News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Was David Susskind Right ?
« on: December 30, 2001, 11:16:07 PM »
Years ago, viewers and/or critics were complaining that the real quality TV shows were being removed from the air, and that lousy dumb shows were being aired, and that this was the fault of the producers, directors, writers, and to a lessor degree, the networks.

Susskind offered a reply to the effect that there were no bad shows, only bad audiences.

Has this happened to golf over the last 50 years ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2001, 03:55:34 AM »
Pat:

Another excellent topic! I love stuff like this! Tom MacW, Mark Fine, Jeremy Glenn, Dan King, GeoffShac, Gib etc might have something to say on this topic! They might stick strictly to golf architecture but I love some of the social dynamics and flows and how they've influenced golf, its architecture and a ton of other things--sort of the ethos of it all!

Susskind wasn't right but he was clever! All those old TV heavyweights back then were! And the ones telling them they were producing crap probably were too--they sure thought they were! My Mom was one of them!

Remember we were coming out of the Red-scare McCarthy era, super conservativitism and a lot of people thought those guys were corrupting the morals of the country and their children. Remember when they forced Ed Sullivan to film Elvis from the waist up because anything more was the devil himself! My Mom, who knew Babe Paley from way back when she was Babe Mortimer fired off an incensed letter to Bill Paley telling him he should be totally ashamed of himself for producing Route 66!! He wrote her back saying actually he was sort of ashamed of himself!

But those guys were clever and they knew and practiced well a fundamental American economic truth: "Nobody ever went broke UNDERestimating the taste of the American Public."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike Young

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2001, 05:26:12 AM »
What's the quote" there are golfers and then there are those that play golf".   ....As the game has grown it has grown with at a disproportionate rate between golfers and those that play golf.  Many have taken it up for the wrong reasons...business related...no true love for the game.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2001, 05:42:49 AM »
Just to nit-pick your premise I found this last weekend's EMC skills challenge to prove that while these guys may be good, they're also human. I cannot think of anything more entertaining than watching Nick Price and others miss the green repeatedly from 65 yds. And then to see Vijay hit it 1'11" to win and then borrow a lefty club and hit almost as close, priceless.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BillV

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2001, 06:12:08 AM »
Since we have no choices other than

1-Watch what's on
2-Don't watch what's on

this thread doesn't necessarily compute.  Who out there on htis board has programming control?  Heck, I can't even criticize Johnny Miller here, talk about bad audiences!  8)

We get what marketing researchers determine will draw the largest audiences. D-oh.  Just like the Democratic Party Line, it's about numbers.  Quantity, not quality.

e.g. Anna Kournikova having the most visited athlete's website, it's not about the tennis.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2001, 09:05:32 AM »
TEPaul,

Susskind's point was that the show's creators should not be criticized for the plethora of bad shows, and cancelling of good shows, that they were just following or pursuing the audiences demand, the audiences direction.  (Nielson ratings)

Can the same thing be said about recent golf courses, and recent architectual directions ?

How many holes have been altered for tennis courts or swimming pools ?  How many holes have been altered to put in ponds/lakes/streams with and without fountains and waterfalls ?

If Steve Wynn, Arthur Golfberg or other dynamic entepreneurs want to cater to a certain clientele, or audience, they are going to create the product that will be succesful in that pursuit.

Isn't the same going to be true with community, resort and for profit courses ?  Even private courses ?    

Witness AppleBrook,
a wonderful looking golf course with an unfortunate feature  or two on the 18th hole.  And where did one of those features come from, Palm Springs.  And where did the Palm Springs feature come from, probably Steve Wynn.

So does the cause and effect, the resulting architecture so many on this site complain about, go back to David Susskind's statement ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ed_Baker

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2001, 09:57:34 AM »
Yes, DS was correct.

We(GCAers) are NOT the "market". We complain because we are far more demanding of our golf experiences than the vast majority of people that merely "play golf".We can be labeled many things including elitest snobs,while in reality we are simply "discerning" consumers.

I know scores of people that have "retired" to the gated communities of Florida spanning the entire spectrum of economic commitment for their personal circumstance. Universally they are happy. They play golf 5 or 6 days a week and don't know a redan from a hazard stake, nor do they care too.

I have visited many that play 6100 yard,flat,down and back, "golf courses" and as long as they don't have trouble booking a tee time,they are blissful. Golf, beach or pool, and early bird specials, define there "retirement" and by and large they are grateful. This spans the spectrum from 65k condo's to million dollar "mini estates" with "name" architects on the scorecard. Most of the golf courses fall far short of what we consider "good" on this site,let alone great.

Are they "bad audiences"? I don't know, but they are the market,and the developers and planners recognized that a long time ago.

For every Pacific Dunes that is built there are scores of "gated communities" with golf courses that have very little architectural merit,but they certainly fulfill the premise on which they were built.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2001, 10:02:56 AM »
Patrick,
One big difference: If the TV showed sucked it wasn't around next season. Golf "programming" ain't so lucky. It takes 40 years of mediocre golf before we switch channels.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2001, 10:11:33 AM »
Jim Kennedy,

There is no question that a golf course has a life expectancy that exceeds TV shows, good and bad, but the audience remains to view similar products that appeal to their tastes, over long periods of time.  That audience is responsible for the creation of shows of the same ilk, is it not the same with golf courses, and the tastes of the audience ?  Is there not a craving for the same inferior product ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2001, 10:12:08 AM »
Pat:

Yes it does go back to Susskind's statement. But guys like Susskind, Paley and some of the owners, architects and others in TV or golf we talk about are smart guys! They're smart because they really do understand the validity of that quotation I gave you! Producing for and creating for the lower common denominator of poor taste is a safe play, always has been and always will be! It's the goddamned truth and they've always known it and so do you!

But the point I'm trying to make to you is it does not have to be the only play, forever! They can try other things and it will work! Those other things don't have to be the only thing  either, just a ton more of it than now! It doesn't have to  replace the safe play and the low common denominator totally, in other words!

And why is that? Because the golfing public will accept what they give them, particularly if it's got some known validity to it. Most of the American golfing public don't know golf architecture, they probably don't give a damn about it and they probably never will care about it.

They think the guys who are well known know it all! They will accept what they give them. Tom Fazio, in his book, says he knows what the American golfer likes and doesn't like! I don't think so! He can see what the American golfer will accept but he doesn't really know what they won't accept! He just says he does so he can keep giving them the same old known commodity so he can keep making the same old safe play! Same with those TV guys!

They can do other things, all of them. They don't because nobody's really asking! They never do ask--they just take what you give them! Why wouldn't they--they really don't care!

Some of these artists and successful businessmen should take some chances! They know it will probably work but they don't because nobody's really asking! They never do--they just take what they're given!

Analogize all this stuff to a gutsy artist like Sean Connery. He knew he had an entire career sitting in front of him with the biggest, most lucrative "safe play" anyone had ever seen! A virtual career meal ticket! But he chose to chuck it all and stretch himself. He was an honest artist and a gutsy one and it worked.

They accepted him (right out of stulifying typecasting to boot) and they accepted him at the other end of the spectrum of his art.

Golf architects (TV guys) who are good can do the same thing! And there might even be a spur to it all that most don't think of! There're a lot more people out there in America who admire those who don't give them the same-old, same-old endlessly and take a chance and stretch themselves.

But were talking classic architecture here and the validity of it! And whoever really said it wasn't?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #10 on: December 31, 2001, 10:25:30 AM »
TEPaul,

I see it a little differently.

I don't mean to involve Ken Bakst so much, but I have to to illustrate my point.

I think it is people like Ken, with a historical connection and perspective on golf, more than the architect who will have a more important influence on the future of golf course architecture.

Architects are in the employ of the owner.
The owner usually has a vision, good, bad or mediocre.
The architect usually seeks to fulfill that vision through his
style.

What is needed is more visionary owners.

As you know, I think architects are talented individuals who can see, envision and build things beyond our imagination.
But, I think a knowledgeable owner has the ultimate impact on the architecture created.

But, that's just my opinion.
Mike Keiser would be another example
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #11 on: December 31, 2001, 10:56:06 AM »
Pat,
We have public television, and a plethora of niche channels on cable and satellite. Many people tune out the crap and tune in to these channels. They didn't have that many choices before, they do now. I think it's the same in golf. The "niche channels" are being produced and directed by the guys you mentioned. They are choosing the "writers" that compliment their respect for the "literature" that preceded them and using this team to produce new classics. Their courses are full. I also don't think a tee time at any of the "100 best classical courses" goes unused.
 

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2001, 11:03:51 AM »
Pat:

I mentioned owner. It's all of them to me, each in their own way. Any decision maker can have an impact and that very definitely includes the architect as well as the owner.

I would love to see you work with Coore and Crenshaw someday with your attitude of the owner is everything and the architect is some guy only in his employ! At the moment I would not bet that the two of you would even get as far as the routing!

But of course I could be wrong!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2001, 11:19:52 AM »
TEPaul,

If I had a piece of property, suitable for a golf course, and I had a vision for building this course, do you think my vision woiuld suffer If I hired C & C, Doak, Hanse, Forse, Pritchard,
Rees, or Fazio.  Or would my vision prevail in any of their capable hands ?

Routing is not a science.
There is not just one routing for each piece of property.
I would venture to say that C & C had many internal debates on the routing at Friar's Head.

I wonder how much imput Ken had at Friar's Head ?
Mike Keiser at Pacific Dunes ?
Steve Wynn at Shadow Creek ?
Would I be any different at MIGC ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

jglenn

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2001, 01:30:01 PM »
The problem with mediocre golf courses is not that they are mediocre, for they have certainly have their place in the golf world.

The first sign of problem arises when mediocre golf courses are seen, by the public, to be more than what they are, for whatever reason.

The bigger problem occurs when architect himself is happy with a golf course because the public is.  Public satisfaction is not the goal.  It is the starting point.
____

Put more bluntly, crap is not a problem as long as we know it's crap.  :o

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2001, 01:59:58 PM »
Pat:

Hmmm, good questions.

Of course I suppose I would have to know what your vision was before answering you but if you wanted to do a GCGC idea as you said you did earlier you probably wouldn't have a problem with any of them. Of course, I guess you're ready for the fact that the course probably would not turn out exactly the same with each of them--but that's another subject,  although I believe you said that was not true once before. Sorry but I think it would be true!

As for whether you think you have a suitable piece of property to do this, I do know that at least one of them might not take your word for that and would form his own opinions on that before getting involved. As for a routing, yes, there are probably all kinds of possibilities but it is the bones of a course and an architect definitely has his own feelings about that, obviously contingent on the kind of course you might be looking for. Personally, I don't think that routing is a science as much as an art, and it ain't that easy to do right either if the property has any complexity.

As to doing just what you want I suppose Rees and Fazio would do that, Forse and Prichard I don't know, Tom Doak I really don't know but have a bit of a feeling about, Hanse I do have a pretty clear feeling about and C&C that would very much depend on whether they felt you were on the same page with them and they with you--otherwise you should not and probably would not be working together. I'm not totally sure if you understand that concept in detail at this point. I know it took me a good while to.

As to the input of those that you mentioned: Wynn I think had tremendous input, Keiser I think might have had quite a lot and I think Doak felt he was very much on the same page with Keiser and that he was great to work for in Tom's creative context. Coore & Crenshaw and Ken Bakst, you'd have to ask but my feeling is that they both felt the other was about as good as could ever happen for each other in a project. But there is a modus operandi there which is very subtle and necessary, in my opinion. You sort of have to know when to hold em and when to fold em, if you know what I mean, and it appears they both understood that balance to a tee!

Personally, and this is not to do with any of those courses or owners but if I had had the opportunity to work with C&C at something like Ardrossan, at first I felt a lot like you and I  wondered what exactly my input would or could be. I thought a lot about that too over those few years and I came to the conclusion that at the outset we would agree that I would tell them anything on my mind but ultimately all things would be their call and I'm certain I could live with that because I really do have a lot of faith in them. The great thing about working with them, I think, is they don't tell you everything you want to hear at all and they take an inordinate amount of time figuring out that you're on the same page with them and them with you! If you want them to do something they don't want to do or don't think they can do they will tell you before anything gets signed and that can involve many things!

That's my honest opinion, Pat, and I do believe if you think you could get them to do anything you want, I really believe you'd be wrong! Also, although obviously I don't really know,  I have a strong feeling that if Wynn offered them Shadow Creek with the vision he had for the place I don't believe they would have done that project--not that way anyway!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2001, 10:42:43 PM »
TEPaul,

Do you think my architectual views and values are in conflict or in harmony with C & C's views and values ?    ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #17 on: January 01, 2002, 06:21:16 AM »
Pat
What are your architectural views and values?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #18 on: January 01, 2002, 06:25:34 AM »
I agree with Jeremy what the masses think is not really important unless you are creating a world-wide chain of public golf courses. TV shows and fastfood resturants worry about the tastes of Joe Public, a golf architect does need to design to the lowest common denominator.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #19 on: January 01, 2002, 06:26:25 AM »
Pat:

I have no idea. It's something you would probably just have to find out on a particular project or a particular site.

At Ardrossan I thought the site might offer the opportunity to do a course without bunkers and I asked Coore about that and he said that would be an idea he would like to try on a project at some point but at Ardrossan he thought the site called for really great bunkering! So that was that! On that issue we were looking at it from opposite ends of the spectrum obviously.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2002, 08:00:44 AM »
Tom MacWood,

If, after one and one half years you don't know what they are you've been sleeping at the switch, especially since I have clearly stated what I like, numerous time, in other threads.  

So, you and Jeremy think that when the architect is designing a course for Joe Q Public, he should ignore Joe Q Public ?
Interesting concept.   Hlow far into the project do you feel the architect would be before the owner fired him ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #21 on: January 01, 2002, 09:12:16 AM »
Jeremy Glenn:

Could you explain what you mean by "public satisfaction is not the goal"?

If satisfying the people who will play the course is not the goal, then what is?

Also, do you know of any architects, dead or alive, who don't place great value on people who play their courses being "satisfied"?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

TEPaul

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #22 on: January 01, 2002, 11:40:18 AM »
My take on Joe Q Public and whether his opinion should be considered or not in architecture is probably a bit of the middle ground.

Tom Fazio and maybe even Pat thinks they know what Joe Q. Public likes but also what he doesn't like and won't accept. Tom Fazio certainly told us in his book enough times all the things about some of the old classic courses that Joe Q Public WILL NOT accept! I don't believe it at all! I think Joe Q will accept what Tom Fazio gives him, period! Why? Because Joe Q respects Tom and thinks he knows what he's talking about no matter what he gives him! I think that's the main reason that Tom can stretch himself and give Joe Q some different things in architecture than he does now. But Tom and his owner/clients are absolutely certain that Joe Q will accept what he's been giving him all this time so they just stick with it!

Tom says Joe Q won't accept blind shots, won't accept back to back par 3s and 5s etc, etc and on and on, like on some of these old classic tracks! Tom even uses Cypress as the example!

That to me is just the biggest BS I ever heard in my life. Those statements in Tom's book weren't real well thought through, in my opinion!

Cypress has back to back par 3s and 5s and Pine Valley has a number of blind shots. Is Tom seriously trying to tell us that Joe Q would not want to play those tracks and would not accept their architecture if he did play them? That's outrageous to imply that he wouldn't! Tom just didn't think that through real well.

Tom and some of his owner/clients should stretch themselves and give Joe Q some more variety and some of the architecture and some of the principles from the old tracks! Joe Q would accept it--I'll guarantee you he would!

Of course someone is going to say they've heard a ton of Joe Qs say they don't like blind shots and back to back par 5s and 3s! In my opinion, that's because architects like Tom have been telling Joe Q for so long what he doesn't like including  blind shots and such that Joe Q believes him because he's Tom Fazio, one of the premier architects in the world and he certainly knows what he's talking about. Joe Q respects Tom.

Tom could give Joe Q about anything he wanted to and Joe Q would accept it, in my opinion, including blind shots, back to back par 5s and 3s and all the other stuff he keeps telling us that Joe Q won't accept.

So should the architect listen to what Joe Q wants? I don't think so--Joe Q will be accept whatever Tom gives him--and I think he'll be satisfied too!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

jglenn

Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #23 on: January 01, 2002, 12:07:57 PM »
Patrick and Tim,

I've obviously been misunderstood.

Of course I care what Joe thinks.  As I've so often said in earlier threads, who are we to tell Joe how to have a good time?

As such, one of the main task of a golf course architect has is to design a course that Joe likes, on which he will have a good time.  It's not to design a course that we would like, nor is it to design a course that we think Joe should like.  Our job is to give him what he will like.

That, however, is the starting point.  Once that is done, we should not stop and pat ourselves in the back.  With all due respect to Joe, that's not setting very high standards.

Our real goal is to push the design beyond what we and the toughest critics out there ever hoped.

Our job doesn't finish with public satisfaction.  It has only begun.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was David Susskind Right ?
« Reply #24 on: January 01, 2002, 01:50:22 PM »
Jeremy:

This is one of the times when words may be getting in the way, when it is not even clear whether we agree or disagree.

My simple definition of the "public being satisfied" is when people finish playing the course, they decide they want to come back and play it again.  And again.  And again.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman