a professional sporting event lately...?(even golf at Bethpage)  It is a freakin' sh*t show.  The enormous cost of everything, the 10 mile shuttle ride from a lot 12 miles away. The processed hostility of the venue workers, the intemperance of the fans, the a la carte menu of preferred services that are nothing more than a seat cushion, the herding and of course the guys betting beers all day in the sun behind the 9th green, so drunk by the mid-afternoon they are shouting out the line to putts they have seen regularly throughout the carnage.  And no one is stopping them because they kind of play in a comic wolf-pack. 

Forget football, baseball, basketball and hockey, I mean just forget it.  It's like a $400 night out to be put in a de-tox tank with rock star sound, video and a food court.  And does anybody really love the culture of pre-game studio analyst hype and

Gary McCord?  You like Gary McCord? You don't think that is an instance where the stick up Augusta's ass didn't work for you? I could pull seven caddies from Winged Foot, teach em to say, "Back to you Jim" and get a more genuinely funny analysis if humor is what you want. Let him stay in the tower on the 17th at Phoenix with liquored up idiots who are, like most amped-up sports fans, think they are there to play their own part in the story.

And journalism?  You wanted more hard-hitting journalism and permissible hectoring of Woods' lurid infidelity?  My god, don't you think the insular environment has allowed the focus to be on the amazing leader-board, and on the amazing talents of those players - not the least of which is Woods who face it...is the unquestioned contemporary exemplar of elite play.  That's why I watch pro golf at all. I mean the shot on #9, that is like Mosconi playing a masse shot to escape a tough spot against Minnesota Fats...amazing.  I'm so glad that he is in contention with quality golf, otherwise the story would continue to be "Oh the scrutiny of his sins weighs on his talent

As a viewer, do I want full dawn to dusk coverage?  Of course I do.

Do I want NBC overhead shots and the "dropped ball graphic" on the greens?  Yes.

Do I wish they would take it easy with daily course preparation and seasonal re-design to so precisely define scoring?  Yes. (But they have been changing in this way from inception and have elicited legendary exhibitions of elite tournament golf)

But for the above reasons, that you are treated by an event with unflagging civility and courtesy and not being given the hard sell that has cheapened public events, I'm willing to endure the further infinitesimal eye-rolling when I hear the tortured "patron" moniker or similarly tight-assed aesthetic.  It's no skin off of my nose, especially when they yield as much or more than I invest.

In the realm of social justice, their first legacy as an an exclusionary club of ante-bellum dogma is indefensible.  They used to host minstrel shows for god's sakes. But I suggest that as the course has changed radically so has their institutional resonance.  Beyond that I'll not make an argument as our personal views on who a club may exclude or must admit is mere opinion.  I have no lent of authority that isn't subordinate to the pertinent laws.

The last thing I'll suggest to dampen and dissuade critics of the Masters mechanisms is that, from the start, before it was the most prized ticket in sports, the philosophy was to reward the people who patronized the tournament.  It is hardly the case now, but the first 20 years of Masters spectators (oops i'm fired) truly supported operational health of the club.  As late as 1946 the club's fiscal health was teetering, even supra-supported by the Singer sewing fortune and Coca-Cola.  Without those early pilgrims the club might well have foundered and Sarazens double Eagle would have to be purely imagined like deeds at Pomonok and Lido.

And for years Augusta was a remote location for a golf afficiando, the only reason besides the public's demand to see Jones compete on his new retirement retreat that they thought it could work is that the sportswriters passed Augusta coming home from spring training on the trains and would give the national publicity.  Jones and Roberts were truly indebted to those fans..,the beginning of the badge series for annual repeaters, and wanted to treat them like perfect hosts.  That philosophy remains for those on site with the cleanliness and inexpensive food and equanimity in un-harried, courteous creature comforts. The TV aspect of it is merely an extrapolation, The club is in effect allowing us in to watch the party.

i'm glad they stay behind stodgily the times in some GCA minds.  i'm glad they do not brook a larger commercial society's interference in their matters.  We would ruin this superb thing in a nano-second.

Thank you Augusta National.  You have been great for my interest in Golf.

cheers

vk

[JESII]

Awesome!

[Mac Plumart]

VK...

I agree with your sentiment.  I have been watching this tournament and enjoying it very much.  The limited commericals is FANTASTIC!!!  More golf, less commercialism.  I LOVE it and appreciate it!!

Concerning the aesthetics, the one thing I am struck by during my viewing is that perhaps the "good looks" of the course overshadows the amazing design of the course.  What I mean is that if I was only a little intersted in golf course architecture, I might be soley focused on the sheer beauty of the grounds and totally overlook the countours of the greens, angles of the approach shots, etc.  But I don't really think that is a bad thing, as the architecture of the course certainly appears amazing...combine that with the beauty of it...and the pure golf and limited commercialism...and you've got a winner in my book.

[Eric Smith]

You should've been a golf writer.  This is wonderful....thank you VK.

[Niall C]

Well Mr Kmetz, that was quite a spectacular rant. A very well reasoned one at that.

While not residing in the US I think I can appreciate your comments in comparing the Masters presentation/media coverage to that of other events. In an ideal world we could all do without the constant interruption of ads, as well as tournaments run in a way that play to the lowest common denominator.

You have to hand it to the club as they effectively subsidise this better coverage and spectator behaviour by not selling out to the highest bidder. That said I have a small complaint that in doing so they seemed to have induced a degree of grovelling and sychophantic behaviour from the media. Is it part of the deal with TV companies that they must eulogise the green jacket as though it were the holy grail ? The greatest major anyone ? Some of you may think so but you would have thought that there might be some degree of impartiality from the broadcasters, particularly the BBC, or is it part of the contract that this is how the y ahve to promote the tournament ?

Niall

[Morgan Clawson]

Brilliant!

I will be passing-out copies of this at the Master's party I am attending on Sunday!

[Gary Slatter]

I think |I agree with you, well said.   I prefer the BBC Open coverage due to it's dawn to dark coverage.

[Dan Herrmann]

VK - wonderfully said.  Thanks!

[Peter Pallotta]

Ditto, KV. Yes, in my more generous moments I'm very grateful to the Augusta membership, one that seems not to use the golf course for themselves as much as maintaining it as a national golfing treasure and championship venue. At times like those, I realize it would be the worst kind of pride to begrudge the membership its exclusivity.
Anyway - fine fine post.
Peter 

[David Federman]

I am most grateful that we are not subjected to all those viagra ads which seem to permeate every other televised tour event.  That being said, we are subjected to the incessant ANGC ass-kissing and pseudo-poetic nonsense that spews from all the announcers from the good folks at The Golf Channel, to ESPN, and most nauseatingly, from Jim Nance and the other folks at CBS. I love watching every second of the broadcast, but could live without the drivel that passes for coverage and commentary.

[V. Kmetz]

I thank the authors of these first posts for their generous approval of my remarks.

Even in such praise, a couple of you mentioned facets of the "issue" that beg a follow-up, originally excised from the original post.

Commercial Business/TV: Many may know this from well-repeated anecdote, but the Masters derives nothing more than a nominal commercial benefit from allowing TV coverage at all.  They derive an enormous "reputation" benefit certainly, but it puts no more money in their pockets than a thousand other unnoticed schemes could.

The gate pays the purse and it pays the staff.  It turns the lights on, as it were.  So before they have sold a lick of point-of-sale merchandise, the thing has broken even.  It's no wonder they can afford to just make a ha'penny on food and beverage and keep prices low.  Those ha'pennies are the first profit.

But their merchandise pavilion is where it is at economically.  And while they try to provide the most restrained experience, the merchandise pavilion is probably the least pleasant aspect of any visit.  You cannot believe the amounts ringing up on those 16 cash registers...$784.52...$403.24...$1344.96...It's like the progressive tallies on casino slots.  (There is nothing so wonderful as watching a wealthy Asian couple going through those lines...they look like walking vendors at a fair)

The point is, they don't need to broadcast one minute of that tournament anymore and everybody knows it.  They recognize that they have any network, foreign or otherwise, at their beck and call and this allows them the insistence on the whatever way they want it.  

They have a YEAR-to-YEAR contract with CBS (the only one like it in the world) that is renegotiated after the previous year's broadcast, and they (at least used to) underwrite some of CBS' production cost and absorbed some of the venture costs by erecting permanent wiring and location facilities throughout the years, so whomever broadcast the tournament would not have their flimsy carnival set-ups roll into town from the previous tour stop.  

If you don't think this doesn't contribute to the serenity of a visit or the undisturbed showcase on TV, you may need to re-assess.

The only reason the scant commercials are there at is to position the broadcast partner in the same position the club is...yes CBS, if you accept the lesser profits of limited commercials, we will share your production expense and you get to use The Masters as part of your brand.  If you take a little less bottom-line profit, we'll remove some headaches and complications and allow you to share in our tradition of hosting.  

I do not know the relationship between ANGC and foreign networks.  As long as they don't need the broadcast dollars, I imagine it's likely the same.  I suspect that part of the reason they permit longer coverage from international broadcast is because of the time difference, they probably don't want the entirety of live broadcast to be so late in the international evening.

But to return to dollars and sense, you may recall during the era of Martha Burk's protest that the Masters indeed had no commercials, but junior golf PSAs  and Hootie Johnson was wondering aloud if they might never go back to having them.  But I do not think they were prepared just then to in essence, pay CBS to broadcast it.  I don't think that sat well philosophically with the club, especially as incited by Burk's protest.

On the print media side... again, they don't need anybody to know the conduct of the Master's tournament anymore.  If they revoked the credentials of every golf journalist on site, the largest cry would be from the media itself not the public.  When they did need them in the first 20 years of the tournament they bought their affection with pampering.  Why do you think so many of the print stories are so glowing and filled with the charms of an Edwardian lawn party?  Because the journalists are pampered beyond belief.  

They have always had modern professional space and facility; are allowed free roam over most of the sanctum sanctorium of the clubhouse and they eat breakfast and lunch and inner off fabulous buffet spreads.  You're treated like a king...what are you going to write?  "Augusta is an elitist institution?"  Hardly.

Interestingly enough I tried to launch my golf writing career some 8 years ago and suffered at the hand of Augusta's controlling nature.  

I snuck onto Augusta National in January 1998 on a Sunday morning...found a weak spot in their Pinkerton defenses and after incredible subterfuge obstacles were overcome, was alone on the 13th tee and 12th green.  I wrote a story about it called "Trespass into Eden" and through back channels actually got into the hands of the renowned Editor and Nicklaus chronicler, Ken Bowden.  

Ken sent the story back to me a month later and told me that even if it was the finest Hemingway story of its kind, there is no way Golf Digest, their publication partners or any golf journalism outfit that needs access to Augusta would publish it.  They are not going to piss off the club by giving air to a story about  breaking into the grounds.  Not only does it deflate their sense of control (that a schmoe like me could do it) but it likely gives an idea to a few other knuckleheads (like me) could be inspired to try.

Ken said I should try Atlantic monthly or some other more literary, non-golf, publication house or include it with something else in book form by a publisher that doesn't have a relationship with Augusta National.

So I've suffered obliquely.  But I'm not angry they have the goods.  That's the way it goes.  It may be part of a great book, who knows...it's a wild story.

cheers

vk

[Niall C]

VK

I don't doubt that Augusta treats journalists royally and perhaps that is why their is a clammer for journalists passes which are way over subscribed. I would suggest that it is the potential loss of individual passes to individual journalists that makes them less than eager to criticise, rather than some corporate entity like a magazine bowing to the whim of Augusta National.

However the TV coverage does smack of a concerted PR campaign to promote the brand of "The Masters". Perhaps you are right, in that they make more money from this branding than they ever would out of advertising revenue from TV, I don't know, not my business but as a "consumer" it does feel a bit like I'm being sold to.

Niall 

[V. Kmetz]

NC,

As to your first paragraph, all I can say is I read it from the Horse's Pen.  If I could ever become adept at posting graphic copies, I would show you Ken Bowden's note on his Editor-in-Chief Golf Digest letterhead.  I certainly paraphrased his language and discretion into my own vernacular but I am not misrepresenting his documented opinion.

I'm not suggesting that the tournament and ANGC are a non-profit and I'm not suggesting that the experience isn't free of "sell." The whole time, I was only making a voluminous defense to short criticsm by saying, "Where or where is it done better?"

Augusta is leaps and bounds ahead of most sporting venues and has created an atmosphere most appropriate to the culture of the sport it covers.

Eye-rolling at "Patron" th dismissal of McCord, the Green jacket presentation and the fawning, cow-towing treatment by the press are facile criticisms when considered in the macro-sense of what's right.

And if you ever get there...it is one of the few experiences that lives up to the hype...every season.

cheers

vk

[V. Kmetz]

5:20 EST...

Phil's Eagle...

yeah, I hate this tournament why do those patrons yell so loud?

cheers

vk

[Mac Plumart]

Vinnie...

Phil's first eagle...or second?!?!?

Amazing!!

[V. Kmetz]

How about that 3rd round for an exhibition of great golf Mac?!

And what a Sunday it sets up...holy smokes!

cheers

vk

p.s. - I was actually writing at the time of the second Eagle...the hole out on #14

[Mac Plumart]

Amazing and exciting!!

Can't wait for tomorrow!

Westwood sure looks solid as a rock.

[Niall C]

VK

By and large I'm agreeing with you. I'm just suggesting some "minor" faults that if corrected could improve the experience even further.

Niall