Peter Kostis blames Architects

[Ryan Coles]

Peter Kostis gave an interesting interview to Lawrence Donegan and John Huggan in their latest bythemin golf podcast.

Kostis argued that architects rather than manufacturers were primarily responsible for the ever longer courses. He felt equipment adapted to courses rather than vice versa.

He cited real estate (the longer the hole, the more lots to sell) and Pete Dye and the marketing angle of hard/impossible courses features and hazards. The sadistic designer and the masochistic golfer being a perfect match. The arms race was about the course and not the ball.

Is he correct?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ryan,
I have yet to read any articles written by manufacturers in which they were complaining that architects were making their courses so long that they were forced to make changes to the equipment and balls they produced.    

[Matt Schiffer]

In my experience, developers typically dictate (at the very least) the general parameters of the golf course they want to have built.  Unless the site is very tight (or the developer very enlightened) the architect is told 7,000+ yards, par 72 every time.  Granted, it is the architect's job to fight against that if the site dictates otherwise but, you can bet it's going to be a fight.

I think, from the equipment manufacturer's perspective, innovation is something they can do to sell more product while potentially making the game more fun and interesting for their customers.  I have trouble accepting that "adapting to the courses being built" is even a consideration, much less a raison d'être.

The architect has to then plan for the greater distances (both forward and laterally).

Therefore, in my admittedly biased opinion, the architect is the least to blame of the three, reacting most often to the developer (first) and the equipment (second). 

[RJ_Daley]

I guess Mr. Kostis didn't give enough thought to the history of course length vis-a-vis the transitions from the featherie to the gutta percha, to the various wound and solid core balls, nor the advancement in club making. 

I do think at this juncture, his comments are valid of a trend to make more courses longer due to R.E. and the relationship of sadist masochist golfers and architects, with this false modern golfer idea that if a course is architorturously long, it is a better quality course.  But, it is the B&I that has always been the primary mover of the length needle, it seems to me.

[BCowan]

''Sounds to me like it's golfers who are the problem.''

+1, epic post

[Jonathan Mallard]

I got into it with Mr. Kostis on Twitter about this very subject.

His point was that the "ball" didn't arrive until 2002. Likewise, metalwoods in the 80s.

Ergo, what necessitated the general changes in length from 1960 to 1985?

[Paul Gray]

I got into it with Mr. Kostis on Twitter about this very subject.

His point was that the "ball" didn't arrive until 2002. Likewise, metalwoods in the 80s.

Ergo, what necessitated the general changes in length from 1960 to 1985?

A tough par?

[Garland Bayley]

...
I think, from the equipment manufacturer's perspective, innovation is something they can do to sell more product while potentially making the game more fun and interesting for their customers.  ...

Sell more product yes. They have no interest in fun and entertaining. That's not what they are interested in!

[Mike_Young]

I think there is more to what Peter Kostis says than people may think.

Obtain a copy of the book, A Tough Par, about RTJ Sr.  and read the last two paragraphs of page 155( in the hard cover )thru the first sentence of page 159.   Jim Hansen calls it " one of the most important pioneering developments in American golf after WW2. "
The architect changed from the Golden Age architect of the past and made an effort to create a different type of creature.  A concerted effort was made toward trade restriction and professionalism during this time and it definitely played a major role in the way golf courses were viewed in the future.  The golf world has just begun to figure out the farce that was played on it for years by developers and many architects.  Any golf boom we had after the 50's was based on RE development or resort golf.  All types of gimmicks were used to market one project over the other.  It is the only reason professional golfers entered the business.  And yes, longer holes created more lots as well as more marketing and advertising buzz.....
BUT it didn't end with just length.  Architects were the prime target of the maintenance equipment companies and the irrigation companies since they could specify what was used on the courses and the architects could sell the large RE developers irrigation systems and maintenance practices that were not feasible for the average course, even today.  
I think the RE Develpment business today understands what happened with golf courses but I'm still not sure the golf side of the equation understands just how much of the golf business was about housing and resorts since WW2.  

[Tom_Doak]

Peter Kostis gave an interesting interview to Lawrence Donegan and John Huggan in their latest bythemin golf podcast.

Kostis argued that architects rather than manufacturers were primarily responsible for the ever longer courses. He felt equipment adapted to courses rather than vice versa.

He cited real estate (the longer the hole, the more lots to sell) and Pete Dye and the marketing angle of hard/impossible courses features and hazards. The sadistic designer and the masochistic golfer being a perfect match. The arms race was about the course and not the ball.

Is he correct?

Partially correct.

Everybody blames everybody else.  And then they just keep on doing it.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Doak:

Exactly. That is why a while back I began referring to the situation as an "arms race".

[jeffwarne]

I blame Peter Kostis for being such a good teacher he made the game too easy and the architects and equipment manufacturers HAD to react

[Ronald Montesano]

Mike...what is RE development?

[Mike_Young]

Mike...what is RE development?

Real estate development

[Mike_Clayton]

Who would be blame for all the old courses with not much room to stretch -e.g  Sunnindgale,Royal Melbourne,Woking - being rendered obsolete if the original intent of how the holes would play for the scratch man is the measure?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan,

I happen to like Peter a great deal, but, we can't forget that he was a paid emissary of Titleist and defended the quantum leap in distance attributable to the ball and equipment for decades.

While his premise is rather bizarre, I'd like to know who's buying into it.

[Blake Conant]

Not worth it to play the blame game.  Could play it forever and never solve anything.  What's more important is everyone seems to be coming around to the fact that there's a problem.  So let's not figure out who was wrong, let's figure out how to fix what is wrong. 

Rolling back the ball is a good start, if you do that, 7800 yard courses won't be viable. 

[Martin Toal]

Club and ball manufacturers have been selling products which claim greater distance for decades. It may well be that it was only since metal woods and modern (post ProVI) balls that they were able to actually deliver on those promises, but that isn't the architects fault.

[Paul Gray]

I think there is more to what Peter Kostis says than people may think.

Obtain a copy of the book, A Tough Par, about RTJ Sr.  and read the last two paragraphs of page 155( in the hard cover )thru the first sentence of page 159.   Jim Hansen calls it " one of the most important pioneering developments in American golf after WW2. "
The architect changed from the Golden Age architect of the past and made an effort to create a different type of creature.  A concerted effort was made toward trade restriction and professionalism during this time and it definitely played a major role in the way golf courses were viewed in the future.  The golf world has just begun to figure out the farce that was played on it for years by developers and many architects.  Any golf boom we had after the 50's was based on RE development or resort golf.  All types of gimmicks were used to market one project over the other.  It is the only reason professional golfers entered the business.  And yes, longer holes created more lots as well as more marketing and advertising buzz.....
BUT it didn't end with just length.  Architects were the prime target of the maintenance equipment companies and the irrigation companies since they could specify what was used on the courses and the architects could sell the large RE developers irrigation systems and maintenance practices that were not feasible for the average course, even today.  
I think the RE Develpment business today understands what happened with golf courses but I'm still not sure the golf side of the equation understands just how much of the golf business was about housing and resorts since WW2.  

I thank you. 

[Ronald Montesano]

Mike...what is RE development?

Real estate development

Well, that should have been obvious :{

[Colin Macqueen]

Mike...what is RE development?

Real estate development

Well, that should have been obvious :{

RoMo,  I thought it was Religious Education for a wee while!!

Cheers Col

[Wade Whitehead]

So, if courses were shorter, golfers wouldn't want "17 more yards?"

WW

[Brent Hutto]

Mike's points are well taken. When I started playing golf in the mid 90's at age 33, never having even set foot on a golf course previously, it sure seemed clear to me that there were two kinds of golf courses. One built quite a while in the past, usually out in the boondocks, that were there because the land was cheap and so was the golf. The others were built in the 70's, 80's and 90's and they were simply real estate marketing gimmicks on which you happen to be able to play golf.

I think I "explained" that observation to my wife pretty early in my education. Of course that was before I discovered resort and "destination" golf courses. And long, long before I joined this group and started discovering higher echelon private golf clubs. On the public/semi-private side it seemed obvious to a newcomer that golf was more about houses and golf carts than it was about any qualities of the course per se (or about walking while playing the game).

[BCrosby]

"I have yet to read any articles written by manufacturers in which they were complaining that architects were making their courses so long that they were forced to make changes to the equipment and balls they produced." J Kennedy

Nor have I ever read such an article.

"... we can't forget that [Kostis] was a paid emissary of Titleist and defended the quantum leap in distance attributable to the ball and equipment for decades." P. Mucci

Exactly. Given his commercial commitments, Kostis could have said nothing else.

Bob       

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Ryan,

I happen to like Peter a great deal, but, we can't forget that he was a paid emissary of Titleist and defended the quantum leap in distance attributable to the ball and equipment for decades.

While his premise is rather bizarre, I'd like to know who's buying into it.

Titleist.