[Tim_Weiman]

For at least fifteen years, I’ve been struggling to understand why modern architects, given all the money and technology at their disposal, just don’t seem to be able to match work done in the classic era.  They just don’t seem to produce work as interesting as that done by the old timers.

I’ve heard the usual excuses.  There is no good land left.  Environmental issues stand in the way.  And so on.

But, now I wonder.

Do modern architects perform less well precisely BECAUSE of the money and technology available?  Does money and technology make modern architects lazy?  Does money and technology undermine the focus on working with the land and producing something unique?  Is it a coincidence that the two best modern designs (Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes) were built in remote areas with little earth moving and expense?

[RJ_Daley]

Tim, turn to any issue of craftsmanship from furniture making, to masonry, to keeping a good dairy farm (just to take a wide swat of examples for this question).  Where does one go to find the kind of classic hand crafted furniture that one often sees on the Antique Road Show?  Surely, the machinery mass produced Ethan Allen isn't it, wouldn't you agree?  What about great Cathedrals?  Is the last great stone masonry building to be the National Cathedral in Washington that was started at the turn of the 20th century and which great blocks were cut by the 1920s-30s?  There aren't many great masons left, only high tech cut blocks that take on a sameness of uniformity.  (read Pillars of the Earth by Follette for insight in this issue).  And, think back to the small dairy farms.  It took craftsmanship of a particular kind to keep the old neat orderly bucolic farmsteads, not the big machinery, mass piled up feed bins, and vast sprawling farm yards and feed lots of today. Cripes, I fear I'm talking like Ted Kazinski, but technology is taking the appreciation of craft out of everything.

So, when it comes to craftsmanship on the design and build of a golf course, why would it be any different?  It is an ever deminishing return concerning golf course design of more money and more mass production machinery usage, then less of the crafted look.  Big business ideas is killing golf course craftsmanship.  I don't care what any of our esteemed architects that participate here on GCA say if they deny that.  They are understandably in business to make money.  The more money - the better for them as one measure of success.  That isn't something that I necessarily fault since it is a practical and naturally capitalistic manner to procede.  But, don't tell me that the usage of these high capacity earth movers, and mass production and high tech efficiency methods of things like drainage infrastructure and the like "add" to craftsmanship.  I think that the more infrastructure you stick into a course, the less of the old crafted look you can achieve.  That is why the old clubs that were designed by clever guys that stayed on site constantly to learn the nuances and subtleties of things like natural surface drainage were able to craft their way around it and yet include these concepts into strategic play.  Now, with technology, they'll ultimately make it drain the way they want no matter how much they have to pound it to make it so.  They'll pound their idea of efficient conventional golf palying wisdom - everything fair and risk management free - into the design with big equipment.

This is why Pac Dunes, Wild Horse, Sand Hills will not be eqaulled by the likes of the big concept guys like Fazio or even Dye, because they are predispossed to approaching their work as a big machine, big idea orientation and will never achieve the craftsmanship look that went into those minimalist designs.  When it comes to golf design, I believe like the country song says, "its OK to be little bitty..."

[BillV]

Change it, for better or worse.  Harm it in my opinion.

(To answer the original question)

[Paul_Daley]

Tim:

When built, Barnbougle Dunes (Tasmania) will be added to the list of SH and PD - for precisely the same reasons.

[TEPaul]

Tim;

It's definitely not coincidence that the courses you mentioned are well respected because the architects of each allowed those courses to evolve more out of the natural landforms of each site!

I don't know that I would say that today's architects are lazy exactly since they don't let courses evolve this way. They certainly might be less adept at doing that than earlier architects were but maybe only because they really don't have to be.

Earlier architects had to do this certainly because they did not have the earth-moving capabilities that exist today but the more interesting question would be what would the earlier architects do if they had that capability?

There are certainly a ton of "Golden Age" courses that have extremely interesting and beautiful routings and golf holes whose architects did not or could not move the massive amounts of earth that they can today like Merion, NGLA, Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Seminole, Lehigh, Huntingdon Valley, Oakmont, Riviera etc, etc. All these sites are examples of land that seems naturally good for golf but certainly not without a number of complexities in a more natural routing and hole building sense.

In my opinion, there are a number of factors that also contribute to modern day architects' unwillingness or inability to use the land more naturally for routings and holes. Some of these factors and very significant ones have to do with things like variety and balance.

It is simply not easy to find really good golf holes and find them in the positions on the land necessary to create great, good or even acceptable balance and variety. Since it isn't easy, today they simply manufacture them in those postions and sometimes in ways that aren't attractive!

However, there is a converse factor here that appears to have made natural routing even harder for the earlier architects and doing routings and holes even easier for modern architects. That might be seen as the factor of the cart! In the earlier days without the benefit of the cart for transporting golfers, the earlier architects had to not only find the holes and hopefully in the right natural position but they had to come much closer to "connecting the dots" on the routing. That means keeping the greens and tees very close together. Good holes in the right position on the land (creating good balance and variety) and "connecting the dots" between them is not an easy thing to do, I promise you!

To make those complexities easier certainly a great site helps a lot. The sites in the old days that weren't great that way or had a ton of real complexities are where the earlier architects ran into problems of unavoidable bad holes, bad routings or some other inherent condition that was less than ideal in one way or another. The dividing line of these sorts of problems seems to be where bad architectural holes seem to meld into being considered "quirky" or vice versa!

Many of these things seem to be the areas of success or failure in the old days. And they are probably the same areas that today's more minimalist architects are faced with too. I'm mindful of a statement of Bill Coore's early on that the complexities of finding and building good courses in a more traditional and minimal sense is not how you identify and handle the areas that are easy or obvious to route as good holes and good stretches of a routing but how you handle and overcome the areas that aren't--the problem areas.

In this way the whole process really does become one of a very large jigsaw puzzle and figuring out how the pieces are going to fit together into an acceptable (or maybe great) whole. Sometimes doing it this way seems almost nonovercomeable (in the more minimal sense) or sometimes appears to be like sliding fence rails into endless stretches of lengths of posts--you seem to have to keep going so far back and starting all over again to get the rails into the posts always trying to figure out how to work around those areas that don't slide in right!

Modern architects just aren't faced with as much of this as the architects were of an earlier time so they don't really need to be as observant of the land and creative with it, particularly those problem areas--those areas are the ones that are probably the most significant because today's architects don't have to work around them, they can just make whatever they need to in those areas.

The danger is that modern architects probably just get used to this process and start manufacturing things from square one everywhere and even missing landforms and such that are really good for golf. That's when you get architects actually ruining very good sites!

Plus there's a lot of money in earth-moving! The thing that kills me about the realities of all this mechanization is not just that they use it so much to create artifical things and in the process miss or destroy great natural things when they don't have to do that, but that they have done so much of it now that golfers are beginning to think that's the only thing to do and they actually don't like or criticize some of the older more natural processes and some of the creative holes and courses done that way!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

I've always felt that it was denial of their legacy, the popularization of individual creativity, and ego.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong

[Tommy_Naccarato]

This is the Tim Weiman I know and love!

Forget this Fazio character and all the framing he stands for! (With the exception of Sand Ridge! )

Tim it is going to take a long long time, but in the end these moderate cost to build courses will be what our generation will leave as a legacy. Not the Pelican Hill's of the world.

No this isn't Fazio-bashing, it is common sense prevailing and Tim Weiman is all a part of it!

Yes, money makes the world go around and in this day and age, more power to those who have the great ability to generate it and create something of modest significance. In example, shape a green that may cost more to maintain, and screw the waterfall or man-mad riparien creek that is nothing more then a gimmick. Which feature offers the best design and golf?

What hurts golf architecture is the lack of knowledge to produce the best design without gimmick and placing such predominance on creating an environment, while not relying on the existing one that is there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I think we just said the same thing, using different words.

[RobertWalker]

John Steinbeck wrote with no 2 pencils. Every Morning he sharpened a box of them, and wrote until they were all dull. He would take a break, resharpen, and then write again.
Would he have written differently on a computer?
I think that he would have had to learn how to express himself using a new tool.

Golf Course construction was different with mules and people doing all of the work. Additionlly, too many "modern" architects design with the triplex in mind.

I think that C&C have figured this out, and know how to make a caterpillar act like a #2 pencil. Also, they are not designing for the greenkeeper.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy N:

My opposition to "bashing" is hardly a defense of modern architecture.

I just oppose "bashing" because I think it is too easily dismissed.

It is far better to use your writing skills to encourage more projects like Sand Hills, Wild Horse, Pacific Dunes, etc.

I'd much rather get on a plane to Tasmania for a Barnbougle Dunes than play another Pelican Hill.

Dick Daley/Tom Paul:

Thanks for your lengthy, interesting replies.

Perhaps my use of the word "lazy" is inappropriate.  However, I am concerned that the craftsmanship of people like Bill Coore is lost when a generation of golf architects learns to do nothing but apply money and technology.

[Bill Miller]

I agree with RJ regarding the "itty bitty" aspect, as I am one of these designers. There is a lot to be said for spending countless hours on a job site as a designer visualizing, routing, rerouting, etc. I have personally been on many job sites as a shaper where you never see the architect or a representative of his for months. I think maybe we are getting away from taking these jobs personally, feeling that you have a personal stake in every course, whether it is a championship 18 holer, a nine hole executive, or a single green renovation project. Take pride in what you do.
  I don't think technology is to blame, I don't know where any of us would be if it weren't for the dozer. Shaping is an art and the dozer is our pencil. They just enable us to be more efficient.
 

[Craig_Rokke]

I think that during the 80's and 90's, the game of one upsmanship by owners with money to burn definitely created some unappealing layouts.

[archie s.]

This is a great question in that the simple answer, that the architect might not spend enough time and energy on site, would seem to be the case with Donald Ross, with some notable exceptions. Yet most everyone is quick to jump on the Ross bandwagon, and unearth some new drawings to re-Ross an old course of his.

Perhaps we discount that time has allowed golf courses to mature and "find their game". Not too many modern day artists are considered in the same league as the greats.
Architecture and art, being subjective in many ways, where form can truly overshadow function, is hard to measure. My guess is that a few of the new courses will in time be considered great, once they have stood the test of time.

[ed_getka]

One aspect of the golden age architects that I don't read too much about here is the wealth that they or their families had. Not being dependent on course design for income probably allowed them to do more of the work they had in mind rather than making concessions to whoever was paying the bills. From what I've seen in the few months I've been participating here and what I've seen in the field as a result of the enthusiasm of you guys has been an eye opener. The amount of diplomacy required to function as a golf course architect is much greater than I had imagined. Just a few thoughts.  

[John_D._Bernhardt]

As god as my witness, i will find a way to allow the land to the canvas and create 18 well balanced interesting holes which make you use all the clubs in your bag. Even if that is only 8 otr 9 for some of you guys,

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

I've been noodling on whether to reply to this for a while, mostly because I think RJ is right - "He doesn't care what any of our esteemed architects that participate here on GCA say if they deny that" and will keep the same opinion.  

Lots of true stuff, especially regarding the craftsmenship of doing things slower, and with horse and scoop in the old days.  Also, much of the quirk design is gone, simply because it can be with new technology.

However, you continually make false statements about the differences between then and now, that don't really explain the differences.  To start, Brad's book on Ross and Tom's on MacKenzie defineatly show that they did not spend lots of time on site!

Tim,

"Is it a coincidence that the two best modern designs (Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes) were built in remote areas with little earth moving and expense?

The only cooincidence is that they are on two of the best - not just modern - sites ever,and were designed by good architects. Period.

TEPaul,

"Plus there's a lot of money in earth-moving!"

As near as I know, most if not all, architects structure their fees in such a way as to not make any additional money from  more earthmoving. In Japan, it was typical for earthmoving companies to have the main contract, so architects were more or less forced (of course, the mountainous sites, to which golf is restricted to preserve agricultural land also affects this) by the contractor to move lots of earth.  In fact, I recall my job in Indonesia, where I was greeted by lots of barren land.  The project manager felt he should "get all the trees out of my way, so I could move more earth".  I stopped clearing and didn't move much earth at all.

In this country, we, or at least I, usually move as little earth as the site allows.  Also, if you read Geoff's book, you will know that Rivera, in fact, moved tons of earth! Many older courses, like Lido, also moved a bunch when necessary and allowed by budget.  I think all those architects would have experimented with, if not adapted wholesale, more and more earthmoving.  Ross said so in Golf has never failed me.....And I believe just like designers today, the best designers would simply want to break out of their molds, at least once in a while.  Of course, just my opinion.....

Ed,

While Thomas and McDonald were wealthy, and not accepting a fee, Ross came to America without a penny in his pocket, and probably  felt the pressure to keep his staff working - the same business concerns we have today.  Tuft may have been a "sugar daddy" giving him a personal income in his "side job" as Pinehurst director of golf, but I'll bet he didn't die wealthy.  Of course, MacKenzie died broke.  Don't know about Maxwell and the rest.

Tommy,

Your opinion is clouded by the fact that you live so near "Waterfall Central". I'll bet most courses don't rely on gimmicks at all - At least mine sure don't! My clients can't afford it!

I still maintain that most of what you like just isn't possible anymore.  Until they run out of lawyers, greens and tees will be spaced further apart, if only to accommodate cart paths and modern ideas of safety. The smaller scale of older courses is charming, just as the narrow streets of Boston or Pinehurst village are more charming than a superhighway.  But, streets, towns, houses, etc. have all gotten bigger because of money and technology, because for the most part, we have found using more space is better, even if some charm is lost. As archie says, we ignore the built in charm of mature trees and turf, history and its mental associations, as well as the fact that almost every mistake on old courses has been eliminated by redesign!

But form does follow function, and a course with small greens and tees would lose most of its charm with the dead grass, since most courses today are designed for higher play levels.

Other than that, and elimination of quirk noted above, I believe most architects still find a majority of their natural golf holes the old fashioned way and strive hard to do it, even discounting the addtional concerns we have today. If anyone out there can find a specific hole on one of my courses that you feel I ignored the topography out of laziness, I would like to hear of it!

Just my opinion!

Jeff

[Gib_Papazian]

Jeff,
I wonder if trying to achieve more traditional pacing is part of the problem. Some of the worst examples of unnecessary earth movement I have seen looks to be the result of trying to force a 36-36-72, two par 3's and two par 5's per side template on the ground.

When I see clubs like Atlantic, where masses of earth were moved to achieve this "ideal," the result is a hideously awkward routing.

Perhaps the reason Doak's work is so well received is that he is not afraid of back to back par 3s and par 5's. Or even have only two par-4s on the inward nine of a golf course.

Maybe because the money and raw muscle is there to mold the site to achieve this ill-conceived "ideal," the temptation is too great not to use it.

 

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff Brauer,

I can always count on you to rise up and defend the honor of the big concept, efficient methods, highly promoted, well schooled, fully documented, risk management conscious, ISO quality standard certified, and ASGCA incubated from cradle to grave - architects. The suggestion that there are little bitty guys and small golf course designer craftsmanship oriented people out there operating apart from - and in the face of the big professional organizational machine seems to be the cause that will bring out the old war whoop.  

But, you tend to always take my statements on the matter just a smidgen far afield from where they were flung.  For instance, in my pondering the concept of old fashion craftsmanship, I allude to the disciplines of the old masters with their eye for detail, their likelyhood of spending much more time on site, their lack of access to high capacity equipment causing them to be more clever in how they approach the project, and resulting necessity to use more of the land they were given as it was - even if it meant designing in some quirky features.  While alluding to those contrasting ideals and methodology that would tend to point to the more olden days of yore necessities of project management, I never used one example of an old "golden era" course to demonstrate craftsmanship principle I was trying to speak to.  I did in deed point to the three modern era courses that exemplify the craftsmanship ideals, WH, SH, PD.  NOne of the guys that built them are dead yet.  None where members of ASGCA when they built their projects.  The designers of those projects had small craft oriented teams of constructors and were there every step of the way to build in the details day by day.  I think it shows.  They did not have or use fancy reams of drawings and specifications/documentation for every cube of soil to be cut and filled, and wide varieties of earth movers of every sub specialty.  They undoubtedly had limitted equipment budgets, and a minimalist plan to keep down costs on everything from equipment fleet leasing and fuel costs to restrictions of doing limitted work at one time rather than a multi staged construction of many holes getting done simultaneously by a large contractor crew, where I feel attention to detail and disjointedness of routing flow may get lost.  

I haven't seen your Flint Hills - Colbert Hills course at KSU yet.  I certainly hope to see it some day soon to be able to have a genuine personal take on the outcome.  But from the pictures, I think there may be a difference that may exemplify your approach and tradition of a big concept professional architect utilizing a big machine contractor/constructor as compared to that of a golf course build/design craftsmanlike "little bitty" go slow and do in yourself the exact way you wanted it style.  Maybe that difference could show up in the bigger lot routing and space between holes that doesn't feel as intimate and connected as one plays through the course, or the uniformity of holes designed with risk management priorities, or conventional wisdom of golf shot values related to framing and hazard placement related to green approaches, or bunkers that have a set of parameters for size shape depth and entry-exit, or some other formulaic ideals that are part of an architect's training and evolved methods through professional association.  But whatever it is, I think that the big project effects of mass production high tech methods may be present and distinguishable from the craft oriented small focused designer's approach.  

Now I know I have thrown enough red meat at you on this one to be motivated to hit several of these softballs right out of the park, so batter-up!  

[TEPaul]

Jeff Brauer:

Thanks for the clarification on earth-moving and that most architects don't do it to make more money. I shouldn't say things like that because I really don't know. I said it because I've heard that said many times and I don't even know by whom--so thanks for clarifying it.

[Neal_Meagher]

RJ Daley:

Please allow me a little slice of cyberspace to respond to your above post concerning "little bitty guys" who operate in the face of the mighty corporate ASGCA types.

You should think about this one a wee bit, as should many of the esteemed contributors here.  While I realize that this site is dedicated to the spirit and sensibilities of the Golden Age and all of its attendant features, there is a resultant wall that has seemingly been erected here.

Quite simply, its not us against them.  There are many architects practicing all over the world today who aren't in nor even aspire to belong to the ASGCA.  Among these architects, you will probably admit that you would be drawn to the work of some of these practitioners and you wouldn't think so much of some of the others.  And so it is with ASGCA members.  

In an organization of over 150 golf course architects it is ludicrous to assume that all members adhere to the same tenets of design, the same ways of fleshing out a design, the same methods of attending to the construction.  And yes, there are "little bitty guys" among us.  Many in fact.  

Now, you can still have the opinion that there is some sort of a "design code" at work here and that is your right.  But please be aware that there are many and varied ways of operating one's design business and that if you gave the same design problem to a sampling of the membership you may be surprised at the differences in the solution.

Am I opening myself up to some ASGCA bashing from this august group?  Possibly, though that is not my aim nor should bashing of any sort be anyone on here's aim.  After all, let's not forget that this is a (forgive the sexism) gentlemen's game and it is by and large populated with gentlemen who are capable of postulating their opinions in an educated and eye-opening way.

In short, yes there are large ASGCA firms that do a credible job handling a dozen or so projects at a time, but I think you'd be surprised at the number who handcraft only one or two at a time.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Lets rephrase it.

There maybe a plethora of golf architects not charging out there for earthmoving, but there are some out there that get a reimbusrement for recommending the services.

I hope some of us aren't that naive.

I think some of you might also be misunderstanding the point of bashing earthmoving.

To think that the greats wouldn't have used it, if it was at their disposal, would also be naive. They just would have known how to move it quicker, albiet while still learning the pluses and minuses of the new age equipment, which undoubtedly would have meant that this new found speed or quickness would have enabled them to spend more time because they knew they could have full results in days instead of weeks.

One of the most important things as Jeff mentions is that they weren't building golf courses on hillsides with 45 degree slopes (A slight  exageration, unless you regulary build golf courses in California.)

Using machinery to create golf courses on land vertically unsuitable for golf, is the type of earthmoving that I think is being called into question here. Another thing is that usually this earthmoving wasn't used to create ENTIRE golf holes, it was to allow earth moving in certain spots which needed refinement. (Riveira #18 is one hole that immediately comes to mind.)

When I talk of this new found earthmoving, a lot of times I'm refering to how architects have to make a routing work par 36 and par 36; back to the clubhouse, etc.

What is lost in this are golf holes that are found that work naturally for the site, but 18 holes that are designed to work properly for corporate outing play, etc.

[RJ_Daley]

I don't know Neal, about who is building that wall higher, the professional architects through their society of voted admission to procede withing the ranks of their membership, or us folks noting that there often seems to be a difference in projects done by the practioners working within the code, and those who may out of scarcity of resources or just utilizing "out of the box" thinking and turning out work that has what some discern as a more crafted look.  I'll reload and try to say it simpler.  Does the ASGCA promote a "look" and a "product quality expectation" through an accepted methodology and code that is more homogenized and identifiable?  Or, do we crumudgeons of minimalist, crafty, strategically varied, and less refined features of design have a mind set that builds the wall of perception?  

Is it wrong to say that admission to the ASGCA is based on "standards" that may have codified conventional wisdom as to construction and management techniques, contract administration, drawing standards, lines of principle and command related to architect/constructor and client, and other codified accepted practices that would get an applicant voted black ball if that applicant breaks the model that the association strives to standardise?  On what basis do applying designer/architects get turned down when the evaluators determine their work is not up to the societies "standards"?  Would methods and construction approaches used by small focus, craft oriented teams be acceptable, even if they break the mold of "relationship models" that are thought to be the proper approach by the society members who made their bones doing it their formal way within their system.

Yes, I can easily agree that not all society members are alike or clones, and many aren't all that big of entities.  Certainly they have varied styles.  But in order for them to get acceptance, don't they have to acquiese to certain baseline codes and standards?  Doesn't that standards review lead to most approved, most conventional, and accepted use of technologies and administration models in golf course construction that effects the products outcome in look, price, and ultimately where the game can be succesfully grown?  

[Ron Kern]

"...the big concept, efficient methods, highly promoted, well schooled, fully documented, risk management conscious, ISO quality standard certified, and ASGCA incubated from cradle to grave - architects."

My, my ,my.  I decide to lurk at Golf Club Atlas for an evening and what do I find -  ASGCA bashing.

As for the romanticism of working with few or no plans...a good set of plans has many uses...one might be that a state or local agency most likely will require them to legally construct the project; in Indiana final contour drawings, drainage and grassing plans and specific construction schedules along with a complete erosion control plan is required to be approved before work can even begin.  Hell, in Indiana any dirt that is left exposed for more than five days is supposed to be temporary seeded, including topsoil piles!  The local and state authorities make regular, unannounced, site visits to ensure compliance.  If you are not in compliance you will be warned once and then twice - the third strike, you are out - your work will be stopped and the developer may be sued by the state and work can be held up indefintitely - so you play "the game."    In Hamilton County, the Surveyor must know where each drainage tile will outlet and requires a permit for each - he must have each onsite drainage area broken down and calculations showing a storm routing throught the system where the storm is released at a five year undeveloped runoff rate while holding the fifty year developed runoff rate.  If you show up with a sketch on a napkin, you will not be allowed to even go to a zoning - accepted use public hearing to see if your project will be allowed.  This litany, on just a couple of aspects of permitting, is just to simply illustrate that the process is real and must be satisfied and does require a set of complete plans.

I also use a set of plans to refine my vision of a particular design to ensure shot value and variety in relation to angles of play and putting green contouring, to name a couple of considerations.  A good set of plans is an excellent guide for a contractor when bidding a job, for the irrigation designer when planning the system and for the shaper when directing bulk earthwork and rough shaping.  Plans in no way should ever take place of the designer's input in the field to refine his vision and to make adjustments in the field to take advantage of a site's attributes.

As for lumping  ASGCA architects into the "big concept, efficient methods, highly promoted, well schooled, fully documented, risk management conscious, ISO quality standard certified, and ASGCA incubated from cradle to grave - architects."  I need to choose my words carefully here...such a narrow minded statement lumping so many people into one box based upon assumptions is, well, disappointing at best.

I take exception to the idea that the ASGCA has one particular type of designer in its organization -does Ed Beidel subscribe to the same design theory of Tom Fazio, does Mike Beebe's design philosophy mirror Art Hills', does Bruce Mathews use the same approach angles as Pete Dye?  But then who the heck is Ed, Mike and Bruce other than three great friends I have made through the ASGCA - three "ASGCA" guys who live, sleep and eat golf architecture - three guys that most GCA'erst probably have never heard of.

As an architect that has a direct lineage to the "Golden Age Of Golf Architecture"(Bill Diddel was my father's mentor and I had the fortune of growing up watching my father and Bill design and build projects as well as having the chance to play golf with and directly interact with Bill for many years at Woodland CC) and designs few projects at one time, I certainly do not fit the GCA.com so called "ASGCA mould."

For pete's sake on my golf course in Hanover, IN, we shaped putting green subgrades with a backhoe - never had a six - way blade on the site - as usua, I floated out the putting greens grades with a trap rake, vintage about 1979 this time.  Basically we built the course (on the owner's farm) with five people, the owner (70 yrs old), two of his son in laws, a local dozer operator (he usually builds roads and clears electric tower right of ways) and one fella who showed up with a tractor and a box blade and wanted work - one day, while taking a break doing some finish shaping, this gentleman asked me where we were going to put the hole on a particular green - I had to explain to him how the hole would be moved most every day!  So obviously he did not have a lot of golf experience.  The course is a little quirky in three spots as we did not have the $$ to blast - rock is only 4' below the ground's surface and half the sight was on very rolling, nearly severe, topography.  Its 5,900 yards from the tips, par 69 - the green fee will probably be around $15 and not a chance that it will make any golf magazine's best of list - but the locals sure will have a fun place to play the greatest game.

Bill Diddel made sure my father understood that the heart of the game was with the "everday golfer" and that great, affordable, golf courses need to built for them so the game can be passed on from generation to generation.  I'm sure much of that philosophy was a result of Bill building many golf courses as WPA projects. Bill was the master of golf course routing and passed that wisdom on to my father and, fortunate for me, my father has passed it on to me.  Bill was _definitely_ the father of "minimalism".  Golf was the basis of his life.

Back to the ASGCA - I'm very proud to be a member of an organization that had Donald Ross as the first president, that still has members, design philosophies and approaches to the business as diverse as were founding members Bill Diddel and Robert Trent Jones.

[RJ_Daley]

Ron, Neal, Jeff and any who would like to answer:

I'd like to focus on Ron's very passionate response and comments he makes in the first paragraph of his reply.  He uses the regulatory atmosphere and rigorous inspection regime that he describes as is found in Indiana to demonstrate why the button-down highly documented and closely controlled construction administration process is necessary.  He discounts the "romantic notion" of a small timer working by the seat of his pants, designing as he finds the property as impractical and unrealistic in such an inspection oriented environment.   Does such a rigorous inspection environment exist in every region or state?  Are there differences even within one state's regions of bureaucratic influence where one district approached things one way, and an arbitrary regional dictator does things differently in his home territory?  What does the ASGCA say or do when disparity of regulations are experienced?  Do they join the paper chase without protest and pass the extra work onto the cost of the project and use this as a means to say that their "professional society" methodology is the only way to procede, forclosing small time unattached to the society competition?  Will any of the gentlemen ASGCAers go so far as to say that strict regulations such as Ron describes in INdiana has any real additive or meaningful protective benefits to preserving the environment VS feel good superficial remedies to satisfy wetlander activists and their constituencies?  If in reality that answer is no - regulations don't really have serious benefits in the long run when the course is up and running - then why don't they take a harder stand against arbitrary regulation administration?

I think that the more regulation, the more room for corruption.  I have seen exactly that in duplicitous administration of the same flood plain, navigable stream ponding and fill set backs and other wetland and drainage way laws from one part of the state to the other.  I note that often the big bureau on the government side always wants to do business with the other big entity on the developer/constructor side.  Yet, they will then bend the laws for the guys on the inside network and clamp down on the little guy and hold his feet to the fire to obstruct and frustrate his every move.  Why is that?  I've seen one very well known ASGCA member come into a situation and get "field approval" (no hearings, no public comment, zip) and another less impactive situation proposed by a small timer get shut down tight.  

Going back to the original question, I think that all of these issues I have raised relate to money and technology affecting (not necessarily hurting) golf course architecture.  Whether it is the technology of actual equipment capacity, or the tangent of money/technology in the sense of "standards" advocated by a group that drives promulgation of customary and acceptable practices that bouy the importance of the professional organization like ASGCA. I think that somehow the high tech way translates to a more uniform golf course design model.

[T_MacWood]

I am one who believes there is a difference between modern and older designs. I also realize there is a lot of misconceptions about both, including the amount of time spent on site, and the romantic vision of the horse and scoop and little or no earth moving in years past. And massive earth moving and greed being the down fall of all modern designs.

If you study the make-up of the architects of past and present you will find distinct diferences:

The older golf-architect's model was links golf; the modern G-A's model is inland golf.

The older golf-architects image of a finished product didn't necessarily include trees; the modern G-A, and the modern golfer for that matter, invisions large trees in their finished course. The same is true with water features.

The older G-A was inspired and influenced by nature; the modern G-A is influenced by Landscape Architecture and its vision of nature. The societal and artistic influences are also drasticly different.

The older G-A was not hand-cuffed by modern contractor's methods of grading, and the sameness it produces. There also seems to be great difference in the emphasis on detail work -- especially greens and bunkers.

And lastly the older G-A was not affraid to take chances, which many times produced brillance or at least quirkiness. They accepted quirk as an interesting part of the game -- it reflected the inevitable oddities found in nature.

In 1977 Herbert Warren Wind addressed the ASGCA and what he said is still true today:

"...when you are lucky enough to have a choice piece of land--and I know that doesn't happen all the time--but when you do, be original and be daring. The tendency in all of our professionals nowadays is to take it easy. If you build a par 4 that everyone says is a very nice hole, don't duplicate it on other courses. Or if you build a par 3 that people rave about, don't repeat it. Great golf course are not built that way. You have to be brave. When you study a piece of land, it gives you a certain message. It tells you to do something even though it may be a little out of the ordinary. Follow that instinct."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()