[cary lichtenstein]

Let me ask a similiar question to "living" architects today.

Suppose 40 years from now, you are asked to renovate your own work, and technology has continued to increase green speeds to a stimp of 14 or 15, and the ball goes another 30 or 40 yards.

How would you approach your renovation project if given a free hand?

[Jeff_Brauer]

In my case, I would be glad to renovate my courses.  I doubt I am alone among either modern or historic architects in saying I would love to remodel some aspect of virtually every course I've done.  

That opinion goes through some predictable time changes, too.  I usually love a course when it first opens....A few years later, I've ;moved on to other ideas and concepts, and all of a sudden, a course is not among my favorites.  AFter about ten years time, I can play my own courses, and remember what I was trying to do with an open mind.  Then, a lot of the ideas become "cool" again in my mind.....if nowhere else!

Also, if a client called, it shows a lot of respect.  Some go get another architect, simply figuring the first one just didn't have much talent.  Then, they end up with a mish mash of ideas, and the whole course gets to be a mess, when in reality, the original architect would almost always feel like they did a good job, had some constrictions, or just didn't get everything just as they wanted.

Also, I think most architects realize that sometimes, even a design just fails in spots, or changes over time, ie, needs to have bunkers moved out, or greens flattened.  Sometimes, a course goes from private to public, or vice versa, and the new "constituency" needs some changes as a result, but those changes don't necessarily imply the original design was bad.

So, I would probably approach the renovations with an eye to the here and now problems.  As I occaisionlly like some quirk in my design, and there is often pressure to make this green "conform" to the style of the others, I would probably fight for the features that I liked, especially the unique ones not found elsewhere.....So what if someone doubled the hole?

In the end, its just a round of golf, no?  And in the end, its just a golf course - a collection of 18 holes that someone, namely the architect - at one point in time thought was a good idea.

How many times have you heard the saying "It must have seemed like a good idea at the time?"  I'm not sure, but I think that saying originated with my designs.....

[Dan Herrmann]

I thought this was a great question posed back in '03 to which Jeff answered in a very thoughtful way.

Any comments here in 2009 where we find ourselves with a ball that continues to threaten the end of golf as we once knew it?

[Tom_Doak]

Cary:

I would have to see how much any of those projected changes to the game are really affecting member play.

While I am a big proponent of rolling back the ball to restore the challenge of golf for 3-handicaps and under, I am also a strong believer that they are not the financial support of most courses I design, and that all this modern equipment has not helped the average player much at all.  (At least, MY handicap has not gone down.)  So, most of the lengthening/toughening of courses which gets so much press attention is an overreaction, as far as member play is concerned.  I don't think 6600 yard courses need to all be lengthened to 7200 yards today, and if they need to be lengthened to 8000 yards in thirty years, I'm going to take out everybody at Golf House with a small team of commandos.

If the green speeds at most courses have changed to 14 or 15, then greens will have to be flatter.  But, that's the whole problem.  If we keep flattening greens, they'll keep making them faster.  The only way to resist faster green speeds (and more expensive golf) is to LEAVE THE GREEN CONTOURS ALONE.  And that will be the same argument in thirty years that it is today:  that is, what's the point of making them faster?

[Bill_McBride]

Cary:

I would have to see how much any of those projected changes to the game are really affecting member play.

While I am a big proponent of rolling back the ball to restore the challenge of golf for 3-handicaps and under, I am also a strong believer that they are not the financial support of most courses I design, and that all this modern equipment has not helped the average player much at all.  (At least, MY handicap has not gone down.)  So, most of the lengthening/toughening of courses which gets so much press attention is an overreaction, as far as member play is concerned.  I don't think 6600 yard courses need to all be lengthened to 7200 yards today, and if they need to be lengthened to 8000 yards in thirty years, I'm going to take out everybody at Golf House with a small team of commandos.

If the green speeds at most courses have changed to 14 or 15, then greens will have to be flatter.  But, that's the whole problem.  If we keep flattening greens, they'll keep making them faster.  The only way to resist faster green speeds (and more expensive golf) is to LEAVE THE GREEN CONTOURS ALONE.  And that will be the same argument in thirty years that it is today:  that is, what's the point of making them faster?

Following up on that last thought, do you think new courses are being built with flatter greens because of the focus on stimpmeter readings?   i.e. sort of a preemptive attack?

Not referring to you since Old Macdonald's greens don't seem to be the slightest bit flattish from what I've heard and read, but in general?

[Tom_Doak]

Bill:

Absolutely!  Modern greens are way flatter ... most architects don't want to build anything more than 2% contour for fear of what might happen in the future.  And in some respects, they are dead right ... but as I said, by making their greens flat, they are essentially begging for greens to get even faster.

[Mike_Young]

All these faster greens also require more area for transition between slopes....which means bigger greens and more construction cost....maybe some of this will cease....

[Tom_Doak]

All these faster greens also require more area for transition between slopes....which means bigger greens and more construction cost* ....maybe some of this will cease....

* NOTE:  No added construction cost if you are building your course on a sandy site.  (Does not apply in Georgia!)

[TEPaul]

"* NOTE:  No added construction cost if you are building your course on a sandy site.  (Does not apply in Georgia!)"


TomD:

Now THAT is funny! You should copy it on a few recent threads where it is particularly applicable!   If you did copy it on those recent threads where it is particularly applicable would it help some learn something or admit to anything? I'd say, of course not; it would merely generate an entire new spate of numerous irrelevent questions from them.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill:

Absolutely!  Modern greens are way flatter ... most architects don't want to build anything more than 2% contour for fear of what might happen in the future.  And in some respects, they are dead right ... but as I said, by making their greens flat, they are essentially begging for greens to get even faster.

So nobody will build anything like the front half of #8 at Pasatiempo again.........6%! 

I was playing with Neal Meagher there in Kings Putter II when he whipped out his Inclinometer^TM and measured it on the spot!

[TEPaul]

"I was playing with Neal Meagher there in Kings Putter II when he whipped out his InclinometerTM....."


Bill McB:


Did you know that Alister MacKenzie was one of golf architecture's greatest inclinators? Some say it was the cummulative effect of the fact he hit the sauce too much! At times Tillie was just as bad as Alister as an inclinator but history seems to indicate that the spike on Tillie's shooting stick got bend early on and he never got it fixed. Never mind his flask----that was merely an affectation.

[Bill_McBride]

"I was playing with Neal Meagher there in Kings Putter II when he whipped out his InclinometerTM....."


Bill McB:


Did you know that Alister MacKenzie was one of golf architecture's greatest inclinators? Some say it was the cummulative effect of the fact he hit the sauce too much! At times Tillie was just as bad as Alister as an inclinator but history seems to indicate that the spike on Tillie's shooting stick got bend early on and he never got it fixed. Never mind his flask----that was merely an affectation.

Isn't it a bit early for you to be "testing" the claret?

[Tom_Doak]

Bill:

If you let him whip out his measuring device on the second green at Pine Valley, he'd see a lot of the same readings ... if they had not escorted him off the premises before he could read it.

There are lots of famous greens with hole locations of 4% to 6% ... it's just hard to use them anymore.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Does that include no higher on-going maintenance costs?
Mark

[Tim Liddy]

Greens are flatter because the great doctors of turf in universities throughout the country, that never plays golf, developed new strains of bentgrass and bermuda that cannot be cut above 1/8” (or it gets puffy). Thank you USGA.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

I did not know it was the USGA that funds and develops these new grass strains at these universites around the country. I thought it was the universities and those connected to them.  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Cary

"Let me ask a similiar question to "living" architects today".

 Are there any    I mean 'living'

Melvyn

[Tim Liddy]

TE Paul,

They all get grants from the USGA. Just ask Purdue (I think they beat Ohio State today).

[TEPaul]

Tim:

Maybe they do get some grants from the USGA but that doesn't necessarily mean the USGA is driving some goal for what any university develops with any grass.

One of the only reasons I say that is because I've grown a bit tired of watching the USGA get blamed for every ill in golf today. That is just not the reality!

[Jud_T]

TEPaul,

don't forget the R&A 

[Tim Liddy]

The USGA has lost control of the golf ball (and equipment), promoted increased maintenance cost and generally driven up the cost of golf. Besides that, they have done a pretty good job.

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
Let's not forget "the improvements" they make on some of our greatest classic courses when they get them ready/set them up for Championships.  They fix all the "suspect greens" that have far too much contour for 14 on the stimpmeter green speeds, narrow up the fairways, pinch all the landing areas altering/relocating bunkers and other hazards, purchace property to add miles of length for new back tees, grow hay,...

Tom Paul what are your thoughts about this?
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

My thoughts are that you are right to a large degree----eg the USGA has been responsible in the past for suggesting and doing those things with most courses they take the US Open to. In the future, I hope they stop that or seriously minimize it.

But my primary point is the USGA sure does seem to be the organization that a number of people seem inclined to pretty much blame for all the ills in golf today. On the other hand, were they not to exist or if they became largely irrelevent, it is my distinct belief that you will see, and probably in pretty short order, a game that none of us would likely even recognize! 

If the USGA fell into irrelevence or non-existence who or what do you think would fill the void it left? THAT is the very problem I feel that those who criticize the USGA perhaps too much are either not seeing or are for some reason incapable of fully understanding.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
There are always pros and cons and the same goes for the contributions of the USGA.  They have done a tremendous amount of good, however, where they have failed miserably is with the equipment and that has been hashed out here and everywhere else for years! 

I'm looking forward to watching the Phillies tonight and thank goodness baseball has not fallen into that same cost death spiral.  Baseball is a sport where it would be sooooo easy to introduce balls and bats that required all kinds of changes to the game.  In particular, the playing fields and stadiums (much like those in golf) would have to be dramatically expanded (500 - 600 foot fences).  Just think what it would do to the cost of the game. 

Pete Dye said it best when asked at one of his course openings why he keeps making his courses longer and longer.  His response was simple.  He said, "I have to because the USGA has the brainpower of a weed when it comes to reining in equipment."

You know Pete, ask him what he thinks and he'll give you an ear full.
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Kelly,
What is to stop them from moving/expanding infields and pitching distances (as well as the fences)?  As kids playing baseball progress through different ages into high school/college ball, this is what happens.  Would it change the game, sure it would, but that is what has happened to golf. 

The bottomline, however, is that golf has a cost problem - that is indisputable by anyone.  It is tied to the massive amount of real estate that is now required for the playing fields and the maintenance that goes with it.  If we don't bring down the cost, the game will not continue to expand, in fact it has not expanded for years.  Why - 1) cost, and 2) the time it takes to play.  These are the two biggest reasons.  It takes a lot longer to walk a 7500 yard course than it does 6200 yards and most likely costs more to play there as well.
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()