Is golf architecture on the verge of a revolution?

[Slag Bandoon]

 Tommy, great post.  We have got to get you over to Scotland.  Start a fund.  Have a show to save the orphanage Mickey Rooney sort of thing.  

  Redanman,   On Rocanante'  

  Ronan,  The only GCA Hades is when you decide to leave.  

  Great thread; reminds me of GCA o' auld.

  Oh, and Tom tarMacWood,  I've landed on less smooth tundra in bush planes and lived to tell the tale (barely).  
  I try heartily when photographing to capture rolls and convolutions and subtleties but, even with the setting sun giving "Hero" or "Sweet" light, the results are never what I'd hoped.  Sometimes I'm satisfied but using only my eyes to see is only a catalyst for my mind to take me back in imagination.  Much like even a pro photographer could never capture Van Gogh or the mysterious folds in glass by Tiffany.
------------------------------------

  Realizing that most golfers do not like confusion and TOC is a shining example of perplexity, could its philosophy work for a new course?  Who would have the patience to play a course like that, over and over to discover the subtleties of the land and points of attack for scoring (before the houses get put up).  Let's face it, most tourist golfers play TOC because of its history and so they can say they played the old thing and tell their friends.  They don't go to study or discover the strategies.  

Bandon and Pacific Dunes has some terrific stuff but it's too darned expensive to play all the time.  I'm in Hades!

  Carry on...

[TEPaul]

Ronan:

I'm not sure I understand your question about the "can't do this or that" frame of mind getting flipped on it's head post hiatus and becoming a "can do, so I will" mentality.

First of all what are you referring to with 'the hiatus'? Do you mean the Crash, the depression followed by WW2?

When I use a term like "Manifest Destiny", I use it in a very general sense as a representation of a peculiar American "attitude" or really almost "ethos", since the effects of the the original idea and application of "Manifest Destiny" became so widespread and general as to truly become part of the American nation's national pysche which is clearly with us today.

"Manifest Destiny" originally was a result of the enormous American expansionist effort following the Louisiana Purchase. The land of the Louisiana Purchase was so immense it was in fact undefined land-wise and The USA pushed west, south and north so rapidly and forcefully that basically nothing stood in its way!

In the process, there were constant and continous political and military disputes with Spain, England, Mexico and Canada. We were annexing everything in sight under a governemental policy that might be defined by the question/statement of that day--"We're going to do it eventually, so why not now?"

In this incredibly widespread expansionist era so many things were overrun and destroyed by the burgeoning American nation--literally hundreds of native Indian tribes, millions of buffalo, lands that others felt was theirs etc. As the settlers moved everywhere they opened up the country and settled it for themselves very much trampling across it and fighting whatever confronted them to secure lives and homes for themselves and defending themselves from anything that stood in their way--which very much included the raw majesty of the basically unadulerated entire American West (everything west of the Mississippi)

The extreme natural beauty of the American continent was certainly not lost on the expansionists but they felt they had to conquer it to survive and create permanency (and in some ways they obviously feared it too). The American expansionist settlers were not remotely the coexisters with nature the Indian tribes all were and ironically the French settlers were too before pulling out of this continent (and hence the Louisiana Purchase).

This era of expansionism and "Manifest Destiny" which was in large part a rationalizing term to assuage probably the guilt of destruction and subjugation eventually became a sort of "can do" attitude that became very much part of the national pysche, and particularly effective when it was cloaked with the belief the Nation had a  "God given right" to do it.

Not that much later following the industrial revolution and great masses of wealth the nation became the Globetrotting power it still is today (and more "Manifest Destiny" and expansionism).

(Just as a brief aside, the nation is probably poised for another round of serious "Manifest Destiny" as it claims it will go it alone in Iraq if it has to because everyone knows it sure as Hell CAN DO IT. And being the good red-blooded American I am I wouldn't give one good damn if Bush "manifestly destines" Saddam Hussein's ass into that place in the sky where Saddam thinks about 75 vestal virgins are waiting for him but obviously aren't!).

Again, a long way from golf and golf architecture and Nature and the visuals of golf and architecture and such but I firmly believe this was the time and reason that man, particular Americans got used to dominating Nature and all it represented, eventually without much of a thought!

The willingness to dominate nature and change it was ingrained and this was the ultimate "can doism". When I say even some of the early architects (who may even have been naturalists) got into a "can't do this and can't do that" frame of mind, I only mean it in the sense that they too were probably more than recognizing that even golfers had become less than respecting and accepting of Nature in its rawest form so they couldn't offer it to them in unadorned or even unaltered form.

MikeC;

When I mention this kind of thing and certainly about TOC and why its respected theme of naturalism and randomness (and even low visual direction) was never really followed in architecture I only mean it in a general sense as it indicates a changing attitude toward nature.

Maybe not so much the architects but the architect's recognition of what golfers were coming to not accept. How otherwise could something like the blindness of Prestwick so quickly go from being considered a "creme de la Creme" element in golf (the blindness) to not accepted?

Kelly Blake Moran:

Your analogy to the art of Van Gogh was really good but if you could see the enormous body of art work that represents what's called "American Sublime" which was a sometimes dramatic artistic (painting) depiction of the raw beauty of the virgin American continent I know I'd have to pick you off the floor.

It's breathtakingly beautiful and was done mostly to attempt to protect the beauty of the natural continent just as it was coming under the onslaught and the full force of America's expansionist policy of "Manifest Destiny".



 

[Slag Bandoon]

 Manifest Destiny.  A powerful phrase.
  If I may shred a quote by the author Hector Chevigny, "So, America bought Alaska because they felt obligated to give thanks for the Russians helping in the Spanish American war, and the Russians, believing in America's "Manifest Destiny" thought they would lose it eventually anyway, decided to sell."   So it was sort of the neighborly thing to do.  

  Tommy, Are you touching upon Andrew Wyeth?  Remington?

[WilliamWang]

tom paul -

extremely intriguing stuff this manifest destiny applied to golf architecture etc.

1) i think the same ideas of "the land belongs to us by divine right," so to speak, were present quite early in australia.  are the same trends or tendencies in golf architecture that you refer to present in oz too?

2) quite early on the "hudson river school" of american painting was direct representation of the manifest destiny of america.  yet, the works of that school gloried in nature and were championing its savage and untamed beauty.  that's the best example i can think of where there seems to be a divergent theme within your idea of "Manifest Destiny" as a trend toward conquering nature.

3) alternatively, i think there has always been a great influence in golf architecture from landscaping and gardening.  the idea being that if the natural surroundings did not suit one's taste, it was possible through planting and pruning and meticulous work to recreate the image of nature into something which suited you.  this is my explanation for the "raynor paradox" tom macwood speaks of.  simply the dichtomous nature of the angles and shapes in a raynor course don't jibe with nature, but they do fit nicely within an aesthetic of nature which has been formed from appreciating or creating landscape gardens.

[TEPaul]

Slag;

Sure, I guess the Wyeths would fit in their somewhere as latter day defenders of Nature (although a ton of damage was done before they were born).

Remington? Probably him too except his bucking bronco bronzes remind me more of a Teddy Roosevelt type than something Albert Bierstadt did.

But as for Bierstadt, if you could see his "Looking down Yosemite Valley" (1865) it would make you weep! I swear if you saw it you'd never take a leak outside again. (I think we could have built a really great and dramtic golf course there though!).

[Eric Pevoto]

I too think the idea of Manifest Destiny in relation to golf architecture is very interesting.  I wonder though, the first movements toward "manufactured" golf courses were in the UK, how does this theory jibe with that?  Certainly, the degree to which dirt was moved increased as golf came to the US.

I'm no expert on art, but weren't the Hudson Valley School's landscapes of nature a glorification, a representation not necessarily of what was actually there, but rather what the painter thought best of the scene.  As we destroyed it, we left these glorified representations of nature.

I've seen it argued that these paintings were essentially the travel brochures of their time.  

My impression of MD with relation to art is that we believed we could build better than nature; we could enhance nature.  Isn't that what the Golden Agers spoke about?  

[TEPaul]

William Wang:

The "Hudson River Valley" school is a part of the entire work of what I referred to above as "American Sublime" 1820-1880. It too was certainly a reaction to the midstages of the effects of American "Manifest Destiny".

The entire evolution of landscaping in golf architecture is a very interesting one indeed, and Tom MacWood has some very good thoughts on that, touched on in his excellent five part article, the "Arts and Crafts Movement", on this website.

I'm fairly certain that Tom MacW feels that the art and philosophy of landscape architecture sometimes "sanitizes" Nature and sort of cleans up some of its rougher edges too much in the name of what that "art" thinks of as ideal forms.

[Slag_Bandoon]

Tommy,

  @#$%^? ^&*?!!   Criminy... Just go to Google "IMAGE" and put in "Bierstadt Looking Yosemite"

Beautiful.  Nice framing.            www.images.google.com

[Mike_Cirba]

Thankfully, Tom Paul professes not to know very much about art.    By contrast, I feel like I'm back in Art History 101 class!  

Tom Paul;

Do you really feel that the earliest architects like Macdonald believed that they would have to "manhandle" nature a bit in building courses for them to be "accepted" by the golfing public at that time?  

I think that's an interesting theory, but let's remember that the earliest golfers in this country had very little by way of frame of reference to know any better at all.  The very first courses prior to Macdonald's seminal work at NGLA were not only geometric in design, but also incorporated all sorts of odd man made features such as hedgerows, stone walls, race tracks, steeplechases, etc., and people played them simply because they didn't know any better and had no real preconceptions of what a golf course should or could be.

When Macdonald finally got totally disgusted enough to say "enough!", and started to build NGLA, I have a hard time imagining that he would have tried to "dumb it down" somewhat to gain critical and mass acceptance.  I simply think he was working within different geological and environmental constraints than the works he admired in the old country.  Let's also remember that by that time, there were many other courses in Scotland, England, etc., that were much more formal and visually directive than TOC, and he admired many of those, as well.  Perhaps those courses whose holes were routed between tall dunes (those dunes providing some particular designated visual "alley" to aim between) were some of the first "framing", or visual aids to playing a particular hole.

So, although Macdonald admired and loved TOC, I'm sure he also took a great deal of his inspiration from other great courses in the British Isles, all of which would still fit his definition of "naturalness", while being somewhat more visually apparent and somewhat less random in featuring than TOC.

Throw in the fact that the land he built NGLA on, while highly suitable for golf, still was not as "prime" as those British courses built on natural sandy linksland with native fescues that he used as his models.  

One other point...many of the first architects in America were emigrees who were each considered "experts" in everything about the game, including architecture.  The general public of the time, with little or no knowledge or expectation of what a course should or could be, generally just accepted what they were told.  Many of the courses these first architects built, even into the 20s, were simply rudimentary layouts where the "architects" set a stake in the ground as a tee area, located an appropriate green site, and moved on.

In many ways, I sense that our first courses were much more of "playing golf in nature unaltered by man" than we might even imagine.    

[WilliamWang]

eric - I think your understanding is correct within the framework of scholarship of the revisionist school of thinking in American environmental history.  They attribute to Bierstadt, Cole, and others a romantic urge to find the sublime (as Tom Paul writes) and "the face of God" in nature.  And if i remember correctly there was certainly a lot of twisting and pasting to create the scenes that were painted.  (In fact i think some views that are depicted don't even exist in nature, but were compilations of various sketches done by the artist).

[TEPaul]

Eric:

I don't believe the best of the "Golden Agers", at least the ones that were real naturalists, necessarily believed they could 'enhance' nature, and certainly didn't believe they could do better than nature for golf if they happened to find what was natural that could be used well for golf. They felt the ground was there to be used by them and they should use it as it was given to them by nature if that worked well for golf. If nature didn't give them enough on a hole landform, or created some real complication, then they had to alter it and enhance it architecturally for golf.

Because of some necessities of the way the game is played, though, certainly they have to make concessions to only identifying and using what's natural for golf or on most sites they would be coming up with much.

Obviously, the only reason they had to make concessions to wholly natural and useable landforms for golf, if they could find them, was they understood that tees, fairways and greens etc just don't exist in nature to the degree necessary for play of the game of golf.

But again, the best example of what I'm trying to say would be something like Cypress's #9. You can see from before and after photos that on that hole MacKenzie used everything there without touching it and just layed down the fairway and green on what was there and built a tee. No better example of an architect respecting nature, identifying all of it that could be used for golf on a particular landform for a hole!

That natural landform that's now Cypress's #9 could probably be used as a test for any architect and how much he respected nature and had a talent for using it naturally. Would another architect have wiped away what was there and just come up with something out of his mind? Probably.

That particular landform could be a real test of what any architect thinks about nature and golf and its possibilities!

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I don't think MacDonald 'dumbed down' anything architecturally that he did over here. Well, he did once, certainly at the front of #7 green NGLA and seemed content to report that fact almost as if to say he really might not be the single minded ogre that some thought he was. But so what?

Certainly, MaDonald adored TOC and clearly he took his conceptual inspiration from a lot of other courses in Europe too that had some fairly rudimentary man-made architecture to them. It's ironic that Pete Dye may have been the most fascinated by that particular aspect of the old sod some 65 years later (the rudimentary aspects of early man-made architecture).

I just don't think MacDonald cared that much about whether something appeared engineered. And I don't think he cared that much either if he offered any golfer something that was a real throwback in lack of visuals, which could have been as natural looking as you could possibly get in golf, probably because it was--or he would never have had holes like #2, 3 and 16 at NGLA.

MacDonald was into real quality holes that played great for golf--period--regardless of some specific look, new look, old look, whatever--and he planned on having 18 great holes at NGLA, no weak ones for golf---period--that was his mission at NGLA.

I think MacDonald was probably the first to recognize that by the time he got to St. Andrew's (1872) the course was already being altered with some fairly rudimentary man-made features--but they did work well for golf. And he even brought some of them home with him in his sketches--like the road hole green, which if it's anything is manufactured looking as hell. But it works so well. That's what Macdonald cared about, in my opinion.

The one that really seemed to believe some of the things I'm talking about on this thread who really took all this thought about golf in extreme nature, golf unrestrained by boundaries, golf as nature made it, or hopefully as architects could someday return it to, almost in a pure look or perception of nature, was Max Behr!

And Frankly, if you read "Scotland's Gift Golf" very carefully you'll come across a reference by MacDonald to a few in golf that he felt just thought too damn much about things it wasn't really that necessary to think about with golf and architecture.

If I can find the reference, I'll print it but there's no question at all MacDonald was referring to Behr.

But I find Behr, unbelievably fascinating in all kinds of ways, even if MacDonald may have felt he thought too much. Behr had some of the deepest thoughts on golf and architecture that were ever written, in my opinion. The fact that he happened to have a writing style that was like the most complex labyrinth ever known just made it all the more interesting. When you finally figure out exactly what he was saying the man was squarely on the bullseye!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ronan,
You ask, Is Golf Architecture On the Verge of a Revolution? I say No, it isn't.

Hard to believe coming from me--a self-proclaimed optimist, but sadly, for every Pacific Dunes or Sand Hills built, we have 200 Sandpines', La Habra-Westridge's or Tiera Rejada's being built. That doesn't seem very revolutionary to me.

What about the Links Trust trying to restore one of the Old courses most famous features, and yet, what about the rest of the work that has altered the course unfavorably in the minds of purists. You have Tom Fazio & Associates who have completely altered the the look of some pretty famous and much admired courses under the guise of "Restoration" and that too is a "non-revolutionary" thing. It is unfortunate that it is a sign of the times. VERY UNFORTUNATE.

I think that a lot of this has to do with the fact that many people make absolutely no effort to school themselves in the history and arts, as well as the science of the subject. Many  are quick to offer opinion and yet have little actual knowledge by using everything that has been given them in the forms of written works, drawings and images. Most simply DON'T READ at all.

Yet, they will give you the exact reason why things don't work or why it should be their way.

I have seen many in this discussion group that have made efforts, after seeing for themselves that they didn't have as much knowledge as they originally thought. They have made efforts to become STUDENTS of the Game. I applaude them, because there is nothing I like better then sharing with my fellow students and equally, them sharing with me.

We have an incredible tool here with Ran Morrisset's Golf Club Atlas, yet so many are so taken with golf course access as well as being part of the "I have played there" exclusiveness, they have failed to see what is best in the art and that is what is in the ground. But here are those that do want to learn and pride themselves as Students of the Game and in fact want to learn more. Many Professionals, and I'm talking of the ALL the architects that either participate or at least tune-in here, do it for some reason. I could only hope that it might be that it will make them better architects and designers, or perhaps even the chance they too, could even be better Students of the Game.

Simply put, we have so much to learn and the rest of our lives to do it, so lets make the most of it--learning even more.

It all reminds me so much of Ray Bradbury's book Farenheit 451 where despite all of the effort to remove knowledge and creativity occurs in the form of book burning, there are those that will fight to the death, to maintain their right to learn and create, even going so far to remove themselves from the techno-socialistic "happy" society that has been created for them and place themselves in a hidden society that will carry the torch for the future, in a society that will come to understnad the importance of the Arts.

A quote from the book where the autocratic "Fire Captain Beatty" says, "Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs.... Don't give them slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy."

So is so much of our golf architecture today--vast commercial bits of past greatness that no longer exist because it is too complex to understand and doesn't work with modern thinking or lifestyle.

All my best.

(I can hardly wait to hear Rich...I mean ForkaB's reply!:))

[TEPaul]

Eric and William:

Yes, some of the so-called "American Sublime" paintings were super glorifications of nature and man's relationship to nature. A few of them were actually treated like shows. They would sell tickets, file everyone in to sit down in a theater like room with the painting behind an elaborate curtain, they'd open the curtain and everyone would stare at it for and hour or so until the curtain was drawn again. Among other things a few of them are some of the biggest canvases ever known!

TommyN:

Rich Goodale or ForkaB might try to respond to this thread but it's already drowned those guys in revolutionary thought. Anything they could possibly say on this thread would be no more than a slight whisper in the winds of change--the "Back to the Future" type change!  OOps, Merion's already using that one.

[Ronan_Branigan]

Tommy

I don't know you yet but from what I have read of your inputs I know that you are the eternal optimist. I as well as some may want to learn so let us do so and not get caught up in the the banal! Let us all keep the faith! As much as I would like to stay on line I must go to bed as it is 3.47 in the morn but I will tune in tomorrow, so keep it rolling! Good night.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I would agree with you, I don't see any revolution of substantial magnitude.  I see a small group of aficianados, waging a losing battle against the rising tide of modernism and high tech.

As time effectively converts the philosophy responsible for creating the Golden Age courses to a fading memory for most, it is replaced by a need to have the newest in "in" designs.

While there are exceptions, they sure don't compare, numerically, to the bulk of the work being done.

If there was a revolution, true or sympathetic RESTORATIONS would be the norm, not the exception, and the current and future disfiguring of classic courses would cease.

It's the JEDI Knights against the Empire with a different ending.

But, it is still a noble pursuit.

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Tommy N,  With your Rustic Canyon packing in the Joe golfer by the busload, doesn't that give you some hope?  We may not be reaching the high water mark of the Golden Age (or maybe we are) but at least we're not ebbing.  

  With all due respect to Dan Jenkins, I look at his Best 18 Golf Holes in America book, circa 1966, and some of what I see as his favorites, though he explains their strategies well, are rudimentary. What I've seen only recently is much more natural, with better educated and varied choices of grasses and inherently comforting by more exposure of the surrounding landscape with the courses.   Like Mike Cirba said earlier in the thread, GCA is new and there is instant feedback on questionable articles/design/statements, etc.  Before this forum thing the only experts were those that could write or self promote.  Now, I'm not putting myself in their class.  I love the works of Longhurst, Jenkins, Wind, Dobereiner, Whitaker and their ilk but there are a whole lot of voices here that make a lot of sense.
  (Page 95 in the book shows the 12th at Augusta and there's a big broad-leafed weed in the foreground...  it's beautiful man!      (Tears of joy)

 Although I'll go where the lady takes me
 She'll never tell me what's in her hand
 I do not know what fate awaits me
 Fare thee well ! dune and links land.

  Mark Knopfler  Fare Thee Well Northumberland (tweeked) from The Ragpickers Dream CD

  

[ForkaB]

Mr. Naccarato

If you will read post #21 on this thread you will see that you are just repeating my answer (i.e. "no") to Mr. Branigan's question.  We also fully agree that there should be a "revolution."  All we really differ about is the details.  I desire a revolution which takes us forward and involves significant creativity and willingness to take risk.  You wish one which consists of dragging the game kicking and screaming back into the Stone Age.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I really don't get your last post. What is this? "As time effectively converts the principles that created the golden age to a fading memory for most, it's replaced by the need to have the newest in "in" designs."

Or, "If true and sympathetic RESTORATIONS were the norm, instead of the exception,....."

Those sorts of remarks sound like they were written in the 1950s-1970s. They're are a tremendous amount of restorations going on all over the place--haven't you been paying attention? The architects who are doing restorations have been working their asses off in the last few years. Want me to list some of them? Some restorations are obviously better than others, but..... And who's turning the older classic courses into the newest "in" design right now?

Are you jumping the fence on this "Bias" campaign of yours as it pertains to some architects work on older courses, or, are you back on this "Move Charlie's Gate and add 60 yards to the 18th at NGLA again"?

[Ronan_Branigan]

Good morning, from slightly overcast but still mild for this time of year, Ireland. Maybe we should consider the topic of global warming. I have noticed that we have gorse bushes in flower at  the moment! Slightly strange for the middle of December and if global warming and rising sea levels come to past maybe all our discussion will be in vain as our classic links will be simply eroded to the sea! Perish the thought or maybe there are some out there who would welcome this with open arms so that they say goodbye to the past masters and welcome the 'Jigsaw puzzle bunkers' advance. The ultimate conspiracy theory. Anyway, back to more pressing matters:

Pat

Don't give in. Maybe you should read some of the earlier posts regarding the disproportionate effects that small groups have waged all throughout history.

TE Paul

Once again I agree with your stoicism!

[TEPaul]

Ronan:

For God's sakes don't mention conspiracies or small groups to Pat Mucci--or large groups, or any kind of groups, for that matter. That will set him off on a real tear!

There's only one way to run a golf club as far as Pat's concerned and that's by a single dictator--not just any old dictator either--a dictator that agrees with him.

On second thought that's not a bad way to go at all. (As long as both of them agree with me!).

[A_Clay_Man]

Ronan- Perhaps a new thread on the positive aspects of the topography of the future, Siberia. No joking, Areas that will be high enough in elevation and climatized for the continuing warming is a no brainer for future generations. Here in Farmington the daytime temps get up near fifty degrees (F) and golf is completly doable as long as there is no precip. Yesterday I was playing with a guy who made comment about the way winters use to be like here. Snow, snow and more snow. I have been here a year and the course has been closed a total of ten days, from less than an inch of white stuff.

I am saddened by the negative answers to your query from esteemed steamers like Tommy and Rich. Even the smallest of revolutions has to start somewhere and the fact that you did use the word VERGE, I still say YES.

Never give up especially in golf

[Mark_Fine]

Guys,
Though it should be obvious, the small group of people who have found this site and spend anytime at all on it are already converted.  They wouldn't bother logging in here if they weren't.  Most all these posts are just like preaching to the choir!  It's all those that don't participate that need conversion.  Sitting here typing unfortunately won't reach them.  We need to get out there where it is happening if we're going to have any measureable impact.  

What are there, something like 25 million golfers in the U.S.  I've always argued that 99% of them don't have a passion for golf course architecture nor do they really appreciate it.  They are out there playing golf just for recreation, for business, for fun, or just to get away from it all for awhile,...etc.  The other 1% (250,000) "might" have some interest in course design.  

And if you think about it, my 99% number might be low.  If I recall correctly, I think it was Brad Klein who at one time said, if you write a book on golf architecture, the market for it is maybe 1000 or so copies.  Evidently the 250,000 don't like to read.

Becoming a "student of the game" as Tommy suggests is great, but if you want that to have any impact on the masses, you need to get your message beyond the people on this website.  

Mark

[Ronan_Branigan]

Mark

I agree with you 100%. The vast majority of golfers have very little interest in GCA. The subtlety of design can be lost on them and they will merely judge a course depending on how they played on that given day. The only way to educate the masses is if by some way the golf courses that we all love such as Cypress Pt, Sand Hills etc.. host major tournaments and as a result the wider public see the intricacies and nuances of these courses and embrace that style of GCA. Oh! there is also the small point of converting pro's! It's a long shot but not unattainable.

Do you have an annual GCA conference in the States? If so have you every brought up the subject of classical design and its merits and if so how did it go down? What % of practicing architects in the states believe in a return to basics? There are ways of marketing a product to make it appealing to the general public. It's all about perception and what people believe is good, bad or indifferent! If we have the numbers and the clout let's start the ball rolling. If not let's give it a go anyway. I know that I might sound rather purist and possibly naive. I know that it is a big game and that there is room for many different styles. Tastes differ as with any art but if we can in some way show people the merits of the classical courses, both old and new, we have a chance of showing people how important they are to the game on a whole.

  A Clay Man

Maybe Siberia is the way forward. It might be a little bit out of the way though

[TEPaul]

Mark:

There's no question in my mind that a number like 99% if that represents the percentage of golfers out there that're clueless about architecture or are never going to be candidates to become interested in the finer points of architecture, even if it's true, is virtually meaningless.

And also using an analogy to forecast the future direction of architecture by using a percentge relationship between the numbers of architectural books sold to the number of golfers out there is virtually meaningless too.

The more realistic and more effective way to influence the direction of architecture is to try to influence those select few who're interested in building golf courses or are about to.

There's no better example of this than the Bandon courses and Rustic Canyon. Did Rustic Canyon get conceived of and built by first educating, influencing and getting some kind of consensus opinion from potential golfers in its region? Of course not!

It's probably not beyond the realm of possibility that the number of people it took to get that course conceived of and eventually built could be counted on two hands. As for conceiving of it and getting the ball rolling--it may have only been one--Shackelford.

But look at it now. And look at the courses of Bandon now! The players (all those clueless 99%) are coming to play the courses in droves and are apparently not only having a ball doing it but actually stating same--which is of course doubly indicative.

Do you think this is going to be lost on Rustic's (or Bandon's) competition or potential competition? I'm sure not!

You build something that may be a departure from the norm, like Rustic Canyon or Bandons, and they come or they don't come. If they come and particularly in droves that begins to get the attention of many many more people and golfers, very much including that so-called clueless 99%!

That's how the direction of architecture begins to really be influenced and then begins to change direction. You don't have to first educate those 99% or influence them first at all. Frankly, you don't even have to attempt to talk to any of them first!