[Jeff_Brauer]

This is hardly surprising and goes straight to the function and mission of the golf course.   One could argue that in today's consumer driven society, the golf course is merely another "thing" to be consumed, and as such valued based solely upon the enjoyment derived therefrom.  

One result is a inherent tension between economic feasibility and architectural relevance.  

Mike

  Good point. The consumer wants playability. Not many are going to pay money to get beat up by a golf course.

  Anthony

nonsense,
the golf consumer wants an interesting product.
That can acheived without "beating up" the golfer and be completely playable.

I think this series of posts captures the essence of this gentleman's comments pretty well.  So many of you have taken this to a black and white, extreme issue of "no challenge" vs. "tough golf."

We discuss "defending par" a lot here.  Maybe TD and other top designers do that, but its designing for the 1% of the golfers for whom this game is easy.  I think what this gent (and others) are saying is that golf is far more fun when you design to encourage bold play with features that help the "right" shot and punish gently enough that the golfer is encouraged to actually challenge the strategies that are out there.  That may not be so far off the GA era courses, really.

Oddly, this man said nothing about flat bunkers or even limiting them. In essence, make the targets big enough and then moderate hazards are okay.  Royal St. George No. 4 bunkers are presumably not!  (This is the one that troubles me and kind of started the discussion - I probably put in at least a few hard or unusual holes/features in every course that make golfers go "huh?" just to get them talking, but so many don't like to get out of the standardization zone)

His pithy summary made me wonder just how much the design paradigm has really shifted, not just from the GA to today, but whether it shifted too far to "great design" in the 90's "for the masses?" 

I believe it has, and I am not sure its all wrong. Why should design focus on penalty and defense rather than fun and achievement?  At least, for 99% of new designs?  And, think about where new designs are going these days - China for one, where they are sort of building golf courses as a bank for some hoped for influx of future beginning golfers?

Not that I question the desire to speak here of those top 1% of courses. We do all seem fixated on them and its more fun to talk the theory.  And, there is always room for a few difficult courses, since as I said, all golfers like to try new (to them) experiences and will play a tough course once in a while, explaining why Bandon, Kohler and others are successful.

But, as I review my designs, I think that I have gotten perhaps a little too far away from designing features for the people who pay the bills.

As to ANGC, its kind of interesting how people spin what Mac and Jones had in mind.  I think Jones probably wanted to avoid punishing average members AND he like smashing the driver, because he was among the best at it. 

[Paul Stephenson]

I was going to post this on its own thread, but it may fit better here.

I was watching The Spirit of Golf episode on Nicklaus this past weekend.  He was saying that he considered a course he designed successful if it was good for the client.  What he said next surprised me.  He said, "it may not be good for golf, but if it is good for the client and his business model, then it was a success."

These runway courses may not be good for golf, but if that's what people want, they're good for business.  And according to Jack successful.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

If that is what the consumer wants in this society of instant gratification and "no hard work" for reward philosphy...then give them what they want.
Fortunately for the rest of us who believe the game should be challenging and rewards only deserved, there have been architects and owners in the past who did not go with that phliosophy.

I cannot think of anything that would stop me from playing more than the type of course described by the "manager"

Why not just stay on the range?

But I agree that is part of the way the current generation think..they want to fool themselves into thniking their 72 is the same as a 72 on a real course.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Mike Young:

Rather than "sell to the masses... live the with classes", I thought of this old saying after reading Jeff's initial post:

"An architect should never lose sight of his responsibility as an educational factor in the game. Nothing will tend more surely to develop the right spirit of the game than an insistence upon the high ideals that should inspire sound golf architecture." - Wm. Flynn

Should golfers be educating architects? Or vice versa? Or some kinda combination of these two?

[jeffwarne]

Mike Young:

Rather than "sell to the masses... live the with classes", I thought of this old saying after reading Jeff's initial post:

"An architect should never lose sight of his responsibility as an educational factor in the game. Nothing will tend more surely to develop the right spirit of the game than an insistence upon the high ideals that should inspire sound golf architecture." - Wm. Flynn

Should golfers be educating architects? Or vice versa? Or some kinda combination of these two?

Good post Jeff.

Or why just have the "respected manager" design the course with an engineer and good construction guy?
Just be sure to build a good sized banquet facility

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I remember the first time I broke 80. It was on a fairly "easy" course in Florida. The slope was around 115 as compared to my former club's 134. I told the club pro about my round when I returned. He said, "You  still have to put the ball in the hole. Good for you."

I think the trend of "too difficult for the average golfer" public courses is hopefully over and that architects should design a course for the intended customer. Resort courses may be in a different category so the "wow factor" can attract more customers by word of mouth.

[Mark Kinney]

Jeff,

My first thought was what are the demographics of his club??
It sounds to me that he is either at a "Sun City" type club or the "Joe 6pack, cart ridin" club.



IMO, there is a place for this kind of design.  We need courses that are "friendly" to introduce players to the game.  Is this somewhere I would want to play?  NO, but I do understand that these courses are a small segment of the market.

[Mike Hendren]

Mike Young:

Rather than "sell to the masses... live the with classes", I thought of this old saying after reading Jeff's initial post:

"An architect should never lose sight of his responsibility as an educational factor in the game. Nothing will tend more surely to develop the right spirit of the game than an insistence upon the high ideals that should inspire sound golf architecture." - Wm. Flynn

Should golfers be educating architects? Or vice versa? Or some kinda combination of these two?

Jeff,  I'm still trying to figure out whether the Golden Age architects were intellectuals or bull sh#tters.  

Bogey

[Anthony Gray]

  Who is going to pay initiation fees or resort fees to play a frustrating round of golf? For a course to be financially successful it needs golfers.Great depth huh?

  Anthony

[Bill Shamleffer]

There are a lot of people waiting all night to play Bethpage Black.  So I guess those days are not yet completely over.

[Kalen Braley]

Dan,

I think there were a ton of teenage girls in the past ten years who fawned over everything that Ms. Hilton and her ilk exemplified.

But she is just an example of the mindset, the latest being the AIG execs who obviously felt quite entitled to millions in bonus money, despite the government handing them billions in bailout monies.

Mike,

Clearly you don't understand the hardships these execs are facing.  The guys need that bonus money to pay their mortgages for thier summer homes in the Hamptoms and lavish winter condos in Park City. Throw in all that pesky upkeep on thier fleet of exotic foreign cars and you can begin to see just how critical it was for these guys to get that extra bonus money.  And cmon, you can't expect these guys to give up thier monthly excursions to the Bahamas and Hawaii....thats just asking for too much sacrifice on thier part.

Sheez, no one seems to understand these days... 

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am more and more convinced its rarely possible to build a course that will please everybdy.

The wide fairway pleases and pampers the wild. What ever happened to rewarding the accurate tee shot. The game is about several distinct areas of skill...mix um up have some wider but golf design should never exclude some tough tee shots where straight gets a reward.

[Lester George]

Maybe they should play croquet instead of golf?

Lester

[Carl Johnson]

This is hardly surprising and goes straight to the function and mission of the golf course. . . .

One result is a inherent tension between economic feasibility and architectural relevance.  

Mike

 Good point. The consumer wants playability. Not many are going to pay money to get beat up by a golf course.

 Anthony

nonsense,
the golf consumer wants an interesting product.
That can acheived without "beating up" the golfer and be completely playable.

I think this series of posts captures the essence of this gentleman's comments pretty well.  So many of you have taken this to a black and white, extreme issue of "no challenge" vs. "tough golf."

We discuss "defending par" a lot here.  Maybe TD and other top designers do that, but its designing for the 1% of the golfers for whom this game is easy.  I think what this gent (and others) are saying is that golf is far more fun when you design to encourage bold play with features that help the "right" shot and punish gently enough that the golfer is encouraged to actually challenge the strategies that are out there.  That may not be so far off the GA era courses, really. . . .

"Wide fw (not for strategy - just allows golfers to bust a driver)
"Big Greens - to allow players to hit more greens in regulation rather than face chip shots
"Flat Greens - no tricks, ability to make a birdie on many holes if close enough to the pin
"Reasonable recovery shots, including chips.  Most players hate chips that "run away from them"
"Feeling comfortable off the tee
"No awkward shots where a tree blocks or forces a shot around."

Comments from an average recreational golfer.  The original list (immediately above) seems to read a little more black and white than "you design to encourage bold play with features that help the 'right' shot and punish gently enough that the golfer is encouraged to actually challenge the strategies that are out there."

The latter take on it is where I and my golfing friends would come from.  It seems to me the difficulty is designing a course that works at at about the same level of risk and reward for all abilities, professional, scratch amateur, the 10 handicapper, the 20, the old and weak, and so on.  It's got to be much easier to design appropriate risk-reward (keeping in mind that there is a downside to risk, of course -- something that many investors seem to have forgotten) features for just the professionals, or for just the 20 handicapers, but isn't the trick to design a course that works for everyone (ignoring the "what the owner wants" issue).  I've always thought that was fundamental.

I want a challenge at my skill level.  I don't like chips that run away either, but for that reason I try not to put myself in a position where that happens.  If I screw up, well, I pay the price of a much more difficult shot.  This may sound like a naieve response, but I don't think the issue is that difficult.

One more thought.  As a new member I've missed the frequent discussions of defending par.  I'm going to go back a try to find some of those.  As a lay golfer, the whole idea of "defending par" has always puzzled me.  As I see it, it's just an artificial construct.  In medal play the player with the lowest total score wins.  In match play, the player with the lowest hole on the score wins.  I will say, however, that the under/over approach is useful in keeping track of the professionals' relative positions in weekly televised golf matches.  It's otherwise useful as a reference, too, but no more than that.  Again, probably naieve.

[Anthony Gray]

There are a lot of people waiting all night to play Bethpage Black.  So I guess those days are not yet completely over.

  Are they going to choose it to be there home course? What other courses do they have acess to? PRICE? Would they pay 400 to play it?

  Anthony

[Mike_Cirba]

I think this series of posts captures the essence of this gentleman's comments pretty well.  So many of you have taken this to a black and white, extreme issue of "no challenge" vs. "tough golf."

Jeff,

I think that's a reaction to the black and white statement "Those Days Are Over!", as if this type of bowling alley course is the only viable option in modern times.

It reflects a thinking that many of us find objectionable, quite obviously. 

[JMEvensky]

If that is what the consumer wants in this society of instant gratification and "no hard work" for reward philosphy...then give them what they want.
Fortunately for the rest of us who believe the game should be challenging and rewards only deserved, there have been architects and owners in the past who did not go with that phliosophy.

I cannot think of anything that would stop me from playing more than the type of course described by the "manager"

Why not just stay on the range?

But I agree that is part of the way the current generation think..they want to fool themselves into thniking their 72 is the same as a 72 on a real course.

I agree with this.

I would question this manager's definition of "good" golfer.I guess I'm lucky in that I frequently play with golfers who are "good" by anyone's definition and,to a man,they would find this type of golf course very boring.

[Philippe Binette]

With this description:

"Wide fw (not for strategy - just allows golfers to bust a driver)
"Big Greens - to allow players to hit more greens in regulation rather than face chip shots
"Flat Greens - no tricks, ability to make a birdie on many holes if close enough to the pin
"Reasonable recovery shots, including chips.  Most players hate chips that "run away from them"
"Feeling comfortable off the tee
"No awkward shots where a tree blocks or forces a shot around."

Why would you want to play golf ?
Might as well just sit in your backyard and watch the grass grow... nothing will happen to you doing that!!!



From another perspective since it's obvious the GM is asking for an easier game,
should the average player play a 5500 yards golf course... He'll hit more greens, be closer from the pin and would be able to avoid trouble

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I think there are "horses for courses" for golf. Not every course should present a "challenge" to the "skilled golfer" and the average "weekend player" doesn't want or need a "challenge." See my thread on "It's not a CCFAD but..."

Private clubs and resort courses are different.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Mike Young:

Rather than "sell to the masses... live the with classes", I thought of this old saying after reading Jeff's initial post:

"An architect should never lose sight of his responsibility as an educational factor in the game. Nothing will tend more surely to develop the right spirit of the game than an insistence upon the high ideals that should inspire sound golf architecture." - Wm. Flynn

Should golfers be educating architects? Or vice versa? Or some kinda combination of these two?

Jeff,  I'm still trying to figure out whether the Golden Age architects were intellectuals or bull sh#tters.  

Bogey

Let me know what you find out, Bogey 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think this series of posts captures the essence of this gentleman's comments pretty well.  So many of you have taken this to a black and white, extreme issue of "no challenge" vs. "tough golf."

Jeff,

I think that's a reaction to the black and white statement "Those Days Are Over!", as if this type of bowling alley course is the only viable option in modern times.

It reflects a thinking that many of us find objectionable, quite obviously. 

Mike,

That's just it.  A receptive course that allows a level of scoring comparable to a golfers normal score DOES NOT NEED TO BE A BOWLING ALLEY.  That is a too black and white statement, seemingly saying that unless a design is tough, its crap.

In reality, most designs need to be somewhere in between.  We can design little subtle strategies in courses, or tournament level challenges, sure, but most golfers don't realize them. Most golfers don't use them.  They have more fun with the bombs away game.  For that matter, their skill level is such that missing a green causes a bogey.  Just how much higher a score does the architecture need to force?  

And, for that matter is this anything different than what Mac said?  Or is there any doubt that courses should be designed with an array of difficulties?

Its also related to the PGA Tour argument.  Why do some of us want to keep their scores high?  Why is the Tour stance that these guys are good and should make birdie so wrong to some?  It also begs the question of "should there ever be a shot that cannot be played successfully?" (barring recovery shots from deep in the woods, etc.) What fun is it to be put in a spot where you have no shot at making a good shot?

I agree golf would be no fun with a condescending challenge, i.e., too easy a course.  But, this gent is good enough to play in State Am tournaments and doesn't want roll overs.  He just doesn't need to be embarrassed by shooting a 90.  He doesn't think design should incorporate a shot that is beyond his capabilities to pull off perhaps 70% of the time.  Nor does he like many (if any) real knuckle whiteners such as 200 yard carries over gulches or ponds.  If he can't handle them, who can? 

He has pretty strong, but typical views of what is the "right kind" of challenges and that includes challenge, but reasonable chance of success, and not overly severe penalty.

Again I ask, shouldn't design allow a reasonable chance of success with well played shots?
Shouldn't design avoid piling up high scores with poorly played shots?  Who benefits from that?
Shouldn't design encourage bold play by making penalties something less than the death penalty?
What is wrong for designing for fun - i.e., allowing the golfer who is on to make plenty of birdies (or pars for lesser players)  Is that so wrong for most courses, most holes?

And again, its a percentage thing - we all seem to talk in terms of tournament courses here, and they capture our attention.  But does a course with tournament challenge work every day for the every day player?  Bethpage, Bandon, etc. make their living on tourists looking for something different a few times a year, no?  Not saying there is no room for those.

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff,  the pendulum swings and swings back.  Ever think of the relationship of the average chop and tour player?  Yrs ago, there was more parity - I mean a closer relationship between the two's game.  The pro's were just more consistent - ie. Cory Pavin - not long but accurate.  So chops wanted courses that  resembled  what they saw on tv.   

Today, there is no longer a relationship.  The pros play an altogether different game, Remeber when Jemsel used to get a premium for letting guys play Cog on Monday with it setup exactly like Sunday?  Who wants to pay extrra thesedays to play Cog at 7500 yds.  It's not relevent.

So if you take that premise, perhaps todays chop is no longer pretending and just wants to have the opportunity to play half way decent.  Putting 2 good shots together on one hole is a major accomplishment for most golfers.  I played Harborside with a member of 2 local clubs.  Thunderstorm on #9 and we had to come in. I asked if he wanted to bag it  or wait it out.  He said "are you kidding? I'm playing great - I've hit every fairway!!!" 

To those decrying this manager, it seems to me that if you had a fairway that was 50 yds wide but got progressively mor rumpled the further from the line of charm, the same golfers in  question would probably be just fine.  The could A)find there ball, B)it was in the fairway, & C) nothing was blocking their next shot. 

I have found that if the golfer ends up in a bad situationoff the tee it's our fault (Archie) but if he finds himself in a bad situation because he missed the green, he'll take responsibility for that.

[Richard Choi]

Here is the way I see it...

Golf courses are like restaurants. There few very highly rated restaurants that serve exotic cuisine (like sea urchin, bone marrow, foie gras, etc.) with high prices. These restaurants are revered by the foodies and critics alike.

However, most people never visit those places since their palate is not that sophisticated and they prefer "comfort" over "exotic". So these people eat much of their dining out meals at McDonalds or Applebees.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Not everything has to be great and not everything has to be "accessible".

Seems to me, many of the points brought up are consistent with GCA philosophy like wide fairways, big greens, reasonable recovery shots (not nothing but high rough around the greens), and no trees. It is just a question of degrees, not philosphy.

I think it will be great if "accessible" golf courses followed these philosophy, even if it means flat greens. Because this will ingrain many of the great architecture aspects to general golfing public who may know nothing but tree-lined fairways with small (and flat) greens.

Once these philosophies are adopted, the main difference between these courses and "great" courses like Pacific Dunes will be just a level of severity (more sloped fairways, more sloped greens) and strategy which will be much easier to accept and adopt to for larger population of golfers.

I see more positives than negatives on this trend.

[Philippe Binette]

One thing here...

Never, ever cut on design quality...

A good design is not necessarily tough, but it must be smart and fun...

Take North Berwick West Links, it is not a difficult course overall, there are some difficult shot to get close, but they won't kill you if you make a mistake (16th green come to mind, nobody hits this green in regulation, but if you miss you are on the short grass).

but its design is phenomenal... just like restaurants... most highly price places are pretentious, overrated and overly complicated. But you can go out, find a small place, average price that serves fresh quality produce in a simple presentation, include a nice glass of wine and you've got the perfect dinner.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phillipe - a good point. Design Quality is not designed in toughness. It might be designed in interest. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()