Is golf architecture on the verge of a revolution?

[TEPaul]

Ronan:

You started one helluva thread here--it's now become about ten different threads in one. If the number of posts hits 200 for evermore you will be admitted into the barroom brawl known as the Treehouse AKA Golfclubatlas.com at any hour and for any reason without first having to whisper the password or give the secret handshake!

But just so you know, the password and secret handshake has always been whatever anyone wants it to be.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ronan,
In an earlier post(#125 ) you stated:
 ...."It{TOC} is meant to be the bible of strategic design but yet it doesn't present the player with visual cues".

The adage says that once one plays a hole it isn't blind any longer and it's been said that to really understand a course one must play it often and in all the elements. I accept these remarks and they lead me to think that golfers from past eras weren't expected to see or play as many courses as we do now. Visual cues were of less importance than knowing the course, which was achieved over a longer frame of time for these golfers.
The "cues" may have become more important or were felt to be necessary as the number and mobility of players grew.
 

[TEPaul]

JimK:

In the philosophy of "art design" and its concept of "emphasis" and how that applies to golf architecture and its "visuals", lack of "visual cues" and blindness are not synonymous or even similar, in my opinion.

How about yours?

[Slag_Bandoon]

 I need to get me one of those hats with the open baseball mitt on top that'll keep some of these posts from going over my head.  

[Mark_Fine]

If there is going to be a "revolution", it might be in "affordable" golf.  Maybe that in itself will force more "natural" less contrived golf course designs.  You can't charge $30 a round if you move a million cubic yards of dirt and do wall to wall landscaping with elaborate water features.  

But at the same time, if you hit the right price points, golfers will come no matter what you build.  That is a fact and unfortunately most architects know it.  

Maybe Rustic Canyon winning Golf Digest's best new award will help the cause.  This is one of the kinds of exposure that can have a significant impact.   It's a shame people on this site don't recognize this    

Think what you want about the rankings, etc.,  but you get more of those guys to think the way we do and you CAN have an impact.  Unfortunately, half the people on this site think the rankings are a joke and the panelists are clueless and just out for free golf.  I don't believe that and even if they are, then convert them!  Who do you think these guys are playing with when they travel all over the country to see these courses.  Many times it's the superintendents, the architects themselves, the chairman of the grounds committee and/or some influencial member.  They have their ear for over four hours!  

To bad this site scares most panelists off and only a few bother to stick around anymore as a result.  

Missed opportunity in my opinion!
Mark

[Ronan_Branigan]

Mark

I couldn't agree more with your thread and of kind of touched on that very point in post#149. It is very easy to assume the moral highground and have a them and us situation which seldom yields results. Even though not always possible it is important to try and look at things from all angles. As already mentioned we are not the people that have to be converted and as such we have to explore all avenues in regard to educating the masses. If we can educate the influencial people and let them also carry the torch forward it will be a good day for GCA.

In that post I also asked a few questions if anyone would care to answer.Go raibh maith agaibh (Irish for thanks)

[Slag_Bandoon]

Maybe Rustic Canyon winning Golf Digest's best new award will help the cause.  This is one of the kinds of exposure that can have a significant impact.   It's a shame people on this site don't recognize this    

 half the people on this site think the rankings are a joke ... Who do you think these guys are playing with when they travel all over the country to see these courses.  Many times it's the superintendents, the architects themselves, the chairman of the grounds committee and/or some influencial member.  

Mark

  Mark, perhaps it's been tainted by the rankings of the past.  Once bitte, twice shy.  
I remember playing Sandpines GC in Florence, Oregon BECAUSE it was voted best new in whenever.  I didn't know much anything about golf architecture but I thought wow! gollygeewillickers "Best NEW in the Whole Country" ! Yippee ky aye!   Funny thing was I enjoyed it but that night I drove further down the coast to some new course in Bandon that just opened that month that I'd read about in a small article in the local paper.  That course was epiphanal for me.  IT was what compelled me to go to Ireland and hook into this site and buy countless books on the subject we tirelessly discuss.  
   I have since gone back to Sandpines and am so disappointed at the lost opportunity that I really dropped rankings or Doak scale #'s from any meaning for me.  That said, the general population does use those rankings so they are important for where golf architecture is headed.  I am more relieved than happy that Rustic Canyon and Devils Thumb came in with defiant punches that may sink some battleships.  

  As matter-of-factly as I can ask this...  How honest can one be in rating a course when playing with archies/supers/club pros etc?  Is it difficult to suggest anything or does the friendliness get in the way of hard opinions?

  So, though the rankings won't make me play a course, the shared knowledge and avid opinions of golfers here and ones I meet playing do make me want to experience more.  

   To Jim Finegan, thanks for the write-up and accolades for Carne GL in Ireland.  Words made the difference.
  




  

[Jim_Kennedy]

TE,
I wasn't trying to relate the two, I was only using blind shots to illustrate "learned". At TOC, as Ronan sees it, the few  visual clues are not part of the strategy bible. What I was trying to get at was the idea that fewer visual cues could mean more available options and that fewer visual cues were not looked on in the same light as today, which I think was the case in the less mobile era when strategy was king.  

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine:

If I'm understanding Slag Bandoon correctly his experience is the golf course sells the golf course at least long term and not necessarily the magazine rankings.

I think the real 99% factor out there is all those golfers who put so much stock in the magazine rankings when most of the time all the magazine rankings are is a bunch of 1-100 numbers that makes no distinction for the reading or golfing public about what the differences in architecture really is from one course to another. So what's the educational value of the magazines in an architectural context for that 'clueless' golfing public?

Now, I would completely change my opinion, and I do, if that magazine also included the thoughtful article written by Ron Whitten about Rustic Canyon and why it was different, unique and so interesting in its architecture. If any of those magazines bothered to do articles like that for all the courses they rate and rank I'd be 100% behind those magazines, particularly if they had a thoughtful architectural writer like Whitten. But they don't do that--except apparently for the winner or whatever.

So to see any kind of credit for the success of Rustic Canyon claimed by the magazine that rated it is not really something I like to hear (reserving my argument, of course, for the effects of the thoughtful article by Whitten).

But again, if I'm understanding Slag correctly, Rustic Canyon and its architecture (obviously price etc) is responsible for Rustic Canyon's success, not any magazine--at least that's definitely the way it will play out long term.

So, again, I'd be all for the magazines if they bother to write thoughtful articles about the courses they rank, their architecture, why it's good, why it's better than other types of architecture. That would really be educational and of course that could reach millions more people and golfers than Golfcubatlas ever might.

So are they doing that--are they writing thoughtful articles or just listing a bunch of golf courses progressively by number. What's the architectural education in that?

[Slag_Bandoon]

Thank you Tommy for expounding so eloquently on my notion.  Now, how can a grass roots group like GCAtlas put pressure on the editorial staffs of Golf Digest, Links, Golfweek, our local newspapers and golf publications, etc?

  Lurking editors, trust the word.  Avoid the dumbing illiterate direction of the number game.  Use the 1st Amendment.  Oops,I meant First.

[Mark_Fine]

Still don't get it do we!  Ron Whitten would probably not have written about Rustic Canyon if it didn't win!  The reason it won is because at least 10 panelists voted for it to win.  If courses like that continue to get voted for, there will be more articles written about them!  The panelists have the influence.

But don't kid yourself about who those articles are written for.  Let's not forget how many golfers buy golf architecture books    There is a reason for that!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ronan Branigan,

Not to worry,

"Giving in" is not in my nature, but being realistic is.

I continue the noble cause, despite the odds and aggravation.

TEPaul,

Could you name me just ten (10) TRUE and complete restorations that have taken place over the last ten years ?

I will repeat, as Father Time marches further away from the creation of the classic courses, the philosophy that created them becomes a faded memory.  AND, most individuals taking up golf in the last ten years have no idea who those old dead guys were, what they stood for, and what they accomplished.

Ask yourself, if the great works of art were interactive and open season, for all to try their hand, how many of them would have survived in their original state ?

Golf courses are subject to a terrible and powerful force, the idea that a member can alter features on the golf course, resulting in a direct beneficial impact upon his game.

As long as that thinking continues, and the architecture is not considered sacrosanct, disfigurations, not restorations, will prevail.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
All great works of architecture are interactive.

Mark
The public appreciates great golf architecture. They may not all be able to articulate their appreciation or give the course a numeric rating relative to other courses, but they will choose interesting and stimulating architecture over their current sad diet. What effect does the best new course have on the general public? I don't think it has much effect its hard to remember who last year much less ten years ago.

Do you think the GD ranking would have effected the designs of Macdonald, Colt, MacKenzie.....? One of the reasons golf architecture flourished in the first decades of the 20th C was not due to rankings, but the effect of thoughtful writing/analysis - not something you find in abundance in the major golf magazines.

[Dan Kelly]

To add to what Mr. MacWood and Mr. Paul (and possibly others; this is quite a thread to plow through, when you've been sick for a couple of days!) have been saying...

I hope you don't mind if I repeat myself -- from a thread called "Did vacations ruin golf?" (or something like that); it seems apropos to this discussion of the 99%:

This contempt for Joe Sixpack (a.k.a. "Doof") is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You (the developer You) imagine, loftily, that Doof (unlike You) has no taste, so you build garish, tasteless golf courses littered with waterfalls and cart girls.

And then You blame Doof!

After all: Doof showed up and played your course, and he even seemed to enjoy it -- proving that you were right about him all along!

What garbage.

Build a great golf course, and let Doof play it (shudder), and I'm telling you: Doof will love it.

Those of you who doubt that: Please name me a great public golf course that Joe Sixpack has shunned.

----------------

As Tom I said up above: The minds that need influencing are the minds of the guys who have the money to build golf courses. Simple as that. The public will follow -- and be grateful for it.

As for me: I'm hopeful that golf architecture is following the pattern of baseballl architecture. Remember, 30 years ago, when they were building all of those perfectly round, perfectly symmetrical, perfectly dreadful baseball/football stadiums: Busch in St. Louis, Three Rivers in Pittsburgh, Riverfront in Cincinnati, Veterans in Philly? Everyone thought those stadiums were just the cat's meow -- until, finally, people couldn't tell one of those parks from another, and they got sick of symmetry and perfectness, and the owners started to build old-timey, charming baseball ballparks again, each
a distinctive place.

And guess what: The public loves those ballparks -- even the 99 percent of the public who couldn't articulate why.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Golf courses are physically interactive, while most works of art are not physically interactive.  That is the major difference

And when golfers feel that they can alter the outcome of that physical interaction, they will attempt to do so.

Paintings, sculptures and other works of art have no such interaction.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Buildings and homes are physically interactive. Are you saying that architecture is not an art?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom M,
You miss my point about the best new award.  The biggest influence might be on the architects and owners themselves.  If they see courses like Rustic Canyon winning these accolades, they may build more like it.  To win these awards, you need panelists to vote for them and not the Tiera Rejadas that Tommy talks about.  If you alinate the panelists and you potentially lose an opportunity.

Ask Gil and Geoff if winning that award means anything to them?  Bet I know the answer    
Mark

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom M. makes a nice point about golf courses being intercative. As this relates to the "revolution or not" question allow me to offer the following:

A golf course is not just the physical, as we all would agree I hope.) Accurately, a golf course is the history,  lack of history, setting beyond its property limits, climate, winds, and indeed the sounds and smell of every nook and cranny. It also is the people who make up its core play. A golf course is defined by charm, allure and occasionally how accessible it may be. certainly these suggest why we can or cannot play there, or wht we would or would not pay the asking green fee.

I have many wonderful golf memories that would give me cause to suggest a course is remarkable. When I was eight it was a public course called Papago. Why? because it what what I knew at the time. My world was little, just like me and my fresh brain. Papago was everything a golf course should be -- to me. Now my world is bigger, and like so many adults and especially so many seasoned golf course architecture "experts", my tastes are tainted (influenced) by the knowledge I keep expanding upon.

All this new knowledge has a dangerous by-product: when we attain it we can begin to talk down to the 99% -- hell, we even begin to use percentages such as 99%, of which I am suspicious of right off the bat.

All golfers share a common love. Some love equipment. Some the "get away from reality" aspects. Some the habitual nature. Some just the challenge. Some the professional heros. Some the heritage of courses and golf figures. Some the courses. And some all of these. The "average golfer", which many of you might call a "hack" or perhaps even "Joe-Bag-of-Donuts", can teach us a lot about the art of golf, golf courses and experiences. They may not be up to our taste or standards, but they are real. As a great advertising giant once said, "Don't talk down to the consumer, she is your wife." (David Olgivy)

Those who have made a point of this interactive nature of courses, and the fact that courses are SUPPOSED to change and morf to the needs and wishes of their players, are on track. A revolution may be economic -- which I believe is a reality in golf. A revolution may also be part design -- which I point out is but one part of a golf course. And a revolution may be  access related -- which is a combination of economics, physical attributes and policy.

A review of a majority of this thread will show how single track we are with the obsession on physical qualities -- the design. I like very much the discussion on affordability, building courses where they belong and are needed; and perhaps even the alternates to the tried and true 18-holes of "regulation" length.

[Ronan_Branigan]

Forrest

I agree with your thread in taht we should look at 'the Revolution' from many aspects and affordability is very important. What % of golfers play on less than $30-50 courses. Probably the majority. So if you can work with that market in regard to creating more 'natural' courses we could be on to a winner.

Regardly of why the article on RC was written in GD, think of the benefits. There is always an ulterior motive to things. Unfortunately that is the world we live in but let us try to see the benefits of such an award and article. It's all about converting the influencial few (small groups thread again)

Dan

Great analogy with Baseball. Unfortunately, I don't know much about it. The only game that I have ever seen is when I worked at East Lake in Atlanta and I went to see the Braves play. Those games go on for hours!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Mark Fine and Matt Ward are correct,
You need to get out of the house and play more golf courses.

Buildings and homes are hardly interactive fields of play, where score is kept, other than perhaps in the bedroom.

You understand the issue, stop playing with yourself,
other than perhaps, in the bedroom.  

[Ronan_Branigan]

Does anyone out there know if there is a support group for the girlfriends of contributors to GCA? I'm starting to get a hardtime for being online so much! Ah! if only sheep could cook!!!!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Architecture is one of the most elemental of art forms. It was derived from man's need to seek shelter. It is a place to see and not be seen -- protection from the elements. It is both funtional and artistic - not unlike golf architecture.

Is there a more interactive space than the home? The home is broken into smaller functional areas. There is place for the activity of preparing food, there is a space for dining, there is a space for gathering near the hearth, there is a space for sleeping, there is a space for washing clothes, for bathing. I have kids playing games in play rooms, others playing musical instruments, some dancing, reading, watching TV, listening to music, writing, studying, etc. There are a number of activities that occur in the home everyday (I suspect you may have a dungeon). Plus you have the relationship between home and its environment - trees, shrubs, flowers, lawn. the effect of weather and age.  Outdoor spaces: play areas, patios, pools, gardens, basketball court, driveway.

It is just as important that a building be functional (address the great number of activities; INTERACTIVE) as it is to be aesthetically pleasing. The greatest works of architecture and golf architecture grasp both. Perhaps you, Matt Ward and Mark Fine can reflect upon that in your travels.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
I understand the bounce these architects get from winning these awards. But is that a positive for golf architecture? If you look at the courses that have won these awards over the years, I think if anything it has led to a very bad trend. More courses designed to get attention and win the award. Many of these courses who win are attention grabbing, immediately making the rankings and then fall off the face of the earth in short order. They are not interesting, thought-provoking designs, but they sure make a pretty picture.

[Steve Lang]

Design, Art, and Architecture.  At my ol university, it was one college, but separate disciplines with fuzzy barriers.  But the archies had to do one thing different, build it for use and abuse by the general public.

Note.. Riverfront Stadium in Cinti, is gone.. The AstroDome is about to go, and others will follow.  

I still don't get the revolution thing, too much bluster/bs in that term's use..

p.s. ronan, sorry.. equating women to sheep who can cook gives you a failing grade in my book, that's really poor

[TEPaul]

This sure is an interesting thread, moving in and out of all kinds of subjects.

The "interacitivity" of golf courses and their architecture is interesting but I hope some aren't mentioning that fact to try to prevent architecture from evolving and being subject to maintenance practices and so forth that does change it over time. If this is a point being made to establish that classic archtecture must not be touched by man at all that's just plain unrealistic.

Pat:

I really find it hard to believe that you appear so doomish about the propects of restoration of classic architecture and have said on a thread above that even the principles of classic Golden Age architecture are receding from memory.

That's the farthest thing from the truth, in my opinion. I think restoration has almost hit a critical mass at this point. It's happening all over the country.

But you ask me to name 10 TRUE and complete examples of courses that have been restored in the last ten year. That, of course completely persupposes what you mean by "TRUE and complete".

I think it's ridiculous to establish some kind of test for a restoration to be "TRUE and complete" perhaps only in the eyes of what Pat Mucci thinks a restoration should be to even be consider a restoration.

The fact is about twenty years ago the thought of restoring these classic course was barely existed. They were still treeing them up, shrinking them down, softening them and wholesale redesigning them, even rerouting them.

That appears not to be happening much anymore and now the idea of restoration has really taken hold. Some restorations are very good, some moderately so, and others not very well done but at least courses are trying to restore and get back to what they should be.

Books are being written all the time explaining the classic courses and the priniciple and logic of those designs.

I don't know why you're so pessimistic about what's happening today. It's about 500 times more positive than it was just 15-20 years ago. Maybe they don't pass some extreme test of yours but, again, the direction is so much better than it used to be!

But to some of the purists on here, the idea that every single thing MUST be returned to the way it once was is both unrealistic and shortsighted, in my opinion. To understand the details of why some things logically must change with the ensuing decades takes time and work to understand that they actually can be made even better than they once were at even their best in the Golden Age itself.

There's no reason to be pessimistic--it's a time to be optimistic--there's a ton of good stuff happening in new construction, restoration, writing, you name it!

As for examples of 10 good restorations in the last ten years, my God, Ron Prichard alone has done more than that in the last five years! Not to mention the good work of Hanse, Doak, Forse, and probably a bunch of others I'm not that familiar with!

Things are moving in the right direction mostly now, not the complete wrong direction they were 20+ years ago and back!