The Taliban of Golf?

[Ed_Morrissett]

Are those of us who prefer the classic to the modern courses the Taliban of golf?  Of course, we are a bit more strident and we would like to push design back only 75 years, not several hundred.

Seriously though, what are the five most important factors influencing course design today compared to "The Golden Age of Golf Architecture"?  It would be real interesting to get the opinions of those on this board who actually work in this area.

For what it is worth mine are: 1) golf carts, 2) real estate oriented golf course developments, 3) equipment -- both earth moving and maintenance, 4) golf implements and balls, 5) environmental laws

[A_Clay_Man]

Ed- I believe you may have left off one of the intangebles which is IMHO the real culprit, so to speak. And that would be something akin to "the wow factor".
 Siting your #2, aren't these home developments banking on a certain name (or names) to attempt to keep re-sale value high? Which translates to the marketing of the not so interested in GCA but to matters of prestige, brandname recognition and most of all a lovely clubhouse.

[brad_miller]

Speed of play, concern for other golfers on course, and rub of the green, hazards should be hazards.

How many new courses have that certain feel around the property that many of our great golf AND certain country clubs have, the focus seems to be off in many cases. JMO

[Peter Galea]

Owner input and their vision of what golfers want.

[Richard Mandell]

Guys:

You all hit it very concisely about the five or so main factors we Architects today have to deal with that were not as much of a factor 75 years ago.  

Ed's five would probably be my top five along with the "wow factor" concept and Pete Galea's owner concern.  Pete's choice really captures all the other items into one big basket of frustration for me in chasing work.  Pete's choice should be expanded to include the industry (developers, maintenance, operations, marketing,etc.) in general and their perspective on what they think golfers want.

As I consider myself one who shares your opinion about where design shall be, I would rather look at us not as the Taliban, but more like Jesus's disciples.    

[Mike O'Neill]

Ed:

1.a. I will write these all under "1" since they all need to co-exist. The love of the game for the designers tied with the love of money of the designers/developers. Same as in the classic days. I will throw the technical and artistic skill of the designer in here also. One's love for the game must be expressed in the dirt. Those skills, understanding and imagination, are huge factors in such expression.

1.b. How to pay to facilitate the above mentioned love of the game and love of money. See green fees, beer cart, cart fees, leagues, real estate, tax laws, etc. For us to be accurate in this matter, we actually need to study how the old courses paid for themselves. Did the munis make a profit? Were the club fees just enough to get by or was there a profit? In any case, how were the bills paid? We have to include here as a factor the need to give the player what he/she wants. From a practice putting green to the 19th hole, it's all factored in heavily in most cases.

1.c. Availability of projects. Without the projects, the designers can go nowhere fast. This is tied to demand for golf. I am not a historian, but my impression is that golf in America is available to a lot more people these days. I could be totally wrong. But the idea of golf being played by a blueblood off in the trees is no longer the dominant theme. I do still have to work hard to convince some of my friends that it is a game for everyone, not just rich, white people. Some of that has always been a misrepresentation I'm sure.

1.d. Golf equipment. The land must be able to accommodate the length of the ball. Same today as in classic times, although we need a little more land today...

2. Construction equipment. As you mentioned, this is a factor. But it is the same today as in the past. As the limitations for construction have lessened due to better equipment, the demands for bigger layouts have increased. Throw in advances in turf science and the olden days cannot stand up to these golden days. You can get a lot more golfers around a layout with turf and soil that can stand up to the wear and tear.

Overall, I would say that influencing factors are not all that different today from yesteryear. I am sure that people were wowed simply by the site of a MacKenzie course back then as they are wowed by the site of the Sand Hills today. I see a lot of low-key courses being built in the Midwest, courses that don't distinguish themselves from courses built in the 60's. And I see a lot that really jump out at you just like Pine Valley must have. One thing they did not have back then however, is a bunch of classic courses being renovated.

[Bill_Spellman]

Mr. Morrissett,

      I can't tell you how nice it is to see your name up and active. I hope all is well. We haven't seen each other since I worked for Dr. Kittleman in the late 70's.

      We are not the Taliban. If we were, there would be no women and children playing(hmmm). We would cut off the hands of those committing rules violations and banish slow play to our local soccer stadium. Courses would be funded by narcotics sales and no one in the world would talk to us. Now that I think of it, reminds me of a club where I may have worked.

       Seriously, because most GCAers PREFER Golden Age style doesn't mean that modern courses don't fit the liking.
Witness Coore and Crenshaw, Hanse and Kittleman, and those of you that still try to produce quality venues with a  Golden Age feel in a modern world.

     By the way if we were Taliban, golf clothing, especially hat sales would be dead and clubs would not be able to provide towels after a shower for fear of everyone placing them on their head and leaving the club

Hope to hear from you

          

[David_Elvins]

1/ The Americanisation of the game.

[Mike O'Neill]

David,

Please explain your post. Who, when, how, etc.

Thanks,
Mike

[Chris Kane]

The Americanisation of the game - a combination of all the elements listed above.

These things have begun to find their way onto the Australian golf scene, and rightly or wrongly people blame it on America, becuase that is where those things originated.

Australian golf is being Americanised, which is IMHO is a bad thing, not because of America, but because of what this Americanisation entails.  

Not a criticism of America itself, but what is going on in American golf.

[Mike O'Neill]

Chris,

When you say a combination of "all" of the elements listed above, do you in fact mean "all" of the elements? I listed "love of the game" in my first post.

Can you be more specific? Can you speak to the specific things that are different today than 75 years ago? Is the manner in which C.B. MacDonald went about paying for the NGLA all that different than the way developers seek investors today? Are there problems with some of today's technology and construction equipment?

Is the fact that the game is being played by even more people in America as time goes by a positive or negative? It is my impression that the early courses in America tended to be private clubs without the kind of access the British courses had. Have we moved forward or backward? Do you think the early designers cared at all what the golfer wanted?

Thanks in advance for any of your thoughts,
Mike

[Chris Kane]

Sorry Mike, say "all" didn't achieve what I meant to say.

Things such as carts, and CCFAD facilities (which are a great idea, except for all the crap that you put up with before, during and after your game).  Am I right in saying that these originated in America?  If I wanted someone to take the clubs out of my car boot, I'd employ a driver.  I don't like being forced into something I don't want.

In Australia there is a growing resistance to American culture taking over our lives (not to say the American culture isn't good or interesting, but not at the expense of Australian culture).  The same applies to our golf courses and related activites.

Please don't take this as a criticism of America and Americans - there has been too much of that on this board lately.

[Mike O'Neill]

Chris,

I absolutely do not take any of what you write as a criticism of America, unless you tell me to.

While granting that golf carts may have started in America (I really don't know for sure), I am still looking for a more in depth analysis of "all" of the other stuff that is being stated as being different now as opposed to 75 years ago. I would just as soon we not get into the golf cart thing again and focus on some of the other forces that shaped what MacKenzie and Ross tried/had to do compared to today's designers. That could be fascinating if we actually look back and don't assume anything.

[David_Elvins]

Mike,

I was probably being a bit of a smartass about the the Americanisation of the game.  I don't wan't to make this into a bashing of American culture but I will explain myself.  I was, as Chris points, merely summarising the first 4 points that Ed Morrissett made in his post.

That is, the American culture of economic value overiding all other values is probably responsible for most of the factors that are mentioned and is the biggest difference to the way the game is played.  

My thought would be that in the past most golf clubs would have been set up by a group of people who wanted to play golf and set up a course to meet their needs.  It seems that nowadays a lot of golf clubs are set up by people who want to make money.   The need to make money, and subsequent need to market (another American specialty), has a huge influence on the type of golf courses made.  Examples of infulence: housing developments, marketing of a round of golf as an "experience", peripheral revenue sources, greater need for name architect, greater attention to superficial details such as course greenness, cost of a round of golf.

[Dunlop_White]

TELEVISION!!! The Media certainly has had a much larger impact and is more influencial today on modern designs compared to Golden Age architecture. Seemingly, every new design attempts to emulate the perfect conditions at Augusta National Golf Club as they are reminded one week a year on television. Today, everyone believes that a perfectly manicured bunker is the goal and/or the norm. Many also believe that a "lush, emerald green surrounding" is the standard.

The course venues of the PGA Tour dominates the media today and consequently controls public perception of golf architecture. These courses... 7200-7300 yards in length and growing....which are soft and appear as if the pros are throwing darts....where success is acquired through the air(aerially).... and where there is one intended target, whether it be the pin or a narrow landing area between a couple of bunkers or high rough, are the ones which are glorified and given the spot light. Certainly, modern perceptions of golf architecture have been fine-tuned by the USGA's work to Open venues as well.

TELEVISION, MAGAZINES, and the MEDIA, in general, portray these conditions and elements as the architectural model.

Just look what COURSE RATINGS did to architecture, especially in the 1970's when "length and difficulty" alone basically determined "greatness". Look at the message which was sent here to future architecture!

Sure you have the "WOW" factor, the technological advances in maintenance equipment, clubs and balls (etc.) But it is the media's treatment and reaction to the above which has truely affected the architecture.

It is the medias' portrayal of golf design that influences today's architecture unlike any medium now or before.

[Richard Chamberlain]

I'm based in South East Queensland, on the sunny eastern coast of Australia. Not only do we boast the finest football teams (both codes..i'll explain to the outsiders some other time), premier cricket team, home of the Shark, and now mecca for speed skating growth.....but we're also in the heart of the tourist strip and are inundated with golf courses.

Unfortunately you wont find any "Royal Melbournes" up here, just a bunch of palm tree studded, floodplain courses, many of which look alike.

We also seem to be at the heart of the American golf management takeovers. Why could you blame them though..Lakelands had around $70 mil kicked in by foreign owners, and within 18 months ClubCorp snapped it up for $17 mil.

American Golf Corp and Troon Golf are also picking up courses in the region too. Now Troon managed "The Glades' is charging $130 per game and the ClubCorp owned "Lakelands' is $105.
Sure they are OK layouts but i'm with Chris Kane...let me pay $80 at The Glades and i'll get my own clubs out of the car and onto the compulsory cart, bring my own towel, and work out my own yardage. I'll even sacrafice the token shiny bag tag, and put up with a "Mary-Ann" standard drink cart girl instead of a "Ginger' quality.

[corey miller]

On my trip to Australia I was very impressed with the average club members knowledge of architecture, history, conditioning.  Much better than the US.  Sadly, on one course which was more lush,slow,damp,green than the others a member did say "we've been lucky this year it is usually brown" They should be happy and keep the old courses the way they are.

In the United States at the old top clubs it is a pretty darn good golf experience. good americanization.

CCFAD. bad americanization.  I will add a wonderful quote from Met Golfer about Great River from the general manager..... "we wanted to give people a resort type experience without having to go to a private club"

Seems like the CCFAD has that one backwards.

[Mike O'Neill]

Chris and Company,

If we are comparing the factors that were at work 75 years ago to today, we should not be so quick to think that resort type golf, CCFAD stuff, was not happening then. Let's take Donald Ross for example, often thought of as the Golden Architect himself. If you look in the book, Golf Has Never Failed Me, you will see on page 3 an advertisement (with Ross himself in it) for Pinehurst and all the leisure-time luxury that went/goes with it. He also talks on page 196 about hotels in Florida with adjoining golf courses. He says of golfers heading toward Florida, "And when once he starts toward Florida, he is taken the best care of, supplied with every detail of information and accommodations." Just because there are MORE courses now that send someone running out after your bag then 20 years ago, doesn't mean that the concept is a modern one. And it has always been the case at country clubs.

The influence of real estate is also not new. Using Ross again, I quote, "The very day your club decides to rent a piece of land, that same day its value and that of the surrounding land immediately increases. Real estate men, recognizing this, are quick to snap up all available nearby property."

As for golf carts, I totally agree that they are a huge influence in terms of where courses can be built (hilly terrain for example) and in fact how they are built (with cart paths, spead out). That is a big difference between today and yesteryear. However, let us not again be too quick to give the old guys credit for avoiding modern conveniences. I really believe if there had been golf carts back in the Golden Age, there would have been many courses that incorporated them. Donald Ross took full advantage of steamshovels and bulldozers. Yes, he wanted his courses to be confined to small tracts of land. But do we know what his thoughts would have been if he had the advantage of the golf cart? He certainly didn't mind using the automobile to accommodate a far off golf course, as the following quote shows us:

"Naturally, one of the first considerations in selecting a site for a golf course is convenience in transportation facilities. But happily, in this age of automobiles, we can tolerate a little inconvenience in favor of some other equally important requirements."

And one last thing on Ross, he freely admited that he came to America because it was suggested to him that he could make a lot more money over here. Knowing what we do about Ross's love for the game of golf, we can see this factor also. Please see my list above.

Ross also talked of the advantages of irrigation and how the course in England at the time were pleased with the excellent conditions afforded by a new command of water.

In the end, I am just trying to illustrate that for all that seems to have changed, things still seem to be very much the same. IMHO.

By the way, I too hate to have someone try to help me out of my car. I also hate the idea of having someone carry my clubs for me. I just simply try to avoid those courses where that occurs. It is just like not belonging to a country club. My golfing life is not changed because a new course opens up with extra service. The service at the $15.00 a round public course is still plenty good, and that is basically no service at all.

Swing away,
Mike

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, you identified the issue on the Karrie Webb thread, as did Adam right off the bat.  Although many of the above posts all suggest a deliterious influencing factor in modern times that didn't exist in such raw philistine terms in the 'golden era', the term [IMG] was unknown then.   The infusion of large sums of silly money (100milloin for 9holes and a couple of homesites) that they are raising with the Webb project just about says it all in microcasm.  Silly money is blowing up valuations on everything from real estate to cost of golf rounds or club memberships.  Just like a bunch of dot.comers got loose venture capital to infuse and cause their stocks to sell at 100s of times no earnings is as silly as golf costs spiraling up due to paper speculative IMG type projects like this.  Where is the beef fo a 100 million bucks?

[Mike O'Neill]

Dick,

The question of cost is an interesting one. MacDonald wrote in the book, Scotland's Gift--Golf, that Lido cost between $750,000 to $800,000. Can anyone tell me what that would be in today's dollars?

Thanks,
Mike

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
It is about $7,500,000 to 8,000,000, give or take a bit.
Whether or not it could be built(probably not) in today's environment is debatable.

[Mike O'Neill]

Jim,

Thanks. It also says they moved 2,000,000 cubic yards of sand onto the property at a cost of 7 cents a yard. But that price was probably negotiated by the same fellow who handled the purchase of Manhattan....

But what does that tell us about the comparative costs of certain courses then and now? Yale cost $450,000. But still, that's a pretty penny and not out of line with the typical (insert your favorite non-favorite golf designer here) course.

Mike

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Recently we had some work done at our course. Needed fill was already on-site but the loading/trucking cost was $4 per cu. yd.. There goes the $8 mil., in today's money.
George Bahto told me some interesting facts about the construction of the course and it is explored in depth in George's upcoming book. One amazing bit: they constructed a railway to move the fill from where they dredged it to where it was needed.
It would probably be more like $15mil. to build it today.
  
  

[Ed_Morrissett]

Bill Spellman, it's to hear from you.  The 1970's at The Country Club of Virginia is where our family got started in golf.  I must confess I don't think I know a Dr. Kittleman, however.

As a general comment, perhaps "the wow factor", owner input, and television and the media can be summed up as the Americanization of the game - for better or worse.

The quotes from Donald Ross's book about profit make a very interesting point.  His courses certainly don't have "the wow factor" that some of the old courses do.  It makes you wonder what he would be designing today if he were in his prime.

In reading all the thoughtful responses to my initial post a new idea occurred to me: " Is golf the only sport in which the playing field can be of inifinite size and variety?"  By that I mean it can be shaped in all sorts of ways - strung out, loops, rectangular, etc.  Originally it was just a simple game and was laid out in the most economical way as the Scots did.  The Americans got ahold of it and it gradually dawned on some home builders that a golf course could both be the centerpiece of a real estate development and also make outerwise unusable land productive.  Maybe for better or worse, this is what Americanization is.

[Tim_Weiman]

Chris:

I hope folks in Australia will resist the "Americanization" of golf.  Over the past ten years, the American influence in Ireland has grown ever stronger and it is a bad thing.  The Old Head, with its 200 pound green fees crowding out local players highlights the dangers that may lie ahead.

When I finally make it to Melbourne, I want it to be Australian, proudly Australian.  Otherwise, what is the point of traveling to another country.

I don't need to fly across the big pond to visit another American style CCFAD.