UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?

[Philip Gawith]

Adrian in your post you say  "narrow is definitely preferred in course set up to wide and always will be".

You also say that many good golfers don't  like the Old Course, which many associate with width.

The latter view is no surprise. Duncan's post about the two guys at Reddish Vale reminds us of the common mentality among good golfers that the longer and narrower and more penal a golf course, the better it is.

But you seem to be suggesting that most golfers - not just good ones - think this way. To some extent this chimes with my own experience - members' innate instinct is that tough is good and width is a retreat from toughness so it must be bad. i am inclined to put this down to ignorance - that they have not played that many courses that offer real width (since this is not the typical UK set up/mindset) So I like to think that if they played a few more courses - somewhere like Castle Stuart, or any Doak course - that they would see the joys of width.

I wonder if you agree - that ignorance is a factor (not ignorance of GCA theory, what people on this site prefer, but ignorance of the pleasures of playing a wider course) or do you just think the average golfer is hard-wired as you suggest to prefer narrow? I can see why better golfers think how they do, but it is harder to understand why the average player would think this way.

Philip

[Paul Gray]

Reddish Vale, if I'm not mistaken, started to take trees out when a review was posted on this website. And I bet for most at Reddish Vale the apparently educated opinion from GCA was an eye opener, being in a world of contrary golf.  

Not quite.

Our greens chairman, the Pro, and several other influential members had long campaigned to take out trees and return the course to something that Alister MacKenzie would recognise. The membership as a whole however, was resistant - particularly the older guys who had seen the trees grow in the 70s and 80s.

Ran's visit last year and subsequent 'Courses by Country' piece converted pretty well everybody to the cause. GCA was definitely the catalyst which has made change possible. The comments in the new Confidential Guide regarding the need for further tree removal to open up views have been circulated to members and have been well-received.

It's amazing how much more seriously people will take a visiting Yank than people they know telling them the same things.  

Up the revolution!  

Now how do I pay Ran to visit Hayling?  

[Ryan Coles]

I am quite capable of grasping the principles of design in a way that 99.9% of golfers simply don't. The fact that I'm part of such a small percentile of people says little about me however and everything about the sorry state of the understanding of the game.

Of course there are exceptions but, by and large, golf club committees are made up of people that have no knowledge in the subject of golf course architecture but assume that they do. Now that is utter arrogance. - Paul Gray

-------

Reading the above, can you not see where I'm coming from? The assumptions and arrogance are yours. Someone at least voted on the committee members - who appointed you above the 99.9%?

You ain't Harry Colt, Michelle Pfeiffer or Michael Caine. Your .1 of the golfing population claim is purely self appointed and as I alluded to before, such ridiculous grandiosity shows a cringeworthy lack of self awareness.

Anyway a few points to make on the debate itself, kept deliberately brief:

None of the courses in Adrian's list were built by committee.

Pretty much every great course we have, was. Who secured the land? Who appointed the architect? who set the brief? who approved the plan and who organised to pay for it? Who steered it through the years?

The great sand belt courses in Aus - all committee clubs.

7's, 8's, 9's in CG vast majority are committee clubs. The various hidden gems profiled on here by Sean and others, vast majority, committee clubs.

The great clean ups in the face of Mother Nature- Golspie etc, organised and carried out by committee and surrounding committees.

I didn't care for it, but you loved the set up at Pinehurst this year - The USGA championship committee.

Surely one of the .1% of the golfing population can do better than make sweeping generalisations?

[Ryan Coles]

Adrian in your post you say  "narrow is definitely preferred in course set up to wide and always will be".

You also say that many good golfers don't  like the Old Course, which many associate with width.

The latter view is no surprise. Duncan's post about the two guys at Reddish Vale reminds us of the common mentality among good golfers that the longer and narrower and more penal a golf course, the better it is.

But you seem to be suggesting that most golfers - not just good ones - think this way. To some extent this chimes with my own experience - members' innate instinct is that tough is good and width is a retreat from toughness so it must be bad. i am inclined to put this down to ignorance - that they have not played that many courses that offer real width (since this is not the typical UK set up/mindset) So I like to think that if they played a few more courses - somewhere like Castle Stuart, or any Doak course - that they would see the joys of width.

I wonder if you agree - that ignorance is a factor (not ignorance of GCA theory, what people on this site prefer, but ignorance of the pleasures of playing a wider course) or do you just think the average golfer is hard-wired as you suggest to prefer narrow? I can see why better golfers think how they do, but it is harder to understand why the average player would think this way.

Philip

Phillip

Small point: Doak in the UK is completely inaccessible. Castle Stuart was £175 last time I played.

Are there better examples of courses that provide the experience of great width?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Philip I still think narrow is what people associate with best practice because the game of golf demands accuracy from the tee. Our Open championship courses are 20 yard fairways, many golf course have narrowed to 30 yard as standard (partly because we don't gang mow anymore) and the economy of 5 gang units is kinda linked to what you can cut in 1 day.

I think some/really good golfers don't like TOC because they hit a 7 iron in from 165 yards perfectly and it hits a little nob and it shoots forward 40 feet, their approach should in their opinion given them a 10 foot birdie chance and its now a difficult two putt.

Marc Haring introduced me to Kesmac 9 gang units and their quality cut, which they use at Cumberwell and I have to say its always stayed with me and our current project ( a few miles from your home course is being designed around using 9 gang units ....so width). I see some of my courses where I no longer have any influence and they have narrowed the courses down so much they have reduced the fun, The Kendleshire is the one that springs most to mind.

Personally I like width for regular golf and recently advised a club that by narrowing the fairways that had reduced the total strategy of the course, they did not really understand. The masses side the other way. Are they ignorant? Probably NO the game is about hitting it straight, my reason for adding width is more for recreational fun but a lot of golfers talk about wanting a challenge and find the game  enjoyable for making singulary good shots (long straight drives) (good second shots across a lake to the green) rather than this plotting our way safely around. I would probably say IF I was forced WE HAVE GOT IT WRONG AND THEY ARE RIGHT

[Thomas Dai]

There are a many golfing dilemma's - lush-'n'-green vrs brown-and firm-and-fast, tree lined vrs open plan, Pinnacles vrs ProV1's etc etc etc etc - and now another one is highlighted - the dilemma as to whether or not such and such a wonderful thing happened 'because' of the existance of a committee or that such and such a wonderful thing happened 'despite' the existance of a committee!

atb

[Paul Gray]

Ryan,

0.01% only makes me (or you) one person in a thousand. Frankly, that's probably overly generous to the rest. We're frequently being told by the naysayers how this forum is but a tiny fraction of the golfing populous so I fail to see why you think me arrogant for effectively reiterating the point. And as for me apparent self appointment, what's your point? I just happen to have an interest in a certain subject and have therefore learnt a bit about it. There are innumerable different subjects in the world which I concede to being part of the 99.9% in. I imagine a car enthusiast knows more about the combustion engine than 99.9% of drivers. So what? As I said, the fact that I'm part of such a tiny group says little about me and everything about architectural knowledge. If you went back to the 1930's I dare say you'd find that average golfers on their then relatively new courses would at least have a grasp of the notion that a golf hole could be played in more than one way. And now? Unlikely.

What relevance does it have that some people that know very little elect some other people that know very little? Are you suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is voted in to office on the basis of being the nation's leading economist or the Health Secretary on the basis of being a leading clinical mind? You're just plucky incoherent arguments out of thin air which have little to no logical basis.

And regarding the design of great courses, you've embarrassed yourself. Architects were responsible for them. The fact that a group of wealthy men agreed to appoint an architect does not mean they designed it.  Australian sandbelt courses designed by committee? You'd better get your facts right before the Mackenzie Society sue you for such slander regarding Royal Melbourne! Incredible statement. And you'd better tell Tom Doak that the work he believes to be his own is actually the work of a committee. Again, incredible.

I suggest you put yourself on the bench for a bit and do a bit of learning. You'll be amazed how much stronger it makes your arguments.

[Paul Gray]

Personally I like width for regular golf and recently advised a club that by narrowing the fairways that had reduced the total strategy of the course, they did not really understand......

And I rest my case. You can't make a coherent choice about something until you understand it.

Education, education, education.

[Ryan Coles]

Come on Paul, you can do better than that.

Nowhere did I say the Committee designed them. The Committee didn't design the ones you detest either did they? It is their stewardship we're discussing.

Incredible, indeed.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Paul - They don't see the strategy as valid. The game has changed. When I played in the 70s and 80s I did not think of pitching on the green unless I had a 7 iron in my hand and the rest of the world pretty much played the game in the same way, so from 200 yards out sometimes with hard fairways and the wind behind it would be an 8 iron that went 150 in the air and rolled 50 yards. People aged 40 or more will remember.

That sort of golf involved strategy, miss on the wrong side and you got hell, sometimes you made sure you did not miss on a certain side.

The modern ball, the clubs, the quality of the fairways, the greens have taken a lot of that away and golf is much more aerial now as its more easily achievable.

Narrow fairways mean a loose tee shot into rough makes the 180 yard approach difficult. So i think in the main that is how the powers see they can protect par. I find it hard to argue this point. I don't think they are really wrong they see that as the new substitute.

The game is not going to return to bone hard greens and hickory and introducing strategy to the very elite is bang on impossible they can hit to a bloody sixpence so if you try and create strategic problems for them it will just be impossibly hard for any golfer about scratch handicap.

[Paul Gray]

Ryan,

Ah, the stewardship, good. I did ask but I'll repeat it if you like: what is the work we're currently seeing at many good courses all about? If it's restoration work, just why is it required? All of trees that are coming down, who put them there?

But the argument isn't really about committees at all, it's about lack of knowledge. To give you an example, Camberley Heath, although I believe equally messed about with by committees, suffered greatly under Japanese ownership. The aforementioned owners decided, in their complete lack of wisdom, that all sorts of stupid would be a good idea. So the whole topic is just about the uneducated assuming themselves to be knowledgeable.

And I plead utterly guilty, utterly, utterly guilty, until are started learning a thing or two, to being exactly the same. Five years ago I would have confidently told you I could design a good golf course. I even have a few plans of some sites I'd played about with. Looking back, embarrassingly stupid. Ever seen the Simpson's episode where Homer is asked by his brother to design the car for the average man and the Homer Mobil is the outcome? That's the sort of thing we're talking about.

Now, let's play nice.  

[Sean_A]

Philip

I could be wrong, but your take is mine as well.  I have rarely heard golfers say a course is too wide.  What I hear golfers say is that one is meant to hit the ball straight...which is not nearly the same thing as saying courses should be narrow.  Much more often than not though, it is trees which constrict fairways and there is the rub...golfers tend to like trees and the constriction of play for this reason is something which golfers tend to accept.  Bottom line, I don't think many golfers think how challenge can be presented unless it comes in the guise of trees, bunkers, rough or water.  Very few golfers think that hazards (hazard in the broad sense of the term, not the rules definition) should in the main temp golfers rather than force golfers to play between or over.  And most golfers certainly don't assign proper weight to the effectiveness of uneven ground or contoured greens as hazards.  The concept of challenging is often very narrow until golfers gain experience with all sorts courses, but a huge percentage never do gain that experience.  Of course, diversity is lost and for sure, the game is slower.  

But you seem to be suggesting that most golfers - not just good ones - think this way. To some extent this chimes with my own experience - members' innate instinct is that tough is good and width is a retreat from toughness so it must be bad. i am inclined to put this down to ignorance - that they have not played that many courses that offer real width (since this is not the typical UK set up/mindset) So I like to think that if they played a few more courses

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Paul - They don't see the strategy as valid. The game has changed. When I played in the 70s and 80s I did not think of pitching on the green unless I had a 7 iron in my hand and the rest of the world pretty much played the game in the same way, so from 200 yards out sometimes with hard fairways and the wind behind it would be an 8 iron that went 150 in the air and rolled 50 yards. People aged 40 or more will remember.

That sort of golf involved strategy, miss on the wrong side and you got hell, sometimes you made sure you did not miss on a certain side.

The modern ball, the clubs, the quality of the fairways, the greens have taken a lot of that away and golf is much more aerial now as its more easily achievable.

Narrow fairways mean a loose tee shot into rough makes the 180 yard approach difficult. So i think in the main that is how the powers see they can protect par. I find it hard to argue this point. I don't think they are really wrong they see that as the new substitute.

The game is not going to return to bone hard greens and hickory and introducing strategy to the very elite is bang on impossible they can hit to a bloody sixpence so if you try and create strategic problems for them it will just be impossibly hard for any golfer about scratch handicap.

I'm getting tired hands so hope Mr. Arble will help me out!

My take on all that is different from yours. And yet again, if we have to do this whole 'protect par' thing, which I simply disagree with as a concept, I give you Pinehurst or any Open Championship played on firm and fast ground. And as for your assertion that such courses then become too difficult for club golfers, and whilst I'm not about to suggest that Carnoustie is playable from the back tees for the average club golfer, GCA golf (just bare with it as a phrase for now) is far more accessible than some 7,700 yard tight, lush and green affair. Conversely, when talking about those 7,700 yard courses and the world's best, time after time we see those courses ripped apart, save for U.S Open extremes. The fact that equipment has made straighter hitting easier, to me, only heightens the need to reintroduce strategy.

One isolated example which is entirely unscientific and proves nothing: This year, for the first time in twenty years, I took my dad for a round at Hayling. My dad plays the game maybe a dozen times a year. Maximum. Despite otherwise being a good sportsman, he has always been awful at golf. And yet he bumped his ball around the course and had lots of fun. That's the same course which hosted a satellite pro event the previous summer and saw less than a handful (I forget the exact number) of scores under par.

[Paul Gray]

Adrian in your post you say  "narrow is definitely preferred in course set up to wide and always will be".

You also say that many good golfers don't  like the Old Course, which many associate with width.

The latter view is no surprise. Duncan's post about the two guys at Reddish Vale reminds us of the common mentality among good golfers that the longer and narrower and more penal a golf course, the better it is.

But you seem to be suggesting that most golfers - not just good ones - think this way. To some extent this chimes with my own experience - members' innate instinct is that tough is good and width is a retreat from toughness so it must be bad. i am inclined to put this down to ignorance - that they have not played that many courses that offer real width (since this is not the typical UK set up/mindset) So I like to think that if they played a few more courses - somewhere like Castle Stuart, or any Doak course - that they would see the joys of width.

I wonder if you agree - that ignorance is a factor (not ignorance of GCA theory, what people on this site prefer, but ignorance of the pleasures of playing a wider course) or do you just think the average golfer is hard-wired as you suggest to prefer narrow? I can see why better golfers think how they do, but it is harder to understand why the average player would think this way.

Philip

Bloody good post.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Paul I don't really understand your post and what you are getting it...if its firm and fast can equal hard and fun then YES i can agree.

Not all golf courses can be firm and fast. Some can be sometimes, some never. Some golf courses (perhaps the more recent ones on farmland) are suited to being designed the way many of them were and they were not so suited to the GCA way, though like all things more could have been incorporated that GCA would like.

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan,

Ah, the stewardship, good. I did ask but I'll repeat it if you like: what is the work we're currently seeing at many good courses all about? If it's restoration work, just why is it required? All of trees that are coming down, who put them there?

But the argument isn't really about committees at all, it's about lack of knowledge. To give you an example, Camberley Heath, although I believe equally messed about with by committees, suffered greatly under Japanese ownership. The aforementioned owners decided, in their complete lack of wisdom, that all sorts of stupid would be a good idea. So the whole topic is just about the uneducated assuming themselves to be knowledgeable.

And I plead utterly guilty, utterly, utterly guilty, until are started learning a thing or two, to being exactly the same. Five years ago I would have confidently told you I could design a good golf course. I even have a few plans of some sites I'd played about with. Looking back, embarrassingly stupid. Ever seen the Simpson's episode where Homer is asked by his brother to design the car for the average man and the Homer Mobil is the outcome? That's the sort of thing we're talking about.

Now, let's play nice.  

Paul

For every place that needs restoring, there is somewhere that doesn't. For every restoration, some will be deemed good. Some will be seen as ruination. Some committees have done wonders, some have been appalling. As with architects, greenkeepers etc, committees produce a mixed set of results. Every example you give me, I'll give you one back. What a lousy job the Brora committee have made with the set up of their course eh? I think not.

Throwing generalisations around about committees whilst putting yourself up on a pedestal is somewhat foolish. That is as nice as I can put it.

To illustrate this, if you were elected to your committee tomorrow, you'd no longer be the educator .1%, but you'd become one of the clueless committee, would you not?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Philip

I could be wrong, but your take is mine as well.  I have rarely heard golfers say a course is too wide.  What I hear golfers say is that one is meant to hit the ball straight...which is not nearly the same thing as saying courses should be narrow.  

Ciao

Sean - I hear a lot that say things like  "you can hit it anywhere"  which to me is saying its too wide. I also hear things like "it's tight" which is referring to narrow. Those would be terms golfers would use when conversing about golf courses. Each suggests a dumb/ big hitter will do well on one or a clever player/ straight hitter will do well on the other. Other terms like "tricked up" refer to very difficult pins on ledges and slopes that you could not get too. " firey" which means hard ground and it was a lottery with unfair bounces.

Three of those are GCA likes. One is a GCA unlike. All mean the exact opposite to the regular golfer.

[Paul Gray]

Paul I don't really understand your post and what you are getting it...if its firm and fast can equal hard and fun then YES i can agree.

Not all golf courses can be firm and fast. Some can be sometimes, some never. Some golf courses (perhaps the more recent ones on farmland) are suited to being designed the way many of them were and they were not so suited to the GCA way, though like all things more could have been incorporated that GCA would like.

You may not have understood my post but, nonetheless, I think we've stumbled into an agreement!

And absolutely, some course will never be firm and fast but more could be done. To give a very simple example, so many of those mediocre farmyard courses could benefit from far more shorter grass. Ball misses green, ball runs away from green, golfer has various recovery options. Not to criticise it in any way but the Aberfoyle thread I bumped earlier is a good example of exactly that. But it's only through education that golfers will begin to see shorter grass as an option at all, let alone a viable one. And, yes, I know you're doing your bit.  

[Paul Gray]

Ryan,

No, I'd be the lone voice on a committee. Title does not dictate behaviour. I believe Duncan has just made it to the first rung of the ladder and obviously that doesn't mean he's suddenly become clueless. People tend to lack knowledge when they join a committee, not as a consequence of joining one. I don't seem to recall suggesting clubs had some compulsory lobotomy policy. Look, you want to disagree with the perceived wisdom of just about anyone of any note to comment on committees, you be my guest.

And yes, again, of course there are exceptions.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Paul - To me though, Aberfoyle is a bit like Painswick it is not going to be taken seriously as a good course by the masses.

And in many respects the way the 90s courses were built around the water features/ tree planting on the farmland I still think the way those courses have developed whilst not be the purists favourite they are still well loved by the modern golfer.

I think you are on the wrong track with education, I think what happens is market dictates what is good or bad by voting with their feet. It's no good to keep saying they are ignorant when Painswick is £8 and The London Club is £75. You take the same person to both and I know what the split is going to be.

I wonder if there is perhaps more middle ground as a route to get more architecture back into courses. I am sceptical that width could ever be a vote winner on a consistent basis, there may be possibilities of huge width with multiple option choices but more on an occasional perhaps one hole per course basis.

[Paul Gray]

To return to the original question, it was so bad because, aside from all the other factors already covered, this particular era didn't end in 1985 and still hasn't ended yet.

1949-1985: The dark ages of course design and few courses are profiled from this period. The vast majority of the courses built during the Trent Jones era were based on length, contain little variety and offer few options. Pete Dye led the charge out of this bleak period of bland courses after his trip to Scotland in the 1960s. - Ran Morrissett

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,

As I've said before though, I'm not convinced most people are making that choice with an open mind. Condescending as it may seem, I am quite sure that people are so indoctrinated by TV golf etc that they can't see beyond it. Market dictates trends but that market is dictates to by what is seen in the bigger world. That could be golf, fashion, politics, whatever.

As for a middle ground, I entirely agree in that I'd call that 'soft education' in it's own right. But what is that, Peter Dye II?

[Adrian_Stiff]

The best number to have on a committee is 1.

As soon as you have more you have varied opinions and it means sometimes things are being done as a committee you did not actually like. So whilst you could have two good uns, you might have three bad uns that decide on a vile water feature to celebrate the year 2000. Of course the 3 wise men thought it was brilliant.

BTW at The Players Club we don't have a committee for the purpose of deciding course matters. That is left up to the course manager. The committee decide what the dress format will be for the presentation night and administer the teams and competitions. They would like to have their way and decide what gets done on the course but they don't have the knowledge and the suggestions they make are often for most things are almost child-like and suggest things like getting a cask ale in that would sale 12 pints and waste 24 because of demand, or suggest that the kitchen is opened at 7.00 in the morning or 8.00 at night....this is probably typical of many clubs where an unqualified eye is added to the wizard team.

[Marc Haring]

Adrian

I don't really agree with your assertion that golfers in general and more specifically good golfers prefer tight, narrow fairways. The good golfers really enjoy the Orange with some of the widest fairways in the country. They like the strategy it presents to them. I see that the Wilts Championship is at Cumberwell next year and they've chosen Blue, Orange!!!!!

To give another example Woburn's courses are all good, but the most recent Marquis is the only one with width and a majority of people will place that as #1 of the three.

I don't think that answers the initial question which was why was 80's 90's architecture so bad? I think when you touched on Nicklaus, Player, Palmer you were much nearer the answer.

[Ryan Coles]

The best number to have on a committee is 1.

As soon as you have more you have varied opinions and it means sometimes things are being done as a committee you did not actually like. So whilst you could have two good uns, you might have three bad uns that decide on a vile water feature to celebrate the year 2000. Of course the 3 wise men thought it was brilliant.

BTW at The Players Club we don't have a committee for the purpose of deciding course matters. That is left up to the course manager. The committee decide what the dress format will be for the presentation night and administer the teams and competitions. They would like to have their way and decide what gets done on the course but they don't have the knowledge and the suggestions they make are often for most things are almost child-like and suggest things like getting a cask ale in that would sale 12 pints and waste 24 because of demand, or suggest that the kitchen is opened at 7.00 in the morning or 8.00 at night....this is probably typical of many clubs where an unqualified eye is added to the wizard team.

Depends who the 1 is!

I think 'problem' of committees is a dwindling one at most Clubs. Members simply don't have the time or inclination to be heavily involved anymore. They really just want to play golf and be kept informed, in my experience.

As much as committees have a bad rep, there is also a great fear of the unknown when it comes to the proprietary club. The perception, wrongly I believe, is that they will be treated badly, won't get a game and get stuck behind a society, conveniently forgetting that members clubs are competing just as hard for the same income.