Freedom Golf and Its Impact on Architecture

[Peter Pallotta]

I was going to write "its *negative* impact" on architecture, but that would be assuming too much.

A number of recent threads have brought this topic to mind, as well as a quote from Colin Montgomerie suggesting that there are so many 59s being shot today in part because golfers now *believe* they can shoot it (which Colin never did) --  in other words, that the 4 minute mile has been broken, and will never again be seen as a barrier. 

It strikes me that so many other 4-minute miles and 'barriers' and 'signifiers' have similarly been broken and/or now longer hold sway, both in society as a whole and in the game itself. Symbols of an edgier lifestyle (e.g. tattoos, pot) are now everyday parts of the suburbs; in politics, life-long and multi-generational party allegiances are a thing of the past; and with self publishing and self recording and self producing, the old and once highly prized stamps of approval/legitimacy from the book and music and film industry establishments now carry very little weight. 

So, in terms of golf and gca, what will it mean when many of us here, and a whole new generation of golfers, have begun to believe and accept that:

- 4 and 6 hole 'loops' need to be created (to replace 9 hole rounds) so the 'game' can be played quicker
- Par doesn't matter - it is simply an artificial and archaic construct that has no meaning or bearing on how we play
- Cross country golf/create your own routing (eg the sheep ranch) is fun, and is still very much the game of golf
- It's legitimate to vary during a round the tees you're playing from, based on your own whims and/other weather conditions
- With the new high-and-long-flying equipment and golf balls there is not a green in existence that can't be held
- Bunkers shouldn't play/penalize the way water hazards do...and water hazards shouldn't either
- Distance measuring devices of all kinds are wholly acceptable and do nothing to lessen our enjoyment
- We should celebrate and embrace the fact that nothing is sacrosanct - the 'game' is *not* about walking, *not* about 4.25 inch cups, *not* about a slower pace of life/recreation and the quiet of nature, *not* a daytime/daylight game only, *not* about stroke play, *not* about 18 holes, *not* about a home course that you play almost exclusively and for many years 

So, my question: if golf in the modern age has no rules -- if most of what we believe is what golf is *not* -- and if every iconoclastic impulse and idea that has to do with the spirit and ethos of the game is not only accepted but held up as a near-virtue, how can anyone meaningfully argue for/defend the principles of great golf course architecture as traditionally espoused?

In short: if "anything goes" (freedom) in golf, won't/shouldn't "anything goes" become the norm for golf course architecture?

[Tom_Doak]

I saw a course today in Hong Kong that made me ask many of these same questions.  It's a modern, public facility and it was busy with golfers.  It's built on incredibly severe terrain and included four or five of the most dramatic holes you'll ever see, with incredible mountain and ocean backdrops.  It's incredibly well executed, for what it is.


 But it has 14 km of cart paths to connect it all together.  You'd probably lose one ball for every stroke of your handicap, and there are 2-3 holes where the only way a high handicapper will finish is by using the "drop area" on the other side of a ravine.  And it all cost about $50 million to build. 


What to make of it?  I'm still not sure.  There were a lot of smiling golfers coming back on the ferry, but they are learning a game where you don't play your ball all the way around - your misses are not just unplayable but unretrievable.  Instead of walking along and hitting your ball from where you find it, you drive up and down steep hills admiring the view of holes you often don't finish with the ball you put on the tee.  It's not entirely golf, and I enjoyed it much more with a camera than I think I would have with my clubs.

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,


My first reaction is to the notion of breaking barriers, and how that opens the door for other athletes to accomplish what was once thought of as un-doable. But, in golf, things have changed which has made 59 more realistic. Uniformity of presentation from week to week on Tour means the professional golfer has local knowledge no matter where they travel. Greens have been flattened due to the speend increases. Bunker sand is no longer a local material, it is the same "brand" everywhere...and so on.


My second reaction is to the idea that the changing of the norm is likely a good thing for creativity purposes....if things were to stay "the same", we wouldn't have any need for architects with fresh ideas, or shapers who listen to strange music for inspiration while doing their thing. One quick thought about new ideas: good ones will stand the test of time, bad ones will fade away. There's no harm in trying, as long as the money people agree to take the risk.


My third reaction concerns your observations concerning walking and other traditional, positive attributes of the game. I have been dismayed by our "industry" because of the silence of the positive aspects of golf: Health, green space, ethics and manners and behavior, social interaction in a time when electronic devices have more influence on people than people....


I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can get my head around at one sitting!

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe, Tom - I'm not certain what to make of it either, or where it will go, or what the pros and cons are.  But I know it is some kind of vague (in my mind) continuum. To use my favourite analogy, jazz:  the then-modern be-boppers like Parker and Gillespie showed us that jazz didn't have to be 'swing' and didn't have to be comprised almost wholly of 4 and 8 bar phrases, and didn't have to be dominated by runs of eighth notes, and needn't be centered around the dominant tones/chords and a few 'blues' notes, and that you didn't have to be able to dance to it. And then a little later Miles kept moving and the west coast cool jazz players showed us that jazz didn't have to adhere to the rhythmic or harmonic templates of the be-boppers, and Brubeck helped us see that 4/4 time or 3/4 time didn't have to be the norm etc etc. And this all went on until there was "free jazz" -- which helped us see that none of the old rules had to apply, especially in the hands of very skilled musicians. That's great -- except that no one actually *listened* to the music anymore.


Peter     

I have, of course, many limitations of temperament and imagination and understanding; and when I read about the course in Hong Kong where, apparently, the thought of holing out and finishing a golf hole is not on the mind of many of the golfers (and seemingly, wasn't in the mid of the architect either)....well, that concept is beyond me. I don't know how the game of golf and that attitude go hand in hand. 

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Its a big world so why not fill it seems to be the way of today.  In terms of golf, I say why not indeed.  Its easy to avoid what doesn't appeal (at least where I live) so why shouldn't folks have a go at making golf work on different levels?  I now in the past 5-6 years I have become much more interested in the concept of shared land for golf which means it is far easier for golf to be more community oriented and located in communities.  Its a tough thing to pull off well especially in this age of bigger footprint golf in remote places which require huge amounts of energy just to get there.  I do think smaller footprint golf of all sorts has a future, but I am probably one or two generations removed from such forward thinking. 

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Pietro


Its a big world so why not fill it seems to be the way of today.  In terms of golf, I say why not indeed.  Its easy to avoid what doesn't appeal (at least where I live) so why shouldn't folks have a go at making golf work on different levels?  I now in the past 5-6 years I have become much more interested in the concept of shared land for golf which means it is far easier for golf to be more community oriented and located in communities.  Its a tough thing to pull off well especially in this age of bigger footprint golf in remote places which require huge amounts of energy just to get there.  I do think smaller footprint golf of all sorts has a future, but I am probably one or two generations removed from such forward thinking. 


Ciao

+1
the rest of the thread is beyond my pay grade....


My two cents on the Big World theory
Played a course in Florida over the weekend
$20 for all day play-intersting varied course-maybe a Doak 2-3. (but nearly all in Florida is at or below that)


never needed to move my ball once anywhere on fairways populated by varieties of "grasses", mad e bunch of putts on greens that were maybe 7-8 stimp, played a two ball with a beginner in 2 1/2 hours -lost one ball between us in two days. (water) and not because we played well.
Not one person I spoke to in the nearby "developed" world had ever heard of it, though a few GCAers had.


The bigger the world the more choices and room to find places that one prefers
so have at it with the freedom stuff-it only scares me if it crowds out(or bankrupts) the stuff I like

[BCowan]

Jeff,


    Did u play Palatka?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff, Sean - as noted, I don't know enough to predict where this is all going and what it might all mean. I'm thinking/pondering as I type, and just wondering. (And btw, Jeff, I don't know how it can be above your pay grade. If Joe H got it, I should think that everyone else could too!  ) Hey, listen: if the 'big world' leads to shared-land courses with smaller footprints that would be just lovely -- but I think it not a coincidence that Tom D's example is of a bloated and nearly unplayable extravaganza instead. Do you think that any new crop of developers and/or golfers who think more in terms of what golf is *not* than what it traditionally has been are very likely to give us a new Cleeve Cloud or Reigate Heath or a Sacred Nine? For me, I'm guessing the thinking might be more along the lines of: Lights all night long? Great! Netflix monitors inside of golf carts? Absolutely! Four hole winner take all smash-ups with croquet rules? A winner!
Fine. Like you both, I don't want to take away anyone else's fun - especially if I can still find places to have my own brand of fun. But, since this is a golf architecture discussion board, I raised the topic because, whether fun or not for me, the course I describe above will likely have a much different kind of design-architecture than the kind we've come to appreciate here.
Peter   

[Randy Thompson]

I saw a course today in Hong Kong that made me ask many of these same questions.  It's a modern, public facility and it was busy with golfers.  It's built on incredibly severe terrain and included four or five of the most dramatic holes you'll ever see, with incredible mountain and ocean backdrops.  It's incredibly well executed, for what it is.


 But it has 14 km of cart paths to connect it all together.  You'd probably lose one ball for every stroke of your handicap, and there are 2-3 holes where the only way a high handicapper will finish is by using the "drop area" on the other side of a ravine.  And it all cost about $50 million to build. 


What to make of it?  I'm still not sure.  There were a lot of smiling golfers coming back on the ferry, but they are learning a game where you don't play your ball all the way around - your misses are not just unplayable but unretrievable.  Instead of walking along and hitting your ball from where you find it, you drive up and down steep hills admiring the view of holes you often don't finish with the ball you put on the tee.  It's not entirely golf, and I enjoyed it much more with a camera than I think I would have with my clubs.

So did it happen to be a signature atchitect? American? Housing development or 10,000 dollar green fee! How old is it?

[Tom_Doak]

Randy:  it's the third course at The Jockey Club Kau Sai Chau, developed for public play.  Designer was Nelson-Haworth, with Brett Mogg, who used to participate here occasionally, as the man on site.


Hard to fault them motive-wise : the facility was donated to Hong Kong and the green fees for locals are only 50-60 dollars, a bit more in high season.  The site was incredibly severe and they were clearly looking for attention- even though it's eight years old and has never been mentioned here.  One of the two other courses (by Gary Player) is slightly more of a "think small" approach, but not nearly what Jeff is describing.  Thinking small was not really the point of the project, and that's the only reason such projects worry me - I'm happy to let the world be big, but the golf business celebrates projects like this over thinking small, to the point that thinking small is in disfavor.

[Sean_A]

Jeff, Sean - as noted, I don't know enough to predict where this is all going and what it might all mean. I'm thinking/pondering as I type, and just wondering. (And btw, Jeff, I don't know how it can be above your pay grade. If Joe H got it, I should think that everyone else could too!  ) Hey, listen: if the 'big world' leads to shared-land courses with smaller footprints that would be just lovely -- but I think it not a coincidence that Tom D's example is of a bloated and nearly unplayable extravaganza instead. Do you think that any new crop of developers and/or golfers who think more in terms of what golf is *not* than what it traditionally has been are very likely to give us a new Cleeve Cloud or Reigate Heath or a Sacred Nine? For me, I'm guessing the thinking might be more along the lines of: Lights all night long? Great! Netflix monitors inside of golf carts? Absolutely! Four hole winner take all smash-ups with croquet rules? A winner!
Fine. Like you both, I don't want to take away anyone else's fun - especially if I can still find places to have my own brand of fun. But, since this is a golf architecture discussion board, I raised the topic because, whether fun or not for me, the course I describe above will likely have a much different kind of design-architecture than the kind we've come to appreciate here.
Peter   

Pietro

I don't think we will get many new projects near/in towns offering smaller footprint golf, but I can see current courses redeveloped with this in mind...especially if part of the land is sold off...likely for housing.  The keys will be playability, fun, cost and visuals that present as "proper" golf rather than looking cheap and not so cheerful...which is often the case with munis. 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if indoor golf made a minor impact. 

All that said, its not architecture which will drive changes...architecture will react to whatever comes down the pipe.  There are plenty of guys out there who think outside the box so the actual architecture aspect is least of the issues surrounding "freedom golf".

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Hitting a ball into a hole with a stick  - about as free and elemental as any activity that's deemed a sport can possibly be. Practically speaking, don't charge too much for such a humble goal and modest pursuit, or eventually most will realize that the emperor has no clothes. Emotionally and intellectually and spiritually and physically, provide something else, something more, or else most will soon conclude that the game is not worth the effort. In the HK example, it seems that the 'more' on offer is simply more swings at a ball with a stick -- a trend towards an impoverishment of the experience, not an enhancement of it. Oh, yes, there are 'views', and a chance to ride quite quickly in a go-cart -- which reminds me of a pet peeve of mine: when did 'customers' start being called 'consumers'? Are we just mouths that have to be fed instead of whole people with more subtle needs as well?

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


When I played Chambers Bay a year ago, a friend who played with me described it as "a bit of a theme park" and I thought it was a good analogy.  The Jockey Club KSC is definitely in that category.  Golf courses by their nature present a guided tour around a property, but on this one it seemed clear that the "tour" part almost superseded the actual hitting of the ball part ... you know, the part we call the golf.


It's the same reaction that I had to Wolf Creek in Nevada or Ko'olau in Hawaii, both of which had many defenders here.  And I thought that The Jockey Club KSC was much better than those two in terms of beauty and interesting golf holes ... there really was some great stuff out there.  But it also exaggerates the crazy separation of golf holes compared to those. 


It's more of everything!  Americans should love it!  Chinese do love it!  You're Canadian, so I'm not sure you'll understand, except by mocking the rest of us.

[Thomas Dai]

Reminds me of a course called 'Enchanted Forest' available on golf simulators.
atb

[Peter Pallotta]

 
Tom - I don't want to sound like a dink (and even less do I want to actually *be* a dink), but this new/emerging world of theme-park golf really does go beyond my comprehension. I can understand that *all* modern courses can't be like, say, Chechessee Creek, The Mines, and The Loop (to pick 3 varied courses/business models); but what I don't understand, what I can't wrap my mind around, are the mental gymnastics and Orwellian newspeak that architects must engage in to convince themselves and others that the game of golf, *golf* for goodness sake, is *not* about walking a course in 3 1/2 hours, and *not* about tacking your way around that field of play with resourcefulness and imagination, and *not* about a quiet, natural setting conducive to a human and humane engagement -- a kind of participation in which all our senses become subtly more alive instead of being bombarded by a sledgehammer of sounds and images more in keeping with a CB DeMille epic from the '50s than with an ideal CB Macdonald golf course from the '20s.

Peter

[Ira Fishman]

Peter, I concur with everything you just wrote (and the DeMille reference is priceless).  However, I am a glass more than half full guy.  If we were having this discussion before Sand Hills was built to pick one defining moment in recent trends in gca, the picture would be bleaker.  Over the past roughly 25 years not only have we seen a wonderful set of new courses that meet your criteria but also an accelerating trend in restorations of the classic courses that you so properly celebrate.  My optimistic guess is that as the new classic courses continue to climb up the rankings and the renewed original classics do so as well the balance will improve. No, theme park courses or even courses that look like what the Pros play will not become the minority, but they will be less of the overwhelming majority.  Glass half full.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira - you're probably right, and I hope you are. On the one hand, I know that I can over-react sometimes (that and lanky brunettes with wicked jaws have been the ruin of me). On the other hand, everywhere I look these days in culture or social  discourse or in financial matters or ethical questions etc, I seem to see an (exponentially) widening 'psychic split' or bifurcation of the collective mind. It does really feel like the more a Tom D gets quiet with his work (eg a low to the ground old course at the Loop) the more extreme and over the top and almost anti-golf other courses/venues tend to get. It's Sand Hills or Top Golf, The Loop or this roller-coaster ride in HK. Glass half empty...

[Matt Day]

Randy:  it's the third course at The Jockey Club Kau Sai Chau, developed for public play.  Designer was Nelson-Haworth, with Brett Mogg, who used to participate here occasionally, as the man on site.


Hard to fault them motive-wise : the facility was donated to Hong Kong and the green fees for locals are only 50-60 dollars, a bit more in high season.  The site was incredibly severe and they were clearly looking for attention- even though it's eight years old and has never been mentioned here.  One of the two other courses (by Gary Player) is slightly more of a "think small" approach, but not nearly what Jeff is describing.  Thinking small was not really the point of the project, and that's the only reason such projects worry me - I'm happy to let the world be big, but the golf business celebrates projects like this over thinking small, to the point that thinking small is in disfavor.

Tom
I did a simple photo tour of Kai Sai Chau a few years ago. Had 26 points and loved it but would not play it every week


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47798.msg1073187/topicseen.html#msg1073187

[Tim Gavrich]

To inject some topicality here, I'd offer that the USGA's development of a "maximum score" form of stroke play may foster more theme-park architecture, or at least help to excuse its existence.


That said, I wonder if we're overlooking architects who have pushed the envelope within the long-standing boundaries of the game. I would cite the likes of Pete Dye, Mike Strantz and Jim Engh as examples of this. Isn't Tobacco Road's theme-park nature a large reason why it is so beloved? Yet, its greatness neither requires nor particularly encourages the sorts of dissolutions of golf conventions speculated about in this thread.