Do we not get the point of golf?

[Mac Plumart]

From "The Spirit of St. Andrews" soft cover 1995 edition...page 37, first paragraph...

"It is often suggested that changes in the ball may necessitate alterations to a golf course, but this is nonsense.  A well designed golf course should suit any golf ball or any class of player.  The Old Course at St. Andrews is a classic example.  It was the best in the days of the feather, guttie, and the Haskell ball, and Bobby Jones still describes it as the best today.

There are many golf course architects who have never had a golf course altered when they have been given a free hand to carry out their ideas in the first place.

...

In the United States, golf courses are becoming more and more perfect.  American golfers owe a debt of gratitude to Charles Blair MacDonald.

...

He had an uphill fight in educating American golfers to an appreciation of a really good golf course."


So...I still feel these words hold some weight today.  But I also feel that the "uphill fight" Dr. Mackenzie was talking about is still being fought and we (true lovers of quality architecture) are losing.  I say this because many courses seem to get redesigned time and again, at great expense to members, owners, and golfers.

Also, it seems this "uphill fight" is being lost because many courses originally considered "great" by golfers (that is get on a Top 100 list) fail to hold the interest of golfers over time and lose their status (that is fall off the Top 100 lists).  It seems golfers, even avid golfers, don't know what good is (to steal a line from Tom Doak, which he used in his Confidential Guide).

Furthermore, truly great courses seem to face aggressive criticism from golfers during the period of time from their inception through their "incubation".  That is the time the masses "get" the course.  The Old Course and Bobby Jones' experience with it, seem to fit this bill.  As does Ballyneal's initial failure to break into the Top 100 and its subsequent rankings on all the Top 100 lists.  And Kingsley only being listed on the Golfweek Top 100 appears to be another example of this to me.

In the end, it seems like most golfers don't understand what makes golf great, fun, and endlessley enjoyable.



What makes The Old Course great and timeless?

What are features which give a feeling of "greatness" but fade over time?

Why do people misunderstand what makes golf courses endlessly fascinating and "hate" great courses at first?

 

Any other thoughts, ideas, tangents, etc are welcome.

[Sam Morrow]

The point of golf to me has more to do with Callaway's Rule 35.

[Kalen Braley]

I think this guy gets it....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQd49rEF_0

[Richard Choi]

Greatness in golf architecture, like all other art forms, cannot be known is just few years. Great art emerges after a long long time, over many generations. Great art is appreciated among many cultures over many generations, and there is no way to determine that without time.

This is why top 100 list is constantly evolving, since a fad comes and goes. What is popular today may not be popular tomorrow, but greatness endures the test of time.

A course like Ballyneal will prove itself over next many decades. If not, its greatness may have been nothing more than a fad. If it is truly great, it will show itself over time.

[Tom_Doak]

Greatness in golf architecture, like all other art forms, cannot be known is just few years. Great art emerges after a long long time, over many generations. Great art is appreciated among many cultures over many generations, and there is no way to determine that without time.

This is why top 100 list is constantly evolving, since a fad comes and goes. What is popular today may not be popular tomorrow, but greatness endures the test of time.

A course like Ballyneal will prove itself over next many decades. If not, its greatness may have been nothing more than a fad. If it is truly great, it will show itself over time.

Oh, that's baloney.  True greatness in golf architecture is so readily apparent that even non-golfers can recognize it.  Indeed, sometimes they have an easier time with it than the professionals do ... witness Sam Snead's initial comments about The Old Course.

Top 100 lists evolve and have fads, only because most of the panelists are sheep, and they listen to their fellow panelists (or to the publicists) instead of with their own ears.

[Joe Bausch]

Greatness in golf architecture, like all other art forms, cannot be known is just few years. Great art emerges after a long long time, over many generations. Great art is appreciated among many cultures over many generations, and there is no way to determine that without time.

This is why top 100 list is constantly evolving, since a fad comes and goes. What is popular today may not be popular tomorrow, but greatness endures the test of time.

A course like Ballyneal will prove itself over next many decades. If not, its greatness may have been nothing more than a fad. If it is truly great, it will show itself over time.

Oh, that's baloney.  True greatness in golf architecture is so readily apparent that even non-golfers can recognize it.  Indeed, sometimes they have an easier time with it than the professionals do ... witness Sam Snead's initial comments about The Old Course.

Top 100 lists evolve and have fads, only because most of the panelists are sheep, and they listen to their fellow panelists (or to the publicists) instead of with their own ears.

And hopefully eyes too.   

[Richard Choi]

Oh, that's baloney.  True greatness in golf architecture is so readily apparent that even non-golfers can recognize it.  Indeed, sometimes they have an easier time with it than the professionals do ... witness Sam Snead's initial comments about The Old Course.

Top 100 lists evolve and have fads, only because most of the panelists are sheep, and they listen to their fellow panelists (or to the publicists) instead of with their own ears.

How do you know one praise is baloney and one is genuine?

Only sure way I know is through distillation of time.

[JESII]

Oh, that's baloney.  True greatness in golf architecture is so readily apparent that even non-golfers can recognize it.  Indeed, sometimes they have an easier time with it than the professionals do ... witness Sam Snead's initial comments about The Old Course.

Greatness may be apparent at first blush but cannot be proven until you see it many times under many conditions.

[Ronald Montesano]

There's a story about Samuel Beckett's "Waiting For Godot." When it debuted before an audience of literati, it was politely applauded yet misunderstood. Soon after, it played to an audience of imprisoned convicts, who deconstructed it better than the prior audience. Unlike the literati, the convicts understood waiting for something that never comes.

I think that the Old Course has changed over time. To suggest that it has not, that it somehow represents an unadulterated, elysian field is to misunderstand it.

[Sean_A]

What makes TOC great is the presence of so many great shots and great holes.  What makes TOC loved (unlike a great many championship courses) is its relative ease of difficulty.  There are many opportunities to make up for some likely bad numbers on the tough holes.  Who doesn't love scoring well on a championship course and which other championship course offers a 10 capper the opportunity to shoot par, in practically every imaginable way?  It doesn't really matter how much better any other course on the planet is, TOC will always be the greatest course.  Richard is right in this regard, generations of golfers have decided this matter for generations to come. 

I don't necessarily agree with Tom, there are some courses which pretend to be great and some which take time to discover their greatness.  Not all great courses bowl folks over on the first or second visit.  Even the best eyes in the business get it wrong sometimes.  Not least because of how people translate what their eyes see differently over time and with experience.

All this said, to a large degree, greatness is meaningless so long as folks have courses on which they enjoy playing the game.  We don't really need great courses, what we need is good, interesting, thought provoking, affordable courses.  If these courses turn out to be great its a bonus.

Ciao   

[Mac Plumart]

We don't really need great courses, what we need is good, interesting, thought provoking, affordable courses.

Sean Arble...I think you nailed it.  Wasn't it Colt who said the #1 goal of a course is to answer the question, "Will it live?"  If a course is good, interesting, thought provoking, and affordable, then the odds stack up in favor of it lasting/living.

I think you are right...we don't need to start with an over-riding goal of building the next "great" course.  Rather we need to start with the goal of building good, interesting, thought provoking, and affordable courses.  

Check me...but isn't that what The Old Course is?

But don't most/many entrepeneurs, golf course owners, developers, seem to have the mind set that they want to build the next "great" course?  And don't they fall into the trap of not embracing the "good, interesting, thought provoking, and affordable" mantra?  Rather they want an immaculately maintained, overtly stunning, and overwhelming golf experience.

[Tom_Doak]

We don't really need great courses, what we need is good, interesting, thought provoking, affordable courses.

Sean Arble...I think you nailed it.  Wasn't it Colt who said the #1 goal of a course is to answer the question, "Will it live?"  If a course is good, interesting, thought provoking, and affordable, then the odds stack up in favor of it lasting/living.

I think you are right...we don't need to start with an over-riding goal of building the next "great" course.  Rather we need to start with the goal of building good, interesting, thought provoking, and affordable courses.  

Check me...but isn't that what The Old Course is?

But don't most/many entrepeneurs, golf course owners, developers, seem to have the mind set that they want to build the next "great" course?  And don't they fall into the trap of not embracing the "good, interesting, thought provoking, and affordable" mantra?  Rather they want an immaculately maintained, overtly stunning, and overwhelming golf experience.

Mac,

You're vacillating back and forth between things I agree with, and things that make no sense.

1.  "Will it live?" is not the end question in the world of today.  I can assure you that some of the courses of mine that have survived are inferior to High Pointe or Beechtree, which were relatively affordable.  Survival is a more complicated question than (quality architecture / price) ... there are all sorts of other factors including location, competition, debt, management skill, etc.

2.  If you accept (1) above, then Sean's idea of a starting point is a bit risky, too.  Good, interesting, affordable and thought provoking golf might well be a financial failure, as so many courses are.  There is no guarantee that you could make money if you opened The Old Course itself in a different market and in today's business climate.

3.  The reality is that most people who develop golf courses are in it for one of two reasons ... either (a) to make money, or (b) for their own ego, and in either category, there are a lot of people who want to aim high.  Where I live, nearly every course is a financial failure apart from Arcadia Bluffs, which succeeds at maintaining a price 3x the others because it's considered great.  Or maybe because it fits your last description of "immaculately maintained, overtly stunning, and overwhelming golf experience."

4.  You are right that in general, too many people are trying too hard.  [But don't put it all on developers; golf course architects are guilty as well.]  It's really just a numbers game -- not everyone can build the best golf course in town, so spending a lot more money than the competition in the attempt is likely to result in failure.  However, if you can try to create a great course WITHOUT spending more than the competition, maybe that will work.

[Mac Plumart]

1.  "Will it live?" is not the end question in the world of today.  I can assure you that some of the courses of mine that have survived are inferior to High Pointe or Beechtree, which were relatively affordable.  Survival is a more complicated question than (quality architecture / price) ... there are all sorts of other factors including location, competition, debt, management skill, etc.

Tom...I totally understand the complexity of the question.  In fact, I analyze aspects of this question every day...that is the business I'm in.  I disagree with you that "Will it live?" is not the end question in the world of today.  And there is no question that architecture is not the only aspect that determines if a course will "live" or not.

To your point on ego and money driving people to build golf courses, I agree.  At its core, people with this mindset just might be the reason I wanted to start this thread as those people might not get the point of golf.

But to your last sentence..."However, if you can try to create a great course WITHOUT spending more than the competition, maybe that will work."

I think you may have absolutley hit the nail on the head.  In fact, what ways can people get this done?

[Ivan Morris]

I like that reference to Beckett's Waiting for Godot. How many of you know that Sam Beckett was a keen golfer? The  reclusive, Nobel Laureate was a more than competent and active member of Carrickmines and Foxrock Golf Clubs. His lowest handicap was six and he was much admired for his crisp and accurate iron play. He represented Dublin University in the Barton Cup, a tournament of some importance in Ireland. Beckett played the game decisively and with the minimum of fuss, carrying an unusually thin arsenal in a pencil slim bag that he slung carelessly over his shoulder as he strode the fairways. To help reduce his load, Beckett regularly left his putter and driver at home and ventured forth with no more than five iron clubs, using his 2-iron for both driving and putting. It would be wrong to think that this carefree attitude meant that he was not a serious player. To illustrate Beckett’s competitiveness and fiery temperament, playing at Foxrock, he missed a short putt and in a fit of frustration took a wild swipe at the offending ball. To his embarrassment he connected perfectly and the ball shot off the green into a bush. Golf balls were scarce in those days. Losing one was considered a major disaster. As he searched in the bushes, the group following behind came up alongside. One of them sarcastically enquired: "Are you looking for your putt, Sam?" To which, of course, there was no face-saving reply. This tale should not disguise the normal good humour of Sam Beckett, the golfer - a splendid companion on the links who enjoyed a lively chat and a glass of stout after a round. By all means google: Joyce 'n Beckett play pitch 'n putt on YouTube - it's a hoot! 
 

[Jeff Fortson]

I like to get caught up in what certain courses mean to the game, their importance to it, and how they are treated by their stewards as much as the next guy here, but let's be honest there is only one point to golf...

USGA Rules of Golf
Rule 1-1

The Game of Golf consists of playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules.


Basically, hit the ball off the tee and continue until you hole it, count and record the strokes following the Rules, and do it in a gentlemanly manner.  That's the point of the game.  As long as there are a few good architects, benevolent dictators/greens committees, and course superintendents, we'll be left with the desire to want to blow countless hours chasing that ball around the course, even if the majority of golfers "don't get it".


Jeff F.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mac - I've read and thought about this question quite a bit. All I can say is that, if I were an architect, I'd have to train myself to be satisfied with doing the work itself, and with leaving the fate of the golf course where it belongs, i.e. in the hands of fate. I'd make myself crazy otherwise, trying to factor in/react to all the many variables and possibilities and judgements, present and future. 'To the work we are called and bound, not to the fruits of our labours'. I used to think that sentiment was artsy and impractical and un-duly spiritual, but now I think it the plain and simple truth, and the rock solid reality.

Peter

[Mac Plumart]

if I were an architect, I'd have to train myself to be satisfied with doing the work itself, and with leaving the fate of the golf course where it belongs, i.e. in the hands of fate

Peter...yes, I agree in part.  An architect, most likely, has a job to do which earns them a living.  And they must do all they can to make their clients happy.

But I think the entrepeneurs, developers, owners, could be at the heart of my question, "Do we not get the point of golf?"  It seems a lot of courses are built with the actual golf course not being the focal point of the club.  And, I've got to believe this might be driven by the belief that a fancy club house, elaborate food menus, massive pools, and other non-golf amenities are what it takes to make the golf clubs attractive to potential members.

And this ties into what Jeff was saying.  The point of golf is:

USGA Rules of Golf
Rule 1-1

The Game of Golf consists of playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules.


This golf club as a social stauts symbol seems to take us away from what golf is all about...and that is golf.  I think this is part of the "uphill fight" Mackenzie was talking about.

I truly believe if you build a course built off of tried and true fundamentally sound principles without the over-the-top amenities, you could have good and affordable golf that will live.

[Mac Plumart]

So...the next logical question would be, "What are the tried and true fundamentally sound principles?"

Well, I'm glad you asked..

Perhaps, we should start with a review of Mackenzie's 13 Principles.

Interestingly enough, he said that among Principles 1-3 there can be little difference of opinion.*

1-The course, where possible, should be arranged in two loops of nine.

2-There should be a good proportion of good two shot holes, and at least four one shot holes.

3-There should be little walking between the greens and tees.


I find Principle 3 is commonly broken in modern architecture.


*It is weird to me that Mackenzie immediately contradicts his first principle, when he states that "one can easily sacrifice the best features of good golfing land by being too insistent on this principle. ... I have often regretted that it had ever propounded."


Principles 4-13 to come later.

[Mac Plumart]

Principle #4 is the one I see the most violated in stereotypical average every day run of the mill golf courses.

Principle #4 states that "The greens and fairways should be sufficiently undulating, but there should be no hill climbing."

Dr. Mackenzie goes on to say that the Ladies Putting Course at St. Andrews in the most interesting he has ever seen.  And that "even first class golfers consider it a privilege...and are to be found putting with great enthusiam."

Regarding the fairways he says that, "there are few things more monotonous than playing every shot from a dead flat fairway."


This is the type of concept, that is undulating fairways and greens, that makes golf endlessly fascinating and offers true variety on every round.  However, these characteristics can come under harsh criticism from "Joshua Crane" type golfers who think the bad bounce or general rub of the green type of happenings are "unfair".  But, as Mr. Dye says, "Golf is an unfair game.  Why build a fair course?". 

I think this "unfair" nature of the game is what makes it fun and how you deal with the game's nature is, perhaps, the entire point of the game.

[Tom_Doak]

So...the next logical question would be, "What are the tried and true fundamentally sound principles?"

Well, I'm glad you asked..

Perhaps, we should start with a review of Mackenzie's 13 Principles.

Interestingly enough, he said that among Principles 1-3 there can be little difference of opinion.*

1-The course, where possible, should be arranged in two loops of nine.

2-There should be a good proportion of good two shot holes, and at least four one shot holes.

3-There should be little walking between the greens and tees.


I find Principle 3 is commonly broken in modern architecture.


*It is weird to me that Mackenzie immediately contradicts his first principle, when he states that "one can easily sacrifice the best features of good golfing land by being too insistent on this principle. ... I have often regretted that it had ever propounded."

Mac:

The contradiction arises because for his second book, MacKenzie reproduced his entire first book, but made notes in the margin about things to clarify or change.  He made the rule about two loops of nine holes in 1920, when he hadn't designed too many courses yet -- and revised his thoughts in 1931-32, when he wrote The Spirit of St. Andrews.

[Michael George]

Oh, that's baloney.  True greatness in golf architecture is so readily apparent that even non-golfers can recognize it.  Indeed, sometimes they have an easier time with it than the professionals do ... witness Sam Snead's initial comments about The Old Course.

Top 100 lists evolve and have fads, only because most of the panelists are sheep, and they listen to their fellow panelists (or to the publicists) instead of with their own ears.

I mostly agree with Tom (I usually either like or don't like a course pretty quickly - even though I often find that I continue to learn things about the better courses with more times playing it) but there is one point that I think is important to note.   Appreciation of a golf course is mostly a subjective thing so what is "apparent" to one, might not be "apparent" to another.  For instance, the better player may evaluate courses different than a worse player.  Likewise, a long hitter may evaluate courses different than a better player.  Some players love quirk, others hate it (ie. some love Bandon Trails #14, some don't).  It is the reason that the rankings, while fun, are flawed.

As an example, I was at Bandon with 28 golfers of differing abilities.  Most good players ranked Pacific Dunes as the best course.  Most below average players ranked Bandon Dunes as the best course.  The one course that good and below average players seemed to equally enjoy was Old MacDonald.  While my rankings are Pacific Dunes, Old Macdonald, Bandon Trails, Bandon Dunes, I certainly enjoyed all 4 courses.   As a result, I am not sure that anyone in my group's rankings are wrong - just different tastes.

[Mac Plumart]

Michael...

I hear your point on the subjective nature regarding rating and ranking golf courses.  However, the issue with using those four courses is that they all embrace concepts that demonstrate that they "get" the point of golf.  There are all good...to great.


Mackenzie's "uphill fight" resulted in a victory when those golf courses were built.

Other victories were:  The Golf Club, Sand Hills, Kingsley, and Rock Creek.

And these are big name courses, but look at some of the gems Sean Arble posts about.  Some lesser known, but, nevertheless, victories in the uphill fight.

It is the flat, tree lined, overly green courses with unthoughtful bunkering schemes that bring the game down.  And, then if you are a golfer who only plays on these watered down courses...will you ever realize the true enjoyment that the game can bring?  Sad thing is, you may never know the true joy of playing on a well-laid out course.  You may like it...you may love it, regardless...but you won't feel the wonder of it at its full magnitude.  And sadly, some may quit the game because it never lives up to all it might be.

[Mac Plumart]

Principle 5...Every hole should be different in character.

Principle 6...There should be a minimum of blindness on the approach shots.

Principle 7...The course should have beautiful surroundings...and all artificial features should have a natural appearance.


Perhaps the most interesting comment he makes, in my opinion, following the statement of his 5th Principle is that "a common mistake is to follow prevailing fashions."     Personally, I believe if we really think about his comment and take it to heart then the door for truly revolutionary and freeing golf courses development can be realized.

His comments on blindness center around not being able to see the pins placement on the green and, thereby, allowing only "lucky" shots to get close to the pin.  He seems to think this aspect regarding architecture takes away from the advantage a skilled player has relative to the game.

Regarding beauty he equates it to naturalness.  This is very similiar to Behr's thoughts on Beauty.  When I have more time I will post those writings on this thread.  He makes the point that a naturally beautiful course can appeal both to the scratch player and the hack.  Therefore, they have a commonality in this regard when appreciating a golf course.

In this section on Beauty, he also bangs on geometrical bunkers and square greens.  I've mentioned this before, but this seems like a shot at Raynor and, perhaps, CBM.   

[Michael George]

Mac:

While I agree with you, you simply cannot apply such a broad criteria to all people.
 
"Flat" - you mean like Chicago GC and plenty of other Chicago clubs?  Further, many older golfers love a walkable flat course.      
"Tree lined" - you mean like Pine Valley???  I hate trees that effect play, but plenty of great golf courses are tree-lined.
"Overly Green" - you mean like AGNC??  Whether we like it here on this site or not, the majority of golfers love overly green courses.

While we may prefer one style of golf, it is perfectly acceptable for others to enjoy other styles.  For me, there really is only one thing that a golf course absolutely needs to be great - it must be strategic in its design so that the player has to think himself around the course.  When golf makes you think is when it is at its best.  However, that is again only my opinion.    

[Sven Nilsen]

In this section on Beauty, he also bangs on geometrical bunkers and square greens.  I've mentioned this before, but this seems like a shot at Raynor and, perhaps, CBM.   

Mac:

I think this may have been directed more at the early days of golf design, specifically the school of design that Walter Travis called "The Willie Dunn" system.  This article from Travis describes that thought in detail:

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1920/ag2333f.pdf