[ChipRoyce]

Great comment by John K. on the thread about a new Doak Par 3 course at Bandon.
I think this came up on Fried Egg.  Regardless of your love of the modern minimalists....
When folks are wanting something a bit different than the Doak / C&C / Hanse style... What themes / features will come in any future wave of course development?

[Jeff Schley]

Great comment by John K. on the thread about a new Doak Par 3 course at Bandon.
I think this came up on Fried Egg.  Regardless of your love of the modern minimalists....
When folks are wanting something a bit different than the Doak / C&C / Hanse style... What themes / features will come in any future wave of course development?

The waves are dependent on the economy IMO for the future directions.  I don't see many new courses being built, thus we are looking at renovations of existing tracks.  I think a minimalist style moves less dirt, which in turn is cheaper.  Golf went through the gluttonous 80/90's with housing developments being built up around new courses and with the correction in the last 10 years it still hasn't reached bottom yet of the correction IME.  I think we will continue to see some more correction as lower number of golfers, time spent is high for millennials, cost of playing/membership is prohibitive in some cases, etc.

If anything I think we could see 9 hole courses increase some and be like a niche for today's generation.  So in summary: more closures/correction, low/none new courses, only renovations with minimalist principles, 9 hole courses I think will increase due to time/cost and more attractive for kids/women.

[Tom_Doak]

Chip:


That great comment you just pulled is actually two years old, but at least you are catching up.


I would agree that too many modern courses look alike.  I don't think you can blame me for that, directly -- it's the product of both developers and architects wanting to imitate what has recently been popular and successful.  It happens all the time, in many many lines of work.


What it takes is for someone to come along and do something different that attracts attention, and that's what I will try to do on future projects, when the right situation comes along.  I don't think you could say that The Loop or The Mulligan are drowning in sameness, and I don't think you'll say that about Houston when we are done, either.


But if you could accurately predict what people want now, you should just go out there and build it, instead of complaining about nobody else doing it.

[Jason Topp]

Not predictions but concepts I would be interested in seeing:


1.  Geometric feature shaping - inspired by Macdonald/Raynor


2.  More of a middle ground on trees - Having grown up on tree lined courses, I believe trees provide interesting opportunities for shotmaking if used appropriately.  Instead of a choice between tunnels of trees or massive removal projects, I would like to see trees used in a restrained manner that yields opportunities for interesting recovery shots.  Some renovations have successfully used this approach.


3.  Use of tilt on greens rather than lumps and tiers.  Tilted greens are falling by the wayside because modern green speeds render them silly.  I would love to see greens slowed down a bit and tilt restored as an important green feature.


4.  New strategic approaches to combat distance disparity.  The gap between the long hitter and the short hitter has grown so great that the concept of taking on a difficult carry to get an advantageous angle has arguably become out of date and gives the player who can make the long carry a double reward.  Holes where a longer drive has a worse angle or where the landing area tightens up the longer a player hits the ball might more sense in the future.


5.  Re-thinking short grass surrounds to greens - Recent trends have favored short grass surrounds.  Such surrounds can yield one-dimensional play and lead to a lot of chunked chips on today's short grass.  I expect thinking on such features to continue to evolve.

[ChipRoyce]

That great comment you just pulled is actually two years old, but at least you are catching up.

My use of "great" is not that I necessarily agree, but great in terms of being provocative and hit onwhat may eventually be an emerging discussion / them for the next generation of GCA.

I saw that was a bit old, but not sure if it was on Andy's pod with you, or Geoff Ogilvy, but one conversation hinted at what comes next in design.

I figured when I posted, I'd get all sorts of thread killing posts (don't expect new courses, what's wrong with modern minimalism, etc....).

Not the object of this post.  Simply, if/when new courses are built, could we see different design styles emerge get ressurected?
For instance, do we see a revival of the Dye / Nicklaus design philosophy of the late 1980's, with a lot less of the penal / heroic features? (not advocating, just an example)

[Sean_A]

I am not convinced too many modern courses look the same.  We are "victims" of high profile openings in recent years which to one degree or another follow the Sand Hills look. Its easy to conclude too many modern courses look the same when in truth its an incredibly small number of courses in the big scheme of modern architecture, but they tend to be media darlings. 

One great aspect of modern designers is the willingness to restore (or extrapolate how a course "should" look) features, styles and looks of and on golden age courses.  I think this side of design will continue to grow in importance and may even lead to new archies looking at taking a step away from naturalism in favour of a more raw, functional manner.  If we move away from bunkers this rough and ready earthworks approach may become easier to achieve. Even with bunkers, more could be done to expand the Pete Dye look of Harbor Town or The Golf Club.  I think, for instance, Castle Stuart was edging more in that direction.  In retrospect, perhaps not far enough. 

While how a course looks is very important, I am more interested in archies who are proposing ideas which effect how courses play.  Meaning the exploration of different length courses in terms of yardage, par, number of holes, alternative routes etc etc. From this perspective, a guy like Doak has been outstanding and I think he will continue to be outstanding.  The day may come when even see him depart from a naturalism style.

I am very keen to see design bifuraction.  I really don't buy into the concept of a course truly playable for all unless the the back two sets of tees are basically where the nearly all of the extra walk happens.  Meaning the course is primarily designed, as in green to tee walks, from the 5500-6000ish yardage perspective.  That doesn't happen often at all and when it does happen it is often older courses which have simply added back tees for big boys.  Pinehurst is a good and rare example of this.  You want to play way back, the onus of the added walk will then be on you.  However, my idea for bifuraction is really to focus more on women, seniors and kids.  Much smaller property, tight knit design for a good walk and tips out at 5700ish.  I may be wrong, but I think we have seen 9 hole versions of this in recent years.  For some reason it seems to be more acceptable if a course isn't the "full 18". Anyway, I think folks get the idea.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I agree with Sean, part of the "problem" is just that there aren't many new courses at all, and they are all being built by a handful of architects who come from similar foundations.


The thread title itself is pretty silly.  How many "new World Top 25 courses" is there room for?  I've only been asked for a "world top 50 course" [twice so far] . . .

[Mike Hendren]

Compare and contrast the hole below with Ran's photograph of Dunaverty on the home page. 



A second Golden Age you say. 

Bogey

[Jeff Schley]

The thread title itself is pretty silly.  How many "new World Top 25 courses" is there room for?  I've only been asked for a "world top 50 course" [twice so far] . . .

Yep... I would think creating a great course is much more realistic than saying create a Top 25 course in the world, for which course are you doing to supplant? Pretty deep bench there.

[Tom_Doak]

Compare and contrast the hole below with Ran's photograph of Dunaverty on the home page. 

Bogey:


I was going to ask, "Where's that?," but of course that's the problem, isn't it?  If the style gets too familiar, then you aren't delivering the individual character a course needs to be one of the greats.


Of course, it's not realistic for every new course to be one of the greats.  Most are happy just to be mistaken for one of them.

[Thomas Dai]

I’d love to see more courses akin to The Loop. Variety but on the same piece of property.......with the sneaky bonus of no trees behind greens!
Also courses with less overall yardage than the current norm but with more quirk and/or with all evil/interesting green complexes. Bit like the Little Big Nine, maybe a bit more user friendly, but with some short par-4 and short par-5 holes.
Golf takes way too long to play. Convertion by the splitting existing 18-hole courses into different kinds of 9-hole course aimed at different kinds of player, ie one Nine for bombers and those wanting a long challenge, the other Nine much shorter for other folks.
As to maintenance, less manicuring. And where circumstances and no rustlers or hungry big critters exist to steel, or eat them, more use of sheep and goats to do the ‘mowing’.
Atb

[Mike Hendren]

Of course, it's not realistic for every new course to be one of the greats.  Most are happy just to be mistaken for one of them.

This is perhaps the post of the decade.

Bogey

[Kalen Braley]

This is an interesting topic that I have a hard time understanding, and perhaps i just need more specifics....

For example, I've played 6 Doak courses and seen 1 up close.  Yes they were all in different locations, but they all have far more differences than similarities, (and those similarities are good qualities like F&F and interesting greens). But even for courses right next to each other like Pac Dunes and Old Mac, I've played Pac Dunes and seen enough of Old Mac in pictures, to see different things going on.

P.S.  Is this people just looking at aerials on Google Maps?  Cause I can admit, most golf courses look the same from that view 

[Mike Hendren]

I think today's roster of influential architects, and perhaps the junior varsity as well have the ability and talent to take architecture in a different direction.  It's likely the capital that cries for more of the same.  This quote from Steve Jobs has merit:  "People don't know what they want until you show them."

Perhaps the "retail golfer" as well as the high-end destination club member is pliable and impressionable.  Then again, history tells us that pioneers typically got shot.

Bogey

[Peter Pallotta]

Of course, it's not realistic for every new course to be one of the greats.  Most are happy just to be mistaken for one of them.

This is perhaps the post of the decade.
Bogey

Yes indeed.
Was thinking: maybe gca is like the wheel - not in that it always keeps turning (with fashions coming and going) but in that you can't actually re-invent it.
It's apparently very easy to be mistaken for one of the greats, even by the know-it-alls around here.
Sure: because in essence & essentials (as a field of play) if not in style & semantics (an an object d'art) you can't really *return* to Dye or Nicklaus or to Dr Mac and Donald Ross, because they never went away -- they're all here already.
They didn't reinvent the wheel either.
Neither has Tom - his courses have 'been around' (in the ether, as it were) for 100 years.
Personally I most want to visit & play The Loop (well, that and Ballyneal) but that's because their style & semantics are my cup of tea. In any good work, the essence & essentials are a given -- as with this fine old world, I can be pretty sure the wheels will keep spinning around.
My .2 cents
P

[Peter Flory]

Arcadia South seems like an attempt to buck the trend a bit.  The more successful that is, the more confidence someone will have in the next variant. 

[Mike Sweeney]

It's Torrey Pines weekend. I consider San Diego a "vacation home" as we hang out there almost every July 4th. Who could not go for some of that weather in January? That said, a little "sameness" on one of two courses would be nice as the green grass between the Cypress trees on the Cliffs of La Jolla is just disappointing:

[jeffwarne]

Not predictions but concepts I would be interested in seeing:


1.  Geometric feature shaping - inspired by Macdonald/Raynor


2.  More of a middle ground on trees - Having grown up on tree lined courses, I believe trees provide interesting opportunities for shotmaking if used appropriately.  Instead of a choice between tunnels of trees or massive removal projects, I would like to see trees used in a restrained manner that yields opportunities for interesting recovery shots.  Some renovations have successfully used this approach.


3.  Use of tilt on greens rather than lumps and tiers.  Tilted greens are falling by the wayside because modern green speeds render them silly.  I would love to see greens slowed down a bit and tilt restored as an important green feature.


4.  New strategic approaches to combat distance disparity.  The gap between the long hitter and the short hitter has grown so great that the concept of taking on a difficult carry to get an advantageous angle has arguably become out of date and gives the player who can make the long carry a double reward.  Holes where a longer drive has a worse angle or where the landing area tightens up the longer a player hits the ball might more sense in the future.


5.  Re-thinking short grass surrounds to greens - Recent trends have favored short grass surrounds.  Such surrounds can yield one-dimensional play and lead to a lot of chunked chips on today's short grass.  I expect thinking on such features to continue to evolve.

2,3 and 5-awesome!
1 and 4? I'm willing to play along for variety's sake though 4 would be less needed if the equipment was properly regulated/rolled back

[Ally Mcintosh]

Not predictions but concepts I would be interested in seeing:


1.  Geometric feature shaping - inspired by Macdonald/Raynor


2.  More of a middle ground on trees - Having grown up on tree lined courses, I believe trees provide interesting opportunities for shotmaking if used appropriately.  Instead of a choice between tunnels of trees or massive removal projects, I would like to see trees used in a restrained manner that yields opportunities for interesting recovery shots.  Some renovations have successfully used this approach.


3.  Use of tilt on greens rather than lumps and tiers.  Tilted greens are falling by the wayside because modern green speeds render them silly.  I would love to see greens slowed down a bit and tilt restored as an important green feature.


4.  New strategic approaches to combat distance disparity.  The gap between the long hitter and the short hitter has grown so great that the concept of taking on a difficult carry to get an advantageous angle has arguably become out of date and gives the player who can make the long carry a double reward.  Holes where a longer drive has a worse angle or where the landing area tightens up the longer a player hits the ball might more sense in the future.


5.  Re-thinking short grass surrounds to greens - Recent trends have favored short grass surrounds.  Such surrounds can yield one-dimensional play and lead to a lot of chunked chips on today's short grass.  I expect thinking on such features to continue to evolve.

2,3 and 5-awesome!
1 and 4? I'm willing to play along for variety's sake though 4 would be less needed if the equipment was properly regulated/rolled back

I was thinking that I don’t agree with 5 at all. I’ve always seen 3 shots on short grass (high wedge, low chip and run, putt) whereas there’s only one, sometimes two options when playing from longer grass / rough.

[jeffwarne]

Ally-agreed on the options being less from rough.


The point we were trying to make is the modern trend is to surround greens with super tight grass that a putt/hybrid is simply the only shot.
Less so in your neck of the woods where the turf is firmer and not cut to a bikini wax height.
If only the first part of "firm and fast" were the emphasis-but the second part is sadly more often measured.


Variety is the spice of life and while many lamented the trend of greens surrounded by rough in the 80's and 90's, the pendulum has swung the other way in new construction and redo's or simple maintenance changes, which combined with modern agronomy and/or soft conditions--has created a world where the chunk is inevitable and avoidable only by choosing to putt
Thus reducing options for a creative player.

[D_Malley]

https://www.bestapproach.com/cotf/


Check out the link above which explores many ideas about how to build/renovate Golf Courses for optimal use in the future.


This covers many areas like building small 3-4 hole loops within the course, practice range which also functions as a event venue, also building kids playgrounds near practice facility, water usage, turf types.


It is an interactive map where you can click on each icon for a description of each design element.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally-agreed on the options being less from rough.


The point we were trying to make is the modern trend is to surround greens with super tight grass that a putt/hybrid is simply the only shot.
Less so in your neck of the woods where the turf is firmer and not cut to a bikini wax height.
If only the first part of "firm and fast" were the emphasis-but the second part is sadly more often measured.


Variety is the spice of life and while many lamented the trend of greens surrounded by rough in the 80's and 90's, the pendulum has swung the other way in new construction and redo's or simple maintenance changes, which combined with modern agronomy and/or soft conditions--has created a world where the chunk is inevitable and avoidable only by choosing to putt
Thus reducing options for a creative player.

Got it. You don’t have to worry on the courses I’m working on. Lots of short grass and lots of options (I hope).

[Sean_A]

Ally-agreed on the options being less from rough.

The point we were trying to make is the modern trend is to surround greens with super tight grass that a putt/hybrid is simply the only shot.
Less so in your neck of the woods where the turf is firmer and not cut to a bikini wax height.
If only the first part of "firm and fast" were the emphasis-but the second part is sadly more often measured.

Variety is the spice of life and while many lamented the trend of greens surrounded by rough in the 80's and 90's, the pendulum has swung the other way in new construction and redo's or simple maintenance changes, which combined with modern agronomy and/or soft conditions--has created a world where the chunk is inevitable and avoidable only by choosing to putt
Thus reducing options for a creative player.

Jeff

I think I understand your point, but the conclusion is odd.  A decent player still has the option to use a putter, flat iron, hybrid or even wedge off short grass.  That is never the case with longer grass.  I guess my approach would concentrate more on firm and short...which means the grass doesn't have to that short to get the job done.  For instance, 7(ish)m will work just fine if conditions are at all firm.  Even for parkland courses, I don't much see the point of grass higher than 13(ish)m around greens.  If firmness is no achieveable, then 25(ish)m grass leads to chunks as well.  You can't have it both ways! 

All that said, I do recall Royal Wimbledon had a cool mix of extended short surrounds and short surrounds which fed to longer rough or bunkers.  Often times for fallaways there was short surrounds to take the ball away from the target, but on high ground there was longer rough to stop balls creeping back to the target.  But the rough still offered some hope with options because there wasn't an extended area of long grass which had to be carried.  One could flop out of the rough or try to bang a kicker to reach the short grass then climb onto the green.  Of course, putter was taken out of play, but as I said, there were some holes with much more extended short grass.  I don't know who the super (is/was), but I was impressed.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Sean,
Agreed 100% in spirit-a bit less so in practice.
There comes a point where the only way to hit the center of the club is to take a divot unless incredibly shallow and precise.
These are not turf heights one commonly would see in the UK, particularly not at the classic courses you often highlight. And when reduced to the turf height I'm referring to, (less than 1/4 of an inch) the turf is often soft-especially in hot weather.
Suddenly the emphasis is so geared to solid contact that the imagination, visualization and creativity fail.
After a few of those events, the player simply bumbles it along the ground unless HIGHLY skilled.


Agronony skill has outraced wedge skill IMHO.


RW sounds interesting.

[Mark Chaplin]

Jason your no.5 is the biggest tosh I’ve ever seen on GCA. Short grass lies give you the option to putt, chip with a rescue, chip and run with anything between a 4 iron and 9 iron, pitch and run or fly in with a pitch and stop.


Let me think of the options from lush 3 inch grass?? Oh blast with a sand iron and hope.


The great thing with the short grass options are none are the right or wrong way to play the shot, it’s down to the players vision.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()