[Jud_T]

From the cheap seats it's clear that the guy who cuts the check calls the shots.  The question is what one does with what he's given in terms of land, $$'s and client vision (or lack thereof)...

[Mac Plumart]

Finally, some of you guys are touching at what I'm getting at...

M. Dugger says:

"Making money is rarely the same thing as building a golf course for all the "right" reasons.  Or building the "natural" course.

Like with a lot of things in life, the pursuit of wealth can spoil golf."

Then Jeff B. follows up with:

"I find myself wondering, how many courses prior to about 1990 were designed with no thought to commerical success?  Or, at least breaking even?

Other than a few GA archies - namely CBM and Thomas, what architects weren't also under pressure to deliver what the owners wanted to collect their fee and get recommendations for others?"

That is the line of thinking I was using when I started this thread.  And like I mentioned previously, my original question, "Has commerical interest and mass appeal stunted the growth of quality golf course architecture?", has been answered in spades.  In fact, hardly anyone has really talked about quality golf course architecture.  Rather they talked about business. 

Jeff, "how many courses prior to 1990 were designed with no thought of commerical success?"  I don't know the answer, but Fred Jones' The Golf Club is one of them.  This guy was on a mission to build his golfing oasis and he did it...no matter what.  I think Pine Valley and The National Golf Links of America were founded under similar circumstances.  There is a great quote on one of those, I think it is Pine Valley, where the owner asked for money but made it clear that no financial return was expected.   (Does someone remember it?).

That is what I'm getting at.  And, like I mentioned, financial interests seem to have almost totally destroyed the "ideal golf course" line of thinking and almost totally killed revolutionary thinking in golf course design.  Give us par 72, 4 par 3's and 4 par 5's, 7,000+ yards, multiple sets of tee boxes (championship, ladies, members, etc), raked bunkers, greens stimped over 10.

I also sense a frustration/anger from the architects on this thread.  Like I mentioned earlier, I get where you are coming from.  You are building/running a business.  You have to please your clients.  You do good work with the parameters you have to work within.  But that is not what I'm getting at.

And this is why I brought up the amateur architects building their own courses and Fred Jones style owners.  More of this, and less business schemes with golf as a piece of the ploy could take the art of golf course architecture to the next level.

Perhaps it will never happen...money and business is too powerful a motivator and the people with the financial werewithal (did I spell that right) to do something like this, have no interest in it.  And/or they are afraid they'll be ridiculed for being such a dreamer.

That is my idea/point.

[Mike_Young]

Finally, some of you guys are touching at what I'm getting at...

That is the line of thinking I was using when I started this thread.  And like I mentioned previously, my original question, "Has commerical interest and mass appeal stunted the growth of quality golf course architecture?", has been answered in spades.  In fact, hardly anyone has really talked about quality golf course architecture.  Rather they talked about business. 

Hey Mac,  could you define "quality golf course architecture" for me?  For me that is the problem in most discussions on this site.  While I might actually favor the ODG styles and another might like the TF or JN styles they can all be quality.  The Mona Lisa and a Leroy Nieman painting are both quality....don't you agree?
Cheers

[Mac Plumart]

Mike...

Yes.  Let's try to do this, that is define quality golf course architecture...and let's have some fun with it...and not make it a typical GCA shouting match/pissing contest.

First and foremost, I truly believe a sign of quality golf course architecture centers on the course's routing.  Now, routings can come in all shapes and sizes...and still be of high quality.  But routing a course through a neighborhood, across multiple streets, with tee boxes located, damn near, in people's back yards is not high quality routing.  That is a sign that the golf course is secondary consideration to selling houses.

Adding on to signs of a quality routings (or more specifically signs that the golf courses routing was of secondary interest) fairways lined with houses where the actual house is in play and/or the yard infringes on the course and makes an artifical out of bounds line.  (I may not have worded this correctly, but I think I get my point across).

Seconary signs of a well routed course would be short green to tee transitions, and/or green to tee transitions that have somewhat longer length, but the walk is enjoyable/scenic/interesting (it is my understanding that Highlands Links has longer green to tee transitions, but they are interesting in a nature hike sense).

This kind of dovetails with some basic concepts that a well-routed course should follow the natural features of the land.

I'll take a pause there and hope for some discussion.  But I have to add, Mike, that you always throw in the ODG tag.  I personally could care less about who said things or when they were said and/or done.  I think the routing at Askernish is amazing.  I think the routing at NGLA is great.  I think Ballyneal is excellent.  I think Longshadow is pretty damn good.  All genres covered there...all good...all interesting.  No sacred cows...just my opinion on what I've seen.

[Mike_Young]

Mac,
I agree with regarding the aspect of routing and definitely agree regarding double loaded homes on fairways.  But I also think strategy is very very critical.  And strategy has changed over the years.
I do bring up the ODG a lt because they are the basis for judging good and bad for most on this site.  
Meanwhile much modern design has been on sites where housing was secondary and it gets dismissed as not being of quality .  Some Engh work comes to mind. Seems he has some stand alone courses that may not get rave reviews here yet it may be there is quality there.  

[Mac Plumart]

Mike...

I have to hit the rack now.  But I'd like to continue this tomorrow.  In general, I think routing, strategy, and options are crucial to quality golf course architecture.  And I am becoming more and more convinced that natural golf courses are the final piece of the "quality" puzzle.  But I think natural is a bit more than most people might realize.  However, I need some more research in this area before I am totally convinced.

Perhaps we can talk strategy tomorrow.  I am especially interested to hear your thoughts on how it has changed over the years.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike Young, Jeff Brauer,
Just because some lesser known courses don't get a lot of run here doesn't mean the architecture is not appreciated. I'm usually a lot more impressed when someone can create a good course on an average piece of land for less then what is usually spent. Not every course should be trying for top 100 status and the reality is most don't have the land for that anyhow. But they sure can be very good courses for the folks in the area. I know I appreciate courses like that. An example is Wild Horse. In that case they had some good land to work with, and they get some national run because of the site and location as well as the architecture, but they built the course in a very practical manner, they didn't over do it, and it can be maintained for a reasonable cost.
I remember walking that course and thinking to myself, every city could have a course like this. And when I say "like this" I mean a course that fits within the environment and is well designed without trying to be more then it should be. They took a theme of developing a good course that fits within the economic realities of their city and they stuck with it all the way through. I was just as impressed with that discipline as I have been with any $20 million course.

I think we should see more of that and while you guys seem to complain about favoritism here to certain architects or styles, my complaint is too many architects try to mimic those guys, and their styles, thinking it will lead to commercial success instead of simply doing the best they can with what they have. Showing the discipline to design a course that can be sustainable within a realistic economic model is a lot more important then the bunker style you use.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

I like the idea that a course shouldn't try to be more than it should be.  I thnk I have a few like that.  Actually, quite a few public courses like that.  I am as proud of a Lake Jackson (pretty low key) as I am a Quarry.

As to routing, I am pretty confident that I have put the best routing out on any given piece of land that could be done.  As to features, my courses span the gamut, from "fits like old slippers" to slightly overcooked.  While I understand the need for visual excitement (IMHO, more necessary for the TV generation) I also know it wears a bit thin over time.  A course can be visually pleasing and not visually exciting and over the top.  Of course, having a natural site like Wild Horse helps, and in some cases, courses need more work.

[Mike_Young]

Don
I don't complain about favoritism of certain archies or styles.  I just antagonize. Fact is there are favorites but that's fine.   I have always done my style and never tried to copy some popular style. As for the rest of your post I think we are in agreement.  I just do my thing. Call me sometime.  Mke

[Ben Sims]

No one should make it their goal to combine the romanticism of golf architecture and the business of golf architecture.  I can think of less than 10 folks (archies and clients) in all of golf that have done that successfully in the modern age.   There's just not enough business for everyone to be idealistic in their work.  Adrian Stiff's earlier posts about the "real situation" is dead on.

Mass appeal certainly hurts end product.  Mass appeal has its place though.  If everything in the world were designed to be niche, special, and different, then nothing would be special and different.  No one is going to argue that the Twilight series is great literature.  Necessary for the masses?  I think so.

To combine those thoughts is to understand why both Rees Jones and Tom Doak are considered successful.  They have both carved out niches where their work is appreciated and understood.  I think it's when market appeal is injected into those niches that we see a dissolution of the genre.  Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it maybe the most hollow as well. 

[Mac Plumart]

I've just got a second to check in...but I had to make a quick comment on this from Don...

Just because some lesser known courses don't get a lot of run here doesn't mean the architecture is not appreciated. I'm usually a lot more impressed when someone can create a good course on an average piece of land for less then what is usually spent. Not every course should be trying for top 100 status and the reality is most don't have the land for that anyhow. But they sure can be very good courses for the folks in the area. I know I appreciate courses like that.

That is it.  Top 100 really doesn't matter.  It is quality stuff that we/I am after.  There are a decent amount of good/quality stuff that will never be Top 100, but who cares...it is still qualilty.  In fact, I just played Tallgrass on Long Island.  Very, very well done.  It didn't have the appropriate maintence meld and that kind of killed a lot of the great design work...but if you looked at the course, you could see it.

Others off the top of my head that probably won't ever be Top 100 in the World but are quality pieces of work are:  Aiken Golf Club, Longshadow, Crail Balcomie, Askernish, Palmetto, Inwood, Rivermont...okay, I'll stop now. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()