Has Televised Golf been Good for Architecture?

[Padraig Dooley]

Has televised golf been good for Architecture?

Is television to blame for narrow fairways and rough around the greens?

Is it to blame for the move from brown firm conditions to soft green conditions?

Are courses looked at from a good player standpoint because of TV?

Would distance be such a talking point? (Although this has always been a talking point)

Just wondering what people think?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Padraig Dooley,

I think it's had a very negative impact.

Few viewers understand that the host course is specially groomed for four days of viewing, once a year or once a decade, and that the golf course is prepared to challenge the best players in the world, not the average member.

It's not just the narrow fairways, but, the cost intensive maintainance practices that produce what viewers see on TV.

In terms of architecture, certainly narrowed fairways are a negative.  Lush green conditions another.

It was unfortunate that Newport received all of that rain, making the course appear to be what it really isn't.

And, I don't know that the media is interested in golf course architecture, they seem far more interested in the personalities.

[Michael Moore]

Television has allowed millions and millions to see some of the greatest holes in the world, providing a common experience which elevates architectural discourse.

[TEPaul]

Padraig:

In my opinion, a lot of the influence of television golf is now coming from some of the attitudes and the opinions of the golf commentators during those telecasts. I could not have been more encouraged by what Dottie Pepper had to say about the bunkering at Newport during the recent women's US Open and what she had to say about the philosophy of bunkering generally on playability and strategy.

[Phil McDade]

It sure seems to have had an influence at Augusta National. Golf Channel footage of 1960s-era Masters tourneys shows a course with -- gasp! -- a few rough edges, and even some brown spots. The Augusta National seen on TV the past decade or so seems almost painted. As the Masters annually has the highest rating of any tournament aired on TV, I assume there is some connection.

Whether TV has led to the recent changes at ANGC -- added rough and length, primarily -- is perhaps another thread. Wondering if those changes have been discussed on GCA.....

[Gary Daughters]

"Wondering if those changes have been discussed on GCA..... "

Phil --

Rest assured..

[Bob Jenkins]

Television does not do justice to links style courses. You simply cannot appreciate the undulations, the playing conditions etc. that you get on a links course. Television needs more definition in the form of trees, water and large waste areas to show off a course. That may be changing, however, with high definition.
In short, you cannot appreciate links courses as much on TV. Whether that has had an effect on architecture, I do not know but I suspect that an owner wanting exposure for a new course will want something that looks good on TV so that would tend to more water, tree lines, etc.  

[Gary Daughters]

TV's worst sin is pace of play, which is why we see 20+ handicappers stepping off shots of 200+ yds, plumb bobbing and all the other silliness.  You can't even play on weekends.

Golfers demanding putts that stimp at 10+, as they do on tour, give us greens without character.

The Masters, I would argue, has been the most pernicious influence of all.  Forget about fun, a course must be "perfect."

Phil McDade's point is interesting.  Maybe ANGC is in business to supply pretty pictures to CBS.  The place feels like a TV studio.

 

[Bob_Huntley]

TV's worsstudio.t sin is pace of play, which is why we see 20+ handicappers stepping off shots of 200+ yds, plumb bobbing and all the other silliness.  You can't even play on weekends.

Gary,

Plumb bobbing is silly? How so?

Bob

[Gary Daughters]

Bob,

Congrats on the ace.

Did you plum(b) bob it?

[Jim Nugent]

I think the first time television showed the U.S. Open in color was 1965, at Bellerive.  And I have this memory that some of the members there sprayed some ultra green dye on the last several holes.  They wanted their course to look good on TV, they explained in the newspapers the next day.  

That mindset has never really changed, has it?  So from that standpoint, TV has been bad.  On the other hand, TV fueled golf's explosion in popularity, and therefore golf architecture as well.  Without the television and the huge growth in the game, would we have Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Cape Kidnappers, and the other great new courses that are coming on line?

[Jay Flemma]

I'd say no, because they are paid to sell the venue to viewer, whether it's a good venue or not.

Also, too often they are selling a pricey resort or a site with real estate oppurtunities more than a golf course.

Last, the number of great designs we see on TV is dwarfed by the number of milquetoast parkland tracks.

[Travis Ripley]

Television does not do justice to links style courses. You simply cannot appreciate the undulations, the playing conditions etc. that you get on a links course. Television needs more definition in the form of trees, water and large waste areas to show off a course. That may be changing, however, with high definition.
In short, you cannot appreciate links courses as much on TV. Whether that has had an effect on architecture, I do not know but I suspect that an owner wanting exposure for a new course will want something that looks good on TV so that would tend to more water, tree lines, etc.  

agreed.  on any other non golf related/gen discussion boards i frequent the "British Open is boring and the worst of the majors because it's so brown and there are no trees...." annual chest thumping will ensue here in the next week or so.

and even from golfers who echo this....are all minions of the cult of high trajectories and "spin"...such that a well-played ground game is unthinkable and certainly unglamourous.

got a little off-topic, apologies.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Padraig,
There have probably been some bad influences in the past, like those mentioned by Pat Mucci. On the other hand, there seems to be more informed opinions today, like those mentioned in Tom Paul's post.

I look at the bright side, when someone like Brad Klein has the ear of the general public, as he recently did at Newport w/Kessler, then that is good for architecture and architects in general.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Television does not do justice to links style courses. You simply cannot appreciate the undulations, the playing conditions etc. that you get on a links course. Television needs more definition in the form of trees, water and large waste areas to show off a course. That may be changing, however, with high definition.
In short, you cannot appreciate links courses as much on TV. Whether that has had an effect on architecture, I do not know but I suspect that an owner wanting exposure for a new course will want something that looks good on TV so that would tend to more water, tree lines, etc.  

agreed.  on any other non golf related/gen discussion boards i frequent the "British Open is boring and the worst of the majors because it's so brown and there are no trees...." annual chest thumping will ensue here in the next week or so.

and even from golfers who echo this....are all minions of the cult of high trajectories and "spin"...such that a well-played ground game is unthinkable and certainly unglamourous.

got a little off-topic, apologies.  

Padraig, I started a similar thread a long time ago.  Then last summer's Open made me think again and that I and the TV producers had got everything wrong. One of the most applauded threads here pointed out the most interesting shots were the ones where the outcome took the longest time to evolve.  I.e. so often it's the ground game that's most interesting. In a normal broadcast (or even one from the Masters) they seem to back this theory up by focussing mainly on the putting. But at the old course we saw the ball running across the ground for a long time before we knew if the shot had been bad or good.  On one day they had the blimp trained on the 16th green, where on TV it looks like it has a massive mound to the front. Players had to run their ball over it because the pin was just behind it and an aerial approach wouldn't have got close. This was riveting stuff and only Faldo executed properly while I was watching.

Maybe I'm in a minority here but I think TV has yet to discover that firm and fast courses, exposed to wind offer the best entertainment.  Once they do then the firm and fast revolution will really take place.

PS Isn't Pete Dye putting a 6" cap of sand on TPC Sawgrass as we sit?

[Josh Smith]

As most of us probably agree, TV has, and i certainly think, helped in a bad way, mold the general publics golfing values into a very narrow minded list of ideal courses and characteristics.  Which in most cases are in no way ideal for bringing out the best parts of the game of golf.

On the bright side though,   How COOL is it that in the last year and a half, we have been fortunate enough to see and TIVO golf being played at Chicago Golf Club, Newport CC, Merion, Prairie Dunes, Shinny, etc.  An opportunity that is such a blessing if you cannot get there in person, and or don't have the connections to see them in person.

If only the Crosby were still played at Cypress, to watch people manuevering around it would be something to behold on TV.  Was it televised at Cypress back then, i am guessing yes.
 
Royal Melbourne in the Shells Wonderful World in the 60's (recently replayed on TV)  still looked pretty old fashioned in terms of playing conditions.  It would sure be neat to see some of the older videos of the great courses being played.

[Travis Ripley]

On the bright side though,   How COOL is it that in the last year and a half, we have been fortunate enough to see and TIVO golf being played at Chicago Golf Club, Newport CC, Merion, Prairie Dunes, Shinny, etc.  An opportunity that is such a blessing if you cannot get there in person, and or don't have the connections to see them in person.

point taken.  i guess it was last year when in consecutive weeks TOC, Portrush, and Sunningdale were all on TV.

that was, as they say, hog heaven.    

[Anthony Butler]

Television has allowed millions and millions to see some of the greatest holes in the world, providing a common experience which elevates architectural discourse.

Good for architecture... have we not entered the second golden age of course design since golf became so widely destributed around the world? Bad for course preparation and pace of play... tv creates unrealistic expectations of both conditioning and ability.

[Gary Daughters]

"..unfortunately, a lot of my clients watch television and they think that, should the tour players come to their course, they want Tiger Woods to respect it."

-- Tom Doak
Quoted in The Scotsman

[Kyle Harris]

In regard to television and architecture, one must take the good with the bad.

Do you think we'd have the likes of Tom Doak, Coore & Crenshaw and Mike Strantz working today if not for televised golf?

Do you think that our appreciation for the well-designed courses of yesteryear would be as high or as important without televised golf?

Heck, would the game even exist anymore if not for televised golf?

To say that television is what has caused the narrowness, poor maintenance and bad architecture of the last 50 or so years is like saying it was the hammer that didn't build a house correctly.

[Phil McDade]

Kyle:

I'm not sure -- although I've never played any of their courses (from either era), I tend to view Doak, C&C and a few others as the Tillinghasts, MacKenzies, and Ross' of the modern age. Those folks didn't need TV to be motivated to build great courses. They had people willing to financially back their courses, who in turn had the smarts to leave great designers (largely) alone. That's how we got Winged Foot and a host of other great courses. How is that notably different than the backing that Doak got to build Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal, or C&C at Sand Hills, or Tobacco Road?

And I agree with Josh -- it has been neat to see places like Chicago GC, Newport, and Prairie Dunes on TV. But is that to TV's credit? Perhaps -- the growth of golfing viewership, generally, in the past decade or so has led TV to noticeably increase coverage of events such as the Walker Cup, the Senior and Women's Opens, and even the Senior British (where I've watched Royal County Down and Aberdeen in recent years). But credit must also go to the folks at the R&A, USGA and other sponsoring organizations that have (wisely) been willing to put tournaments on vintage, architecturally interesting courses.

Is this year's Curtis Cup slated for TV?!?!?