[Kalen Braley]

Peter,

Let me explain it a different way.

There are some southern belles that are gorgeous girls....but there also many that are not.  Gorgeous girls come from all walks of life and every culture and different countries/regions.

It seems to me that your trying to equate resort courses to southern belles.  Sure some are beauties and "gorgeous" golf courses....but they all aren't resort courses.  "Gorgeous" courses come from all types of backgrounds and in various countries and regions.

Hopefully this make sense!! 

[BCowan]

Kalen,

  Great post and that makes perfect sense.  Does a daily fee course where all the people who play it from a 30 mile radius count as a resort course?  Most local public courses over 25 years of age weren't maintained to level they are now and MOST people associate maint. with a good course and I think that is a small reason why private clubs were healthier then.  I still am foggy on Peter's view of Resort course.  I think i get your point that there are more similarities then differences between the designers.  I don't think RW and GD are drivers, I think it is developers and owners.  There are many more ''empty parking lot'' limited play privates today.  I guess they represent the Parkland estate course of yesteryear.

Shall we get a list started of top notch privates to resort courses in the last 20 years??

Kalen, you should do that, it isn't my cup of tea.  I'm more into doing a list of US courses with non irrigated fairways. I'm very much aware that only maybe 10 people tops will find it of any value

[Jay Mickle]

Peter,
Thinking back over the newer courses I have played in the past 20 years there does seem to be an homogenization of design. While there are the bold and interesting courses there are many that are pretty much interchangeable. Surely no reason not to enjoy a round on the course but no real reason to return. Our appreciation of ODGs and their progeny may be a bit skewed in that I suspect that many of the more mundane courses of the time have disappeared. 

[Mike_Young]

Peter,

I am still confused after reading and rereading your initial post.  Let me say what I think the main differences of the last 25 years consist of and you tell me where we differ.

1.  Golfers began to play golf on a national level due to easier transportation and promotion.  Before not many traveled nationally to play resorts etc.  It was usually just in their region of the country.  Once they were exposed to such they brought back those ideas to their locals without knowing if they would work in that area or not.  Until that time most course improvements were based on local knowledge. 

2.  The golf course became a pawn for selling homes whether resorts, or primary residence.  The phrase " golf architect" began to be used with signature designers.  Courses were "placed" instead of "found" in order to maximize the development values.  The fees increased not because of design ability but marketing ability.  The conditioning of courses from irrigation to mowing to grass species was increased not because golf was asking for it but because it allowed marketing to have an edge over the competition.  Until this time clubs across the country relied on the game of golf to absorb the cost of maintaining the playing fields.  This was over and had a huge impact on the cost of golf today. 

3.   Signatures-  RTJ was probably the first to try and become a national household name as a golf architect.  He did what he could to use the Bobby Jones name in his own way.  He created his own society to give him a "professional" edge.  After him I don't know of any architect that became a national name without attaching himself to a great player.  Pete Dye had Nicklaus, Fazio had George and it went from there.  This one thing had a HUGE impact on the game and the cost.  At 40 lots per hole on many projects, the cost of the designer and the course were minimal compared to the lot value they could command.  It blew things out of the water.  These signature firms created staffs of younger guys who understandably thought they would be able to leave and do their own thing with no problem.  However, it was always the agents selling these large development deals for the signatures.  They viewed the entire business  from a perch where people were coming to them asking them to design projects and were not in the same predicament as regional types of architects who had to go out and fight for projects.  Many were dumped and had only seen the signature way of doing things.  And they believed the hype.  All of this created a level of excess that has had a huge impact on the cost of the game. 

4.  Mike Keiser came along.  Without taking anything from the guys Mike Keiser chose for Bandon projects, it was he who took the chance to create national projects based on the golf and not the signature.  Odds are if another guy had been there, it would have been signatures and we may never know of TD and others as we do today. 

And so for me Peter, the last 25 years have been defined by the signature and the excess and damage created by developers trying to gain a competitive edge on the developments at the expense of the game.  I would call it the signature age.

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

Very well said.  From the outside looking in, that seems to ring true as far as I can tell...

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike


You are talking about the current business of golf.
Peter is describing the current artistic style of golf design.


And he makes a strong argument for the Golden "Resort" Era.
To reiterate, he isn't saying courses are resorts, he is saying many golf courses, municipal to private, have been influenced by the "resort" style.


Cheers

[Kalen Braley]

Mike


You are talking about the current business of golf.
Peter is describing the current artistic style of golf design.


And he makes a strong argument for the Golden "Resort" Era.
To reiterate, he isn't saying courses are resorts, he is saying many golf courses, municipal to private, have been influenced by the "resort" style.


Cheers

MIke N:

In Peters original post he says this:

Not that there's anything wrong with it, but increasingly over the last 20+ years or so the consensus approach (across a range of architects and design styles) seems to be characterized by:

1. Strategic (as opposed to penal) bunkering
2. Wide Fairways
3. Multiple tees
4. Purposely-created half-par holes and short 4s
5. Few water hazards, save for perhaps a cape style 18th
6. Sometimes rumpled but almost never significantly canted fairways
7. Uniformly good 'visibility' and a first-time-user friendly ethos
8. Lovely visuals, i.e. an artistic/aesthetic sensibility (whether rugged or pristine)
9. Greens with a focus on "fun"

I don't see how these attributes are exclusive to or originated with "resort" courses.

[JJShanley]

Kalen Braley makes a good point about folk travelling to a venue like Kiawah or Streamsong because they'd like to experience a country club atmosphere, perhaps without distinction between members and guests.


Does answering Peter Pallotta's original question require us to take account of what percentage of golfers played the game as a member of a club, and the nature of that club, during the Golden Age, using that number as a comparison to the present day?  We may not have such data.  (We may not need it.    )

[Sean_A]

I don't understand why Pietro labels the style he describes as "resort", but his descriptions are good.  That said, most of those descriptions could be used to describe a ton of classic courses with the proviso that clubs have allowed trees and rough to narrow them down. Bottom line, other than multiple tees, this so called 20 year trend has really been bubbling along for 115 years...like brogues and on stripes...it has never disappeared. 


Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

You guys should listen to Mike Nuzzo! 

Sean, Kalen -

there are some commonalities, no doubt, but while I want to defer to your greater playing experience, I feel compelled to suggest that "a ton of classic courses" didn't actually manifest all those 9 qualities, especially not originally, and certainly not to the degree and consistency with which a very broad swath of today's new courses do (and by a very  wide variety of architects at that).

Did a ton of classic courses really have: a preponderance of deliberately planned half par holes and short 4s (as opposed to those emerging over time because of changing club and ball technology)?; almost no significantly canted fairways?; uniformly good visibility (and lack of blindness) throughout a round, and at one course after another after another?; an almost complete lack of truly penal bunkering?

Did the classic inland courses really offer (and/or did so many of them offer) such wide fairways, especially if they weren't seas-side links courses or prone to much wind? or did they ever even consider making such allowances -- as modern multiple tees do -- to such a wide range of shorter-hitting players? 

I don't think they did, and, while I could be wrong about that, I'd suggest that those classics were harder and more challenging -- and were meant to be harder and more challenging -- than their "modern golden age" equivalents are. And this modern "ethos", this "you may not score under par, but no one will get his ass kicked" approach to design, this friendly and welcoming value-system that is shared by almost all working architects today, I've suggested might be referred to as the resort course style.

More importantly (to me) is that, as Ben notes, no less august an observer as Ron Whitten and his Golf Digest only dub three courses out of the top 20 as officially "resort courses" -- so unaware (from my perspective) they are to the reality that this approach dominates the modern design game.

Peter   

[BCowan]

Did a ton classic courses really have: a preponderance of deliberately planned half par holes and short 4s (as opposed to those emerging over time because of changing club and ball technology)? I'd disagree with that.  I believe Sarazen had a double eagle at a tourney everyone watches in April. 


; almost no significantly canted fairways?;What?  There was lots of canted fairways, the grass was longer then

 uniformly good visibility (and lack of blindness) throughout the round and at one course after another?; Lack of blindness?

or an almost complete lack of truly penal bunkering? find just as many holes with too much bunkering on them on both sides of the fairway.  A certain Joe Hancock line comes to mind ''There is no money in doing less''. 

Did the classic inland courses really offer (or did so many of them offer) such wide fairways CC of Lansing finishing hole was 90 yards wide.  Many had very wide fairways 45-55 yards wide. 

, especially if they weren't seas-side or prone to much wind? Yes, few had that many trees. 

or did they ever even consider making such allowances -- as modern multiple tees do -- to such a wide range of shorter-hitting players?  Nope, they went from not enough tees to 7 sets of tees 

I don't think they did, and, while I could be wrong about that, I'd suggest that those classics were harder and more challenging -- and were meant to be harder and more challenging- Everyone in the class didn't get A's. 

 -- than their "modern golden age" equivalents are. And this modern "ethos", this "you may not score under par, but no one will get his ass kicked" approach to design, this friendly and welcoming value-system that is shared by almost all working architects today, I've suggested might be referred to as the resort course style. Most resort courses I find are much more difficult then your typical Golden Age course.  Most you lose two sleeves of balls. 

#3 is the only one of the 9 that I see missing from Golden age designs. 

[jeffwarne]

http://www.golfdigest.com/gallery/2015-best-new-courses#10

I don't understand and I think this outlook is due to Golf Channel and from GCA.com continually bringing up certain Resorts.  Whitten's Best New for 2015 has 20 courses.  Only 3 of them are Resort courses.  I'd say that this is the Era of Daily Fee  Architecture.  I also don't agree with 4, 5, and 9 on the list  .

I have no opinion on this topic as it's way over my head but,
the list on Ben's link is "Best New Courses" 2015 and 9 of the 10 are remodels.
then they have a "remodel list"
typo? or am I looking at it wrong?

[Sean_A]

Pietro

I think with the old bogey system we can say there were holes deliberately designed as half pars.  The preponderance aspect you meantion I can't speak to because courses have been altered and the bogey system was faded out many decades ago.   

Canted fairways are a product of the terrain and many courses were built on hilly terrain with canted fairways. Jeepers, even mild elevation changes produced canted fairwways, Hoylake has one very famous example...a reverse cant. 

Colt and the boys were about strategic architecture and bunkering played a major role. 

Fairways...no question they were far wider than today.  Old pix make this very clear. 

Good visibility...this was a hallmark of Colt and the boys.  That doesn't mean they were afraid of obscured shots, but without question most of these guys wanted visibility.

Multiple tees is the only truly modern concept...taken to the level we see today anyway.  The reason it works today is due to carts.  Take away the cart and tees spreading 100 yards would be much less predominant.  In other words, IMO, its a bad trend which encourages people to ride and archies to build cart holes over land that doesn't need carts.   

I think what is really different today is marketing the concepts.  Anybody who follows a bit of golf or reads a blog or hits a board can pick up these concepts...without ever playing an example of the type. 

I agree that many of the well known golden age courses were much more difficult than most courses today and that they were designed to be difficult. One of the biggest reasons for this is pure length.  Those courses back then were damn long given the equipment. Even so,  what is happening today is a movement rooted in the early 1900s architecture.  The courses you describe are far more similar to many 1910s-30s courses than not.

Ciao 

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - I will reluctantly have to agree to disagree, reluctantly because you know your gca better than I do and you explain yourself well. The weakest part of your argument, though, is the reference to the "bogey system", which to me speaks to a clear recognition of/testament to how hard these courses played for most golfers back then. The other weak point was your explanation for canted fairways, i.e. many courses were built on hilly terrain. Well, yes, that's so -- but of course architects back then chose to utilize that terrain in a way that created those fairways; it's not like hilly terrain has disappeared over the years, it's just that few today us it the same way.

Again, this is a theory of mine and put forward for discussion; I may be misguided and wrong, and you may be right; and besides, we are no doubt today in a second "golden age".

But I am still struck by what seems to me the uniformity of (essential) values that lies underneath the surface (non essential) differences in today's gca, and for an extremely wide range of today's architects -- a uniformity that is a very welcoming one, like a spa at a resort.....

Peter 

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


If the "resort" style is driving the business nowadays, it's because of the golf magazines.  There is much more space devoted to golf courses than there was thirty years ago, and apart from the top-100 lists themselves, 95% of it is devoted to resort golf courses, because those are the ones the magazine's readers can play.  Having designed a course in Bandon is equivalent to winning the "Best New" course every year ... they get oodles of free publicity for that place because it is a great PUBLIC course.


When I was younger I thought that you had to get private club course commissions to have prestige, but it turned out I was wrong -- having my three top-rated courses [Pacific Dunes, Cape Kidnappers and Barnbougle Dunes] all be open to the public was the greatest windfall one could have.  Despite being in New Zealand, Cape Kidnappers has gotten as much ink in the U.S. magazines as Sand Hills ... because Sand Hills is a private club, and in a very short season location at that.


So, that's why resort courses are the focus of attention nowadays.  I think the rest of your observation is just a matter of architects trying to imitate the courses that have achieved success, which is not a new phenomenon at all.  [Jack Nicklaus and Tom Fazio and Arthur Hills all started building courses with waste bunkers in the 1980's, after Pete Dye's courses got attention for them.] 


Also, I am not sure whether the preference for golf courses at a HUGE scale is directly connected to building for resort clients or not, but there is no question that over the last ten or fifteen years, the "biggest" courses have almost always won the awards.

[Mike_Young]

Mike


You are talking about the current business of golf.
Peter is describing the current artistic style of golf design.


And he makes a strong argument for the Golden "Resort" Era.
To reiterate, he isn't saying courses are resorts, he is saying many golf courses, municipal to private, have been influenced by the "resort" style.


Cheers

Mike,
I might could see such an Era if we felt there was and end to that phase and a beginning of a new phase in the mid90's as design build began to take hold.  I look at resorts such as Palm Springs area and just don't like that type of golf and cannot see much there that is relevant to a Bandon.  Just not sure "resort" is the right word.

[David_Tepper]

Peter P. -

After reading your opening post and the posts on this thread, I am still not sure why with the 9 design characteristics you list can or should be attributed to resort courses. It seems to me there have been plenty of private courses built with those characteristics as well.

Resort courses have existed since at least the 1920's, starting with Gleneagles, Turnberry & Cruden Bay in Scotland and the Greenbriar, the Homestead and Pinehurst in the U.S.

I do not see why this "era" is any different from past eras in that regard.

DT       

[Sean_A]

But I am still struck by what seems to me the uniformity of (essential) values that lies underneath the surface (non essential) differences in today's gca, and for an extremely wide range of today's architects -- a uniformity that is a very welcoming one, like a spa at a resort.....

Peter

Pietro


The uniformity you suggest could simply be a response to the uniformity of the 50s thru 80s.  New blood comes through the system with new, well not new ideas, just revived ideas (which was my point of the earlier post).  The only real new ideas are cart driven and agronomic.  When we look at the big picture architecture has changed very little in 100 years.  Emphasis and trends change.  Unfortunately, the biggest change is cart architecture and I don't see that trend changing anytime soon. 


Ciao

[jeffwarne]

#7 uniformly good visibility and a first time visitor friendly ethos..
is a commonly held tenent for "resort" courses.


I would argue many "blind" shots give subtle clues about where to hit it either via distant landforms or marker posts, and often the biggest mystery is that there is generally MORE room than you originally realize-thus giving one a better feeling the econd time around.


That said, a course that is "all out in front of you" and has a "friendly first time visitor ethos" might have less appeal to a repeat visitor-or at least not create the need for a second crack.(thus REDUCING future rounds)
 No doubt there are countless courses I'd like to get another look at now that I'm aware of the best line and the fact that there's often more room than I originally thought

[paul cowley]

Peter

I agree with your list of 9, and incorporate most of them as part of my design intent. Not sure of the Resort designation though, as in the past I have associated a 'Resort' style course as one whose design is typically more difficult, more challenging, more potentially penal than a course that most players considered there home or 'members' course ...based on the theory that someone wanted/expected something different and more difficult when on vacation. I've never subscribed to this theory btw. I've always tried to build 'members' courses...courses that can be[size=78%] played day after day and still be challenged and not lose a sleeve of balls in a round. Courses that grow on you the more they are played...courses whose familiarity allows for you to become old friends together.[/size]


...and its not that GOOD Resort courses don't necessarily share these qualities. Pebble is a great example of a course whose play qualities reflect this (unfortunately in the past 40 years very few can afford play the course regularly, but it was more a members course when I was there). Lahinch, North Berwick...TOC for that matter, all share this quality...or did before their discovery and ease of access by the outside world.

So I will continue to design with your list of 9, add a dose of fun factor and quirkiness, and try my hardest to make every course one where you can hopefully get through a good round without losing a ball...my goal anyway. I'm probably going to call these 'members' courses though...regardless whether they are at a resort or not.

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul, thanks for the detailed and good reply.

For you (and David T and Sean and others) - it seems that most don't agree with the idea that we might characterize this as "The Golden Age 2-Resort Courses".  I'm not going to argue the point - even though I think it might have some validity, sometimes I just get an idea (like this one) and toss it out here and see what people think.

I knew (and was a bit afraid) that when I started this thread someone like you, with your course down south and elsewhere, and Tom with his courses at Bandon and elsewhere, would think I was being critical. I decided to trust that you could see that I wasn't and that I wouldn't want to be.

My only 'point' was that, to me, it seems that there has been a very high value placed these last couple of decades on a certain kind of wonderful golf course, but that the collective has forgotten than this isn't the only kind of wonderful golf course.     

I like very much courses with the 1-9 qualities (whether it is designated as a resort or not.) But for whatever reason(s), I get uncomfortable -- and I don't think it a 'good' thing -- when everyone is singing from the same song sheet.

It reminds me of why I don't like huge crowds of people, even at something like a football game. When you get 100,000 'fans', it feels like we're always just one step away from a 'mob'.

As I get older, I seem to like/appreciate fragmentation more and uniformity less.

Hope all is well with you and yours

[Mike_Young]

Peter,
I never had a song sheet...

[Tom_Doak]

As I get older, I seem to like/appreciate fragmentation more and uniformity less.

Me, too, and that's the main reason I was bothered by your 9 rules.  My favorite courses designed by others have a wide range of styles, and I still hope that I could work anywhere within that spectrum given the right client and the right piece of ground.


But, I would agree that when I've built courses that don't conform so much to your 9 rules -- say, at Tumble Creek which has deliberately subdued bunkering, or the 9-hole Aetna Springs with its intimate scale, or Lost Dunes where the site guaranteed we'd have quite a few water holes, or even Stone Eagle which is too hilly for some to walk [though I walked it yesterday, with ease] -- those courses haven't scored as highly in the rankings. So, I wonder whether it's architects driving the convergence to a style, or whether it's outside forces asking them to do so.


The difficult part with being a champion of fragmentation in such a down market is that there isn't the need to do something different in order to attract attention ... just building a course attracts attention now.  And many clients are too cautious to buck the system, even the successful ones.  Mr. Keiser, once a radical outsider, is neither today.

[paul cowley]

Paul, thanks for the detailed and good reply.

For you (and David T and Sean and others) - it seems that most don't agree with the idea that we might characterize this as "The Golden Age 2-Resort Courses".  I'm not going to argue the point - even though I think it might have some validity, sometimes I just get an idea (like this one) and toss it out here and see what people think.

I knew (and was a bit afraid) that when I started this thread someone like you, with your course down south and elsewhere, and Tom with his courses at Bandon and elsewhere, would think I was being critical. I decided to trust that you could see that I wasn't and that I wouldn't want to be.

My only 'point' was that, to me, it seems that there has been a very high value placed these last couple of decades on a certain kind of wonderful golf course, but that the collective has forgotten than this isn't the only kind of wonderful golf course.     

I like very much courses with the 1-9 qualities (whether it is designated as a resort or not.) But for whatever reason(s), I get uncomfortable -- and I don't think it a 'good' thing -- when everyone is singing from the same song sheet.

It reminds me of why I don't like huge crowds of people, even at something like a football game. When you get 100,000 'fans', it feels like we're always just one step away from a 'mob'.

As I get older, I seem to like/appreciate fragmentation more and uniformity less.

Hope all is well with you and yours

Peter...good thought provoking thread as judged by the replies. It made me ask myself a litmus guestion...what course of mine would I want to play on a day to day basis, for the rest of my life? My best ranked effort is Diamante Dunes...a resort course currently ranked #38 World...but it lost out to Orchard Creek, a course I designed and built with no frills for 1.2M....Golf Digests 'Best New Bargain of the Year' a long time ago. It's far from perfect, but typifies what I believe the golf experience should be. Much of what makes this special is the operation run by a farm family who are the owners. I hope to someday be able to mow fairways there. Does this count as fragmentation?

[Sean_A]

As I get older, I seem to like/appreciate fragmentation more and uniformity less.

Pietro


There is no question I generally appreciate fragmentation over uniformity, but I prefer a combination of uniformity and fragmentation over one or the other.   


Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()