90% of all Courses

[Mike_Young]

I have never been called a dude.....you mean like in the Big Labowski?

[Kalen Braley]

I think its time for Mr. Tom Paul to make an appearance and reacquaint all of you with the Big World Theory!! 

[Ben Sims]

Mike,

Or "El Duderino" if you're not into the brevity thing.

[Andy Troeger]

After giving this more thought the number of very basic courses is higher than I give it credit for.

In New Mexico I think there are about 80 courses. Out of those courses, there are perhaps 20 that are "good" or better. There might be another 20 that are decent public courses that one could enjoy playing, and the other 40 are basic golf.

Someone could make an argument that there are only 8 courses (10%) in the state that anyone would travel here to play. I'd happily return to more than 8 of the courses I've played, but I doubt that I'd make a signficant effort for more than 15.

[Tim Gavrich]

When I think of "pure garbage" as far as golf courses go, I think of a golf course that I would never want to play again if at all possible.  I can safely say that fewer than 10% of the golf courses that I've ever played are "pure garbage."  Maybe that makes me a golf course architecture simpleton; I don't know.

Consider this also: if only 10% of all golf courses aren't "pure garbage" and there are 13,000 courses in the US, then there are 1,300 worthy courses in the US.  That's only 13 times the size of the GolfDigest Top 100 list.  Not a big number at all.

What percentage of the lucky relative few courses that aren't "pure garbage" are fully private?  I'd estimate that the figure is probably higher than 75%.  I wonder how many of those private clubs' memberships would allow Joe the Plumber, who has never had the good fortune to play one of the worthy courses the chance to see what non-"pure garbage" golf course architecture is about.  I think that that would be a great thing if possible.  There's no better way to enlighten someone about great golf course architecture than by letting them experience it firsthand.  It would raise people's standards and could only lead to better courses moving forward.

[Peter Pallotta]

After giving this more thought the number of very basic courses is higher than I give it credit for.

In New Mexico I think there are about 80 courses. Out of those courses, there are perhaps 20 that are "good" or better. There might be another 20 that are decent public courses that one could enjoy playing, and the other 40 are basic golf.

Someone could make an argument that there are only 8 courses (10%) in the state that anyone would travel here to play. I'd happily return to more than 8 of the courses I've played, but I doubt that I'd make a signficant effort for more than 15.

But Andy, couldn't one just as easily make the argument that 40 of those courses (or 50%) are either good or at least fun to play, and that the remaining 50% (the 40 courses you describe as basic golf) are not inherently garbage (a harsh word, that) if for no other reason than that they serve a very useful and important function as 'feeder" courses - places where people can learn (and learn to enjoy) the game at what is presumably an affordable price, thereby becoming potential customers for the better courses one day?

Peter

[Andy Troeger]

Peter,
Absolutely--I phrased them as "basic golf" instead of garbage for that reason. Most of them are in VERY isolated communities--if I happened to live in Hobbs, NM and wanted to play golf I'd probably be grateful to have that municipal course there. Same for Silver City, Deming, etc.

I'm not sure about the "feeder" bit because its New Mexico--it might be the only game in town. But, in other areas that certainly occurs. New Mexico certainly doesn't qualify as a golf mecca either, even if the trail of public courses in the Albuquerque/Santa Fe area is well worth the visit.

[Donnie Beck]

Tim,

I think we both know Connecticut Golf well enough to use as an example. Off the top of my head I think there are around 400 courses in CT. Do you honestly feel there are more than 40 courses worthy of any architectural merit?

[Peter Pallotta]

Andy - thanks. I'll tell you why I'm arguing this point: it's because one of the main things this site (and an interest in and study of gca) has given me is a new set of eyes -- a set of eyes that now sees interesting architectural features and options and challenges on even the humblest and most modest of golf courses. In other words, since joing this site, I'm finding MORE good golf courses around, not less.  Tom D notes that maybe 50% of all golf courses could be "dramatically improved" -- and who am I to disagree with him. But I think that's a different question/issue.

Peter

[Andy Troeger]

Peter,
I agree. See my original reply (#3 above) as its fairly similar. I'm fortunate in that most of the courses I play would be considered above average, but there's very few that didn't have something going for them. Even the ones that would be considered basic golf.

[Mark Pearce]

There's a few of us need to take a reality check.  Do we expect the majority of houses or apartment blocks to have the architectural quality of St Paul's Cathedral?  Houses are built to live in, very few to be excellent works of architecture.  If 10% of golf courses are interesting to us (and I think the figure is much higher than that, at least in the UK) then that's a pretty good strike rate against building architecture.


An architect has done his job in most cases if the house he designs is pleasant to lve in (for whoever is expected to live there) and doesn't offend against the eye.  Similarly, if Joe 6 pack (as you guys seem to call him) enjoys his round of golf, the course is fine.  It's where a course is claimed to have architectural merit and falls short that I have an issue.  That doesn't happen with a local muni but with resorts and new private courses.  But I don't think 90% of those are rubbish.

[Sean_A]

After reading the "New Kid" thread it occurred to me that the reason he has never understood Architecture is because 90% of all courses are PURE GARBAGE and should have never been built in the first place. No offense to the GCA's on here but what other profession can have a 90% failure rate and still survive? Fortunately for them the majority of golfers don't know good architecture from bad and just want to brag to their buddies at work about how much it cost to join their fancy little country club. Then they go and spend Millions of dollars on maintenance costs every year and while their poor Superintendent is pulling his hair out trying to figure out how to keep the greens alive and rolling at 11 with the grove of oak trees surrounding 15 of his 18 greens. It is probably a good thing that more golfers don't know anything about architecture or the state of Golf in this country would be fair worse than it already is.

Donnie

90% rubbish? I would probably flip that around and say 90% of courses are not rubbish - though I know that isn't a very meaningful statement, but it does make the point.  Each course has a target market and if that market is satisfied, then fair enough.  But then I don't believe there are these huge gaps of quality (as the Doak Scale suggests) when we are talking about good courses.  I think there are huge differences in preference based on any number of issues, but that is very different from talking about quality.  What I often find passing for quality is the ability of a course to challenge the best players.  Up and down the rankings are courses which hold or have held pro tournies or big amateur events.  Many times, I don't think those courses are intrinsically any better than any number of second tier courses.  When it comes right down to it, what tends to be the difference is more yardage and often times history behind the club. 

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
I think we both know Connecticut Golf well enough to use as an example. Off the top of my head I think there are around 400 courses in CT. Do you honestly feel there are more than 40 courses worthy of any architectural merit?

Donnie,
There are about 183 golf courses in CT., 105 of which are public.

22% 'worthy' is not bad.

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim,
I think we both know Connecticut Golf well enough to use as an example. Off the top of my head I think there are around 400 courses in CT. Do you honestly feel there are more than 40 courses worthy of any architectural merit?

Donnie,
There are about 183 golf courses in CT., 105 of which are public.

22% 'worthy' is not bad.

Donnie--

I am curious as to your definition of "architectural merit" for the purposes of this discussion.  Is a course with "architectural merit" one that makes players think on most shots and is fun?  Or is it more than that: perhaps having some sort of influence on other courses?

[Donnie Beck]

The more I think about it IMO it comes down to Greed, Passion and Inspiration. The majority of courses we see lack any type of passion or inspiration. I don’t think anyone sets out to create a horrible golf course but the majority of people developing these courses don’t have a clue and are more interesting in selling houses on the surrounding property. In defense of the modern day architect I am sure they are forced to use less desirable land so the developer can maximize profits from house sales. It is sad that it has come to this but at the end of the day they are putting their name on the design and have to be held accountable. To make matters worse is many of these courses are then sold to the poor sap knowing less about architecture than the original developer and he gets stuck holding the bag trying to manage the property. It is no wonder so many clubs are having a difficult time in this economy.
I have devoted my life to the game golf and am very passionate about it. I try to find something positive about any course I play but the truth is the majority of what I see does not inspire me at all. The people that inspire me are the Mike Keiser’s, Ken Bakst’s and the John Mineck’s of the world. These guys are true inspirations. I honestly feel if someone came along with their passion for the game and targeted the public golf market they would make a killing and could create affordable golf in every city across this country. After all there isn’t much competition.

[Matt_Ward]

Donnie:

The same can be said of food choices Americans make.

McDonald's is quite happy that many people who frequent their establishments are so "informed" about what they eat.

For many people who play golf -- the architecture side is down the totem pole. No problem ignorance is indeed bliss for them.

I do agree with you that only a small percentage of places are worth the time and effort to play.

[Doug Ralston]

I think I could find something positive to say (positive enough to make me willing to play it again) about at least 90% of the places I've seen. Some of the rounds that are the most fun aren't architectural masterpieces, but they're fun to play and maybe even allow me to shoot a decent score (especially compared to the better ones that beat me up).

OK Andy, a challenge just for you!

Go to Eagle Ridge. I wager it will beat you up 1st time you play it, especially if you play with others who have not been there. I also wager you will have a lot of laughs and a bit of adrenaline all along the way.

Andy, I have not have the experience at playing great courses you have, but I have played a few very good and very fun ones. Greywalls is awesome, I enjoyed Arcadia Bluffs very much, and Tobacco Road was a blast. But still I want to play old ER more. It is, admittedly, not everyone's cup of tea, both architecturaly and in comfort. But those who like it will mostly swear by it [and at it], and have more stories from there than elsewhere.

And BTW, play Hidden Cove while you are over there, better architecture(?) and a really good challenge too. E KY is still a great place to play quality golf very on the cheap.

Doug

Your welcome. Glad I could help.

[Donnie Beck]

These people should be held accountable for uninspiring designs and it should make us angry.  In the name of GolfClub Atlas we should seek out these purveyors of bland, strike out at them at their homes, their businesses, their kid's schools because inspiration, knowledge are on our side. We should ruin their livelyhood, expose them for who they are and stop them in any manner we see fit, because inspiration, knowledge are on our side. As we celebrate revolution in America today and we bask in our new friendships with such inspirational countries as Iran who can teach us so much about dealing with the 'wrong kind of people' let this be the day GCA starts the revolution against mediocrity, blandness. Let's usher in new leaders like the Baskts and the Keisers who have made a life out of providing affordable public golf.  Heil!!!

Amen Brother !!!

[Scott Warren]

Or we could leave the others to the courses they enjoy, take joy from those we enjoy and live and let live.

There are courses I have played that I will never go back to, but I'm overjoyed that the people who play them and love them will get enjoyment from them for years to come.

Wage war against them? Surely the last thing we need is another pointless war leading to another Pyrrhic victory?

Is it so offensive that there are less than inspiring golf courses serving a great purpose for a large amount of golfers?

[Donnie Beck]

I think most here will agree that we need more affordable courses for the game of golf to continue and grow. Conditioning expectations have priced the average working class man out of the game and to continually dump more and more money into faulty designs is absurd. There is a major need for someone to step up to the plate and fill the need of interesting affordable golf. I don’t want to hear the argument that you need great land to build an interesting golf course. Take Garden City Men’s club as an example. Other than its proximity to NYC there is nothing at all appealing about the site yet it is one of the most fascinating golf courses ever designed. Emmet’s routing and Travis’s bunkering is brilliant. The holes flow in different directions to the wind and the feel of the course is unlike any other and still it could have been designed cheaply in any corn field in America.
Why not take elements from the classics and implement them into modern affordable gems. Does every new course in America need USGA spec greens? Hell no IMO. Why not amend sand to native soil and push up some modern classics. To me it sure seems a cheaper and easier way to create interesting greens.

[Tom_Doak]

Donnie:

Why not try something DIFFERENT than the classics and see if you can build something really original?

Seems to me that a lot of crap gets built because most developers and architects are afraid to take a chance, so they aim low.  I just don't get why everybody wants to build the same thing everybody else is building.  Why doesn't somebody build a course with only twenty bunkers but all of them inside the fairways?

[Joe Hancock]

Hey, let's take TD's thoughts a step further; why not develop new equipment the embodies the qualities of the game of golf as we know it, only make it much safer so that if and when someone get's hit by a ball(if it is even a ball?) there is little chance of injury. Then, we can route/ site features in a way that, because safety concerns disappear, we can get to the matter of speed/ distance, space, etc. Double greens that are only 5000 sq. ft....tees that are literally feet off the previous green....all for the masses. The Cayman ball was a glimpse of the future.

Then, maybe, architects will have a decent chance of having developers hire them that will actually give them the freedom to exercise the creativity that is pent up inside. A new age of golf awaits for those who dare to dream and are willing to stray from tradition.

Joe

[Norbert P]

KBM, have you been reading Orwell,  lately?  JoeH as well . . .  Brave New World.

And Tom D, who let you see my sketchbook!?  

Donnie Beck, I met my fourth ex-wife in the welfare line. There's still fun and adventure to be had in less-than-great places.

A while back, I talked with a new owner of a golf course, a feller who doesn't play golf, and he wanted to heal the place of it's ills - a course long neglected maintenance-wise. Essentially, all he saw was the lumpy old fairways and had no heart for really re-designing the course and making it interesting or artistic - he just wanted smooth fairways and a new big clubhouse (50 yards!! up the left side of the 10th tee (!!!)) and make a profit.  He really had no heart for golf design or realize what an opportunity he had.  So, it's not the course's fault. And it's not only on the backs of designers. Without a visionary owner or group of golfers/investors, the golf course's expectations and end results will be less than visionary.  

[Joe Hancock]

Donnie Beck, I met my fourth ex-wife in the welfare line. There's still fun and adventure to be had in less-than-great places.

You make it very difficult for those of us who attempt to be humorous.....nothing can match real life.

 

[Ben Sims]

Donnie:

Why not try something DIFFERENT than the classics and see if you can build something really original?

Seems to me that a lot of crap gets built because most developers and architects are afraid to take a chance, so they aim low.  I just don't get why everybody wants to build the same thing everybody else is building.  Why doesn't somebody build a course with only twenty bunkers but all of them inside the fairways?

Tom,

My guess is that there are penty of guys out there willing to be different on a new and untried scale.  The problem is getting work from clients that want to spend millions of dollars AND need something marketable.  The really succesful guys have set a bar that many seek to duplicate.  Seriously, how many owners are out there that give an architect free reign to design something groundbreaking in its interpretation?  Especially on an affordable public course that needs to attract people that don't care about architecture.

I am dying to see a fescue course with less than 30 bunkers, insane contouring, no forced carries into a tee or green, 70 yard wide fairways with parallel ridges to separate angles, and 30 yards of short grass on all sides of the green.  Several factors could make it inexpensive and as hard as you would want if you paid attention to positioning.  But what owner wants something that boring and nonconducive to photography?