Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,


I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you!    There is value in both muck raking (see, every newspaper ever) and throwing down the gauntlet to others more qualified than yourself to carry it.


All the examples you give are gimmicks, not design paradigms. 


I would say Pete Dye was a new design paradigm. Sure, he took lots of old elements, but by the time he was done with them, they really weren't old scot courses, nor did they look like RTJ, Fazio, etc.  Heck, RTJ was a design paradigm until he got too busy. 


Pete may have copied styles....mostly his own later on, LOL, but he never set out to create a course in the look of something older, and hence, created something new.


Ben,


Way to stereotype entire generations!  I would say the post war courses were made by and for their times, all things considered, including introducing people to the game (hence, housing courses) using new fangled automatic irrigation to expand the turf panels, etc.  Technology has always shaped design to a degree, and typically, early uses of same tend to morph into better versions later.


Not quite sure of your last sentence in your next to last paragraph?  Are you saying the current minimalist (or whatever) trend is now on the verge of being tired and over done?  I have heard some say that.  And, that trend is 20 years old, so it really may be time for the "next big thing."  But I could also argue that there is more design variety than ever across the board, with so many associates from so many different firms testing their wares.  That said, probably the most experimentation goes on when the money is flowing, which certainly isn't the case now.


As always, just MHO.

[Ben Stephens]

The 'minimalists' have to me reinvented the circle and reproduced or restored courses to be more like the golden age. The quality of the design is much better compared to the 1950-90s era which was more like aircraft strip courses with little strategy. However there has not been an innovative design which is a game changer like the early Pete Dye designs did for that particular 1960/70s era which most seemed to follow the RTJ trend. The new course designs for me feels repetitive in 2020 rather than a wider variety of different design styles.

The question I have to the GCAers - would you change your style for the purpose of doing something different to what you have done before?

Ben:


If you wanted to, you could also say Mr. Dye was not being original for taking the railroad tie sleepers he saw at Prestwick and using them in various ways on his courses.


I guess to answer your question I would have to understand what you are calling my "style".  I've done courses with huge greens and with tiny ones.  I've built all different kinds of bunkers, from as many as 125 and as few as 18.  I've built courses where we moved 800,000 cubic yards vs. ones where we moved 8,000.  I've built a course that's super hard [Sebonack] and one that's super easy [The Mulligan].  I've even built a reversible course.


About the only things I haven't done are to build an 8,000 yard long course -- which I just don't think sends the right message into the world -- or to build one that feels entirely unnatural, though I might do just that if presented again with a flat and boring site.  The latter would go against my brand but I am not the least bit concerned with that.  I am more concerned with stretching the envelope, because I can, and because nobody else seems to want to.

Tom


Pete Dye did his courses his way and they are different to the Joneses, Rosses and he did have past and future references the island green wasn't a new invention however the way he did it in his own style with timber bulkheads and the spectator mounding around it was there a stadium course designed before this? the bendy straight lined fairways bordering the long and think bunkers plus small bunkers in places like a optical illusion. 


Your style is quite similar across the spectrum of the courses you have done - I have played two of your courses St Andrews Beach and the Renaissance Club which both feel like a Doak course like Dye, Ross and Jones have done - I really liked SAB more than Renaissance. I have not seen one from you and your team that is really very contrasting in terms of style and design approach. Its ok to be in a comfort zone in terms of design and if it attracts clients then you are doing something right.


Ron is pointing out that there has not really been something out of the box in terms of golf course design pushing new boundaries and being innovative which I agree.


Architecture is much more different to GCA there are more contrasting styles and different approaches - for Americans someone like Frank Gehry (even though he is Canadian!) who is more like the Pete Dye of Architecture if it was the other way round he is more predictable and stale at the moment. Theres also Morphosis and even BIG from Denmark who are riding on a crest of a wave at the moment in the states. Eric Owen Moss is one crazy architect with amazing visions. There is no-one similar to these people/companies when it comes to GCA.


Cheers
Ben

[Tim_Weiman]

In the July issue of Golf Digest, architecture editor has quite the rant about a lack of innovation in golf course architecture. I couldn't find the column online, but will share some excerpts:
 

• In the 53 years I’ve studied golf architecture, I’ve seen plenty of artistry, but almost no innovation.
• The problem is, every architect worships the past...and molds designs to those ancient templates.
• Nobody has an original thought
• Modern-day courses are gussied up reproductions
• If phone engineers thought like golf architects, our cell phones would still be attached to the wall.
• Don’t bother arguing that classic courses are ideal because the game hasn’t changed....Nothing is the same, except our golf courses.
• Architects embrace the past because it has been safe, marketable, and easy to produce.
• Instead of developing original golf holes to address 21^st-century technology, time constraints, and resource limitations, architects are preoccupied with decrying technology and clamoring for a rollback in ball distance. Sorry folks, that’s called progress.
• With no more than a dozen courses under construction in the US, architects need to reinvent their product.
• If the past is the only thing you bring to the table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. (Whitten then mentions examples of a public course built by a golf contractor w/o an architect and Cypress Point restoring bunkers on their own.)

 
 
This column seemed somewhat bizarre to me – almost as if the writer is angry about something. Perhaps potential impact to advertising revenue if there is some sort of distance regulation? For sure, his definition of “progress” is pretty divergent from mine. His lone innovative idea in the column is to suggest a smaller hole. What a legacy that – combined with his advocacy of “resistance to scoring” – would be!
 
I’m happy that I don’t provide any revenue to that magazine (I’m using my library’s subscription).

John,


If your excerpts accurately reflect Whitten’s article, then I don’t mind saying he comes across very poorly. Funny you should use the word “angry”. It brings to mind Whitten’s tone when he reviewed Geoff Shackelford’s enjoyable little novel “The Good Doctor Returns”. It is time for him to retire.

[Ben Stephens]

Garland,


I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you!    There is value in both muck raking (see, every newspaper ever) and throwing down the gauntlet to others more qualified than yourself to carry it.


All the examples you give are gimmicks, not design paradigms. 


I would say Pete Dye was a new design paradigm. Sure, he took lots of old elements, but by the time he was done with them, they really weren't old scot courses, nor did they look like RTJ, Fazio, etc.  Heck, RTJ was a design paradigm until he got too busy. 


Pete may have copied styles....mostly his own later on, LOL, but he never set out to create a course in the look of something older, and hence, created something new.


Ben,


Way to stereotype entire generations!  I would say the post war courses were made by and for their times, all things considered, including introducing people to the game (hence, housing courses) using new fangled automatic irrigation to expand the turf panels, etc.  Technology has always shaped design to a degree, and typically, early uses of same tend to morph into better versions later.


Not quite sure of your last sentence in your next to last paragraph?  Are you saying the current minimalist (or whatever) trend is now on the verge of being tired and over done?  I have heard some say that.  And, that trend is 20 years old, so it really may be time for the "next big thing."  But I could also argue that there is more design variety than ever across the board, with so many associates from so many different firms testing their wares.  That said, probably the most experimentation goes on when the money is flowing, which certainly isn't the case now.


As always, just MHO.

Jeff,




There are different eras some may be longer than others. I am just saying people can get tired of repetition when it comes to design and at times will go with something different and new style. Blockbuster is a classic example of a company not adapting to the changes.


The next generation of golfers may be less interested in the natural look and may prefer a different possibly more 'computerised' approach who knows. They may prefer to play night golf - with the use of LED lighting. Will designers adapt to accommodate the taste and requirements of a younger generation?   


Was golf course design influenced by fashion and architecture of the eras in the past and will they in the future? 


Pete Dye changed the design style of American courses probably single handedly in the 1960s he probably has the biggest influence on a large number of present GCAers. Tom D has been a huge influence to many in the 21st century so far. What will be the next big thing?   


The past is the past, the future is a mystery, today is a gift which is why its called present. 


Will there be a golf course entirely created by a 3D printer in the near future?


Will Artificial Intelligence become the golf course designers of the future?


Lots of questions and the next big thing may just be around the corner who knows. Variety is the spice of life 

[Pete_Pittock]

what about a 9 hole course, with 3 par 3s, 3 par 4s and 3 par 5s. On the second loop the par 4s become par 5s and vice versa.
Weiser (ID) had a 9 hole course with three 3 hole loops coming back to the clubhouse for hourly (?) refreshment replenishment.

[Kyle Harris]

I think Ron Whitten is likely confusing creativity with something that appeals to everyone.

[Kyle Harris]

Also.


A golf course is novel/creative to every newcomer to the game.


It's only we curmudgeons that have seen everything.


...except for maybe a score under 70. But that requires practice. Probably too much work.


Yeah, the architects are the ones getting lazy.

[Kyle Harris]

I wonder when was the last time Ron played with a new golfer and which course that was on?

[Tom_Doak]

Your style is quite similar across the spectrum of the courses you have done - I have played two of your courses St Andrews Beach and the Renaissance Club which both feel like a Doak course like Dye, Ross and Jones have done - I really liked SAB more than Renaissance. I have not seen one from you and your team that is really very contrasting in terms of style and design approach. Its ok to be in a comfort zone in terms of design and if it attracts clients then you are doing something right.

Cheers
Ben

I've built 40 courses, and you've seen two of them [which were built three years apart, both on sites close to the ocean but just removed], and you are disappointed that they did not contrast more?


Maybe you should go to my site [www.doakgolf.com] and have a look at more of the courses I've done.  The ones by the ocean are the most highly ranked, but they are not the sum total of my work.




Regarding your comparisons to building architecture:  years ago I had a (potential) client who was a huge Frank Lloyd Wright fan.  When I told him that his site was too difficult and rocky to build something, he said that FLW said no site was impossible, to which I responded, yes, but FLW didn't have to maintain grass on 60 acres.  The client went ahead and spent several million dollars to prove me wrong . . . but no one thinks the course is groundbreaking architecture.  I was surprised to find that it's still there, I've not heard anything about it for twenty years!

[Peter Pallotta]

Critics were surprised (and many were aghast) when the father of hot jazz, Louis Armstrong, listed the saccharine-sweet Guy Lombardo dance band as one of his favourites. He said: 'There's only two types of music, good and bad'. He understood in his bones what the critics for all their book learning somehow didn't, ie that the fundamental 'structures' of music applied across the whole spectrum of tastes -- the same way that theatre/film as diverse as a Shakespearean tragedy, a John Ford western and a (supposedly) outside the box Coen Brothers comedy all adhere to the same narrative patterns. What sets them apart from most tragedies and westerns and comedies is not that they are 'original' but that they are better.

[Ira Fishman]

As an amateur, I wade in carefully. But who really cares if something is new and different? I have not played TOC, but I have had the pleasure of playing NB and RD and Ballybunion and a few Golden Age courses in the US. I also have played at Bandon and Streamsong. Are those modern courses derivative? Maybe, but they are terrific courses so once again, where is the complaint? The difference between golf course architecture and art or even building architecture is that gca needs to serve the function of playing a game with prescribed rules and equipment. Art, Literature, and Music can expand boundaries that affect our view of life. I am not sure that gca can or should carry that quest.


Ira

[Tim Martin]

The internet sucks and it's going to be around a lot longer than the magazines. Most if not all artistic expression is a reflection of the past because it's the only thing social media understands. Thanks for reminding me why Whitten quit this site.

First its Kim and Kanye and now this. It’s a lot for one day. Thanks internet.

[John Kavanaugh]

The casual observer may be one to say that the modern baseball stadium offers more variance than golf course architecture. On that note the powers that be see how the long ball saved baseball and don't mind to follow.

[Carl Rogers]

If Mike Strantz lived longer, what shape would this thread take?


Mr. Stephens,
I am an Architect myself.
I more than defend the work Gehry, Morphosis, BIG & Moss as exceptional talents working for the 1/1000 of 1 percent of clients who have a very open  mind and able to sign multiple blank checks for a project.


But sadly, do those projects really touch the lives of enough people to really make a difference at a societal scale?


Which is the argument for making the most out of projects with modest to moderate budgets.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,


I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you!    There is value in both muck raking (see, every newspaper ever) and throwing down the gauntlet to others more qualified than yourself to carry it.


All the examples you give are gimmicks, not design paradigms. 


I would say Pete Dye was a new design paradigm. Sure, he took lots of old elements, but by the time he was done with them, they really weren't old scot courses, nor did they look like RTJ, Fazio, etc.  Heck, RTJ was a design paradigm until he got too busy. 


Pete may have copied styles....mostly his own later on, LOL, but he never set out to create a course in the look of something older, and hence, created something new.


Ben,


Way to stereotype entire generations!  I would say the post war courses were made by and for their times, all things considered, including introducing people to the game (hence, housing courses) using new fangled automatic irrigation to expand the turf panels, etc.  Technology has always shaped design to a degree, and typically, early uses of same tend to morph into better versions later.


Not quite sure of your last sentence in your next to last paragraph?  Are you saying the current minimalist (or whatever) trend is now on the verge of being tired and over done?  I have heard some say that.  And, that trend is 20 years old, so it really may be time for the "next big thing."  But I could also argue that there is more design variety than ever across the board, with so many associates from so many different firms testing their wares.  That said, probably the most experimentation goes on when the money is flowing, which certainly isn't the case now.


As always, just MHO.

Jeff,




There are different eras some may be longer than others. I am just saying people can get tired of repetition when it comes to design and at times will go with something different and new style. Blockbuster is a classic example of a company not adapting to the changes.


The next generation of golfers may be less interested in the natural look and may prefer a different possibly more 'computerised' approach who knows. They may prefer to play night golf - with the use of LED lighting. Will designers adapt to accommodate the taste and requirements of a younger generation?   


Was golf course design influenced by fashion and architecture of the eras in the past and will they in the future? 


Pete Dye changed the design style of American courses probably single handedly in the 1960s he probably has the biggest influence on a large number of present GCAers. Tom D has been a huge influence to many in the 21st century so far. What will be the next big thing?   


The past is the past, the future is a mystery, today is a gift which is why its called present. 


Will there be a golf course entirely created by a 3D printer in the near future?


Will Artificial Intelligence become the golf course designers of the future?


Lots of questions and the next big thing may just be around the corner who knows. Variety is the spice of life 

Ben,


Lots of good questions.


I agree golf will have to adapt more than the next gen will adapt to golf.  More casual, more inclusive, more tech, at least as far as I can tell right now.  Given the sun avoidance mantra and global warming, playing golf at night might make sense, given the relatively lower power use of LED lighting.  Form follows function, and businesses follow their customers.


For that matter, the graphics possible now mean that you could stay indoors at a high tech simulator and play without moving, feeling good about this new video game, LOL.  Why play the crappy muni down the street when you can play, say, Pebble Beach indoors and cool in a very realistic fashion.  No more 200 acres of irrigated turf, just about 10,000 SF of simulator in every big city, probably placed in long abandoned malls or offices.


Do we think its golf?  No, but then, no one died and made us king, LOL.


As to AI, you can bet I am more likely to answer yes, and Tom Doak is more likely to answer no.  But really, whether we like to admit it or not, there is more formula in golf design, all design, than most think.  Maybe gca's will be like airline pilots - the plane flies itself and the pilot is there merely for emergency over rides, just like a gca would "tweak" the artistry if the computer just couldn't get it right.  But, I do think AI can design and be creative.  The Golden 5 to 8 ratio, for example is well known, and why could it not be plugged into computers, who might place that little bump in the green 5/8th of the way from front to back, or carry a ridge 5/8 across a green?  Artistic GCA's do that sort of by feel.


Creativity is really just a mindset of trying literally millions of combinations until the best fit comes to you for your particular set of design needs. Who tries millions of combos better than a computer?

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

I think you may misunderstand gimmick and paradigm. Ron Whitten, bless his heart, may be looking for a paradigm shift, not more gimmicks. The current paradigm is 18 holes beginning at the clubhouse, and ending at the clubhouse, often also returning to the clubhouse after 9 holes, with a par generally around 71 or 72. Pars 3s are generally in an accepted range, par 4s are generally in a accepted range, and par 5s everything beyond the par 4 range. Almost all the courses that Ron sees little to no innovation in follow this paradigm. Pete Dye has his gimmicks. Sleepers. Vast numbers of bunkers. Excessive water. Draw fade/fade draw sequences. But, all simply stylistic gimmicks within the paradigm.

This paradigm is ingrained into the golf world so much that it appears to me that Ron should be complaining about the clients, not the architects. Forrest R. wanted to build a par 2. The client nixed it. Where are the par 6s? Tom D tells on this website things clients have nixed on him. Perhaps Pete Dye does get farther outside the paradigm than most by going ahead and doing things the client has forbidden.

However, A par 90 course is certainly a paradigm shift. Perhaps not one that many will follow. Certainly not many on this website that are so bored with golf that they generally don't like par 5s, or at least claim they don't find many to their liking. Perhaps these disciples of John Low should question his paradigm.

A course where a 36 hole tournament with a shotgun start can be played with just 18 greens (or 27 in the case of Silvies Valley) by simply turning around and going the other way after having played 18 is certainly a paradigm shift.

A course where the holes step equal amounts in length erases the typical boundaries between par 3s, par 4s, and par 5s. Once again outside the standard paradigm.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm also not sure if he ever played a Jim Engh course.  While he re-uses his own templates quite a bit, when you're on a Engh course you really know it, its pretty unique stuff.  Is #11 at Black Rock not out of the box for him?

[Garland Bayley]

... But, I do think AI can design and be creative.  The Golden 5 to 8 ratio, for example is well known, and why could it not be plugged into computers, who might place that little bump in the green 5/8th of the way from front to back, or carry a ridge 5/8 across a green?  Artistic GCA's do that sort of by feel.


Creativity is really just a mindset of trying literally millions of combinations until the best fit comes to you for your particular set of design needs. Who tries millions of combos better than a computer?

Creativity is the least capability of AI. AI will give you best fit, not most creative.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,


I know the difference, but guess I am so brainwashed by golf culture, I didn't consider moving away from 18 holes, which would be a major paradigm shift after 500+ years.  And, it might be forced upon us by water restrictions, etc.


Unstated in his piece and most assumptions here is that any design idea goes from a creative problem solved to a practical design standard to an overused and trite convention over the course of it's life, much like an aging comedian telling the same old tired jokes. 


But, design is different than art, as the customer must use the final product, so many of those conventions have a reason for sticking around.  Then, someone questions it, tries something different. If its like most things, maybe 10% of those new ideas are great, 80% are not much different, and 10% come out really badly.  That is the beauty and curse of the free market.  You couldn't achieve the variety we have now if people weren't free to design something new, hence my comment that Ron should not try to dictate what good design is, any more than he already has.  Wait for it to happen, everyone passes judgement, and then we move on to the next thing or things.  The entire evolution process does have its hits and misses.


Like my brother used to joke, there is a reason no one uses chocolate sauce on roast beef....no doubt it was tried somewhere and found sorely lacking.

[Jeff_Brauer]

... But, I do think AI can design and be creative.  The Golden 5 to 8 ratio, for example is well known, and why could it not be plugged into computers, who might place that little bump in the green 5/8th of the way from front to back, or carry a ridge 5/8 across a green?  Artistic GCA's do that sort of by feel.


Creativity is really just a mindset of trying literally millions of combinations until the best fit comes to you for your particular set of design needs. Who tries millions of combos better than a computer?

Creativity is the least capability of AI. AI will give you best fit, not most creative.

Just for the sake of argument, I would say that one reason for lack of human creativity is previous bias, and the tendency to fall into patterns, i.e., shower then shave every morning.  It is possible that a computer, undaunted by human bias would give you the best fit, that the limits of the human mind might never stumble on.  And, by being an idea humans wouldn't have likely thought of, it would seem creative to us.  But, again, this is all just fun debate, I am not going to argue anything too strenuously here.




Creativity is, by one definition, the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination:

[Garland Bayley]

...
Like my brother used to joke, there is a reason no one uses chocolate sauce on roast beef....no doubt it was tried somewhere and found sorely lacking.

That's because they must have used milk chocolate or some other very sweet chocolate. Melt some 90% cocoa in a very robust dry red wine and pour it on your beef. Yum!

[Tim_Weiman]

The 'minimalists' have to me reinvented the circle and reproduced or restored courses to be more like the golden age. The quality of the design is much better compared to the 1950-90s era which was more like aircraft strip courses with little strategy. However there has not been an innovative design which is a game changer like the early Pete Dye designs did for that particular 1960/70s era which most seemed to follow the RTJ trend. The new course designs for me feels repetitive in 2020 rather than a wider variety of different design styles.

The question I have to the GCAers - would you change your style for the purpose of doing something different to what you have done before?

Ben:


If you wanted to, you could also say Mr. Dye was not being original for taking the railroad tie sleepers he saw at Prestwick and using them in various ways on his courses.


I guess to answer your question I would have to understand what you are calling my "style".  I've done courses with huge greens and with tiny ones.  I've built all different kinds of bunkers, from as many as 125 and as few as 18.  I've built courses where we moved 800,000 cubic yards vs. ones where we moved 8,000.  I've built a course that's super hard [Sebonack] and one that's super easy [The Mulligan].  I've even built a reversible course.


About the only things I haven't done are to build an 8,000 yard long course -- which I just don't think sends the right message into the world -- or to build one that feels entirely unnatural, though I might do just that if presented again with a flat and boring site.  The latter would go against my brand but I am not the least bit concerned with that.  I am more concerned with stretching the envelope, because I can, and because nobody else seems to want to.

Tom


Pete Dye did his courses his way and they are different to the Joneses, Rosses and he did have past and future references the island green wasn't a new invention however the way he did it in his own style with timber bulkheads and the spectator mounding around it was there a stadium course designed before this? the bendy straight lined fairways bordering the long and think bunkers plus small bunkers in places like a optical illusion. 


Your style is quite similar across the spectrum of the courses you have done - I have played two of your courses St Andrews Beach and the Renaissance Club which both feel like a Doak course like Dye, Ross and Jones have done - I really liked SAB more than Renaissance. I have not seen one from you and your team that is really very contrasting in terms of style and design approach. Its ok to be in a comfort zone in terms of design and if it attracts clients then you are doing something right.


Ron is pointing out that there has not really been something out of the box in terms of golf course design pushing new boundaries and being innovative which I agree.


Architecture is much more different to GCA there are more contrasting styles and different approaches - for Americans someone like Frank Gehry (even though he is Canadian!) who is more like the Pete Dye of Architecture if it was the other way round he is more predictable and stale at the moment. Theres also Morphosis and even BIG from Denmark who are riding on a crest of a wave at the moment in the states. Eric Owen Moss is one crazy architect with amazing visions. There is no-one similar to these people/companies when it comes to GCA.


Cheers
Ben

Ben,


With regard to your comments about St Andrews Beach and the Renaissance Club, did you mean to suggest a sample size of two is sufficient to judge an architect’s work?


FYI, I have seen far more of Tom’s work, but I don’t recall seeing a “Doak course”. You mentioned St Andrews Beach (which I love). What about Cape Kidnappers or Barnbougle? Are those “Doak courses”?

[Tom_Doak]

For that matter, the graphics possible now mean that you could stay indoors at a high tech simulator and play without moving, feeling good about this new video game, LOL.  Why play the crappy muni down the street when you can play, say, Pebble Beach indoors and cool in a very realistic fashion.  No more 200 acres of irrigated turf, just about 10,000 SF of simulator in every big city, probably placed in long abandoned malls or offices.


Do we think its golf?  No, but then, no one died and made us king, LOL.


As to AI, you can bet I am more likely to answer yes, and Tom Doak is more likely to answer no.  But really, whether we like to admit it or not, there is more formula in golf design, all design, than most think.  Maybe gca's will be like airline pilots - the plane flies itself and the pilot is there merely for emergency over rides, just like a gca would "tweak" the artistry if the computer just couldn't get it right.  But, I do think AI can design and be creative.  The Golden 5 to 8 ratio, for example is well known, and why could it not be plugged into computers, who might place that little bump in the green 5/8th of the way from front to back, or carry a ridge 5/8 across a green?  Artistic GCA's do that sort of by feel.


Creativity is really just a mindset of trying literally millions of combinations until the best fit comes to you for your particular set of design needs. Who tries millions of combos better than a computer?

Jeff:


Well, that's just the Infinite Monkey Theorem.   [For those unfamiliar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem ]


Sometimes I think half the posters on GCA are trying it out.


But randomly putting together ideas is not really design, is it?  How will the AI know when to stop?




Your first part about simulator golf, though:  unfortunately, I think that's the future for most "golf course designers" 50-100 years from now.  Maybe Ben will be one of them.  It answers all the questions about golf's use of natural resources, and it offers way more possibilities than traditional courses.  [I have always wanted to build a course where you could play shots off walls of buildings, etc., but buildings are pretty expensive to build as props for a golf hole.]  At least one former GCA participant now spends a lot of his spare time playing real and imagined courses on his simulator.


Having spent just enough time living in the UK, that prospect makes me deeply sad, because golf will then have been reduced from the natural and healthy pastime that it was to just another video game.  I hope at least a few of my courses will survive the transition.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm also not sure if he ever played a Jim Engh course.  While he re-uses his own templates quite a bit, when you're on a Engh course you really know it, its pretty unique stuff.  Is #11 at Black Rock not out of the box for him?

Are you referring to Ron Whitten?  He was one of Jim Engh's biggest champions, and loved how "out of the box" he was.


I don't think Jim's courses were as varied from one to the next as mine are, but maybe I just couldn't see past the look of them, as some people can't see past the fact that I don't build many flat greens.

[Jeff_Brauer]

For that matter, the graphics possible now mean that you could stay indoors at a high tech simulator and play without moving, feeling good about this new video game, LOL.  Why play the crappy muni down the street when you can play, say, Pebble Beach indoors and cool in a very realistic fashion.  No more 200 acres of irrigated turf, just about 10,000 SF of simulator in every big city, probably placed in long abandoned malls or offices.


Do we think its golf?  No, but then, no one died and made us king, LOL.


As to AI, you can bet I am more likely to answer yes, and Tom Doak is more likely to answer no.  But really, whether we like to admit it or not, there is more formula in golf design, all design, than most think.  Maybe gca's will be like airline pilots - the plane flies itself and the pilot is there merely for emergency over rides, just like a gca would "tweak" the artistry if the computer just couldn't get it right.  But, I do think AI can design and be creative.  The Golden 5 to 8 ratio, for example is well known, and why could it not be plugged into computers, who might place that little bump in the green 5/8th of the way from front to back, or carry a ridge 5/8 across a green?  Artistic GCA's do that sort of by feel.


Creativity is really just a mindset of trying literally millions of combinations until the best fit comes to you for your particular set of design needs. Who tries millions of combos better than a computer?

Jeff:


Well, that's just the Infinite Monkey Theorem.   [For those unfamiliar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem ]


Sometimes I think half the posters on GCA are trying it out.


But randomly putting together ideas is not really design, is it?  How will the AI know when to stop?




Your first part about simulator golf, though:  unfortunately, I think that's the future for most "golf course designers" 50-100 years from now.  Maybe Ben will be one of them.  It answers all the questions about golf's use of natural resources, and it offers way more possibilities than traditional courses.  [I have always wanted to build a course where you could play shots off walls of buildings, etc., but buildings are pretty expensive to build as props for a golf hole.]  At least one former GCA participant now spends a lot of his spare time playing real and imagined courses on his simulator.


Having spent just enough time living in the UK, that prospect makes me deeply sad, because golf will then have been reduced from the natural and healthy pastime that it was to just another video game.  I hope at least a few of my courses will survive the transition.

Not really random, just constant narrowing of choice based on parameters fed into the memory bank.  GCA's work the same way, no?  You have a left to right sloping green site, and you start mentally thinking about all the left to right sites you have seen and how the greens there were designed.  Maybe you flip a few right to left ones for good measure.  Then you look at how steep the site is, and look for similar ideas, that, if tweaked slightly, might form the basis of your design.


Throw in your mental checklist of other types of holes ahead and behind this one to avoid repetitive greens, and whatever else you mentally consider.  At some point, of the literally hundreds of thousands of greens on 20,000 courses worldwide, it has probably been done before.  Plug in a few adaptation, saving trees not on the model green, adding cart paths or whatever, splitting one bunker into two, replacing sand with grass bunker, etc. etc. etc., and sooner or later, you arrive at what you feel is the best solution.


Of course, I am of the notion that ideas really don't come out of nowhere.  They come out of our design, golf, or maybe even life experiences.   If, as someone has suggested, I was designing a green the day after playing with some D players on a Jim Engh course, it might influence me towards more playability, just as seeing the boldness of his designs might influence me to make that green I was designing just a little easier, but visually more bold.  That is the biggest problem with my idea, it would take a constant software upgrade to let the computer mimic the non static life of a golf course architect.