Is the modern design intent flawed ...

[Patrick_Mucci]

with products compromised due to the need to appeal to the broadest of spectrum of golfers and carts, rather than the better golfer and walking ?

Pine Valley, NGLA, Bethpage Black, Aronomink and others were designed with the championship* caliber player in mind.  

Is the creative creative process compromised and dumbed down due to the need to appeal to virtually every level of golfer and carts ?

Would today's architects produce better courses if they could discard the needs of mediocre and poor golfers and the golf cart ?

* Amateur

[Joel_Stewart]

Has to be.  Look at the modern courses that are wildly successful and they each are man made for their memberships.  Sand Hills, Friars Head, Whisper Rock and even Bandon Dunes.

Your average CC with housing are trying to be everything to everybody.

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Were not courses built for the mediocre and bad golfer contemporaneously as NGLA, et al?

How did that affect the creative process? The design of the Bethpage courses are a good contrast between the processes.

[Lloyd_Cole]

I'd suggest that any commercial creative endeavour that starts out with a 'wide target demographic' is unlikely to especially excite any individual consumer. Demographically based projects seem more worried about alienating, than they are about pleasing factions, or imagined factions.
However, from my experience in music, I can state with some certainty that there are many consumers who are not looking to be particularly excited by their cultural choices.
This does not logically negate the possibility of works that do indeed please and excite hugely wide demographics - like Michael Jackson, or Mozart, or Tolstoy.

[JESII]

Joel,

Did any of the clubs you mentioned there have a quarter of their membership commitments in prior to the architects final proposal for the design?


This question goes to a very small number of people, very few of whom might be on this board...the developers of the class of golf course you speak.

In general, it is obvious, I am sure, that the masses play an integral role in the development of a parcel of land for golfing purposes...

[Joe Bentham]

Would today's architects produce better courses if they could discard the needs of mediocre and poor golfers and the golf cart ?
* Amateur

You'll get no argument out of me regarding Golf Carts and Cart paths.  But the 'mediocre' and 'poor' golfers, but which I think you mean high handicappers, have to be accounted for.  The best golf courses keep the intrest of the high and low handicappers.  The Best golf courses aren't obstacle courses to get in the way of the players.  

[JESII]

There's a big world as far as golf acclaim goes...no argument from me that Pine Valley is #1, and as much as Pat might argue, it was not built with the high capper in mind...

[Joe Bentham]

PV is the exception that proves the rule.  Royal Melbourne, The Old Course, Pac Dunes, etc.  All allow the higher handicapper to play his ball while still challenging the low handicapper to hit shots in order to score well.

[JESII]

Joe,

How exactly does PV "prove the rule"?

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, it seems to me that in modern design principles there is something of a conventional wisdom, or maybe better called standard practices, driven by modern circumstances.  Some of that is driven by legal issues and some of that is marketing.  Not only the skill level of higher handicappers is a consideration, but the age of the new "average" golfer might become more of a design issue.

With the appeal to the modern public, and their perceptions of what golf should be, they must have their cart paths and ammenities, which put a burden on the archies to design them, hide them, and spec them for material, etc.  That takes a huge chunk of change that has its own ripple effect of how much to charge and what the demographic is of who can afford to play the courses often.  The more design effort to provide ammenities and place and hide the paths, and if the path is continuous through the course, costs greatly.  

Then there are the consdierations of designing for other demographics including handicapped folks, and the whole ADA thing.  More costs, more design demands and architecture compromises.

Age of the target golf market will become an increasing thing, I think.  With all the boomers getting into their 60s and being a pretty large segment of the public, the designs will have to appeal more to them, since they will be the largest group of paying public.  Thus design wise, FWs designed to keep it rolling towards the middle, less forced carries, and just dumbing it down a bit.  

Ironically, when us boomers are or recently were more competitive and strong, many were looking for the "championship" designs, most having 7000yard + tees.  So conventional thinking was for the last 20 years that the design would have to orient towards more length.  Now, the aging geezers may look more favorably on the 6300-6500 yard venues, and even shorter.  

All of that stuff plays into design trends, I think.  I'm not saying this is where all of GCA is going or has recently gone.  All of what most of us like defies conventional wisdom and good design practices to appeal to wider public tastes and skills.  But, if you are designing for commercial success and wide based public play, I think you compromise the design process to not do their best design, but their most marketably efficient design.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

While PV was designed to test the best players, concessions were made to the lesser player.

I NEVER said that it's design wasn't intended to challenge the highest caliber player.

[TEPaul]

"with products compromised due to the need to appeal to the broadest of spectrum of golfers and carts, rather than the better golfer and walking ?
Pine Valley, NGLA, Bethpage Black, Aronomink and others were designed with the championship* caliber player in mind.  
Is the creative creative process compromised and dumbed down due to the need to appeal to virtually every level of golfer and carts ?
Would today's architects produce better courses if they could discard the needs of mediocre and poor golfers and the golf cart?"

Patrick:

This is precisely why the "Big World" theory not only works but is fundamentally necessary. There must never be some "one size fits all" expectation in golf or in golf architecture. In my opinion, there should not even be that kind of mentality in golf and golf architecture.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Some designs allow all players to have an enjoyable challenge while still providing a stern test for the best players.  Maybe not what Tom Paul calls a "one size fits all," but one that achieves interest for all classes of players.  I am convinced many compartmentalize courses without fully considering them.  

Why Shinnecock Hills is thought of as a brutish course for only the best players and not as a complete design for all levels of golfers and terrific for everyday play is beyond me.  

It has become popular to state that it is so hard, they'd only want to play it a few times out of 10 in comparison to other courses nearby.  Why?  The approaches to the more engineered greens at NGLA are more difficult.  Putting on those greens isn't any easier either given the size and contours.  Granted, today it does not have the wide fairways and large greens of its next door neighbor (to the West), but it still offers golfers of all abilities an enjoyable challenge.  Different tees for different folks allow this.  Where are the long forced carries?  There are a couple of difficult approaches for high handicappers (9 and 10) but not unreasonable.  I think before someone slams the course into a brute category, they should speak to some of the elderly ladies and juniors that play the course regularly and find out what they think.

I don't mean to pick on NGLA, I absolutely love the course.  But I use that as an example of two courses right next to each other that people push hard into compartments.  And I'm not so sure the compartments are all that appropriate.

Pine Valley was designed for better players, it was known at the time and it hasn't changed.  While it retains its wide fairways (for the most part--certainly better than almost anywhere), the trouble you can get into is far more penal.  In a strange way, people want to go there knowing they'll likely get beat up.  They take pride in the attempt and comic relief in the results.  That is not a model that works well on a large scale.  Pine Valley is pretty unique in this regard.

Yet I still maintain, that great architecture can provide a great experience for all classes of golfer.  It is hard to do, when allowed by the owner/club and separates the great architects from the near greats and lesser talented.  But that is just fine.  If budget, grounds and purpose allow a championship course to be built, it isn't necessarily so that it cannot be enjoyable for everyone.  Today's mindsets seem to see things narrowly and that's how things become less multi-dimensional.

Courses like Bethpage Black should be considered in the context of the facility.  There are other courses available to other golfers giving the facility the luxury of providing a one dimensional test (albeit with tame greens).

Aronimink may have been a response by Ross for not getting the better commissions in Philadelphia, perhaps in particular Huntingdon Valley, and he wanted to make the course the hardest in the district.  I think the overall design failed because of this.  While they are some of the best greens on the planet, there is a lack of variety and interest.

[Jim Nugent]

While PV was designed to test the best players, concessions were made to the lesser player.

Pat, you've said that before.  Yet slope is around 153 or 155.  How does that jive with the idea that the course is playable for lesser players?    

[TEPaul]

Jim:

Interesting that you ask that question. One might say concessions have been made even at Pine Valley since it was not very long ago (probably less than ten years) that PV only used one set of tee markers. Now they have at least two and perhaps even three.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

As Joel responded straight away, I think that the best courses of any era (the 1920's or today) were those that were built for a specific target audience in mind, instead of trying to be everything to everybody.

The older courses which have been most successful eighty years on are the ones which were designed for scratch players, because the advancements in equipment and turf maintenance have brought these courses back toward the ability of the good but not great player.  (Even with its new back tees, Pine Valley is nowhere near as difficult today as it was in its early years, when Walter Travis couldn't finish and Bernard Darwin quietly declared it to be over the top.)  And, if equipment continues to go the way it has been going, perhaps eighty years from now it will be today's 7600 yard courses which appeal to the good club player.

But, in the meantime, I think a lot of architects are shooting too high.  The back tees at most courses are designed not for scratch players but for Tour pros (and often BY Tour pros), putting the whole course at a scale that most golfers can't relate to.  The most successful courses of mine have been the ones which ignored that demographic and stayed under 7000 yards, the same distance as all the great clubs of yesteryear.  Maybe Steve Smyers is right, and twenty years from now those will all be outdated (if he and his buddies on the Executive Committee keep sitting on their hands) ... but for now our focus will continue to be on a difficulty level that challenges but doesn't brutalize the 5-handicapper.

[Patrick_Mucci]

While PV was designed to test the best players, concessions were made to the lesser player.

Pat, you've said that before.  Yet slope is around 153 or 155.  How does that jive with the idea that the course is playable for lesser players?  

Jim,

At the risk of starting a firestorm, I don't think the golf course is sloped properly.  I think it was sloped under select conditions and not average/typical conditions.

Secondly, the width of the fairways provide substantive latitude for the higher handicap.

Third, forward tees assist in the process.

There are demand holes/carries, like # 5, but, for the most part, a golfer playing the forward tees, with a sufficient amount of grey matter, on days when the greens haven't been tricked up, can get themselves around quite adequately.
 

TEPaul,

They have three sets of tees at PV.
Championship, regular and senior.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Some designs allow all players to have an enjoyable challenge while still providing a stern test for the best players.  Maybe not what Tom Paul calls a "one size fits all," but one that achieves interest for all classes of players.  I am convinced many compartmentalize courses without fully considering them.  

I tend to agree with Tom Doak and not TEPaul on this one.

I don't think you can craft a design the presents an interesting challenge to every level of player.
I think their has to be a target specific golfer, and, in my mind, that's the scratch handicap amateur.

Why Shinnecock Hills is thought of as a brutish course for only the best players and not as a complete design for all levels of golfers and terrific for everyday play is beyond me.  


I think the answer is obvious.
Because many who go to play there want to play the golf course from where the U.S. Open is played, and not the regular or short tees.

It has become popular to state that it is so hard, they'd only want to play it a few times out of 10 in comparison to other courses nearby.  Why?  The approaches to the more engineered greens at NGLA are more difficult.  Putting on those greens isn't any easier either given the size and contours.  Granted, today it does not have the wide fairways and large greens of its next door neighbor (to the West), but it still offers golfers of all abilities an enjoyable challenge.  Different tees for different folks allow this.  Where are the long forced carries?  There are a couple of difficult approaches for high handicappers (9 and 10) but not unreasonable.  I think before someone slams the course into a brute category, they should speak to some of the elderly ladies and juniors that play the course regularly and find out what they think.

It's the U.S. Open scorecard that appeals to them.
When you combine play from those tees with a little wind and fast greens, it's beyond the ability of most golfers.  So, after the experience, they proclaim its difficulty

I don't mean to pick on NGLA, I absolutely love the course.  But I use that as an example of two courses right next to each other that people push hard into compartments.  And I'm not so sure the compartments are all that appropriate.

I think NGLA has more interesting quirk and can't be stretched to absurd lengths.

Pine Valley was designed for better players, it was known at the time and it hasn't changed.  While it retains its wide fairways (for the most part--certainly better than almost anywhere), the trouble you can get into is far more penal.  In a strange way, people want to go there knowing they'll likely get beat up.  They take pride in the attempt and comic relief in the results.  That is not a model that works well on a large scale.  Pine Valley is pretty unique in this regard.

That's correct.
It's the golfer's "Red Badge of Courage" syndrome.
They delight in playing courses far above their abilities.

And, the other culprit is, visiting versus daily play.

If a guest new that they were going to play 30 days during the summer, they might play the back tees once and the tees that fit their game 29 times.  But, given one opportunity to play, they'll opt for the Huckaby-Shivas choice, the extreme back tees.   And then, they'll categorize the golf course on the basis of how it interfaced with their game.

They'll revel in being pummeled.

It's an idiosyncracy indigenous to golf.

Yet I still maintain, that great architecture can provide a great experience for all classes of golfer.  It is hard to do, when allowed by the owner/club and separates the great architects from the near greats and lesser talented.  But that is just fine.  If budget, grounds and purpose allow a championship course to be built, it isn't necessarily so that it cannot be enjoyable for everyone.  Today's mindsets seem to see things narrowly and that's how things become less multi-dimensional.

I think it's harder than you think.

While I love NGLA, Pros might find it unchallenging under normal playing conditions.

And, Bethpage Black can't be fun for anyone under U.S. Open conditions.

Courses like Bethpage Black should be considered in the context of the facility.  There are other courses available to other golfers giving the facility the luxury of providing a one dimensional test (albeit with tame greens).

Aronimink may have been a response by Ross for not getting the better commissions in Philadelphia, perhaps in particular Huntingdon Valley, and he wanted to make the course the hardest in the district.  I think the overall design failed because of this.  While they are some of the best greens on the planet, there is a lack of variety and interest.

I think Aronomink from the back tees is too hard.
I would not want to play it every day.
Same for BPB.

It's very difficult to provide an enjoyable challenge to every level of golfer, and when an architect attempts same, he HAS to make concessions that diminish the product.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Phil Benedict]

Augusta was supposed to be accessible to the average player while challenging the scratch player.  My sense is that this goal was achieved in the original design, although it may have been compromised in recent years under the pressure of hosting a major every year and dealing with modern technology.  

Pinehurst #2 may fit this description as well. And I don't think Cypress Point is over-the-top difficult.

So it is possible to build a great course that takes into account a broad standard of play.  May be it takes more creativity to design this kind of course.  It's no accident that 2 of the 3 courses named were designed by MacKenzie, the architect who is most celebrated for his creativity.  It's doesn't really take much creativity to make something harder.  At Oakmont Fownes just kept adding bunkers.

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

Yes, it's possible -- Royal Melbourne and St. Andrews are even better examples than those you cited.  But were they really intended for everyone from the beginning, or did they evolve to that level?  (I'm pretty sure that Pinehurst evolved.)

And just because some projects succeed in being all things to all players doesn't mean that it's easy to accomplish.  Most courses start with a core audience (whether it's Pine Valley's superheroes or Bandon Dunes' retail golfers) and then try to accommodate others, but not at the expense of the primary audience.

[Kalen Braley]

Without wanting to sound like a heretic here,  I think to steal a page from the USGAs book, those courses were made when par was a good score.

I don't think there was a massive expectation and obsession for most players to score well on a given course like there is today.  

Perhaps its naive to think things were different back then, but I do think the mindset for golf was far less on everyone scoring well and more the adventure of a round!

[Phil Benedict]

 

Is the creative creative process compromised and dumbed down due to the need to appeal to virtually every level of golfer ?

Tom Doak,

My comments about Augusta were more a response to this question in Patrick's original post.  To build a course like that - ie challenging to the scatch player but accessible to the average player - strikes me as being far more creative than building Oakmont or Bethpage.  The fact that there are (were?) so few courses like Augusta testifies to the creativity of the architect and maybe the quality of the site.

[Joe Bentham]

Joe,

How exactly does PV "prove the rule"?

While PV is in the discussion as to the world's greatest, I don't think it can be considered ideal.  There are just too many examples of courses that can be fun for the high handicapper and challenging for the low handicapper.  Many of them from the same tees.  PV is a one of kind place, but it shouldn't be the model on which other courses are based.

[Patrick_Mucci]

While PV is in the discussion as to the world's greatest, I don't think it can be considered ideal.  

There are just too many examples of courses that can be fun for the high handicapper and challenging for the low handicapper. Many of them from the same tees.  

Joe, can you name five ?

I'd love to play courses like that but can't think of any.

PV is a one of kind place, but it shouldn't be the model on which other courses are based.

[Lloyd_Cole]

While PV is in the discussion as to the world's greatest, I don't think it can be considered ideal.  

There are just too many examples of courses that can be fun for the high handicapper and challenging for the low handicapper. Many of them from the same tees.  

Joe, can you name five ?

I'd love to play courses like that but can't think of any.

PV is a one of kind place, but it shouldn't be the model on which other courses are based.

Pat,
Sorry to butt in ( and please note that I did not list my 5), but after TOC, Royal Melbourne and #2 were all already mentioned in this thread, you're joking, right?