So long ago I don't remember the details accurately, I read an account of the production of WWOG. It was a slog. The typical show took 2 days to film--9 holes per day that took all day. They'd film a hole then move all the camera and audio equipment and crew to the next hole while the golfers, I assume, hung out until they were ready. It sounded like the making of a TV show or commercial rather than a golf match. I suppose to keep production costs to a set budget. Back in those days tour pros often made more money doing exhibitions and corporate outings than collecting tournament purses. As somebody pointed out, very different economics today.
I think it would be an interesting production puzzle to sort out in today's market. Probably the sponsor couldn't afford tour pros, but club pros and top amateurs (payed as SAG entertainers) might work if the venues were world class. Sent in the drone crew to shoot the course/architecture in advance. On match day, deploy the camera crews to leapfrog the match conducted in more or less real time. The golf course is the real star, mix in competitive historical footage, tell its story, highlight the architect, explain its culture and evolution, and cut it down to an hour TV show. Do it well and it will be a golf classic that will will run forever on the Golf Channel during the winter filler season or weekdays the rest of the year.
I know most golfers don't give a sh*t about architecture, but nobody has made much effort to make it exciting or intellectually interesting. We may well be golf geeks and a tiny fraction of the golfing world, but many of us could provide interesting suggestions for content and story lines. Line up the production bucks, get some top courses to agree to be featured, do a good job on few pilot shows, and, who knows, we could have a larger voice. The producers could launch a thread on golfcourseatlas.com and other architecture sites about any revered venue and have hundreds of content suggestions from around the world within a few days. Pay our best guys and gals a pittance to be on an editorial board to pick out the best ideas, do some research, basically what we do for nothing now, and hash out a script outline. It may well be group think, but it seems much more productive than a lot of the crap/ratings we argue about every day. We could actually pitch our ideas to the general golfer population instead of preaching to the choir.
I know nobody at the Golf Channel thinks this will work. But has it actually been tried by talented people? In theory, the production team could be very small, augmented by at least 1,500 volunteer script consultants and a few paid editorial experts. Yes, it will be like herding cats and egos will get bruised if even modestly successful. However most golfers don't read books, DG's, or blogs but will watch an hour of TV. Shorter half-hour versions could be done for notable courses that, in my view, would be superior to the Golf Central pre-game drivel they have now. A sort of viewers guide to a golf tournament. Who really wants to see a golfer warming up and listen to Brandel Chamblee BS about his swing? Pay one of our architects to describe the challenge. [size=78%] [/size]