Golf Digest Best New: ASGCA?

[Jeff_Stettner]

In this years best new courses, the winner in all three catagories is not a member of the ASGCA. Considering the recent glut of press releases by the ASGCA asking raters to ignore walkability, reduce the distance of equipment, etc..., is there a certain kind of irony here?
Are the views of the ASGCA becoming outdated? Maybe this result is an abberation. I don't know, though. I wonder if the exclusionary stance of this organization has turned off enough potential members that the most talented folks are staying away.

[ed getka]

Jeff,
Any organization that tells its raters not to factor in walkability has no business being associated with golf. Any activity that involves moving a ball with an implement while sitting should have polo in the name, not golf.

[RJ_Daley]

As much as I promote the idea of walking, I am willing to cut the ASGCA some slack on the request to take the walkability out of the equation.  I may have actually said the opposite in a previous post, please excuse the duplicity.  But, I am considering the factor that so often they are handed a piece of land that can not accomodate a walking route, period.  If they can do good work on the land they have been given, and it is not possible to have continuous golf corridors or the elevation changes are prohibitive, then I am willing to leave walkability out of it.

However, if the land they are given will support a routing that is walkable and they fail to provide a walkable route, then double marks against them! :-/

But let's give the ASGCA their due for taking the position on curtailing the equipment and de-emphasising length.  They have been recently joined by Donald Steele on the subject as well.  They have been subject to a rediculing series of media public relations attack ads by the equipment manufacturers, and it really shows the lack of respect by the greedy equipment philistines for the people that create the game in the first place.

One idea I have had is counter ads by the GCSAA and ASGCAs to highlight the theme of putting the joy back in the game for the average golfer by "moving up" to appropriate tees and not get sucked into the notion that you're no good if you can't play at 7000 yards.  The attack ads depict the archies as singing the barber shop quartet like song, "make golf courses difficult again".  It should be, "make golf courses more fun again".   How many folks are turned away from the game because they are stigmatized for playing the white tees at 6200-6500 yards?  So they go back to blues to join their more skilled buddies, shoot a triple digit repeatedly and get frustrated and eventually quit because that isn't any fun.  If you want to grow the game, their has to be more winners... like Las Vegas knows.  There has to be more enjoyable success to shoot a reasonable score by de-emphasising length and re-emphasising clever short shots and putting fun.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Jeff which courses were the top 3 and who did them.

[A_Clay_Man]

One would think that any member to an association with the nerve to call themselves an American Society should be able to say NO if the site doesn't warrant a good route.

I just returned from walking nine holes which were built in the 50's. Every green was an extension of the fairway and every tee was within easy recognition. There were a total of 3 bunkers on the whole nine and every hole was a natural pleasure to play .

[Craig Van Egmond]

John,

    The winners are:

     Upscale - Pacific Dunes - Tom Doak
      
      Affordable - The G.C. at Redland Mesa - Jim Engh

      Private - Kinloch G.C. - Lester George w/Vinny Giles

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dick,
I hate the word corridor for all of the obvious reasons.

6800 yard long Talking Stick-North is a perfect example of corridor-less golf in the modern age. Still it hugs that pancake-flat land perfectly and is even so bold as to be not only affordable for Scottsdale, but break down the barriers of what you can't do with minimal turf acreage.

Where did Golf Digest rank this when the course opened? Well, The South course got an un-honorable mention by Ron Whitten as being "Architorture" on the bunker at it's second hole, and after that, I don't ever remember seeing a single thing mentioned about TS ever again, in Golf Digest(ive) (I'm sure Ron will stand by that review.)

Meanwhile TS-North maintains a WORLD CLASS 2nd hole which will be studied closely in all architecture circles, eighty years from now, and have the same love and devotion thrown at it as I do with Northwood's "Death Or Glory" just North of London.

Hopefully this will show you all the architectural worthiness of the rankings.

I'm sure one of Trump National's various waterscape holes will get plenty of mention and full color spreads.

I need a Bromo.

[Dan King]

RJ_Daley writes:
If they can do good work on the land they have been given, and it is not possible to have continuous golf corridors or the elevation changes are prohibitive, then I am willing to leave walkability out of it.

I'm not. If it can't be walked it has no business calling itself a golf course.

Not all land has to be turned into a golf course. How would you feel about someone building a course where grass doesn't grow? So instead of grass they use astroturf.  Wonderful golf holes just without grass. Or maybe a course that has no strategy because the site didn't promote strategy. Should they get special credit because they were forced to use a site that doesn't allow strategy?  Maybe someone decides to build a golf course on granite (sort of like some of those calendars) which makes it really tough to cut holes. So they decide to do without holes and greens, you just hit toward targets. How much extra credit should we give the developer/architects of those golf courses?

Seems there should be some minimum of what makes a golf course: Grass, tees, greens, hazards, holes, walkable.

"I noticed ye hardly pay attention to the walkin' part. Well that's too bad.  Not many people do. "tis a shame, 'tis a rotten shame, for if ye can enjoy the walkin', ye can probably enjoy the other times in yer life when ye're in between. And that's most o' the time; wouldn' ye say?"
 --Shivas Irons (Golf in the Kingdom)

[jglenn]

Everyone,

Before this conversation gets off the wrong track, I'd thought I'd just mention something.

The ASGCA made no reference to the walkability of a golf course, but rather to the management policies of walking allowed / mandatory cart.

There is a very big difference between the two, so let's not confuse them, and let's not berate a society for something it never said.

PS
As far a walkability is concerned, am I the only one who find it somewhat hypocritical the we critisize people who choose not to walk - or even worse, can't walk - a certain shorter distance, then we turn around and critisize the designer when we ourselves choose not to walk another longer distance?

[ian andrew (Guest)]

If your a walker and the course requires riding, don't play it!

Golf is being forced on to more and more difficult sites, and riding may be the only way to experience (use) a difficult terrain. Architects are not going to turn away work just because the course won't be walkable. Your expectations are too high. If I offered any of you a free hand to design a golf course, but the only catch was it would be a carts only property; how many of you would really walk away.  

For the record, I always walk.

[Dan King]

ian andrew wrote:
Your expectations are too high. If I offered any of you a free hand to design a golf course, but the only catch was it would be a carts only property; how many of you would really walk away.

I would.

But then I'm not a developer, architect or in construction.

But compromising your beliefs isn't only unique to golf course construction. In every profession I've been involved in someone has offered me more money if I would just compromise my core beliefs. I've turned them down every time. Maybe I'd be more successful, or at least have more money had I taken the offer, but would I be happier? Would I feel better about myself? I don't think I would.

If you compromise your core beliefs what is the point in having them?

"The only way of really finding out a man's true character is to play golf with him. In no other walk of life does the cloven hoof so quickly display itself."
  --P.G. Wodehouse

[ian andrew (Guest)]

Dan,
This has nothing to do with money. If you want to build golf courses sometimes you have to work with carts due to circumstance. You can choose not to get invoved on principle. I understand not getting involved due to enviormental destruction, but I can not say that walking is a make or break issue for any architect. Tom Doak posted the question last year. The consensous was he should still do the project (and I thought it was obvious that he felt his principles would have to bend due to circumstance. It easy to have principles that are set in stone; until you face a choice that involves your principles. Now you find out if they were principles or very strong desires. My "desire" is for walking at all costs. I would not turn down a cart only course. I have trouble believing others could in the same circumstance. Its easy to say, very hard to do.

I appreciate your quotes by the way.

[A_Clay_Man]

Could someone please clarify this management policy thing with respect to the Asgca. Isn't it the USGA that should govern any mandatory cart policy? Or do we have to sue for the right to walk?
p.s. Glad to have the teacher back and standing up for the core.

[jglenn]

A_Clay_Man,

The USGA has no say in this, since they do not own the golf courses or the game itself.

And golfers always have a choice.  If you want to walk, don't play at mandatory-cart courses.

Dan,

Cart usage is a management decision.  We are in the architecture business.  They are un-related.

Would you have compromised your principles if you design a course that becomes "cart mandatory" a few years down the road?

We can be as elitist as we want, but walking simply isn't a fundamental part of the game.

For the record, I'm also a walker.  Perhaps Ian and I can start a club, the WCGCA: Walking Canadian Golf Course Architects.  

[Jeff_Stettner]

Gentlemen:
I appreciate the discussion on walking and am not at all interested in discouraging its continuence. I would, however, still like to know if the lack of ASGCA representation in the GD best new course awards is reflecting a changing of the guard in golf course design.
I wonder if the magazines are starting to recognize courses that involve architects who take the time to make sure the details are done right. I am not interested in bashing the ASGCA or Golf Digest; I think both organizations have valuable roles in the world of golf. Any longtime GCA reader knows why the best new upscale winner, Tom Doak, is not a member of the ASGCA. Take a look at this, however:

Best new affordable winners not a member of the ASGCA:
1. Jim Engh
4. Baxter Spann
5. Jerry Pate
6. Graham Marsh
7. Hale Irwin
8. Bill Overdorf
9. Berry Serafin
Best new upscale:
1. Tom Doak
2 and 9. Rick Smith and Warren Henderson
3. Dennis Rider
4. Tommy Fazio
Best new private:
1. Lester George and Vinny Giles
10. Tom Watson

Of the 30 American courses honored, 14 list an architect who is not an ASGCA member. Does this organization, then, represent "American golf course architecture?"
I do not know if Damian Pascuzzo's recent press releases represent the core ideals of most ASGCA members, but I would have to think the releases go through an approval process (maybe a member here can clue me in). I just want to know if the ASGCA, to really represent modern golf course design, should reasses its membership policy.    

[Dan King]

Jeremy Glenn writes:
Cart usage is a management decision.  We are in the architecture business.  They are un-related.

I agree.  I was only responding to what RJ posted. The only reason why I even read this thread because I saw Tommy post and I generally read everything Tommy writes. I don't like rankings and generally avoid threads that have anything to do with rankings.

Would you have compromised your principles if you design a course that becomes "cart mandatory" a few years down the road?

Nope. I only care that the course was built walkable. I wouldn't go play the course, but as the original designer I wouldn't feel bad about my decision.

We can be as elitist as we want, but walking simply isn't a fundamental part of the game.

Walking isn't but walkability is.
ian andrew wrote:
Tom Doak posted the question last year. The consensous was he should still do the project (and I thought it was obvious that he felt his principles would have to bend due to circumstance.

It may have been the consensus, but I was one of the ones that urged him not to compromise his principles.

Its easy to say, very hard to do.

Hard, but not impossible.

I don't believe in drug testing. Not because I'd fail, but because I believe they are unconstitutional (4th amendment.) There have been numerous jobs I've turned down because I refuse to be tested. Some were really good paying jobs, others were jobs I think I would have really enjoyed. It wasn't easy to turn down such jobs, it was hard. Standing up for what you believe should be hard.

Might as well get a third Canadian involved:

"Walking also enables us to watch a hole unfold in front of us. To walk a course is analogous to driving a long distance rather than flying. While driving, we see the country instead of racing over it.  There's a human scale that flying cannot offer."
 --Lorne Rubenstein

[Bob Huntley]

Dan King:

Congratulations for not submitting to a drugs test.

I changed firms a year or so ago and the NYSE insisted that I had to have a test. I complied, but felt that I shouldn't have. I have never used the stuff but have quaffed lots of gin and wine. I have found in my long existence on this earth and observed that booze has caused more heartache and grief than any joint ever did.

My question is this, I've known some great players who played better after a drink, do you know any that did so after using the noxious weed?

[RJ_Daley]

Dan,

In stating that I would be willing to overlook the criteria of walkability in rating a course, if there was no alternative to the job by virtue of an impossible site, I was not implying I personally was getting on board with the rating game.  I have done a bit of a personal 180* over the years in my holding ratings in high regard.  I am just being a bit sympathetic with the folks that make a living at GCA and aren't so financially well to do that they can afford to turn down a job solely based on if it is not possible to do a walking route for reasons foisted upon them by the nature of the site.  They do have to live with the rating game as as a popularly accepted way to view their work.  

As a follow on to your thought about submitting to drug testing as a criteria to accepting a job and if that is analogous to an archie accepting a job if the property requires strictly cartball;  how do you feel about that very issue if either or both drug tests and fingerprint submission and comparisons are demanded when you enter your newly considered field of teaching.  In CA and WI fingerprints are demanded along with a criminal background (NCIC) check.  If you feel that is a violation of your 4th amendment rights, guess again.  That ground has been plowed in favor of administering the requirement.  In reality, the archie has free will to turn down the job, and you can elect not to teach.  But, in sticking to principles, you may not work, and the archie may not work.  Neither of you will put grub on the table that way...

[Dan King]

This is getting far afield from architecture, but it did start there, and I have been asked some questions about my position.

Bob Huntley writes:
My question is this, I've known some great players who played better after a drink, do you know any that did so after using the noxious weed?

I'm not as innocent as I made it sound in the earlier posts. There have been times in my past when I would have failed drug tests. I have on occasion partaken in the usage of maryjane while on the golf course and it does seem to help some parts of the game. A bit less stress, the swing a bit more relaxed, but then again, the swing can also get looser. Besides I'd also rather finish the round and go get something to eat in the clubhouse.

Oops, just noticed you asked about great players. I'm not aware of any, though I could make some guesses of some that I'd bet have tried playing golf trippin'.


RJ_Daley writes:
how do you feel about that very issue if either or both drug tests and fingerprint submission and comparisons are demanded when you enter your newly considered field of teaching.  

I've given this some thought and recently looked into it. The Supreme Court ruled the wrong way in the Tennessee case Knox County Education Association vs. Knox County Board of Education, 98-1799, ruling that pre-employment drug testing is constitutional. So far, pre-employment drug testing in California is a district decision with most districts not requiring testing.

Who knows what it will be like in four or five years. It's possible I will get my credential and not be able to use it because of testing. I hope that's not the case, but I can't put things on hold in the worry that testing will be that widespread. One would hope that at the very least some private schools would still avoid getting so involved in teacher’s private lives.  

In CA and WI fingerprints are demanded along with a criminal background (NCIC) check.

I haven't given much thought about fingerprinting (So far it has never come up in my chosen careers.) Initially I'd say I don't have the same qualms about it because it is investigating your public past, not what you do in your private time.

If you feel that is a violation of your 4th amendment rights, guess again.

It is a violation. The Supreme Court disagrees, but they are wrong. It also isn't just a constitutional issue. I would never trust an employer who thought they had the right to know that much about my private life.

In reality, the archie has free will to turn down the job, and you can elect not to teach.  But, in sticking to principles, you may not work, and the archie may not work.  Neither of you will put grub on the table that way...

There are always ways to put grub on the table. If at some point all legit jobs require employers to get that involved in employees private lives then it will be time to look into illicit jobs.

"What would happen if the President, the Supreme Court, and all the members of both houses of Congress were stoned out of their gourds twenty-four hours a day? The chilling truth is, it might be an improvement"
 --Allan Sherman

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

It is a pretty devastating commentary on the membership criteria of the ASGCA that the best architecture practiced today is by non-members.

I can't think of any other profession about which you can make that statement.

Perhaps over time this will result in the decline of the ASGCA and the rise of another organization that is truly representative of the industry and its best practitioners.

I'm not holding my breath, but hope springs eternal.

Lord knows professional architects could use such an organization.

 

[David Wigler]

Tommy,

I hate to bring this back to architecture and I certainly do not want to be a mouthpiece for Ron Whitten (He can do it for himself) but I agree with him that Talking Stick South is bad.  It is not in the top 20 courses within a 10-mile circle of its location.  I think we need to be careful here.  I have heard our DG referred to as elitist because we make broad generalizations about old architecture.  As such we give designers who design in the old standard i.e. Doak, C&C etc. a free pass.  If Fazio had designed TS South, you would have called it Architorture (And Whitten probably wouldn’t but that is beside the point).  That fact that C&C did it should not change its merits.  Talking Stick North is a fine golf course but South did not work.

I have already expressed my views on the list in a previous thread.  Any list that highly regards Shepard’s Hollow and makes no mention of Barona Creek is seriously flawed but IMO Talking Stick South is not the example you want to use.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

David
Who is we? Do we speek as a single voice?

[BillV]

I am the last guy to give C&C a free pass.  But Talking Stick South is hardly "bad".  It is closer to a model for what most resort courses should be.  They should, however remove all those stupid trees they planted.

I am one who is not impressed with all 18 of TS North, but #2 is one of the very best modern holes around.

Remember, Ron Whitten and Golf Digest favorably compared Pine Hill and Pine Valley, remember................. remember..........................

[THuckaby2]

Dan:  

Once again, your refusal to compromise your principles astounds and amazes me.  Most of us go from one compromise to another as part of the reality of life... you are unique, that's for sure.  Someone's gonna write a book about you some day.

But as you might guess given our decade-long battle over carts, for something truly "important" like this - drug testing - I am gonna have two little quibbles with you.

1.  As part of management now, I am required to ask new hires to take drug tests.  At first, this made me uneasy.  But then the reality of it dawned on me:  we tell the new hires they have a week to get it done, and the test we do only picks up substances ingested within 24-48 hours.  So to me, this is a test not of social choices, nor is it a privacy invasion:  it's a test of RELIABILITY.  If you know you have to get this test done, and STILL decide to chance it, then you're not an employee I want to have - you're unreliable and dare I say, stupid.  It has nothing to do with the drugs themselves and I will not comment on such... it has to do with intelligence and reliability.  Now if someone came to me and honestly explained that it's an invasion of privacy and refused to do it, I'd have to give that a lot of thought but unfortunatelty, I'd have a hard time believing they weren't trying to hide something... they'd have to make a damn good argument anyway.  Citing Knox would help, big time.  That hasn't happened yet!

2. As a parent, if I have a choice I want a drug-free teacher for my kids.  Sounds harsh, is harsh.  But dealing with my kids, well... that's different than building golf courses.... I do understand the invasion of privacy involved here but if my district does this, I'm not gonna cry my eyes out.

Perspective is an interesting thing and it's funny how it changes...

Anyway, I do remain impressed with your principles... turning down jobs... wow.  But I would have assumed that of you, from all the years I've known you that's to be expected.

As for maryjane on the golf course.. er... em... let's just say from personal experience that in terms of impairment, that's better than alcohol but neither do good things for course management or short game!

TH

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

We all have different perspectives on what constitutes compromise.  For instance, I really wanted to marry Christie Brinkley, and for a long time absolutely refused to compromise!  Then, I met my wife, who is beautiful to me, but not a model, and "compromised".  We have had a nice life, (even with a little static about posting here, going to hockey, etc.)  nicer than some people I know still waiting for perfection.  So, am I wrong to compromise?  

So, while you mention some infringements on our freedoms ( I will give you credit for being a better legal scholar) I accept that we give up freedoms, even in this country, especially right now.

BTW, to get back to the original topic, I am following my new years resolution early - Not going to get into an argument about ASGCA!