[Don_Mahaffey]

Someone I know recently returned from some sort of land use conference telling me that one of the speakers on Golf Course Architecture said that template courses were the next fad. He thought it was funny, as I did. I guess we were wrong. Stealing the link from a John K post:

http://www.colonyleader.com/articles/2008/03/03/the_colony_courier-leader/news/a-newstc45a.txt

So, with the obvious excitement over BD 4 and now this, is it the next big thing? Now, rather than a renovation expert, should a budding architect be some sort of expert at replicating great holes from the past in new designs? Is this where we are going? Is that really design...

And yes, as a disclaimer I'm well aware that this type of press release has been common for a while now, but seriously, some people in the business believe template architecture is the next big thing.

Is this where we are headed?

[John Kavanaugh]

I really wish someone would hire the architectural editor of Golf Magazine to build one.  Isn't it about his turn?

[Tom_Doak]

Careful, Mr. Kavanaugh.  Nepotism is easier to prove than a conflict of interest. 

Don:  I suspect that Bandon generates so much publicity that anything they do is going to be seen by some as the next big trend ... just as Bandon gets a lot of credit for popularizing minimalism, even though it had been around for 100 years before that.

If my speculation is correct, then in a year or two the same conference will postulate that huge greens and blind shots are the "next big thing".  And the leaders will have moved on to something else.

I suppose the theory of "template courses" is that it's more cost-effective to pay Tripp Davis and promote the course as St. Andrews, Troon, and Shinnecock, than it is to pay bigger bucks to a more well-established designer and roll the dice on what they will deliver.

Old Macdonald is actually the opposite of that ... Mr. Keiser is happy to pay us to be involved, but would prefer to downplay my role and use a fourth name to promote course #4. 

[Brad Huff]

yum... 14 views of Lake Lewisville.  I'm SO excitied.  I live about 5 mi. from The Tribute.  The course I enjoyed.  Everything else about the experience was poor.  I'm a fan of local boy JL, but I'm not fan of this style of design.  I found this out when I tried to get a template wife to honor the original (to whom I'm still married)...the original wasn't amused.

[John Moore II]

I see nothing wrong with a template style course, as long as it is pulled off correctly. NGLA is a template course, and if I recall, many of the courses that CBM designed were much along the same lines. It is fine by me, especially for a club that may need to set itself apart from the rest in a given area. Bear's Best is much like this. I would also see nothing wrong with Arnold Palmer, Fazio and others doing something very similar. Doak and C&C I can see as having problems doing a 'template' of their works since they manage to be so natural that the holes would look very unnatural if you tried to force them in somewhere else on a different site of land.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I don't like replica courses.
It wasn't really about a trend, more as an option. 

[Jim Nugent]

Who came up with the concept for Old Mac?  Keiser?  Doak?  Urbina? 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike,
Re-read my post; I never said anything about Tripp's course.

I'll go on record as saying I'm not a fan of template courses, and I did think it was funny that someone thought templates was the big next thing. Sorry I misunderstood you.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

I doubt they are the next big thing.  In the go-go 90's (when the Tribute was planned) developers had so much new competition they were trying to find new "hooks" to stand out.  Thus was born Tour 18, Renditions, Tribute, and Bear's Best, etc.  I guess I could include Cowboys in that, although that is more a branding than a template.

While you could argue that its even MORE important to stand out now, how many of these really do stand out?  Tribute is actually very well done by Tripp and does.  Tour 18 of Dallas, not so much, and they had such nice land it seemed a shame to force other designs (or barely recognizeable quality to the trained eye, but the average guy doesn't care) on that land.

Tour 18 once dominated the high end golf landscape in DFW.  Tribute and Cowboys are the leaders now as conditioning at Tour 18 has gone down AND its the furthest high end course from the core of golfers.  According to NGF stats, well over 90% of the rounds played are driven by distance to course, price, and maintenance levels, with design coming in far down the list.  If it costs more, its probably not really economically justified.  Money would be better spent on drainage, irrigation and greens construction, etc. to keep maintenance high.

These are opinions and could be subjective.  However, with a total of maybe 20 of the worlds 20,000 courses template courses, they have a ways to go, and obstacles to fight to be the next big thing.

[Mike Sweeney]

Old Macdonald is actually the opposite of that ... Mr. Keiser is happy to pay us to be involved, but would prefer to downplay my role and use a fourth name to promote course #4. 

Okay, I'll bite. 

Are you saying that George and/or Brad is going to write the architect notes for Old Mac?

http://www.bandondunesgolf.com/p_notes.cfm

[Greg Murphy]

Jeff,

Where might I find the NGF stats that cite "over 90% of rounds played are driven by distance to course, price, and maintenance levels, with design coming in far down the list"? Are they available online?

Thanks,

Greg

[George Pazin]

It wouldn't surprise me if some business folks felt it was the next big thing - many feel standardizing things is the best way to improve efficiency and thus profits. If you could convince the public it's the way to go, you be able to hire relative nobodies to design and build the courses.

I would be surprised if you could convince the public of this, however.

[Tim Nugent]

To answer the question "is this design?" Not really.  I did a nine hole replica course becuase that's what the guy paying the check wanted.  I found it an interesting exercise because 1st) i had to find quality holes that would fit, 2nd, I had to research the holes and there history - in a couple cases I built older versions that I though were better than the current rendition.  3rd, I was forced to stay with the design when I probably would have tweaked it in the field.
While it takes a degree of skill to recreate the original, it's kind of like the guys/gals you see down at the Art Institute painting copies of Masterpieces.  They look just like the original but they are fakes.
The other problem with these types of courses is that the are out of sequence...meaning they don't follow the holes from the original course.

I also don't like architects that template there own work.  I've played courses where you come to a hole and by golly, it's the same as you played last year on another course in another state.  Maybe they think that since they are not near each other, no one will ever know.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

Where might I find the NGF stats that cite "over 90% of rounds played are driven by distance to course, price, and maintenance levels, with design coming in far down the list"? Are they available online?

Thanks,

Greg

The NGF and GCSAA have jointly done "Why they play" studies on at least two occasions. Here are the results from one I saved in my computer....BTW, either my memory was off on proximity, or it was rated higher in the other version, which did have some differences. Maybe I am just extrapolating that with gas over $3 per gallon, proximity to home WILL become a more important factor.

Also, there is more info available at Frank Thomas site, "Growing the Game."


Survey conducted by NGF. Feb 2003

Percent of avid golfers who rated these important when choosing a golf course.

Quality of course conditions........90%
Availability of other amenities......85%
(tennis, swimming pool, etc)
Availability of tee times..............78%
Cost/price of green fees.............69%
Speed of play...........................66%
Grounds well maintained……61%
Course design………………..58%
Difficulty of course…………..36%
Closeness to home…………….33%
Golf shop quality/service………27%
Clubhouse quality/service………26%
Ability to score well……………25%
Restaurant/food service………….8%
Name designer of course………..5%

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff, if you add it up conditioning, price and distance is 195% of the reason.  Opps, that's fuzzy math.

[Clyde Johnston]

This info was in my files. Similar survey in 2005:

"NGF periodically surveys golfers as to why they play high end public courses. They are obviously allowed to pick from more than one, so the results don't equal 100%.  Rather, its the number of golfers who think its an important factor, not the only or even the most important factor.

Results from 2005-

Scenery and Aesthetics – 85%
Service – 79%
Golf Cart Quality/Cleanliness – 78%
Clubhouse and Locker room – 77%
Overall Golf Maintenance – 77%
Greens Conditions – 73%
Food and Beverage – 71%
On Course Restrooms and Drinking Water – 66%
Tee Time Availability – 61%
Pace of Play – 57%
Convenience of Course Location – 45%
Name of Golf Course Architect – 3%

[Tom_Doak]

"Name of golf course architect" does not trump a great location, but obviously there are some people who think it's a lot more valuable than 3%, or there would not be such a disparity of fees in this business.

Old Macdonald IS design, I can verify that much.  But maybe it's not a template golf course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom, the survey was among public golfers, not developers.....

Tim, I believe golfers were allowed to give more than one reason as to why they chose the course they chose.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

WHICH public golfers did they survey?  The ones who go to Bandon, or the ones that show up at well-conditioned no-name munis?

Exit polls don't tell the whole story.

[Mike Bowline]

It is interesting the 2005 NGF survey dug up by Clyde did not include any option for the respondents to select that involves price/value, whereas the 2003 survey did so. Value is such a qualitative concept anyway, involving almost all of the selection options anyway.

My first post, looking forward to more!

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff, IT WAS A JOKE!  I just find surveys like that partially useless because you can't gleen from them a total picture.

Tom, Marquee name designers don't sell tee times, the sell houses.  That's why you don't see them designing many public courses (plus I don't know if they could work with those budgets very well).  When you spread their big fee over 500 lots, that's just $2k/house.  Or in the case of a private club $5k over 200 members - when the initiation fee is north of $100k, a pitance. They don't look at it as a design fee but rather a marketing expense.

[Eric Smith]

Template/replica/inspired by/rendition/tribute golf courses

The template / not a template debate is fascinating to me.

Besides this venerable group of 1500, are there hundreds, perhaps thousands more who care about original design vs. template design?  I'll go out on a limb and say no there isn't. And imo it doesn't matter. Good golf trumps everything when playing GOLF.  Yes, yes this is a discussion board about golf architecture...please bear with me.

Sign me up to play a replica golf course when presented the opportunity.  If I had a reason to be in Dallas next Tuesday and Mr. Bill asked me to play Tripp Davis' course, I'd call and give em my amex tonight and be stoked to see what it's like.  Is it like Heathland in Myrtle Beach?  A course I really love, and have played many times over the years. The yardage book at Heathland describes holes from the UK in which the designer, Tom Doak drew inspiration.

I believe NGLA is highly thought of, both here and in national publication rankings. I deduced from George's book, as I've never been to NGLA, that it is in this ilk, CBM placing the strategies of the world's greatest holes on the ground of eastern long island.

From Ran's write-up:

Convinced of the merits of his convictions, he stumped around eastern Long Island in search for a site that would allow him to capture the playing qualities of the most famous holes that he had seen overseas.

Once he found what is today's property, it didn't take him long to spot a fine location for a Sahara hole from Royal St. George's and an Alps hole from Prestwick, and a Redan hole from North Berwick. Not surprisingly, given his extended time in St. Andrews, The OId Course heavily influenced his thinking both directly in the Eden, Long and Road Hole versions he created at The National Links and indirectly through wide fairways and large, rolling greens.


Another Myrtle Beach golf course, World Tour was named National Course of the Year back in '04 I think, by the NGCOA. I've never played it, but would guess that golf is enjoyed there on a daily basis by many.

Again, my observations are not about the architect's intent for the holes he puts in the ground.  Simply to state that template/replica/inspired by/rendition/tribute golf courses are a part of the golf course landscape.  This type of design has it's tentacles in at least one top 20 course in America previously mentioned, upscale privates in Florida, mega daily fees in Myrtle Beach, Dallas, Las Vegas and in Canada (Wooden Sticks by Ron Garl).

Didn't Seth Raynor make a career out of this type design?  Ron Garl, Seth Raynor, I don't know that they share the same design philosophies.  They did build template/replica golf courses.

It's kind of mind bending to try to understand how Old Macdonald could somehow not be a template course.  If it isn't, is there a new category of design?..what's it called? Nuanced golf design?

Several months ago Tom Doak posted the names of the holes at OM in a thread on here (I think everyone of them were named in The Evangelist of Golf). This is going to be a sort of west coast NGLA, right?

It's going to be a world class golf experience I have no doubt.  I'm glad it's being built as it is fitting to honor CBM, the father of golf architecture, in the sand at Bandon.

It is an interesting debate, but it does hurt my head so I'll shut up now. 

[Mike Sweeney]

"Name of golf course architect" does not trump a great location, but obviously there are some people who think it's a lot more valuable than 3%, or there would not be such a disparity of fees in this business.

Tom,

I would not disclose it either if I were you, but it would be interesting to know your two design fees at the Bandon Resort. I will guess that you did not take your current market rate due to:

1. The Team approach at OldMac;

2. OldMac will continue to establish your name in the restoration business which is probably a good thing in the current market.

3. Mike K doesn't pay retail!

However, I will guess that the unknown Tom Doak at Pacific was paid less than the known Tom Doak at OldMac. It will be interesting to see who gets marketed more by Bandon when Old Mac opens, Doak and/or The Team or Charles Blair Macdonald.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Eric,
I think your right in that most likely the vast majority of golfers really don’t care if the course is a template, rendition, original, or some combination of all. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care, unless we all agree that there can never be anything new again in golf design. I think you take any industry and you say, we’ve done it all so now all we can do is copy what has been done before, then you’ve got yourself a dying industry, and some would say that’s what we’ve got right now. I’m certainly not going to say that template courses are going to kill the game, but if they become more the norm, then you tell me if you think that furthers the development of golf course architecture? I mean forget design, with modern tools we can map a golf hole to the knats ass, then plug that data into a dozer and recreate it anywhere we can pile up enough dirt. Far-fetched, I’m not sure, but if someone can make a buck doing it don’t be surprised if you see it happen.
Some here who practice golf design focus primarily on the technical aspects of building a golf course. I say build natural golf courses and they say…remember it all starts with drainage and if you have to build a golf course below the water table…blah, blah, blah, or if I say build wild greens they’ll start reciting how a green must function in accepting shots from this distance or that and you’ll get all kinds of important sounding percentages and cupping area slang and such. These are technicians, and they seem to start with the technical aspects and work from there. I think you should start with the art, then worry about the playability, and then you find a way to make it function using all available technology. Great golf design is about making the art work.

IMO, if template architecture becomes more prevalent we just continue the move away from an art approach to a more technical view of building golf courses. If we as a group say, we don’t care, as long as it’s fun then who cares; why would a developer ever take a chance on something new if he can just copy something that works somewhere else? I’m not about to say the sky is falling, but I don’t like what I see as originality seems to be on the way out. Every course is inspired by this or that and every architect seems has studied the great courses of Scotland…and by God we can create that right here in Dallas. We know most of it is PR bullshit, but I just once want to read a press release that starts…here you’ll find a course unlike any ever built…

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

I'll start working on a course for that press release, as soon as I find a client who will really let me build it.  Not many I've met would have the guts to do so, including Mr. Keiser ... don't forget that he positioned Bandon Dunes to be "Scottish style" right down to hiring a Scottish architect, both because he liked that style of golf course AND because he thought the story would sell.

I do have an idea for a course unlike any ever built, but if we built it, I'm sure people would think I'd really gone off the deep end.

Originality is not really on the way out, it's just that only a small percentage of designers in any field ever have any to begin with.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()