"Dumbing down" is it really smart architecture?

[archie_struthers]

 

I threw out some bait on the dumbing down of Bandon thread , but didn't even get a nibble. Thus . I'll postulate further.  Is dumbing down ie the removal of overt hazards  , or the natural integration of a golf course into it's surrounds over time..... 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

It's a reflection of the times we live in where the bar has been lowered to accomodate a greater number of participants.

The courses for the ages were designed to be championship tests, for the best players of the times, amateur and professional.

Pine Valley
NGLA
Merion
Hollywood
GCGC

Come to mind.

Those courses weren't for the faint of heart or the complainer, they were challenging, but, emminently fair.

Too often, golfers complain when faced with a feature that causes them difficulty.  Their complaints morph into a quest to change the feature.
Once one member complains and has "their" problem feature changed, other members clamor to have "their" problem feature changed, and thus the global dumbing down of the golf course begins it's fatal spiral.

And, the golf course begins to lose its architectural uniqueness, the integrity of the original design, to the point that a universal blandness will overtake these courses if the process of dumbing down continues unabated.

Soon, the continued process of dumbing down will lead to mundane golf courses that don't distinquish themselves from one another.

Smart architecture ?

Not the way I see it, but, TEPaul could still be wrong 

[Bruce Katona]

Archie: you know perfectly well the adage " Looks hard, but plays and scores well"....that's what the customers (outside of many on this board) are looking for...they want to say they scored below their handicap at a to-the-public perceived difficult course...makes the customer feel good and content, generates repeat business for the owner - a winner all around.

[Joel_Stewart]

You're walking a fine line on "dumbing down" and fixing gilitches on the golf course?   I remember playing TPC Sawgrass right after it opened and there were many problems with the course, especially with the 8th green.  They have since recontoured it.  So is that dumbing it down or making it fair?

Of course if you are removing numerous bunkers and making all the greens flat, its either a money problem or bad president or super.

[John Moore II]

Archie--further explanation may be in order, as I am not sure what you are asking. But what are the courses natural surrounds? How does removing hazards more integrate a course to those natural surrounds? As far as I am concerned, unless some aspect of the course makes play nearly unfair, removing it takes away from the architects work, which in most cases, was the truly 'smart architecture.' Removing things simply takes away from an architects work, which in some cases may be considered art.
--But please explain your ideas in more detail, perhaps you could convince us you are correct with more analysis and detail. (You might even convince Pat Mucci he's wrong)

[Patrick_Mucci]

J Kenneth Moore,

Enclosed is Archie's post on the Bandon thread, which I had not read until now.

Hey George .... good question on dumbing down !

In building/ designing  a course  it's really easy to make a hole difficult..just need a little water and rough .. or either in great quantities to affect scoring  .....not even length is as big an impediment

Perhaps that's why the truly great golf couses are chameleons...one day it's fairly benign..the next very difficult to master

Dumbing down could actually be what separates the great from the good architects and their work....think of a hole that can challenge the expert yet seems playable for the handicap player  and you've got something special...

As to that , I'm not sold on the multiple tee approach ( Arghh!!!) to design...  rather designing a course that  can be played by a myriad of playing styles  , which might appear to be  "Dumbing Down"  is actually quite fascinating.

This is why certain "classic" couses continue to be the most talked about to this day

Here's what I posted on a thread I created on April 29th:

Are wide fairways and extra large greens part of Pine Valley's architectural genius ?

Do they accomodate the lesser golfer while testing the accomplished golfer ?

Do the extra large greens accomodate the necessary margins of error for the lesser golfer, while the specific hole location tests the accomplished golfer ?

Do the wide fairways provide the same scenario ?

Since Archie cited "classic" courses, and I referenced some of them, I think we're on the same page, especially since many of these courses provided wide fairways and NOT five sets of tees.

Width at the fairway and green allows the mid to high handicap golfer to successfully navigate the hole, where as the same hole can provide a stern test to the low handicap due to the need to achieve prefered angles of attack into difficult or dangerous hole locations.

GCGC, PV, Merion, NGLA, Hollywood would seem to support that premise.

One of the great features of golf, the centerline bunker, became almost extinct due to dumbing down, or, in the name of "fairness".

If the DA at Pine Valley were at a local club it would probably have been filled in years ago.

Some clubs retain the culture of "challenge" others have capitulated to the culture of "fairness" for ALL levels of golfers.

However, as a caveat, you have to bifurcate the issue when it comes to public versus private clubs.

My focus was on private clubs.

However, WIDTH is the key, it removes the need to dumb down the architecture.

Lose width and you're in trouble.

[Mike Sweeney]

GCGC, PV, Merion, NGLA, Hollywood would seem to support that premise.

Patrick,

Hollywood did round 1 of their tree removal over the winter. 14 and 15 are dramatically different. Lots more needed, but it was a big step. Now if they would only add back in some of the cross bunkers.

[John Moore II]

Pat-I agree with what you say, but what you describe is quite simply good architecture. What I feel that Archie is asking is does the removal of hazards and other features constitute dumbing down or smart architecture. I feel that it is simply foolish architecture and quite frankly taking away from an architects original work.
-When designing, width can be a factor, but narrow holes can provide good challenges as well for all types. Witdh does of course add in the challenge of forcing the better player to look for position for the best next shot. But again, this amounts to good architecture.
-I also feel that this discussion need not simply be limited to private clubs. If Pine Valleys DA were at the mid range private club, it likely would have been filled in just the same as if it were at a muni. But if it were at a high end public (Bethpage, Pinehurst, etc.) it would still exist I feel.
-I have said before that I feel the level of architectural quality (and possibly "dumbing down") depends on the nature of the course. High end clubs that are regarded as great courses (either public, private or resort) will tend to retain 'difficult' features and have likely high architectural quality, while mid range and low end clubs (again, all types) will tend to lose some key features that are viewed to slow play and be overly difficult.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat-I agree with what you say, but what you describe is quite simply good architecture. What I feel that Archie is asking is does the removal of hazards and other features constitute dumbing down or smart architecture. I feel that it is simply foolish architecture and quite frankly taking away from an architects original work.

We agree.
I look at it as muting or sanitizing the original architects work, removing his distinctive style, which, I think is important to preserve.[/color]

-When designing, width can be a factor, but narrow holes can provide good challenges as well for all types. Witdh does of course add in the challenge of forcing the better player to look for position for the best next shot. But again, this amounts to good architecture.

Agreed.[/color]

-I also feel that this discussion need not simply be limited to private clubs.


Agreed, but, I think we need to create seperate categories or perspectives when it comes to the private versus the public sector.[/color]

If Pine Valleys DA were at the mid range private club, it likely would have been filled in just the same as if it were at a muni. But if it were at a high end public (Bethpage, Pinehurst, etc.) it would still exist I feel. [/b][/color=green]

I'm not sure that I'd agree with that, especially after having inspected it again last week.  It's a formidable and forbiding hazard, not likely to gain popularity outside the cult worshipers.[/b][/color]

-I have said before that I feel the level of architectural quality (and possibly "dumbing down") depends on the nature of the course. High end clubs that are regarded as great courses (either public, private or resort) will tend to retain 'difficult' features and have likely high architectural quality, while mid range and low end clubs (again, all types) will tend to lose some key features that are viewed to slow play and be overly difficult.


I think that supports my "lowering of the bar to accomodate more participants" theory.[/color]

Lastly, if we agree on almost everything, how can I be wrong ?

[John Moore II]

Pat--I never really said you were wrong on this matter. I just felt that perhaps Archie could come up with more evidence to support his theory, and in that way, may be able to convince the two of us that his ideas are more correct than ours.
--Having never played Pine Valley (would however, be there tomorrow if invited) I can't make a comment on the difficulty of the complex. However, it seems that some of the time, the high end clubs are somewhat more immune to having difficult and 'odd' features removed for the sake of playability.  Augusta comes to mind as a club that changes, however, I might argue that those changes are from the mindset of 'unplayability,' meaning making the course more difficult.

[archie_struthers]

 


Ahh, but  isn't the original golf course at Pine Valley almost totally devoid of trees....didn't the course  "mature" into the fabulous test it continues to be.  

Should the greens have been left at the 6 or 7 they were on the stimp in the 60's or has modern tweaking shown the true brilliance of Crumps' greens.

Is the golfer your friend or your enemy..... as an architect, do you want to challenge and amuse him (her) or bludgeon them to death. I'm suggesting the bludgeoniing is easy

Isn't St. Andrews fabulous..... haven't ninety percent of the posters here moaned that Augusta just isn't fun anymore.....did they Dumb it UP  ?  LOL

Patrick M...I'd argue that the classic courses killl with the stilletto in tournament conditions (hard and fast) but may be fairly benign for daily play (ala St. Andrews)....isn't golf recreation ....shouldn't it be fun....

I love ....love playing Galloway National...somehow my twisted golf game flourishes there...while my friends ...many far more accomplished players than I just can't finish a round there...it's that hard..... most people would quit playing if they always got murdered like they do there....I'd hate to see it "dumbed down"  but it's difficulty makes it a one trick pony for many

 anticipation of  the the wind ...the conditions ....the pressure....the risk reward....is the real genius of  design...buiding a "monster" is easy


Think of Shinnecock,  National....Seminole....Indian Creek  ....maybe even Merion without serious rough and cranked up greens....

are they dumbed down  ?

[John Moore II]

Archie--yes, designing a course to simply beat on people is quite easy. However, does designing for strategy, such as with width, centerline bunkers, preferred lines and other things really amount to dumbing down or does it amount to sound architecture? I say it is sound and quality architecture. Removing bunkers from their designed areas for sake of easyness is dumbing down and does not need to happen. But simply designing for multiple playing options is not dumbing down.
--To answer the question directly-no, changing a course to make it easier (which is what I would say the consensus definition of dumbing down is) is not smart architecture, more like potential butchering of a otherwise quality design.

[archie_struthers]

 


Kenneth .... again the paradigm of ease ....it depends almost entirely on who is doing the playing...

removing nasties that affect poorer players ....while refining and accentuating those qualities which can impact the expert ..is what I'm intrigued by

.some design features are completely lost on the masses  ...as are the subtleties of modern art on me....

Many of the hazards inherent in the original design intent of the architect are now hopelessly lost to the realities of technology...yet the roll of a devious green or false front continue to baffle the expert  ...also when thinking of dumbing down....despite my love for a challenge as Galloway National is one of my absolutely favorite places to play...a steady diet of five hour rounds would lose me as a golfer

ciao

[John Moore II]

Archie--what is the target market we are talking about with regards to course design? As I have said before, that is really the key factor in determining what the type of architecture should be.
--Courses open to the public should not be overly difficult. The average golfer does not need or want to be challenged on every shot. I have been told the North Palm Beach Golf Club has suffered a large loss of business because it is overly difficult. Namely the greens are not to the correct proportion and are too hard for the average golfer to play on a daily basis. However...
--This scale would not be wrong at a private club where the same people play the course on a near daily basis. Private clubs can be on average more difficult that the public ones due to the play they get.
--Removing hazards, such as you say, is simply taking away challenge. At a truly public club, it may be acceptable to do that in order to speed up play, but either way, it does not amount to smart architecture, simply changing the course to meet the need for easyness.
--Smart architecture is designing the course to challenge all types of players equally. Not simply removing a bunker or swale or other hazard or design feature for the sole sake of quicker play and easy golf.
---Dumbing down is quite simply dumbing down and nothing more.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ahh, but  isn't the original golf course at Pine Valley almost totally devoid of trees....didn't the course  "mature" into the fabulous test it continues to be.  

The trees are, in many areas, far removed from the playing corridors, which are extremely generous to begin with.[/color]

Should the greens have been left at the 6 or 7 they were on the stimp in the 60's or has modern tweaking shown the true brilliance of Crumps' greens.

I don't view that as an architectural change.
While they're still adequate at 6-7 on the stimp, they're unmanagable at 12-13 on the stimp, hence, I'd opt for a happy medium.[/color]

Is the golfer your friend or your enemy..... as an architect, do you want to challenge and amuse him (her) or bludgeon them to death. I'm suggesting the bludgeoniing is easy. 

Not when you ALSO have to accomodate the mid to high handicap.
Then, it's a far more difficult task.[/color]

Isn't St. Andrews fabulous.....

Enter width and huge greens ![/color]

haven't ninety percent of the posters here moaned that Augusta just isn't fun anymore.....did they Dumb it UP  ?  LOL

How would they know, they've never played it pre and post narrowing.
And, it's still a wide golf course.
Their opinions are invalid [/color]

Patrick M...I'd argue that the classic courses killl with the stilletto in tournament conditions (hard and fast) but may be fairly benign for daily play (ala St. Andrews)....isn't golf recreation ....shouldn't it be fun....

I'd disagree with that characterization.

Take NGLA, Maidstone, Shinnecock, Pine Valley and GCGC.
They're certainly more challenging under tournament conditions for the field in which those conditions are intended, and more than sporty for daily play.

They have the ability to adjust to the "field of the day" mainly due to width and relatively large greens.[/color]

I love ....love playing Galloway National...somehow my twisted golf game flourishes there...while my friends ...many far more accomplished players than I just can't finish a round there...it's that hard..... most people would quit playing if they always got murdered like they do there....I'd hate to see it "dumbed down"  but it's difficulty makes it a one trick pony for many


I'm not crazy about GN. prefering HC and ACC, but, to each his own.[/color]

 anticipation of  the the wind ...the conditions ....the pressure....the risk reward....is the real genius of  design...buiding a "monster" is easy


The "WIND" is a special element and a course swept by it is indeed fortunate to have it as an asset.[/color]

Think of Shinnecock,  National....Seminole....Indian Creek  ....maybe even Merion without serious rough and cranked up greens....

Seminole has no rough of consequence, neither does ANGC.
The fairways are so wide at GCGC, Shinnecock, NGLA and Seminole that the rough is a lesser problem.  Cranked up greens on windy sites is always a volitile situation, and caution should be exercised.[/color]

are they dumbed down  ?

I don't think so.
I think they're versatile, able to accomodate almost any level of play on a given day.[/color]

[archie_struthers]

 

Pat...I think the use of width as a feature is fabulous , particularly if different angles dramatically improve green access....so I don't see your point in alluding to it relative to my posts....however many would consider it a form of dumbing down ...I'd think we agree in toto on this

As to architectural changes and green speeds.....the right speed is critical to balance playability and challenge....and the architect should consider this as they determine slope and roll of same....yet green speed , firmness of same has consistently challenged the expert player player more than increases in distance....so while technically not an architectural feature are you arguing it's superfluous to design considerations 

I think we agree that some great courses are sporty for daily play and can be tightened up for tournaments....I wouldn't count Pine Valley in that list...as it's not exactly a members course

LIke I said ....I enjoy playing Galloway because I''m slightly masochistic...but a daily dose of it probably doesn't work for the masses

In a nutshell....as to your last postulation ....aren't we agreeing again!

       one persons dumbing down is genius to another   

[John Moore II]

Archie--I think that anyone who considers the width of a design feature to be the dumbing down of a course is quite simply uneducated. Width is a key element in many designs and can provide penalty when shots are not hit properly, either real penalty, such as bunkering or water, or implied penalty, such as a poor line to the pin.
--Width is in no, way, shape, or form the dumbing down of a course.

[archie_struthers]

 


Ken...we agree as to width...the course I bulit is nothing if not wide...but does that make it too easy for many ....again  the whole concept of dumbing down is in the eye of the beholder

thanks for your imput ...I'm played out on this one

[Tom_Doak]

Archie:

My take is that there is plenty of room in the marketplace for a few courses which only very good players would enjoy.  But, I don't consider it "dumbing down" the architecture to try and make a course that's also playable for the masses and not quite so penal to the best players.

I know that Pine Valley is your ultimate model, but the Old Course at St. Andrews is another potential ideal, and I would hardly call it "dumbed down".

[John Moore II]

Tom-would you consider removing bunkers or other hazards on an existing course in order to make the course play wider (read easier) 'dumbing down?' I feel that it is.

[archie_struthers]

 


Tom.....I love Pine Valley for lots of reasons and obviously there is some fantastic architecture &  history there....it's not my ultimate model for a bunch of reasons...I rather fancy some of the intricacies of the bump and run and ground game as we found in our trip to Ireland recently as tje ultimate design

I guess I was being too tongue in cheek on my "dumbing down " queries, as it appears what is dumbing down to some may be strategic or intelligent to others....not real fond of  of  hazards that are in play for the weaker player and  don't even enter the thought process for the expert...if you get my drift

It's probably why I've enjoyed your greens ....some people don't even realize they've been had


stay cool


arch
 

[Tom_Doak]

Ken:

I'm not a big fan of taking out bunkers from others' designs to "streamline" play -- the original architect usually had a reason for putting those bunkers in to begin with, and just because some modern green chairman or architect disagrees with that reason doesn't make the bunker obsolete.

However, that doesn't mean I would put in all the same bunkers if I were designing a new course from scratch.


Archie:

I don't understand your reply.  I thought your original post referred to taking out hazards and making the course too easy and boring for somebody, but here you seemed to object to having hazards in play for the 15-handicaps.

[archie_struthers]

 


 ... I guess I've gotten way too cryptic...or senile ... or both lol

oh well

Tom I originally thought that reaction to the dumbing down of Bandon was an overreaction.....and postulated  that : wear....drainage issues....or improving pace of  play might have contributed to changes for the good ...what was perceived as dumbing down was just sound management practice  ....having only seen pictures of Bandon I couldn't really comment

but the whole concept of "dumbing down " intrigued me , as I strongly feel that the many of the  very best golf courses on earth seem to exhibit some tendencies that might be considered by many "dumbed down"

It stretches into the concept of flow ....where you need some ying and yang.... some easy some  difficult...that's what I was trying to convey to Pat Mucci , as for me Galloway National is kind of like this...if it was dumbed down it might be one of the best courses anywhere ...it's so close

Would the Boston Marathon be any good if you had 26 miles of Heartbreak Hill... I think not


there , I've said it better 

aloha all

 

[Tom_Doak]

Archie:  Thanks, now I understand. 

I agree with you, too.  Tom Simpson wrote about choosing eighteen holes for the "ideal course" in his book that no one would really want to play the Road hole at St. Andrews 18 times in a row, because it would be too unrelenting.  He suggested that there should be at least one or two holes which were fairly undemanding to provide contrast and relief.  At the same time, I think he knew that good players don't see these as relief, but as pressure to make a birdie when the opportunity is there.