[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You stated, "Sporty courses with quirk have been hidden to the public, via the media, because they never host a meaningful event."

Define a "meaningful event."

As an example, the MGA Met Open. Look at the courses they use and the names of the competitors.
[size=4x]
Although this event is never televised.....[/size] I would challenge anyone to say it isn't a meaningful event.

I'd call that "hidden from the public"[/color]

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

I'm still interested in your definition of "meaningful event."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

One that's televised.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

So then it is up to the media to define what is a meaningful golf event?

Which one is more meaningful, the Met Open or the Battle at the Bridges?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil.

To a National TV audience .. The battle of the Bridges.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

You responded with, "To a National TV audience .. The battle of the Bridges."

A national TV audience nevr decided whether they considered the "battle" to be a meaningful event. You know that, it is nothing more than a made-for-tv special that has no meaning whatsoever.

This is why I feel so strongly that about the danger of the media deciding what is historically important rather than letting time bear it out on its own.

For example, the Augusta Invitational became cosnidered of major importance because of the players desire to win Bobby Jones Invitational, not because CBS dictated that we needed a major in April.

Frankly, with the rearranging of the PGA Tour schedule coming up, I have already heard announcers on a local golf show (radio) talk about how moving the Players Championship to May means that we now have a Major Championship every month from May to August, as if that was something of earth-shattering importance and that the Players IS actually a recognized Major.

Claiming that something is important for the sake of TV ratings doesn't make it so nor does it make it meaningful. It only means that people watch it for the minimal reason that there is nothing else on worth watching.

My question then for you and others, should TV & the media, be the deciding factor in deciding what is a meaningful event in golf?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

TV puts on programs that they feel will attract a high number of viewers, ergo, advertising dollars.

They rarely go after a unique, extremely narrow segment of the market.

As David Suskind said, "there are no bad programs, only bad audiences"  And, he was right.

If the network's experience and marketing studies felt that "The Battle of the Bridges" wouldn't attract viewers, it wouldn't get on the air.

If the network's experience and marketing studies felt that
The Met Open would attract viewers, it would get on the air.

The Masters has remained unique to all of golf and TV because it's a rare case of the object of the telecast, controlling the telecast, rather than the network and the producers.

That's why I gave "The Making of the Masters" to the Father Malloy, the President of Notre Dame.  And, I've been searching for another hard cover to give to Father Jenkins, the new President of Notre Dame.

If anyone has a "new" hard copy, I'd be interested in purchasing it.   Thanks.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()