[Ian Andrew]

I was talking yesterday with Mike Young about the state of Golf Course Architecture and the furture for younger architects. We touched on how we both believe the Design/Builder will be the last ones still working by the next decade. We talked a lot about our common belief that Golf Design will not pick up anytime soon and all we can expect is more of the same. Yes there will be a few interesting projects in faraway places financed by very wealthy individuals, but otherwise, for the next generation, this will be a tough place to work in unless you can make money building as well as designing.

It led to a brief conversation about what this may mean for Golf Club Atlas.

The site began in 1999 or at least that’s when I found it.


Think about how great Ran’s timing was for GCA:  

1. It began at the end of one of the greatest booms in golf
2. During a period where Golden Age architects returned to prominence
3. A flourish of architecture books were written
4. A series of golf course restorations were seen as important and widely followed
5. Minimalism was asserting itself as an alternative to Modernism
6. We had the internet to help us discover new architects and the ability to see their work
7. But most importantly - Bandon Dunes Resort came to fruition and we got to watch the build out

Ran’s timing was ideal because there was simply a lot to talk about.

It was all really exciting right up till 2008 when the economics of what drove the Golf Boom simply stopped and they aren't about to come back anytime soon.


Fifteen Years later we see:

1. Barely any new projects in North America and Western Europe
2. Very few restorations/renovations that still capture the site’s attention
3. Most new courses are in places people don’t want to go to
4. Golf as a sport appears to be in decline


The number of repeat course reviews on this site this year has caught my attention. It’s a clear notice to all of us that we are running out of things to talk about. I recently reconnected with a former poster on GCA and asked why he left, the answer was not frustration, but that very little new conversation ever takes place anymore. It brought the question … is this site only as good as the amount of work being done?

When I wrote my initial Blog, the Caddy Shack, I wrote continuously for two and half years and then one day discovered I had nothing more to talk about. Has this site simply exhausted all the subject matter possible and is now struggling with the limited resource of new work to pick through? How can we liven up the conversation about architecture in a period of little work?

[Kevin_Reilly]

Ian,

I guess I wouldn't have weighted #7 as highly as you have.  I would think that the timing of GCA's launch relative to the age of the internet was an advantage.  At that point in time (stop me if I sound like someone talking about a time when there were only 3 or 4 TV stations) there were few online "golf" oriented discussion forums, and even fewer devoted specifically to GCA.  Fewer as in one...the Bravenet/TraditionalGolf page that many of us started at.  Today, even Golfwrx has a spot where you can discuss golf courses...there are a gazillion choices out there.

At this time of the year cabin fever creeps in (it even rained for the first time in months in the Bay Area), and posts about the impending discussion apocalypse abound...the equipment guys think that every new product is same old/same old and the golf instruction forums say that every technique has been beaten to death.

But there is an un-ending supply of people who are new to the topic of GCA (or equipment, or instruction) and they are joining GCA early on their own learning curves.  What they need is patient and prolific old-guard board members to continue to discuss topics that have probably been discussed every which way but Sunday (like recent topics on Trees, Pine Valley, etc).

Hopefully old-guard posters will continue to get enough pleasure from the topic that they will indulge new posters who are just getting started.

Just my $0.02, YMMV, etc etc.

[Bill Brightly]

I think you make many great points. Of course the timing the building of the Bandon courses was perfect for this website. And many great topics have been heavily debated for years on gca.com.

But then I read a post from a new poster, Matt Lloyd, asking why this website seems to be anti-trees.It is a perfectly reasonable question, but where do you start to answer? I am thrilled with the number of new gca.com members (and there are probably many more new "lurkers") so I feel an obligation to go through topics like this again. Especially trees, since the love of intelligent tree removal is an acquired taste, not something that I would expect most golfers to automatically embrace.

The same is true from "re-hashing" courses via photo tours. There is much to be learned from threads that discuss courses, even if I might personally feel the course has been discussed to death. And certain courses, like the new photo tour on Pine Valley, will NEVER become boring!

[John Kavanaugh]

Society has changed to where an honest critique is seen as trolling or worse, bullying.  There is just some God awful work presented here in pictures that does not get commented on like in the past because it would offend the poster or members of the club.  

Also this site has always been fueled by people posting from work.  Many employers see this as a social network which could, and has in the past, cost people their jobs.

There has also always been a decline in the quality of a persons posts after they become a rater.  They feel a need to not rock the boat so to not lose the golden ticket.  The large upswing in rater numbers of late has perpetuated this problem.  When was the last time a thread was started about a Golfweek Rater outing?  Such things are not to be discussed in public.

For me personally the iPad has made it almost impossible to write as I once did.  My recent thread on Red vs BN was limited to one hole per day specifically so I could be at a keyboard to type.

Picture threads should also be banned.  They are the food of inane zombies.

[John Mayhugh]

New construction does seem to captivate the discussion group more than any other topics.  

For me, new courses don't have to mean new construction.  Seeing Baltimore Country Club (which benefited from a great restoration) was a more memorable part of my year than a trip to Streamsong.  Thinking of travel in 2014, Philly Cricket captures my interest every bit as much as anything new that has opened in the last couple of years.  

Thanks to your recommendation, I saw Glens Falls in NY earlier this year.  With a little work, it's easily Golfweek top 100 Classic material, and maybe top 50.  There is a huge amount of potential there, and yet the course has barely even been discussed on GCA. It makes me wonder what else is out there that remains under the radar.

I think there is still a lot worth discussing - it just seems like most everything has been covered.  

[Ian Andrew]

John,

I don't see all Photo Tours being bad. For example, I always look for Sean's obscure courses of the UK. I believe interesting threads, like the one on Alpinization, are influenced by or come indirectly from some of these tours. I struggle more when we hit something that's be done to death like Bandon Dunes Resort.

[Peter Pallotta]

Well, Ian, your post is an interesting and though provoking one, and so seems to disprove the very theory that the thread itself raises.  There are only so many discussions possible, only so many facts to share - and so, yes, possibly there is, as the former poster suggests, little genuine "conversation" going on anymore.  On the other hand, I've always approached this - rightly or wrongly - as a place to throw out ideas and possibilities and theories about ART and about CRAFT, in the most general terms, under the assumption that in one way or another those ideas/theories could apply to the art-craft that is golf course architecture. And so I believe that, as long as there are people who want to discuss ideas as much as facts, and theories as much as rankings, and possibilities and much as practical matters, there'll always be something to discuss. But then again, maybe that's your point - i.e. that without great new courses to play and rank and talk about and access, the enthusiasm for any other kind of talk is drying up.

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

I don't see all Photo Tours being bad. For example, I always look for Sean's obscure courses of the UK. I believe interesting threads, like the one on Alpinization, are influenced by or come indirectly from some of these tours. I struggle more when we hit something that's be done to death like Bandon Dunes Resort.

My contention is that it is both difficult and takes a great deal of thought to describe a hole with words instead of pictures.  This works on both ends of the equation.  When you are playing you will pay greater attention which will be reflected in your descriptions.  Pictures have a place as best illustrated in Ran's reviews.   I would like to see each review limited to a one picture per 100 word ratio.  What a great trade of bandwidth that would be, you get to post one picture in return for a 100 word description or the picture is removed.

[John Kavanaugh]

I believe with all my heart that the creation of cheap and portable cameras, mostly in our phones, has be a great detriment to society.  This is simply reflected by a lower golf architecture IQ on this board.  I could care less if someone in my group wants to use their phone during a round for anything but taking pictures.  As soon as the camera comes out I know all is doomed.

[JMEvensky]

Well, Ian, your post is an interesting and though provoking one, and so seems to disprove the very theory that the thread itself raises.  There are only so many discussions possible, only so many facts to share - and so, yes, possibly there is, as the former poster suggests, little genuine "conversation" going on anymore.  On the other hand, I've always approached this - rightly or wrongly - as a place to throw out ideas and possibilities and theories about ART and about CRAFT, in the most general terms, under the assumption that in one way or another those ideas/theories could apply to the art-craft that is golf course architecture. And so I believe that, as long as there are people who want to discuss ideas as much as facts, and theories as much as rankings, and possibilities and much as practical matters, there'll always be something to discuss. But then again, maybe that's your point - i.e. that without great new courses to play and rank and talk about and access, the enthusiasm for any other kind of talk is drying up.

Peter

Peter,as per usual,a good post and put in a better way than I'm capable.

It's no so much the courses but what design principles they represent.Listening to an architect explain how/why certain things were done on a particular hole or course is always interesting.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ian,

Does PPallotta's posting to meta-threads constitute another fact in support of your thesis?   More seriously, Peter, your post reminds it's not the stories that are unique but the telling, yes? I guess the golf analogy for that is CB Macdonald's "Ecclesiastes 1:9" argument ("unfolding of timeless truths").

I'd vote for John K's proposition just for the opportunity to unearth the hidden Dickinsons, Darwins, Winds, and even Owenses in our addled lot, although it is far from a panacea for the problem as outlined by Ian.

[Ian Andrew]

On the other hand, I've always approached this - rightly or wrongly - as a place to throw out ideas and possibilities and theories about ART and about CRAFT, in the most general terms, under the assumption that in one way or another those ideas/theories could apply to the art-craft that is golf course architecture. And so I believe that, as long as there are people who want to discuss ideas as much as facts, and theories as much as rankings, and possibilities and much as practical matters, there'll always be something to discuss.

Peter,

I think it's where this site should be going, particularly in a period of less work.

I always though that the conversation deepens every time we investigate the shades of grey in golf architecture. Many years back there was a great thread involving Garden City and the greenside pond on the 16th. The conversation touched on history, evolution and even the environmental issues related to that one simple feature. It went on for months and explored the feature through to the decision making process on restorative work. It was a brilliant exercise for a younger architect to read. We don't we seem to have is many of those types conversations anymore?  

I'm not sure why theory doesn't go over as a subject.

For example I always thought the central hazard was a great subject to discuss on a theoretical basis rather than about "specific" built forms. It is an alternative that is still rarely used, but is incredibly effective in creating strategy with little cost. The professionals hate the idea because it takes away the perfect location where they would like to be.

[Sven Nilsen]

I'd back jaka's photo to word ratio idea.  The old adages still hold true, even in this modern age.

[JMEvensky]

 

I'm not sure why theory doesn't go over as a subject.

 

I think it would.But,the thread would have to be started by you or some other architect with other architects chiming in.Nobody wants to read an esoteric thread filled with only amateurs' opinions.The professionals have to keep the discussion from careening off track.

[Robert Emmons]

Ian,

Hope all is well. Enjoy the thought of putting the central hazard back on Huntington CC # 4 and #17...That will create noise...RHE

[Mike_Young]

I think Ian raises 7 very good points.  But I might also add to his #7 one thing.  Along with the Bandon project came an architect who had no problem listening and discussing ideas with golf nerds.  That guy was TD...(and no, I am not a butt-boy.)  Our business is a very cutthroat business and some of the most insecure people in this business are a few of the "larger firm" guys.  When I first entered the business I figured they must really have something on the rest but it didn't take long to understand the aura and the marketing were their existence.  Those types of architects would have never discussed anything on this site and they never have.  Now some might say the site was manipulated by TD as a marketing tool, I'm not sure that was ever the case.  The mainstream golf architect still laughs at this site and much of that is because he doesn't know how to take it.  Imagine if John Smoltz were to come on the Atlanta Braves Butt Boy fan site and chat with the fans each day after a game.  that's what made this site...the interaction with a few of the guys that were actually designing the works the site discussed.  And there is not that much of that right now.

I think the quality of the architectural discussions will always move up and down according to the amount of  NEW work being done.  And that's what instigated myself and Ian talking yesterday.  I was telling Ian that I never was one to seek out rework because most of it was at private clubs and you had to deal with committees and those committees were going to get in the middle of whatever you were doing and one would spend so much time dealing with that type of stuff and I was not suited for that.  I much prefer to just wait and get the new stuff when I get it and not waste money "proposing" work to clubs when they still have to choose who they want to use.  IMHO I could spend the same amount of time playing golf and not wasting money on presentations.  Plus I like doing my stuff and not revising history for some ODG.  Now that's me.  Ian is suited for doing restoration and  he likes it.  I would choke somebody.  I think it is very noble for him to do the work he does but at the end of the day this site is not going to discuss my new work or Ian's restorations for more than maybe a day at a time.  This site thrives on discussing new bentgrass golf -only walking courses in superb locations by well-known designers.  We never see much discussion of a far-away new course by these guys unless this site is able to travel to it.  This site will never dwell on southern courses with bermuda grass.  I think that was obvious with Streamsong.  You don't hear near the discussion you did of the Nebraska/Colorado/Oregon courses and yet the population within 25 mile radius is much more at Streamsong.   So there's some discussion for ya....cheers....

[Mark Bourgeois]

For example I always thought the central hazard was a great subject to discuss on a theoretical basis rather than about "specific" built forms. It is an alternative that is still rarely used, but is incredibly effective in creating strategy with little cost. The professionals hate the idea because it takes away the perfect location where they would like to be.

Ian, there is something about this topic I have thought about in studying / contrasting old courses when they were old vs old courses today + new courses. And it is this: you can't even think about central hazards without width, and width is something that has been (by and large) taken from golfers. People bang on about all the length we've been "given" to deal with but the unavailability (loss) of width is sort of the unspoken design killer. Maybe this is due to so many courses being development courses; central hazards push golfers to the margins of holes, and margins are where the lawsuits lurk, yes?

So I'm not even sure central hazards would start popping up if floggers decided they liked them. I mean, central hazards without width: are those just functional crossing hazards??

As an aside, ie not directly related to central hazards but to strategies that push golfers away from the center lines of holes, how cool is it to see golfers at Royal Melbourne missing those mile-wide kilometer-wide fairways as they try to get "over" to the best position for approach?

[Terry Lavin]

Just when you think you have run out of things to talk about, then we talk about the fact that we don't have anything new to talk about, which leads to further soul searching, if that makes any sense.  It's sort of like any number of shows on ESPN, where people who work with ESPN talk to the host, employed by ESPN about sports that are shown on ESPN.

There are fewer and fewer projects, that much is certain.  That may lead to fewer professionals meaningfully contributing here.  Sheesh, I hope not, because the rest of us might as well be referred to at the Speculation Brothers, Rank and Idle.  We need leadership.

Like all great ideas, Ran's concept for this website came with exquisitely perfect timing.  I started lurking around 2000, then I hosted Ran and Mike Keiser at Olympia in 2002 and have gradually gotten educated on various topics architecture related to the point where I could embarrass myself if a true expert happened to hear or read my opinions.  I've also had the opportunity to get to know dozens of leaders in the golf and architecture communities, many of whom contribute or lurk here.  Bottom line, I think this site will continue to evolve.  Should the leaders depart, it will devolve.  But we will endure.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

I stumbled upon GCA some five years ago, lurked and then got admitted to the ward. From my perspective there is less being discussed in terms of golf architecture per se.
I think I know this is so because I went to inordinately crazy lengths to compile and archive a list of threads regarding various aspects of architecture from tee to green and across all sorts of hazards. My point is that the amount of threads pertaining to these topics has fallen markedly .. particularly over the last couple of years. I haven't got stats as such but I was almost overwhelmed by the amount of material to be checked out in the first six years of GCA's life whereas today I am finding and adding threads at a much reduced rate. Yes things have been re-hashed but that is all to the good for newer members like myself as it gives us a lead in to the matter at hand.

I think in regards to Ian's thread subject description the downturn in discussion is jointly a lack of new projects happening and an exhaustion of available material. How to rejuvenate? I have no great answers but possibly if someone (authorative/respected) was to pull out an older thread, precis it and post it up for fresh debate that might engender new thoughts and ideas. The Alpinisation-Mounding thread did this to some extent. And Ian just mentioning central hazards sparks responses. Maybe there is an art in re-introducing worn ideas in a new light!

Book readings, critiques and discussion of past masters approaches could be another avenue. I know this has been tried in the past with little to no success ( I don't understand why). The likes of me putting in my tuppence worth does not much good but there are plenty on this board who would enliven the conversation.

And certainly as Peter P. alludes to discussion of the subliminal and subconscious aspects of architecture and its practice is surely fertile ground.

P.S. John K…….. I have to admit that a chunk of the time compiling my archive was done at work! I was almost retired and the two likely lads working under me needed every opportunity to spread their wings, take on responsibility, learn the ropes and not be strangled by a control freak looking over their shoulder. I saw that as passing on the baton and getting out of the way….good management on my part doncha think!!
Oh yes, a picture being worth 100 words is a very good idea.

Cheers Colin

[Dan Kelly]

One observation:

It seems as though people are increasingly unwilling to read entire threads. Many seem to read the initial post, react to that and ignore everything between Post 1 and the most recent post. Perfectly interesting questions are posed (and ignored) after the initial post.

Hard to have a fruitful discussion that leads anywhere, that way.

One other observation:

Samuel Johnson famously observed that only a fool ever wrote except for money. (I don't agree with him, obviously -- but there is SOMETHING to what he said.) He did not say the same thing about taking pictures with a cellphone.

Dan

[Sean_A]

Well for me, architecture can only go so far.  I am not terribly interested in navel gazing topics nor am I bothered about the same ole whatever to 10 world course etc.  I like to read and see pics about real courses.  Theory is okay, but in the end, so what?  

One thing I would say that folks are missing; friendship.  I am not saying I have made bosom buddies on this site, but I like to think I have made many good friends who I wouldn't hesitate to spend time with on and off the golf course.  This element of the site is easily the best thing I have experienced.  Then of course, once you get to know folks its much easier to wangle up to architecture discussions when there is a face across the table and golf course outside.

So I guess I disagree with Ian to a certain extent, but I promise not to green the poor guy.

Ciao

[BHoover]

I am happy to admit that I welcome all the photo tours. Some of us (a) are relative newcomers to GCA and/or (b) have not had the chance to play many of the architecturally significant courses around the world. The photo tours presented by the likes of Mark Saltzman, Sean Arble, Brian Sheehy and many others are my chance to see some fantastic courses.

Words are great, but words with photos are all the better. I say please keep the photo tours coming. Courses change Over time, and different photo tours can capture different features/angles that earlier tours might not show. So keep em coming, I say!

If you don't like the photo tours, why not ignore them? It's not that difficult.

[Peter Pallotta]

Before I log on I always remind myself of the Fran Lebowitz quip: "Original thought is like original sin - both happened a long time ago, to people you couldn't possibly have met!" It really frees me up to be bad, as they say...

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm as good as I ever wished to be, all I want now is for you to be better.

[Grant Saunders]

On the other hand, I've always approached this - rightly or wrongly - as a place to throw out ideas and possibilities and theories about ART and about CRAFT, in the most general terms, under the assumption that in one way or another those ideas/theories could apply to the art-craft that is golf course architecture. And so I believe that, as long as there are people who want to discuss ideas as much as facts, and theories as much as rankings, and possibilities and much as practical matters, there'll always be something to discuss.

Peter,

I think it's where this site should be going, particularly in a period of less work.

I always though that the conversation deepens every time we investigate the shades of grey in golf architecture. Many years back there was a great thread involving Garden City and the greenside pond on the 16th. The conversation touched on history, evolution and even the environmental issues related to that one simple feature. It went on for months and explored the feature through to the decision making process on restorative work. It was a brilliant exercise for a younger architect to read. We don't we seem to have is many of those types conversations anymore?  

Ian

A while ago Mike Young started a thread about the spiral of silence on GCA (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56704.0.html). While its premise is different to what you are getting at, it did throw up what I found an interesting quote from Jeff Brauer:  

"Back on topic, I also find myself wondering about the level of discussion here.  We really don't discuss architecture all that much.  Just try an esoteric question and you get five responses, tops.  Talk about a Doak or a classic and it goes for months or years.  In other words, for all the potential for intelligent discussion (and there is lots of it) it in many cases, this website turns into an internet version of some travel blog, with name dropping, course counting, etc.  I will grant its hard to discuss courses you haven't played, and even harder for most to discuss architectural concepts in depth.  

In fact, architectural concepts is where I think the real silence begins on this board, even moreso than in discussing different architects.  "

I thought this to be a pretty good observation of one of the key driving points that generates a lot of the posts on this board.

Below is a reply I posted on the back of Jeffs thoughts and I find your thread bringing me back to a similar view.

"I wonder if perhaps part of the issue is a reluctance/inability to visualise ideas as opposed to reacting to what is seen. It is far easier to look at something and decide whether you like or dislike it. It is much tougher to apply your own thoughts and build images without points of reference. Based on that, it is far more likely for discussion to take place on physical encounters versus theories. It is this tendency that would limit most people on this board from actually being able to design a course yet they can form strong opinions having played or seen something."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()