[Niall C]

Has modern golf architecture moved more towards providing beautiful views than worthwhile golf ?

Niall

[Steve Burrows]

I'm not sure there is really any basis to support such a position.  I think that people tend to have a nostalgic sense of the past, to believe that earlier times were simpler, or somehow better.  This attitude often pervades this site; people tend to revere Ross, MacKenzie, etc., and lament the passing of an imaginary "Golden Age."  The same could probably be applied to current attitudes on art, architecture, literature, and like.  But the truth is that there are some very high quality golf course being built today - even if they may well also have great views and be aesthetically pleasing.

I suspect also a connection with the relative paucity of new golf course being built each year; those that are built are on premium sites that are conducive to great views.  In this market, few are willing to develop, design, or build just an average golf course on an average site with average views.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mac was certainly a great one for combining bunkers for aesthetics and play, so its nothing new.  I think there is more emphasis on aesthetics now. And, I have no doubt that designing for the TV generation influenced us that way.  (along with awards, lists, magazine presentation, etc.  However, in a way it was good that the aesthetic gulf between private and muni was nearly eliminated from the days of "high end clubs" and "low end muni's".

I have started to wonder what will appeal to the next gen - with its cell phones and demands for even more instant gratification? 

[Mike Hendren]

Name a hideously ugly great golf course.

[JMEvensky]

Name a hideously ugly great golf course.

Just playing Devil's advocate,but plenty of people would consider TOC ugly.Of course,those same people wouldn't consider it a great golf course.

[Niall C]

Michael

My idea for this thread was sparked by a discussion on Troon on another thread. I don't think Troon is ugly by any manner of means but its certainly not picture postcard stuff (think of the caravan park behind the 9th, practice ground flanking the inward holes) and it has some great golf. Carnoustie has some outstanding golf and all but a few would recognise it as a great course yet not many would call it picturesque.

Jeff

Interesting thoughts.

Steve

The golden age guys certainly believed in aesthetics but then they didn't shift anything like as much dirt to achieve that goal. As Jeff suggests, perhaps there is more of a focus on creating skyline greens and the like, because thats what sells a course and makes the punter want to play it, no ?

Niall

[SL_Solow]

Bogey, 2 points.  First, doesn't that depend on your definition of "hideously ugly"  there are a lot of people who do not consider the Old Course to be beautiful.  carnoustie and Prestwick do not fit the standard description of beauty, at least if measured by conventional ameican tastes.

Second the question was one of emphasis.  For me, the best evidence is reading some of the written material.  Tom Fazio probably had the greatest number of first class assignments of any architect in recent times.  Read his book and see what he emphasizes.  There is almost no discussion of strategy, options or thought with respect to playing the game.  However there are repeated references to presentation and framing.  that is not to suggest that Fazio hasn't built some wonderful courses.  But it seems to me that for him the golf often comes in second to the appearance or experience.  Contrast that with the older architects like Colt, Ross, Mac, Thomas etc.  To be sure they had an eye for beauty but it is clear that their first priority was creating an interesting playing field.

[JC Jones]

I have only glanced at Fazio's book so I can't speak to the content.  I wonder how much of that book was written to be accessible to the average golfer as opposed to being a "how to design a golf course" book like the Anatomy of a Golf Course.

[Mike Hendren]

Niall, I apologize for my flippant post and as Shel points out I was a little off key.  Then again, there is a difference between providing beautiful views and building beautiful features.  

I struggle with this issue - I find Carnoustie to be beautiful once one descends the bowl to the first green.  Perhaps The Old Course is somewhat pedestrian in appearance but in my mind there is nothing more beautiful in the game than those massive double greens seemingly appearing from nowhere among the otherwise broken ground.

 

[Sean_A]

Bogey, 2 points.  First, doesn't that depend on your definition of "hideously ugly"  there are a lot of people who do not consider the Old Course to be beautiful.  carnoustie and Prestwick do not fit the standard description of beauty, at least if measured by conventional ameican tastes.

Second the question was one of emphasis.  For me, the best evidence is reading some of the written material.  Tom Fazio probably had the greatest number of first class assignments of any architect in recent times.  Read his book and see what he emphasizes.  There is almost no discussion of strategy, options or thought with respect to playing the game.  However there are repeated references to presentation and framing.  that is not to suggest that Fazio hasn't built some wonderful courses.  But it seems to me that for him the golf often comes in second to the appearance or experience.  Contrast that with the older architects like Colt, Ross, Mac, Thomas etc.  To be sure they had an eye for beauty but it is clear that their first priority was creating an interesting playing field.

Sl

Do you think framing is a way of presenting the strategy - possibly to the point of being so obvious it doesn't bear discussion?  

Bogey

There is beautiful and there is beautiful.  I look at a place like Little Aston and think it is pleasant, but not overly so.  The very same features which detract from the site's beauty are what help make the course great.

Ciao

[SL_Solow]

Sean,  I have a couple of reactions to your question.   I have always emphasized the "picture" over the "frame".  Certainly a nice frame can augment and enhance a good picture but the picture is the feature that defines the experience.  Similarly with a golf course, I have no objection to aligning the golf course with exterior features to enhance the experience; I think of the shape of Thompson's bunkers at Banff in relation to the surrounding peaks as a prime example.  But I am troubled when there appears to be an overemphasis on appearance with a corresponding indifference to the presentation of interesting holes.  Sometimes I feel the "golf" is sacrificed for the beauty.  I concede that a lot of consumers endorse that choice.

JC,  Maybe you are correct, I certainly can't read the author's mind.  But I confess that I have been to a number of Fazio courses where the golf seems to be relatively predictable set in beautiful surrounds.  But there are others which are far better.  In my experience, the former predominate .

[JC Jones]

SL,

I was asking a straight up question, not a rhetorical one.

I agree with you that Fazio's courses are beautiful but the ones I have played have also been quite good from a strategy/hole standpoint.  Then again, I've only played a couple so I don't have much of a sample size to judge.

[Mike Hendren]

Nowhere is the premise more true than in bunkering - witness today's shaggy surrounds and frilly edges. Too often bunkers are like an abundance of tacky cosmetic jewelry overly accessorizing an otherwise classic little black dress.  They're too big, too numerous and too fancy.  Perhaps they draw attention from the true mediocrity of the architecture much like the tacky cosmetic jewelry draws attention away from a less than flattering figure.

Bogey

[Sean_A]

Sean,  I have a couple of reactions to your question.   I have always emphasized the "picture" over the "frame".  Certainly a nice frame can augment and enhance a good picture but the picture is the feature that defines the experience.  Similarly with a golf course, I have no objection to aligning the golf course with exterior features to enhance the experience; I think of the shape of Thompson's bunkers at Banff in relation to the surrounding peaks as a prime example.  But I am troubled when there appears to be an overemphasis on appearance with a corresponding indifference to the presentation of interesting holes.  Sometimes I feel the "golf" is sacrificed for the beauty.  I concede that a lot of consumers endorse that choice.

SL

I have a slightly different take on framing which has little to do with external features.  By framing I mean road map style features which guide the golfer from tee to green.  There is certainly strategy involved in making the "turns", but it isn't too difficult to figure out where the turns are.  I don't know as my experience of Fazio is nil (I haven't seen pix of a course of his which has really impressed me), but I imagined his style of architecture to be obvious, but still with consequences.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Has modern golf architecture moved more towards providing beautiful views than worthwhile golf ?

Niall

The ideal is to accomplish both at once, isn't it?  Or do you disagree with that premise?

Certainly, there is much more emphasis today on providing beautiful views [and also, beautifully manicured turf], than there used to be in the good old days.  Has that emphasis overtaken the emphasis on worthwhile golf?  I would say it depends on the architect, but I don't know of very many architects who would claim that mantle.

The other question is, worthwhile golf for whom?  There are some players who think that every golf course should be as testing as Carnoustie.  I pity them!  Some famous architect once said that golf should be a pleasure, not a penance.  But, I've never built a golf course where I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about making the course interesting and challenging for the low-handicapper.

[Sean_A]

Tom

I don't think anyone is talking about all one or the other.  For me its more a question of variety which is most probably sacrificed for aesthetics. For instance, most people don't think humps n' hollows look as good as sand.  Or, many people prefer three bunkers where one will do because of aesthetics.  So from that perspective, aesthetics does drive some architectural decision-making.  Sure, some of this drive is good, but I am not convinced that both can fit in well unless the site is quite unusual or the budget is quite high.  These are two aspects which at the moment seem to be in short supply.  Judging from much of what was produced when budgets were high, I am not sure chasing aesthetic appeal is a good way to go about designing courses.  Playing Yeamans Hall put the nail in the coffin of my belief that good courses have an inherent beauty.  Design something of interest and merit, and the aesthetic takes care of itself.  There is nothing wrong with tweeking stuff here and there to get details right, but I would think it rare for a good course to become a great course because of aesthetic details.  

Ciao      

[Steve_Lovett]

SL,

I was asking a straight up question, not a rhetorical one.

I agree with you that Fazio's courses are beautiful but the ones I have played have also been quite good from a strategy/hole standpoint.  Then again, I've only played a couple so I don't have much of a sample size to judge.

The Fazio book is beautiful, great photography. What's not to like? There are discussions of routing, shot values, and such - but it's much more a folio of the overall "experiences" than anything technical - which is great for what it is.

[Rich Goodale]

This is a subtle and very important thread, Niall.  I cannot think of any serious pre-WWII golf course that was about anything but "substance" (aka "function" aka just being a "golf course").  Except to the serious golfer, most older courses are relatively un-aesthetic, and they tend to elicit responses such as "Isn't that interesting!?" rather than "Isn't that pretty?!"  As someone said above, the Old Course in the most plug-ugly course on the planet, but it survives and thrives because it is interesting.  In contrast, "pretty" courses with minimal visceral interest (e.g. Spanish Bay) will never be more than eye candy to attract people with more golfing money than golfing sense.  The trouble is that (as someone else has said elsewhere today) if you need lotsamoney to develop golf  courses, and so even "follow the money" the best developers and designers and shapers gravitate to aesthetically-endowed properties.  As a result, we end up with over-capitalized and overly "beautiful" golf courses that may have substance, but whatver substance they have is overshadowed by their beauty.

The great golf courses of the world tended to be built by true lovers of the game rather than lovers of the idea of being a lover of the game.  They were built cheap, but continuously tended to and mended and amended over time until they achieved some sort of beauty.  How many golf courses of today are managed by people who have the foresight and time to go let their course(s) go through adolescence, awkwardly but steadily.  Ou est les Sutherland's et Morris's d'antan?

[Niall C]

Has modern golf architecture moved more towards providing beautiful views than worthwhile golf ?

Niall

The ideal is to accomplish both at once, isn't it?  Or do you disagree with that premise?

Tom

I don't disagree with that premis at all. My original question certainly could have been worded better. I was referring to increased emphasis of aesthetics rather than the exclusion of substance. Its the relative balance that I'm questioning. Are we more concerned with aesthetics rather than substance compared to years gone by (and you can come up with your own definition of substance) and if so where does that come from ? Is it, for instance, because we can more readily shift tonnes of earth to create a nice infinity green rather than working with what we've got ? Is it because the punters demand it or because the artist the client does or is it the architect exercising an artistic streak ?

Now I'm talking in general terms and not aiming to cast aspersions at any particular archies and I'm also speaking from relatively low exposure to modern courses compared to many on here so feel free to question my premis.

Sir Rich of 196 posts

Never had the chance to play Spanish Bay but I'd like to. I think I'm correct in saying its a pay and play ? If so does that have a bearing on the eye candy quotient and on the basis of one or two plays are you likely to detect you've been short changed in the substance steaks ?

Michael

Not a problem, and I agree about Carnoustie from an aesthetic point of view.
Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Niall:

I agree with you and with Rich on this, in general ... there is way more emphasis on aesthetics and style than there used to be.  I wouldn't go as far as Rich that no course before W.W. II thought about anything but substance -- Dr. MacKenzie surely did, and so did Stanley Thompson -- but he is probably right about all the old Scots professionals turned designers, at least.

I'm not sure whom to blame for starting this.  I remember Pete Dye saying thirty years ago that clients nowadays wanted every hole on the golf course to be a postcard view -- but Mr. Dye said it with disdain, whereas Tom Fazio seemed to embrace the same demand.  Fazio was also the first architect to base his success on rankings, rather than on having tournaments hosted on his courses, so maybe we should blame GOLF DIGEST, who made "Aesthetics" one of the seven deadly sins for which golf courses get ranking points.

What I tried to say gently in my parenthetical in my last post, was that it isn't just architects.  You see the same emphasis on aesthetics in the conditioning of golf courses -- worrying more about uniform color and perfect turf from an aesthetic point of view, as opposed to just providing a good playing surface -- and in the long run that emphasis is costing the game a lot more than modern architecture does, because it affects even the older courses.  Again, who is responsible for the trend?  Superintendents point at course owners, course owners point at players, and the players don't seem to connect the dots between the perfect conditions they love and the high costs that are driving them out of the game.

[Greg Tallman]

Niall:

I agree with you and with Rich on this, in general ... there is way more emphasis on aesthetics and style than there used to be.  I wouldn't go as far as Rich that no course before W.W. II thought about anything but substance -- Dr. MacKenzie surely did, and so did Stanley Thompson -- but he is probably right about all the old Scots professionals turned designers, at least.

I'm not sure whom to blame for starting this.  I remember Pete Dye saying thirty years ago that clients nowadays wanted every hole on the golf course to be a postcard view -- but Mr. Dye said it with disdain, whereas Tom Fazio seemed to embrace the same demand.  Fazio was also the first architect to base his success on rankings, rather than on having tournaments hosted on his courses, so maybe we should blame GOLF DIGEST, who made "Aesthetics" one of the seven deadly sins for which golf courses get ranking points.

What I tried to say gently in my parenthetical in my last post, was that it isn't just architects.  You see the same emphasis on aesthetics in the conditioning of golf courses -- worrying more about uniform color and perfect turf from an aesthetic point of view, as opposed to just providing a good playing surface -- and in the long run that emphasis is costing the game a lot more than modern architecture does, because it affects even the older courses.  Again, who is responsible for the trend?  Superintendents point at course owners, course owners point at players, and the players don't seem to connect the dots between the perfect conditions they love and the high costs that are driving them out of the game.

The marketing professionals... but they will point back to the players... or Augusta

[Jason Thurman]

I don't have a definitive answer to the original question. I did, however, recently read a ranking of golf courses posted online by an avid player and amateur course critic. He ranked 100 or so courses, all priced below $70 or so.

At the bottom of his rankings he explained his criteria. He evaluated things like:

* "Difficulty of determining signature hole"
* "Cart paths"
* "Detail applied in and around hazards"
* "Fairway golf cart entrances and exits"
* "Lack of flaws to fairways, greens, tees, and rough"
* "Beauty, Views, and Picture worthiness"
* "Flower beds, shrubs, rock walls, boulders, etc."
* "Clubhouse"

I kept thinking Lawsonia might come in dead last on his list.

[Carl Rogers]

Name a hideously ugly great golf course.

Would Royal Lytham & St. Anne's qualify for this distinction?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Nial,

In this modern visual world, I think the answer is "yes"

A century ago, the medium of communication was the written word.

Today, it's electronic, ergo, visual.

Can the two co-exist, certainly, but, I think there's been a trend toward the visual image rather than the "substance" of the golf.

[Niall C]

Patrick

It seems that most on here agree on that. Question is, is it necessarily a bad thing ? Can an architect achieve more by creating a beautiful golf hole that players will enjoy for that very beauty rather than knocking his pan in coming up with some strategic masterpiece that either the player will be oblivious to or whose game will render the strategy redundant ie. too short a hitter or too long a hitter. Just playing devils advocate.

Jason

Interesting criteria. How does he apply those criteria, for instance for a course that has "difficulty of determining signature hole", is that a good thing or a bad thing  .

Niall

edited to hopefully correctly my bad english

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()