The modern period of design is dead.

[BCrosby]

Melvyn -

Having a bottomless appetite for courteous debate, I unfortunately agree with pretty much everything in your post.

Bob 

[Thomas MacWood]

Golf architecture is cyclical. I predict the designs of RTJ and Dick Wilson will come back in vogue some day. Today you have restoration architects who specialize in restoring Ross and others, some time in the near future there will be restoration specialists for Jones and Wilson.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wonder if the next era of gca will actually be defined by courses that have given up on appealing to everyone.  That is, no more six tee, 7600 yard courses, but more senior length courses in senior communities, junior length courses for munis (or second muni in a city that already has a full size course, 6900 yard max in housing developments for men and families, and 7600 yards or whatever max (and maybe only) for TPC and other tournament specific courses.

As always, just a thought. But, that would be a signifigant change in mindset, more signifigant than shaggy bunkers and the like.

[Pat Brockwell]

Tom, I agree about the cyclical nature of design, in fact cycles are one of nature's favorite habits.  I prefer to see design cycles not as coming full circle, but as an upward spiral, each twist building on the one below and evolving upward.  I like more and more of what I see coming out. 

[Doug Siebert]

I wonder if the next era of gca will actually be defined by courses that have given up on appealing to everyone.  That is, no more six tee, 7600 yard courses, but more senior length courses in senior communities, junior length courses for munis (or second muni in a city that already has a full size course, 6900 yard max in housing developments for men and families, and 7600 yards or whatever max (and maybe only) for TPC and other tournament specific courses.

As always, just a thought. But, that would be a signifigant change in mindset, more signifigant than shaggy bunkers and the like.

I could certainly see senior length courses in retirement communities, and perhaps also for munis.  I don't know why in the world you see 7000+ yard courses in places like "The Villages" anyway!  But aside from saving money by limiting the length of the course and therefore its land and maintenance cost I think there's zero chance we'll see courses forgo the opportunity to have shorter tees than the max -- particularly on tournament courses because they would give up too much business from the TV watching crowd who wants to play where the pros play (but in many cases not from where the pros play)

Its one thing to have a course with some recommendations or limitations on who can play from the tips, its another thing entirely to have only the tips and apply those recommendations or limitations to the entire course.  Think about the golfers you see teeing off at Pebble Beach, Harbor Town, TPC Sawgrass, etc. because they saw it on TV and want to play it for themselves.  Are they really going to come out to a Whistling Straits knowing they have to play it at 7600+ yards?  For all the complaints about slow play being partly caused by guys playing too far back, I think they'd lose at least 3/4 of their play if the tips were the only tees there, and it'd be a miserable experience that guaranteed no return visit for many who did play as they'd be completely unable to handle a course of that length.  Even many of those for whom the tips at Harbor Town would be no trouble.

One thing you won't see is courses artificially limiting their target demographic unless it is saving them more than it costs them.

[Rick Shefchik]

Golf architecture is cyclical. I predict the designs of RTJ and Dick Wilson will come back in vogue some day. Today you have restoration architects who specialize in restoring Ross and others, some time in the near future there will be restoration specialists for Jones and Wilson.

I'm sure that's true -- in the same way that my son is buying vintage '70s clothes on eBay that I wouldn't be caught dead wearing then, or now.

[Melvyn Morrow]

The modern period of design is dead – if only that was true and we could kill of the need for long courses.

What on earth is the attraction for 7,600 or 8,000 yard courses?

For me the attraction of playing is down to the challenge of the course not the distance. The whole of modern golf is revolving around distance. From the lengths of course, to knowing the exact distance from the hole, to the extent that some of you guys have a problem if you try and play without this information.

Distance craving is IMHO becoming the actual root of all evil in golf. Don’t believe me then ask Robert Warren how he played recently without using distance information and he may confirm that it hurt his score. That is not to say he can’t play because he can, it’s just his mindset is on distance, not gauged from his eyes but from outside info. Stop that outside information and he is unable to naturally judge distance through his eyes. The analogy is clear to me in that its take time for the body to regain control, as with drugs, drink, etc. But distance information is proving to be an addiction that when a player tries to play without them, his score is affected.  (No disrespect intended Robert).

I hope that after all this turmoil in the world (both financial and environmental) is resolved the Governing Bodies of Golf finally wake up to the ills of our contemporary (modern) golf. Hopefully starting with distance and introducing a new ball that may combat this problem. Well that would be a good reason to start a new age of GCA.

’The modern period of design is dead’? No,  because many still believe that Big is everything, yet IMHO they totally miss what golf is all about and what architects for the last 150 years have strived to achieve.

[Scott Macpherson]

Melvyn, you are keen historian of the game. You will know therefore that the increasing 'power of the ball' has been effecting the length of golf courses for a long time (really since 1902) so it is hard to argue it as being only during the modern period. Though of course, it is still a big factor today in the courses being built.

Here's an interesting and out of date quote from Harry Colt for you; 'It will probably be agreed that most of the interesting courses are not much longer than 6,300 yards in total length...' 1920. 

regards,

scott

[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

I look at the ball as being the starting point to try and standardise the game. Of course other factors come into play. Yet the real magic is the ability to maintain consistence through the years noting than any improvements are solely down to experience and skill and not resulting from improved technology. The ability to monitor one progress on the same course over the years is also part of my game and perhaps one reason why I like many others retain their old scorecards.

I look back over the last 40 years or so and realise that age is becoming a factor in my game. However I like to believe that my improvements over the years are down to understanding the game and improved skill levels. But with age comes experience, and if I am to be honest I realise that my performance in latter years has been maintained in part by the equipment. I would dearly love to take full credit for my performance but with receding gray hair line comes the forced reality and ultimately (I hope) the wisdom that other outside influences are also at work.

I would like to see a complete overhaul and standardisation of the equipment i.e. ball & clubs, perhaps to the point of limiting the clubs to a specific number. In other words let technology work to maintain the game within a set of parameters. One day I might be lucky and see the game evolve, but that takes real passion which should not be confused with self-interest. That Spirit seems to be missing in our Governing Bodies. 

In reality not much has really changes over the years, voices against change and ball technology, as can be seen by the attached two newspaper clips – sorry about the poor copies.


[

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wonder if the next era of gca will actually be defined by courses that have given up on appealing to everyone.  That is, no more six tee, 7600 yard courses, but more senior length courses in senior communities, junior length courses for munis (or second muni in a city that already has a full size course, 6900 yard max in housing developments for men and families, and 7600 yards or whatever max (and maybe only) for TPC and other tournament specific courses.

As always, just a thought. But, that would be a signifigant change in mindset, more signifigant than shaggy bunkers and the like.

I could certainly see senior length courses in retirement communities, and perhaps also for munis.  I don't know why in the world you see 7000+ yard courses in places like "The Villages" anyway!  But aside from saving money by limiting the length of the course and therefore its land and maintenance cost I think there's zero chance we'll see courses forgo the opportunity to have shorter tees than the max -- particularly on tournament courses because they would give up too much business from the TV watching crowd who wants to play where the pros play (but in many cases not from where the pros play)

Its one thing to have a course with some recommendations or limitations on who can play from the tips, its another thing entirely to have only the tips and apply those recommendations or limitations to the entire course.  Think about the golfers you see teeing off at Pebble Beach, Harbor Town, TPC Sawgrass, etc. because they saw it on TV and want to play it for themselves.  Are they really going to come out to a Whistling Straits knowing they have to play it at 7600+ yards?  For all the complaints about slow play being partly caused by guys playing too far back, I think they'd lose at least 3/4 of their play if the tips were the only tees there, and it'd be a miserable experience that guaranteed no return visit for many who did play as they'd be completely unable to handle a course of that length.  Even many of those for whom the tips at Harbor Town would be no trouble.

One thing you won't see is courses artificially limiting their target demographic unless it is saving them more than it costs them.

Doug,

I agree any tournament venues would have to have multiple tees, because they are shooting for an international audience playing them.  As for other courses, with water and costs, I could see them easily saying they don't need to appeal to the less than 1% of players who want to play the back tees.

Case in point, my course in Myrtle Beach reports about 50 players in 5 years played the tees at 7250 yards.  With all the mowing, fertilization, etc. going on do you think they spent more than the 10 green fees per year that they got from those tees if they totaled $800?

I did say it would be a major shift change in thinking!