Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture

[Tom_Doak]

how many courses in Myrtle Beach that are nothings but 18 holes for a cart ride?

The entire economy of Myrtle Beach golf was built on the premise of golf carts.  In the old days your round of golf came with the hotel room . . . the only thing you paid the golf course for was the cart [and f&b].  So the cart path from the 9th green at The Legends went 100 yards up to the clubhouse and 100 yards back, even though the green and tee were 20 yards apart!


P.S.  Had I written about what "golf" should do, you'd be criticizing me for trying to tell the whole world what to do.  And the book was about routing by using case studies of my courses, not about this thread.

[Ronald Montesano]

Cheers Ben,


I'd request two things from you, if I might. The first is, what/how? You and Ron Whitten are looking for an alternative, but neither of you is able to provide us with it.


Next, have a glance at this preview from the course you site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XfmxUoXgHA The architects themselves pitch what Ron Whitten would call, the same old templates. Can you elaborate on the different design style that you reference?


There is a course in western Michigan, called the South course at Arcadia Bluffs. It was built on flat land, by Dana Fry, et al. It seems to do precisely what is mentioned above. You feel like you are playing on a golden age course, as you recognize multiple features and optics. However, the manner of presentation ensures you that these are not template holes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Couple of thoughts after morning coffee.....


First, maybe after a 100 years of intensive study and practice, gca has become a "mature" industry, not unlike Tide and Clorox, etc.  Any refinements will be incremental, especially given the standardization by the USGA and others, like par, distance, handicap, etc., where others have vested interests in keeping things more or less the same.


And, design, by one definition is art that someone has to live in or make use of, i.e., has a function.  The basic function of golf hasn't changed in centuries, the scorekeeping remains mostly the same, etc. etc. etc.  How much can courses change if they are really, functional arrangement of the ground for the purpose of making it useful for golf?


Last, not to mention it is a business, and usually a struggling business at that.  How many courses can afford 29K SF of sand bunker on one hole, when many have that over 18 holes?  In my 43 years in the biz, I can usually predict which bunkers will be removed, and without driving up there to see it, figure after the award season, marketing photos, etc., much of that bunker will be removed, if it follows typical practice and/or the PGA in Texas doesn't turn out to be the financial bonanza they thought it would be.  Time will tell, but I am sure at least one project manager questioned it already as excessive.

[BCrosby]

TD says above:

"As an architect AND a critic of architecture, while I agree with a few of the complaints listed above about modern design, I think it's embarrassing that a guy who has been the supposed leading critic of golf course architecture for 30+ years did not take more responsibility for trying to fix the problem."

I've often wondered about the direction of the causal arrow between criticism of golf architecture and golf architecture. Was it just coincidence that the Golden Age - the period in which most of the best courses were built - was also the period during which the best writing on golf architecture was published? Might it be the case that there is a connection between insightful criticism and the courses architects design? That maybe passionate, even opinionated commentary on gca is good for gca?

So lobbing hand grenades at the profession Whitten has commented on for five decades seems a bit odd. If things are as bad as he claims, didn't he have some responsibility to nudge things along? To put out early warnings? Did he need to stay so passive in the face of what he saw as a slow, ugly decline?

Many of us would have relished hearing his "private" opinions, if for no other reason than they were bound to be more interesting than his public ones.

As the single most important critic of gca over the last several decades, Whitten might have done more for the profession he covered. Models for how to do that are not hard to find. Think of John Low, Horace Hutchinson, MacK, Colt, Simpson, J H Taylor, Campbell, HH Hilton, Joshua Crane, Garden Smith and others before and during the Golden Age.

Some commentated and designed courses, others were only commentators. They had deeply divergent views about gca and battled almost constantly. But their strong opinions ultimately redounded to the benefit to the profession and the courses they built. They teed up and helped clarify issues. The Golden Age was not just about great golf courses. It was also a Golden Age of commentary about great golf courses. I don't think that was just an accident of history.   

Criticism and artistic output feed off each other whether in literature, movies or golf architecture. They can often make each other better. In that regard I commend to Tom a book by A.O. Scott, 'Better Living Through Criticism.' Scott is the main movie critic for the NYT. His title is meant to be as ironic as it sounds, but what he says about the role of commentary on the arts has obvious parallels to commentary on golf architecture.

Bob           

   

[Carl Rogers]

Tom
............

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

Ben,
Having played:
Riverfront 250+/- rounds
Beechtree 3 rounds
Pacific Dunes 3 rounds
Old MacDonald 2 rounds
Heathland Legend 1 round
Streamsong Blue 1 round


I can easily state that Tom's courses are very anti-formula.


I regret that the Midwest Mashie was called off.  I hope the course at Sand Valley comes back to life.  I, also, can hardly wait to play at Stoatin Brae.

[Mark_Fine]

I have not yet read the article but Ron likes to stir things up and create interesting discussion.  I know Ron and his intentions are good.  On a different thread I proposed a Championship course with 10 par threes, four par fours and four par fives.  It would save time, costs and expensive real estate, and still test ALL levels of golfers while helping to address the distance issue.  Not sure if Ron would call this innovative or not but it hasn’t been done before. 

[Ben Stephens]

Cheers Ben,


I'd request two things from you, if I might. The first is, what/how? You and Ron Whitten are looking for an alternative, but neither of you is able to provide us with it.


Next, have a glance at this preview from the course you site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XfmxUoXgHA The architects themselves pitch what Ron Whitten would call, the same old templates. Can you elaborate on the different design style that you reference?


There is a course in western Michigan, called the South course at Arcadia Bluffs. It was built on flat land, by Dana Fry, et al. It seems to do precisely what is mentioned above. You feel like you are playing on a golden age course, as you recognize multiple features and optics. However, the manner of presentation ensures you that these are not template holes.

Ronald,

I have heard of and see images of Arcadia Bluffs South Course by Fry/Straka isn't the design style based on Chicago GC?


In reply to your question there are possible alternatives and innovations such as

1. Fluid Dynamics (or biomorphics) - which is 3D design by using computer modelling and is used by companies like Formula 1 and Indycar Manufacturers. It could be constructed by a 3D printer and the computer modelling can work out the drainage to make it look more natural as Formula 1 cars use it for aerodynamics to make it faster. Could it eliminate the use of underground pipings?

2. Night golf - LED is becoming more prevalent and why golf courses are not utilising this. This could create something different and attract a new generation of golfers who like computer games etc? And allow golf clubs to open for longer hours possibly generating more revenue.

3. A new architectural style which looks the wow factor - a good example of architectural design progress is the Jencks Architectural Evolutionary Tree which shows how design has progressed throughout the 20th century and what past influences the architects have used please copy the link which will show you the Jencks diagram - https://streets.mn/2014/10/15/chart-of-the-day-charles-jencks-architectural-evolutionary-tree/#lightbox/0/ - I wonder is there a Golf Course Architecture equivalent of this?

4. Floating golf course

5. Golf Course Design influenced by biological structures and shapes.

6. Underground houses connected to ecological wet areas with a golf course above it

7. Vertical golf course in the middle of a built up city or Golf Course inside large biomes/domes a la Buckminster Fuller so that it can be played 24/7.

8. New type of grasses so that they are more robust and less maintenance or even synthetic or hybrid grasses

9. New forms of hazards using materials that are not the norm on golf courses like concrete, plastic which has been thrown out, corten steel or even graphene. 

10. more efficient and natural irrigation systems

11. Construction of golf courses done by drones or robots with the designer/contractor working from home.

12. A golf course on the Moon or even Mars 

There are a lot of possibilities I could go on and on ....

Cheers
Ben 

[Ben Stephens]

This has been a good thread and a constructive discussion.


I personally feel that golf course design has not progressed in a similar vein to Architecture and Product Design which have evolved much more in the last century or so with greater variation of design styles and use of technology and materials.


There have been movements in regards to construction approaches, maintenance, irrigation and types of grasses used however the style of design there are a few variations but not many of them compared with the other design sectors. I feel it needs to push on and be a bit more adventurous as the danger is that golf can be seen as stale and old fashioned rather than keep up with the trends.


The next generation will want things done faster, more complicated and at a certain price. Can golf course design keep up with this to make the game of golf sustainable for the remainder of the 21st century or go backwards reducing the number of people participating in golf?.

[Carl Rogers]

If innovation means $1000 / round, then I will resume my spot among the vulgar throng.

[Bruce Katona]

I just went through this thread.  I wish I was smart enough to come up with what Jeff opined yesterday, perhaps modified with Ernie Els's comment - maybe the Toxicodendron radicans should be allowed to grow to knee height.

Garland,





And cross pollinating with the Playability thread, here's an original thought.  You want difficult rough? Plant poison ivy.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bruce,


Or combine golf with a Jurassic Park theme park, and have dinosaurs chase you, LOL.  But seriously, if other sports get converted to "extreme sports" to entice "da yutes of America" maybe golf will, too.  But, then, it will be participants thinking out of the box, and again, design following.

[Ben Stephens]

Bruce,


Or combine golf with a Jurassic Park theme park, and have dinosaurs chase you, LOL.  But seriously, if other sports get converted to "extreme sports" to entice "da yutes of America" maybe golf will, too.  But, then, it will be participants thinking out of the box, and again, design following.

Jeff,


Isn't there a dinosaur at Coolum Resort golf course in Australia??


Cheers
Ben

[Jeff Schley]

If innovation means $1000 / round, then I will resume my spot among the vulgar throng.

Carl you are spot on here.  Innovation in more than just golf course architecture, it is operating models and funding models that are needed. More sustainable non profit models and corporate sponsorship for courses is something I think is untapped.
Edit:format

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bruce,


Or combine golf with a Jurassic Park theme park, and have dinosaurs chase you, LOL.  But seriously, if other sports get converted to "extreme sports" to entice "da yutes of America" maybe golf will, too.  But, then, it will be participants thinking out of the box, and again, design following.

Jeff,


Isn't there a dinosaur at Coolum Resort golf course in Australia??


Cheers
Ben

Don't know.  There was a golf course proposed in Dinosaur Valley near Kunming China, but those were fossils, so far, not brought back to life for the excitement of golfers.

[Peter Pallotta]

It is a very good thread, but I hardly understand a word of it -- not Ron's original contention, nor Ben's support of it, nor even Tom and Jeff's 'rebuttals'.
It's as if either a) the terms 'outside the box' and 'originality' are being used much differently than I would use them, and/or b) few of the posters have ever created something themselves, which obviously isn't true. But I can't think of one creative person worthy of the name who has ever produced great work by trying/starting out to be 'original' -- in any art-craft, and certainly not in gca.

[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?

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.

Tom,

Yes I was referring to Ron. 

While I also agree that you have a lot more variance between the ones you've done, Jim's courses in general are just very different compared to near everything else out there, even if there is a lot of similarity between his own.

P.S.  I'm guessing Ron also really likes Tobacco Road.  If that course isn't Out of the Box, I don't know what is...

[Garland Bayley]

...
And cross pollinating with the Playability thread, here's an original thought.  You want difficult rough? Plant poison ivy.

We have gorse and Himalayan blackberry in rough here in the Pacific northwest. Why would we need poison ivy?

[David Ober]

How about a golf course with tee boxes that are purposely canted one way or another. Multiple tee boxes on the same hole with difference slopes. On purpose.


That idea might not be totally new, but I would certainly play it. Advertise it that way. Different. Challenging. New.

[Ronald Montesano]

If innovation means $1000 / round, then I will resume my spot among the vulgar throng.

I was so disappointed when I re-read your comment and saw an "r" in the final word.

[Ronald Montesano]

Cheers Ben, comments below
[Ronald,I have heard of and see images of Arcadia Bluffs South Course by Fry/Straka isn't the design style based on Chicago GC?Inspired by might be a better turn. The flatness of the site reminded F/S of the flat CGC site, and the style contrasts well with the original course. Whether the course you cited or ABSC, the inspiration came from the Golden Age and the Template holes.
In reply to your question there are possible alternatives and innovations such as1. Fluid Dynamics (or biomorphics) - which is 3D design by using computer modelling and is used by companies like Formula 1 and Indycar Manufacturers. It could be constructed by a 3D printer and the computer modelling can work out the drainage to make it look more natural as Formula 1 cars use it for aerodynamics to make it faster. Could it eliminate the use of underground pipings?
Can this be installed post-build, or must it be put in the ground pre-build?
2. Night golf - LED is becoming more prevalent and why golf courses are not utilising this. This could create something different and attract a new generation of golfers who like computer games etc? And allow golf clubs to open for longer hours possibly generating more revenue.
People sleep at night. They are meant to sleep during the dark hours. They call it the 3rd Shift for a reason; it's the top choice of a select(ed) few.
3. A new architectural style which looks the wow factor - a good example of architectural design progress is the Jencks Architectural Evolutionary Tree which shows how design has progressed throughout the 20th century and what past influences the architects have used please copy the link which will show you the Jencks diagram - https://streets.mn/2014/10/15/chart-of-the-day-charles-jencks-architectural-evolutionary-tree/#lightbox/0/ - I wonder is there a Golf Course Architecture equivalent of this?
I suspect you would have mid-20th century architects in the USA saying "screw those golden age guys" followed by Pete Dye saying "love golden age, but give me some acid first" followed by Mike Strantz "I don't need acid; it's in my dna" followed by Jim Engh "" followed by the minimalists "love golden age."
4. Floating golf course
Why?
5. Golf Course Design influenced by biological structures and shapes.
Desmond Muirhead...shunned #ClashingRocks http://theaposition.com/johnstrawn/golf/personalities/213/channeling-desmond-muirhead6. Underground houses connected to ecological wet areas with a golf course above it
What sustains the golf course and how do you get around the legalities?
7. Vertical golf course in the middle of a built up city or Golf Course inside large biomes/domes a la Buckminster Fuller so that it can be played 24/7.
Gravity might have something to add to this conversation.
8. New type of grasses so that they are more robust and less maintenance or even synthetic or hybrid grasses
Kentucky blue and Northern California Sensimilla? I know one guy working with this blend.
9. New forms of hazards using materials that are not the norm on golf courses like concrete, plastic which has been thrown out, corten steel or even graphene.
liability insurance required?
10. more efficient and natural irrigation systems
proceed...
11. Construction of golf courses done by drones or robots with the designer/contractor working from home.
lots of people out of work on this one.
12. A golf course on the Moon or even Mars 
Now you're talking.
There are a lot of possibilities I could go on and on ....
I concur that these are outside the box. I can intimate that the majority of the golf world would label them as bat-shit crazy. Therein lies the rub.
CheersBen ][/color][/font]
[/color][/size][/font]

[Tom_Doak]

But I can't think of one creative person worthy of the name who has ever produced great work by trying/starting out to be 'original' -- in any art-craft, and certainly not in gca.

There is such a thing as an original concept -- Ben is apparently a big believer in that, although it is harder to impose a new concept on a game with as many givens as golf.  [A golf course is not very much like a building.]


However, I can say that a lot of my most original golf holes are the result of things we came up with on site as we built them.


The very idea that golf course architecture is all about "golf ideas" and not about construction work is kind of wrong to me.  I've been able to witness many great holes being created, by Pete Dye and by Bill Coore and by my crew, and the only one of them that plopped down from something on paper was the 5th hole at Long Cove -- I thought that was P.B.'s idea, but Pete had drawn it out like that months earlier.

[Jerry Kluger]

I see the innovation of different eras yet I wonder if that really matters.  We look back at the 1960s and see architecture designed for beauty first and interest/challenge second.  We see Pete Dye come along where he demonstrates that you can create, and I mean create,  a really interesting and challenging golf course which does not place beauty first.  Then we come to the very important work of Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw in the creation of Sand Hills which opened up the eyes of the golf world that sometimes the land itself provides for a great golf course.  I also feel that C&C brought out some other architectural achievements such as demonstrating how to build a drivable par 4 which is to be considered by most players and not just the very best and they also showed that a really good par 3 can be uphill and that a drop shot par 3 is really not what makes a good golf hole. 


There has been much talk about Desmond Muirhead and I have to say that it might have been better if he stayed away from designing golf courses.  My father-in-law lives on one of his courses and it was a disaster from the beginning.  It took years of rebuilding, resurfacing and finally reconstructing before it became a course which is playable.  The value of the homes in the community plummeted because potential buyers who played the course wanted nothing to do with it. 

[Bill Seitz]

Aside from some Ben's wilder or simply exorbitantly expensive (and unnecessary) ideas, not all of them particularly innovative.  Better grass blends and more efficient irrigation systems?  Are people not already working on these things?  Fun exercise though.  A floating course sounds interesting, but I'm not sure we need something flatter than Illinois.


One thing I haven't seen (but may have missed) is the extent to which innovative ideas are stifled by owners?  We tend to think of GCA as a form of art (which it is), but so is portrait painting.  If you pay a very fine painter for a portrait, he may have some creative license, but at the end of the day, the client wants something that looks like the subject.  Someone investing $X million in a golf course who needs to sell memberships or daily fee rounds may not be so willing to take chances.  I think Tom has talked about this before with respect to green design.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, I have heard both Pete Dye and Tom Fazio say that owners hire them to do their last course.  No one wants to hear their gca (or airplane pilot) say, "Hey, I want to try something new!"    


I saw Fleetwood Mac a few years ago, and they introduced the song Tusk as one they had a lot of trouble getting recorded.  The suits (Record executives) always called for fresh new material, as long as it sounded substantially like the last album that sold millions.


And, these days, no project (new or remodel) seems to get done without a biz consultant telling the owner what the payback might be.  Personally, I don't think most of them account for daylight hours, rain (and in many cases) flood days, etc.  And, they figure it will be a course just about average new course or redo.  If a market with 10 public courses plays 300,000 rounds, and you add an 11th, you might expect rounds to drop to 27,272 as it averages out.  They count on the new course being attractive enough to get the 30K, figuring the low course on the list loses more play.  But, I digress, and the biz plan is based on nothing too out of whack assumptions.  Again, you would think something really different (which for a while, the CCFAD's were) would sell and sell at a higher price.  But, just as so many object to anything other than par 72, 7K yards, or whatever has become standard, few are willing to go out on a limb.  And, he who has the gold rules is the golden rule in the design biz.


My old mentor had the general idea that you had to do your last best course again, but might be able to introduce 2-3 new design concepts (not that his were anything radical) without anyone complaining too much.  That sort of slow evolution thinking may be what frustrated Ron W a bit, but it is probably a more practical approach to design evolving.

[Peter Pallotta]

"However, I can say that a lot of my most original golf holes are the result of things we came up with on site as we built them."


Tom - I think that explains my disconnect with this thread, i.e. by original here, I think you mean that those golf holes are neither ready made templates/concepts, nor are they imposed onto the site (from a drawing/paper plan) irregardless of the unique nature and features and soil & wind characteristics of the site itself. In other words: it's the response of talent and skill and the fundamental principles of the art-craft to a given situation and set of circumstances. And think that *is* an example of originality in gca, and that if you do it right the result is the best possible form/kind of originality. There is no other kind of meaningful & practical "originality' for an art-craft that serves to create the field of play for a game (as you note) with as many givens as golf.

I think a surprising number of posters here are missing the forest for the trees and looking too much at the surface of things, i.e. confusing differing tastes and styles and intentions with 'originality' or 'outside the box' thinking.