[Adrian_Stiff]

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
[/quote]The man the pays the piper decides what tune. Architects can only ever design to instruction. Its not going to happen that someone gives you no instruction at all, there may be some freedoms but the Mike Keisser's only come along in dreams and the real world of golf course architecture is a million miles away from what you and many on here think. I have trusted architects and given freedom with clubhouse plans... man I wasted £20,000 on one, it looked horrid. I would never give anyone total freedom on design of any project, I have spoken to other GCA who just seem to have no balance of how they are spending the clients money or improvement schemes that are many times more than the clubs available spend. I am not naming names but it was the main reason I never joined the main association.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

I think you're right, the answer to growing the game is that the challenge presented by the architect has to be a challenge that's fun to meet.

I think that's one of the things that sticks out in my mind when playing a CBM/SR/CB golf course, they're FUN to play.

GCGC, Seminole, Maidstone and others have that quality.
These are courses that have been around 80 to 100+ years, they've withstood the ultimate test, the test of time.
And, they remain FUN to play.

To me, FUN is often directly proportional to my desire to head for the 1st tee after coming off the 18th green.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The Architecture of the golf course, the fun elements that are there or not there are not the problem with the game. The big factors are cost and time and the ratios that exist between those two rellative too less money and time in the customers pocket.

[Randy Thompson]

The Architecture of the golf course, the fun elements that are there or not there are not the problem with the game. The big factors are cost and time and the ratios that exist between those two rellative too less money and time in the customers pocket.

Agreed, but those issues need to be addressed by architects and developers also. Nine hole courses, twelve hole courses ect that have individual holes that can be played as both; par four`s and par three`s and par five`s that can also be played as par fours to intermix the options and alternatives, could be one solution to these two items. I have a nine hole in construction that can be played as a par 35, par 36, par 37, par 38 or par 39 depending on how you mix and match and you should be able to play eighteen and not feel the usual repitition. Will see in the near future on how it is recieved. Unfortunately, it will be associated with a five star hotel and high end residential, I really would like to do one in a high populated area with affordable public access.

[Sean_A]

Jeff B

Hmmm, survival equals good business plan - yes.  Survival equals good architecture - not so fast my friend and I know you see the flaw with this line of thought.

I fully accept that there is no one good architecture, but there are good architectural themes which are present in nearly every course which is considered great and can also turn a profit/fill its membership roster.  If commercialism is steering archies away from those themes than something is amiss.  Courses must be designed for golfers and as soon as the golfer isn't the 100% focus than the course is at risk for being medicore - no matter the style or market.  

Adrian

If time and cost are such important issues, why are archies so hell bent on 7000 yard courses?  There is a cross purpose at work with your logic and I am suggesting that archies are not giving their best because they are not striking a good balance between commercialism and architecture.  I am not saying one should write a blank cheque for an archie than walk away and hope for the best.  But in all honesty, the expertise of the archie is with his imagination and experience.  

Randy

There has never been anything wrong with mounding so long as they are used wisely and judiciously.  

I also wonder about markets, do archies really know their market or do they opt for a shotgun "I am going for them all" approach - which doesn't really identify any market?

Kelly Blake

The cost of a round of golf shouldn't be the defining factor in providing features which make people take notice.  While agree that the game of golf is incredibly appealing, I am not so sure enough people share my thoughts and would therefore play golf on a dog track forever.  Eventually, golfers learn preferences.  

Ciao

[Dave McCollum]

Although I feel this is primarily a thread best addressed by our participating designers, I am always a sucker for “growing the game” topics in general and especially those that try to characterize the golfing public—the average Joe golfer.  First, thanks to the architects for giving us their time and insights.  They are invaluable.   Some random thoughts from a guy that runs a public golf course:

I think Ian’s comments about access, not architecture, is the most important factor in growing the game.  Here at our course we put our money where our hearts are, so to speak.  Kid’s pay $5 for weekday rounds during the summer, free on the weekends if playing with their paying parents, and we provide access for a couple of small HS golf teams.  All of our cart kids are aspiring junior golfers and a few have gone on to be outstanding amateurs or club pros.  Our pros teach golf classes for the local community college and work pro bono or at reduced rates to help promising juniors.  Family season passes are very affordable.  Does any of this pay off?  I have no evidence that it does.  Does it grow the game?  Possibly, but one really couldn’t afford to do it at most places.  If the course had that much open space on their tee sheets, they’d be down the tubes.

Sometimes I feel many of us amateur architecturistas lose perspective about what this site really is.  We are a very elite collection of golf nuts that enjoy the intellectual banter with other like-minded and equally crazed golf whack-jobs.   Yes, we are the cognoscente and, in my view, mostly out of touch the average golfer.

As I said a few days ago, 95% (or more) of my customers think good conditioning is good design and don’t know or don’t care about the difference.  They couldn’t care less who designed a golf course.  This is not a put-down or a criticism of these fine folks.  They often can appreciate good design when they see it.  They just don’t know why.  They love this course and I hear every day that they play here because it is the best course in the region.  I like to hear that, of course, but even I would rank just the course itself  4-5 on TD’s scale (the site, however, is very spectacular and unique).  I realize I’m on the record as not being a ranking kind of guy and I’m not.  Like my customers, I play golf for fun with my pals.  Better yet if the course is in a really great landscape.  The point I’m making is simply that a lot of the issues discussed here are not on the average golfer’s radar.  Affordable golf is their highest priority.

I’ve posted about this course, Canyon Springs in Idaho, before, so you can do a search if you want to know more.  For this thread it important to know that it is just a nice, affordable, rural golf course that is 35 years old that cost less than $1M to build back in the day.   Imagine sandy, rolling terrain, push up greens, 6,800 yards, very walkable, cheaply maintained, and unpretentious in every way.  Despite my obvious bias, I’d say that we are precisely the kind of minimal, but fun, uncrowded course that most folks want and, perhaps, even a few on this board would enjoy, especially at the $40 rack rate.  Also reasonably challenging to the better player (we have 60-70 single digit club members) and very playable for everyone else (113 to 125 slope).   That’s all good and well, but $1M today wouldn’t buy a sprinkler system.  If we need more of these kinds of affordable courses to grow the game, it can’t be done.  Nuzzo’s very intriguing Texas track was brilliantly implemented at a rock bottom price of $3M (I doubt that includes land cost, ask Mike).  It seems to me that our participating architects may share many of the high-fallutin’ ideas about great golf expressed here, but they know what it costs and are the ultimate reality check. 

So, you want a great course?  It seems to me that an architect basically needs a rich, deep-pocketed developer/owner who is as nuts about golf as most of us.  Hopefully, this guy has enough affluent customers to make it work or at least enough every day Joe’s and Jane’s to pack the tee sheet, and that creates a whole new set of problems to deal with.  It’s a tough racket these days.

Was that a rant?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adrian,

"Time" is a cultural, not a design issue.

[Randy Thompson]

Adrian,

"Time" is a cultural, not a design issue.

Patrick,
But does it hurt if one considers this in the design, five holes that go out and come back to the clubhouse, four that go and come back, six that go out and come back and then three doing the same. It might not demand taking prioroity and forcing holes in the terrain while eliminating other better natural holes but if your building in a swamp and then it doesn´t matter, so some thought and efort, given to our changing culturals in the design is valid IMO.

[Duncan Cheslett]

From the perspective of someone who has only recently taken up golf seriously, I would question whether the architect of a new golf course actually has any real influence in 'growing the game', or attracting those playing golf for the first time.

New players are surely more likely to start out at an 'entry level' course. In my locality a farmer decided several years ago to build a golf course on his land, and proceeded to do just that with the sole aid of a tractor. The first anyone knew about it was when he erected a big sign at the gate advertising 'Pay and Play - £10 per round'

Despite a battle with the local council over non-existent planning consent, the place has thrived, and now incudes a driving range. More people have been encouraged to give golf a try here than at all the many local long-established clubs combined. The course, naturally, lacks any architectural merit whatsoever, but the fact that you can turn up in your jeans and work-boots, pay your tenner, and have a pleasurable hack round has ensured a constant stream of new players and revenue.

Of course, those who take to the game do not stay around long; like me they look around for a 'proper' club with a 'better' course. The seeds of the addiction were sown however, at the cheap place.

Golf course architects are surely only hired by developers aiming at a higher level in the market; these days and certainly in England this generally means a course centered around a resort hotel. I have no specific knowledge of the industry but I can only imagine that the brief from the client will entail designing a course that will attract the maximum number of guests to the hotel, and that the potential guests attracted by the golf course will almost exclusively be already established golfers. The operators of the hotel will care little for expanding the pool of potential guests - just grabbing a bigger share than their competitors. I can't remember ever seeing a golf resort hotel advertising

                          "Ever thought about trying golf? Well, here's your chance! - Free round and club hire with every night stay"

In the long run maybe they should!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adrian,

"Time" is a cultural, not a design issue.

Patrick,
But does it hurt if one considers this in the design, five holes that go out and come back to the clubhouse, four that go and come back, six that go out and come back and then three doing the same. It might not demand taking prioroity and forcing holes in the terrain while eliminating other better natural holes but if your building in a swamp and then it doesn´t matter, so some thought and efort, given to our changing culturals in the design is valid IMO.

Randy,

If there are 18 holes, why should it take more than 3 hours to play them, irrespective of the routing ?

[Randy Thompson]

Patrick,
Why is the average round 4 to four and half hous not three? Even it were three, it seems to valid to me to give the option of one hour. Not everybody has three hours, two to three times a week but a lot more have an hour or two. Six holes pare three of varying length also seems like a good alternative. Go to the range for fifteen minutes and then play six holes par three and you get excellent practice and a good enviroment to play with the kids.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Patrick,
But does it hurt if one considers this in the design, five holes that go out and come back to the clubhouse, four that go and come back, six that go out and come back and then three doing the same. It might not demand taking prioroity and forcing holes in the terrain while eliminating other better naturals but if your building in a swamp and then it doesn´t matter, so some thought and efort, given to our changing culturals in the design is valid IMO.

Good point. My club has the fifth hole returning to the clubhouse, making it attractive to pop in for an hour's golf whenever I want to. This is actually one of the reasons I chose this particular club.

[Tim Nugent]

Adrian,

"Time" is a cultural, not a design issue.

Patrick,
But does it hurt if one considers this in the design, five holes that go out and come back to the clubhouse, four that go and come back, six that go out and come back and then three doing the same. It might not demand taking prioroity and forcing holes in the terrain while eliminating other better natural holes but if your building in a swamp and then it doesn´t matter, so some thought and efort, given to our changing culturals in the design is valid IMO.

Randy,

If there are 18 holes, why should it take more than 3 hours to play them, irrespective of the routing ?

Patrick, I have opinions on that, 1) most golfers don't have the skill (it takes longer to swing 100 times than 78, especially if a fair amouont of those require putting) and 2) they just are not inclined to.  By this, I mean they want to spend 4-5 hrs playing.  I know this goes against conventional wisdom but I have long ago come upon the realization that there are essentially 2 major types of golfers - Type A and Type B which correlate directly to personality types.  For example, my wife is type A(+) and is forever going "come on, let's go" like it's a race. meanwhie Type B (me) is more like "relax, I'm here to get away from pressure and the Hamster Wheel of modern life".  Luckily, as I noted from operating an urban public course for 15 yrs, the Type A's are early morning people and the Type B's  are late morning-early afternooners, so they tend not to get in each other's way.

Randy, along with David Ogrin, I developed a course w/3 loop of 6 and holes that could be 4's or 5's 3's or 4's back in the 90's.  The maintenance professionals post here as do some Houstonites who may be able to get you some input as to how that is or isn't being taken advantage of.

One of the regrets us Archies run into over the course of our careers is "The Course(s) that never got built".  One of those for me had a humpy/bumpy pasture where the clubhouse was going to be located, leaving about 20 acres in a rectangle, on an east/west axis bordered on the north and west by trees and the south by a little used country road.  We had 1,2,&3 as an out and back.  After 9-hole rounds no longer could be played due to daylight, it was figured that those 3 St.Andrews type holes could be played by the bucket of balls after dinner set.  Ideally, if #6 could also get back, you could get 18, then 9, then 6 then 3 hole rounds as daylight deminished.  Of course the ultimate would be if a course could be arranged like a clock and have every 3rd hole coming back to the clubhouse.

[Jeff_Brauer]

When we go back to the speed of play issue vs great design, I am always reminded of my three rounds at Royal Melbourne with my 100+ shooting wife.  None took over 2 hrs 45 minutes and one was behind a senior ladies league.  They may have been playing match play, but we were stroke play.

So, some cultural things affect play, but I took away some design things that affect speed of play -

Close Greens and Tees
Lots of turf
Gently rolling greens
Moderate amount of hazards.

[Ian Andrew]

If there are 18 holes, why should it take more than 3 hours to play them, irrespective of the routing ?

Pat, I'm as fast a player as you can find (2:20 walking at Olympia Fields this summer with Gerry B did not feel rushed) but some of the cart based courses with minimal margin for error are 4 hour rounds even by those determined to go fast. Routing and speed do matter.

On that note - this is where architects can do better – most of those course that fit into this category were routed for the photographic highpoint of the day. When are more sensible routing would have eliminated the need for carts and the long distances climbing between holes. Restraint matters in routing, but much of what I have seen in Modern times runs contrary to that thought.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I would add to the above that probably length that is used by only 0.5% of players probably does contribute to slow play.  Given current longer courses, IMHO, the gca should keep the greens and middle to forward tees close.  Sometimes when holes change 90 degrees, the green is close to the back tee, either unthinkingly, or because the gca is focused on a short walk for tournament competitors for that tournament that will come.....oh wait, most courses never have a tournament.

[Randy Thompson]

When we go back to the speed of play issue vs great design, I am always reminded of my three rounds at Royal Melbourne with my 100+ shooting wife.  None took over 2 hrs 45 minutes and one was behind a senior ladies league.  They may have been playing match play, but we were stroke play.

So, some cultural things affect play, but I took away some design things that affect speed of play -

Close Greens and Tees
Lots of turf
Gently rolling greens
Moderate amount of hazards.

Jeff,

What do you consider close? The older courses good get away more than we can. If we go less than 50 yards from the center of a green are we not opening ourselves or our clients to safety issue, and possible future law suits??

[Jeff_Brauer]

Randy,

Good question and yes, I wouldn't put the next tee as close to the green as at RM.....but in recent years, where tees are behind and not beside an adjacent green, I have started to put them a lot closer.  I used to have a setback of 200 feet green center to tee center and if directly behind the green, I now am very comfortable at 150 feet and have placed them as little as 135 feet center to center.

BTW, a good chunk of the faster play at RM comes from allowing trolleys on the green, rather than forcing golfers to place them well off the green and add footsteps to go back and get them. I saw no ill turf effects from that either.

[Randy Thompson]

Randy,

BTW, a good chunk of the faster play at RM comes from allowing trolleys on the green, rather than forcing golfers to place them well off the green and add footsteps to go back and get them. I saw no ill turf effects from that either.

Try doing that in the good ole USA..lol!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,
Why is the average round 4 to four and half hous not three? Even it were three, it seems to valid to me to give the option of one hour. Not everybody has three hours, two to three times a week but a lot more have an hour or two. Six holes pare three of varying length also seems like a good alternative. Go to the range for fifteen minutes and then play six holes par three and you get excellent practice and a good enviroment to play with the kids.


Sounds nice in theory, but, it won't work for numerous reasons.

1.  What would you charge those members, full fare ?
2.  How would you alot tee times to them and avoid gaps ?  You have to consider members who want to play 18.
3.  Culturally, golf is an 18 hole game and you're not going to change that with an abbreviated format.
     Those who want can already play a quick nine holes in an hour, hour and a half to two hours, depending upon how crowded the
     course is
4.  Courses that return to the clubhouse often, incentivize golfers to stop for drinks, food, calls, equipment or clothing changes, thus
     lenghtening the round 

[Randy Thompson]

Tim,
You got my line of thinking, adjusting to and considering the changing times we are living. !9th holes should have sushi instead of hot dogs and hamburgers too! Hot dogs are darn right nasty! In any minute the ameican goverment may start taxing them! Take care!

[Patrick_Mucci]

When we go back to the speed of play issue vs great design, I am always reminded of my three rounds at Royal Melbourne with my 100+ shooting wife.  None took over 2 hrs 45 minutes and one was behind a senior ladies league.  They may have been playing match play, but we were stroke play.

So, some cultural things affect play, but I took away some design things that affect speed of play -

Close Greens and Tees
Lots of turf
Gently rolling greens
Moderate amount of hazards.

Jeff,

Look at Cascata on Google earth and tell me how you'd get the tees close to the previous green ?

Sometimes, site constraints trump ideal intent

[Randy Thompson]

Patrick,
I am doing a six hole par thre course now, not as a stand alone but next to the driving range and incorporated into an exsiting twenty seven hole-residential community. The idea is to have a course to practice all aspects of the short game and focusing on the recuperation shot and putting which when combined is about 80% of the game. Plus a good begineers course and kids course. This is the way I am looking at it anyways, I try not to focus on the thought that it will be surrounded by hotel, convention center, residential lots, branded apartments under the hotel name, ect ad nasium!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,
I am doing a six hole par thre course now, not as a stand alone but next to the driving range and incorporated into an exsiting twenty seven hole-residential community. The idea is to have a course to practice all aspects of the short game and focusing on the recuperation shot and putting which when combined is about 80% of the game. Plus a good begineers course and kids course. This is the way I am looking at it anyways, I try not to focus on the thought that it will be surrounded by hotel, convention center, residential lots, branded apartments under the hotel name, ect ad nasium!

Randy, that's a seperate product, an adjunct, which fits in nicely with the general facility.

I know a number of courses that have added 9 hole or executive type courses to their inventory.

Hamilton Farms has a USGA rated par 3 course.

A limited course works well for juniors and beginers, especially if it's an adjunct to an 18 hole course.

Routing an 18 hole course such that there are repetitive returns to the clubhouse seems like a formula incentivizing slow play, and certainly not conducive to a more free flowing round.

GCGC, an out and back course, has two interior routings which permit 5 hole and 9 hole play, but, they also require cutting in, which is often a problem.

One of the many things I like about Friars Head is the 9 hole par 3 course next to the fabulous practice facility.
I enjoy practicing and I enjoy playing a few holes after practicing, from 36 down to 2 or 3.

[Randy Thompson]

Routing an 18 hole course such that there are repetitive returns to the clubhouse seems like a formula incentivizing slow play, and certainly not conducive to a more free flowing round.

[/quote]
Patrick,
It depends on your demographics, here, courses are almost never full and even in the USA is coulld be used during the week, maybe twilight. If I live on a golf course, I just think it is valid to give home owners the option of playing less than nine holes during slow times. Hopefully, they will take advantage of the situation when they don`t disrupt other. Most golfers have a foundation of repsect for others. Its not something to be used in every situation but there are situations where it could be a plus and therefore should be considered in the back of ones mind.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()