[Peter Pallotta]

Recent posts on two of Pat M's current threads - "while golf is a game..." and "has the introduction..." -- brough this to mind, i.e. that the main difference between golfers (and golf as it was played, and the courses golf was played on) in the 1920s and golfers-golf-courses today isn't technology or cost or time or quality, it's that the golden age/Max Behrian goal of disguising the hand of man in golf course design has become irrelevant.

I think that, for Behr and his ilk, the fundamental reason-rationale behind striving for natural-looking courses and naturally-appearing hazards and features (and the choices and challenges these presented the golfer) was to provide a field of play wherein a golfer's fate seemed to rest totally in his own hands, i.e. a field of play where a golfer's own character and decisions and spirit and skill would -- in relation to Nature herself -- determined the outcome of his round, and not the architect's hand.

The idea was, I think, that a golfer would participate more completely (and thus enjoy himself more fully) in a round of golf that was shaped and proscribed not by the traps and wiles and techniques and devices and problems of an architect's making and clever designing, but by the golfer himself interacting with Nature. In short, the idea was that a golfer would prefer to feel that he himself had caused his own fortune and misfortune rather than that the hand of man (i.e. the architect's) was behind his success or his undoing -- and so, for a little while at least, the goal for some of the golden agers was to give him just that feeling, i.e. to disguise the architect's work and blend it into Nature so that the golfer could say "the fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings".  

Ah - but there's the rub: because this whole edifice and ethos and design-style collapses or loses its meaning if/when golfers no longer want to blame themselves, when golfers actually want to see the hand of man so that they can blame the architects for their failings, when they can say "that hole is too long/short" or "that hole has too much water" or "that architct provides no options/choices" instead of asking themselves about their own characters and decisions and spirit and skill. And i think that is what's happened: Cassius, alas, has gone the way of the dodo-bird, and the cry now from golfers far and wide is more like "the fault lies in the design and not in ourselves that we scored badly (read: worse than our vain imaginings would have us accept).

And that's why I say that this is the real challenge that architects face today:  make a course look natural and flowing and full of options and choices, we say, but be absolutely precise in marking out the challenges you present so that we can determine -- a priori  - that it's your fault and not ours if we play badly and stink up the joint (oh, and be ready to admit these faults if we ask about, say, overly contoured greens or  a particularly narrow landing zone). Tough crowd nowadays (well, not "tough"...you know...)

Peter

[Mike Hendren]

Wow Peter.  Either you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night or are playing a drinking game with Barney.

Nice provocative post.  Hmmm.

Bogey

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

Right on.  I've noticed this exact type of comments from the "panelists" since the day I got into the business ... if they didn't like something, their premise on a new course was that the architect should have done things differently, but an old course got a pass because it was assumed the architect couldn't have moved earth to fix the problem. 

There really is a double standard in play there, but it goes back to the crazy notion that the player should be redesigning the course, instead of just playing it as best he can.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thank you Peter
I wish there were more of the former types of courses and players
Cheers

[Mike_Young]

That's good Peter.  And why do you think it changed?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike
I don't think "it" changed, I think portions did.
But I'll guess, along with you, that business had a big impact on the change.
Pleasing everyone and everyone wanting to be pleased or owed something special.
The special is there all the time, some look in the wrong places.
Cheers

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah, I'd only be guessing, Mike, even more than I usually do! But:

While I think maybe Behr over-estimated the desire of most golfers - then and now - to engage with a golf course at that level, i.e. to have that kind of full participation in/with Nature (and with his own character and decisions) that was best served by an architect hiding the hand of man, I don't believe he was making it up or imagining it completely, i.e. I do think there was during that time a sense (amongst some golfers) of the spirit of the game and the magic of a magnificent course and the romance of a natural setting and the character-exposing quality of golf. But after 80 years or so of economic and cultural and social change, the "spirit" is now identified with the professional game; the "magic" seems to be mainly a function of technology; the "romance" is more about exclusivity and 5 star dining than nature's beautiful imperfections; and the "character-exposing" mostly takes place on facebook, where we can lie about our accomplishments and promote our next project.

That doesn't answer your question, I know -- just some more random thoughts.

Peter

[Bill_McBride]

Mike
I don't think "it" changed, I think portions did.
But I'll guess, along with you, that business had a big impact on the change.
Pleasing everyone and everyone wanting to be pleased or owed something special.
The special is there all the time, some look in the wrong places.
Cheers

Could be sociological too, where parents wanted all kids to be on the honor roll.  

[Sean_A]

I think that, for Behr and his ilk, the fundamental reason-rationale behind striving for natural-looking courses and naturally-appearing hazards and features (and the choices and challenges these presented the golfer) was to provide a field of play wherein a golfer's fate seemed to rest totally in his own hands, i.e. a field of play where a golfer's own character and decisions and spirit and skill would -- in relation to Nature herself -- determined the outcome of his round, and not the architect's hand.

Given that archies also strived to eliminate the randomness of nature (remove blind shots & carefully plot out bunkers being two examples), I struggle with the above paragraph.  It may well be true for Behr, but who is his ilk and how did they keep the wilder side of nature in architecture?

We must not forget that even today golfers and archies do not completely grasp or appreciate the wild side of the game as true nature presents it.  In other words, the sporty golf of yesteryear was all but taken out of fashion by the ODGs.  

Then again, there may be no one truth for architecture, but yours may be the truest we have.

Tom - archies today should be judged by a tougher standard than 100 years ago.  Afterall, they have very high shoulders to stand upon.  That doesn't necessarily mean better courses will get built, but it should mean there is a good possibility that better courses will be built. 

Ciao

[BCowan]

Could one say that today vs golden age era that there is less purist pooling their money together to hire an archie and build a course?   Could we say that the permitting process has favored the ''Realtor golf course builder'' due to high permitting fees limiting the market?  Golf Arch seems to mirror the music industry.  Recreate what sells (high maint budget courses).  I would just love to see people's reaction to a poorly maintained Fazio course, is there one?  Same 3 chord progression.   

[Dan Kelly]

Really, Peter? You really think "golfers today" WANT to blame the architect for their failings?

Which golfers are you talking about? The golfers I know have opinions about the designs they play -- but are more than eager to flay themselves for their own failings, and as often as not appreciative of the architect's reasonable invitations to expose their failings. (Of course, I know no touring pros and scant few raters.) The golfers I know are perfectly willing to take the credit or the blame for their play, "asking themselves about their own characters and decisions and spirit and skill," even as "they can say 'that hole is too long/short' or 'that hole has too much water' or 'that architect provides no options/choices.' " That certainly describes me.

Also: I've heard this "hide the hand of man" stuff a million times now -- but have yet to see a golf course that looked like nature undisturbed. Where have you seen these courses?

Dan

[Tim Lewis]

I was always under the impression that Behr and Mackenzie were the only two golden age architects that placed a real emphasis on making courses look natural. I seems to me that Raynor, Macdonald, Ross, and Tillinghast didn't really care whether or not their courses looked natural.    

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

Well, most of that is too deep, and maybe too simple at the same time.

However, for those who think business is just recently affecting golf, please recall that Toro celebrates its 100th anniversary this year, Donald Ross' memoirs were titled "Golf Has Never Failed Me" an excerpt from a passage about how Americans had made golf more businesslike, and that one of those great Golden Age, US Open courses - Merion - is a real estate course.  And that is just to cite a few examples of what I consider simply a long standing trend, not some big difference between then and now.

For those lamenting the long gone naturalness of the Golden Age courses, while you have a point, please point me to any natural sand blow out that has the shape of a MacKenzie bunker?  That was artistic interpretation of nature, and the point was to get away from trench and boxy bunkers of the early 1900's. Sure, it recognized that there were no straight lines in nature, but substituted another kind of man made ridigness on its informality.

Lastly, I do agree with Peter that its more visual presentation rather than nature today, but based on what went before (a la the Mac bunkers) I blame TV for the most part.  Golf is emulating the big screen with pretty cinematography over pure nature, and golf courses are perfect for "framing views for a second" as they might in a long shot on TV.

I also think a society trend towards understanding vs. strict justice in society has altered the nature of golf courses.  As has the fact that life has gotten easier.  You stole something?  That doesn't deserve jail time, as you are a troubled youth.  Bad result? Surely society is more to blame than the individual.

It all plays in.  And, why not?  I think we want our recreation in general to be easier than the work and life we use it to escape from.  If we don't have to worry about starvation, etc. we are more likely to complain about taking four shots to get out of a bunker.

As far as the randomness, yeah, its less, but only because decades of experience have taught many that random doesn't really pay, as in you can predict which bunkers are going to see such few shots that they just aren't worth putting in and maintaining.  If we ignored those hard truths in design, is golf really any better off?

Some of you might have seen Geoff Shacks piece today, riffing off a NYT article on the declining middle class.  Basically, it says business has stopped pandering to the middle class, because they have stopped buying things.  As it relates to golf, basically poorer folks don't play cheaper golf (probably doing that already) they quit.  After decades of trending to a middle class game, it may be set to inch back towards a game for the rich only.  (maybe top 20% of income, or so)

None of that bodes well for reducing the fine accompaniments of the current golf experience, but may bode towards fewer, but even finer golf "experiences" in the future.  Again, the business side of golf will take it where it can make some money, because how many folks love golf enough to subsidize it continually?

[Morgan Clawson]

P -

I think your point is true for many pro or excellent golfers. This would explain the pros dissing Dove Mountain and the 17th green at TPC Scottsdale. They have expectations for making long putts and hitting great shots because they've done it many times before.  When a course offers-up a bit of variance from the norm, many don't like it.

But for the retail golfer, most of the time they know when they've played poorly. It's hard to blame someone else for chunking a wedge or slicing it out of bounds. 

One of my friends just resigned from his club because "I'm not good enough." 

Sure, the architect/super/course might get blamed for requiring a very long forced carry or positioning a cart path which will ricochet a ball OOB.  And in many cases those criticisms are legit.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - ha! I think you've just helped me see my besetting sin, i.e. "too deep and too simplistic" at the same time. (Good post btw, which is all I'm looking for when i start a thread).

Dan - some folks seem to equate hiding the hand of man with a course looking completely natural, as if a 'golf course' could actually exists in nature all on its own. For me, the term has always meant and can only mean an approach that tries to blur the lines as seamslessly as possible between what once existed on a site in its natural state and what the architect has created/shaped in order to make that site useful as a field of play. It's about a desire/attempt to cover one's tracks so as to give the golfer the appearance of a natural setting, with ridges and hollows and water and sand (and fairways) seeming to have been beautifully situated by Nature in just the right way for us to enjoy a round of golf (even though we know that Nature has done nothing of the sort).  You've played more courses than I have, and more good ones I'm sure: but from photos alone the Friar's Heads and Ballyneals and Sand Hills and Pacifics of the world seem to do a fine job of blurring those lines, of hiding the architect's hand. On your other question: yes, I think I do believe that us modern golfers do blame the architect more frequently and more profoundly than ever before -- because otherwise I can't make any sense at all of either the constant praise some architects/courses get or the constant criticism that other architects/courses get, nor any sense of our endless fascination with the (related) rankings and top 10 lists that dominate our board; praise/criticism that rests on assumptions about how architects SHOULD design golf courses, with those "shoulds" closely related to how well/badly those designs serve OUR OWN purposes and suit our own games...as if our own PARTICULAR set of golf-related strengths and weaknesses are determinative of the actual 'quality' of the course.  (Morgan, just saw your post, and like you and Dan, I know when I''m to blame for my failings on a courses; probably many golfers are -- and yet, yet, see how many times a course is barely opend before golfers, after one play or no plays at all, jump to to say: that's bad" or "that's good"...which means, basically, the architect has failed or the architect has succeeded. Failed or succeeded at what?)

Peter
 

[Adam Clayman]

The distinction Behr made was for "Sportsmen".

[Sean_A]

Pietro

You still have me stumped.  Perhaps my assumption is incorrect, but I think it may be possible that the ODGs codified architecture to the point where less, not more variety is on display - as is the case with nature.  I have to believe that when golfers have expectations about what courses should be, the underpinnings are of the classic age, good and bad.  We still have ODG hangovers of no blind shots, no cross hazards (unless its water!), bunkers as primary hazard interest, plateaux greens etc.  

I can sympathize with your struggle over what is natural golf when nature must be altered to accommodate the game.  The current back bone of the resurgence of minimalist (read naturalist?) architecture is for the work of the archie not to be obviously noticed as man made.  As you noted, this is a hangover of the ODGs starting with the great British archies and Dr Mac carrying the concept to a truly international audience.  No doubt, these guys played around a bit by really creating parks for golf.  These weren't really natural courses, but more natural than some of what came previously.  I think this same basic idea still exists, although the execution and emphasis is interpreted quite differently by varying archies.  So, this is the expectation of the modern golfer and stray ideas, predating much of the ODG era, are not generally met with approval.  The one curious exception is the use of water.  Sure, ODGs used water, but I think it is far more expected in design today where as 100 years ago, not so much.  Golfers seem happy to cope with water if they feel there is a fair opportunity for success.  

It is very easy to see the plight of an archie.  Most will have their own ideas about what is good and makes sense and most will change and experiment or at least want to do so.  It must be very difficult to think outside the box when places like Erin Hills, Dismal Jack and Tobacco Road get a hammering from critics and golfers alike for daring to load up on the unusual either because the site suggested as much or if completely man made.  It has as much to do with not meeting expectations as anything else and that is the big difference between now and 100 years ago.  By codifying new design systems/methods, the orginal ODGs were breaking with expections.  Or, at the very least, there were so many new golfers jumping aboard that they didn't know any different.  I spose in that respect its not all that different to today.  A certain significant if very minor percentage of golfers know other stuff exists and often choose to seek it out.  The majority of golfers are to a larger degree, looking to meet expectations.  The strange thing is, the NAGs (new alive guys) of ODG principles are just as predictable as the ODGs themselves were - no?  They are more or less settled on what good architecture is and act upon those beliefs on course after course; hoping the sites are distinguished to the point of actually creating dinstinguished architecture.  When you think about it, its a great concept, but one very few archies can employ.  But even this concept can get stale just as many believe the MacRaynor concept went stale after time.  The thing is, the NAGs know folks travel far more than back in MacRaynor times and I believe that will be one catalyist for stepping outside the box and perhaps revisiting some of the work prior to the ODGs.  I hope I am right because if anybody can get the balance right its some of the NAGs practicing today.  

Ciao      

[Adam Lawrence]

I was always under the impression that Behr and Mackenzie were the only two golden age architects that placed a real emphasis on making courses look natural. I seems to me that Raynor, Macdonald, Ross, and Tillinghast didn't really care whether or not their courses looked natural.    

I think you'll find that Colt and Simpson, to name but two, wrote pretty extensively about making artificial work look natural.

[Mike_Young]

Ah, I'd only be guessing, Mike, even more than I usually do! But:

While I think maybe Behr over-estimated the desire of most golfers - then and now - to engage with a golf course at that level, i.e. to have that kind of full participation in/with Nature (and with his own character and decisions) that was best served by an architect hiding the hand of man, I don't believe he was making it up or imagining it completely, i.e. I do think there was during that time a sense (amongst some golfers) of the spirit of the game and the magic of a magnificent course and the romance of a natural setting and the character-exposing quality of golf. But after 80 years or so of economic and cultural and social change, the "spirit" is now identified with the professional game; the "magic" seems to be mainly a function of technology; the "romance" is more about exclusivity and 5 star dining than nature's beautiful imperfections; and the "character-exposing" mostly takes place on facebook, where we can lie about our accomplishments and promote our next project.

That doesn't answer your question, I know -- just some more random thoughts.



Peter

Peter,
It does answer some of my question.  I don't know the exact answer either but I think land was a huge factor.  Once we began to place courses on land instead of finding courses it all changed.  Now much of that may have been caused by RE Development being the tail wagging the dog for those who would consider golf the dog.  Even today the courses we see garner the attention are on good land...and that is not to detract from the architectural talent...  I think I have said before that we would all know the game was back where it needed to be when we did not know who the architect of the course was.  As an example...I appreciate a nice navy blue suit but I cannot tell the Armani from a Hickey-Freeman....if we approached good golf courses in that manner we would not have the constant search for BEST....JMO

[Jim_Kennedy]

PP,

I'd like to know who these mythical players are who say:  "it's your (architect) fault and not ours if we play badly and stink up the joint (oh, and be ready to admit these faults if we ask about, say, overly contoured greens or  a particularly narrow landing zone). Tough crowd nowadays (well, not "tough"...you know...).

Are you talking about the 20 million +/- players;  the 1,500 people on this website; the tiny number of golf course raters; the tiny number of bloggers; or perhaps the magazine writers who deal with matters architectural?

Or are you saying that 20 million +/- players have little moral fiber of their own, and are willing to blame anyone but themselves for their bad play?

It's hard for me to believe that it's mainly a nature vs. the hand-of-man issue, a quick look at GD's top 100 course would dispel that theory.

Maybe it's more of a pen-in-the-hands of a few thousand that is the real challenge facing today's architects.      

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - your last line/suggestion may be spot on! As I tried to answer Dan, I don't think many golfers are walking around openly blaming the architects, but since I happen to think that the vast majority of architects know what they are doing, every ranking and best of list and every complaint/criticism about architect X or Y suggests to me that most of us aren't in truth willing to 'play the course as we find it' but instead are determined to make our less the satisfying experiences on golf courses the architect's fault, and not our own. I won't argue your other point, i.e. the hand of man vs nature debate, because as I say I'm not sure Behr got that right (or that i understood him right)...but it's about as intriguing an idea as I've ever read so I like trotting it out occasionally.

Peter

[Jim_Kennedy]

PP,

Perhaps our less than satisfying experiences on the golf course are more the failings of architecture, as it's been delivered to us.  
Consider this 100+ year old sentiment, from an architect whose golf courses never fail to please:

     The British architect of golf links pays little heed to criticism, but is open to valuable suggestions, knowing that the carping critic is usually a very ignorant man, while the one who has any advice worth taking gives it in the gentlest way. For no two experts ever agree exactly on points of golf construction, and the best links usually is the outcome of a compromise of ideas gathered from many intelligent sources.
   For instance, they do not lay out a links across the water by rule of thumb, with the idea of having the drive such a distance, the second shot such a distance, the approach such a distance, and so on, even mentioning clubs that shall be used for the shot. When he lays out the hole, the constructor casts his eye over the country and gets an idea of what he considers a golf hole in his brain, lays it out that way, and then says to the player: "There's the golf hole' play it any way you please!"
   As an illustration, take the hole at North Berwick, where the majority of good golfers play an iron shot first, then a full shot with wood, and then the approach to the green.  An American golfer might say that that was all wrong, as the course should call for a full shot first; but upon examination there is no reason why such a theory should prevail, for the British one surely has the real spirit of golf in it when it says that the way to reach a hole is by using the clubs and by taking the route which will get the player to the green in his own way, which should be better for them than anybody else's way.  So, that the golf holes on the best links in Scotland and England have several different ways of playing them, and because they do not present just one and the only way to everybody, the interest in the game increases with the diversity of its problems.

I don't think we're disturbed by even the most noticeable hand-of-man, and I don't think we'd be blaming the architecture or the architect instead of ourselves if  he/she gave us something that provided us with the freedom to win or lose the game on our own terms. In my view, that's more of a rare commodity in modern courses, and two thirds of the golf courses we play today were built after 1958. We don't necessarily need 'natural' to be content, we need realistic challenges laid out over interesting terrain, room to avoid them if needs be, and pleasant surroundings. That's all, and that's my story and I'm sticking to it.  

    

[Dave McCollum]

Been a long time since I read anything by Behr, but I seem to remember a much more literal interpretation of making a course imitate nature.  Wasn’t it Behr who compared golf with hunting and fishing as a sporting activity as opposed to more formalized sports?  The journey through the landscape with a purpose or goal in mind.  Somebody said creating “golf parks.”

I’m not the guy to wax elegantly about the spirit of the game.  Once I was asked in a TV interview why golfers play and I said, in my usual statement of the obvious, they enjoy spending time outdoors with friends.  Add in the beauty of a natural setting and you have a pretty good combination of elements for any number of sporting or outdoor activities.  I realize this is a fairly simple-minded contribution, yet if you asked a hundred golfers why they played, I doubt there would be very many explaining this simple appeal.  Personally, I believe this is a vastly “underrated” reason we love this game.

I’ll let someone else make the case for it being part of our DNA as humans evolved from hunters and gathers into the vain and narcissistic hoards of today’s tribes.  I just know that I’ve always loved outdoor sports and visiting wild, natural places.  Golf just happens to be the last sport that I can still sort of do.  My favorite courses are those that draw me into the landscape around them.

[David Harshbarger]

PP,

I'm with Jim on this. Natural vs. hand-of-man isn't a distinction I think most people make.  What they like is something fun, and variety, and a nice setting, and quick play.  McRaynor is about as far afield from natural as you can get but they sure are fun courses.

The real problem courses are the ones that aren't fun.  Repetitive, hard, disproportionate, ugly, slow: that's what bad architecture evokes, natural, manufactured, or in between.

[Tom_Doak]

I’m not the guy to wax elegantly about the spirit of the game.  Once I was asked in a TV interview why golfers play and I said, in my usual statement of the obvious, they enjoy spending time outdoors with friends.  Add in the beauty of a natural setting and you have a pretty good combination of elements for any number of sporting or outdoor activities.  I realize this is a fairly simple-minded contribution, yet if you asked a hundred golfers why they played, I doubt there would be very many explaining this simple appeal.  Personally, I believe this is a vastly “underrated” reason we love this game.

I am 100% in agreement on this.  And I think there are a lot of architects who gloss over it, because so many of them got their reputation for knowing something about golf by being very good players, and who are therefore focused on shot values and competition and not on the beauties of the game.

It just killed me the day I realized that Jack Nicklaus does not (or did not, a few years ago, and for a long time before that) just go out to play golf for fun.  He was always trying to win, or trying to get better; he did not "stop and smell the roses" as Mr. Hagen advised.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()