Apparently some golf fans are really upset with Rogers Cable. I haven’t bothered speaking about it too much because, believe it or not, but I don’t really watch it and I’m on ExpressVu, so there haven’t been any changes. But the basis of the story is that Rogers took TGC off its cable packages and now if you want it you need digital cable.
This is a hotly contested topic on Torontogolfnuts.com. Poster Nickelhead says:
Rogers have obviously done their demographic homework and figure they can get away with it. Pass the lube please.
Anyway, there’s a whole thread on this here. I can’t get too excited about this because I find TGC verges on being a public relations company for big golf, rarely questioning anything. They love Tiger Woods! They love Michelle Wie! They love everything. Now back to an infomercial about some new golf training aid that attaches to your crotch in an aim to keep you from being too lateral.
In other news, there was plenty of debate about my post yesterday in regards to the Hamilton-area developer who plans to ask for input into the design and name of his golf course (I have an idea: Royal BS, cause that’ll cover the course and the name at once!).
Regular poster KC said:
The developer of the course would be wise to learn a lesson from the much-hyped movie Snakes On A Plane. Lots of noise, but flopped where it mattered the most – i.e. the box office.
Having the general public pick the color of the apron of the line cooks or the hair colour of the cart attendant would be a safer bet.
I actually agree. The problem with most golf courses is that they suffer entirely from a lack of vision. Most owners and developers can’t distinguish a good golf course from a bad one (which explains Royal Ontario). You need a singular vision to create a good golf course, not input from a bunch of people who probably don’t know what makes a course great. Look at the great courses created in recent years — Kingsbarns, Bandon Dunes, and in Canada, Eagles Nest. All are a distinct vision of what a golf course should be. Sometimes the vision comes from the designer, sometimes from the owner.
Weekend Enthusiast replied:
The online community likes to engage in an issue (whether it is promoting a film or contributing to the content) but this historically has not translated into purchase behaviour.
Which was followed by Kerry:
I think the whole concept is a Buzz generator.
It is highly unlikey he would get much useful feedback from the general golf public. What will they say, it should be “fair”, “challenging” and good value. It is difficult to get five golfers to agree on anything about golf design.
But the whole feedback concept will generate buzz and could bring about some anticipation which cannot be bad. Locals may feel that they have been part of the project. Interesting to see how far he takes the interactive design concept.
So I am sceptical about the actual feedback and his sincerity in using it but optimistic about the loyalty it may intially deliver.
It is different.
I’ll give him points about trying to generate a buzz, guys, but in the end the buzz only last so long. If the course isn’t great then players, who have plenty of options, won’t come and play, regardless of whether their name was chosen (Royal BS is sounding better and better).
Anyway, I’m off to see Thornhill Golf and CC this morning and then heading to the Ridge at Manitou next week. Oh, and there seems to be genuine interest in Hamilton Golf and CC from search engine traffic. I think I’ll write up a commentary on the course in the next few days. Will keep you posted….