[Mark_Fine]

It is that time of year.  We all have different thoughts and beliefs which is what makes discussions and debates fun (most of the time  ).  Thought I would share some random things in no particular order that I believe.  Maybe others will do the same.  Happy Holidays to all! 

- Temptation is one of the most important aspects of great design
- Most golfers will never understand GCA but they do understand what is fun
- The cost of golf (too much land required/too much maintenance) needs to come down to continue to grow the game
- Shorter more cleverly designed courses will start to appear and create a trend
- Wall to wall green/over watered courses will be a thing of the past for most all golf courses
- Trees will make a comeback on certain designs (but be more thoughtfully selected and placed by golf architects vs committees)
- Great holes always have some distinctive feature that makes them special
- Very few courses deserve to be restored, but every course deserves at least a close look at its evolution
- Width used properly can create options and options create interest and interest is what makes for great golf
- It is easy to over design a golf course.  Less can be more and everything in moderation
- Dramatic car chases in movies are exciting but two hours straight of dramatic would suck.  Same goes for golf course design.
- Bright white sand makes bunkers look even more artificial then they already are.
- Dormant Bermuda is a wonderful playing surface.  Winter overseeding needs to be far more limited in its use.
- The mindset of pristine sand/raking of bunkers adds unnecessary costs.  This will change and the PGA tour/USGA need to lead by example.
- I am all for relaxed rules if it makes the game more fun for more golfers
- Play it forward and give players more teeing options to do so
- Bunkerless courses or at least designs with very few will become more common in time and greens will reduce dramatically in size
- A major professional tournament will be contested on a 6500 yard or less golf course in the next ten years and it might change the direction of golf/design.

[Rob Marshall]

"Bunkerless courses or at least designs with very few will become more common in time and greens will reduce dramatically in size"

Mark,
I grew up playing two courses without sand bunkers. They had plenty of deep grass bunkers that my father called "elephant ears". If you grow up playing grass bunkers like that they give you a lot of opportunity for creativity.

[Thomas Dai]

Pretty good list Mark.
One thing I’d like to see added to your list where circumstances permit is more courses maintained by grazing animals.
Another is retro equipment events and the availability of a r…..-b…!!
More reversible courses as well.
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

Interesting list with some great points, but a few questions.

1)  I found CPC pretty damn dramatic from #5 all the way to 18, which was a good 3 hours. Savored every moment, and of course was bummed when the round concluded.  Ditto for a few long stretches on some of the other DS 7+ courses I've played.  Unless you intend dramatic to mean difficult or stressful?

2) I don't see bunkerless courses becoming more common, however, I could see scaling it back more as was done for the Memorial Park redo.

3)  Major tournament for who?  Juniors?  Seniors?  The LPGA?  perhaps.  But The PGA boys... no way in hell, and I'm willing to wage a significant amount on that

[Anthony Gray]

 Mark you hit a home run. Bring fun back into golf. No one wants beat up for five hours that’s why they are at the course. To escape life for awhile. Enjoy the outdoors. Laugh at the bad shots with the buddys and high five the good ones.


 There is a demand for championship courses but the average golfer does not want to play one routinely. Course for the average Joe are in demand.


 I’ve returned to my golfing roots. I like the courses without bunkers or very few. I’m even tempted to golfing shirtless again. I love playing 18 alone with the wife and kid in the cart. It’s fun. Score is unimportant.


 Anthony

[Peter Pallotta]

I believe that so-called 'average golfers' know much more about golf course architecture than they're ever given credit for, but that:
a) they 'know' it mostly not in words and concepts but in the way it really matters, in the actual playing, and
b) in the actual playing, they find certain features dear to the conceptualist's heart simply not to their liking

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
CPC is obviously an amazing golf course and no hole should be missed.  The routing teases you with peaks at the ocean as you work your way through the front nine.  The culmination of the front - the 9th (the 8th isn’t bad either  ) is one of the best short par fours on the planet.  But then you turn back away from the ocean and play a more subdued and conventional 10th and then slowly get the heart rate up again with a solid 11th followed by a stellar 12th and 13th before the foreplay of the 14th knowing three of the greatest holes in all of golf wait ahead.  By 18 you are spent and just pinching yourself as you head back toward the clubhouse realizing you just witnessed just how good golf can possibly get. 


We will see about more bunkerless courses but without question I believe the number of bunkers on many designs will be reduced. Architects have many other obstacles and challenges in their tool box to use that are less artificial looking, lower maintenance, and just as if not more interesting to employ.


Stay tuned about a much shorter golf course that challenges even the likes of Bryson (and still encourages him to hit driver numerous times) and isn’t a bazillion yards long.  It is all about changing the mentally about how many par threes, fours and fives are necessary for championship golf. Again, time will tell but this is what I believe 


Anthony/Peter,
Thumbs up to both of you 

[mike_malone]

Mark,


  I find tree planting to be a tough task so soon after the removal movement. So many of the trees just taken down were planted in open space not as replacements. So the idea of replacing a tree taken down with a new one is a much higher hurdle.


  New hardwoods take years to grow and nearly fully grown ones transplanted cost a fortune.  Fast growing evergreens have a bad image as we realize how bad they are for golf.




I think the best idea for tree planting is to reinforce areas of trees that were there at the original design time with new trees that can grow in over decades.


It’s a waste of money to plant trees. Do other things like adjusting grass lines to affect play.


 I played Royal Ashdown Forest which was bunkerless but had devilish berms with heather.


Do things that allow for adjustment over time.

[Thomas Dai]

Indigenous trees if there have to be trees not some botanical experience imported from another part of the world. Indigenous flora and fauna etc as well.
atb

[Sean_A]

I believe

temptation is a central tenet of golf

trees have a place in golf

everybody's idea of fun is different

that I don't care about growing the game... not even sure what it means

fairway heights should be longer and rough heights shorter

greens running at 9-10 is plenty

generally courses should be kept as reasonably dry as possible

that generally speaking bunkers should be harsher, more meaningfully placed and far fewer in number

bunkers should be treated like a water hazard...don't like the lie, take a penalty drop

sheep on courses is good for golf

in multiple use courses

less money should be spent on maintenance

cheap, cheerful, compelling and curious courses are what interest me most

That will do for now.

Ciao

[Niall C]

It's probably easier for me to simply tweak Sean's list;

I believe


temptation is a central tenet of golf - agree 100%, us hackers love a challenge


trees have a place in golf - yes, but mainly as a backdrop


everybody's idea of fun is different


that I don't care about growing the game... not even sure what it means - the chase to "grow the game" is what is spoiling it IMO.


fairway heights should be longer and rough heights shorter


that generally speaking bunkers should be harsher varied in terms of severity, more meaningfully placed and far fewer in number


bunkers should be treated like a water hazard...don't like the lie, take a penalty drop


sheep on courses is good for golf - quite a romantic idea but is impractical in most places and also has drawbacks. There is good reason why there are very few courses left with livestock.


in multiple use courses


less money should be spent on maintenance


cheap, cheerful, compelling and curious courses are what interest me most - I'm not adverse to playing one of the big courses but have come to realise recently that through various efforts to "grow the game" I'm being increasingly priced out of a lot of these courses. Count me as another one who is unlikely to ever play TOC again. At the same time however I'm very much enjoying the courses Sean describes here and the low key vibe they often have.


That will do for now.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

I believe in following at least 8 of the 10 commandments of golf course design on every project! (and, it's a rolling 2 rules that I break, not the same ones.)

[Ira Fishman]

I believe that Ballyneal is a links.


I believe that the tree on Number 4 at MP is great architecture.


I believe that Pasatiempo is not a difficult walk.


I believe that 14 at Bandon Trails is both "fair" and a terrific hole.


I believe that restoration means restore not sort of restore.


I believe that the Dell at Lahinch is quirk.


I believe that raters are well intentioned people, but rankings are inherently subjective and not subject to quantification.


I believe that one day I might get to play TOC so that I could appreciate why it is the answer to every question.


I believe what Peter P said about the meaning of par.


Happy Holidays to all!

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I also doubt that Oakmont is going to start planing Pin Oaks again, but it will be interesting to see what role trees play in the future.  I used to laugh at what I called “back up” trees which are trees planted now to start growing to replace the ones near it when those eventually die.  Even the greatest courses have them such as CPC because trees are an important aspect of certain holes on that golf course. Even one of our favorite architects, William Flynn, had a high affinity for trees.  We shall see.

[David Kelly]

that I don't care about growing the game... not even sure what it means

Agree with this.  Golf was shrinking considerably and for a while before COVID despite all the efforts of the "grow the game" contingent.  I expect most of the "growing the game" efforts had the same opposite effect that "Tiger-proofing" golf courses did.

[Mark_Fine]

Some of you don’t see a need to try to grow the game.  I guess many of us in the industry get concerned when we see more courses closing vs opening which has been the case for some time. Play is now up because of Covid which has helped many courses. 

Sean,
I liked your comment about fairway heights longer and rough shorter.  What do you believe about green heights?

[Sean_A]

Some of you don’t see a need to try to grow the game.  I guess many of us in the industry get concerned when we see more courses closing vs opening which has been the case for some time. Play is now up because of Covid which has helped many courses. 

Sean,
I liked your comment about fairway heights longer and rough shorter.  What do you believe about green heights?

Running at 9-10 is plenty of pace. I don't see the point in spending more money to cut greens shorter which ultimately results in flatter greens or silly golf on interesting greens. Not to mention stressing grass and green keepers. 10+ pace is one of the worst developments in golf.

I play some greens that would be ridiculous if the pace was 8.

In my parts of the world, for me at least, growing the game is far more about getting women to play than anything else. There is no larger target to hit. Building fancy resort courses in far flung places, mega tee monstrosities ad the same ole same ole is not going to grow the game. Actively recruiting and welcoming women as club members, administrators, planners, architects etc will do far more to grow the game than worrying about the net loss of courses.

Ciao

[Sean_A]

Delete.

[Ian Andrew]

Bunkerless courses or at least designs with very few will become more common in time and greens will reduce dramatically in size

I agree with the first part of this idea, but I think I disagree with you on greens.
Outside of initial cost to build, if you've removed lots of bunkers, there's no reason to build smaller greens.
Since smaller greens by necessity (pin locations) need to be simpler your run the risk of being dull or interestingly too exacting.
I would expect big greens, with more undulation on and around them would be the more obvious direction forward.


My2c

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'll agree with Ian to disagree with Mark.....


As to bunkers, I think a reduction to a more Ross like scale and number of bunkers makes sense, whereas eliminating them may reduce the allure of golf.  As always, I could be wrong.  And, I will bet most gca's have already taken that approach since perhaps the 2009 recession.  In my case, my "typical" bunker square footage reduced from 100K+ to 50K sand bunkers on muni courses, and maybe up to 75K on higher end courses.  I reduced the total size through a combo of smaller size bunkers and a slight reduction in number.  No one I know has ever mentioned missing those 50K SF of bunkers, and visually, it seems a combo of grass bunkers, mounding, steeper banks, etc. seem to fill any voids nicely.


As to greens, even if almost totally flat (really sloped under 3%) the smallest green size I can see is about 4400 SF, to create enough cup rotation areas.  That may be what Mark is talking about, but I recall his thread about 1000+ SF greens, so maybe not.  A lot of courses have greens that have shrunk to that 4400 SF or so, so they should probably be bigger for both interest and long term effects.  Most supers I have talked to over the years still think 6500 is the max they need, which I have run up against the few times I proposed a very large green for design variety.


Merry Christmas!

[Mark_Fine]

Ian and Jeff,
Time will tell with greens.  You guys might be right but I believe green size on average will shrink especially as more wear tolerant and compaction tolerate grasses are developed.  Whether we get down to 1000 sq feet is another matter.  That earlier thread I made was a bit radical but I still believe at some point someone will design a very unique non status quo course with very small greens and very clever surrounds so the emphasis is more on ball striking and short game recoveries and less on putting.  It will also be less expensive to maintain.


Harbour Town has small greens, they average about 3700 sq ft.  Pebble Beach’s are even smaller averaging 3500 sq ft. Both courses get non stop play. What if the greens on those courses were half that size and the surrounds adjusted accordingly?  Many at Harbour Town are surrounded by short grass so putting for some would still be an option even though the actual green surfaces would be dramatically reduced. 

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,


1000 sq. Ft. Greens would greatly reduce the variety of play, day to day. In fact, at that size you may just as well build a synthetic green with one hole location. The idea of having greenside bunkers would make it very difficult for most to play. I think I’d get bored playing a course with greens so consistently small, and probably wouldn’t take more than a few holes.

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
You may be right and 1000 sq ft might be way too small.  But there are many other options besides just bunkers to make the recovery shots varied and interesting from hole to hole.  Just think if a course like Harbour Town which most of us know reduced the average size of their greens by half?  Would it ruin the golf course/experience?  One of the reasons the pros rave about the course now is because the greens are almost half the size of the average PGA Tour event and they require shot making and short game prowess.  It is not just a putting contest. 

What the right size is there I don’t know but if the average green size at HT was say 2500 sq ft, I still think most would love it and relish the unique challenge. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()