An architect's opinion

« **on:** October 22, 2006, 10:54:17 PM »

An architect generally known as a restoration architect, Ron Prichard, reads this site and supports it 100%, emailed me to take real issue with something I said on here.

What I said that he took issue with was architects in the past had proposed something like this;

"The highest goal that golf architecture can serve is to create the most enjoyment for the most golfers."

Ron Prichard said to me in an email that he felt that architects, perhaps modern architects, were being followers, not leaders, in kowtowing to the lowest common denominator of the perceptions from modern golfers of what golf (and architecture) should be--eg was supposed to be, and that that was not what the great game of golf or golf architecture should be.

Obviously, Ron seems to mean that golf should be more challenging, more thoughtful, perhaps more iffy and less formulaic and standardized than it has become in the modern era. He apparently also believes that modern architects, the USGA, and perception generally, has allowed this to happen by not being better leaders.

I asked Ron if I should paraphrase his email or just post it and he said just go ahead and post it.

Here it is;

“Good Morning Tom;

Please do me a favor, and give some careful thought to your premise that a primary goal of golf architects who are engaged in restoration work should be to address a primary concern of providing 'the greatest enjoyment for the most". That, Tom will never be the basis of my work, until American players strenuously embrace the essence of golf as originated. And don't hold your breath on this ever happening.

Unfortunately, American golfers equate enjoyment with minimal challenge, no equitable penalty for their misplayed shots, and low scores.

I don't have time to chat away about this most disturbing personality of the "most", but I'm sure Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, Bill Coore, and the many other architects who participate on this forum can better describe how if you they were to concern themselves to any great extent with providing "the most enjoyment" to those folks who have little appreciation for the essential challenge and appropriate character of a great golf course, they would relegate themselves to producing, at best, only places to "bat around a golf ball".

Take care;
Ron

I hope you post this.”

So what do you think? Is Ron Prichard right or wrong in your opinion, or somewhere in between?

« **Reply #1 on:** October 22, 2006, 10:58:08 PM »

TEPaul,

Ron Prichard is correct.

That was never the intent of the olde architects.

That's your egalitarian perspective.

« **Reply #2 on:** October 22, 2006, 11:04:58 PM »

"That's your egalitarian perspective.

Don't you get smart with me Mucci, or I'll stomp on your head. I'm the messanger and the mentor and don't you forget it.

« **Reply #3 on:** October 22, 2006, 11:09:07 PM »

I disagree in many respects. IMHO that is!

MacKenzie said there should always be a way around the trouble so that the lesser player should be able to enjoy playing, and also wanted minimal rough so you wouldn't have to spend a lot of time hunting for balls.

Robert Trent Jones seems to have planned for easy bogey, hard par, which again seems predisposed to making golf fun for less players.

If every course is too challenging for the less player, golf will disappear.

« **Reply #4 on:** October 22, 2006, 11:14:14 PM »

I think what Ron is saying is in regards to restoration....perhaps he has had to follow behind too many that wanted to make drastic changes while they were there to fulfill a philosophy of making golf "fun for everyone". Then Ron gets called because those results weren't satisfying. Fun is good, but there has to be substance behind it as well, or it will leave golfers hungering for more.

Joe

« **Reply #5 on:** October 22, 2006, 11:23:55 PM »

When I say Ron Prichard follows this website and supports its general gist 100%, I wasn't kidding you.

He supports it because he feels it talks very seriously about architecture (even if that doesn’t necessarily mean we are right about everything said on here) and that alone upgraded dialogue leads to better understanding of architecture and golf.

Five minutes after I posted this thread, I got this;

"Thanks so much Tom;

Right on the money - and I'm curious to see whether or not the posters will carry this for awhile.

My work means a great deal to me. That's why I gave up the pursuit of new course design many years ago and pladged myself to learn more and do what I could to take care of the great old courses which were in such serious design.

I appreciate your friendship, and I feel you are thinking deeper every day to sort out what's between the lines.

Did you ever read "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand?

All the best;
Ron

And sometime before that last one this;

"Hello Tom;

Yes, OK to post my comments.

The point I was suggesting Tom, is that most of what is wrong, or goes wrong in the profession of golf architecture is the result of architects who for one reason or another bend to the will of clients, (perhaps memberships), who have very little understanding of, and appreciation for the Royal and Ancient Game.

Unfortunately what further contributes to this production of sad results is that so few architects have any real understanding of the roots of the game. I made my first long visit to Scotland, Ireland, and England 33 years ago with the hope that I might better understand golf, and I have repeatedly returned in hopes of learning more.

Few American architects including some who are most in vogue ever make such a journey. Perhaps they should speak with Pete Dye, or in more recent times Tom Doak, who can explain what travels in the home of golf contributed to their education.

The architect who too willingly panders to the wishes of the American golfer will never produce any work of redeeming value.

And attempting to produce work which brings enjoyment to the majority of our players is the wrong purpose. If we do that golf will surely die."

Just so you understand, Ron has always liked reading this website but he's not crazy about typing, and he might not even be registered on here so he communicates throught emailing with contributors.

This is what I love about GOLFCLUBATLAS.com---eg differences of opinion and discussion about those differences. In my opinion, it's the only way this place can and will stay vibrant, relevent and respected long-term.

« **Reply #6 on:** October 22, 2006, 11:24:08 PM »

Bill, I disagree with your premise and am in complete agreement with Ron.

Obviously I'm going to use Tillinghast as an example since he also believed in designing courses that the less talented player could both play and enjoy, but these same courses were designed to challenge the better players. Many were designed so that the better the player the more extreme the challenge. That is one of the reasons why his courses have stood the test of time and a number of them have been able to be expanded and renovated to keep in stride with the growth of the players in both talent and technology.

When many of the "golden agers" (or Mike's dead guys... I just like that phrase) worked, they were bringing out radically different designs than anything attempted in the past, mving away from the formulaic and mathematical and bringing to life holes that "dog-legged" and bunkers placed in line-of-flight rather than at a prescribed yardage.

Greens became complexes rather than flat areas surrounded by the same all-encircling pit of sand.

To put it succinctly, golf course design became an art form that created a beautiful terror for the talented player.

« **Reply #7 on:** October 22, 2006, 11:24:41 PM »

My first question to Ron would be: where does he stand on Implements and Balls ?

« **Reply #8 on:** October 22, 2006, 11:45:23 PM »

This is probably an inevitablity to most on here but I am going to ask Tom MacWood to comment on this thread and to ask Ron Prichard why he, or a club, made some of the decisions they did on various restoration projects (such as Aronomink). If that kind of discussion can happen, in my opinon, this is what it's all about on here on a website like this one. This should be a reality check for such as MacWood who really should get out in the field with the likes of a Ron Prichard.

On the other hand, is there something that an architect like Ron Prichard can learn on here from someone like Tom MacWood?

« **Reply #9 on:** October 23, 2006, 12:00:36 AM »

"My first question to Ron would be: where does he stand on Implements and Balls?"

Willie:

Apparently, you're not being facetious about asking where Ron Prichard stands on Implements and balls. He not only stands super firm on controlling I&B and particularly distance increase but he may've been the first to caution about it very seriously in modern times.

Matter of fact, the first time I met Ron was at a GAP Pro, President, Golf and Green Chairman meeting at Bent Creek.

Ron was on the panel with Dick Rugge, the USGA Tech Center director.

Before the meeting started I introduced myself to Ron and he actually gave me a written question to ask him from the audience about the failure of the USGA to control distance.

I was perfectly prepared to ask Ron that "shill" question but before I had he chance he got so animated over the subject he actually asked the question himself and then proceeded to supply his opinion.

Ron Prichard's opinion on I&B and the distance increase issue is very well documented and the interesting thing is he may've been the first to question the USGA about it. in modern times His letter to them over a dozen years ago is part of the record.

« **Reply #10 on:** October 23, 2006, 01:37:01 AM »

Tom P:

I agree with pretty much everything Ron Prichard has written to you.

Dr. MacKenzie wrote that the architect's goal should be "to provide the greatest good for the greatest number," and I believe he might have meant that for the greatest number of people in the community, golfers or not. But I also believe he meant to provide the "greatest good" in the wide perspective, and for him, that meant to provide courses that were completely in keeping with the spirit of St. Andrews, not just trying to keep ahead of the public opinion polls like so many politicians today.

P.S. Did you hear the quote from Kinky Friedman (the independent running for governor in Texas) about the etymology of the word politics? "Poly means many, and ticks of course are little blood sucking creatures."

« **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2006, 07:20:51 AM »

TomD:

I'd vote for Kinky Friedman on his name alone.

« **Reply #12 on:** October 23, 2006, 07:26:29 AM »

I read Ron's post a little differently.

I think what he objects to are modern courses that are designed so that no one ever gets into any big trouble; where designs are so insipid that every one "just bats the ball around".

I think that makes sense.

But Mack's utilitarian quote about greatest good to the greatest number was not about minimizing penalties. In some respects it was the opposite. It was about designing courses where the difficulties are, essentially, elective. If you want to play safe, you don't have to engage the hazards. If you want to score well and go low, you must engage the hazards.

Everyone is happy because everyone can choose the level of difficulty they want to strap on.

I think that is what Mack meant. Golfers were given the option of setting the level of difficulty suitable to their game.

MacK would have opposed the notion that all hazards ought to affect all golfers all the time (which is what penal architecture is about). He would have also opposed the obverse notion - that courses need to be made easy to please a larger number of golfers.

He thought he had figured out a third way.

Bob

« **Reply #13 on:** October 23, 2006, 07:34:19 AM »

Ask Ron to define "enjoyment"?

I had a discussion the other day at a club in New Jersey about the merits of adding back an old cross bunker. One gentleman commented that, "All that is going to do is cause problems for the ladies off the tee". I was about to comment when another chimed in and said, "I disagree as those players and other shorter hitters appreciate interesting challenges just like the rest of us. Just because that bunker wouldn't impact your game doesn't mean it wouldn't exite or provide interest to someone else." I was proud of the answer. Education does work

So would Ron say that cross bunker provides "enjoyment" or not? I say it does

« **Reply #14 on:** October 23, 2006, 07:35:18 AM »

Bob,
I just read your post and I think you are saying something similar to me.
Mark

« **Reply #15 on:** October 23, 2006, 07:55:00 AM »

TE,
I think Ron is dead on with his thoughts on the subject......
The problem as I see it is as much the "need" for golf courses today s it is the USGA and other elements. By "need" I mean the real estate developers that sre seeking to "one-up" te last development. Many of the newer courses are built for that purpose and that purpose only since they know that golf itself will not support the course. In doing so the "bang" created by water, landscaping etc becomes the central element of the design and if it can be incorporated into a "natural type look" it doesn't matter to the developer if it has anything to do with the strategy or playability of the course. That developer wants it to "look" difficult....and they want it to be predictable. PREDICTABILITY is what is ruining modern golf IMHO. A devleoper told me recently that lot sales from two holes would pay for his land and golf course cost on a "prominent" project. He could have cared less about the golf.
Mike

« **Reply #16 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:00:09 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on October 22, 2006, 10:54:17 PM

Obviously, Ron seems to mean that golf should be more challenging, more thoughtful, perhaps more iffy and less formulaic and standardized than it has become in the modern era. He apparently also believes that modern architects, the USGA, and perception generally, has allowed this to happen by not being better leaders.

TE
This is a little off the subject but how does Ron reconcile the formulaic Rossification trend?

« **Reply #17 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:08:48 AM »

"TE
This is a little off the subject but how does Ron reconcile the formulaic Rossification trend?"

Tom MacWood:

I don't believe that is off the subject and even if it seems so, it's a good question for him to respond to that characterization on your part. We should just wait and see how Ron Prichard responses to that. My guess would be he would probably say that is simply your pecular characterization of his Ross restorations.

« **Reply #18 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:10:31 AM »

I have an awful lot of respect for Ron Prichard and think what he is saying has a profound meaning on many levels.

We know some of the most successful modern day architects do pander to the whims of American golfers. A model where the architects follows rather than leads may achieve monetary success but hardly artistic success that will stand the test of time. Clinton was a follower and not a leader. Commanders in Chief that follow rather than lead tend to miss opportunities and avoid big issues while waiting to leave office and get on the lecture circuit. Of course, Commanders in Chief that lead, but lead poorly (e.g. the current Bush) are not any better. See, I can give equal time to slamming Republicans and Democrats.

Golf courses that are designed to "look hard and play easy" have a powerful psychological affect and make the golfers and members of such clubs delude themselves into thinking better about themselves as golfers. This enjoyment is cheaply earned and is not in the spirit of golf as played in the UK.

Pardon me while I point out that many of the works of Raynor and Banks were variations on a theme that was accepted by the American golfing public. While other architects were designing in a more natural style, getting into deception by perception, more offset greens and fairways, the National School was giving their market what they wanted while for the most part ignoring contemporary developments in design. I don't blame them for what they were doing, but despite some courses that have terrific shot values, excellent locales and have stood the test of time, didn't they, in general, play to their audience and not dare to try evolutionary and revolutionary designs? This is one mark against that school in my mind that nearly all others don't seem to mind.

I think the highest expression of golf architecture is to create in a single golf course a stern test of golf for the highest class players while allowing lesser classes of golfers enjoyable difficulty and a way to get around. One way an architect can achieve this is to have less contouring in fairway LZs where short hitters play to and more contouring in the longer LZs. Beginners and high handicap players can work on their games with level lies, but with strategic features that must be taken into account while low handicappers have the additional test of greater difficulty in precise ball striking due to greater topographic features. Challenging green complexes that dictate strategy with internal slopes and contours and proper bunkering will provide a test to all levels of golfers.

An architect's portfolio of designs should also include a variety of designs that showcase his range of talents. Designs for private courses, public courses, beginners courses and resort courses should give an architect a broad array of possibilites.

I am very pleased to see the modern efforts of Coore and Crenshaw, Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, Bobby Weed, Mike Strantz, Mike DeVries, Kelly Blake Moran, Mike Young, Paul Cowley and others leading the way to better golf.

« **Reply #19 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:12:23 AM »

Tom,
I'm not sure what you mean by formulaic trend, but Ron did comment during his talk at the Flynn Cup that he always drops his sand lines down to the bottom of the bunker (he grasses the faces) for maintenance purposes. It is not right or wrong it is just his position.

« **Reply #20 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:25:06 AM »

"Clinton was a follower and not a leader."

I wouldn't be so cock sure about that Wayno. The record seems to show that Clinton led Monica Lewinski into the Oval office, and that he definitely didn't just follow her in there.

Furthermore Clinton was a very bright guy and a great multi-tasker because the White House phone log has recorded the guy he was talking to on the phone when Monica gave him the first BJ. I happen to know that guy he was talking to on the phone.

How would you like to go down in history as the guy the President was talking to on the phone while he was getting his first BJ from Monica which damn near brought his presidency down?

« **Reply #21 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:35:19 AM »

I've sat in presentations Ron Prichard has made and am very impressed with his skill and knowledge and even more so with the passion he brings to his work. I also think the work he did at Aronimink was terrific. That's one of those courses (for those of you who played it can attest to) that is both challenging for the low handicapper and yet playable for the higher one (providing you have some distance off the tee! (In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a member there.) - Dan

« **Reply #22 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:58:44 AM »

Another in complete agreement with Ron.

I also think that he would be much more in Tom MacWood's camp than many would think.

« **Reply #23 on:** October 23, 2006, 09:13:26 AM »

The thing is, both Tom and Ron are right.

For every Ron Prichard, there has to be a Rees Jones.

« **Reply #24 on:** October 23, 2006, 09:16:02 AM »

"For every Ron Prichard, there has to be a Rees Jones."

Kyle,

I wouldn't pick on a specific architect, but why do you think your statement is true?

News:

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Bill_McBride

Joe Hancock

TEPaul

Phil_the_Author

Willie_Dow

TEPaul

TEPaul

Tom_Doak

TEPaul

BCrosby

Mark_Fine

Mark_Fine

Mike_Young

T_MacWood

TEPaul

wsmorrison

Mark_Fine

TEPaul

Dan Boerger

Will E

Kyle Harris

wsmorrison

An Error Has Occurred!