Amateurish Mistakes by Professional Architects

[Kalen Braley]

Does being an amateur really have anything to do with course closings?  I know a few of Doak's courses have closed, and based on his works I've played, it wouldn't be due to the quality of the course....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kalen,


I think bad design does.  They do annual surveys of why golfers play.  While conditions top the list, playing an enjoyable design is somewhere near the top, probably more precisely, playing a course for $40 that somehow seems like they should be charging $80 dollars.


The average golfer never articulates what is good about design, and from the Golf Digest Places to Play list, obviously mix design in with maintenance, etc.  They certainly don't analyze the design anything near what we like here.


Going back and forth to the Sandy Tatum thread, yes, for most courses, architects are paid to put out an attractive course for the least amount of money possible.  That means in many cases putting in about the average amount of contour, bunkers, etc. that golfers expect, and BTW, the main design goal is to provide a design where the average golfer can shoot about his/her normal score.....a far cry from designing a championship test.  That design brief is also pretty counterintuitive to stretching the envelope as an artiste.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,


I don't doubt it can be a component of why they close, but if we're looking at the main reason for why....it seems its the same "why" for nearly everything else in the world...money!


Whether its a budget in the red like here in Salt Lake where one of the best courses closed (Wingpointe)
Or a poorly mismanaged course that's run into the ground.
Or perhaps most common a course where the property value increases so much, its too difficult to resist cashing out


On the flip side, I have played more courses than I would like to admit which were boring and dull Doak 1s that will likely never close because the location is "safe"


P.S.  I kind of equate it to the McDonalds of the world.  Nasty disgusting food, but dirt cheap and quick to get.  It'll never win any awards, but will never go away either.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, a deep dig into what courses close reveals its most often rural courses, the underfunded mom and pops, or those where deferred maintenance due to revenues to where playing it becomes unbearable.


To attract customers they cut fees, making money problems even worse.  A few of my public courses around here are nearing the 20 year mark.  Basically, someone has to dump money into them to make them serviceable again, whether it fully shows up on the tee sheets and bottom line or not.


And to further the Mac analogy, they are trying "fresh beef" and really teeing off their customers.  You have to wait for that slightly (I really can't tell the difference) better burger.  A good example of it wasn't so much better that quality trumped their strong suit of living up to the name of "fast food."


And why the mindset of not really doing intricate bunkers, etc.  The cost isn't worth it to the business model because the typical customer doesn't care, know the difference, etc. It rarely pays to upgrade to a truly innovative design (for local courses).

[John Kavanaugh]

Kalen,


What did you do to support Wingpointe...join, play in a league, take your GCA buds, write a profile, tell them to drop the pretentious e? When a course closes no one is more to blame than the golfers who didn't support it.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,


What did you do to support Wingpointe...join, play in a league, take your GCA buds, write a profile, tell them to drop the pretentious e? When a course closes no one is more to blame than the golfers who didn't support it.

John,


None of those things would have helped.  The reason it closed was the city used to lease the land for $1 per year from the federal agency that manages airport land.  A new rule came out that went into effect for 2016 that said land must be leased at "fair market value", which would have raised the rent to nearly $1 million per year for the land it occupies...even though the land will now sit unoccupied due to all the other vacant land that already surrounds the airport. So for a course that was just barely breaking even, it was a deal breaker to the city council, especially given the city golf budget is already a couple mill in the red as it is.


Once again...a fun course, a great location, popular with the locals...closed because of a fiscal implication, not because it was an amateurish design.

[John Kavanaugh]

The politicians would have struck a deal if enough votes enjoyed the course. It died on the vine so to speak. Btw: I've read the articles and user reviews. The valuation argument does not hold water...unlike swamp land next to an airport most probably did.

[John Kavanaugh]

A tip for the amateur architects out there...If you want a ten on tree management build your course at the end of a runway.

[Peter Pallotta]

The wind goes out of my sails when I see a fairway bunker that has no meaningful relationship to the next (ie approach) shot or to the slopes/tilt of the green.
Hit it over the bunker, hit it wide left of it, wide right, flirt with it, land right in the middle -- it makes no difference to the quality or challenge of the rest of the hole.
If I encounter that situation early on, my shoulders slump and I lose a lot of enthusiasm for the round to come.

[John Kavanaugh]

Odd. I love the 8 or 80 bunker.

[Carl Johnson]

Jeff,


Have you ever played a course built by an amateur architect? I know one near my home just closed and it made every mistake in the book. Professional architects are not immune to the same mistakes.

The Ballantyne Resort Golf Course in Charlotte was designed by an amateur (Buffalo, N.Y.-born Howard C. "Smoky" Bissell, brother-in-law of Johnny "Quail Hollow Club" Harris) and has been very successful.  It's probably the best public option in our area.  https://www.theballantynehotel.com/golf/golf-club-at-ballantyne/

[Kalen Braley]

The wind goes out of my sails when I see a fairway bunker that has no meaningful relationship to the next (ie approach) shot or to the slopes/tilt of the green.
Hit it over the bunker, hit it wide left of it, wide right, flirt with it, land right in the middle -- it makes no difference to the quality or challenge of the rest of the hole.
If I encounter that situation early on, my shoulders slump and I lose a lot of enthusiasm for the round to come.

Pete,


Why can't a bunker just be penal to mess with the head of a golfer? To be an implicit threat even if there isn't an actual one? There has gotta be at least a couple of bunkers on the best courses in the world where that's the only purpose served.

[John Kavanaugh]

It wouldn't surprise me if the second most identifiable bunker in the world is on the 10th at Augusta National.

[Kalen Braley]

It wouldn't surprise me if the second most identifiable bunker in the world is on the 10th at Augusta National.

John,


While I like the example here, I suspect that bunker is in play with a brutal penalty for all but top notch players...

[John Kavanaugh]

Plumart could tell us.

[Mike_Young]

OK...there may be those who say my work is not worth a damn and that's fine..I can handle it.  However, whether you call them professional or not, there are a lot of bad architects out there.  Most have one thing in common.  They don't have a passion for it.  I think there are two main mistakes of bad architects, be it amateurs or professionals.  They don't play enough golf if they play at all and therefore can't route a golf course.  Formulas are BS...I'm fine with guys that feel they need them but that doesn't mean they should try and make it a standard.  The 1 and 2 % pin area is not a standard.  Also the thing I think screws up more courses than anything is guys using a standard yardage for a turn point when routing.  For instance, if your turns are 300 yds from the back tees on a flat hole at 500 ft elevation they might be completely different on a down hill hole or an up hill hole or one may intentionally tighten a 300 yd landing area when creating a hole strategy etc.  I saw a course two years ago built with 250 yards turns.

Oh and courses close due to bad owners and population.  I know of several really bad course sin my area that get plenty of play. They are in good population centers with good owners and they all have one thing in common.  GOOD SUPTS...

[Jon Wiggett]

Over bunkering and bunkers that are just too large for the scale of the course. Also a lack of getting the details right.


Jon

[Sean_A]

I don't know if amateurs or pros do it, but here is a list

TEES

Front tees higher than daily/back tees where the view is partially blocked

Runway tees to downhill holes where from the back section of the tee the landing zone cannot seen

CUT LINES

Cut lines near raised areas, usually the line is quite arbitrary and looks very unnatural

Leaving interesting ground immediately adjacent to fairways covered in rough

Grass lines inside of bunkers

CART PATHS

Cart paths too close to lines of play

Cart paths not blending into the scenery

BUNKERS

Using more bunkers than necessary to create the strategy/not placing bunkers to optimize their value

Bunkers adjacent to water rarely looks good and is pointless

Bunkers at the bottom of natural fall-away areas or on the high area stopping a ball from naturally falling away

TREES

Not allowing space for the best trees to be showcased

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

there are a lot of bad architects out there.  Most have one thing in common.  They don't have a passion for it. Agree most average and bad architects have no, or have lost their passion for it.  Then again, IMHO, there are very passionate folks in the biz who simply don't have as much talent, although those usually get weeded out.

I think there are two main mistakes of bad architects, be it amateurs or professionals.  They don't play enough golf if they play at all and therefore can't route a golf course.  It is true many of us don't play as much golf as others, but I have never seen that correlation in routing, which seems to be an art in itself that some get and others don't. And see my last post (three day routings show lack of both usually)

Formulas are BS...I'm fine with guys that feel they need them but that doesn't mean they should try and make it a standard.  Well, we have had this debate and I understand you can be too formulaic. That said, if you break convention too often you usually just end up with a goofy golf course.

The 1 and 2 % pin area is not a standard.  Of course.....2-3% is standard.

Also the thing I think screws up more courses than anything is guys using a standard yardage for a turn point when routing.  For instance, if your turns are 300 yds from the back tees on a flat hole at 500 ft elevation they might be completely different on a down hill hole or an up hill hole or one may intentionally tighten a 300 yd landing area when creating a hole strategy etc.  I have read both you and Tom touting this idea.  I find using the same TP helps in standardizing construction for the builder.  And in design, I try to account for the effective landing zones and shot distances by knowing elevation change, wind direction and average speed, and slope in the LZ.  Not sure why you think that is hard to figure out, but agree that some don't do that.  But, only twice have I had a shaper move a bunker on his own because it wasn't near the turn point. 

I saw a course two years ago built with 250 yards turns.  I have considered shorter turning points on a few courses. I am doing a consulting report right now for a 6280 yard course that has bunkering based on 266 yards/800 feet.  I wonder how many 260 hitters actually play the course, and whether any re-bunkering ought to push back to the 200-225 yards of most players playing the course?

one thing in common.  GOOD SUPTS...agreed!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't know if amateurs or pros do it, but here is a list

TEES

Front tees higher than daily/back tees where the view is partially blocked

Runway tees to downhill holes where from the back section of the tee the landing zone cannot seen

CUT LINES

Cut lines near raised areas, usually the line is quite arbitrary and looks very unnatural

Leaving interesting ground immediately adjacent to fairways covered in rough

Grass lines inside of bunkers

CART PATHS

Cart paths too close to lines of play

Cart paths not blending into the scenery

BUNKERS

Using more bunkers than necessary to create the strategy/not placing bunkers to optimize their value

Bunkers adjacent to water rarely looks good and is pointless

Bunkers at the bottom of natural fall-away areas or on the high area stopping a ball from naturally falling away

TREES

Not allowing space for the best trees to be showcased

Ciao

Sean, a good list. I try to avoid all of those, but recall having associates who were prone to those mistakes over the years.


I see a few uses for strip bunkers along lakes, specifically for longer shots where a two step penalty might be appropriate, despite being taught your thinking. Pete Dye changed my mind, although I would use it far less than he.  Lipping up the fairway to keep gently fading shots out of the water usually works just as well and is cheaper.


Regarding Cart Paths too close to the fairway, I had an associate who would draw the line paralleling each fairway about ten feet away and I had to change it every time.  A good example of an associate architect who was valuable in many ways (production skills) but had no passion for golf design.  I would also add that some (Fazio) work so hard to keep paths out of sight that they get too FAR from the fairway, and are probably rarely used as a result.  As you say, blending them into the landscape 25-60 feet from the fairway edge is usually the best solution.  Long broad curves, as opposed to "squiggles" improve their acceptability to be in view.

[Mike_Young]

there are a lot of bad architects out there.  Most have one thing in common.  They don't have a passion for it. Agree most average and bad architects have no, or have lost their passion for it.  Then again, IMHO, there are very passionate folks in the biz who simply don't have as much talent, although those usually get weeded out.
Yep, most of the time they weed out.

I think there are two main mistakes of bad architects, be it amateurs or professionals.  They don't play enough golf if they play at all and therefore can't route a golf course.  It is true many of us don't play as much golf as others, but I have never seen that correlation in routing, which seems to be an art in itself that some get and others don't. And see my last post (three day routings show lack of both usually)   
I say they have to play enough to envision the shots
Formulas are BS...I'm fine with guys that feel they need them but that doesn't mean they should try and make it a standard.  Well, we have had this debate and I understand you can be too formulaic. That said, if you break convention too often you usually just end up with a goofy golf course.
or either you invent new formulas...
The 1 and 2 % pin area is not a standard.  Of course.....2-3% is standard.
I think there can be strategy in higher sloped pins etc..just need transition and space
Also the thing I think screws up more courses than anything is guys using a standard yardage for a turn point when routing.  For instance, if your turns are 300 yds from the back tees on a flat hole at 500 ft elevation they might be completely different on a down hill hole or an up hill hole or one may intentionally tighten a 300 yd landing area when creating a hole strategy etc.  I have read both you and Tom touting this idea.  I find using the same TP helps in standardizing construction for the builder.  And in design, I try to account for the effective landing zones and shot distances by knowing elevation change, wind direction and average speed, and slope in the LZ.  Not sure why you think that is hard to figure out, but agree that some don't do that.  But, only twice have I had a shaper move a bunker on his own because it wasn't near the turn point. 

Different strokes for different folks
I saw a course two years ago built with 250 yards turns.  I have considered shorter turning points on a few courses. I am doing a consulting report right now for a 6280 yard course that has bunkering based on 266 yards/800 feet.  I wonder how many 260 hitters actually play the course, and whether any re-bunkering ought to push back to the 200-225 yards of most players playing the course?
It's not that they are 260 yd hitters it is that they play forward tees and blow thru the turns or the good guys blow thru the turns from the back...JMO
one thing in common.  GOOD SUPTS...agreed!

[Tom Bacsanyi]

1) USGA spec greens with approaches that are just sodded over poorly draining clay soils.  WTF?
2) Flashed bunker faces. 
3) Bunkers designed without ingress/egress convenience in mind, e.g. "the giant f'ing bathtub."
4) Bunker area > 2 acres.  Else bring an army.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I've played Oakmont. That counts, no? 

[MClutterbuck]

1) USGA spec greens with approaches that are just sodded over poorly draining clay soils.  WTF?
2) Flashed bunker faces. 
3) Bunkers designed without ingress/egress convenience in mind, e.g. "the giant f'ing bathtub."
4) Bunker area > 2 acres.  Else bring an army.

Some of the better Scottish courses have spectacular bunkers without a proper ingress/egress. Dornoch especially comes to mind.

[Mike_Young]

A membership or a course has to decide if golf is there for maintenance or if maintenance is there for golf.  Some mistakes that would be considered amateurish here may have been done to accommodate one or the other.