The Architects Strike Back - LONG ARTICLE

[Lester_Bernham]

The Architects Strike Back
Some leading course designers have a message for all of you who want the ball to go farther and farther: be careful what you wish for.


by John Atwood  
Yes, we are all amused by the Titleist commercials in which John Cleese parodies the plight of the modern golf-course architect—even many of the designers themselves are doubtlessly entertained. But like all great comedy, these ads contain more than a germ of truth: Golf-course designers are indeed worried about the changes that ball and club technology breakthroughs are forcing on the game. Of greatest concern is the distance the ball now travels, and what that means to the construction of new courses and to the viability of old ones. To better understand their particular perspective, T&L Golf assembled five notable architects—Arthur Hills, Dr. Michael Hurdzan, Rees Jones, Jay Morrish and Damian Pascuzzo—for a wide-ranging discussion. Their conversation revealed some intriguing side effects of technology that don't often get considered, among them the hidden costs to golfers, the land-use consequences and the safety of those on and even near courses. Here, without tears (and no visible plaid boxers), the defenders of par defend their point of view.
The topic today is distance—how the new technology that enables players to hit the ball farther is affecting courses old and new. Damian, get us started. In 1994 the American Society of Golf Course Architects (ASGCA) issued a paper about technology, warning of what it might do to the game, and then in 2001 it felt obliged to issue yet another paper on the subject. What's the consensus at this point about where we are, and how do you define the problem?

DAMIAN PASCUZZO: Well, I'd say we're more concerned than ever, and the problem is so multifaceted it's kind of hard to know where to begin. As architects, we're uniquely positioned to see the impact that ball flight is having on golf courses. We see it on the old golf courses that have now become obsolete for tournaments and are probably much easier for even average players because they're using different clubs than the original architect intended. We're seeing it on new course development because we now need to ask for more land to build a golf course on—200 acres instead of, say, 150 acres—which impacts the bottom line and is going to be reflected in greens fees. I don't think it's a big jump in logic to say the rising cost has to be a contributing factor to why the game has a flat growth rate for the last three or four years. And as we look down the road another ten or twenty years, which is not a particularly long time in the golf business, we have to ask, Where are we going to be if we don't start putting some curbs in place now?

Yet the new equipment arguably makes the game more fun for average players because they can hit the ball farther.

PASCUZZO: Yes, but they're not only hitting it longer, they're hitting it farther right and left. I'm more of a blue-collar guy because I grew up on public courses and still play on them, with avid golfers in great shape. I call them the FedEx guys. They're not particularly good, they don't have great form, but they're strong and swing the club with tremendous speed, and they're the ones who are hitting it sideways. Boy, it gets ugly. I'll tell you, I have stood there on the tee watching these guys, and when they pump it out of bounds I'm thinking, Two or three years ago when I was doing conceptual plans and construction drawings, I never imagined you could hit it there.

So when the ASGCA argues that safety is a concern, that is what you mean? Wild shots?

PASCUZZO: Yes. Think about the older courses that had 300- or 320-foot corridors in 1970 or 1972, which at that time was perfectly adequate. And now you've gone from, say, not only the front line of adjacent houses being in jeopardy, but also those on the far side of the street. If you were to lay out a course today, your envelope would encompass those additional houses. What are those older courses going to do? They're thirty years old, relatively young in golf terms, and they can't push their elbows out any more. They're not going to buy up the first-row houses and expand the fairways, yet the clubs and the balls and the players are putting them in play.

REES JONES: It's not just a safety issue—it's a fun issue. If they're hitting it that far off line and not finding their balls because they're so deep in the woods or off the course, it's not much fun. Plus, when your ball goes off the planet it gets expensive—you lose a dozen balls a round.

ARTHUR HILLS: Another key factor is the time expended looking for wild shots. Speed of play is important because with all the recreational activities that we have to compete with for a dollar, we must change the perception that golf takes a long time to play. Courses must be more playable, and as a result more enjoyable and less time-consuming.

JONES: One difficulty that young parents have is they don't want to be away from their children that much. They may play tennis—it takes them an hour. They don't want to be away for six hours. A lot of people don't play golf on the weekends just because it can take so long.

So one counterintuitive argument is that the longer ball is slowing play, even though it travels farther. How are all these changes affecting course design? Do layouts need to be longer and thus more difficult?

PASCUZZO: I don't think the courses have to be more difficult, necessarily, but if you're talking about challenging the best players—and I'm not talking only about Tour pros, but even the single-digit-handicap amateurs who are hitting the ball so much farther and on line—then yes, you are looking at design a little bit differently. From my perspective, the game is becoming a little more segregated; the gap between the average guy and the top 2 or 3 percent is wider than it ever was. So the issue is, How do you handle both of those guys? How do you challenge one without either boring or totally overwhelming the other? It's a very thin tightwire that we need to walk.

But the game isn't getting any easier for most players. The average handicap is the same as it was ten years ago: nineteen to twenty. The new equipment may make it more fun for the average player, but he isn't scoring any better.

DR. MICHAEL HURDZAN: The reason the average guy has a high handicap is because he can't put the club on the right swing plane and move it with enough speed and hit it in the same spot every time. Look at a professional's club and you could put a dime over the sweet spot where it's worn away—they're maximizing the technology. But the average guy doesn't derive nearly the same benefit. I just don't think the average guy is hitting the ball that much farther.

So your design strategy hasn't changed?

HURDZAN: Well, although we allow for the guy who hits 300-yard drives, we design our courses with average golfers in mind. That said, things have changed in the fact that we used to have three sets of tees and now we have five. We try to build golf courses over 7,200 yards, where before we might have been happy at 6,800. But a lot of that is just marketing. People don't think it's a first-class golf course unless it's over 7,000 yards.

JONES: That's been the case for a long time, though.

You're not worried about existing landlocked golf courses that can't be lengthened anymore?

HURDZAN: What can I say? Personally, no, I'm not.

JAY MORRISH: I remodeled Dallas Country Club a couple of years ago. It's on 117 acres. . . .

HURDZAN: That I'd worry about.

MORRISH: . . . and Hank Kuehne was there. The first hole was 345 yards, and he asked for a one-iron because his three-wood would go over the green. I know a lot of guys who hit the ball, maybe not like Hank Kuehne, but they are long, and they are also wild, and they go out there and there is nobody safe anywhere on that golf course.

HILLS: At many, many courses the potential for expansion has been realized. They just can't go much farther back. Augusta had to buy more property for the thirteenth tee.

It's expensive to run a big golf course. We've been involved in numerous golf-course renovations that have required an investment by each member of the club— anywhere from three to seven thousand dollars. If you transfer that same kind of cost to public golf courses—where the majority of golfers play—it's going to cost more to play. Another fifteen or twenty dollars more, but it's not going to really enhance anyone's enjoyment of the game. You're paying for something that isn't really of value. So there's a need to carefully consider all the implications of equipment that enables you to hit the ball farther and farther and balance it with the interests of everyone who likes to play the game.

[Lester_Bernham]

I hear a lot of talk about courses being made obsolete. . . .

HILLS: Courses are not becoming obsolete for the average golfer, the eighteen-handicap golfer. They're not becoming obsolete for most golfers. But fifty or seventy-five years ago, championship golf courses were built at 6,100, 6,200, 6,300 yards. Now we're up to 7,000, and very quickly we're expanding that to 7,500, 7,600, 7,700.

Name some courses that you think are becoming obsolete for the very top players.

MORRISH: I was a consultant at Cherry Hills in Denver for four or five years. It's a marvelous course, but it's driver, nine-iron or wedge for touring pros today. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt that Cherry Hills will ever hold another major, unless it's a Senior Open.

HILLS: Merion, which is a tremendous course, among the top ten in the country, is now largely discounted for any top tournaments because of its length.

HURDZAN: I know some good golfers who played Merion East recently, and they were saying that even at 6,500, 6,600 yards, it's still a great test of golf for them. I don't know whether it would be for Tiger Woods.

How is it that they continue to have championships at venues like the Old Course at St. Andrews?

JONES: They added length there. Plus, the wind is a factor at St. Andrews, and the bunkers are so severe—more severe than ours. It's a penalty when you go in them. And the heathland courses are not as well-maintained. The greens aren't well-maintained. Furthermore, in the British Isles the game is match play. I play against you, mano a mano. It doesn't matter what our total score is. It doesn't matter if it's a short or a long golf course. Here, it's the golf course versus the player. Everybody adds up all their scores—everything is stroke play. So over there they can have a par sixty-six and still have a good time. The technology doesn't affect their pleasure as much as it does ours.

But I think it's affected our older golf courses—the 6,200-, 6,300-, 6,400-yard courses that can't expand. Fortunately, a lot of these golf courses have very strong green contours that still make you position the ball on a certain part of the green or not miss it in a certain place. But now players are hitting wedges instead of five-irons to some of these greens. So they're more apt to be on it. The game is becoming less of a challenge even for the strong average golfer. Plus, I think there's been so much emphasis on the driver that when a new player comes to the game, all he wants to do is hit that club. It's like hitting home runs, going to see Barry Bonds in the new park with a short fence. They love hitting it farther, which is helping young people come into the game and enjoy it, but they're forgetting their short game, the putting, the recovery and the long irons. To some degree it's taking a lot of the pleasure out of the game. If we don't stop it soon, it's going to be a driver, wedge, utility wedge and putter game for everybody.

MORRISH: I saw Gary Player on the Golf Channel a few weeks ago, and he said the way things are progressing, he expects the touring pros to be routinely driving four-hundred-yard holes in the next five years.

PASCUZZO: I had a client a couple of years ago who insisted we design a 7,800-yard golf course. I laughed at him until I realized he was serious. I said, "Why do you want to do that?" He said, "In twenty years, when they're regularly hitting it 350 off the tee, I don't want to have to trick up the greens to defend par."

MORRISH: When I first got into this business, we were capable of designing a 7,000-yard golf course that would force you to hit all fourteen clubs. I don't know what we would have to do right now, today, to guarantee that a good player would have to hit every club in his bag.

HILLS: At Oakmont Country Club they have a charity event every year with thirty-some players from the Tour. They charted all the shots. On no par four did a player hit more than a driver and nine-iron.

Again, I think you're all describing the situation as it applies to the very best players, but even within that set, there are some interesting things you see, like last year at Torrey Pines. Reese, how many yards did you add to the South course?

JONES: Five fifty-two.

Making the course 7,600 yards long, and yet that tournament was won by Jose Maria Olazabal, one of the shorter hitters.

JONES: They didn't play the maximum yardage any day, but you're right. The rough was decent. The fairways were narrowed a little, and the green contours were challenging. So other factors came into it. Even the eighteenth, the way we designed it, Daly couldn't hit it and Tiger couldn't hit it.

What I'm getting at is another counterintuitive thought—when you make a course longer, it can actually put more of an emphasis on the short game. Because you're hitting longer approach shots, you miss more, and have to play more recovery shots.

JONES: Well, yes, but we don't have the luxury to design small greens anymore, because of the volume of play. Old courses that have smaller greens are those like Brookline, which doesn't have a high volume of play. But today we can't defend par by having smaller targets.

See, we as golf-course architects want to make golf a game of continuing interest. If it's going to be a game of power, it's not going to be a game of strategy. Really, if we can get the ball back to a reasonable distance, then you're going to have choices. Ben Hogan was playing golf with a friend of mine, playing the fourteenth hole at Augusta, and the fellow asked him, "What club should I hit, Mr. Hogan?" And Hogan responded, "That's a dumb question." The man said, "Why is that?" And Hogan said, "Because you haven't told me what shot you're going to hit—you have four different ones that you could attempt. First tell me what you're going to attempt, then I'll tell you what club to hit." I think we're losing those choices by having the ball go so far. I think we want to get that back. We want to bring the strategy into the game more with shot options and choices.

PASCUZZO: You're absolutely right. There's a famous picture of Hogan on the eighteenth at Merion just as he's completed his swing. He's got a one- or a two-iron in his hand. That shot is now an eight-iron. Is that as interesting and intriguing?

There is what I call a "cultural" impact to this, because people who have come into the game don't necessarily know what it's like to play strategic golf. If they've never experienced it, they don't know the joys of it. They think golf is in many ways hazardless, and not knowing the other type of golf that exists or the way the game should truly be played, many times they come back to the architect and blame him. They say, "Why did you put that bunker there? That's in my area. That's in the place where we can hit the ball." Or, "Why is that greenside bunker so steep?" I have to explain to them that I've provided alternatives on how to avoid those hazards, but they didn't perceive that. They didn't read the hole the way they were supposed to. Maybe because they've never been asked to before. I don't know if "cultural" is the right word, but I see it in player attitudes.

[Lester_Bernham]

It sounds like there is a component of this that's the responsibility of the people who are teaching golf. Instructors have probably been emphasizing power as much as anything, because that's what many students come to them for. They want to hit the ball farther. Perhaps instructors are not teaching the strategic component of the game as much.

JONES: Well, as you say, that's what the player wants.

MORRISH: I was talking to Byron Nelson not long ago, trying to compare his game back in 1941 to the way these kids are playing today. He said: "The number-one thing is they are just bigger and stronger. They measured my swing. Now they've measured Davis Love's swing, and he is seventeen inches longer on his arc. That translates to power. Pure and simple. Forget the modern equipment, that's just more power he's generating himself."

When I was a kid, they didn't have these semis that traveled around from tournament to tournament where these guys can go in, after a round of golf, and do stretching exercises and weight lifting and whatever they need to do. Now you see half these kids going in for their weight training every day. Back in the old days, players used to walk off the golf course and head to the bar and grab a couple of beers and talk about their games.

Well, in terms of the athletes training themselves to peak performance levels, you can't fault them for that. That's just taking golf, like any sport, to its maximum potential. It's great to see golfers training better. So then it comes down to courses and equipment. Are there other factors that I'm missing?

HILLS: I think we can design courses to challenge any golfer at any given time, given the resources and the land to do it. We can challenge the Tour players. We can make the courses long enough so that they're hitting three-woods, three-irons and four-irons into the greens and having difficult shots around the greens. That's certainly doable. It would be a lot more reasonable if we could keep all the good courses that we have now in the same kind of balance and just do it with the golf ball. We probably can't do it with other aspects of equipment, but it can be done with the ball. There are many advocates of this.

Why are you focusing on the ball as opposed to the clubs?

HILLS: The golf ball is more finite, maybe. It's more defined.

MORRISH: Also, you keep replenishing the ball. Say some guy goes out and spends three thousand dollars on new golf clubs; you don't want to hurt him. But if he's going through a dozen balls in three rounds or so, he can replace them and you don't feel bad.

JONES: Plus, if you have a club built to hit the ball farther, it's still going to hit a throttled-back ball relatively farther. So manufacturers can still advertise that way. Jay is right. The ball could be stepped back, and I don't think it would really hurt the manufacturers. They would just redo their specs. Of course, the contrary argument is simply that young golfers like to see their ball sail out there a long way.

HURDZAN: I think that this new technology is good for the game. I think it's good for the average player. It may not be good for tournament golf, but I think that if it gets people interested, if people think they can play better, if they're willing to spend their money in the industry thinking they can play better, I don't have any problem with it. Every time there has been a major technological advance, the game has grown. When we went from a featherie ball, which was going to ruin all the golf courses, to the gutta-percha, the game grew. When we went from the gutta-percha to the wound ball, the game grew. When we went from wood-shafted to steel-shafted clubs, the game grew. Every time we've had these advances, it's made the game a little easier for the average person, and the game has grown.

PASCUZZO: We're only considering part of the story here. The problem that golf is facing right now is that participation rates have been flat for four or five years. I think all of us in the golf industry have a vested interest in growing the game, whether you're a manufacturer or an architect or whatever. Yet we keep putting roadblocks in front of ourselves. To get a project approved now, you have to go through more regulatory scrutiny than Alister MacKenzie could ever have imagined. People who have the opportunity to say yes or no about your project are asking you about water consumption. They're asking you about how much pesticide and fertilizer you're putting on the golf course. And twenty years ago you were at 100 acres of turf grass; now all of a sudden you're at 150 or 160 or 180 acres. Those factors have real impacts. They have dollar impacts and they have impacts on the people who can say thumbs-up or thumbs-down to your project. That's sort of the other half of this picture—if we continue to make golf courses longer to satisfy the best players, to keep up with the club and ball technology, we have to go into public hearings and talk about needing more water, turf and land.

JONES: It's about cost—how many acres, how much turf do you have to maintain? Those costs translate to the golfer. These new courses, the only ones theoretically capable of adapting to everybody's game, are going to be bigger with more expenses. They're going to cost more to play. So the poor golfer buying his $550 driver is only going to want to go to the courses that can accommodate his game, and they're going to be more expensive. The old courses that he used to go to for a reasonable price, he won't want to play anymore. I think that's an important factor.

PASCUZZO: When you talk about cost, basic affordability, you look at how golf has changed versus other things that are vying for recreation dollars. When I was a kid, skiing was the expensive sport. Now I live an hour from Lake Tahoe, and here's the thing: I can take my family to a premium ski resort on a Saturday and spend less money than I would taking them to a premium golf club to play golf. That's the honest truth. My daughter can ski for ten bucks and my sixteen-year-old can ski for thirty, and my wife and I ski for fifty each. If I go to a premium golf club, I pay a hundred bucks for each of us.

There are plenty of places where you can still play for a lot less than that.

PASCUZZO: I'm trying to make the comparison equal—I want to go to a good ski resort, I want to go to a good golf course. What are the options for the average guy? For somebody who is trying to take a family out to play golf or introduce them to golf? It's very expensive, and maybe that's why soccer is so popular now among families with kids. Easy entry level, and it has all the communal relationships and aspects you're looking for.

JONES: And the ball can't go very far.

[Lester_Bernham]

Let's go back to the golf ball. What precisely do you mean when you talk about restricting the distance balls can go? Spin rates? Materials?

PASCUZZO: We're not smart enough to determine whether it's spin or materials or whatever. Our position as a society is that we're just telling you guys that this is a serious problem that's impacting the game, because we're the guys who see it every day.

The thing the manufacturers ought to be looking at is going from twenty-four million golfers to thirty-four million golfers. That would mean another ten million buying golf balls. Who cares if they go 200 yards, 250 yards or 300 yards?

HILLS: Intimidation is a big factor in golf, and distance can be intimidating for a new golfer, who is not hitting it very far—to go out there and see people overpower the ball.

Perhaps, but distance is also inspirational. Participation levels may be flat, but in terms of spectator interest, the game is growing. And a lot of that is because of the power game.

MORRISH: I think the Tour is enamored with the birdiefest. There are a couple of golf courses they play every year where the members play the course longer than the Tour players do. And I think that's wrong.

JONES: Birdies sell tickets.

PASCUZZO: Even on the Champions Tour. That's their major concern—to have those guys shooting under par.

But I would challenge your premise a little bit that people are attracted as spectators to the sport because of the power game. I think golf has done a better job marketing itself. Nike has done a nice job with Tiger. I think that the twenty-somethings have found it cool to hang out at golf tournaments. Phoenix is the extreme example, but I think you see a different demographic at a lot of Tour stops just because it's sort of the thing right now.

Since you brought up advertising, I'll mention the Titleist commercials with John Cleese. The ads are absurd, of course, but the point they're making is a good one and obviously, to some degree, true: You feel you have to make the courses harder to defend against new equipment. How do you think differently about design now when you're planning a course?

JONES: I think we want the hazards, either the bunkers or the water hazards or the wetlands, to be effective. If you have short shots coming in, those hazards are going to be less effective, so the strategy of the game is diminished. There is less risk and more reward. The thought process is lost. When I learned to play golf, we didn't even have yardage markers. We used to design courses with bunkers forty yards out front to make it look like the green was closer. We would build big bunkers to make the green look like it was closer, and small ones to make it look farther away.

PASCUZZO: Players have too much information these days.

So you're saying that golf courses are not as deceptive as they used to be?

JONES: They're really not deceptive at all anymore.

But to get back to the question posed earlier: How are you designing differently today?

HILLS: Well, for one thing, we think about putting the dogleg hazards farther out. Maybe more length to that hazard so that it can capture shots from 270 to 320, or something like that. I still like to see greens as small as is feasible for the amount of play that is anticipated—greens like those at Pinehurst No. 2, where if you miss in certain places, the ball runs a good distance away.

JONES: To places where you have several shot options, which makes the game more fun.

MORRISH: I'm involved a lot with a course in Dallas where we play the Byron Nelson. Tiger comes up there and airmails everybody except for Davis Love and a few other long hitters. So I've started putting some key trees out there at about 360 yards, where the mortal is going to drive and still be fifty yards back. From there he can work the ball around the tree if he has to. Tiger, if he misses the shot a little bit, he's going to be up where that tree is, which he has to really get under or around.

PASCUZZO: I think it's easy for the whole discussion about distance, not just in this room but anywhere in the golf industry, to move off track and focus on Tour players, when the issue is probably much more pertinent to average players. What effect are these longer, harder courses going to have on those guys as well as on those people who just want to learn the game? The National Golf Foundation talks about a pent-up demand of another fifteen or twenty million people who say they would like to play golf but feel that it takes too long or is not accessible. Remember, I grew up in Los Angeles playing my public county course on a weekend for $3.50.

HURDZAN: Which is why this new ASGCA initiative that Damian has taken on, Affordable Accessible Golf, is so important.

PASCUZZO: The ASGCA has just published a book on practical golf, in an attempt to make developers aware that you can build alternative, affordable facilities and make them training grounds. Six-hole courses and training centers—but not fancy training centers. Then nine-hole and eighteen-hole courses that are easy to play. If we can get people out to less expensive courses where they can be successful and not be intimidated, then they can move on.

One thing we know for sure: Golf is an addictive game. Once you get people comfortable with it, they tend to stick around.

[ian]

Lester,

Thanks, I enjoyed reading that article.

I know Jay Morrish has made the comment that this was a perfect time to retire. He has always liked to bunker the inside of doglegs using precise carry distances. He stated that every time he built a new course, the ever lengthening ball would make the bunkers obsolete three years later. He was tired of guessing.

He asked a question of how do you design for this. The only thing I have begun to worry is that architects will start to abandon the carry angle for triangulation. Triangulation is placing alternating bunkers every 50 or so yards apart with bunkers in play for every level; the great advantage being that longer drives may bring a "former" target" bunker into direct play. The technique is why courses like St. George's still play well after all these years.

The only negative is that triangulation while very visual often works out less strategic then old fashioned carry lines and massive use of angles (risk and reward design). I dearly love the techniques that Flynn employs to make you hit shots. If the carry bunkers become too short, some of those wonderful strategies begin to break down. That is where I hate the ball and driver.

[Tony Ristola]

The only bit I really have issue with here is that the problem is: "multifaceted it's kind of difficult to know where it begins."  

The resulting problems are multiple and obvious, the cause multiple (better clubs, balls, athletes, swings, conditions etc.).

The root solution to this pock is to roll back the Ball and the ruling bodies (USGA and R&A).  

This following was also interesting but I believe Mr. Jones has forgot about revenue from ball sales and how wide open the door would swing for competition...and how manufacturers would Hate a new Distance Standard.  Once a cap is on the ball, all balls would fly equally far.  Eventually ball prices would drop and the major ball makers would lose sales to new cheaper competitors...a double whammy.  I haven't looked at any revenue statements, but I would be interested to see what percentage of Titliest's, Spalding's, Maxfli, Bridgestone's sales are ball related...a repeat seller of enormous magnitude I would suspect.

JONES: Plus, if you have a club built to hit the ball farther, it's still going to hit a throttled-back ball relatively farther. So manufacturers can still advertise that way. Jay is right. The ball could be stepped back, and I don't think it would really hurt the manufacturers. They would just redo their specs. Of course, the contrary argument is simply that young golfers like to see their ball sail out there a long way.

I wish the journalist would have asked what their organization has done to pressure the USGA...as the ASGCA website not too long ago professed something along the lines of "The ASGCA Supports the USGA".  They made statements about the ball...but nothing of value.

[RJ_Daley]

My interpretation is that Hurdzan is more or less following the line of thinking Arnold Palmer was taking when he was under the gun about it being OK for recreational golfers to take every advantage of technology and OK in recreational settings to use the illegal ERC club.  Hurdzan doesn't by any means suggest cheating, but his tact is that of not worrying about the everyday golfer, because they can use all the help they can get, and even that doesn't really make them such an awesome player as to overwhelm the courses they have now, and 6400-6600 yards is still plenty of field of play for that lot.  

Interesting enough, Damian Pasccuzzo pretty much sounds like the most ardent of the purist that we know who inhabit this GCA site.  He has his heart in the right spot.  

The whole forum of archies sounds pretty much like the everyday duscussion that goes on here.  I didn't really learn anything new from the archie discussion.  They pretty much reinforce most of the same ideas we all exchange here.  Maybe, I learned that we shouldn't be too quick to question or judge some of these guys based upon their work.  Perhaps they do what they must to pay the bills.  Maybe they'd do it alot differently if they could be at the forefront of making the rules and driving the golf playing public's culture.

[A_Clay_Man]

Strike may be the operative word here.

Dick-  Some of those answers did seem very predictable.

Dr. Hurzdan's point about expansion is a key one. As well as the increase in arc lengths and fitness.

Rather than gripe about the circumstances shouldnt these 'guys' be looking for solutions? (other than this?)

Noone mentioned that one big reason... just to protect a number.


 

[ian]

Adam,

I like your comment "... just to protect a number." Each site has a score they just don't want them to shoot because it would be embarassing to the host......

[TEPaul]

Tony Ristola:

Where you been Pal? Have you been practicing architecture so hard you've had no time for Golfclubatlas?

[Tim_Weiman]

Lester:

Thanks very much for sharing this important article with us.

I'm now in the camp of thinking this guy Pascuzzo is a good guy. Finally, we get recognition that the golf technology arms race is not good for the game and that all it is really doing is increasing the cost of playing of golf.

Hey, even Rees Jones made a few positive comments, I must also say.

Hopefully, sooner or later enough people will get it. Golfers want to play more not pay more.

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul,

Been lurking

[Tony Ristola]

A Clay Man:

Solutions.  I have a couple of ideas...though I doubt the ASGCA would take them up:

Where there is a will, there is a way, and once the ASGCA states the Membership is behind a BALL RECALL, they have a STRONG unified stance to garner free publicity and elevate their status and role in the game.  But to be effective they must make the crusade consitent and SUSTAINED.  It may be slow at first, but, the longest journey's begin with one small step.  If you stop...

With Titliest's clever ads it is obviously a fight to penetrate and (perhaps) reverse the public's perception.  But are they fighting the ball mfg.'s?  No.  They are in effect shaming the ruling bodies into action.  

In any fight you need strong leadership...if I were in the ASGCA I would see this as a HUGE opportunity to Position the organization as defenders and raise the profile of member architects.  I think it is a giganormous opportunty and wonder how they could be so blind. Maybe I am naive.

In such a campaign I would fight fire with fire. Nukes with Nukes.  Actually I would fight fire with Nukes...after all, the idea is to win...by shaming the USGA into action.  

I think the ASGCA could for starters:

1. Prominently display their position on their website.  Headlines like "The ASGCA Supports the USGA" does not help in the least.  It digs a deeper hole.

2.  They have had Rainbird giving coin to produce useless...well OK...self promoting ASGCA ads (useful for the ASGCA only), with no other than Pete Dye central to the Rainbird sponsored ASGCA promotion.  Could they not find some companies to silently fund such RECALL efforts?  
(These Rainbird ads run contrary to their rules about allying themselves with vendors...but ads which are position statements would be justifiable because they seek to protect the game they love.) At least they would generate some discussion, which would not be all bad.

3. Ball Petition:  This is something I ran by Lou Duran 18-24 months ago...A simple concept which is made all the easier with the internet.  The ASGCA...or we could...create a paper explaining the detriment of what is occuring, and provide a list which you can download for your locker rooms asking for support through signatures.  Sign-up could be through the internet as well.

4. Mr. Finchem has had enough and stated something to this effect early this year.  The ASGCA has a natural ally...why not team up with the PGA Tour?
In this vein, why not have an architect in the booth every once in a while discussing their courses, the ball and the need for action.  What architect wouldn't want to do this?

5. Take a few name architects... and do a version of the old Maxfli ads where the architects (5 or 6) stand seriously...side by side, looking directly into and down to the camera with the title: RECALL THE BALL...Help Us Save the Royal & Ancient Game with a couple paragraphs which get to the point.

Such programs would only strengthen their position in the game as they would be seen...in the long term...as defenders...a roll the USGA used to have.

Here is where the Golden Age architects and their use of candor/free speech and don't give a damn attitude is needed.  Instead you have an association which has rules seriously stifling free speech...aggressive honest analysis...so how can they plant their feet and make a public and aggressive stand against mfg.'s and the USGA?  It is against their culture.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Excellent Tony.  It was good to hear from you again.  I have been involved in several township meetings regarding safety standards.  Interestingly, the 1994 ULI article that dealt with this issue compared the golf ball with a bullet shot from a gun.  As much as we try to make the residential communities safe from errant shots, I would dearly wish to see the club manufacturers and the ball manufacturers named in future lawsuits when conflict arises between homes and golf courses.  Whether the home is 200' (1974 ULI standard from memory) or 210' (1994 ULI standard) from the center line of a hole, the main reason the person or the home gets hit is not the 20', but it may very welll be because of the product, in this instance instead of the gun, it is the club and ball. As much as I despise the law profession and their tactics, it is one more tool to use against the gleeful manufactuurers whom care little about their impact on the game, the environment, and the safety of people, as they care about the bottom line.  Tony, do n't wait for the ASGCA, organize your own group of architects to stand against them.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

While the impact on the classic courses is of the highest order, there are some of us whom work on residential golf course communties, and try to protect the integrity of the course and the game from poor decisions because of the allure of the residential dollars.  In these situations those opposed to the courses use the safety issues, among other issues to try and stop the course.  The ULI standards are brought out as the only safe standards.  Well, Hurdzan consulted on the 1994 URBAN LAND INSTITUTE standards, yet in his book published after the standards came out he reverted back to the 1974 standards, by showing the centerline of a golf hole being 150' from the property line, not 175' as advocated in the ULI 1994 standards that he helped author.  Furthermore I do not think many of these architects strictly use the standard.  Hurdzan said that is up to the architect to determine the best safety standards.  I have an architect testifying against me regarding these issues.  He said in sworn testimony that he uses the ULI standards.,  Well I obtained scaled aeirials of his two most recent projects, 1997 and 2000, and there are about 25 violations on his courses of the 1994 standards, and about 9 of the 1974 standards.  Jay Morrish whom designed Bent Creek, in Lancaster County PA in 1993 has about 59 violations of the 1974 standards!  Many of them gross violations.  

On another issue, I do not read all of the ball and club advertisements , but don't the manufacturers typically described their newest technology in terms of it helping you play golf more accurately?  Don't the advertisements describe not only hitting the ball longer but straighter as well.  So, if we believe them then this new technology should not be causing more errant shots, right?  How can you produce new technology that makes the player less acurate, and play more errant shots, wouldn't that be producing faulty equipment, wouldn't that be knowingly producing equipment that makes the game more unsafe.  If not, then how can these architects in this article be saying that golfers are hitting the ball farther off line than in the past.  What can be causing this?  Whom do we believe?

[A_Clay_Man]

Tony- Obviously I'm not really on board with this. While I feel for the older courses and their inability to ever hold a pga toon a mint, I don't see it as a major concern for a majority of 'the folks'. Hitting driver-wedge is only an issue if you care all that much about the concept of the number "par". Relinquish that hold the number has on people and the game becomes the game again with an emphasis on shotmaking. Executing shots and sinking putts will become more and more expected.. The Pro game will go from the uncertainty and excitement that came from "quality play" to the unbelieveablity from missing wedge shots and putts by considerable margins. And when a guy makes 18 "birdies" in a row, we can still stand and applaud because that is an accomplishment us mere mortals only think about after we birdie the first.

This gap between the mortal and the touring pro, if it is indeed expanding(i'll agree), than it should be up to the entities who have profited from the pro game, for almost a century, to build the greatest venues ever. With huge costs being assumed by the benfactors and not the populi. The huge amounts of land needed are here in New Mexico and other "off the beaten path locations". The cost should be realtively low compared to the cost of losing an entire "industry".

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

For those of you whom play or live on Bent Creek in Lititz, PA tell me if it is unsfae.  Consider the following violations of the 1974 ULI standards:

Bent Creek Country Club
Lititz, Pennsylvania
Lancaster County

Hole #   Deviations from the ULI 1974 Standards
1   Center of fairway is within 160’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 150’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 130’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of fairway is within 175’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 155’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 180’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 160’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 160’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 180’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 110’ of the edge of a road.
   Center of green is within 170’ of the edge of a home.
2   Center of green is within 150’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 130’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 150’ of the edge of a home.
3   Center of green is within 115’ of the apparent property line.
   Center of green is within 120’ of the apparent property line.
4   Center of green is within 115’ of the edge of a road.
5   Center of green is within 110’ of the apparent property line.
7   Center line/line of play is within 145’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 160’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 125’ of the edge of a road.
   Center of green is within 145’ of the edge of a home.
8   Center of fairway is within 150’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 170’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 160’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 95’ of the edge of a road.
9   Center of fairway is within 170’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 165’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 140’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 170’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 150’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 175’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 145’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 180’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of fairway is within 160’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 160’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 100’ of the edge of a road.
   Center of green is within 120’ of the edge of a road.   
11   Center of fairway is within 145’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 150’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 100’ of the edge of a road.
13   Center of green is within 145’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 130’ of the apparent property line.
14   Center line/line of play is within 155’ of the edge of a home.
   Center line/line of play is within 145’ of the edge of a home.
15   Center of green is within 170’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 175’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 185’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 185’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 165’ of the edge of a home.
16   Center line/line of play is within 160’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of fairway is within 175’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of fairway is within 175’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of fairway is within 145’ of the edge of a home.
   Center of green is within 180’ of the edge of a home.
17   Center line/line of play is within 140’ of the edge of a home.

[Mark_Fine]

Interesting article.  Any of this below sound familar?

"All architects will be a lot more comfortable when the powers that be in golf finally solve the ball problem.  A great deal of experimentation is now going on and it is to be hoped that before long a solution will be found to control the distance of the elusive pill.  If, as in the past, the distance to be gotten with the ball continues to increase, it will be necessary to go to 7,500 and even 8,000 yard courses and more yards mean more acres to buy, mor course to construct, more fairway to maintain and more money for the golfer to fork out".  

Sounds to me like a summary of the above article.  The above quote is from William Flynn in 1927!
Mark

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

"the manufacturer tried to evolve a ball that would driver further and even further, just as previous generations had by leading and compositions tried to do like wise.  This ambition was only natural.  The seller of goods generally pandors to the blind instincts of his customers. Rarely do we find him an artist considering what the result must be when his good reach their destination.  And the blind instinct that he catered to was an insane desire to merely hit the ball a long way.  Having the means to now accomplish this, and one might say aided and abetted by uninstructed authority, he proceeded to add weight and reduce the diameter of the ball, and the traditions surrounding the most important implement all went by the boards." Max Behr

"Will the golfing public's thirst for lower cost, shorter, interesting and still playable designs ultimately become a popular facility to develop? Or will the desire for lavish, "instant gratification" courses that address major changes in technology fuel the next design wave? As litigation moves full steam ahead with seemingly every feature bearing some potential liability, will architects forget about interesting design and focus all their attention on protecting golfers from the occasional wayward shot?" Shackleford.

[A_Clay_Man]

I also reject the pasive premise of the housing units being included. Just because it has become the best source for an architect's income, doesnt preclude it from being a primary culprit in this whole fiasco.

[George Pazin]

It is interesting to me that we haven't heard anything from the PGA recently, after Finchem's comments awhile back.

While some might feel these gigantic drives tie in well with their "These guys are good" marketing campaign, I feel that at some point people are going to get bored. I know I am. I used to tape every Sunday afternoon final round if I couldn't catch it live. Now I only tape/watch maybe 6-8 events a year & those aren't even strictly PGA, it's basically the majors, the TPC, the Mercedes & Riviera & maybe a couple others. Heck, I have more interest in other tours & events than the PGA recently.

[But not The Big Break - anyone else out there as annoyed as me about this stupid reality show?]

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

aclayman,

I don't receive income from the residential development.  the clients comes to you and he is doing a residential golf course community.  consider me a sellout but if the land is good, and i like the client i definately will not turn my back.  if you have a solid arguement that includes economic analysis for these developers then please pass that to me, let me review it, then I will fly you here and bring all of my residential clients together for a work shop with you.  otherwise my job is to make the very best golf course i can within the confines of a residential community, and i do not get a kick back on the lots and i do not get a kick back on the construction, i get a modest fee for my design services.  please email me your treatise at kbmgca@ptd.net

Thanks.

[A_Clay_Man]

Kelly- I was not talking about you and I certainly never insinuated that there was some kick backs going on. My point was more to what Pacuzzo said in the article and that housing developements are a major reason why courses were built ergo a major source for all archies(ok some).

Now, my real point was that these hideous (mostly) excuses for golf courses which are completly house lined may be a fundamental reason why there is a downturn in the industry.

I apologize if my timing was off and you took my response as directly relating to your previous post. I sense your under considerable strain with this lawsuit and if was in any way insensitive, I apologize.

From my perspective, I think anyone who swings the club which hits the ball which kills gramma on the porch is mostly responsible for her death with the remaining share going to gramma herself or whoever decided to live in that close a proximity to a field of play where little missles are flying around.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

no no no Adam,

there is no lawsuit I am involved in.  Just trying to get a course approved!  If the township does not like the idea they hire a lawyer who tries every angle to make the course look like a bad idea, " this course will kill people in the back yards, this course will pollute the environemnt, look they have to clear some trees and grade steep slopes bad for the environment, look at all the traffic it produces someone will get killed in a car accident, look at the amount of water my God the earth will go dry, there is no market for this course"

you are right the poorly planned communities have turned off people.  A market research analyst told me that in the Philly area he sees play reduction on residential courses, the old Philly courses w/o the housing are much more comfortable for the average golfer because on most of these old course they don't have as much fear of hitting a house, although developemnt certainly encroaches on the old courses.

Gramma shares some respponsibility but what about the club and ball manufacturers, what role did they play in creating the unsafe situations, or is the oneous on the architect the developer and the home owner, while the manufacturers skirt away with no liability.  Have those of us in the industry fallen behind the curve of technology and not fully comprehended how unsafe the game has become because of equipment.  Will the day come soon where every architect will have to turn down residential development courses because techhnology has rendered it too dangerous, and the course must consume too much land to make it safe?  Maybe we are there, and just do not realize it yet.

Yes i did not want your post to give some the impression that architects get kick backs from residential sales, that is why i jumped on it, and i apologize for overreacting to your post.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

Let's not be so quick to condemn golfing communities.

They have been partially responsible for golf's popularity in the last 30 years.

Great golf courses have been the result of these residential/golf communities, and without these communities, those great golf courses wouldn't exist.