Are gca.com participants so obtuse that.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sorry, I just can't help myself.....

Patrick's thread got me to thinking about what would happen if modern architects adopted some of the philosophy here, and built the blind holes, quirk, wild greens, etc. that many seem to think were standard in the golden age.

Was it standard?  Other than steeper green contours, I am not sure the historical record supports that.

More importantly, when those masters (and others) had those features remodeled out of existence because overall the golfing public didn't like them, or they didn't work, or whatever, what makes us think that such features will last if built by today's gca's?

Stated another way, are we sure that previous generations and today's mainstream golfer are/were such doofus' and cretons/hillbillies/crybabies (I could go on all day) that they just got it wrong and we are now the enlightened, or are we just forgetting the lessons of the past in calling for restoration of features we haven't seen designed in a while?

Inquiring minds, as they say, want to know!

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

Then I take it you think that modern courses are - for the reasons you give above - improvements over Golden Age courses?

Do you think that GA features that were removed - solely because they were removed - should have been removed?

Bob

[Dan Boerger]

Jeff - I'm relatively new to GCA and am best described as a passionate observer. That said, the one thing that strikes me about some of the older classic courses is the routing. Who would build holes today over roads (NGLA or Merion when it was first built)?

Also, (and again this is just speculation) I can't imagine the designers of yesteryear concerned themselves with drainage as much as today's deisgners need to. This is due, I suspect, in part to the fact that today's designers can move lots more dirt (and create drainage issues!), and make sure as many golfers get back on the course as soon as possible after a downpour to maximize revenue.

[Jason Topp]

I think a lot of parrallells can be drawn between people's taste in music and people's taste in golf courses.  It needs to be interesting but not so unfamiliar that the customer finds it repulsive.

I am comfortable with Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, etc, but am not at all comfortable with modern efforts that sound so non-musical to me that they are not enjoyable.  My stepfather finds the old stuff boring because it is so formulaic.  The new stuff is exciting for him.

The trick, of course, is to figure out a way to make a golf course interesting for both sets of customers while also dealing with the fact that a golf course will be played by all ability levels.  Music will generally only be played by experts and listened to by others.

Thus, blindness, wild greens and other quirk depends on your audience.  Bandon Dunes is probably a pretty good example of the limits of an approach that will be accepted by the general golfing public.  I would describe the public there as accepting:

-  wild green countours
-- firm and fast conditions
-- ground game options

I would also note

-- little or no blindness
-- relatively little quirk and where it exists it is controversial (14 - Bandon Trails)


Jeff - your Wilderness at Fortune Bay is an interesting study in the acceptability of wild green countours.  The general impression I have gotten from friends was lukewarm to negative when the course was built but the reception has been more and more positive each year.  Now many like that course better than the Quarry. (I unfortunately only have played it once when it was sopping wet).

[Ken Moum]

Stated another way, are we sure that previous generations and today's mainstream golfer are/were such doofus' and cretons/hillbillies/crybabies (I could go on all day) that they just got it wrong and we are now the enlightened, or are we just forgetting the lessons of the past in calling for restoration of features we haven't seen designed in a while?

You posted in my long-term relationship thread, so you know that I think part of people's distaste for stuff like that is a tendency to play CCFAD and resort courses once or twice. Didn't Tommy Armour say, "A hole is only blind once?"

Nevertheless, I have never understood why architects build blindness into courses that will primarily be played by transient visitors.

I think a blind shot now and then on a course that I play regularly is good fun. (Where I play there's a partially blind opening tee shot, a completely blind approach, and four other holes where uphill approaches mean that most time you can't see the putting surface.)

I also reallize that most golfers like seeing the outcome of their shots.

One real problem with some kinds of blindness is it's effect on pace of play and safety. For instance, a public course here has two reachable par fives with blind second shots. They cause all sorts of trouble with pace, and they are dangerous.

The same course has a semi-blind tee shot on a short risk/reward par four, which takes a lot of the enticement out of going for it, IMHO.

Finally, I think that quirk has been a victim of the card-and-pencil mentality that has overtaken the game.

The net result is that those of us who like to see blindness on a golf course may not be obtuse so much as we are anacronisms, pining for something that only existed in the first place because no one had the means to bulldoze the hills.

Ken

[Ken Moum]

Also, (and again this is just speculation) I can't imagine the designers of yesteryear concerned themselves with drainage as much as today's deisgners need to. This is due, I suspect, in part to the fact that today's designers can move lots more dirt (and create drainage issues!), and make sure as many golfers get back on the course as soon as possible after a downpour to maximize revenue.

One of the surprises (for me) in the Ross's  "Golf has Never Failed Me," and IIRC the writings of MacKenzie and Thomas is how obsessed they were with drainage. Probably because they had so few effective tools to deal with it.

Today, you see catch basins all over the place, and it's relatively simple (if expensive) to put in plenty of underground piping.

In the golden age, they didn't have those tools and had to make the water go away via surface drainage.

Ken

[Peter Pallotta]

Good thread, good posts - thanks.

Jeff - the only thing I've learned about the historical record so far is that I don't know much of the historical record; I've only begun to skim the surface. Others here, of course, know much more.

Jason - that's an interesting analogy. In the early 1950s, some professors from a couple of jazz institutes (I think Rutgers was one, but I could be wrong) tried to determine what made for a good jazz solo. They knew/studied thousands of solos by the old masters, and went to dozens of shows by modern players to try to gauge audience reactions.

I think they concluded that a solo needed to be 50% predictable (so that the listener could feel 'with it' and comfortable enough in familiar territory, and believe that paying attention would be worth the effort) and 50% unexpected (so that the listener wouldn't get bored, and would start 'participating' more in the listening, expectedly waiting for the unexpected).

I'd put it this way: they concluded that a good jazz solo gave the audience what they wanted half the time, and half the time gave them what they didn't (until then) know they wanted.  

I think someone described good jazz as "the sound of surprise".

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

Yes, certainly things like building over roads are in the lessons learned category.  In my experience, while I have never ignored drainage, I have given it more respect every time out of the box.  That said, I was really thinking of the play aspects that so many find cool here, primarily because they have been sort of legislated out of existence by general consensus, actual experience, etc.

Jason,

Thanks for the public perception update on the Wilderness. I know the Biarritz green was targeted for destruction by the first pro before it even opened, but folks seemed to have calmed down on that one.

In designing that and other quirk in limited doses, I think I am taking it upon my self to educate the public, but feel they want it only in small doses, as conversation piece holes.  I am probably wrong, but I get the impression that if some of the frequent posters here were ever hired as consultants, the resultant course would be chock full of one neat feature after another, and perhaps end up in being overload, and thus unpopular.

Bob,

I think the best courses of every era are great.  Your second question is the heart of my question....In general, I think we give our parents generation credit for having good judgement, although they weren't infallible.  They were probably more practical than we were, and also influenced by money (and saving it) than we are.  They were true products of their times, and we must recall that their times stretched out for a while.  So, if they thought a feature should have gone out, while not universal agreement, I wonder if we should simply give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

I think the answer to your premise and question don't lie within an architectural framework, rather, within a political framework.

As clubs transitioned from dictatorships and/or oligarchies into democracies, popularity rather than function and inherent intent initiated the process of altering features/holes such that they appealed to the BROADEST, and not the BRIGHTEST spectrum of golfers.

I'd submit that the democratization of architecture has been responsible for more alterations than all the superintends combined.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it no matter what TEPaul thinks.

Had NGLA not maintained

[Michael Dugger]

GCA.com's perceived "beliefs" are being so blown out of proportion lately.

In the 70's and 80's a bunch of dribble was built, maybe some of it by your firm even, Jeff.  

In the 90's and especially the late 90's (with the advent of this website) students of the artform of golf course architecture began mobilizing, becoming educated and informed.

In the process they learned some things.

In the process they became outspoken too.  Up until this point, discriminating gca afficianados had little voice.  Open up another Golf Digest and you could read about the best new public course of the year, Sandpines!  it was Nicklaus course after Rees Jones design being praised, having articles written about 'em, etc...

Merely because the predominant opinion around here is "we deserve better than that," it does not imply everyone endorses crazy quirk, wild greens and blind holes.  



 

[Tom Roewer]

Patrick:  I tend to agree with you.  It's akin to me, to looking at a club menu with wraps and rolls and salads with a choice of 8 different vinnegrates & not being offered pimiento cheese sandwiches for craps sakes!!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

so, you're going with the elitest snob theory?  Seriously, yes, democracy tends to get solutions that aren't totally acceptable to anyone by definition.

Michael,

Not entirely sure how much influence you are trying to give gca.com on architectural matters, but I really think the mindset of the 70's was one that maintenance mattered more than design.  But I also think that was in reaction to the amount of cash devoted to golf, in general, and the fact that most courses were built as publics, and moderate to cheap ones at that.  As the economy heated up in the 90's (much like the 20's) design became more the focus.  Now, there is pressure again to consider maintenance and operations costs more strongly as courses suffer financially.  I shared your belief that we all deserved better, and in many ways, the CCFAD movement of the 90's gave us that.

As to whether we believe in wild greens, etc. yes, I will agree that is a gross generalization on my part.  

[Brent Hutto]

Hitting over a road is just bad, assuming there's enough traffic to require caution. If a course is otherwise good of course you can overlook the odd potentially unsafe shot the same as any other flaw but it doesn't make it a good idea.  No value in it at all IMO.

Blind shots are best used in moderation. I like Paul Cowley's idea of blindness or semi-blindness being the charactersitic that enforce a "right" or "wrong" angle left by the previous shot. I love a good Alps or Alps-like hole as much as the next guy and having one or two blind or partially visible tee shots on a course can quicken the pulse a bit, all in good fun. But blindness has an unavoidable downside in terms of safety and pace of play so it is the architect's responsibility to assure that it provides genuine enjoyment and isn't just the easiest shortcut for an otherwise mediocre hole to be routed over a difficult local feature.

Contoured greens are great. I think too many courses are built with "subtle" greens and too few with "wild" ones nowadays. But wasn't it always thus? Lord knows there are 100+ year old courses in the UK with boring pancake-ass greens. I think our recent outing at Long Shadow provides an exemplary set of greens with large, bold contours nonetheless providing plenty of pinnable area without a flaming case of the "green within a green" stereotype. So go on, guys. Put some curves in them greens.

Compared to the run of the mill modern USA course, 90% of the possible improvement (from a gca.com perspective) in the fun factor can be acheived with things as simple as a green that slopes away from a long approach shot, a bunker that is surrounded by closely-mown grass or a bit of fairway offering a great approach angle that is tucked out of sight from the player standing on the tee. That said, over the top is fun too as my two visits to Tobacco Road will attest.

[JC Jones]

Sorry, I just can't help myself.....

Patrick's thread got me to thinking about what would happen if modern architects adopted some of the philosophy here, and built the blind holes, quirk, wild greens, etc. that many seem to think were standard in the golden age.

Was it standard?  Other than steeper green contours, I am not sure the historical record supports that.

More importantly, when those masters (and others) had those features remodeled out of existence because overall the golfing public didn't like them, or they didn't work, or whatever, what makes us think that such features will last if built by today's gca's?

Stated another way, are we sure that previous generations and today's mainstream golfer are/were such doofus' and cretons/hillbillies/crybabies (I could go on all day) that they just got it wrong and we are now the enlightened, or are we just forgetting the lessons of the past in calling for restoration of features we haven't seen designed in a while?

Inquiring minds, as they say, want to know!

I think there are golf courses designed for the general public and golf courses that are designed to be great.  It is no coincidence that the golf courses of the past 20 years that are deemed to be "great" employ similar characteristics as those from the golden age.  Those courses also arent designed for the "general public."  The general public doesnt play them, nor do they play the greatest courses in america, so how are they supposed to know what good architecture is without diving into it and studying it despite their limited access?

Because they dont have information or knowledge, they play what they are told is good and they believe those aspects of those golf courses to be good.  Well, if AP or JN sign their name to a course it must be good, right?  So they become more comfortable with that style of design and lest comfortable with courses that were made before bulldozers.  They want their course and every course to look/play like a JN course, even though it may not be right for the land, environment, etc.

It is the american way to want what is perceived to be good regardless of whether it makes sense naturally.  Like building cities in swamps.  So the members of these courses want their course to play like that shiny new JN course down in Orlando they just played.  I dont think the general public thinks this is better because it is, I think they think its better because they dont know any better.

I've reached the point of rambling and realized my point isnt as coherent as I would have liked.  My point is this:

Dewars sells more bottles than Macallan.  More people prefer Dewars to Macallan.  There are probably a lot of people who, if in charge of the Macallan distillery would try to change it so it tasted more like Dewars.  Does that mean Dewars is better than Macallan and if you were to start a distillery you should make yours taste like Dewars rather than Macallan.

[Powell Arms]

Sorry, I just can't help myself.....

Patrick's thread got me to thinking about what would happen if modern architects adopted some of the philosophy here, and built the blind holes, quirk, wild greens, etc. that many seem to think were standard in the golden age.

Was it standard?  Other than steeper green contours, I am not sure the historical record supports that.

More importantly, when those masters (and others) had those features remodeled out of existence because overall the golfing public didn't like them, or they didn't work, or whatever, what makes us think that such features will last if built by today's gca's?

Stated another way, are we sure that previous generations and today's mainstream golfer are/were such doofus' and cretons/hillbillies/crybabies (I could go on all day) that they just got it wrong and we are now the enlightened, or are we just forgetting the lessons of the past in calling for restoration of features we haven't seen designed in a while?

Inquiring minds, as they say, want to know!

I think there are golf courses designed for the general public and golf courses that are designed to be great.  It is no coincidence that the golf courses of the past 20 years that are deemed to be "great" employ similar characteristics as those from the golden age.  Those courses also arent designed for the "general public."  The general public doesnt play them, nor do they play the greatest courses in america, so how are they supposed to know what good architecture is without diving into it and studying it despite their limited access?

Because they dont have information or knowledge, they play what they are told is good and they believe those aspects of those golf courses to be good.  Well, if AP or JN sign their name to a course it must be good, right?  So they become more comfortable with that style of design and lest comfortable with courses that were made before bulldozers.  They want their course and every course to look/play like a JN course, even though it may not be right for the land, environment, etc.

It is the american way to want what is perceived to be good regardless of whether it makes sense naturally.  Like building cities in swamps.  So the members of these courses want their course to play like that shiny new JN course down in Orlando they just played.  I dont think the general public thinks this is better because it is, I think they think its better because they dont know any better.

...

JC

At first blush, I thought the same thing, but am still not comfortable with the conlcusion, which I think is that private club or more affluent golfers (Bandon, Kiawah, PB, etc) have a greater appreciation for classic strategic architecture than does the mainstream golfer.  I do think that lack of exposure is a a driver behind the mainstream dislike of not having it right out in front of you, but I believe this is prevalent throughtout all segements of the golfing population.  It's what we all see from the PGA.  It certainly is enhanced by the stroke play versus match play mentality of the average golfer in the US.

I don't think participants here are obtuse. I do wonder if modern strategic designs (Rustic Canyon, Sand Hills, Sebonak, Bandon et al) are destined to be softened fifty years from now as the vision of the leadership is deferred to leadership by committee.

[Michael Dugger]

Michael,

Not entirely sure how much influence you are trying to give gca.com on architectural matters, but I really think the mindset of the 70's was one that maintenance mattered more than design.  But I also think that was in reaction to the amount of cash devoted to golf, in general, and the fact that most courses were built as publics, and moderate to cheap ones at that.  As the economy heated up in the 90's (much like the 20's) design became more the focus.  Now, there is pressure again to consider maintenance and operations costs more strongly as courses suffer financially.  I shared your belief that we all deserved better, and in many ways, the CCFAD movement of the 90's gave us that.

As to whether we believe in wild greens, etc. yes, I will agree that is a gross generalization on my part.  

Jeff,

I can get with that version of things....surely my thinking on these matters is done "in a vacuum."

Mixing golf and $$$ is akin to church and state, IMHO.

[JC Jones]

Sorry, I just can't help myself.....

Patrick's thread got me to thinking about what would happen if modern architects adopted some of the philosophy here, and built the blind holes, quirk, wild greens, etc. that many seem to think were standard in the golden age.

Was it standard?  Other than steeper green contours, I am not sure the historical record supports that.

More importantly, when those masters (and others) had those features remodeled out of existence because overall the golfing public didn't like them, or they didn't work, or whatever, what makes us think that such features will last if built by today's gca's?

Stated another way, are we sure that previous generations and today's mainstream golfer are/were such doofus' and cretons/hillbillies/crybabies (I could go on all day) that they just got it wrong and we are now the enlightened, or are we just forgetting the lessons of the past in calling for restoration of features we haven't seen designed in a while?

Inquiring minds, as they say, want to know!

I think there are golf courses designed for the general public and golf courses that are designed to be great.  It is no coincidence that the golf courses of the past 20 years that are deemed to be "great" employ similar characteristics as those from the golden age.  Those courses also arent designed for the "general public."  The general public doesnt play them, nor do they play the greatest courses in america, so how are they supposed to know what good architecture is without diving into it and studying it despite their limited access?

Because they dont have information or knowledge, they play what they are told is good and they believe those aspects of those golf courses to be good.  Well, if AP or JN sign their name to a course it must be good, right?  So they become more comfortable with that style of design and lest comfortable with courses that were made before bulldozers.  They want their course and every course to look/play like a JN course, even though it may not be right for the land, environment, etc.

It is the american way to want what is perceived to be good regardless of whether it makes sense naturally.  Like building cities in swamps.  So the members of these courses want their course to play like that shiny new JN course down in Orlando they just played.  I dont think the general public thinks this is better because it is, I think they think its better because they dont know any better.

...

JC

At first blush, I thought the same thing, but am still not comfortable with the conlcusion, which I think is that private club or more affluent golfers (Bandon, Kiawah, PB, etc) have a greater appreciation for classic strategic architecture than does the mainstream golfer.  I do think that lack of exposure is a a driver behind the mainstream dislike of not having it right out in front of you, but I believe this is prevalent throughtout all segements of the golfing population.  It's what we all see from the PGA.  It certainly is enhanced by the stroke play versus match play mentality of the average golfer in the US.

I don't think participants here are obtuse. I do wonder if modern strategic designs (Rustic Canyon, Sand Hills, Sebonak, Bandon et al) are destined to be softened fifty years from now as the vision of the leadership is deferred to leadership by committee.

I dont particularly care for the conclusion either.  I wish our great courses were open like the great courses in GB&I are.  I'm not knocking the masses for being ignorant, its largely not their fault.  (Disclaimer:  I am not even 1/1000 as informed as I should be, I am speaking from the perspective of a member of the masses who has only recently (a few years) seen the light)  Most of the general public would agree that St. Andrews is a great course (whether they've seen it or not).  That is usually where it stops though.  Most dont take the time to learn WHY it is a great course and what aspects of it make it so great.  Without that knowledge they rely only on the fact that they are TOLD it is a great course.

Well, JN is the greatest golfer ever, the perception would be (without knowledge otherwise) that he builds great golf courses.  Because most people dont know WHY St. Andrews is such a great course, they dont know WHY JN's courses arent.  Therefore, when they see some aspects on their 1920's course that they dont see on a JN course (which they have access to, and not NGLA), they want to change them.

Most people dont care.  Thats fine, I dont care about why my car engine works and what makes a good engine from a Great engine, its not may bag.  So I dont blame the masses for not caring WHY certain golf courses are better.  I was one of those people, I just wanted to play the game and I thought JN courses were good.  I had my epiphany in 2004 after my trip to Bandon.  I thought to myself, Wow, PacDunes is the greatest course I've played, its different from any other course I've ever played.  Then I started thinking, WHY?  So I started to try and learn and I am a long way from answering that question.

That question, however, is one that most golfers dont ask themselves.  Most golfers stay on the surface level.  There is nothing wrong with that.  That doesnt, however, mean that those aspects from the golden age that are generally deemed to be good by those with knowledge are all of a sudden not good because the general public doesnt understand/like them.

I think I've gone past the point of making sense right now, even to myself.

[Powell Arms]

Sorry, I just can't help myself.....

Patrick's thread got me to thinking about what would happen if modern architects adopted some of the philosophy here, and built the blind holes, quirk, wild greens, etc. that many seem to think were standard in the golden age.

Was it standard?  Other than steeper green contours, I am not sure the historical record supports that.

More importantly, when those masters (and others) had those features remodeled out of existence because overall the golfing public didn't like them, or they didn't work, or whatever, what makes us think that such features will last if built by today's gca's?

Stated another way, are we sure that previous generations and today's mainstream golfer are/were such doofus' and cretons/hillbillies/crybabies (I could go on all day) that they just got it wrong and we are now the enlightened, or are we just forgetting the lessons of the past in calling for restoration of features we haven't seen designed in a while?

Inquiring minds, as they say, want to know!

I think there are golf courses designed for the general public and golf courses that are designed to be great.  It is no coincidence that the golf courses of the past 20 years that are deemed to be "great" employ similar characteristics as those from the golden age.  Those courses also arent designed for the "general public."  The general public doesnt play them, nor do they play the greatest courses in america, so how are they supposed to know what good architecture is without diving into it and studying it despite their limited access?

Because they dont have information or knowledge, they play what they are told is good and they believe those aspects of those golf courses to be good.  Well, if AP or JN sign their name to a course it must be good, right?  So they become more comfortable with that style of design and lest comfortable with courses that were made before bulldozers.  They want their course and every course to look/play like a JN course, even though it may not be right for the land, environment, etc.

It is the american way to want what is perceived to be good regardless of whether it makes sense naturally.  Like building cities in swamps.  So the members of these courses want their course to play like that shiny new JN course down in Orlando they just played.  I dont think the general public thinks this is better because it is, I think they think its better because they dont know any better.

...

JC

At first blush, I thought the same thing, but am still not comfortable with the conlcusion, which I think is that private club or more affluent golfers (Bandon, Kiawah, PB, etc) have a greater appreciation for classic strategic architecture than does the mainstream golfer.  I do think that lack of exposure is a a driver behind the mainstream dislike of not having it right out in front of you, but I believe this is prevalent throughtout all segements of the golfing population.  It's what we all see from the PGA.  It certainly is enhanced by the stroke play versus match play mentality of the average golfer in the US.

I don't think participants here are obtuse. I do wonder if modern strategic designs (Rustic Canyon, Sand Hills, Sebonak, Bandon et al) are destined to be softened fifty years from now as the vision of the leadership is deferred to leadership by committee.

I dont particularly care for the conclusion either.  I wish our great courses were open like the great courses in GB&I are.  I'm not knocking the masses for being ignorant, its largely not their fault.  (Disclaimer:  I am not even 1/1000 as informed as I should be, I am speaking from the perspective of a member of the masses who has only recently (a few years) seen the light)  Most of the general public would agree that St. Andrews is a great course (whether they've seen it or not).  That is usually where it stops though.  Most dont take the time to learn WHY it is a great course and what aspects of it make it so great.  Without that knowledge they rely only on the fact that they are TOLD it is a great course.

Well, JN is the greatest golfer ever, the perception would be (without knowledge otherwise) that he builds great golf courses.  Because most people dont know WHY St. Andrews is such a great course, they dont know WHY JN's courses arent.  Therefore, when they see some aspects on their 1920's course that they dont see on a JN course (which they have access to, and not NGLA), they want to change them.

Most people dont care.  Thats fine, I dont care about why my car engine works and what makes a good engine from a Great engine, its not may bag.  So I dont blame the masses for not caring WHY certain golf courses are better.  I was one of those people, I just wanted to play the game and I thought JN courses were good.  I had my epiphany in 2004 after my trip to Bandon.  I thought to myself, Wow, PacDunes is the greatest course I've played, its different from any other course I've ever played.  Then I started thinking, WHY?  So I started to try and learn and I am a long way from answering that question.

That question, however, is one that most golfers dont ask themselves.  Most golfers stay on the surface level.  There is nothing wrong with that.  That doesnt, however, mean that those aspects from the golden age that are generally deemed to be good by those with knowledge are all of a sudden not good because the general public doesnt understand/like them.

I think I've gone past the point of making sense right now, even to myself.

Makes complete sense to me.  Well said.  The JN example is spot-on.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't think participants here are obtuse. I do wonder if modern strategic designs (Rustic Canyon, Sand Hills, Sebonak, Bandon et al) are destined to be softened fifty years from now as the vision of the leadership is deferred to leadership by committee.

Powell,

I don't think so either, I was just picking up on Pat's verbiage.

IF the four courses had features remodeled it would be for different reasons. Personally, and remember we aren't talking whole course renovations here, but elimination of the most unusual (to the public or golfers at large) features I suspect the most likely reason would be Sebonak (too tough for old membership) and RC (flood issues and public course issues combine to cause major changes) I think Sand Hills and Bandon, built to be unique get away resorts will have a greater tendency to stay as is, at least based on past history.  That said, Pinehurst went under some big changes and it was unique.

I guess the other way to ask the question is, "Is our current architectural awareness now a permanent part of the architectural landscape - enough to overcome the natural tendencies to change stuff that was present in the past, and I suspect will still be present in the future for economic and golf technolgy reasons?"  

Historic adaptations are now part of the building architecture landscape, and environmentalism is part of the landscape and planning realm and they aren't going away.  Does golf architecture rate that kind of inclusion, or is it more "disposable by nature?

[Powell Arms]

... remember we aren't talking whole course renovations here, but elimination of the most unusual (to the public or golfers at large) features ....

I guess the other way to ask the question is, "Is our current architectural awareness now a permanent part of the architectural landscape - enough to overcome the natural tendencies to change stuff that was present in the past, and I suspect will still be present in the future for economic and golf technolgy reasons?"  

Historic adaptations are now part of the building architecture landscape, and environmentalism is part of the landscape and planning realm and they aren't going away.  Does golf architecture rate that kind of inclusion, or is it more "disposable by nature?

Do we really have a architectural awareness as part of the landscape?  I would tend to think for the majority of golfers that is not part of the mindset, and it is that desire to "have it all in front of you" that will overcome any resistance to change.  To state it another way, I do think courses, in general, will be modified to appeal to the majority of golfers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Powell,

Well then, you've answered my question!  Thanks.

[JC Jones]

... remember we aren't talking whole course renovations here, but elimination of the most unusual (to the public or golfers at large) features ....

I guess the other way to ask the question is, "Is our current architectural awareness now a permanent part of the architectural landscape - enough to overcome the natural tendencies to change stuff that was present in the past, and I suspect will still be present in the future for economic and golf technolgy reasons?"  

Historic adaptations are now part of the building architecture landscape, and environmentalism is part of the landscape and planning realm and they aren't going away.  Does golf architecture rate that kind of inclusion, or is it more "disposable by nature?

Do we really have a architectural awareness as part of the landscape?  I would tend to think for the majority of golfers that is not part of the mindset, and it is that desire to "have it all in front of you" that will overcome any resistance to change.  To state it another way, I do think courses, in general, will be modified to appeal to the majority of golfers.

Majority of golfers who have the chance to play them or to appeal to the majority of golfers, generally?

If the latter, your post should have concluded with the word, unfortunately.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff,
Have you seen the pictures in the Royal St Georges thread?
I haven't seen many modern courses like that -- except for mine.

Budweiser & Miller lite both suck eggs.
Arrogant Bastard rules -- but only Kalen & I drink it.
Which one is better?

Cheers

[Jeff_Brauer]

Powell,

Again, thanks for offering that opinion. The more I got thinking about Pat's democracy remark, and my snippy "elitist snob" retort (all in good fun, though) the more I think he is on to something, with his democracy equaling your "popular taste."

The only problem with the elitest snob theory is that the elites -  i.e. the pro golfers who don't think the rest of us know golf shots (and in truth, we don't at their level) are, as mentioned leading the popular cultural wave.  In truth, the best golfers always have been the strongest proponents of eliminating luck and quirk and promoting fairness because they can best take advantage of it.  But who else really wants to not be treated fairly (for the most part) even if its not 100% attainable.  Should gca's strive for 99%?  90%?  75%?

I think it was Pat Mucci who also postulated that  "formula" is adapting proven ideas as "standard." Put that way, it makes a lot more sense for modern designs to look more alike than different, than to label it as bad because its so common.

[Powell Arms]

... remember we aren't talking whole course renovations here, but elimination of the most unusual (to the public or golfers at large) features ....

I guess the other way to ask the question is, "Is our current architectural awareness now a permanent part of the architectural landscape - enough to overcome the natural tendencies to change stuff that was present in the past, and I suspect will still be present in the future for economic and golf technolgy reasons?"  

Historic adaptations are now part of the building architecture landscape, and environmentalism is part of the landscape and planning realm and they aren't going away.  Does golf architecture rate that kind of inclusion, or is it more "disposable by nature?

Do we really have a architectural awareness as part of the landscape?  I would tend to think for the majority of golfers that is not part of the mindset, and it is that desire to "have it all in front of you" that will overcome any resistance to change.  To state it another way, I do think courses, in general, will be modified to appeal to the majority of golfers.

Majority of golfers who have the chance to play them or to appeal to the majority of golfers, generally?

If the latter, your post should have concluded with the word, unfortunately.

Good question, and I'm not sure of the answer, but I think you are right and it should end with "unfortuanately".  I guess it depends on the market of the course, along the lines of what Jeff states above in post 23.  If the course is public, it must appeal to a broad enough population to fill its tee sheet.  If private, same idea.  So, wouldnt it mean that a course needs to appeal to enough folks to make it economically viable, and that it is the number of folks in the market that determines this?