Introducing Golf Course Architecture

[Adam_F_Collins]

We've probably all had plenty of moments where we start babbling on to someone about GCA and their eyes glaze over and they begin to yawn...

But what about those rare moments when we see a glimmer of interest?

What do tell someone to feed the fire? Do you direct them here? To a book? A certain course?

How do you introduce architecture?

[Kyle Harris]

Get them thinking on a different plane than what most golfers think.

I typically start with something like:

"Golf is about getting from point A to point B, and the first and most difficult hazard to overcome is the fact that point A is far away from point B."

Makes things very simple! And gives you, the teacher, an empty canvas to paint some information on. Ideally, it becomes knowledge.

[Philip Gawith]

I think you do it through pictures and words. You show them a book or two which helps give them an insight into what golf architecture is about; and then you show them some pictures which help give them a feel for how theory translates into practice, and just how different these courses can be when you start to look.

Pictures are probably the place to start. If they can't respond to pictures of courses at places like Bandon and Sand Hills, there is not much hope.

If the interest is there, you can then give them the books to feed their intellect. Obviously there are many classics to enjoy, but I would start people on some of the more modern books like those by Tom Doak and Grounds for Golf by Geoff Shackelford, which did a lot to open my eyes. Alternatively, Paul Daley's recent series are a fantastic combination of pictures and text.

If they like those, they can graduate/retreat to the classics. From there, it is only a matter of time before they sink into the GCA swamp

[Kyle Harris]

One problem I've had with introducing GCA to someone is attempting to cultivate true knowledge instead of just simple rote.

To simply point to... say... St. Andrews as say that this is good architecture is not nearly enough. At some point in time with the student, they will compare and contrast features, and then the questions of "if this, then why not that?" come up. Then you arbitrarily come up with reasons as to why the 14th at St. Andrews is not comparable to the 13th at Talamore, despite both having similar length... etc.

I find it more effective to be inferential in teaching and let the students synthesize concepts and reasoning on their own.

[Tom_Doak]

The book which got me going was The World Atlas of Golf.  There are always a couple of events on TV whose venues are included in the book, so you can watch and relate.

I tried to keep The Anatomy interesting for the average golfer, but it's easier for most people to relate to a particular course instead of general theory.

For God's sake don't tune them in here ... I can think of any number of threads which would send them running for the hills!

[Pete Buczkowski]

The World Atlas of Golf was my first architecture book as well.  Loved the routings and pictures that accompanied the descriptions.  One of the thrills of my golfing life was meeting and playing with Mark Rowlinson last week (he was even gracious enough to sign it  ).

Just introduce a concept when you are playing a golf course and see their reaction...its like religion...proceed with caution and if they dive in, go for it.

[Kyle Harris]

I tried to keep The Anatomy interesting for the average golfer, but it's easier for most people to relate to a particular course instead of general theory.

Tom,

Interesting you say that, I found myself doing the very same thing with Anatomy of a Golf Course after I had walked Merion for the first time, specifically the 5th hole.

My first architecture book, and the one that got me into studying it was Rough Meditations by our own Brad Klein.

[Jason Topp]

I also recommend Grounds for Golf by Geoff Shackelford.  It does a good job of describing basic design concepts and also allows the reader to vicariously live out the dream of actually building a course.  

[Matt_Sullivan]

It might be because I am a rank (but enthusiastic) amateur GCA-wise, but I find it very difficult to talk about GCA in the abstract. It is much better to show non-afficianados what is going on, either while you are playing the course or, a weak second best, watching the holes on the TV

It works best when you relate the architecture to the person's golf game. For example, my wife quickly became an afficianado of the fast and firm ground game and now very much appreciates holes/courses that support it (and is dismissive of those that don't). This is because as a 15 hcp lady golfer, an effective aerial game is extremely difficult. Once I pointed out that the features of a few holes she struggled on at our old home course and how she could adapt her game to it she developed quite an eagle eye (and has become quite a fan of Alice Dye). If you wanted advice on how to set up a course (length, tees, maintenance, angles etc) you could do much worse than ask my wife.

This raises an interesting issue in and of itself. According to my wife (and I believe Alice Dye) ladies/forward tees at many courses are set up quite badly. Looking at the course from her tees through her eyes and game is revealing and leads to a lot of "why the hell would they do that ..."

In my limited experience, I often find mid and higher hcp golfers more receptive to thinking about GCA because the limitations of their golf games can be offset by clearer thinking about a course. Many 15-25 hcps would save 5-6 shots per round by better thinking and planning. Some realise this and really get into the GCA elements that help with strategy and planning

[TEPaul]

Adam:

This is a very interesting question of yours.

In one on one ocassions all of us on here have obviously had the opportunity to speak with various people about golf architecture and I guess all of us have seen their eyes glaze over as you said above.

But how many of us on here have had the opportunity to speak to a group of people about golf architecture? It's pretty damn interesting but probably very few of us have been able to do that.

In the last 5-7 years I have had the opportunity to speak to groups of people about various things to do with architecture. Sometimes maybe 25 people, and sometimes a 100 or 200 or so. Much of this was done at my own club during our restoration process and in four sessions we referred to as the "four forums" and other times at other clubs.

It's most interesting to see their reactions at various times and on various subjects to do with architecture.

I think there's a distinct logic in how to do this well and also how to do it badly and lose their interest or attention or even make them angry.

I sure have looked out there and seen the audience's reaction where many seem to look pretty glum or even appear to have there eyes glaze over. But I have also seen their eyes distinctly widen with interest and fascination. I've seen their heads nod in agreement and I've seen them really get into it with passion.

One needs to perfect his presentation and performance to some extent I guess unless he's just a naturally great speaker with a well-honed message, as a Brad Klein has become.

I think humor is a great tool to use and so is audience participation to some extent. As you speak intersperse what you're talking about with an occasional general question to the audience. That seems to get them almost individually involved in your talk---done well it works instantly.

But I'm a firm believer that there really is a sublime logic to  restoration architecture and the necessary maintenance practices that truly makes it come alive. This is what one needs to perfect in his presentation to an audience on architectue, particularly restoration architecture which is the only thing I ever have spoken on to do with golf architecture. It's like verbally putting together a jigsaw puzzle as they listen to how the pieces logically all fit together. During some of those types of talks is when I saw their eyes begin to widen and their heads really nod and I could see they were definitely into it. That's how one turns a membership around on restoraton projects and gets them on-board the restoration train, in my opinion.

There are some other techniques I think one must use too. Anyone who speaks on this subject should know going in there are always going to be some well-known points of contention. And frankly those well known points of contention are always basically the same from club to club. Because that really is so true (some of my architect friends told me that years ago) a speaker needs to bring them up first before the audience does.

The tree issue. Lush green over-irrigation vs a lighter green or slightly brown to reestablish firm and fast. One needs to mention that the common perception that light green or somewhat brown grass is not near death as they always thought it was (it's actually much heathier in the end). The issue of the realities of green-speed and green surface firmness to playability. The issue of firmness "through the green" and firm and fast. Just ask them right up front----"who doesn't like the playability of firm and fast? You never get anyone raising their hand on that one. At least I've never seen it.

When one brings up these inevitably controversial and contentious issues first it's far better than letting them do it first. Before bringing any of those issues up first explain to them that they are about to see how these are the "pieces" (of the puzzle) that all fit together logically in various ways that make up the jigsaw puzzle of how a golf course can be more interesting for them but particularly how and why it will play easier or harder, because in the end that's the thing most all of them really care about!  

(I just love the jigsaw puzzle analogy to this over-all subject  of architecture and restoration architecture and its necessary maintenance practices that need to follow. It seems to show audiences that while this stuff is really not that simple (and they're not idiots for not heretofore understanding it very well) it really isn't rocket science either, and just like a jigsaw puzzle, even a kid can understand it and do it if he's interested And, of course, you have to assume they are interested, or they probably wouldn't be there).

[Philip Gawith]

Matt Sullivan: I was interested in your comments re women golfers. My wife is but a humble 35 handicap, fair-weather golfer. But the point you make re the aerial game certainly applies to her too. Courses with lots of elevation change or penal carries are horrible for women and make the game much less enjoyable. By contrast, fast-running courses, especially links courses, are much more fun. All of a sudden their drives are going maybe 175 yards or more and they have a reasonable chance of hit par fours in regulation occasionally.

Slightly off point, it is noticeable that if you play the traditional UK courses, women tend to get a pretty raw deal. That's mostly because they were built years ago when the fashion was only to build one, or two at most, tees and they have not bothered to modernise.

By contrast, when you play golf on the continent where courses tend to be younger, women are much better looked after (and even in the case of some older courses like Deuville, they have taken women's interests more into account when modernising). There were some holes where the women were driving off more than 100 yards in front of the men, something you almost never find in the UK.

Tom Paul: I like the jigsaw analogy ! I also like your digression into public relations tactics (my area of alleged competence ) when addressing bodies of members! I would like you to come and talk to the good brethren of Huntercombe about trees and why tough undergrowth adds nothing to strategy.

[TEPaul]

"I would like you to come and talk to the good brethren of Huntercombe about trees and why tough undergrowth adds nothing to strategy."

Philip:

Thank you---I'd like to do that but it may not be necessary. I've been through that one too with an audience. All you need to do is ask them what they'd prefer to do---eg be the contortionist climbing under branches or taking an unplayable lie or having the opportunity to use their imagination and physical ability and perhaps whack a shot they may remember for the rest of their lives all the way to the green. I remember how that one made their eyes widen and their heads start to bob in agreement!  

And when they start to do that, my friend, you have them where you want them!  

[Jeff Morrill]

As a newbie to CGA, I appreciate the time taken by several people to offer information and insights into the fine art of Golf Course Architecture.  

I started golfing 15 years ago and played for the competition, the fresh air and commraderie.  

But then, I was invited to Sand Hills.   This was a trip that I wasn't sure I would enjoy or that it would be worth the travel challenges.

WOW, was I wrong.  My whole life changed. Standing on the first tee at Sand Hills was unbelievable.  How did the course come to exist and who ever though of creating it in Mullen NE, the picture we have of #17 & 18 brings back the chills or the experience.  So maybe, I was a little lucky to have a golf fanatic as a brother in law.  John Foley not only convinced me to go to NE but sends new links to places of interest for us to explore and why we need to explore them.  From Bandon to Sutton Bay, to the Ridge at Backbrook in NJ to a new design in western NY, Pinehurst or even living 3 miles from Kittansett make me excited - our journey goes on.  I'm totally addicted.

Stuck in Toledo Ohio once for work, I was invited to Inverness Club for dinner.  Given my growing interest in design I got into a conversation with the Supr. and we spent an hour talking about Ross and how the course has changed over the years.  For example, the bunker play on 18 has changed the green complex completely from the original intent.  It was interesting to learn of their efforts to restore some of the original Ross designs.

Anyway, today I was given a copy of The anatomy of a golf course by T. Doak out of the blue. The individual giving it is a scratch player on his way to work in australia. He was not aware of the powerful reaction this would cause.

I'm off to read and start planning my next journey.  I guess I'm hooked - and you guys have a north south tournament.....awesome!

[TEPaul]

"How did the course come to exist and who ever though of creating it in Mullen NE,"

JeffM:

That would be a man by the name of Dick Youngscap. It's not as if he was the very first one to think of doing a golf course like that in a place like that. Others now say they thought of such a thing long ago and Dick even mentions that there were a few who put the idea in his mind.

But the point is he was the one who took the time, the energy and the money to do it first.

What Youngscap did out there with Coore and Crenshaw was not just to build a great golf course on clearly wonderful golf land albeit in such a remote place but because Youngscap did what he did in a place like that he actually very much created an entirely new concept in American golf and perhaps architecture----and that was to actually pull off that improbable occurence some call "The Field of Dreams" or alternatively, "Build It and They Will Come".

Sand Hills was clearly the first of that model and the proof of its success is that a number of others since have copied the model. Many of those too are successful but like all things in America there always will be the chance that interesting model and concept will someday get overdone!

Many people over the decades have tried to copy the model of the great Pine Valley G.C. that got instant world-wide attention before it was even completed. To my knowledge many tried to copy that PV model but for whatever reasons no one has ever been as successful at it as the original has always been. It still stands alone at the top over 90 years later!

Is there a lesson in this? Perhaps there is.

[ForkaB]

I remember introducing GCA to TE Paul in November 2001, when I showed him my dog-eared 1st edition of "The World Atlas of Golf."  He was absolutley astounded.  I remember him saying.....

"Do you mean to say, Rich, that there are golf courses outside of Philadephia and Southampton?!"  I assured him that this was so, and the rest is history.........