Architecture splits in two

[THuckaby2]

In each of those cases, we do indeed give the bogey golfer the benefit of the doubt and find a place he can keep it dry or find grass anyway.  The manual even has a procedure for what to do for the impossible shot (ie 220 yard carry over water).

Of course these would lead to high obstacle ratings, and thus high slope most likely....

So in the end, ok, what the hell were they thinking at Shore Gate?  

One more possibility:  the course comes out so difficult for the scratch player, it's not that much MORE difficult for the bogey.  Remember that slope is the DIFFERENCE between the two... if they're both very high (course rating and bogey obstacle rating) then the difference between the two might not be as much as occurs at a place like PGA West Stadium, where the difference is greater... Food for thought.

To that end, note that the slope on the USOpen tees at Shinnecock is "only" 142, on a 75.1 rating....

TH

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

If you're happy, I'm happy!  However, as Mike C implies above, I think you (and the rest of the Slopettes) are measuring fantasies rather than realities...

To get back to the subject, I think that ther are at least 2 other major tendencies afoot, each of which might give us more hope than what Mike experienced in South Jersey.

One is the very low key, low cost, low maintenance, low expectations course.  Much like Mark Fine's kid's course in PA.  Below see a link to a similar one in the north of Scotland, within shouting distance of Lossiemouth.  Another similar project was done at Durness 10 years or so ago, giving a community with less than 1000 people a very fine 9 hole course.

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=84026&command=displayContent&sourceNode=83994&contentPK=1661933

The second is the often gradual, often dramatic "upgrading" of the "bottom 24,500" of the 25,000 or so courses out there--ie the ones we rarely speak of.  I think that with a little bit of care and attention and more than a little understanding of concepts such as "fast and firm", "walkability" and "pride" ther eis not a course out there that could not be made more like "our" ideal, even though that "ideal" is a debatable and movable target.....

[THuckaby2]

Ahhh, Rich - I'd say we're measuring realities more than the average golfer would like to admit.  Take a look at the specs for the "bogey golfer" and you'll see that he is, in the words of Ty from Caddyshack, "not good."  The complaint I hear more often is the other side - that we don't give the scratch player enough credit...

One way or another, the USGA system is not perfect, but it does work well enough.  I believe this firmly and with conviction.

But haven't we gone 'round and 'round with this all too many times?  Don't want to offend any guests again...  

GREAT point re Kinloss, in any case.  Oh yes, raising the bar on the lower-end courses is indeed a huge opportunity.  Here's hoping...

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Tom H:

Appreciate your insights but we can talk until the cows come home on the subject of course ratings / slope and what they mean specifically to Shore Gate. I would urge you to play it and experience firsthand what Mike Cirba and myself are saying. Seeing pictures just doesn't do justice to the discussion.

I've played my fair share of courses and as I said previously I don't mind getting into a tussle with a tough, tough course. But that toughness must be shaped to provide an opportunity to reasonably succeed. I don't see that at Shore Gate because it's like walking on the desert floor in Iran -- guaranteed you will blow your leg off with some inane land mine (in this case -- heavy fairway contours, deep / deep bunkers limiting escape / elephant high grass combined with tree-lined fairways and any other "over-the-top" item one can throw in. There is really no context to how the rewards and penalities are meted out when playing. When luck becomes the predominant feature you have something but don't call it golf.

When I look at other courses I've played that have high slopes (in excess of 145) I have to include Shore Gate in that mix. Believe me, when the complaints came in for Stone Harbor a number of years ago (i.e. the jaws hole, etc.), that was timid compared to what you see at Shore Gate.

I don't doubt there is a market for this type of course. Look at the number of people who can't wait to play TPC / Stadium in Florida and have their "crack" at the island 17th. It's a shame because Shore Gate does have some decent property but the desire to hype overkill is akin to landing an A-bomb on an anthill.

If management were to take out countless bunkers and revisit a few of the greens and some teeing areas (i.e. the long slog at the 9th is one example) you could have a worthy course that could still mete out punishment but with some logical framework.

Hope this helps ...

[THuckaby2]

Matt:  fair enough.  Please understand I was only trying to explain the course rating procedures a bit and speculate as to why Shore Gate's slope came out at "only" 135 (which actually is pretty damn high, btw).  I truly have no desire to play this course and if I get to New Jersey God willing I'll have bigger fish to fry!

I also don't advocate these hellish brutes in any way... please remember my favorites courses on this earth are NGLA and Cypress, in whatever order I feel like any day, and neither of those are slope-busters!

TH

[Jim_Bick]

As Tom has been trying to say, the slope rating can get a little wacky when rating tees the "bogey" player has no business being anywhere near. On a long course, this effect is magnified, because the length is captured in the course rating, while the difficulty around the greens is mitigated by the short shot the bogey player is playing. This hypothetical bogey player is around a 19 index, by the way.

The system assumes (and I'm sure is supported by millions of data points) that drawing a straight line between the scratch rating and the bogey rating yields the best plot of the results for all the handicaps in between. This line is slope.

On penal courses especially, this often doesn't feel right. The course seems to be relatively harder (compared to the scratch rating playing to one's handicap) for the mid single to low teens handicapper. As Tom explained, this is because those (we?) folks are long enough to find more of the trouble than the "bogey" player.

To correct one clearly inadvertent error of Tom's, the rating system has almost no subjectivity (not objectivity). The results are pretty mathematical, driven by the formulas.  Like any system with lots of variables, weird examples (like it sounds Shore Gate is) can generate strange appearing results.

[Jim_Bick]

As Tom has been trying to say, the slope rating can get a little wacky when rating tees the "bogey" player has no business being anywhere near. On a long course, this effect is magnified, because the length is captured in the course rating, while the difficulty around the greens is mitigated by the short shot the bogey player is playing. This hypothetical bogey player is around a 19 index, by the way.

The system assumes (and I'm sure is supported by millions of data points) that drawing a straight line between the scratch rating and the bogey rating yields the best plot of the results for all the handicaps in between. This line is slope.

On penal courses especially, this often doesn't feel right. The course seems to be relatively harder (compared to the scratch rating playing to one's handicap) for the mid single to low teens handicapper. As Tom explained, this is because those (we?) folks are long enough to find more of the trouble than the "bogey" player.

To correct one clearly inadvertent error of Tom's, the rating system has almost no subjectivity (not objectivity). The results are pretty mathematical, driven by the formulas.  Like any system with lots of variables, weird examples (like it sounds Shore Gate is) can generate strange appearing results.

[Jim_Bick]

As Tom has been trying to say, the slope rating can get a little wacky when rating tees the "bogey" player has no business being anywhere near. On a long course, this effect is magnified, because the length is captured in the course rating, while the difficulty around the greens is mitigated by the short shot the bogey player is playing. This hypothetical bogey player is around a 19 index, by the way.

The system assumes (and I'm sure is supported by millions of data points) that drawing a straight line between the scratch rating and the bogey rating yields the best plot of the results for all the handicaps in between. This line is slope.

On penal courses especially, this often doesn't feel right. The course seems to be relatively harder (compared to the scratch rating playing to one's handicap) for the mid single to low teens handicapper. As Tom explained, this is because those (we?) folks are long enough to find more of the trouble than the "bogey" player.

To correct one clearly inadvertent error of Tom's, the rating system has almost no subjectivity (not objectivity). The results are pretty mathematical, driven by the formulas.  Like any system with lots of variables, weird examples (like it sounds Shore Gate is) can generate strange appearing results.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim Bick,

Thanks for the explanation.  I can see how a course that plays very tough for both the scratch and bogey golfer would have a reduction in slope, by definition.

All;

You know, it occurs to me that starting a thread on GCA is sometimes like fathering a child.  You start it with preconceived ideas and notions and expectations, but like winding rivers, they tend to find their own path.

Here I thought we might talk about the extremes of architecture being built in new design, and how those designs are affected by outside forces and each other, but we have evolved into a discussion of the difficulties of one particular course and the vagaries of the "slope rating" system.

That's ok, mind you.  Just like the child, we can only try to start them off on the right foot, and then as they mature, let them find their own directions.  

[THuckaby2]

Jim Bick - thank you very much for eloquently explaining what I was so clumsily trying to get at!  And yes, subjective/objective always throws me and I often reverse those - thanks for catching that also!  You have it correct, obviously.  Maybe I just ought to say there's little room for "opinion" and it's mostly just reporting "facts"...

Mike, sorry for the thread "hijack" - my intent really was just a minor explanation of why the slope might not have felt right at Shore Gate.  Oh well....

TH

[THuckaby2]

The course rating alone would tell you that it's a very small sample of people who can come close to par at Shore Gate, correct?

But I get what you're saying.  Fream seems to have created a course that NOBODY can play well, or quickly, or even enjoy - outside of masochists.

Interesting, his GolfPlan company with the help of good ole Johnny Miller created a similar course out here - Eagle Ridge in Gilroy... somewhat fun, but a lot of overkill and just murder from the back tees.  Fream is definitely in this "flash and brutality" camp.

TH

[George Pazin]

Tom H -

Don't you mean there is very little subjectivity? If it's all formulas & tables, that's about as objective as it can be, regardless of whether or not it's accurate.

[THuckaby2]

George - hell, I don't know what I mean!

It is indeed all formulae and tables and measurements and putting numbers onto such and writing them down on a form with no room for "gee, this looks hard" or any embellishment whatsoever.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Hoo boy!

redanman, are you trying to re-initiate my recurring nightmares of last week?  

Will the "alien" be part of your photo exhibition?  

[Mike_Cirba]

redanman;

The breathless world awaits your pics of the infamous alien, whose existence offers "proof that Aliens brought golf to Planet Earth!".  

All of the reputable local press (New of the World, National Enquirer, Star, Washington Times) are down here waiting with print deadlines before the Memorial Day Holiday.  

Let's have at it, MAN!    

[Scott Turner]

Guys,

The reason Shore Gate's slope is surprisingly low is because of the size of the greens (large).

As far as the moving of dirt goes, SG only brought in the bunker sand (not the waste sand, just the bunker sand).  Nothing else was brought in or removed.  The contors here are natural, if you fill in around a tree - the tree dies, SG is covered with natural vegitation.  Take a look at little details like that and you can more accuratly evaluate the "natural" character of a course.

The feedback from Shore Gate has been overwhelming positive!  For you information, there has not been a round over 4hr and 50min.  That's with cart path only and we are packed.  That should put the pace of play problem to rest.

Can't please all, and I understand your resitance to change.  Ask for Scott if you are down there, I would like to show you guys around.

[Mike_Cirba]

Scott,

Thanks for coming on here to discuss Shore Gate and I'm happy to hear it's been well-received by paying customers.  It certainly is a visually striking, superbly conditioned, and intensely demanding course by any measure.

In fact, my main reason for mentioning Shore Gate on here originally was the extreme difficulty of the course.  Perhaps you could tell me what the instructions were to Fream and Dale; was it to build a "championship course" or were they left largely to build whatever they felt best suited the site?

Because, if the original idea was to provide a serious challenge, they succeeded..in spades!, as evidenced by the comments of others here.

I'm also pleased to hear that you are getting players through in a reasonable amount of time and wish you the best in maintaining that pace as the summer vacation season approaches.

The comments about the moving of earth deal less with materials being shipped in, and more with the shaping and movement of existing land.  Do you have any information or insight as to how many cubic yards of earth were moved during construction?  

Scott, all of those things being said, my main criticism was the fact that everything but the kitchen sink seems to have been thrown into the design, with almost every hole featuring wildly contoured fairways and greens, deep, numerous bunkers, water hazards, wooded areas (which I'm sure already existed pre-construction), long, forced carries over water, wetlands, and rough, and deep, deep rough grasses which appear all over the place (I understand that Fream wanted them kept natural in an effort to save water usage and create a more environmentally friendly course), not to mention the VERY sharp, severe mounding (often with "cut out" bunkers) on the side of almost every fairway.

I've played a lot of courses, but few with the difficult severity of Shore Gate.  We played up a set from the tips, and I can't imagine how tough it would have been from back there.  Two member of our group are extremely long hitting, low-handicap players and both also took a beating.

On the plus side, as I mentioned, the course is on beautiful property, with a lot of natural elevation change for south Jersey.  It is also contiguously routed, and is easily walkable (not sure if that's permitted), and certainly something to see from a visual perspective.  I'd only question if playability is what it needs to be, because our group believed it to be in the company of PGA West Stadium course in difficulty and intimidation, if not more so.

One last question; although I know that some of the mounding was due to natural dunes on the property, what percentage of the steep, almost vertical mounding that lines most of the fairways already existed, and what percentage was created through earth-shaping?

Thanks again for visiting this site and for your insightful post.  Best of luck with Shore Gate!  

[Mike_Cirba]

In light of the "Is there a revolution in golf architecture" thread, I'm bringing this one back in agreement with those who have argued that there is clearly a dichotomy in thought and practice in modern architecture between two widely diverse schools of thought.

In thinking about it more since I posted this thread in May, I believe that both schools are somewhat reactionary in nature in that they are each responsive to what they believe are technological and other changes in the way the game is played.

For simplicities sake, one group believes in providing an increasingly longer and tougher, more hazardous challenge, while maintaining a focus on the element of "fairness" and the belief that an accurate shot should always be rewarded and a poor shot penalized.  Of course, that school also takes the somewhat arrogant approach that their design should be the ultimate arbiter of what shots are punished or rewarded with  a very narrow spectrum for any chance results or creativity.

The other school is more interested in chance, options, interest, fun, naturalness, and less well-defined designs that basically say "screw it" as far as modern distance considerations and largely attempt to provide an increasing challenge as one gets closer to the hole...shots that are reasonable, interesting, yet challenging to every level of player.  On the downside, this school's courses risk being viewed as "not demanding" enough by the game's best players.  

I sense that the latest "Best New" course listing from Golf Digest contains a fair share of both school's designs, yet one wonders if such an ambivalent result isn't indicative of a changing tide where many of the raters still aren't sure of where they stand on this question, overall.  

I recognize that these are sweeping generalities which are certainly debatable and susceptible to outliers and exceptions, but like most stereotypes, they contain more than a germ of truth.  

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Excellent post (and thread) and generalities are fine to start with---then working towards specifics.

I feel, again, that architecture did split in two in many ways over fifty years ago with the inception of the "Modern Age" of architecture. The problem, very likely, was, most did not see it as the split then it really was, and the ensuing 40+ years was a time when the older architecture (pre WW2) was treated the same (as the more modern style course anyway)!

That sort of failure to recognize the distinctions and differences between the two styles and eras created an ongoing time of attempts to homogenize the old with the new and clearly a time of corruption and damage for much of the older style of architecture.

I think the best evidence of this fact is that so many of the older courses were corrupted in the SAME WAYS.

But I think now, and more than ever in the last 10-15 years, people have begun to see what the older style really was and the distinctions of it from the Modern Age courses. They have not only begun to attempt to restore those courses to what they were and were supposed to be but they have begun to recreate that style in new architecture to a much larger degree than in the last 50-60 years.

This time, as the split continues, I sure hope golfers will understand better the distinctions and differences between the styles whether that be two or more.

Failure to understand that only creates corruption, homogenization and one dimensionalism in architecture. Difference is good and it's important to recognize the differences in styles in every way, in my opinion.

[JC_MERTZ]

Gentlemen: In my humble opinion golf course architecture has suffered, not due to lack of creativity and opportunities for designers, but rather economic restraints imposed by developers.  My evidence?  Poor land planning, especially huge densities, thus the number and small size of homesites dictates the design and cash availability for construction of the course.  The result?  Golf balls in my grapefruit!  When true visionaries return, like the late Desmond Muirhead, there will be harmony on all fronts.  Great golf, a true sense of community in the development and tournament capabilty.  Let
us dream of the day when the art of golf is the genesis for the project.  Economics will be taken care of by the manifestation of Excellence...

[JC_MERTZ]

Mr. Belden:
I believe the answer to your question was revealed long ago by the cliche: "the emperor's new clothes"!  There is a distinct lack of consciousness in the world, let alone the world of golf, and this scarcity accounts for the other Great Truth: "the blind leading the blind".  Just because a guy has his grill on TV and spews forth dribble does not make him right.  But you know about the masses...if it's on TV it must be true!  Until next time...JC

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

Thanks and glad you enjoyed the thread.

I agree with you that there was a historical separation in design trends after the Golden Age, which itself seemed to be driven by technical changes in the game and the need to further "test" the best players.  RTJ's changes at Oakland Hills are the best known example.  

However, I think two things have happened in recent years and are happening as we speak.  First, there has been this sort of "mini-renaissance", or "neo-classicism" school that has sprung up for any number of reactionary and pragmatic reasons.

Secondly, the modernistic trend of building increasingly longer, more visually dramatic, and more difficult golf courses has accelerated at the same time.  We don't even blink anymore when told that the newest course plays 7,700 yards from the tips, has 8 water holes, signature waterfalls, and other "challenging" features.  Slopes of 140+ have become de rigeur and almost a cliche.

So, if there has been a "split in architecture" for the past 50 years, I think that what's happened in recent years is that classic trends have been "reborn" in one school (the modern school really dominated for a LONG time until Pete Dye), and  course difficulty and visual dramatics have accelerated in the other.  Interestingly, Dye sort of spanned the gap between both schools of thought, although his most recent work seems to have more in common with the dramatic modernists.

You seem to believe that one side or the other won't "win", but will peacefully coexist and although I hope you're correct, I think another factor is at play here that wasn't so much until the past 20 years, or so.

Television.

The ubiquity of television, and televised golf contests, has the power to create a globally shared "perception" of what is a great golf course.  It also has the power to homogenize that perception, to a great degree.

Patrick asks on another thread whether "vacations" have ruined design by introducing water features, visual dramatics at the expense of sound strategies, etc., and he wonders whether the fact that "everyone" (not only the rich and discerning) can afford vacations has "dumbed down" design.

I'm not sure that everyone who plays golf can actually afford to winter in Florida or Arizona and be exposed to those tracks, but most everyone who plays owns a television and sees what a "GREAT" course looks like each week on everything from Doral to LaCosta, to the latest $80 million CCFAD sponsoring the Wendy's 8-Tour Challenge Skins Match.  

As JC_Mertz mentioned;

"I believe the answer to your question was revealed long ago by the cliche: "the emperor's new clothes"!  There is a distinct lack of consciousness in the world, let alone the world of golf, and this scarcity accounts for the other Great Truth: "the blind leading the blind".  Just because a guy has his grill on TV and spews forth dribble does not make him right.  But you know about the masses...if it's on TV it must be true!"

That mass perception starts to seep into the public consciousness and not only affects new design, but also accounts for how people view their own course.  Do we wonder why so many classic courses are "modernized", often simply for the sake of someone's idea of "better aesthetics" and "fairness".  Do we wonder why bunkers and other hazards are "dumbed down" for the sake of fairness and white, sandy, uniform attractiveness?  Do we wonder why maintenance crews are run ragged to keep things green and soft, or why green speeds that verge on insanity are demanded by memberships?"

There used to be a time when a golfer might play his home course, a few others in his region, and maybe 1 or 2 on his annual vacation.  That was the extent of his "shared experience" and largely created his perceptions and ideas on what a golf course should be.  Here and there you'd have the Macdonald's or Tillinghasts or a few others with the wherewithal and interests and time to travel and gain and share a wider understanding, but for most learning and playing the game, they were "beholden" to those experts to tell them and show them what was good.

Now, everyone's an expert!  Even me.   

Mass appeal has always tended to have a "least common denominator" factor associated with its popularity, and as much as we might want to think that we can exist in some type of splendid isolationism, I don't see it happening.

It's a world market that we're in, and we'd best try to compete with our ideas as passionately, intelligently, and eloquently as we can because someone's viewpoint is going to become the predominant mass perception of what constitutes great archictecture over time and those ideas are going to drive not only new course design but further and more dramatic changes to existing classic courses, as well, I believe.  

[Ronan_Branigan]

We all know the 'antisocial' impact that television has raged on the world of classical, strategic sub 7,000 yard courses but I also feel that when we start to categorise the difficulty of a course in slope rating, we are in a downward spiral. I'm from Ireland and have played all the classics and it was not until I played Kingsbarns that I was introduced to the system of slope rating. As far as I can see GCA has pandered to this concept. It turns golf into the macho mindset of 'Mine is bigger than yours'. Along with a move back to the 'good doctors' 13 principles of design we should strive to abolish the slope rating system!

[Mike_Cirba]

Ronan;

I couldn't agree more.  Like many well-intentioned ideas, "slope rating" has become corrupted by real-world implementation.  

Sort of like televised golf.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Bringing this to the top based on yesterday's Hidden Creek outing..