Why Such Mediocrity?

[Mike Hendren]

I recently played a course built in the past ten years that even though it was a cart-ball routing as part of a residential development could have so much better with much less work.    Here and there were examples of outstanding architectural features, but 90% of the balance looked mailed in.  I think us punters fail to appreciate that the lay of the land, the routing, the architecture and the construction must all come together to produce a truly outstanding golf course.  BUT, shouldn't a well-known architect be expected to produce a course that is fun to play,  includes an element or two of quirk, provides a modicum of strategy and is challenging without being overly penal?

If so, why don't they?

Bogey

[Tom_Doak]

A:  Because the client (probably a housing developer) didn't care whether the golf course was interesting, and the architect let that dictate how much effort he put into the job, instead of being driven by his own pride of authorship or internal motivations.


This is the fundamental reason for most of golfs problems today: many decisions are made about golf with something other than golf as the first priority.  Why are there so many golf carts? $$$  Why do courses cost so much to build? $$$  Etc.

[Ian Andrew]

Michael,


I truly believe that most of the young architects won't be building from raw sites for another 20+ years. But they soon will be rebuilding and rethinking these courses from this era. There are so many bad courses from this period, that many will have solid careers going from one project to the next re-creating interesting courses out of crappy ones. It's easier to re-purpose something that exists than build from scratch now.


I can think of a few regions where you could concentrate on a single architect and never run out of work.

[Tom_Doak]

It's easier to re-purpose something that exists than build from scratch now.

It's easier to get permits.


It's not easier to do great work.  The courses that we have redesigned took an enormous amount of de-construction that wouldn't have been necessary had we just built them from scratch.  It's very time-consuming and expensive to erase bad work.

[Ken Moum]

It's easier to re-purpose something that exists than build from scratch now.

It's easier to get permits.


It's not easier to do great work.  The courses that we have redesigned took an enormous amount of de-construction that wouldn't have been necessary had we just built them from scratch.  It's very time-consuming and expensive to erase bad work.

Yeah, but IMHO, fixing a few of the crappy designs would be doing a bigger service to the golfers of the United States than all the exotic "destination" courses combined at this point.


Not that i ahve anything against destination courses, for one thing I hope that they've increased the appetite for improving the courses we all have around us.


K

[John Kavanaugh]

If you put too much quirk in a housing development you're just going to get more houses hit. When I bought my house I thought is was safe because I only measured from the tee. Didn't take long to find out that is's the second shots that get me. Hell, a few weeks ago a guy threw his club in my pool.


Please, please, on the behalf of all home owners....big open greens and flat fairways.

[Lou_Duran]

It's easier to re-purpose something that exists than build from scratch now.

Is this true?  I've always heard the opposite (not having to correct other people's mistakes, or stuck with a poor routing, or having to save trees which were planted long ago in what are now wrong places).  It might be easier financially, but in the majority of cases, are you really getting a better course?


BTW, I disagree with the original premise.  I think that the average course as gotten better in the last 30 years at most levels even with fewer quality sites available for golf and much greater regulation.

[Ian Andrew]

Is this true?  I've always heard the opposite (not having to correct other people's mistakes, or stuck with a poor routing, or having to save trees which were planted long ago in what are now wrong places).  It might be easier financially, but in the majority of cases, are you really getting a better course?

It was a permit related comment.
It's become really challenging to build a new course anywhere near an urban centre.
Planning process is long, water permits are more complicated and land costs are sky high.
Easier to buy something and rebuild it - even completely ...

[JESII]

 Hell, a few weeks ago a guy threw his club in my pool.

That’s pretty good right there...

[JMEvensky]

 Hell, a few weeks ago a guy threw his club in my pool.

That’s pretty good right there...

Bad yardage from the caddie?

[John Kavanaugh]

I saw the guy a couple of days ago and asked what happened. Any of us who may have thrown a club in our youth can probably recall the classic held on the club too long toss. Funny thing is that he wanted to leave it but one of his buddies saw my wife working in the yard and couldn't resist calling her over for the ceremonial retrieval and apology. He proceeds to talk in a thick Scottish accent while playing the fool. Like I told my wife. That ain't no fake accent..


Now I'm curious what a Scot is doing in an area that only builds Toyota trucks or digs coal. I know he isn't a migratory worker because I bump into him year round. You just don't ask people who don't look like you or talk like you what they are doing in your town. But now I'm curious. I know that he doesn't own a local bar or work at the golf course. Honestly, what else could a hard drinking, club throwing, golf loving Scot be doing in a small Indiana town? Maybe he is just waiting for a loop.

[Joe Hancock]

JK,


Maybe he is the reincarnate of “the pizza guy”. (I hope my memory is serving me well about an odd story here many years ago!)

[SL_Solow]

Returning to the topic, although Barney's anecdote is enlightening, I respect all of the reasons given by the architects who responded.  But there is another possible and perhaps more likely reason.  Like any other profession, there are levels of competence within the GCA community.  A fair amount of the mediocre work is likely attributable to those with less talent taking on less attractive jobs and producing work at a level that can be expected from that combination of circumstances. I concede that is not a very nice or politic observation but that does not impact on its validity.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I guess that as in all trades there are artists and there are journeymen.


Journeymen fulfill the client's brief in a satisfactory matter using the minimum of thought and effort, collect their money, and move on.


The world is full of journeymen.


We however, celebrate the artists.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Fellows, whilst I am in agreement, you have to remember that some of the things you are attributing to mediocrity are a subjective rendering of the last 10%.


Some architects choose many of the visuals this website hates because they like them.


Some of these courses are complicated exercises in drainage first and foremost.


One thing that struck home to me was when I heard the 3rd or 4th story of clients complaining about the product that was left by one of the architects we generally bend over to praise on here (none of the big ones, no one on this thread).


Sometimes, there’s a bigger picture.


But yes, sometimes it’s just mediocrity and lack of time / detail / care, especially when jobs were ten-a-penny.

[SL_Solow]

Ally,  I agree that the definition of "mediocrity" is subjective.  I understand very well that the prevailing tastes found on this site are not shared by many golfers.  Only yesterday I heard complaints about the removal of a nondescript tree which had no strategic value and shaded a green.  The complaining member opposes the removal of any trees lest the course look like a "pasture".  apparently he has no love for links courses and he proclaims that its only a matter of taste and opinion.  On that point he is undoubtedly correct although I suggest that there is good and bad taste in most things. So I concede that many of the courses we criticize are what the owner asked for.  But that is the function of criticism; to evaluate work and to apply standards which might elevate the form which is the subject of analysis.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good discussion.
I'm not sure about Ian's point that today's young architects will have careers re-making 'interesting courses out of crappy ones'. If there are indeed mediocre courses around, they were designed & built by yesterday's once-young architects. What do the current up-and-coming architects have that their predecessors didn't? More education/training? Higher ideals? A post-renaissance sensibility?

[Mike_Young]

Hmmmm...   Mediocrity is not the problem in this business.  It's the just plain bad that is the problem.  As a regional guy it gripes me sometimes to hear the comments that are used to compare the average housing course vs. the top course in the country.  Honda and Toyota are damn good cars.  It takes talented engineers to build those cars and I am sure some have the ability and talent to design the Maserati but there are only so many Maserati jobs to be had and the Toyota job is probably a more secure job.  We don't describe the developments of $400,000- $500,000 homes as mediocre because they are not $3 million dollar homes.  I guess it would probably be safe to say that golf just wasn't meant to be in housing developments in most situations.

[SL_Solow]

Mike,  Well said.  I certainly don't expect every course to rival Pine Valley, Cypress etc. or to even approach the level of the very good but not great clubs.   But it isn't too much to ask for a course to present a variety of interesting shots, well conceived greens complexes and to be maintainable with an emphasis on good drainage.  Obviously some of these minimal goals are impacted by the site, hence your observation about the compatibility of housing developments with golf courses.  But too often a course meeting these minimal requirements (and perhaps more) could have been created.  Those are the ones that we should complain about.  Of course the very best architects are less likely to be interested in those jobs.  The real head scratchers occur when a good property with a decent budget yields a sub-standard course.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I used to belong to a course that originally was intended to be in a retirement community. The community did not go that way however. The course is not necessarily short but hazards are few and the greens are all circular with very little slope or undulation. I thought, why did the architect/developer think that older folks don't want interesting holes?


I live in a little golf/ski resort in the VA mts. the course is at best a 4 or 5. OPerdictable green bunkering, left and right front. Very few fairway bunkers and a creek that meanders throughout the property that is in play very few times. Makes me nuts.

[Ronald Montesano]

Mike Young ... mic drop

[George Pazin]

Returning to the topic, although Barney's anecdote is enlightening, I respect all of the reasons given by the architects who responded.  But there is another possible and perhaps more likely reason.  Like any other profession, there are levels of competence within the GCA community.  A fair amount of the mediocre work is likely attributable to those with less talent taking on less attractive jobs and producing work at a level that can be expected from that combination of circumstances. I concede that is not a very nice or politic observation but that does not impact on its validity.

With the frequently mentioned paucity of work out there for golf course architects, I’m somewhat surprised there are any mediocre GCAs left. T shirt printers are a dime a dozen, many do it out of their basements, but I’d think the barriers to entry combined with the lack of work would result in fewer mediocre GCAs.


Just a thought.


Happy New Year everyone, club tossers and all. I didn’t realize it was improper to ask what brought someone to an area, learned something new today (and everyday...). I ask people all the time where they’re from and what brought them to the burgh. Who knew?

[John Kavanaugh]

George,


It is better to accept a man as your equal than to ask him how he became your equal.

[George Pazin]

Can’t say I disagree with that, just never occurred to me that showing an interest in someone’s background and life implied any sort of inferiority. I’m still learning the ways of the world, I guess.

[Bill Raffo]

Quentin Tarantino has talked about how he lives a relatively frugal lifestyle so he doesn't have to "take a job to pay for a new pool."  For him, it's all about reaching artistically, every time out while being mindful of his oeuvre and not screwing up the body of work, as a whole.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if Tarantino did a bad Christmas movie and made a bundle, but I understand, as an artist, it would really bother him.

What architects, past or present, would most be like Tarantino in terms of wanting everything with their name on it to shine?