Precedent for DEcreasing acclaim

[V. Kmetz]

Love the other thread about INcreased acclaim... but most of the meaningful examples were spoken. I'd add Southern Pines if it wasn't there already.


I think just as telling to the on-going zeitgeist, are those which have fallen from canopy branches


...And I'm just talking general reputation; I'm not sure whether they still ARE on a Top 150 list somewhere... but golf in the US was much more agog about these profile venues (and their model) 25-35 years back:


Medinah
Oak Tree
Colonial
PGA West
Oakland Hills
Congressional
Doral Blue
Cherry Hills
Champions
Canterbury
Inverness
Oak Hill


Perhaps the biggest granddaddy of fallen in reputation, if not media list...Pebble Beach   On this very board, I have heard extensive comment about Pebble's deficiencies against its advantages...I don't share many of the grievances, but 30 years ago, you didn't question Pebble as a premier site and a benevolent design influence on any basis.


cheers   vk
[size=78%] [/size]

[Ira Fishman]

Ones that in my youth were quite highly ranked whose star has fallen:


PGA National
Firestone
Champions
Point of Woods
Bay Hill
Cog Hill (alas, a course I played every week for several years and really loved)
Kemper Lakes


Ira

[Jeff Schley]

Ones that in my youth were quite highly ranked whose star has fallen:


PGA National
Firestone
Champions
Point of Woods
Bay Hill
Cog Hill (alas, a course I played every week for several years and really loved)
Kemper Lakes


Ira

Totally agree with Cog Hill back 20 years ago there was so much buzz about them trying to get a US Open with Jemsek pushing it hard, the remodel wasn't a hit and now they are nowhere to be found.

I would also throw in Harbor Town, Hazeltine and one that was in the top 100 is Kapalua Plantantion.  In general it is harder for a public to stay current as they are subject to economic swings and can't simply assess their membership for improvements.  Thus, publics are very susceptible to the economy.

[Peter Pallotta]

This always strikes me as a subject that I wish those with more knowledge and playing experience than me would dive into more deeply.
Unless all our predecessors were fools and/or architectural bumpkins (or unless we've convinced ourselves that they were), they must've been seeing and appreciating *something* of real worth and value in at least some of those courses to regard them so highly -- something in the essential design/architecture.
Just saying that "fashions change"
doesn't seem enough of an answer.

[Ira Fishman]

Peter,


I cannot speak to most of them from playing them, but they all are still highly regarded.  I do think though that when it comes to views about the top of the top, fashion has a big role.  I prefer the current fashion as lauded on GCA, but my tastes have evolved so maybe if I live long enough to see the next fashion, I will evolve again.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

The bitch about fashion is, the trend that precedes the current one always seems to be the most hideous.....until it eventually comes back into style years later and more or less is OK again.


As one who had my formative years in the 80s, 70s fashion was such a puke fest to me, but now you can get away with Bell bottoms, flaired shirts, and saying Groovy...its all good!!

[V. Kmetz]

The bitch about fashion is, the trend that precedes the current one always seems to be the most hideous.....until it eventually comes back into style years later and more or less is OK again.

As one who had my formative years in the 80s, 70s fashion was such a puke fest to me, but now you can get away with Bell bottoms, flaired shirts, and saying Groovy...its all good!!

KB (and all),


But if that "circular" sense of fashion holds in gca, it could suggest that we will go back to artificial ponds, tree-choked turf and playing corridors, massive earth moving, aerial golf, etc...


I've been thinking that since golf design re-emerged from the 15 year  near-hiatus of Depression and War years (1930 - 45) it re-emerged with a struggle it didn't possess in the first 25 before it...the battle between "What a golf course COULD Be vs What a golf course OUGHT TO Be."


Maybe that's too fine a distinction with too many exceptions, but the earlier period seemed not to focus so much on what could be, but what it ought to be...each designer, of course, having his own idea of "ought to be" CBM with this in mind, Fownes with that, Ross with his, Tillie with his writings and his product...


Come post War times, and steel shafts, and the first bloom of professional play (Snead, Hogan, Nelson), the game and the prosperous Jet Age culture around it, brought the consideration of the "could be"...projects were grand and visionary, national tournaments could be hosted there, soon to be on TV and in color magazines, aesthetically perfect as tests of medal golf and parkland beauty...once the Space Age follows, boundaries widen further...the period just about ends with Pete Dye's salad days...before it settled in transition period of Fazio and player-designers... where the ethos is almost fully "what could be" with far less care for what ought to be.


not ironclad...but my sense of this shifting "acclaim"


cheers    vk

[Ira Fishman]

VK,


A great analysis of the post-WWII dynamics, and I hope you are right.  However, we need to keep in mind that the current new fashion that we admire and embrace is limited to a relatively small number of new courses and restoration of classic courses.  If the real estate boom that drove a lot of the course development comes back, then we will inevitably see more new courses that look like what the tour plays because that is what is likely to sell houses.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

Ira,


It also seems like the "artificial ponds, tree-choked turf and playing corridors, massive earth moving" features could come back in retro fusion style...with hairy bunkers and undulating potatoe chip greens,...

[Peter Pallotta]

VK - watch it with all that talk about 'ought to be' otherwise some here might label you a communist, or a purist, or both! Dangerous word is 'ought', so close to the term 'ought not' -- what with its connotations of Soviet-era gulags and top-down dictatorial bureaucracies.
My goodness, man, don't you realize you live in America? Freedom, sir! Freedom -- especially for the golf course developer, who might then create destinations worthy of our deepest longings, and of the aspirational nature of the game; and Freedom too for the architects themselves, in theirs the most wholly subjective art-craft of all.
Nay to any notion of 'oughts' and 'ought nots' -- nay. It's the Marketplace, and again I say it's the Marketplace that is the driver and decider and sole arbiter of all!
Remember this, my friend: there can be no greater good than the existence of a golf course that we *happen* to like -- even if that golf course is not yet in actual existence!
I say, send it to No. 1 right now, regardless of its currently non-existent status -- for it's the Dream that counts!
But other than that, VK, yours was a terrific post!
 

[V. Kmetz]

Zounds, Peter!


That tongue is firmly enough in cheek, so as to appear like a welt from a punch...


It is no secret that I'm ok with being tarred as "Communist."


But I'm picking no dogs in this fight (ought/could), just saying that the post WW II era brought the complication of "could" to a gca world that was more grounded in its "oughts,"...closer to today's conversations


If you want a tangential snapshot of the surrounding cultural oxygen of that boom era... look at this "Reel America" archive from C-Span...


https://www.c-span.org/video/?326532-1/reel-america-challenge-america-1955


cheers   vk

[David Wuthrich]

How about Desert Highlands?  Was at one time # 25 in US.

[Tom_Doak]

The key to decreasing acclaim is to pride yourself on being a tough test of golf.  It's inevitable the course will seem easier over time due to changes in equipment plus the creation of newer and longer courses, so your appeal wanes.

[Sean_A]

The key to decreasing acclaim is to pride yourself on being a tough test of golf.  It's inevitable the course will seem easier over time due to changes in equipment plus the creation of newer and longer courses, so your appeal wanes.

Cha-ching.  There aren't many acclaimed courses these days opening as a supremely difficult test of golf.  In fact, it seems that 95% of what the pros touch turns to dust regardless. 

I think much of acclaim is based around the lastest and greatest so it is inevitable that some of the new stars (even the gca darlings) will fall down the ladder somewhat.  As much as I like the new style of design, I don't think it will last for long for new courses because they are generally very expensive and very isolated.  However, as a blueprint for working on classic courses, I think we will see that trend for some time.  To some degree it may be a better concept when archies have their hands tied to someone else's work because many of the newer stars very much have the "seen that before" impression whereas old courses can emerge as another version of itself. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I would imagine that water availability/restrictions and the effect of less water usage is likely to result in reduced acclaim for some currently highly thought of courses. And vice versa for those not needing as much water.
atb

[Jeff Schley]

I would imagine that water availability/restrictions and the effect of less water usage is likely to result in reduced acclaim for some currently highly thought of courses. And vice versa for those not needing as much water.
atb

In my view, governmental regulation to limit water consumption to non-essential uses was a major threat to golf course sustainability, as they are presently built and maintained. When Trump withdrew from the Paris agreement I'm sure many superintendents and golf course management were thrilled (at least for their job responsibilities) for it largely withdrew possible imminent governmental measures which would reduce the way in which water is utilized, harvested, and rationed.

Politics aside, the Paris agreement talked about water policy issues in meaningful ways and would have subsequently caused governments to create water management policies. As the US has pulled out of this (again politics aside) the pressure to bring governmental regulation to this topic has been relieved most believe.

A cliff's notes version of how the Paris agreement would have impacted water policy is that the major goal would be to keep long term warming below 2 degrees C, with a target of 1.5 degrees C. The techniques needing to be employed to create this reduction in greenhouse gases (which are the cause globally accepted) rely heavily on technologies with negative emissions, that is, technologies that sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in carbon sinks, which can be very water intensive.  You have to grow biomass (water intensive), then burn it to create energy, but then capture the CO2 in the carbon capture sinks (CCS). Bioenergy production especially, but also CCS technology, uses considerable quantities of water, which can exacerbate existing regional water shortages in particular. This competes with land/water needed for food supply, let alone the water needed for your watering of your lawn and golf course.

Thus, when Trump pulled out it meant a halt to the perhaps radical water policies needed to accomplish these ambitious goals, which are also being pushed in the UN Sustainable Development Goal #6: Ensure access to water and sanitation for all.
This has several targets, which revolve around managing your water supply, helping less developed countries accomplish this, and restore water related ecosystems to include the groundwater supply (which has continued to lower the water table by hundreds of feet in many parts of the US).Just as watering your lawn is seen as a non-essential use of water and in many parts of drought stricken areas of the USA there are even bans or restrictions on watering one's lawn, golf course irrigation can be at risk.  Obviously this is a major issue, and although temporarily pushed into the future, will continue to be a political issue as water is essential to many things more important than making grass green to hit a while ball off of (sorry to offend). So when the USA pulled out of the Paris agreement this was a win for those loving the green golf course they enjoy.

[BHoover]

Since when did Oakland Hills supposedly lose acclaim? No one here is going to turn down a chance to play there.


Canterbury has been improved dramatically over the past few years.

[V. Kmetz]

BH (and all).


1. We are talking about well-known championship tracks; so it's a nuance, not a slander.


2. Offer a denial that Oakland Hills S enjoyed far greater acclaim and gca interest in its first 65 years than its last 35... It's 65 years since Hogan uttered his victorious "Monster" comment, and RTJjr was in first flower as an Open Doctor; in fact, that occasion may have inaugurated the antithesis (of compromising classic courses for professional medal challenge) to that which earns acclaim today.


3. The real question is NOT if I would turn down a round at Oakland Hills S, the real question is how many of us would go how deep in the other thread (INcreasing acclaim) list, if I had to choose between one of them and OH S for that invite/opportunity...In my own case, scanning that list for ones I knew something about even 30 years ago...I see only a handful that I would choose OHS over now. I suspect others share that view.


cheers  vk

[Thomas Dai]

Jeff,
Curious to understand if your points about water are from the world or the US perspective?
Atb

[Ronald Montesano]

When the public readership/viewership is assaulted encouraged with pieces like this https://t.co/sqyPMoKNqr


where one list is cloaked as another, they need to dig deeper to find the red pill of truth that we have taken.


The best story of 2018-19 should be the Lazarus Project at Oak Hill. To take the East course back to 1925, if press releases are correct, given what has been done to it, should be on everyone's watch list.

[Jeff Schley]

Jeff,
Curious to understand if your points about water are from the world or the US perspective?
Atb

That was definitely the USA outcomes.  The international outcomes are in flux as we speak, because some nations view it as a get out of jail free card as the most influential signatory has backed out.  They may not back out themselves, but if they don't conform through policy changes and meet KPI's associated with the agreement, will there be repercussions?  I definitely feel that the only way for this type of systematic change of the planet to lower long term warming is through governmental regulation as business and many developing countries are only interested in the here and now.  I'm sad for the environment as backing out by the USA was a step back, however I also don't blame the administration as the agreement was going to cost the US at least 3 billion up front, then develop alternative means of energy over the term (estimates vary) which would be more costly and was proportionally going to shoulder the larger burden of funding, while India and China were allowed to increase their carbon footprint until 2030, then start to comply with implementation of alternative energy sources.

I have seen Al Gore's movie, which is largely about the Paris Agreement and how he seemed to single handedly get India to agree. This agreement was a great first step and only a democrat would have agreed to it, although I'm independent I'm more right leaning.  I am hopeful there will be a deal to be made which would require that CO2 emissions be restricted and governmental regulation is most certainly the only way to accomplish this.

As I previously pointed out, water is a large part of this conversation, although not directly.  The alternative means for restricting CO2 output, while still producing energy is water intensive. As we connect the dots if water use is restricted by policy for non-essential uses, it would be extension have an impact on golf course irrigation. That would certainly not only make it more costly, but also alter designs where desert target golf if used more prevalently, or maybe heaven help us artificial turf is used on tee boxes or maybe the whole course?  Who knows just trying to get us thinking about the cause and effect.