What course that would be considered classic courses does the PGA Tour play? This question may have to be examined on a case by case basis. In general I guess there is always the debate about the impact of TV on society in general. For some of us who don’t watch TV much the Tour would have little if any impact. If there is any truth to be found about architecture I think you find it by doing rather than by watching so it is important what clutter is allowed into your thoughts, therefore it is possible that the drivel some point to in these telecasts is making its way into the mainstream of thought that is then carried to clubs around the country.
With regards for your architects and developers question I would think that the concept for the course, or the reason for its existence, is the primary question rather than the distance. The club where I grew up was a social entity and a golf club, it was the hub of many people’s lives and it had that atmosphere which was a good thing. The architecture of the course would be pretty low by any standard however because of many factors which included the reasons for its existence it was the most enjoyable golf I ever experienced. In large part I think this was due to the low-key informal nature of the whole operation around the golf pro shop and snack bar. What I see today is more a proliferation of courses with other purposes be it to sell homes around the course, cater to outings, and to maximize play at all hours during the week and weekends. There is much more of a managed, business like atmosphere, and this is predominantly at the public golf level now, I am not in the private market anymore except for my work. The golf course in the community as the hub of activity has been displaced somewhat by competition. So, I think there are many more factors to consider other than the long courses if you believe as you do that golf is on a downward spiral. For instance, I think there could be a big difference in the way the same course could be perceived under two different circumstances: One, a public course that is their to serve the golfing and social needs of the local community, where the requirement is not to make money, but rather to serve those aforementioned needs to the highest level possible while still breaking even and nothing more, or the same course that is professionally managed and must maximize profits at all costs in order for the management company to meet the needs of their stockholders and owners. Same course, two different concepts of business approaches, and I predict you would come away from the experience with two vastly different impressions.
The demise of architecture at clubs has much to do with the members in charge as it does with the restoration and improvement of the architecture. I have seen incidences where the powers at the club allowed an incompetent architect to carve up what was otherwise a very interesting course, so certainly there is some responsibility there as well. However, more times than not there are members of a club who have no place being in charge, who are grossly incompetent when it comes to making decisions that affect the course. The push for certain playing conditions has pulled the superintendent into this mix as well. I think their ability to deliver unprecedented conditions has more than anything threatened the economic solvency of some operations. Some clubs can not accept that turf and playing conditions must adjust weekly to the weather conditions. The desire to maintain the same conditions throughout the season is a terrible goal of many clubs. The constant oversight by some members has caused the superintendent to become more of a yes man and his inability to deliver the exact conditions from week to week has put him on the defensive. But, the GCSAA and the suppliers have not made his job easy because for years instead of being proactive in discussing in a public forum just where do we want the turf maintenance of American courses to be they were largely silent about reasonable limitations and instead featured the latest breakthroughs in technology that could help the superintendent maintain design features of the most ridiculous nature.