Has golf's previous expanding popularity been repsonsible for

[Patrick_Mucci]

attracting the masses, which in turn might have caused the dumbing down of the architecture, which may have led to the down turn in golf's popularity ?

Has the need/attempt to appeal to every level of golfer been an architectural negative or a positive ?

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,
My first impression is that the expanding popularity occurred around the time that better courses were being created (late 1990's into this decade). However, some of those better courses were also being created before golf's upswing in popularity.

Certainly there have been many mediocre courses built during that time as well, but I'm not sure I'd be able to make a strong case in either direction.

[Chris Kane]

Patrick, I can't speak for the courses you play in the American northeast, but when Mackenzie built Royal Melbourne, he asked for a list of the member's ages and handicaps.  He  succeeded in building a course which appeals to every level of golfer.

To say that "attracting the masses...caused the dumbing down of the architecture" is extraordinarily elitist, but you might be right.

I'm not so sure that the dumbing down of architecture has led to the downturn in golf's popularity.   I suspect other factors might be more responsible for that trend.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Kane,

I wonder, if we made a pie chart, how much of the down turn would be devoted to legal, permitting, environmental, COLA, CTC, time to play and other factors.

I hear so many complain that the great majority of public courses don't offer much in the way of exciting architecture, therefore I wonder how much each element contributes to that.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Pat,

Can you cite any new "dumbed down" public courses in NJ, NY or PA?

Certainly not KBM's Morgan Hill or Lederach in PA or Archie Struthers Twisted Dune in NJ.

[Cliff Hamm]

In the last couple weeks two wonderful public venues have announced their closing - Waverly Oaks  in Massachusetts and Beechtree. These are not "dumbed down architecture" and are playable by the masses.

[Jim Sweeney]

A chicken and egg question!

Let's first eliminate private clubs from the question since they are not built "for the masses."

That leaves us with municipal and privately owned dailey fees and resorts.

Now, my experience may be limited, but my observation is that the most active of the public access courses I see are the value priced courses ($40.00 and under in my neck of the woods) which are generally 1) older, that is built before 1980 and go back to the 20's and 2) of little architectural interest. Conversly, the courses that are struggleing are the newer, upscale, more expensive courses designed by popular golf course architects.

My conclusion is that people are willing play less interesting courses if the price is right. The reasons for the stagnation of the numbers of rounds played are (IMO, in order), family responsibilities (time), cost, and difficulty.

If public course owners/operators were less interested in architectural interest and more interested in presenting courses that reflected the average golf skills of the masses, that could be played in under four hours, and could operate at around $40.00 of revenue per golfer, the numbers of golfers and rounds played would increase.

[Jim Sweeney]

Cliff:

Isn't Waverly Oaks closing because the property is being developed for another use, not because of the golf market, i.e., the property became too valuable to keep as a golf course?

[Cliff Hamm]

Jim...That's accurate.  A movie studio, of all things, has bought the property and from the Beechtree thread real estate is the reason for that course's closing.  Just tried to point out that courses of architectural merit are closing and that appealing to the masses has not hurt architecture.  If anything the last 20 years have been a renaissance for the public golfer, but as you stated the cost has significantly risen....  I agree with your analysis that the value priced courses seem to be doing the best.  If anything the typical golfer does not appreciate the better designs and also is not willing to pay the price.  Price, pace of play and the difficulty of the game are the real culprits.

[Tim Bert]

Chris Kane,

I hear so many complain that the great majority of public courses don't offer much in the way of exciting architecture, therefore I wonder how much each element contributes to that.

Who are these people that say these things?  I hear comments like that from the minority of golfers like those of us here that have a specific interest in the architectural aspect of golf.  I honestly can't remember anyone ever complaining about boring or dumbed down architecture outside of those that I know from this forum.

Conditioning complaints - yes.  Architecture complaints - no.

Please take the original question for the way it was intended.  Sincere interest.  I don't know any of these people, and I'd like to know who they are.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Sweeney,

You mentioned a critical factor that I left off, unintentionally.

Family responsibilities.

It's a different world today versus 50 years ago, culturally and in terms of leisure time availability.

Gone are the days when a father could leave early Sat and Sun morning to play golf all day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Can you cite any new "dumbed down" public courses in NJ, NY or PA?

Certainly not KBM's Morgan Hill or Lederach in PA or Archie Struthers Twisted Dune in NJ.

Steve,

That's only two courses in two STATES.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cliff:

Isn't Waverly Oaks closing because the property is being developed for another use, not because of the golf market, i.e., the property became too valuable to keep as a golf course?

You could say that about almost any and every golf course.

The highest possible use value exceeds that of its present value as a golf course.

[John Moore II]

Pat--my question would be, has the architecture itself really dumbed down or are there simply more courses that do not have great architecture? Are courses today really worse that before? Are the Golfweek top 5 modern courses really THAT much worse than the top 5 classic? Having only seen any of them in pictures, I can't say.

Another way to look at it is to take a random sampling of maybe 10 courses built prior to perhaps 1940 (Golden Age) and compare them to 10 courses built after maybe 1990. My guess would be that each set averages out the same. Not to mention, many of the less good Golden Age courses may have closed over the years.

I think that the quality (or lack thereof) has not decreased, there are just more courses being built, and with more being built, simple math says that there will be more courses built that are mediocre and below average (there will also be more very good and great courses built as well, so that needs to be looked at)

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,

Can you cite any new "dumbed down" public courses in NJ, NY or PA?

Certainly not KBM's Morgan Hill or Lederach in PA or Archie Struthers Twisted Dune in NJ.

Steve,

That's only two courses in two STATES.

Patrick,
Its also two more courses than you've cited as examples of "dumbed down" architecture per Steve's question.

In any case, why would dumbed down courses do anything other than convince people to make an effort to play the better courses (perhaps the ones Steve mentioned in those areas)? A poor new course shouldn't convince a golfer not to play golf; they could continue to play wherever they played before the new course opened.

Are you referring more to changes to previously existing courses, that would seem to be more what you're suggesting?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

Probably some of both.

I can recall an architect elimating a unique feature because he feared that some idiot would ride his cart up on its gentle side and crash off its steeper side.   Legal issues seem to mute or eliminate quirky architecture.

Architecture that's interesting and/or challenging, that slows down pace of play is often eliminated, be it deep bunkers or other features.

Environmental constraints have and will continue to have a substantive effect.  Water hazards, have to be given a wide birth, removing them from close play.  That's certainly a factor in dumbing down the architecture

I've heard so many people, especially on this site, including the "Emporer" Tommy Naccarato, complain about Sandpines, and the perceived dumbing down of the architecture.  Ted Robinson's courses were panned as well as many others.

Steve Shaffer,

Just today someone brought up Twisted Dunes, which I liked, but, others have stated that its a manufactured course, unnatural and contrived.
If anything, I liked its quirkiness.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Troeger,

The dumbing down of existing courses is indisputable.

But, newer architecture in general is more risk adverse in terms of quirkiness and design.

Perhaps it's legal issues, speed of play, appealing to a broader spectrum, cost of maintainance, etc., etc..

 

[John Moore II]

Pat--are you asking a question about do newly constructed courses suffer from dumbed down design as opposed to older designs or do older designs get 'renovated' in order to make them 'easier' for play?

My answer to the first part of that (if thats what you are asking) is above.

My answer to the second part is yes, bunkers are filled, green contours are flattened and the like on older courses, though GENERALLY these courses where that happens are not exactly the cream of the Golden Age courses.

I, personally, have nothing against a course that handles 40-50K rounds a year (if open 12 months, 20-25k if open 6) taking away certain design features in order to expedite play. Reasons 1) its not likely this course is some true gem 2) its possible that without removing some things, they will have to raise rates which will cause them to lose play, and MAY, in this current economy, eventually cause them to shut down. To me, closing for good is far worse than simply taking away a bunker. Now, if a course regarded to be a very good/great course wants to move bunkers and change contours for the sake of maybe 10k member rounds or something like that, I feel that that is a foolish reason for doing so (though I also, as I've said on here before, feel that its well within their rights as OWNERS of the property to do whatever they please with what they own)

[Andy Troeger]

Andy Troeger,

The dumbing down of existing courses is indisputable.

But, newer architecture in general is more risk adverse in terms of quirkiness and design.

Perhaps it's legal issues, speed of play, appealing to a broader spectrum, cost of maintainance, etc., etc..

 

Patrick,
Some classic courses had more sophisticated architecture than others; some of today's courses are anything "dumbed down." The majority of courses of both time periods likely were not anything this group would consider architecturally significant.

Some architects today admittedly dislike quirk, and have the equipment and budgets to eliminate it. However, quirk is available if one wants to find it. I'd argue the past few years have probably seen more good quirky designs than most periods in the last 50 years. Heck, the last Nicklaus design I've seen (credit to design associate Chris Cochran) at Cougar Canyon in Colorado had something like 3-4 blind or partially blind approach shots. Great stuff!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I think Palmer, Woods, and to lesser degrees, Trevino, Nicklaus, Watson, and Daley have brought people to golf, not the architecture.

Most courses in the 1960's were either very good private clubs or very dumbed down munis, with not much in between. I would argue that today's upscale publics have much better architecture than what existed when Palmer started the first wave of golfers anyone here can recall.  My Dad was brought into the game by Sam Snead.....

I also question how much interest there ever was in architecture or how it affected the game. I recall being thrilled to find Winds article in Golf Digest, and another by Gary Player on what makes good architecture.  I may have missed some, but I don't recall any  other architecture articles in GD or Golf when I became interested in golf design in 1967 until I left for landscape architectures school in 1973.  I recall sending for every article on golf architecture that the NGF had and all of them coming in one manilla envelope.

So basically, the golfing masses then and now were concerned about how to hit it five yards further, not about architecture.

[Sean_A]

Of course, Jeff is correct.  Folks on this site are freaks of the golfing world.  I don't know a soul outside of this site who is interested in gca.  Most are concerned with their score, having a relaxing time and or socializing.  Paying attention to the gca is way down the list of priorities - and these folks are members of clubs.  Publinxers just accept what is in front of them and hope they get home without too much money missing from their pockets. 

However, non of this means gca hasn't been dumbed down - though I don't know if this is the case or not.  If anything, I would be inclined to say that many more tough courses are built these days than in golden age days.  Distance, water, bunkers & oob (due to housing) seem to be more prevalent, but then again, I don't really play enough new courses to know for sure.  In fact, its quite odd, The Road and Lederach are two of the very few new courses I have played in the past several years and they are as good if not better than a whole raft of classic courses and I couldn't say the gca has been dumbed down at all.  They mainly use classic principles with a twist of the odd heroic/penal shot here and there (moreso with the The Road).  Its good stuff.

What I will say is that gca is less subtle these days and that is a bad thing.  It seems folks aren't happy unless they can see clearly the problems that lie ahead and to a certain degree I am guilty of this myself.  However, this trend has building ever since Colt came on the scene and was willing to "enhance" grade level stuff to mke it more attractive and often more interesting.  Unfortunately, this means that the subtle stuff has virtually been tossed aside by the time we get up to my lifetime. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick -

If we equate the golfing "masses" to the golfing "consumers" (which isn't a stretch in this context, I don't think); and if, in turn, the "consumer golfer" is synonymous with the "retail golfer" (and I think a case can be made that it is), then at least one developer/client has counted heavily on the existence of the "masses" to make his golfing destination a huge success, and I don't think I've read anyone who has played the courses at Bandon suggest that Pacific, Bandon, and Trails are dumbed-down architecture, or that Old Macdonald will be.

So I guess my answer would be "no".

Peter   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

Of course, Jeff is correct.  Folks on this site are freaks of the golfing world.  I don't know a soul outside of this site who is interested in gca.  Most are concerned with their score, having a relaxing time and or socializing.  Paying attention to the gca is way down the list of priorities - and these folks are members of clubs.  Publinxers just accept what is in front of them and hope they get home without too much money missing from their pockets. [/b]

You seem to be stating that the architecture of the golf course is irrelevant.

I've heard others, directly and indirectly state the same.

Why are golfers attracted to, and travel long distances to Sand Hills, Wild Horse, Bandon, Kohler, Pinehurst, etc., etc ?

Why is there a flight to quality architecture when it comes to joining clubs ?

Why do the rankings get such notoriety and debate ?

If the architecture is irrelevant why aren't mediocre to poorly designed courses charging $ 500 per round, ala Pebble Beach ?

Why do people travel across the country to come to Bandon, Sand Hills, Pine Valley, etc., etc. ?

[Adam Clayman]

Patrick -

If we equate the golfing "masses" to the golfing "consumers" (which isn't a stretch in this context, I don't think); and if, in turn, the "consumer golfer" is synonymous with the "retail golfer" (and I think a case can be made that it is), then at least one developer/client has counted heavily on the existence of the "masses" to make his golfing destination a huge success, and I don't think I've read anyone who has played the courses at Bandon suggest that Pacific, Bandon, and Trails are dumbed-down architecture, or that Old Macdonald will be.

So I guess my answer would be "no".


Peter   

An excellent response.

Pat's question needed to be asked back in 1983.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I think the answer to your question lies in the fact that there are enough golfers to fly to Bandon, et. al once every few years and keep those -- and other resorts full.  Yes golfers like to play different places.

But why didn't you ask why they are willing to fly to Myrtle Beach, which I will presume for arguments sake that most here don't believe has equal architecture to Bandon.  Its not the architecture per se, but the desire to play a new cousre, have comraderie (i.e. a buddy trip) at least I think.  Sure golfers appreciate BD, but probably MOST for the ocean and the different look than any subtleties they might not notice in infrequent play.

As to joining clubs, there are probably as many reasons as there are members.  Where to join is a mix of convenience, cost, friends who are members, business contacts and appreciation of the course, probably in that order.