[Sean_A]

It seems again and again that folks on this site who are in the golf industry are concerned about the growth of the game - for obvious reasons.  While not quite as prevalent as the growth urge, it also seems archies MAY go with alternative ideas to make selling their designs easier to the public - indirectly hoping to help grow the game.  I know have read several bits from archies which suggest they dumb down their some aspects of their work in an effort to keep golfers happy (though it isn't quite evident this stuff works), but how prevalent is this?  Do archies have a conflict of interest with trying to produce the best product they can and helping to grow the game?  On one level there is an easy out for archies because they can always say their customer is the owner - which of course is true, but the end user is also their customer especially when talking about public courses.  Anyway, hopefully folks will have some insight into this and try to reconcile the two approaches for me - from an artistic/quality perspective.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

It's a difficult balance...... today.

If you look back at the growth of the game, and you consider the equipment during the growth phase, along with the challenge presented by those early courses during the growth phase, it's obvious that the product/challenge has been diluted over the years for those being introduced to the game ..... comparitively.

It would seem as though today's golfer wants less of a challenge, not more.
Yet, when a course is designated as the Venue for a PGA or Open, guest play jumps exponentially.

I can't imagine the original Hollywood opening as a local member's course today.
Yet, many on this site, including me, would revel at the prospect of playing or joining that club.

Are we the cognoscente or out of touch with today's golfer ?

[Ian Andrew]

"There is no reason that any well-designed course should be boring. Public access courses can and should be designed using the same general principles as those at the best private courses, only in a more judicious manner. Public courses hosting greater numbers of players with a greater variance in abilities require more room to play, more forgiving hazards and somewhat more apparent strategies." 

I always thought this quote from Bill Coore was right on the mark.

Common Ground and Rustic Canyon are great examples of what a public course should be. There is no compromise in the quality of the architectural features the only compromise is on the width of the playing corridor.

Sean I think growing the game has more to do with access and cost.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I think you make a few whopping assumptions in your post, which can be interpreted as another version of the old dead guys were just better.

I would like to go to Wexlers book today and see how many bunkers AM's last public course designs had.  Or look to see how many, other than the black course, Tillie put at Bethpage, since the Black was part of a multi course complex and specifically intended to replicate a public version of Pine Valley, etc.  For that matter, how many bunkers did ANGC have in AM's last private design?  Didn't Ross and those guys write about not piling up a score?  How many bunkers were on the typical DR course?

If the number of bunkers is less today, it may be for budget reasons.  If greens are flatter, its probably due to green speed (and even BP Black's were a little flatter than Tillies other greens)

It isn't all black and white in making a design more accessible for more players.  Its using features that still trouble the good player while not killing the average player.  IMHO, that includes reduced forced carries, open front greens, gentle, but not flat green contours, a few less bunkers front right of greens (but possibly replaced with chocolate drop mounds, grass bunkers, etc.)  Wide fw are nice for a lot of reasons for all players.

The design features used for a good, but not tournament test for good players are not that much different than those that allow average players to play.  Frankly, I think the average Brauer (and others) public design has plenty of design interest and are far better than their 1920-1970 counterparts (in general, as there are always exceptions.)

And the point about a designer designing for his intended client and future clientele isn't a cop out....its valid. I think one of the knocks on the CCFD was that they were often designed for a tournament that would never come and were too tough for even good ams to enjoy, wasn't it? Making courses the "right" difficulty for the golf world is a noble endeavor.  Is it noble to design a tough course for a tournament that never comes, or for 1500 gca.com particpants who think every course ought to include a bunch of old time features?  BTW, I do think gradually introducing golfers to some great features is a good idea and have done it.

Short version - "Dumbed Down" or "appropriate difficulty for the fun and enjoyment of the masses" are both pretty subjective terms, as is "good design."

Sorry if I sound like I am ranting. Not a bad subject, but I will put, say my Sand Creek Station, and its design concepts, aesthetics and general quality against a lot of courses.  None of their players seems to think they have been shortchanged in that department.  The same can be said for many other public courses. 

I really don't think any public course by any recognized designer in the last two decades has been dumbed down to a large degree, because quality was the main selling point in most of those business models.  That may change in the near future, as I get a lot of calls for bunker reductions, removals, etc. now.

[jeffwarne]

How about grow the game by creating the best course?

I think Sean would agree the best courses don't have the MOST hazards, but rather fewer MORE thoughtfully placed.
Sure, make strategic use of the irrigation pond or occasionally utilize existing wetlands (if allowed to get anywhere near them)
Certainly fewer bunkers (yet somewhat penal when encountered) in nearly all cases makes for a better course.
certainly wider corriders (if affordable) make for better golf (particularly if the few hazards are strategically placed.

I'm somewhat disappointed that this would even be a topic needing to be debated....but as I watch my beloved Southampton be "restored" I begin to wonder which master is being served.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff Brauer,
Does your bunker depth formula take into account public vs. private?
I thought it did.
Cheers

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

To be honest, the formula is more sound bite than sound practice.  As you know, its hard to use much other than the natural contours to dictate bunker depth, although I do elevate greens on flat ground for short holes once in a while.  And, while Sean may say its dumbing down, I find that most players really like to see out of a bunker, but not putt out of one, so that limits most bunker depths to about 2-4.5 feet deep, regardless of what penalty we might want to assign via depth.

But I was demonstrating bunker location the other day to a client.  Specifically, on some of my designs, the green side bunkers come out several yards in front of the green, where they only catch the really poor shot.  We were trying to do a theoretical calc of how many fewer shots would find a bunker if the front edge of that bunker just paralleled the green front, rather than extending way out front.  I don't know, but it would be signifigant.

So a question for Sean - on a public course, is keeping bunkers on the right of the green back mid green, rather than front right of green, a dumbing down of the design?  IMHO, a "bunker extension" only catches the poor player whereas the lateral bunker could catch anyone missing right.  Or do we leave it there for the 1% of players for whom it might affect the ground game? 

Is converting the front third of a right side green side sand bunker to grass to keep average players out of the sand a dumbing down?  If grown deep for a tourney, it might be a harder hazard for the good player.

The devil is in the details, is it not?

[Mike Hendren]

Is it because we're all a bunch of architectural wannabe's that we place golf course architects on some kind of pedestal - ascribing altruistic motivations to their profession.? Is it not possible that most architects just want to earn a decent living doing something they enjoy - kind of like the rest of us?

Bogey

[Ian Andrew]

Sean,

I wrote this years ago as part of a long involved series about Canada's effort, or lack of effort, to grow the game. I hope this particular piece on Sweden helps explain how to grow the game and how architecture does not actually play any role.

That's my opinion....



The number one reason children stay with any game is because they have fun, and the main reason they leave is because it no longer is fun. While some kids mention exercise, developing skills, or the enjoyment of competition, the “fun factor” is still by far the main reason to draw kids in and keep them golf through to adulthood.


The Model of Sweden

Sweden has presented the world with a fascinating model that many countries are now trying to emulate due to its overwhelming success. The Swedish have brought many new players to the game by changing the way things are done. One of the keys to their success has been by promoting the game primarily as a family sport. What is most impressive in their participation numbers are the numbers of players under the age of 20, and even more impressive is the number of overall players who are women. The “Girls Club” program in Canada is adopted from Sweden where they first recognized the differences between how to encourage boys with competition and girls with friendships – the numbers speak for themselves.

(Understand I originally wrote this piece about four years ago so the statistics are now old)

The overall population of the county is 9,000,000 with golfers representing 600,000 or 15%. This is up from the around 8% in the 1980’s. The percentage of player under 20 is approximately 15%. The percentage of women’s play is 27%. One of the great factors to the large percentage of junior golfers in the system is the club structures. There is a unique system to Sweden where juniors can be members at clubs, with the club having no obligations to accept them as members when they become adults. It creates a system where more juniors have access to more places to play to play.


Producing More Professionals

I don’t personally care whether Canada produces players who make it on the PGA tour, but I do care about increasing participation in golf. Many others believe the key to increased participation is finding and developing the next Mike Weir since role models and examples draw people to the game. Tiger Woods has had an undeniable effect on participation due to his dominance of not only golf but the focus of the sports media in general for the last 10 years.

So again returning to Sweden, why has a country with a much smaller population produced far more professional players? The first answer from the professionals themselves was that they began in an environment that had little initial pressure. The majority of clubs have developed programs based around participation first and assisting aspiring players on much later on. They also foster a system with well educated youth leaders who provide everything from coaching through to mentoring to help them progress.

As players developed the programs changed too. Rather than try place players into a standard program the Swedish believe in tailoring a program to suit the player. They also encourage players to mix their training and maintain activity beyond golf. Cross-training was important to skills development as it was to maintaining the interest in what they were doing. They also arranged special privileges at some clubs to make sure a very promising junior had the ability to practice and play more.

Interestingly competition pressure was discouraged until they were old enough to deal with it, although a young player that thrived under competition was allowed to compete right away. In other words they were flexible to the child’s needs. They also discovered that just playing was not the best way to develop skill, rather a larger emphasis was placed on getting the motor skills established by hitting more balls and learning to make a solid impact. The other very simple system was to not practice at each component of the game equally, but rather to encourage more practice on the weakest part of the game. Finally, they didn’t try to stay to one coach per player, but realized we all have strengths and weaknesses, and that multiple coaches with specific skills did a far better job than one single person.

They are miles ahead of all other countries in building the game and not surprisingly the quality of their players. The biggest issue for growing the game is access. Architecture plays the smallest of possible roles.

[Bill_McBride]

The other side of the coin is how Roger Rulewich designed the difficult courses on the Alabama RTJ Golf Trail.

Those courses are difficult - lots of forced carries, obscured views of greens, pulpit greens, deep bunkers.

I attribute that design style to the WOW factor when Yankees go down there to play in the winter.  They get beat to death and then go home and tell their buddies, "WOW, you shoulda seen them sumbitch courses down in Alabama!"   I think it's a marketing ploy.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I dont think architects have much of a role in growing the game. I think the game needs to be made easy for newbees, but largely you do that with forward tees and plenty of short grass, if you reduce the difficulty by lesser hazards or features you tend to see the better players move on so commercially you need to cater for all or you may see a drop in rounds.
The game needs cheaper golf, needs courses where you can go just play and pay for half a round, you dont have to dress up like a golfer, you can hire/borrow clubs and shoes for no charge. You can get a golf lesson for free. WE NEED TO INVEST A LITTE TIME AND DROP IN REVENUE  in a potential new golfer to the game.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Isn't an architect employed by an owner,developer,club or government to build,renovate or restore a golf course? How many architects are given "free reign" to create  without input from those who hire them? If I'm an owner and I want to build a course that's "challenging but playable" ,then I don't want a course that comes in at a slope of 115 or 140 from the middle tees. I would say to the architect something like, "Can you make this course come in around 125?"

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean (and gents) - nice thread.

I love the Big Neat Package, I love (and tend to think in terms of) those all-encompassing Theories of Everything.

But alas -- those are good for the classroom or a fireside chat when all the day's work has been done, but not so much for anything else (except maybe to build a career as a writer of Big Ideas).

All I got is:

1) Architects should try to build the best courses they can within the budget given to them and the goal dictated by the developer while being true to their individual design aesthetic and philosophy.  

2) Golfers should introduce young people to the game if they can - and be on the look out for playable and interesting courses that are relatively inexpensive to play and to maintain.

3) Architects - like the rest of us - don't always do their best; and golfers, sometimes, couldn't care less about growing the game as long as they can play the game themselves and play the courses they want (ideally with few other people on them).

4) And so here we are, where we are; no one else but us chickens.

[Sean_A]

Ian

Certainly growing the game involves cost and access, but cost is impacted by architecture.  This is a case in point with maintenance issues around bunkers, not just the quantity, but also the quality (imo) in terms of depth, drainage and aesthetics.  I would also point to increased yardage as an added cost which at least I believe is largely  result of owners/golfers wanting this rather than due to a serious debate about good architecture.  How often do we see under 6500 yard courses built today?  Is that a quality issue or an appeasement issue?  Okay, sometimes it is a quality issue, but from my perspective when there are so few (if any) short courses built I gotta wonder if its always or usually a quality debate.  Finally, I would raise the issue of routing courses to make the use of the cart more of an easy option for the customer.  I could be well of base, but I honestly believe there are courses built on land and in situations where it would have been easy to create a comfortable walking course.  Instead. longer than necessary walks are incorporated into designs to make carts an obvious solution.    

Jeff B

I didn't mean to rankle you.  But to be honest, if archies today are looking over their shoulders at what golfers and owners are crying for, it is no wonder that a great many people believe the ODGs were better at designing courses.  That isn't to say I don't sympathize with you or think NAGs (New Alive Guys) can't build better stuff than the ODGs, but I do wonder why so many courses fail to excite when we know what works in terms of design; in terms of delivering a good product at a reasonable cost to the consumer, what makes sense from an ecological perspective, what works as a challenge across most of the spectrum of abilities and aesthetically.  Is it a case of too many chiefs not allowing the archie to properly get on with his job?  If this is the case, with a free hand, should archies worry about growing the game?  

Jeff W & Pat

I am not arguing for harder courses.  I am arguing for courses which make sense in our economy (and taking this mind set forward regardless of how much money is out there) and with what we know about all facets of architecture.  It seems to me that a great many courses were built to try and please everybody and please nobody in particular - I would guess in many cases even the archies themselves!

Bogey

There is nothing wrong with keeping your head down and trying to make a living, but then one shouldn't get upset if his work isn't seen as among the greatest - at any price level.  

Pietro

Yes, its a messy deal, but else would you expect?

George

The two concepts aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.  I am wondering why (and I know they are or the idea of grwoing the game on the actual golf side of the equation wouldn't exist) they are treated as mutually exclusive.   

Ciao

[George Pazin]

I fail to see the two as mutually exclusive.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think what you need to understand is that when a developer wants to build a new golf course in 99% of cases it has to be commercial.

The dilema with pitching at the newbie market is :You probably need really cheap and cheerfull, so probably dont need/ get an golf course architect.

Another problem is your 'easy golf course' is not easy to everyone forever, hence as your customer gets better he wants a greater challenge and moves to another course. Its easy to become the feeder for someone else

Going back to the I want a golf course it has to be commercial, you need to keep as many people happy as possible, golf is a very tough market and if you pidgeon hole your golf course you exclude bands of customers. It is becoming harder to design a golf course that challengers the scratch man and allow the first timer his place.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I am not really rankled and its a decent question.  I just wonder how much supposition went into it.  Again, you are probably, IMHO comparing the best 100 courses in their generation to the "standard public course of ours" no?

And, I wonder how much input those guys got, or if they really were left alone because fewer organizers thought they knew enough to question them.  (I also wonder if they got more questions after their clients read their books, but that is another topic, as is whether or not they ever figured web site participants would be quoting their lengthy sales tools decades later in questioning future gca's)  There is more info available now to ask questions, dictate standards, etc. which seems to come with time in many fields.  

That said, my best courses (MN) were the ones where the clients gave me the freest hand, with some generally implied direction and leaving the details mostly to me (no owner has never suggested at least one change to their baby)

I lastly wonder how much excitement for the oldies just come from our sense of history here.  I do know many players in the midwest are pretty excited to go play Colbert Hills, Sand Creek and there is a lot of talk about getting to play Firekeeper next year all because they are percieved as better than the other public courses they currently play.  Is it fair to compare the excitement of playing the best new courses (regionally) to the excitement of playing the best new courses nationally, to the excitement of playing an old line US OPen course that is a once in a lifetime experience?

Even for all the speculation, I would love to go back and compare the number and style of a typical Ross course to one of my courses.  I would be the measureable stats of green size, number of bunkers, etc. wouldn't be too much different, which is what leads me to believe that part of the excitement of playing a Ross is just that its different to what we see now, and not quantifiably better.  I had that feeling playing my first Raynor years ago (Shoreacres) and was really enamored by the "we just don't build them this way anymore" feeling.  Of course, his style really was different and intriguing, too, not to mention it was a great site AND the greens were the fastest I had putted on up til that time.

All those things figure into the "excitement" of playing a course.

[Randy Thompson]

This thread could be directed at a lot of my past comments!
I beleive it is everybodies responsibility in and around golf and for certain architects. The owners cut the cake but we have leadway and we need to take advantage of that leadway to the max. First of all, what constitutes a great course or a course that makes me want to play it day in and day out, differs in the general publics opinion. There is no cook book method, definition or style for the general public, like there seem to be on this site. Here in South America for example, the average golfer is far less devloped and doesn`t understand what is really a true great design. There more like kids, if it is fun they will continue to play and especially in a social sence. Therefore I design trying to appeal to the majority of player than look for true greatness or something that could finish high in the rankings. Norman, Player, Nicklaus and Palmer are all doing course now in this area and Nicklaus is the only one to have finnished projects and they are  being recieved controversially. I feel no obligation to design for twenty years down the line, when an increase in percentage will finially get it! So, I try to make the course challenging for the low handicapper and testing all their skills throughout the round. As far as the high handicapper my therory is more, there gonna find problems by themselves and tested frequently withot a whole lot of thought going into that but instead, what can I create to give them a break once in a while, what can I do to steer an off shot back into play without further penalizing them. Can this be done in areas that don`t normally come into play for the low handicapp. I respect all the architect that have created great tracks and rank highly in the polls. But I also respect somebody like Joe Lee, who has millions and millions of rounds of golf being played on his creations every year and little or nothing of the great nature or high in the rankings. The 80`s gave birth to architorture and we are gradually backing off from this trend and has nothing to do with dumbing DOWN!

[Tim Nugent]

NAGs (New Alive Guys)???Awww Come on    It sounds like on old, worn-out horse or someone you wouldn't want to be married to.  I'd settle for YAGs (Young Alive Guys).

On the subject, I don't know why Jeff B. immediatley jumped to the Bunker conumdrum.  Hazards are part of the game and shouldn't be looked at alone, without context. Afterall, different sites require different solutions.  After spending 21 days to do the contouring at the Jockey Club, the Captian of the club asked MacKenzie what he was going to do about the bunkering. It is reported that the Good Dr. replied that the undulations have created such a varied, interesting and pleasurable test of golf that we do not require a single bunker. Nevertheless, for the sake of appearances and for the purpose of creating more spectacular thrills, we will give you a few bunkers.
And this was essentially featureless terrain.

I contest that architecture does have a role to play in maintaining and growing the game.  Players are attracted to the game for a myrid of reasons but if the game fails to keep them stimulated, then they will move on to other pursuits.  Visually and mentally stimulating layouts are at the heart of this.  Courses must be manageable enough to keep the beginner from getting too discouraged.  Beginners already suffer from the ego bust of finding it's a lot harder than it looks.  On the flipside, they must also be challenging enough to keep the good player intrigued.  Isn't that one of MacKensie's 13 Principles?  Failure to do either will result in failure.

I don't believe the Architect has as much control over cost as many here tend to believe.  Once he is gone, he has no control and during planning and construction he often has many birds sitting on his shoulder, chirping their ideas, beliefs, and demands into his ear.

[Sean_A]

Jeff B

Its not a matter of what I believe or feel.  I really don't know where the really good modern courses stand in relation to the classics.  I tend to shy away from moderns because very few have impressed me and classics are a good walk compared to many moderns, but that is just me.  In fact, many people don't care about the walk and would never consider it as an issue in terms of the quality of a design.  No, I am referencing the so-called experts who (it seems to me) side with the classics being the first tier with several dozen selected moderns joining this elite.    

Randy

What I mean by dumbing down is mentioned in my original reply to Jeff B.  It isn't just a matter of difficulty (which I in fact am against), its more an issue of interesting design.  One aspect I didn't mention earlier was the penchant for archies to trap the ball in the field of play - often times using mounding or bunkers.  Sure, sometimes its more than expedient to use these tricks to make courses more user friendly and often times quicker. However, the trend is extended onto properties which in no way need these sorts of crutches.  Its sort of like being wings onto a 20 bedroom house with only three people living in it - overkill.  

Adrian

While I understand the concerns of commercialism and trying to make buck, I don't believe there is much greatness to be had in trying to keep as many people happy as possible.  I would think architecture is better off with archies using their skills and imagination in leading the field rather than letting amateurs decide what is best.  That may mean some off-kilter stuff is made, but I would bet a lot that we would see better, more imaginative and consistent work if archies took complete control of architecture.  I have faith in archies.

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

George Thomas' book has a number of good thoughts regarding what is appropriate architecture for each "type" of course...muni, private club, etc. 

Perhaps the answer to this question is who you are building a course for and what type of course they want.

[Pat Burke]

There are many great questions AND answers in this thread.
One of the challenges in this world seems to be the "one side or the other side) arguments abound in all walks of life.

There is no one answer IMO.
Architects have bills to pay from what I've heard
A client wants a specific course. 
Architect designs product to best of his abilities while meeting the clients goals.
If the architect(s) want to design something to their complete freedom, I would imagine it's pretty
difficult unless that architect is paying for it?

Thanks to the guys who deal with this, day in day out, for the answers BTW

[Tim Martin]

I fail to see the two as mutually exclusive.

I also don`t see the two as mutually exclusive. Did the ODG`s have as much on their plate when it came to these sorts of issues? For the most part from the 1890`s through the mid 1920`s you had less than a dozen archies doing the bulk of the work in and around the major metro areas. Many of the projects were commissioned by groups of wealthy investors for their own enjoyment. I believe the goal was to create the best course-end of story.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean.

There is also this perception here and elsewhere that design is about being the "Master Builder" and dictating the result, which is not the case.

If Frank Lloyd Wright was asked to design low cost housing would he give them the Taj Mahal?  He was and he didn't.  There is no one "good architecture" and everything else is below it.

For that matter, courses are either "interesting" or "uninteresting" by and large....there are degress of interest and a muni may have 70% of the design interest of a private club, but not no design interest, which may actually be the right amount when you consider other commericial, speed of play, enjoyment of the masses, broadening out the design for others than strong male players, etc.

Its just a tough topic to get your hands around and there are no pat answers, except of course, if Mr. Mucci chimes in.

As to your point about archies dictating, yeah, see my point above.  I recall having friends who were big fans of some experimental band and would fight to the death that their guys were better than the Beatles (RIP John Lennon, BTW).  The sales numbers and acclaim say otherwise.  If design is a driver of play, then rounds played will say what is good and what is bad, with the critics chiming in with their words, while golfers chime in with their dollars.

I still say you are comparing courses where the golfers are still chiming in with their dollars (memberships or otherwise) which have definitely proved themselves to be all time great designs (survival equals goodness, and survival plus acclaim equals greatness)

[Randy Thompson]

Sean,
Granted the mounding got over used starting again in the 80`s. Some justified for the reasons you stated and others were justified for safety reason because the developer didn`t give me the total amount of land needed, others tried to frame the landing areas and other went on and on about shadowing and bringing art into thier designs. Whatever the case it grew and grew and a lot of artificial setting were created and the trend is going the other way now.
We get hired by word of mouth and it seems to me I will get hired more if everybody goes away talking positive, so you have to cater to your market. I have seen thousands of picture of what the average JOE on this site considers modern outstanding golf and if I adopted that style, I would be out of busisness after two jobs, that is if I could convience the first two to let me design in this form. I am taking a lot of the concepts and gradually adding them here and there. I already have a reputation of being a little wicked and sadistic but mostly fair, so the market is gettinng spoon fed to I can continue to feed and educate two families.
Tim
Your right about the birds on the shoulders, chirping out ideas and thats ok and the least important one if your smart you will incorporate, its when it becomes a demand you wish you were still mowing fairways or bagging groceries.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()