Golf Channel fans aren't that interested in architecture

[Anthony Gray]

  Again, who would have thought the history of black golfers would have sold? Shouldn't they just give architecture a try?

  Anthony

[Tom_Doak]

Golf architectural history has to be better. Does Ken Burns play golf?

There was actually a documentary filmmaker working on a show about golf architecture for PBS this past summer ... I know he spent a lot of time with Bill Coore, and interviewed me down at Streamsong also.  I don't think the show is finished yet but I would expect it to air sometime this winter or next spring.

For TV as for magazines, the idea that the subject would not be interesting to the audience is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It just needs to be done the right way.  But, I think it would help a lot if they would goose interest a bit by actually paying more attention to course design in their broadcasts.  There is rarely much explanation of why someone has a difficult approach shot or a difficult recovery shot -- when in fact it's usually because they are out of position.

[jeffwarne]

Golf architectural history has to be better. Does Ken Burns play golf?

For TV as for magazines, the idea that the subject would not be interesting to the audience is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It just needs to be done the right way.

Ding ding ding
we have a winner

People watch "Ice road truckers"-so there's a market for anything properly presented.

Nearly every time a good movie is produced, it is a winner.
It's the crap they think we want that sux.(Action rehash 3 starring bruce stallone")
That actually often works in mainstream America because the average American is stupid.

The average golfer isn't-although recent participation surge certainly trended us that way.

Most courses on TV aren't explained by the player commentators, because the courses don't need explaining. (bunker left, water right)
preferred angle? somewhere in the fairway.
Architecture speak is limited to green speed and quality of sand in bunkers.

[Andy Troeger]

I think there's a chance that a show on golf courses/architecture could work, but I think the things they would have to do to make it worthwhile to mainstream advertisers and viewers would probably make it less appealing to those truly interested in the topic.

[Michael Watts]

Andy you raise a great point.  On "The Golf Courses of the British Isles" series we're going to highlight the architecture of the courses, but we realized early on that can't be the sole focus of the program.  At the same time, I think if it's presented in an engaging way viewers will enjoy it and absorb it without even realizing they're getting a strong lesson in course design.  Our way of doing that is using Darwin's text, telling stories about the courses, and most important in my opinion, shooting them in a way that highlights the design and beauty of the course.   If it's visually appealing then it will be hard to turn off.  Even Shell's, great as that series was, didn't truly shoot the courses in a way that you felt like you were there, or got a good sense of what it was like to be there.  That's what we hope to accomplish.

[Ronald Montesano]

Jeff...people (including me) watch Ice Road Truckers to hear Canadian Rednecks speak, as well as for the ever-present danger of a wreck, spill or capsize...the NASCAR effect.

There are no wrecks in golf course architecture...however, that techie who drove the cart into the Barry Burn at Carnoustie last year, at the Women's British Open, may have been on to something.

The only way that Golf Course Architecture could be properly packaged and sold is if:

A-you could put a tee in the governor of the cart and try to launch over the declivity in a Biarritz green...farthest launch wins;

B-you could freeze the steering wheel of said cart, put a brick on the gas pedal, and see if an unmanned cart would indeed follow the Redan kickslope onto the back tier of the Redan green;

C-you could put two Sumo wrestlers on a Short green and let them pummel each other, until one got pushed into the ring of sand that surrounds the thumbprint green, thereby ending the match;

D-you could do something completely farquaded up with a Cape hole, an Alps hole, et al., and convince the viewers that an explosion was about to happen.

[Steve Lang]

... in hard truth is that I make up about 0.02% of the golfing population.

Ben, hate to tell you, but as part of gca.com you're in more like ~0.005% of golfing geek population (1500/30,000,000)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

p.s. did you ever play The Rawls Course or just fly over it?

[William_G]

Golf architectural history has to be better. Does Ken Burns play golf?

There was actually a documentary filmmaker working on a show about golf architecture for PBS this past summer ... I know he spent a lot of time with Bill Coore, and interviewed me down at Streamsong also.  I don't think the show is finished yet but I would expect it to air sometime this winter or next spring.

For TV as for magazines, the idea that the subject would not be interesting to the audience is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It just needs to be done the right way.  But, I think it would help a lot if they would goose interest a bit by actually paying more attention to course design in their broadcasts.  There is rarely much explanation of why someone has a difficult approach shot or a difficult recovery shot -- when in fact it's usually because they are out of position.

Agreed TV could do so much more for GCA with all the technology available. Shaping of shots to account for the shape of the hole is one instance where shot tracker on all shots would help, but it's not going to happen.

I agree with Mac that a documentary as a lead in to the US Open at Pinehurst #2 would help, but then not put aside during the telecast.

Happy Christmas Eve

It's a wonderful life

[Emile Bonfiglio]

I have a very good friend (who gets it also!) who was a producer at the Golf Channell. Spoke about this many times and he said it would never generate any revenue and as such would not get shown. Thats why the Shell series is no longer.

It would be great if it happened, but it never will.

If Jim Colter were doing voice overs for that show it would still be on air and pulling in the Emmys

[Kris Shreiner]

Golf programming that profiles course architecture would be VERY appealing if the stories and personalities that surround the subject matter are woven through the narrative. How many Big Break Whatevers can you have? Great, you're retaining that marketshare that tunes in to watch that listless viewing. What's next to move the meter?

Golf has always been its most interesting and exciting when there have been strong personalities and an energy that's captivating about it...that includes the ground over which it is contested. Interesting, the Open Championship to me is nearly always the most stimulationg to watch, mostly because the balls continue to move along well AFTER they hit the ground.

Tell me that you weren't just squirmmng in your seat whenTom Watson's wonderful shot into the last, at the most recent Open at Turnberry, didn't cruellly creep over the back of 18, leaving him that very testing decision that he couldn't convert into par? If you: profile a course, frame it around the personalities that created it, how it evolved, and then insert great footage of the triumphs and trevails of the wonderful players through the various championships and eras...how is that not enticing to anyone who has even a modest interest in golf?

The Golf Channel brass are delusional if they think they can "Grow the Ratings" in America much beyond their historical benchmarks. The game isn't soccer or American football...IT NEVER will be! If they think Tigermania numbers are consistently possible for the future, there are slim odds on that. Focus on a VARIETY of programming, to attract a WIDER demographic of those that ARE interested in the game and they're on the right track.

The whole GC model has a self-limiting market due to the very nature of the subject matter! It's a damn tough game that isn't cheap to present or play. Plus, golf frustrates many who try and take it up and then swiftly leave it because they can't endure the mental anguish of struggling to get somewhat proficient. The reality is that vast hordes of the human race will NEVER stay in the game, which is fine.

Layer in an entire industry of golf companies, orgaizations and structures developed to churn out products, graduates and numerous other "needs" created in fantasy projections and here we are. The across-the-game contraction in progress, long overdue, makes perfect sense to me.

The key for the game is to: get off the unsustainable greed wagon, rededicate true commitment to prudent resource use(ending distance creep!), better effort to taking care of the game BEFORE thirsting for the whore-out, and it will return to a fitter form.

Cheers,
Kris

[Andy Troeger]

I'm probably not coming at this from the same POV as many. I have a hard time sitting through any TV programming except live sports--its not interactive enough for me and I almost have to be doing something with the TV on in the background to have any chance. Even though I'm obviously interested in GCA, I don't think I could sit through programming on it unless it was really captivating and well done (and said something that hasn't already been said 500 times here, which is tough to do). I watch very little TV except for live sports and the occasional movie that has a good story/plot.

Michael,
Thanks for the note about that show--I do think you have the right idea.

[George Pazin]

... But, I think it would help a lot if they would goose interest a bit by actually paying more attention to course design in their broadcasts.  There is rarely much explanation of why someone has a difficult approach shot or a difficult recovery shot -- when in fact it's usually because they are out of position.

I think what they need to do is exactly this, along with explaining further how they got in the position (ie. was it execution or poor thinking?).

The thing is, I think GC producers assume architecture means the more esoteric things we argue over discuss on here - who designed what at Merion, the history of Pine Valley, etc. I think there are already architecture shows - many of the playing lessons shows, for example. They are simply presented as golf swing execution shows, rather than architecture, when in reality, they are a blend of both, as golf itself is.

If architecture were presented in this manner, I think many would find it more interesting than The Big Break, regardless of how many hot women are on it. Let's face it, there's a lot easier ways to see hot women... there aren't that many Cypress Points or Oakmonts or Pine Valleys.

[Greg Holland]

If the GC's 2012 Majors Preview show is any indication, they arent going to focus on archifecture any time soon. There was one aerial shot of Kiawah, but hardly any other focus or real discussion of the courses to be played 

[Peter Pallotta]

I think Ken Burns is a fine and talented filmmaker, and I have enjoyed very much his 3 main documentaries.  But if you watch them closely, you'll find that he is not actually/primarily telling stories about The Civil War, or Jazz, or Baseball -- instead, over and over again, he's telling the same story, and that's the story of America.  His through lines are always the American story, the over-arching narrative that is America. That's where the buzz and juice and grandeur of the work comes from, its resonance. Burns manages to make it work for two reasons: a) because he is such a dedicated and diligent researcher with a wealth of archival material to hang his hat on, and b) because far from being an elitist and an egg-head who is in love with facts, he is in truth a proud populist, his work being immediately and widely accessible, and always drenched in emotion. But golf course architecture is too narrow a sub-set of an already too narrow sport to pull off that same over-arching/story of America approach, and so I think television tries (half-heartedly to be sure) different ways to tell the story -- but always in the context of trying to teach us something, to give us facts.  And that is the mistake. Because the trouble is that people don't really want or need any more facts, or at least not so much as they want and need resonance and emotion.  The other trouble is that the gca subject matter is actually not all that complicated, and the history of the people and places is actually quite dull if all you are trying to do is teach and share facts.  All of which to say -- and sorry for the blather, I didn't know where I was going with this when I started -- is that if someone wants to make a documentary (or a tv series) about gca, I think they should approach it not as an historian or a golfer but as a poet and a painter.  Show me some beauty. Let me see God and Man working together, the fruits of their joint labour. Give me a reason to embrace the magic of a great golf course.  If you want to borrow from/follow Ken Burns, follow him in this: find what you think is the deepest and most compelling aspect of the subject, the nugget of meaning and resonance and transcendence inherent in the surface subject matter, and then stick to that buzz all the way through and with all you got.   

Peter

[BCrosby]

"I think it would help a lot if they would goose interest a bit by actually paying more attention to course design in their broadcasts.  There is rarely much explanation of why someone has a difficult approach shot or a difficult recovery shot -- when in fact it's usually because they are out of position."

I agree with TD in principle, but in practice being "out of position" usually doesn't mean very much to the pros. If you are regularly hitting approaches with short, lofted irons, intervening architectural features such as hazards, slopes and so forth are invisible to them.

One of the problems with trying to show why gca matters by way of tournament broadcasts is that for the pros it really doesn't matter. Which makes it very hard to ask announcers to give added emphasis to gca.

Bob

[George Pazin]

Lovely post, Peter.

I agree with TD in principle, but in practice being "out of position" usually doesn't mean very much to the pros. If you are regularly hitting approaches with short, lofted irons, intervening architectural features such as hazards, slopes and so forth are invisible to them.

I've always wondered how true this is. Seems to me the slopes are often difficult regardless of what your approach club is, and I think pros accuracy with short irons, particularly during tournament pressure, is somewhat overrated. I can see it being true for the Bob Hope type events, but not at special courses like the majors or The Players, Riviera, etc.

That would be a really fascinating use of ShotLink. What's the name of that website that does the statistical analysis of pro games? I'd like to submit the idea to them.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm jumping into this thread late....

But I think Ronald really hit the nail on the head and partially conveyed what I was thinking when reading the the title of this thread.

Whats the common tie between all those shows like Big Break, Ice Road Truckers, Pawn Stars, etc, etc....that on the surface seem so dull?

Its the drama, mystery, and "what the hell is going to happen next" factor.  TGC totally plays up the drama factor with Big Break.  Pawn Stars plays up the mystery card with what wierd/cool thing will they show this time, and IRT plays up the "whose going to wreck their rig this week" angle.

I'm not seeing on the surface how they can bring any of these elements into an architectual series.  Doing something like this is more akin to watching Civil War stories on History Channel than the above shows.  Perhaps a format like Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives could work, but they would certainly need to find the right host.

The bay area had a version of this at one time with a weekly golf show called "Hooked on Golf".  I'm not sure if its still on, but I loved watching it for the course reviews, despite the two fat guys doing the reviews which was probably more of a deterrent than a plus for the show.  I wonder if TGC has ever looked at doing something like that?