[Jeff_Brauer]

Take off on the other thread, but it has to be asked........

[Carl Rogers]

You might get some of the same answers as the initial thread '... encouraging'.

Pete Dye's River Course at Radford VA (VA Tech's home course) is a very very rough hard slog from the 7200 yard tees much less the 7600 yard tees.

TW??

[Jason Topp]

It would be interesting to try and figure out whether or not Pete Dye's intimidating courses such as PGA West encourage or discourage new golfers.  I could see that one going either way.

I find Nicklaus' "mean" courses such as La Paloma to be very discouraging because I cannot control my iron shots sufficiently well to handle some of the demands.  I don't think he has built a mean course, however, in 25 years. 

[Mark Saltzman]

I think this question is difficult to answer as I, like many on this board, don't play the courses that most new golfers play.  It is hard to give answers like Dye, Fazio or even RTJ since most new golfers aren't playing courses designed by these signature architects, but rather are playing courses by architects that most have never heard of.

That being said, I don't think difficult courses discourage new golfers.  I have played with many high-handicap golfers at courses like the TPC at PGA West, which are crazy hard but appealing to look at.  The HHs enjoyed it, even though they shot some crazy number and went through a sleeve of balls a hole.  They enjoyed it because it had lots of water, lots of mounding and lots of eye-candy.  So what discourages new golfers? In my mind, it's tree-lined golf courses. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

I guess the question would be, if you happened to play a Dye or Nicklaus course first, would it encourage or discourage?  Let's say a bride plays on her honeymoon with a golf crazed hubby?  (I have seen this at both Harbor Town and Pebble) 

Or a female executive trying or re-trying golf for business reasons at a company or convention outing?

I would think pretty and not too hard would be a way to encourage.  Hard and average aesthetics would discourage, IMHO.

So, maybe its who fits that mold, especially for resort and upper end publics?

[Peter Pallotta]

I hate to be pedestrian about this, Jeff, but it's 'cost' that discourages most new golfers, plain and simple.  And, while I hate to slag my hero JN, I think he has had the most to do with the rising costs -- across the board.  He has raised the sea-level, lifted all the boats as it were -- both for architects' fees as well as for green fees. Not because those two costs are necessarily related/in direct proportion (as is often claimed) -- but because developers/clients have used his fees and his name to justify the 'price point' that they had in mind even before the golf course was a gleam in their eyes.  And no matter where you live, if there is a course nearby charging $120-$150 to play, the cost of every course around it will eventually go up too, as those who run the municipal course or the mom and pop operation see that they can charge double or triple what they ever charged before and still come in at less than half the cost of the new CCFAD.  I don't begrudge them that -- I'm just saying that if I was just starting out playing golf and finding golf fun but a real struggle too, I'm not sure I'd want to spend $60 dollars to play (at least, not more than once every month or two -- at which rate I'd never get any better and I'd quit).

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter, that is a valid viewpoint and it is a complex and perhaps unanswerable question.  But JN wasn't the only one and I am not sure if he really was the prime driver, although I do think he was one of them in the upscale area.

[Paul Jones]

I would say Rees Jones.  However, he was just doing what was asked of him by making the great public courses US Open ready: Torrey Pines, Bethpage, Cog Hill.

I think people go play those course because they hosted an Open but then find this game to be very difficult to play.

Just my thoughts.

[Kalen Braley]

Based on my limited experience, it would be Nicklaus' courses.

Everyone one of them I've played have ranged from tough to ball buster on the difficulty scale.

[Michael George]

In my experience, while it is very popular to say, difficulty rarely discourages a golfer or makes them give up the sport.  I recently played Muirfield Village with a guy for business that shot 120 (mostly because he picked up).  He knew that he was bad, but had never played a golf course like MV before and was amazed at how great the place was.  Also, I could see new golfers absolutely loving Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV, despite forced carries over desert and really difficult golf holes.  

IMHO, 2 things discourage new golfers:  (1) cost and (2) bad design.  I think Peter properly addressed the cost issue.  However, no matter how difficult his designs are, I don't think Nicklaus has discouraged many new golfers.  Rather, a badly designed course is much more to blame.  In particular, following my belief that typically the developer is much more to blame for a bad golf course than the architect, I think many residential lay-outs with holes that were created after the housing development and where the golf course acts as an ampi-theater to the homes on each side are to blame.  

There is a course in Medina, Ohio called Blue Heron.  It is one of the worst lay-outs you could ever find.  It is full of 375 golf holes that you have to hit 6 iron off the tee in front of a pond and then hit another 6 iron to the pin.  Plus, there are homes on both sides of most holes so there is no feeling on the course.  I don't know who the developer or the architect was, but both failed miserably.  10 years later, the home sites are still half empty and the golf course gets no play.  I am addicted to golf, but if I had to play that course, I would take up tennis.

[Melvyn Morrow]

GCA’s who have puts money before their integrity.

To be a Designer or Consultant requires the individual to do what is their best for the client, even if it requires trying to dissuade their client to abandon aspects of the project that do not comply with the traditions of the game.

After all are they Golf Courses Designers/Architects or just purveyors of their client’s ideas for a reasonable payment? Perhaps the term GCA no longer conveys the respect and honour it once did, thus being a fair reflection of our current times!

What Golf Course Architect Has Done The Most to DISCOURAGE new Golfers, the ones who are willing to sell their integrity for a 30 pieces of Silver, perhaps?

Perhaps we need to redefine what GCA actually stands for?

Melvyn

[Chris Johnston]

Jeff

I don't think there is an answer to the question.  I know of no architects who discourage new golfers?  If there were, they wouldn't last very long in the trade.

[Michael George]

Melvin:

I completely disagree with you. The golf course architect has to talk with the developer/owner before any engagement to determine if they can work together and share the same goals for the project.  For instance, if the developer/owner wants Shadow Creek (ie. a course wholly created regardless of the land) and the golf course architect wants Sand Hills (ie. a course wholly create from the land), they probably should not be working together.   

However, once engaged, the golf course architect works for the developer/owner.  It is not the other way around.  In any profession, final say lies with the client, not the consultant or adviser.  While it probably did not happen frequently (otherwise it would not have ended up so good), I am sure there were times at Bandon that Mike Keiser "trumped" (yes intentional) the golf course architect on certain decisions.  In fact, Dream Golf recites many examples.  Further, I would guess that these disagreements are more frequent when there is a real estate development associated with the project.

While I am sure that the architects on this board would strongly advocate their positions, I am likewise confident that they have lost these fights from time to time and the golf course possibly has suffered at the expense of the residential development.   
 

[michael damico]

again,

I am only a noob when it comes to the industry, but the first thing that I have noticed (immediately!) is that the designer is EMPLOYED by the owner. If the owner wants a certain type of grass, pipe, bunker style, etc. it is up to the architect to 'convince' him/her otherwise. The owner has the final say, not necessarily the architect/designer. Melvyn, I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree.

Now, I sit here (and I'm sure I will 30 years from now) and wonder why in the world, as an owner, would you employ me if you don't want to listen to my advice or knowledge base? Why not hire someone who would just be your lackey and produce your vision? My answer: they want a name to help SELL. Bottom line: revenue. Hell, we all need to make a living and we all have different ideals, (and how far we will bend on those ideals) I guess that the best projects are products of a combination of an owner with a good vision and an architect/designer who is both compatible with and/or savvy enough to convince them otherwise.

[Joe Bausch]

Well, Lester, last summer Cirba and I spent 12 hours in a car one day to make the trip down (and back) to play Kinloch.  So you aren't it.
   

[Melvyn Morrow]

The Client is indeed the Client and the GCA works for him but and it’s a big but the integrity is still with the Designer. He is there to design a GOLF COURSE. Call it professional pride or whatever, if the client requires that which is not really associated with the traditions of golf then IMHO the Designers has a duty which goes beyond his commitment to the client. That being honouring the profession and traditions of his industry while of course maintaining his reputation.

Let’s face it, the Designers was employed for his knowledge and experience in that industry, so should he remain if the clients intentions is, let’s just say not honourable to the workings of that industry/sport.

I sincerely believe that the Designer has a duty of care for the product he is meant to be a specialist in.

Of course some may not agree, but then those may just be the purveyors of the client’s wishes servicing an industry which he seems to have little real interest in, apart from money.

Then again perhaps we have a different take on the responsibilities of an architect/designer.

Melvyn

[Ken Fry]

I think another thread could be spawned from this about discouraging women!  It's been touched on the board before about women playing a different game than men but never directly discussed to the best of my memory.

My wife is a solid player.  With young kids she doesn't play much anymore, but with a little practice could be a high 70 to low 80 player again.  A couple years ago I took her to a new course that was creating quite a buzz.  The property was dramatic with massive elevation changes.  While I enjoyed the course very much, she found it too difficult.  She wasn't able to get enough trajectory on the ball to carry or climb many of the more severe landforms.  While she could appreciate the options the course presented to me and why I enjoyed it so much, many of those options were not available to her without sacrificing a chance at scoring.  Despite hitting the ball well, she couldn't break 95.  She played the most forward tees, but from many of the fairways, just couldn't hit the ball high enough to climb the hills to the green.

Awfully tough to please everyone, even with 8 different teeing grounds....

Ken

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ken,

Yes, the women often get screwed by the typical tee arrangement stepping down a hill.  The championship tee is highest, for players who get the most lift, and the forward tee is lowest, for players who get the least lift.  A leftover from designing for the best players, and the forward tees being more of an afterthought.  Now that I am really championing the forward tees at 4000 yards or so, we can often just move those up to the next hilltop and it seems to help.

But, yes, designing truly for the "typical" women beginner golfer is a separate topic.

I actually think that rather than one architect, the whole movement to the upscale public course, with high price and higher challenge is probably the biggest discouragment to new golfers, and was aimed squarely at getting existing golfers to spend more money.......not bring new ones into the game.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

"I actually think that rather than one architect, the whole movement to the upscale public course, with high price and higher challenge is probably the biggest discouragment to new golfers, and was aimed squarely at getting existing golfers to spend more money.......not bring new ones into the game."

Good point!

How many developers/owners say that they want to build a beginners course that can be played by everyone? I remember JN saying something like that it's hard to design a course for a 110 shooter. Can you challenge that statement?

[Jeff_Brauer]

It's not that hard to design a beginners course, but there is no money in it.  And certainly no fame, no rankings.

[Ken Fry]

Jeff,

Great points all around.  Ironic how many older facilities that had "ladies only" courses are now played more often than the "championship course" because they're more fun.

All the recent bashing Cog Hill has taken, and before it Torrey Pines South,  are  great examples that a public facility has a hard time pleasing all playing levels.

To answer the original question of the thread, I'd nominate RTJ Sr.  He pioneered championship courses and ushered in a new era of penal golf.  He created the demand for architect name recognition through tougher courses.  While it became fun in his heyday to hear the pros complain about how hard he made the courses they were playing many of their major championships on, his work in turn did nothing to make the game fun for beginners.

Ken

[Mac Plumart]

It's not that hard to design a beginners course, but there is no money in it.  And certainly no fame, no rankings.

Hmmm...

I guess the only people who would build these kind of courses would be people who love the game and want others to play.  They don't need fame or have their work be highly "ranked".  Hey, I can think of someone like this.  He's a bit older, but he must really love the game. 

[Ronald Montesano]

Joe...you and Cirba aren't new golfers.

This to me is a "reach" thread...what is it that pushes new golfers away from the game? Where to begin...

A-holes who demand that new golfers play with more skill than they possess;
Courses that allow new golfers to play without demonstrating the minimal skill required to navigate the course in a reasonable time frame;
Courses that charge too much, either directly (fees) or indirectly (lost golf balls at an alarming rate);
Managers that schedule tee times too close together, hopelessly clogging the course and delaying the completion of rounds;

I think that you could make a case for Senior and the courses he was asked to build during the 1950s and 1960s, of the "Monster" ilk. When golfers are told by their underinformed brethren that "you have to play this course...it has 492 yard carries over water, tall trees, high lips, thick & deep & wide rough" and we all know the frustration of that.

It took me years to figure out that Tanglewood West (Champions Tour course) in Clemmons, N.C., is basically unplayable. It looks pretty and dangerous and all, but you can't play it within five strokes of your home handicap. Holes are either too angular or too long or too bunkered...sad for such an enjoyable plot of land.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mac,

I am sure most architects love the game, but part of us always wants to design that top 100 course, and for the most part, the economic stars aligned to where we all were trying to design very good courses, not "munis" even when we were designing muni's.

I got to thinking about it, but was it RTJ or others who drove the entire mindset of designing every course for a championship, or for the better player when in fact, at most courses, they make up so few of the golfers?

[Mike_Young]

I don't think it was an architect as much as a RE developer that began to discourage golfers.  Say a Landmark Dev Corp type.  They tried to sell on difficulty and told the architect what to do. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()