[Peter Pallotta]

Is that true?  (I think it is).

Is it a good thing?  (I think it is neither good nor bad; but it is telling, and rather unfortunate)

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

As a general trend line, it's certainly true.  Conventional wisdom has become stronger and stronger as golfers think they know about architecture, and as the costs of building courses have risen.

The economic crisis doesn't help, either.  Just a few years ago there was so much work that there was room for new guys to come on the scene and try new things ... now, not so much.  But if fees continue to decline, then it's possible some new blood willing to work for less money will jump in and show a different way forward.

As Mike Young has suggested elsewhere on these pages, the key to success moving forward is to redefine the business model into something that actually works ... not figuring out a better look for bunkers.

[Mac Plumart]

It is true, without question...and it is bad, without question.

We need someone to shatter the status quo.

[Peter Pallotta]

Actually, I thought a good counter argument could be made, and that many would make it. I really didn't think the thesis was as obvious (and obviously true) as it appears to be.

Peter

[Melvyn Morrow]

GCA has never been under so much threat as we find it today.  The main issue that is causing the underline problem is the stubborn refusal to address this desire for longer and longer courses. The modern aerial game is being destructive to the whole game and not constructive as many believe because of the failure to address the technology debate once and for all. This has been running for over 100 years with still very little sign that the problem is understood let alone being addressed or even investigated.

The issue is so simple, its allowing the aerial game to force distance generated by the advancing technology in both ball and club. The last 100 years shows the actual proof of advancement once we had the ball and clubs finally reach a state that the game could be played in a consistent manor.

Are we getting better quality games, matches tournaments, no that’s certainly not been proven. Are we getting better courses, again I believe the proof shows that the courses produced in the first 30 years of the 20th Century have out-performed  those produced in the last 80 years. Yardage has slowly crept up from the mid 5,000 yards to over 7,000, causing a massive cost implication on both the building and maintaining courses and not just on new but the need to extend the older shorter courses. But for what gain, I mean for the golfing population at large.

I do not accept the argument that the modern golfer is better or fitter than his predecessor, which certainly has not been proven. This is a very serious issue relating to GCA as it is destroying the conventional idea of designing a golf course converting it into a glorified pitch and put course. Not to mention that the aerial game bypasses the need for design for the first 250-300yards looking to the latter half of each Hole to actually constitute a design for this elongated game of golf.

Therefore regards the question of “Golf Course Architecture Has Never Been As Homogenous as it is Today”, well I will leave you to ponder the full depth of the question.

Melvyn

[Jay Flemma]

I couldn't disagree more.  You have the minimalist movement with all its roots and branches.  You have your new crop of Macdonald/Raynor/Banks guys bringing their work back.  You have Engh with his whole new look and feel to things.  You have Lester George building great courses left and right.  You have Brauer.  The you've got RTJ2 looking around at the new guys and trying out his spin on so me of those ideas.  He's getting  better with age. 

Then you've got revoluti0onary new turfgrasses and drainage techniques.

Jones may be right.  Maybe this isn't the "Second Golden Age" it may be what he called recently the "Platinum Age."    This is a really exciting time for GCA.  Homogeneous?  If you mean everyone is building cool stuff, then sign me up!

[JESII]

Thank you for that post Melvyn. It provides me a new insight to your perspective and I appreciate it.

[JESII]

What did new architecture look like from about 1950 through 1975 or 80?

I don't travel too much but I would think the courses built in the last 10 years would hold up well in a diversity contest...even compared to those of 80 - 100 years ago.

[Mark Pearce]

I played two local courses last year that I had not played before.  Both featured wide fairways.  One had generally wide fairways, a couple of short par 4s, one of which was steeply downhill, with a blind tee shot and a tiny landing area, the other was also blind, uphill and driveable.  The other was on a steeply sloping piece of land, had several super wide fairways, blind shots, a ha-ha in play and several short par 4s.  It also had many and varied centre line hazards and possibly the widest fairway I have seen outside of St Andrews on a steeply downhill par 4.  One was opened in 1909 and the other in 2011.  If the 2011 course is a product of homogenous modern design I think it's a good thing.  However, I don't think it is.  I think there is plenty of variety in modern design and the willingness of some developers to allow architects to build courses such as the Renaissance Club and the Colt Course at Close House is excellent for the game and very different from the attitude 20 years ago when courses like the (execrable) Hunting Course at Slaley Hall were standard fare.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

Thanks for your comment. As for the difference, perhaps we should look and consider why we call it the Golden Age of GCA (well the second Golden Age IMHO as the first was the mid to late 19th Century).

Since the war we have heard a new expression when defining courses, that being Championship Course(s), every owner or developer wants a course that attract the stars for obvious reasons of selling their brand of product be it Membership or properties. Courses have been pushed or require that tag which makes them that little bit more attractive, certainly in a financial sense. Perhaps to the point that the actual heart of the courses is not ideally suitable for purpose – I am referring to courses that have by design long walks between Greens and Tees, Island Greens, massive bunker complexes all around the Greens.

We have I believe inherited the expensive ‘we can do what we want as we have the money and technology to do it’ mentality rather than look to the game and the importance of not just good design but good working practices. Modern courses are over furnished, lost sight of the Natural in favour of good engineering irrespective of whether it is viable on some of our inland courses. Because we have the technology we should build it is not the way to design golf courses, but fine for stadiums and their likes. So yes quality has suffered by moving the game without understanding the technology of the course itself, thus design is in conflict with the building methods due to a different direction which IMHO is attracting poor, no bad practices both by owners, designers and players.

Perhaps this is the reason why many who venture to courses like Machrie, Dornoch, Machrihanish, Askernish, Moray and even Cruden are in awe of these simple but enjoyable and thrilling courses.

Jim I think modern design on the whole has become boring for the most part but do accept that there are more than a few good exceptions. However the remainder are over expensive, over engineered and cost a fortune to build and worst still maintain, hence my attitude to courses built over the last 80 years. Looking at the last 15/20 years, IHMO we are still travelling in the wrong direction, yet many are talking of another Golden Age,  Golden Age in design and build costs, perhaps, better than the 60’s/70’s yes perhaps but still not as yet matching the first two Golden Age.

Melvyn

[Tim Nugent]

I often find it a bit confusing when people here assign attributes to courses built in the 50's and 60's.  In reality, these courses exhibit the lauded ideals of the Minimalist school such as limited fairway grading, limited sub-surface drainage (everything had to surface drain), work concentrated mainly to features (greens, bunkers, tees) and marginal irrigation.  Trees were planted to provide hole separation and cart paths were not much of a consideration.
After adapting to the economic conditions of the Depression and WWII,  many of the design features of the Golden Age were eliminated  as costly to build and more importantly, maintain.  Just look at courses designed by my father's boss, Robert Bruce Harris.
During the 2 decades between the Golden Age and the post war era, we lost many of the ODGs who had emmigrated or had familararity with courses from the old sod.  In their place emmerged home grown (2nd generation) architects who were tasked with re-tasking older, more elaborate courses to conform to the business/economic realities of the time.  No wonder that guys like Tillie were reduced to going around and eliminating expenses from courses.
As these guys reached their golden years, a new breed of post-war, college educated (mostly landscape acrhitects) emerged to carry on.  They had the economic model ingrained in them.  Where I believe they failed was they let the business mode drive the design and it was one of form follows function rather than function following form (which is what the earliest courses were derived from).  A feature, such as a bunker, that was not deemed "in-play" was deemed wasteful and not considered relavent.
With the advent of modern air travel, both players and architects began to see more and more from regions their predecessors never had the experienced.  They began to incorporate and emmulate what they saw. This is what I believe had a great influence towards the birth of the Modern era.
It has been said that those who do not study history are apt to repeat it.  As I look around I wonder if we are not once again following the same road as post 1929.

[BCrosby]

If the question is a comparative one within a single time frame, it seems to me that courses like OM or Chambers Bay or TPC Stadium or a number of others are/were quite dissimilar to their contemporary cohorts. There are still plenty of architects out there willing to take chances - given the right circumstances.

Certainly there were outliers during the GA too, but I'm not sure there were more of them than was/is the case post-WWII and down to modern times.

Bob

   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()