Percentage of Your Golfers that Really Care About Your Golden Age Architect?

[Brian Marion]

What percentage of your golfing members, or golfers in general, really care about the pedigree of your course?


I find at my home course, it's fairly low. They understand that some guy who's famous, who has designed many championship and some the most renowned courses in the world, designed our course too. In fact, before those more famous were even built.


I've shown images and likenesses, aerials and pedigree. Newspaper clippings and dates.


But to a large extent, they don't really care. Most, to this day, still only care about what they think they see on TV once every April.


Are the details of architecture and the golden age in particular, just too far over the average golfers/members head?

[Terry Lavin]

5-10% best. There are two curves at play here: the inquisitive stage and the knowledge and deliberate acquisition stage. A lot of members get inquisitive but not all that many take the time to get acquire the necessary information. 


Almost all remain opinionated, with or without the necessary bases for their opinions.

[Ira Fishman]

What percentage of your golfing members, or golfers in general, really care about the pedigree of your course?


I find at my home course, it's fairly low. They understand that some guy who's famous, who has designed many championship and some the most renowned courses in the world, designed our course too. In fact, before those more famous were even built.


I've shown images and likenesses, aerials and pedigree. Newspaper clippings and dates.


But to a large extent, they don't really care. Most, to this day, still only care about what they think they see on TV once every April.


Are the details of architecture and the golden age in particular, just too far over the average golfers/members head?

I do not think it is a question of being over anyone's head. It is more whether people are interested enough to invest the time given competing interests. I enjoy cooking, but never would invest the time to learn about why certain ingredients vary from country to country let alone region to region. I love to read and to listen to many music genres, but I know virtually nothing about literary or music theory.  On the other hand, I could bore you to tears about the nuances of Congressional procedures even if you genuinely liked politics.


For most people golf is a game and for many it is a competitive sport. They enjoy it without needing to know much if anything about architecture.


Ira

[Matthew Mollica]

I am constantly surprised (but I really shouldn't be) by the indifference shown by members towards their home course's history, evolution, and initial design. This is at my own club, and other clubs I visit.


The most amazing episode along these lines was a very intelligent man who was an R&A member, who thought me crazy when I enquired as to whether he had played TOC in reverse? He really didn't believe that could be done, and was oblivious to it ever occurring. I'm sure he dismissed my two minute history lesson in less time than it took me to recite.


Both these point to Ira's description above being a pretty accurate summation.

[cary lichtenstein]

less than 1%

[Jeff_Mingay]

In my work at historic clubs/courses, I emphasize that we're not celebrating "a dead guy" for the sake of being nostalgic. We're taking inspiration from original designs by pioneer golf architects whose design philosophy has stood the test of time. Who doesn't want to play a course that functions properly, is interesting/enjoyable to a wide demographic of golfers, and is different than other courses (in a good way)?


That's what all of the most successful and admired Golden Age guys consistently promoted.


It's not about celebrating specific men from that era as individuals, as much as it's taking inspiration from what the best of those Golden Age guys stood for, promoted and ultimately attempted to achieve in their work.


This is what members of any club with a Golden Age golf course need to understand. It's the philosophy more than the individual.

[Mike_Young]

In my work at historic clubs/courses, I emphasize that we're not celebrating "a dead guy" for the sake of being nostalgic. We're taking inspiration from original designs by pioneer golf architects whose design philosophy has stood the test of time. Who doesn't want to play a course that functions properly, is interesting/enjoyable to a wide demographic of golfers, and is different than other courses (in a good way)?


That's what all of the most successful and admired Golden Age guys consistently promoted.


It's not about celebrating specific men from that era as individuals, as much as it's taking inspiration from what the best of those Golden Age guys stood for, promoted and ultimately attempted to achieve in their work.


This is what members of any club with a Golden Age golf course need to understand. It's the philosophy more than the individual.

AGREE....but still not sure more than 5% care or understand....

[Ally Mcintosh]

Way higher in the US than in the UK.

[Jeff Schley]

Very low, but since we recently started a restoration at one club, everyone is curious as to why they have an assessment to restore much of it back to XYZ's original design. When you charge the members $$$$ for an assessment, all the sudden they are interested and some that voted against complain although they may not even know the designers name, surprise.

[Thomas Dai]

5-10% best. There are two curves at play here: the inquisitive stage and the knowledge and deliberate acquisition stage. A lot of members get inquisitive but not all that many take the time to get acquire the necessary information. 
Almost all remain opinionated, with or without the necessary bases for their opinions.

+1
Photos are very important. Comparisons of old photos and how things are now in particular.
atb

[Adrian_Stiff]

1%

[MCirba]

Take heart knowing the history of the world has largely been changed by passionate, committed minorities, for better or worse.

[Mike_Young]

When one is passionate about something it is difficult to realize that many others may not be.  For people on this site it is difficult to realize that the average member doesn't just not care but he may also consider you a nut if you do.  And for those of us in the business, we had better be passionate or we will not be in it but yet we have to sell to many who could care less and can be easily manipulated by "golf personalities" such as tour players etc.  Average architect could tell a board they need to remove 10 trees on a hole and they would tell him "no way" and then Elwood Jones the newest PGA tour member could come back home to the course and tell them they needed to remove 20 trees and it would be done. 

Disclosure, Brian is at a Tillinghast course, Johnson city CC and I have been working with him the last couple of years.  He's going about it the right way and he is extremely passionate about it.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with golfers not caring about architectural pedigree but it is good to know that it is a small number instead of making the mistake that so many do care.  We did one hole this past Spring and as we do more then more will understand. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yeah,  even if this group of 175 discussion group participants is only 0.1% of those who care, that is still just 175,000 golfers (out of 25Mil) who do.  And judging by the sales figures of most gca books, even that may be high.


Most golfers seem to care mostly about why a bunker was put in their driving distance range and not another 10 yards down the fw where it would "properly" challenge golfers who hit it further than they do.....


And, yes, they may care about the nameplate, whether Tillie, Fazio, or Doak, as celebrity sells, even if design quality doesn't, without any deep understanding of why it should.  Selling design quality falls under the category of "selling the invisible" and why many then and now default to the old saying that "no one ever got blamed for hiring IBM."

[Joe Zucker]

Asking a slightly different question, what percentage of golfers care about golden age architecture?  I think the number is quite a bit higher.  Whether Ross or Colt designed the course may not be that interesting and some people don't care for history.  But I'd guess the number of players who appreciate a hole designed with golden age principals is larger.  Probably not a majority, but maybe 10-25%? 


Growing up in Cleveland, I played a lot of golf at Manakiki (Ross) and a modern housing development course called Red Tail that was immaculately conditioned.  I preferred Manakiki but couldn't explain why for a long time.  I bet other golfers are in the same boat.

[Adam Lawrence]

Asking a slightly different question, what percentage of golfers care about golden age architecture?  I think the number is quite a bit higher.  Whether Ross or Colt designed the course may not be that interesting and some people don't care for history.  But I'd guess the number of players who appreciate a hole designed with golden age principals is larger.  Probably not a majority, but maybe 10-25%? 


Growing up in Cleveland, I played a lot of golf at Manakiki (Ross) and a modern housing development course called Red Tail that was immaculately conditioned.  I preferred Manakiki but couldn't explain why for a long time.  I bet other golfers are in the same boat.

I'm sure you're right Joe, and was about to say something similar. The individual architect may not matter to most. But the quality of the course does.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Asking a slightly different question, what percentage of golfers care about golden age architecture?  I think the number is quite a bit higher.  Whether Ross or Colt designed the course may not be that interesting and some people don't care for history.  But I'd guess the number of players who appreciate a hole designed with golden age principals is larger.  Probably not a majority, but maybe 10-25%? 


Growing up in Cleveland, I played a lot of golf at Manakiki (Ross) and a modern housing development course called Red Tail that was immaculately conditioned.  I preferred Manakiki but couldn't explain why for a long time.  I bet other golfers are in the same boat.

I'm sure you're right Joe, and was about to say something similar. The individual architect may not matter to most. But the quality of the course does.

How do you measure quality though? Bit like saying a Coldplay album is crap and a Joy Division album is good. The whole thing is subjective, someone decided farts smell bad and perfume smells nice...dogs don't agree.
People (the 99%) vote with their feet. You once said to me you could not understand why Cumberwell Park was so busy...the answer is in there if you look. I wonder what % of golf clubs don't even list their architect on their website. The majority of UK Members would not know they were playing a James Braid course.

[Mike_Trenham]

I think the majority of the membership at my course does value that the course was designed by Donald Ross in terms of brand equity. 


Conversely they have limited interest and understanding how the course has been modified and are comfortable with continued modifications.

[Joel_Stewart]

"Percentage of golfers" may be unfair because if you play at a Fazio, Nicklaus, Jones course do you really care about Golden Age architecture?


I think what has happened over the 15 years is the new guard (that care) has taken over from the old guard (who don't care).  As a result you're seeing Rees and others get pushed out and dozens upon dozens of courses are being restored to their Golden Age brilliance. 


I've been playing a MacDonald / Raynor course lately that might be one of the last to not have a restoration.  There's definitely a movement to start the process and this winter they plan to remove around 100 trees.  This movement is from the 30-40 years old members that have convinced the board.

[Tim_Weiman]

Asking a slightly different question, what percentage of golfers care about golden age architecture?  I think the number is quite a bit higher.  Whether Ross or Colt designed the course may not be that interesting and some people don't care for history.  But I'd guess the number of players who appreciate a hole designed with golden age principals is larger.  Probably not a majority, but maybe 10-25%? 


Growing up in Cleveland, I played a lot of golf at Manakiki (Ross) and a modern housing development course called Red Tail that was immaculately conditioned.  I preferred Manakiki but couldn't explain why for a long time.  I bet other golfers are in the same boat.

Joe,


I am quite familiar with golf in Cleveland. Manakiki vs Red Tail? Wow, not even close. I’d prefer Manakiki 10/10…..but would probably prefer Sleepy Hollow over Manakiki on most days, especially back in the Charlie Sifford days.

[Kyle Harris]

They begin to care a lot more when you tell them their Donald Ross course is actually a Tom Bendelow.


It’s almost always about Donald Ross.

[V_Halyard]

Intriguing question.

Let’s be real, for the majority of Golfer’s, GCA is eye-rolling nasty talk.
“Our golf architect is coming, would you like to meet him?  No? Oh, ok, enjoy your oil change.”

Currently, we are in an interesting position. We restored our remote Ross course. (2011-2015)

That project turned out well.
We have benefitted from both the Ross and Ron Prichard brands.
Thankfully that effort gave a majority of our membership a tangible understanding of the value of a well restored Ross Branded course. (USGA event, Full Membership, waitlist, great course features and conditioning etc…)

Last year, the course was decimated by a storm, scraped.  We are in need of, and are presently rebuilding a fairly extensive new master plan with Prichard. Thankfully 80% or more of membership now understand the positive impact of reciting, ”We’re a Donald Ross”.

That said realistically and honestly, only 4% really care about the GCA/Classic features etc. 
20 of us… maybe, on a sunny day. 
In our case, that is absolutely fine, as the majority now recognize and support the need to restore/repair/protect the historical architectural features, play, and benefits.

We are in new territory and to their credit, this go around, the majority trusts the 4% with the stewardship of the Re-Resto-Reno-Repair, again being lead by Ron Prichard.

[David Amarnek]

When I joined my club in Philly, they included the Design Evolution book with my membership packet.  I'm not sure if that practice continues to this day, but I thought that was a pretty cool method to inform the new members of the architectural history of their course.

[A.G._Crockett]

There are individuals who know the name of the GCA that designed their golf course, whether Golden Age or modern, but know little or nothing beyond that about what makes one architect different from another.  Also, these folks typically know little or nothing about what has been done to the course since the original design, including other GCA's that have worked on the course.
Whatever the percentage is of those in the above paragraph, it absolutely dwarfs the percentage of those who really pay attention to these things, and most of those who even know the bare minimum don't really want to know more.
But the vast, VAST majority of golfers, even serious golfers, don't have a scintilla of interest in this stuff; their eyes glaze over if you even try to talk about it.

[Jim Lipstate]

When making a choice as to where to play knowing who the architect is/was brings certain expectations. If I know that I will be playing a Doak or Crenshaw/Coore design my expectations will be very high for a quality experience. Of course we all have experienced fantastic golf from lesser known architects. On a recent trip to W. Virginia and Virginia I was able to play Old White a classic CBM/Raynor course that brought certain expectations and fun such as trying to name the template holes as they were encountered. I also played Ballyhack designed by Lester George who I was totally unfamiliar with. What a rollicking fun course with emphasis on the rollicking.


If your course has a pedigree fantastic use that to attract play and members. A lesser known gem - well that can be great also.