[Will Peterson]

I have had the opportunity to play a number of courses that hosted tournaments on TV, but three of them I have played in proximity to the event and had what I thought was a vivid memory to compare with the telecast.  Two of them looked very good and much similar to what I remembered (TPC Sawgrass and Carnoustie) one did not (Kinderlou Forest).

I was watching the Nationwide event this evening, and the course did not look that good on TV.  I played there about six weeks ago, and absolutely loved it.  It just doesn't look that exciting on TV.  The coverage is limited to four holes (15-18 which are normally 6-9) and they are not the most spectacular on the course, but I did think they were strong holes.  I really liked the green on 8/17, the approach to 6/15, and 7/16 is a great short par 4.

Have others had similar experiences?

[Ronald Montesano]

Elaborate on what you mean by "did not look so good."  I'm an amateur when it comes to technology, but perhaps number and type of cameras employed had something to do with it, to begin.  When it gets down to architecture, don't trust everything you see on television.  Not all great courses come across on the small screen.  In fact, I'm told it makes them appear wider...

[Doug Sobieski]

I think the question you posed also translates to why some courses photograph better.

I had the EXTREME good fortune to play Old MacDonald last week. A good friend of mine does the yardage guides for Bandon, which prompted me to comment to my hosts that although OM is an absolutely amazing golf course, it will likely take some effort to photograph it effectively compared to the other three courses. It's certainly not a knock on the course (which I loved, but that's for a different thread), just a fact that some creativity will be needed to do several holes justice in pictures. I believe this thought first struck me while playing the Redan. The hole is tremendous, but it sits in a very flat, open area without much of a backdrop. When pictures are taken, the shadows will be critical to telling the story.

[Jud_T]

To my eye,

The best looking golf on TV happens every year at the Open Championship, particularly if the wind is up...

[Tim Nugent]

I believe (and hopefully Adrain can chime in) that going from binocular 3-D to monocular 2-D flattens and minimizes topography.  Plus, cameras are placed to see the faces of the players not their backsides, so not a lot of shots are from the same perspective as we get when playing.

[Gary Slatter]

the experience of the director, the number of cameras (elevated) and the sponsor also play a large part in what we see on the TV.

[Matthew Rose]

For whatever reason, courses that are predominantly bent or rye or bluegrass look better on TV to me than do courses that are predominantly bermuda. I don't know if is because of the grain of the bermuda, or what.

The best example I guess would be the TPC... for whatever reason, I always thought it looked better in March than it does in May. I presume this is due to the cooler-season overseeding?

[Will Peterson]

Ronald,

By "not looking good" I mean the architecture.  The course looks very flat and boring on TV.  I know that TV does diminish slopes, but this seems more than normal.  I found that so many of the holes looked really good in person.  Holes had such a great veiws from the tee, the fairway, the cartpath as you approached or looked back.  They moved so well with the land and the surroundings.  I don't know if some of it may be the stands.  There are none at the tournament, and I think the framing they provide greens may help them look better on TV.

Matthew,

I completely agree about the bent vs. bermuda.  I find that contrast on site or on TV.  I have not seen a bermuda course where the grass looks anywhere near as good as a nice bent one.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I know one of the GCA group pet peeves is a cross over mowing pattern...but it sure does show the contours a lot better.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()