Is the architect or the golf course the determining factor

[Mike_Young]

 as to where one joins and how much they enjoy their course?

I sometimes get the feeling that many on this site would treasure belonging to a mediocre golf course designed by one of the "great dead guys" than to belong to a good strategic golf course that stays in good shape but is designed by a no name. Yet most golfers I believe would rather belong to the good course by a no name......In saying this I think it is a given this day and time that most any course designed by a signature will be in good shape because of the budget and the desire of the owner to sell high dollar memberships or lots......once the membership or lot is sold the golfer rarely cares who did the course other than for bragging rights to his buddies.....he cares about the daily conditions and if they become less then he rarely discusses the architectural merits of his home course with his buddies.....YES or NO?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Maybe this is why  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I think it's the product in terms of what the individual is seeking, and that's not always centered around golf and/or architecture.

But, for golfers, I think "pedigree" does count.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Mike,
  I'm in agreence with you in the factt hat I too, believe that "many on this site would treasure belonging to a mediocre golf course designed by one of the "great dead guys" than to belong to a good strategic golf course." In fact, I think that is becoming a too much of a trend here. So many automaticly think that because it's Doak, C&C or Hanse that the course is great. The complete opposite is true with it comes to Nicklaus, Fazio or Jones- Their courses are automaticly blackballed. I think that if we really want to understand and see architecture, we need to not worry so much about the name of the architect who designed it and look at what it really took to built the course and observe the architectual merits. I'll be one of the first to tell anyone that I think some courses that C&C and Doak have done don't stack up to the rankings that they've been given, but so many assume that their great because of the name and it's also the era that were in. I brought up a thread a week ago about RTJ and Dick Wislon designs-many of their great course were built during the same time period, were all highly ranked for years and then all of a sudden, they all fell off at the same time. Could this also happen the "minimalist" courses of this time period? Time will only tell.

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I don't care who the architect is or was. For me it's all about the golf course, period, end of story.

Maybe, over the years I've come to feel this way because of what I might call "the Ross factor".

Over the years and probably beginning with my Dad who belonged to something like seven Ross courses over the years I saw some very good to pretty good ones by him to a few others that were undeniably lightweights.

I don't care who an architect is or was or how talented he was which Ross obviously was if he spent enought time on a project, if an architect is going to do around 400 golf courses in his career he almost can't help but produce a fairly significant amount of mediocrity.

Frankly, I've always been sort of ambivalent about my own golf course (Ross) that's probably in the better half of what he did.

[Bill_McBride]

as to where one joins and how much they enjoy their course?

That's just one minor note in a lot of factors that result in the decision to join a club!

First, can you even get in?  Do you know any members?  Who you play with on a regular basis can be more important than where you play.  Club life is just different from public course life and it mostly revolves around playing golf with other members.

Traveling golf is different.  Then you're looking to play the best possible courses in places where you want to travel.

Mike, are you asking would I prefer to belong to a mediocre Ross course somewhere, assuming I could, than a Mike Young modern classic?  No way!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Is there something wrong with someone who ..."would treasure belonging to a mediocre golf course designed by one of the "great dead guys" than to belong to a good strategic golf course that stays in good shape but is designed by a no name."

If the answer is "Yes" then I'd like to know why a personsal  choice in any way matters to someone else. What difference does it make if they prefer the old dead guys mediocrity to the new guys strategic gem?

If the answer is "No" then why bother with the question?

[Tyler Kearns]

Mike,

A member of our greens committee circulated a survey conducted by the GCSAA which listed important factors for golfers when deciding to play/join a course. The "name" of the architect was dead last on the list, appearing on only 5% of responses. The quality design of the golf course was in the middle of the pack, while not surprisingly, turf conditions were the most important factor.

TK

[Tommy Williamsen]

I would venture to guess that a great may people may not even know who designed their course.  However, I think there is a difference between the average country club player and golf club member.  I'm not even certain that golf is the most important reason why some people join a country club.  Food, atmosphere in the clubhouse, pool, fitness center, etc are the most determining factors for a lot of people.

On the other hand, members of clubs that are strictly golf generally get folks who love their golf.  The prestige of the club may be a factor more than the designer, although sometimes they go hand in hand.  For golf club members it is about golf, anything else is just frosting on the cake.

[Tony Ristola]

Interesting question. My guess is the general public would want to join a club designed by a name they can drop around at parties. Like Jack Nicholson (heard that one in Europe just one too many times) Here? Tough call. I'd hope the majority would pick the no name and celebrate its qualities, but there is such a draw to being a member at a dead guy's course...so they could drop the name around at parties...I'd have to go with the latter.

[Mike_Young]

Is there something wrong with someone who ..."would treasure belonging to a mediocre golf course designed by one of the "great dead guys" than to belong to a good strategic golf course that stays in good shape but is designed by a no name."

If the answer is "Yes" then I'd like to know why a personsal  choice in any way matters to someone else. What difference does it make if they prefer the old dead guys mediocrity to the new guys strategic gem?

If the answer is "No" then why bother with the question?

Jim,
I don't see anything wrong with it.....I actally asked the question because I had read a survey by GCSAA that tyler Kearns mentions below......and I think that survey says so much about golf today.....a large portion of the old dead guy stuff is just junk...no other way to put it...and same for a lot today....
I often wonder if some of people that are so architect conscious wouldhire an F Lee Bailey or a Johhny Cochran thinking their legal services were better than someone in their locale.....
For 99.9 percent of the golfers it is maintenance.....IMO

[Chris Cupit]

I think it could be neither.  In years of talking to people about private club membership very few make the decision to join based mainly on the golf course or architect.

They look to justify their "purchase" based on how much they think they will play and/or if it's a place their family (wife and kids) may enjoy as well.

I could count on one hand the number of people who even ask who the course architect was!

I think the biggest factor for most people is the courses location.  People don't want to drive more than 20-30 minutes to get to their course. There are very few golfers that care enough to drive much farther for their golf than that.    

When people join they look at:
1.  Price
2.  Location/convenience
3.  Course and conditioning
4.  Clubhouse and amenities

Obviously everyone is a bit different but I think there are very, very few people who'd join a club based on who designed it--in fact I'd bet a majority of golfers don't even know the "famous dead guys" anyway!

I'd say a good course by a "unkown architect" would easily trump an average course from a "famous dead guy" almost every time.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
You read the survey Tyler spoke of so don't you already have the answer to the questions you posed here? If you were looking for further insights you didn't have to take a sucker shot at a dead guy to get them. It left the impression with me that you are equally as interested in dissin' the 'old dead guys' as you are with finding out anything new.        

As for lawyers, I guess it depends on what I had riding on the line. If it was my life I'd want F.Lee or JC precisely because of their reputations.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
You read the survey Tyler spoke of so don't you already have the answer to the questions you posed here? If you were looking for further insights you didn't have to take a sucker shot at a dead guy to get them. It left the impression with me that you are equally as interested in dissin' the 'old dead guys' as you are with finding out anything new.        

As for lawyers, I guess it depends on what I had riding on the line. If it was my life I'd want F.Lee or JC precisely because of their reputations.

Come on Jim..would you really go for an F Lee Bailey or a johnny cochran?
Yep, I had seen the answers.....
I am always dissin the "old dead guys"...that's nothing new...but I was interested to see just how far out of touch this site gets sometimes....
Take care,Mike

[Craig Sweet]

I seriously doubt that anyone not a golf course architect geek/nerd nut would know whether they were playing a Ross or a Doak or a Jones....and if you told them they wouldn't understand the significance nor the difference....and those that join a "dead guy" club and "name drop" are probably the first to suggest serious alterations to the course.

[Guy Phelan]

I think it could be neither.  In years of talking to people about private club membership very few make the decision to join based mainly on the golf course or architect.

They look to justify their "purchase" based on how much they think they will play and/or if it's a place their family (wife and kids) may enjoy as well.

I could count on one hand the number of people who even ask who the course architect was!

I think the biggest factor for most people is the courses location.  People don't want to drive more than 20-30 minutes to get to their course. There are very few golfers that care enough to drive much farther for their golf than that.    

When people join they look at:
1.  Price
2.  Location/convenience
3.  Course and conditioning
4.  Clubhouse and amenities

Obviously everyone is a bit different but I think there are very, very few people who'd join a club based on who designed it--in fact I'd bet a majority of golfers don't even know the "famous dead guys" anyway!

I'd say a good course by a "unkown architect" would easily trump an average course from a "famous dead guy" almost every time.

In addition to the 4 points mentioned above is the fact that most people join a club because their friend(s) are already members.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
I don't disagree with much of what you are saying but I don't think it matters much if this site sometimes gets out of touch. People will always have their preferences and they can get carried away by them. For instance, why are there fan clubs for the Corvair or the Edsel?

Something I've noticed on here over time, there seems to be  less architect bashing and more discussion of courses that come from a wider field of architects. Just my impression, right or wrong.



p.s. F.Lee & JC always seem to be ranked in the top 10 when judged by their peers.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,
  I'm in agreence with you in the factt hat I too, believe that "many on this site would treasure belonging to a mediocre golf course designed by one of the "great dead guys" than to belong to a good strategic golf course." In fact, I think that is becoming a too much of a trend here. So many automaticly think that because it's Doak, C&C or Hanse that the course is great. The complete opposite is true with it comes to Nicklaus, Fazio or Jones- Their courses are automaticly blackballed. I think that if we really want to understand and see architecture, we need to not worry so much about the name of the architect who designed it and look at what it really took to built the course and observe the architectual merits. I'll be one of the first to tell anyone that I think some courses that C&C and Doak have done don't stack up to the rankings that they've been given, but so many assume that their great because of the name and it's also the era that were in. I brought up a thread a week ago about RTJ and Dick Wislon designs-many of their great course were built during the same time period, were all highly ranked for years and then all of a sudden, they all fell off at the same time. Could this also happen the "minimalist" courses of this time period? Time will only tell.

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

I have never understood why Hanse is included in the same breath as C&C and Doak when it comes to butt boy status.  The guy gets no more of a free pass because of his work than let's say Kelly Blake Moran.  Where are these courses that are so praised just because they are a Hanse.  What does he have now?  One course in the Golfweek top 100 modern and the 100th course at that.

Please note that this is not a cut at Hanse but simply a question about what I am starting to think is an urban myth.  The Hanse factor does not exist on this site with the exception of naming him everytime this subject comes up.

[John Kavanaugh]

Oops...I guess Boston GC is 46th on Golfweek's Best.  I'm kinda laughing that all of a sudden America's Best changed to Golfweek's Best...Are they starting to include Canadian courses just in time for you know who.

I would go so far to say that Boston GC at 46 is lower than the hype would have indicated.  Given this and the ridiculous low rating of Ballyneal you might have to question this entire butt boy thing all together.

[Mike Hendren]

Mike,

In terms of "enjoyment," I'd join Macan's Fircrest over Fazio's Aldarra (Seattle/Tacoma), Ross' Memphis CC over Nicklaus' Spring Creek Ranch (Memphis), Ross' Mid-Pines over Fazio's Forest Creek (Pinehurst), Raynor's Lookout Mountain over Dye's Honors Course (Chattanooga) and Ross' Richland CC (NLE) over Nicklaus' Richland CC (Nashville),  just to name a few.

I'm fresh off a round at Pine Needles this weekend and continue to believe that "the dead guys" have it on "the modern guys" in spades.  

LONG LIVE THE DEAD GUYS.

Mike

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

In terms of "enjoyment," I'd join Macan's Fircrest over Fazio's Aldarra (Seattle/Tacoma), Ross' Memphis CC over Nicklaus' Spring Creek Ranch (Memphis), Ross' Mid-Pines over Fazio's Forest Creek (Pinehurst), Raynor's Lookout Mountain over Dye's Honors Course (Chattanooga) and Ross' Richland CC (NLE) over Nicklaus' Richland CC (Nashville),  just to name a few.

I'm fresh off a round at Pine Needles this weekend and continue to believe that "the dead guys" have it on "the modern guys" in spades.  

LONG LIVE THE DEAD GUYS.

Mike

I understand.....and you are saying it is the course not the architect...correct???  
Mike

[Mike Hendren]

I understand.....and you are saying it is the course not the architect...correct???  
Mike

Absolutely!

[George Pazin]

I think your question only has some validity if someone is asked a hypothetical on whether they would join some unknown course sight unseen.

To suggest that people on here would rather belong to a dead guy's course, even if it was "inferior", is, to be quite frank, highly insulting.

[Tyler Kearns]

The above mentioned survey, conducted by the GCSAA, which asked avid (25+ rounds/yr.) which factors were important in selecting a course to play/join.

Conditioning                                           90%
Amenities (tennis, pool, locker rooms)        85%
Tee Time Availability                               78%
Green Fees                                            69%
Speed of Play                                         66%
Grounds Well Maintained                          61%
Course Design                                        58%
Difficulty of Course                                 36%
Closeness to Home                                  33%
Pro Shop Quality & Service                       27%
Clubhouse Quality & Service                     26%
Ability to Score Well                               25%
Restaurant & Food Service                         8%
Name Designer of Course                          5%

TK

[Mike_Young]

I think your question only has some validity if someone is asked a hypothetical on whether they would join some unknown course sight unseen.

To suggest that people on here would rather belong to a dead guy's course, even if it was "inferior", is, to be quite frank, highly insulting.

George,
This thread was not meant to insult.  But I do  think there is much validity to my question when it is addressed to architecture afficanados/geeks/nuts....
Mike