Reality check - We all should do this!

[Mark_Fine]

As we discuss golf course architecture on this site particularly when and where it applies to the masses, I think many of us would benefit greatly by playing some more public golf.  Just log off your computer and go do it and see what you learn!  

I grew up playing on the local muni and low end daily fee courses.  That was all I knew for many years.  It brings me back to reality when I go there again (which I just did) and pick up a game with a few of the locals.  These guys would kill for well manicured grass and greens where the ball rolls, not bounces to the hole.  They are out there to beat their best score, have some fun, win a few bucks, and get away from the problems of the world for a few hours.  They could give two hoots about the shapes and configurations of the bunkers.  They must have thought the beer I was drinking went right to my head when I started talking about the lack of subtlety and contour in the greens and that the upsweeps in the floors of many of the bunkers seemed way off base and the angles and lines in the lips/grass parts all appeared to look the same and formulaic.  They didn't want to hear about hole strategy as they had enough trouble just trying to make solid contact two times in a row and judging from the other foursomes I watched tee off in front of us on the first hole, those groups were no different.  

I love golf architecture as much as anyone and have dedicated much of my free time to playing and studying many of the greatest golf courses in the world.  But I do have to remember to stay grounded and remind myself just who it is that the far majority of the courses built are designed for.  A day like the one mentioned above is useful to remind me of that every so often and would probably benefit all of us.  

My point is this - It's a nice forum we have on GCA to talk with people who have the same appreciation for golf architecture.  However, empathy with the average golfer is important if we are going to help try and convince them of the benefits of more interesting golf architecture and change my 99% rule to 98%  

Mark

[JakaB]

Mark...great advise coming from a guy who plays the same club as redanman...My only question is how far west did you have to drive to find three other golfers who didn't "get it."

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

You're preaching to the choir!

I know full well the type of golf you are referring to because I grew up on it like you did. I think you're message needs to be posted in some of the elite clubs and their locker rooms because there are some people who are spoiled and think they hit a triple in life when in reality they were born on third base. I can remember vividly playing with a key member at Merion who also belonged to PV and Serminole. He was as smug as they come. I believe people like this should be "sentenced" to a year at Cobbs Creek and see how the rest of the golfing world lives. Maybe then he would appreciate what he has.

As much as upscale daily fee golf has made its mark the game of golf still has a vast chasm between the haves and the have littles.

But, I believe there is hope because a number of taxpayer owned facilities in my "neck of the woods" are being built (i.e. Heron Glen / Ringoes, NJ; High Bridge Hills, High Bridge, NJ; McCullough's Emerald Links, Egg Harbor Twsp, NJ; Hyatt Hills Golf Complex, Clark, NJ;) that are designing courses with the elasticity and creativity to give a quality golf experience to those who have played a disproportionate share of their golf on the types of courses you mentioned. And, doing it without charging you a week's salary. The same can be said for a range of other jurisdictions scattered around the USA.

I also believe you can elevate the nature of taxpayer owned golf and give the masses something of quality. Look, it's never going to be Sand Hills and Cypress Point but quality golf can be achieved that allows the muni type player a quality experience.

Mark, I've never forgotten where I started playing golf. I know the daily grind that comes with playing muni golf and those memories are with me forever. I'm sure there are others here on GCA who feel the same way as you and I.

[SL_Solow]

Seconding Dave's comments, it would be a mistake to limit your observations to Publinks players.  When we presented a plan for a "sympathetic restoration" of our 1921 Colt & Allison course the vast majority of members had little appreciation for the nuances which were the best part of the project.  The better news is that upon completion, there was a real appreciation by the vast majority for what had been achieved

[JakaB]

You guys sound like the gay elite who say that before the spread of aids you could get the best head at a public bath house without having to pay for a $15 manhattan.  There is nothing ignorant about the muni player or those who sort their priorities away from well maintained courses.   If aids proved anything it was that it killed the snobs with the slobs.  Golf could use the same lesson.

[Alfred Irenee]

Can you draw any reliable conclusions from a single round with two public golfers?  Anyone familiar with statistics would laugh at your conclusions based on this one round, maybe after several thousand rounds. That would be like your playing partners concluding that all country club golfers are pompous a-holes… searching for an excellent bouquet in a bottle of mad dog 20/20. I consider myself a fairly astute judge of GC architecture and I would’ve wondered about you too, making those comments while playing a cow pasture golf course. Just play the damn game.... you are not impressing anyone on the dog patch.

You will find most golfers are much more in tune with strategy than you believe, understanding what they like in a golf course….as well as the majority on this site. They are exposed to it from actively playing the game – it doesn’t take a brilliant mind. They are exposed to it on TV, from the golf channel to tournaments. They are exposed to it in books and magazines.

What percentage of the public reads and understands great works of literature? What percentage of the public visits art museums? What percentage plays golf? I’d guess there are more golf courses than libraries and museums combined.

 By the way I don’t understand the important point you are trying to make, other than you have a superior understanding. What would be the result of empathizing with these morons? I empathize with the illiterate, but it doesn’t help them read. I’m sure your playing partners were empathetic with you and you haven’t changed. Why is your empathy important and how would it change GC architecture?

[Mark_Fine]

Alfred,
You are correct, you can't draw much from a single round but it did remind me of all the golf I used to play on such courses and what my priorities were at that time.  The guys I played with weren't morons by any means and we had a blast "just playing golf".  But they are part of that 99% (just likeI used to be) who didn't look at or really care about the golf architecture.  By you can always learn something about architecture even playing a "dog patch"  

Furthermore, the reason empathy is important is if we are going to get more golfers to appreciate golf architecture e.g. help Grounds Committees restore their classic courses, convince architects to build more interesting new ones,...etc, we need to remember what we are up against.  I was just pointing out that we sometimes forget!
Mark

[Pete Lavallee]

Mark;
If you're interested in spreading the word about great golf course architecture, I think you are approaching the task from the wrong direction. Instead of you going to the muni and telling them what they are missing, why not invite them to your course and show them what they're missing. Then they can spread the word back at the dog track and a tremendous ground swell of GCA appreciation could turn the tide. I know of at least one GCAer who is doing this and if he doesn't receive his reward in this life, surely he'll be doubley blessed in the next one.

[Mark_Fine]

Dave you last point is very true.  In hindsight, I probably phrased my arguement wrong.  We often talk about only the greatest courses here on this site and I wanted to make the point that we need to get out and play on the ones most golfers play on.  

And just to clarify, I believe most people aren't interested in golf architecture (that's my 99% rule).  However, that doesn't mean they are less intelligent or in any way beneath someone who is.  They just have different priorities and take a different perspective when playing golf.  No different than how someone who is a wine connoisseur looks at wine vs. the rest of us.

Pete your idea is a good one.  

[angie]

Let's not conflate the people who play at muni's with the lack of good architecture prevalent at most muni's. I started playing golf at what was, back then, a pretty fair Donald Ross course (Evanston GC in Skokie IL), when I was a mere slip of a 12-yr old girl. My family belonged to EGC because my pop was a doctor and we could afford it. When I grew up & went out into the world on my own, I couldn't afford a country club membership, but continued undaunted to play golf, mostly at the very estimable muni, Theodore Wirth, in Minneapolis MN. Sure, I've played with guys who have trouble stringing two good shots together and wouldn't know a redan from a biarritz (spelling?). But I've also played there with people who, had this site existed then, would have been "Doyens" in two shanks of a lambs tail. (Hey, that there's a joke.)
But the point is well made and well taken, that those who've not enough experience on muni's ARE missing something about the way the game of golf is everywhere confronted and played. Not only bumpy greens, but bumpy fairways, too. It's MUCH closer to the ancestral Scottish game.
How would this change or improve the discussions here? Or how, bigger conundrum, would even 300 golf-course-architecture-savants be able to persuade the Village of Wilmette, for instance, to fund improvements on their course?  Not sure.
But anyone in the Minneapolis area who sees this post, and who's been whiling away a lifetime at Minikhada (spelling?), Interlachen and the like and has never played a "regular-guy-and-gal" muni, I most humbly submit old Theo Wirth for your consideration!  

[Tim Weiman]

Mark Fine:

Though I belong to a private golf club, I play far more muni golf. In the past few years, I've also played more in Ireland than at my local club here in Cleveland.

The muni experience has a very strong influence on my golf architecture views. Playing overseas provides insight on the state of the game here in America.

Muni golf does provide a "reality check". It keeps one in touch with how difficult the game of golf is for most people, especially people who take up the game in middle age. It brings into focus how silly the golf technology arms race is, how we don't need 7,000 yard courses and how we certainly don't need fairways with less width (as someone here recently suggested).

Muni golf also highlights the expense side of golf. Just last week I played with a man who said that with green fees in his area moving from $20 ish to $30 or more, he just wasn't sure he would be able to keep playing.

He is a prime example of why I frequently say "people want to play more not pay more".

Though my overseas golf largely consists of playing a venue notable for its architecture, Ballybunion really has taught me more about what we are missing here in the states. Folks there are much more conscious about sharing the golf course when they play. That is to say they move along. They respect other people on the golf course enough to actively avoid holding them up. In short, they are much more conscious about pace of play.

Part of this is due to the style of play: it is almost exclusively match play. So, there is no fuss and time wasting for the man who is already out of a hole. Move along and set your sights on winning the next hole is the spirit.

Then, too, I noticed a strong desire for a good, fun match. The Irish just seem to understand better than we do that the game should be fun and how to make it so.

Perhaps I'm getting a distorted view, but I've also noticed far more interaction between young people and the middle aged while playing in Ireland. The very active club matches promotes this I think. And with it, the values of sportmanship and being a gentleman on the golf course.

The American style CCFAD has, I'm sure, provided opportunities for architects to practice their craft. However, both muni golf and well established overseas golf clubs point, I think, to better models if we want to grow the game. In terms of the affordability factor, CCFADs have been a big negative. It is a concept I hope the Brits, Scots, Irish and Australians resist.

[Average Joe]

There is some seriously condescending chatter on this site sometimes!. This only reinforces that this place can be one heck of an elitist place. May god help the unenlightened masses that toil on public links!.

[Brian_Ewen]

Isnt it all about what you grew up with ?.
Henry Longhurst got it spot on , with this piece :


FIRST PRINCIPLES by HENRY LONGHURST  1958

I often think that one's attidude to the game of golf is subconsciously conditioned for a lifetime by the circumstances in which one is first introduced to it. Those of us who see it first in its elementary primitive form, knocking a ball along with one club, or perhaps even two or three , cheerfully encountering all manner of unorthodox hazards on the way until eventually we get it into the hole , seem to have captured a a basic outlook on the game which can never later be revealed to those who travelled first class from the start.
My own beginnings were primitive in the extreme. I was introduced to the game before breakfast one morning on the common at Yelverton , Devon , by two other small boys whose parents were taking their holiday in the same hotel. They had devised a triangular course of three holes - no tees , flags , fairways or any such nonsense , of course - and with luck we could get in two rounds before breakfast.
None of us, therefore , was baptised in the faith that , if we drove onto the fairway , we were entitled to a "Fairway lie " and that , if we did not get it , we had been robbed .Ours was a simple creed . You played the ball where you found it .
The only true disaster in golf was when you could not find it.

[Slag_Bandoon]

Thanks Brian, a little bit of Longhurst goes a long way.  

Alfred, What's with the cosmic debris?  All those negatives vibes are jammin' me, man.  Mark's just lettin' loose with a lost perspective...    rediscovered.    

[Mark_Fine]

My first post could be taken as condescending but it was not meant to be and I appologize if it has been viewed that way.  It's hard to communicate thoughts in writing that everyone will take the same way (especially when you don't have time to sit at the screen all day and massage the words till you get them right).  

Hope by now after a few additional posts that people understand where I was coming from.  Stating it one more way, in business you need to know and understand your customer.  An architect designing golf courses is no different and if he understands what motivates most golfers, he'll design his courses to please the majority of them.  

As a group that might like to see something better (e.g. more interesting strategic designs) we need to figure out how we can help change that.  Remembering who plays this game and where most golfers play is a start and then we can go from there.  But if we think its obvious that golfers should want more interesting designs, we'll just be spinning our wheels and people will think we don't get it!
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
What comes first, the dumbed down golfer or the dumbed down golf course? Aren't these golfers (your clueless 99%) a product of years of less than stimulating golf courses and not the other way around. Shouldn't your comments be directed toward golf architects? Your acknowledgement that golfers are dumb and your empathy is not going to help them, golf course design or this site -- interesting and thought provoking golf courses will however.

[A_Clay_Man]

As a publinx golfer I can't help but think that even if the majority doesn't get it doesn't mean an archie should just throw his cad out there and call it a golf course. What is the difference if "they" get it or not, as long as you do and that maybe just maybe someday they will too. Besides if the 98 percent doesn't know, what's wrong with them not knowing they have a masterpiece on their hands? Plus, I have found with just a few simple words you can introduce concepts such as better angles, tie-ins and/or over-manufactured, into their thought processies.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Just to be clear again, I never said anyone was dumb.  Most golfers are far from it.  They just have different reasons they play.  And I'm not sure which came first, the poor courses or the golfers who have to play them, you tell me?  

A-Clay-man,
The problem with not knowing you have a masterpiece on your hands is that there is a good chance it will be ruined!  As you well know there is evidence everywhere.  That is part of my point about empathizing and then educating.  

I'm going through a process now of explaining why fairways need to be wider (restored).  It is not an easy process and we're dealing with very smart people.  

By the way I never really liked the idea of "dumbed down" courses.  Less interesting might be a better term.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
Don't you think you should answer that question before we follow your suggestion? Afterall the title of this thread is 'Reality check - We should all do this!"

You said it was important that we empathize with the 99% architecturally ignorant. And that it was important that architects should understand their customers (of which you claim 99% are architecturally ignorant). That seems like a formula for more golf courses tailored to the architecturally ignorant.

Instead of empathizing with the architecturally ignorant (by the way I disagree with the tone of superiority) - as you propose - I say we implore the architects to produce interesting thought provoking designs for everyone - both your 99% and 1%.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

I agree with your conclusion that more interesting layouts need to be produced. It is happening in a number of areas in the United States -- and in my original post on this thread I did mention how taxpayer owned courses are steadily improving in my home state.

Clearly, quality designs won't have all the extras that CCFAD's or private clubs have but interesting layouts can happen that aren't so geared to being dumb-down layouts with little, if any, interest. This year I played Devil's Thumb in Delta, CO, which is owned by the town and is a very good strategic design by Rick Phelps. More of this kind of thing can happen.

[Joe Hancock]

Another prospective on the dumbing down thing: Owner/ operators are as responsible for educataing golfers as any other group involved in golf. I don't care what type of facility, design or location the course is. if we that are in the position of running a golf course can't take time to talk to the golfers, regardless of ability, to educate our golfers about what we hold important, then where are they going to learn? To always leave the educating up to other groups involved in golf, we have no room to complain about ignorant golfers, no matter the subject.

Joe

[A_Clay_Man]

Mark- I really was refering to the "Hidden Gems", which there are many. As far getting ruined, I never thought of that but as a publinx golfer one learns(forced) to put up with alot. From early morning lines to six hour death marches to changes you know full well some bureaucratic nincompoop only has the power and not the knowledge to make. He/she probably hired some "consultant" to spread any accountability around and who just happens to be some family friend. Enough said?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Probably not worth a big debate but I don't mean to have a tone of superiority and I appologize if I do.  But think about it, how many people who drink wine for example really understand its finer atributes, etc?  The % is probably very low wouldn't you agree.  And the people who do really understand wine and appreciate it are not superior to those who don't, they just might happen to take a stronger interest in learning about it and studying it.  Statistically the same goes for most anything doesn't it?  

I agree we need to push the architects but as you know designing interesting courses is evidently a lot harder than doing otherwise.  If it weren't, why aren't there more of them?  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
I would guess the percentage who get wine is fairly high worldwide. Those who grow up in an Italian, Spanish or French village understand that the wines made from the grapes grown in their terriotory works very well with the food of their region. It evolved naturally over hundreds of years.

In America the wine producers empathize with their customers who enjoy a Cola - the result is White Zinfandel. Hardly a positive result.

I think there is a modern method of building courses that has lead to a certain sameness - a little too sweet for my taste.

[TEPaul]

Just read through (most) of this thread. It's not that clear to me what the point here is. That most public golfers are ignorant about interesting architecture, or that they wouldn't care if they played on interesting architecture or a dogtrack or that this site is elitist and contributors on here don't care about public golf or they do care and are naive in thinking they can make it better for the great unwashed 99%? Or that there is a 99% (Mark Fine's premise) or whatever?

What's the point of this thread? What's the need for a reality check?

I doubt the public golfer can demand better architecture on the courses they play unless they do something like stop playing the dogtracks they do play (and apparently have a good enough time on) in protest for better architecture!

If anyone on this site wants to influence the architecture on public courses they should start by talking to the people who own and operate those courses and also architects who may be inlinced to make them better or do something about it.

There happens to be one such architect who is very interested in improving public courses and affordable architecture!

Those are the people who can do it so isn't that a better more constructive point for this thread? Isn't that the reality? Isn't that where suggestions for better architecture on public courses should be directed?

Calling contributors to this site elitists or spoiled because they have a real interest in architecture doesn't seem to do anything for anyone!

Make some constructive suggestions for how better architecture can be offered to public golfers? That's probably what people like Lynn Shackelford, Geoff Shackelford and the architect I'm referring to are doing or have done!