Just listened to Stephen Kay podcast. We hurt that guy.

[Mark_Fine]

The average golfer knows who designed the course they are playing only slightly more then the average skier or snow boarder knows who designed the resort they are at.  I was just at a Fazio course down in Hilton Head SC and played with three members none of whom knew who designed the golf course.  When I said it was Fazio the one said, “Yeah that sounds right.”    

[John Kavanaugh]

It's like Oscar De La Renta believing all women are ugly.

[David Kelly]

Architects might (reasonably) think that their clients are the course owners and club committees that hire and pay them but ultimately their reputation depends on the people who actually play the golf courses.

Their clients are the people who pay them to design the golf course. Full stop.

True - but their critics are all those that play the course from then on.

No. The critics only think they’re that influential.

I didn't say anything about critics, I said the people who play the golf course.  The customers.

[Kalen Braley]

The average golfer knows who designed the course they are playing only slightly more then the average skier or snow boarder knows who designed the resort they are at.  I was just at a Fazio course down in Hilton Head SC and played with three members none of whom knew who designed the golf course.  When I said it was Fazio the one said, “Yeah that sounds right.”   

Mark,

While that may be true for all customers, what % of raters on one of the big 3 panels don't know who at least one of the architects was for said course (either the original designer or whoever restored/modified it along the way)?  I suspect that would be a fairly small percentage.

[John Kavanaugh]

Good news. Raters won’t bother with courses by the subject of the OP. He is safe from the informed.

[Stewart Abramson]

There are many here that aren't giving the retail golfer credit for what they know or don't know about golf design and the hot architects of the day.


The lesson to be learned here is to never underestimate what the consumer knows, as they are better educated than ever ....

Maybe so, but IMO I think you are overestimating what the the typical golf consumer knows. I played Lake Wales Country Club a couple days ago as part of a group of 20 avid golfers, each of whom plays three times a week and plays more than 30 different courses each year. While we were in the pro shop and looking at the merchandise that says it's a Donald Ross designed course, I mentioned the "controversy" regarding whether it was really a Ross or if it was a Raynor. While most of them knew Ross, not one of them had heard of Seth Raynor.  We live less than two hours from Streamsong and I'd bet that not two of the 20 can identify any of the three architects who designed those three courses.


Most retail golfers know courses that they see the tour play. They connect Arnie with Bay Hill, Jack with Muirfield Village, Pete Dye with TPC Sawgrass, Donald Ross with #2 and maybe OTM with TOC. They may also know that Ben Crenshaw designs courses, but probably can't identify  any course he's worked on and don't know of Bill Coore.  Unless they are well travelled (which is not a majority of golfers) they are more likely to identify Greg Norman, Gary Player and Davis Love III as top GCA's than Tom Doak or Gil Hanse. They certainly don't know Deveraux Emmett, George Thomas, James Braid, Harry Colt, Willie Park et al., and are more likely than not to identify Max Behr as Jethro Bodine and Robert Hunter as the lyricist of the Grateful Dead.



Max Behr

[Garland Bayley]

...

Max Behr

Many people who go to Home Depot know the Behr name. That family didn't just do golf courses.

[SL_Solow]

Steve Lang,  The standards for a defamation suit are quite high.  First, the statement has to be false and defamatory.  Accordingly, an opinion, identified as such, is generally immune from challenge unless it is a poorly structured attempt at a statement of fact which would have to be shown as being objectively false  .  Additionally, the plaintiff would have to establish that he suffered economic damage as a result of the statement.  If the architect is well known, he might be deemed a public figure in which case the plaintiff must prove "actual malice".  I suspect that we are pretty safe here.  Moreover, people who bring lawsuits of this type often find they are republishing the statements that offended them to a wider audience. Finally, and of relevance to this group, plaintiffs should consider whether the target of their suit has the financial wherewithal to pay significant damages

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
I will venture to say even most raters won’t know the true history of most golf courses they play.  Very few do the research. How many do you think would know which three holes at Plainfield were not original Ross?  Would they know who built them?  How many know the history of #2 and what is Ross and what isn’t?  Same goes for Seminole.  Would they know who first designed Shinnecock Hills and how it changed over the years?  I can’t imagine more than a handful would be able to explain the evolution of a course like The Lake Course at The Olympic Club and I highly doubt they know who first designed it.  And don’t even get me going on “restorations”.  Even a smaller number could tell you what was “restored” and what was not let alone by who.  No offense to anyone, there just are very few who really care. 

[Mike Bodo]

I think people here underestimate the power of the internet and how popular Vloggers such as the NLU guys, Fried Egg and Erik Anders Lang continually highlight and feature golf architects in their work. I guarantee a lot of retail golfers didn't know who Mike Devries was before NLU's Michigan Tour Sauce series or the courses he's done, but they sure as heck do know and will make plans to check out some of his courses in and around the Grand Rapids, MI area and build golf trips around it. McKlay Kidd has been featured in one of their Vlog's. So, too, our own Tom Doak and prominent others - whether they physically appeared on the Vlog/podcast or were mentioned by name.


I see golf course architects being promoted in conjunction with golf courses they designed in print, digital and radio media more and more. Heck, I heard a local radio spot here in the Detroit area encouraging people to play the Tom Doak designed Loop at Forest Dunes this summer and to "book now!" If an architects name didn't carry some weight or cache they wouldn't be promoted alongside the courses they designed, but I see that more and more as word gets out on who these people are. Heck, go to any golden age private clubs website and you'll see the majority of them promoting the original architect who designed the course for use as a marketing tool, i.e. Come join and play our historic, classic or highly rated (insert architect name here) golf course.


I don't know what bubble some of you here live in and don't get me wrong, I enjoy the contributions from all of you, but some need to get their heads out of the sand and get out more as the world has changed a lot the past several years. Granted, there will always be a large slice of the golfing populace who don't know or care who designed the particular courses they play, but there is a growing contingent of people that seek out courses because of who the architect is behind it.


Does anyone here know that Tom Doak as over 22,000 Instagram followers (me being one of them)? 22K!!! He's got more followers than a lot of LPGA tour golfers and a number of PGA Tour players. He's built himself into a brand and has done a damn fine job doing it I might add. Does anyone honestly think the Lido would be getting all the interest and attention it's receiving if a branded architect weren't behind it? NO!! If Art Hills (R.I.P.) were doing the Lido right now do you think anyone would give a horses arse? NO!! It would be viewed as just a generic Art Hills designed course and no one would bother or care to look into the backstory behind the Lido. Mike Kesier's nobody's fool. He knew he needed a big name architect behind the Lido in order to draw interest and attention in the project and he selected arguably the best person for this particular job. The course will be booked solid for years once it opens because of it, as it's all the buzz in a lot of different golfing circles - not just here. People are chomping at the bit to play the course without even having seen the finished product - that's how much anticipation there is.


More and more people I talk to who aren't golf architecture aficionado's have become increasingly aware of golf course architects the past several years and seek to play courses specific ones have designed as a result of media attention/promotion, rankings or from having had a positive experience at another course built by said architect. Lastly, if there wasn't inherent value in a name courses and clubs themselves wouldn't be promoting the architects behind them in the manner I see now.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Good post and good points.  That said I think we will just agree to disagree.  What percentage of golfers is 22,000 out of the 25,000,000 that play in the US alone?  You do the math.  I recently interviewed for a renovation project and one person on the committee of ten members knew who their original architect was or even cared.  I just finished the renovation of two Gordon courses. The one was private and the other public. I can’t recall a single golfer I met/talked to at the public course who knew who Gordon was. Jim Sherma, Mike Cirba and Joe Bausch were about it and we know they are golf architecture nerds .  At the private course, my guess is less than a dozen members could identify the name.  I played at a high end Fazio course not long ago in the mid west and met with the owner of the course/development.  He told me he was close friends with Bill and Ben but said he had to choose Fazio for the course because his goal was to sell real estate and it was the only name anyone really knew. 

I would like to think you are right but I get around all over (at least I did before Covid) and I’m even in the golf business but I hate to say it, golfers care more about smooth greens and good burgers then they do about the origins of the design they are playing.  I have an interview coming up to renovate/restore an old Emmett course.  My guess is one maybe two hands will go up when I ask about the architect, who he was and what he designed. It is just the way it is. 

[Mike_Young]

In fact, while my career mostly covered local or regional public courses, I was always struck by the dichotomy of what I would read here, and what I heard from golfers, owners, etc. on the great minimalist, shaggy bunker designs favored here.  It was like (in my case, but I can't be alone) the discussions here were mostly fantasy vs. reality.

Oh I do think most of this site thrives on fantasy or what we call "goober reality".  I basically use this site for practicing instigation.  Jeff, having careers in local or public golf CAN ( not always) be similar to having a restaurant in a gas station with the same cut of prime ribeye cooked on a Green Egg and sold for half of what 5 star chef creates in a top tier restaurant in the city.  For 99.9 percent of golfers presentation is the key not architecture....just like food.  And while amenities like big screens over the urinals in locker rooms are great for 99 percent...the cool guys these days would prefer a galvanized bucket...

[Tim Martin]

For 99.9 percent of golfers presentation is the key not architecture....just like food. 

Mike’s quote above hits the bullseye as most golfers never get past the presentation/condition of the golf course. As far as the food analogy I think far more people as a percentage will put aside “presentation” if the food is good/exceptional.

[Joel_Stewart]

I haven't listened to the podcast yet but I did hear a 2 minute clip in which he said it was impossible to get clubs to cut down trees in the 1990s and it wasn't until Oakmont and Winged Foot did it that it became okay.


I don't know of any clubs he worked on regarding restoration work but it wasn't until Doak, Hanse and Coore and a few others started doing faithful restorations that the renaissance began.  The fact is there was a lot of bad work by ASGCA architects that is now being exposed and its refreshing he's trying to be truthful about it.

Two of those three are long time ASGCA members, and the third is......well, Tom Doak!

So it's okay in your mind that as long as an ASGCA architect (and Tom Doak) fixes the desecration of another ASGCA architect that all is well.


Would love to hear your spin on the quality of architecture from ASGCA architects from 1960 to 1990.  And please comment on the quality of restorations during that period especially Oakland Hills, Baltusrol, Olympic, Pinehurst, Augusta,  East Lake, Cog Hill, Medinah, and Winged Foot.

[Lou_Duran]

I don't know what bubble some of you here live in and don't get me wrong, I enjoy the contributions from all of you, but some need to get their heads out of the sand and get out more as the world has changed a lot the past several years. Granted, there will always be a large slice of the golfing populace who don't know or care who designed the particular courses they play, but there is a growing contingent of people that seek out courses because of who the architect is behind it.

A bit condescending don't you think?  And with all the competing sources of information and interests, is that "slice of the golfing populace" changing in proportion?


But back to the subject matter.  If it is true that golfers are becoming better informed and more interested in important aspects of golf architecture, perhaps we should be even more judicious in how we describe the work of the designers, particularly in the use of such pejorative words as "architectural malpractice", "hack-job", "mailed it in", etc.


I agree with most of what SL Solow states in his post.  We may be entitled to air our opinions so long as Ran permits it, but perhaps we might exercise a bit of discipline and do some research and thinking before letting it fly.  Does a lawyer with a bad case deserve to be lambasted by those uninformed and ill-equipped to judge the facts for his failure to prevail?  Is an architect a hack because he had to fit a hole on an unattractive piece of ground to connect to the better areas made available to him?  Worse yet, does he deserve to be criticized by folks who have never seen the work, but heard the negative reports from a flippant, young golfer with tech skills seeking to monetize his interest in golf?


The internet is both a blessing and a curse.  User Beware.  And try to be responsible with the megaphone.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,
I will venture to say even most raters won’t know the true history of most golf courses they play.  Very few do the research. How many do you think would know which three holes at Plainfield were not original Ross?  Would they know who built them?  How many know the history of #2 and what is Ross and what isn’t?  Same goes for Seminole.  Would they know who first designed Shinnecock Hills and how it changed over the years?  I can’t imagine more than a handful would be able to explain the evolution of a course like The Lake Course at The Olympic Club and I highly doubt they know who first designed it.  And don’t even get me going on “restorations”.  Even a smaller number could tell you what was “restored” and what was not let alone by who.  No offense to anyone, there just are very few who really care. 

Mark,

I agree whole-heartedly with all of what you said.  But I think its unreasonable to expect a rater to actually know the history of every course they played, even if most could tell you who did the original design or the latest work on it....and have a basic familiarity with that designers body of work.

For example take a course like Pasatiempo which I've played twice, once prior to the restoration and then 15 years later.  I can certainly tell you the basics, but I know very little of the actual details in comparison to a course historian or otherwise.  Hell there may be less than 10 people on the planet who could speak authoritatively to its history.

So if that's the bar we're setting for what a "critic" should be, I can't think of even one person who knows the intimate details of the top 200 courses on the planet well enough to categorize them...

[Jason Thurman]

Isn't all this true?


There are more nerds like us than there used to be.


There are fewer nerds like us than people who give zero craps about who designed the course they're playing.


This thread made me aware of Stephen Kay. I don't know what I think of his golf courses but I'm probably a little more likely to play one now. Criticism has its pros and cons.

[Steve Lang]

   Yeah, what Jason said...


I see from https://kaygolfcoursedesign.com


"Stephen Kay is an award winning golf course architect who has been in practice since 1983 and has been affiliated with work on over 300 new and renovated projects in the United States and overseas. He prides himself by blending the classic principles of design in this highly technical modern era. His extensive experience restoring Tillinghast, Ross, Travis, Emmet, Banks, Trent Jones and others is second to none."

... And his home is in Egg Harbor City, NJ AND "we hurt that guy"  

WOW!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I haven't listened to the podcast yet but I did hear a 2 minute clip in which he said it was impossible to get clubs to cut down trees in the 1990s and it wasn't until Oakmont and Winged Foot did it that it became okay.


I don't know of any clubs he worked on regarding restoration work but it wasn't until Doak, Hanse and Coore and a few others started doing faithful restorations that the renaissance began.  The fact is there was a lot of bad work by ASGCA architects that is now being exposed and its refreshing he's trying to be truthful about it.

Two of those three are long time ASGCA members, and the third is......well, Tom Doak!

So it's okay in your mind that as long as an ASGCA architect (and Tom Doak) fixes the desecration of another ASGCA architect that all is well.


Would love to hear your spin on the quality of architecture from ASGCA architects from 1960 to 1990.  And please comment on the quality of restorations during that period especially Oakland Hills, Baltusrol, Olympic, Pinehurst, Augusta,  East Lake, Cog Hill, Medinah, and Winged Foot.

Joel,


When you ask me to comment on the restorations of the famous courses, my first question is....which restoration?  Most of those have undergone the knife several times.


I'm still not sure what your points are, other than your opinion is some restorations are better than others.  Of course, we can agree on that, although we might not agree it was the second renovation on Medinah 3 or the third renovation on Pinehurst no. 2.  it's so confusing sometimes.


As to the work of ASGCA architects between 1960 and 1990, my take is they did most of the work, whether good, bad, or indifferent.  My take on whether architecture is good isn't from as narrow a prism as yours.


If a low budget and architecturally insignificant course introduces golf to a small Midwestern town, all is good.


If a modest budget course continues to draw thousands of golfers in a bigger city and make money, all is good.


If a renovation of an old course allows it to once again fill tee sheets and memberships, all is good.  If that old course had a goal to host a tournament, and it allows that, even at the expense of historic architecture, all is good.


You get the point, I trust.

[archie_struthers]

 


I see Stephen a lot as he lives at Blue Heron where I occasionally play. He's a good guy and has built some nice golf courses. Mayday, not to worry he's fine and not losing any sleep over the gang here at GCA. Of course we are all proud of our work and Stephen has had a nice career with plenty of work over the years.


We have talked about GCA often over and golf in general, never has he been anything but cordial and nice. Any job you hold where the average person thinks they could do it better tends to make you develop a pretty thick skin. As stated many times in this thread lots of people confuse architecture with presentation and conditioning . If you ever owned a restaurant you would know food critics are even worse

[Jeff_Brauer]

  Yeah, what Jason said...


I see from https://kaygolfcoursedesign.com


"Stephen Kay is an award winning golf course architect who has been in practice since 1983 and has been affiliated with work on over 300 new and renovated projects in the United States and overseas. He prides himself by blending the classic principles of design in this highly technical modern era. His extensive experience restoring Tillinghast, Ross, Travis, Emmet, Banks, Trent Jones and others is second to none."

... And his home is in Egg Harbor City, NJ AND "we hurt that guy"  

WOW!

Hard to pile on for that.  Architects since the dawn of time have exaggerated their credentials and course lists.  I recall Jack having something like 40 courses on a list in Golf Magazine about 1980, his second year in biz.  If you looked closely, some opening dates for those facilities were like 10 years later.  I will bet not all of those actually got off the ground.


Even I was guilty.  While I listed 60 new courses, if you take out nine hole par 3 courses, nine hole regulation courses, and total rebuilds with over 1/3 of holes re-routed, the number of new regulation courses on virgin ground I designed was only in the 40's, over 37 years in biz.  Not bad compared to most, but I still felt 60 sounded better than 46......To be fair to myself, I never did list any projects that I had the contract for, but which never happened, or happened with someone else.  Hey, with those two categories included, I might have hit 100.  Include free routings where I never had a chance at the project, and it might have 200!


And, I actually took a class on sales presentations that sort of poo-poohed how much gravitas those sorts of claims have.  As for numbers, 46 new courses probably strikes most as low, since you only hear of the big boys who are in the hundreds.  As to awards, I think everyone now knows there are a lot of awards out there and probably every single architect has won something, even if from the local Kiwanis club.  I used to explain how important facilities felt about the Golf Digest Best New XXX was if I was going to mention it at all.  And, I never stooped so low as to claim a course was "nominated for the Golf Digest Best New" although some did, hoping the possible client didn't realize that the Owner or architect himself actually nominated the course, and than nearly every new course in their heyday was probably nominated.  (I never nominated more than one of mine per year, at least per category, figuring that if I didn't think it was my personal best new low fee public that year, how could it leapfrog my real favorite to win a national award?  But, owners are pretty persistent in having their courses put up for awards, so I give my fellow architects a pass on that one, too.)


Golf architecture has never gotten easier despite decades of change.  Sadly, golf architecture criticism HAS gotten much easier due to the internet.  Correcting false impressions has always been tough.  If a newspaper made a spectacular error of fact, it would print the retraction in small type on page 21.  On the internet, no one apologizes and those posts last forever (or so we are told.)


Does the ease of posting our thoughts relieve us of any sense of etiquette and good taste?  Obviously, it doesn't seem so for mainstream social media, LOL.  And, compared to the hockey sites I frequent, most of us here post in pretty good taste.  If we had an internet Doak Scale for good taste, gca.com would be at least a 6, probably 7 or 8, but I keep hoping there are sites out there that would be worthy of a rare Doak 9 or 10.

[mike_malone]

I see Stephen a lot as he lives at Blue Heron where I occasionally play. He's a good guy and has built some nice golf courses. Mayday, not to worry he's fine and not losing any sleep over the gang here at GCA. Of course we are all proud of our work and Stepehn has a nice career in the field with plenty of work over the year.


We have talked about GCA often over the years and golf in general, never has he been anything but cordial and nice. Any job where the average person thinks they could do it tends to make you develop a pretty thick skin. As stated many times in this thread lots of people confuse architecture with presentation and conditioning . If you ever owned a restaurant you would know food critics are even worse

Archie,


I know so many people who are investment “experts “ who pity me for my caution.

[Mike Bodo]

A bit condescending don't you think?  And with all the competing sources of information and interests, is that "slice of the golfing populace" changing in proportion?

Sorry if I offended anyone, as I tried to lessen the impact of that statement by stating how much I enjoy and appreciate everyone's contributions on GCA, but lets not fool ourselves. We're an older group of individuals that aren't always up to date on what's transpiring on a broader level outside our tiny walled garden. I get the sense too many individuals aren't aware or informed of the impact social media and sites like YouTube are having on the game and the role golf course architecture plays in it and are all too dismissive as a result.


Say what you will, but golf course architecture isn't the great "mystery" it once was and there are more informed golf consumers on the subject than ever thanks to outlets such as NLU, Random Golf, Fried Egg, Foreplay Golf, Golfholics, etc. that have amassed large followings. The podcast world and websites such as GCA, Geoff Shackelford and others have had tremendous impact on the growth and awareness of golf course architecture as well. It's no longer this tiny little sliver of the golfing pie it was when this site first started. Knowledge and appreciation of golf course architecture and its impact on the game has grown tremendously since then. Will conversations on golf course architecture become routine between buddies on golf trips or excursions, probably not in my lifetime. Rest assured, were you to put 100 random golfers from varying backgrounds in a room you may find four or five that could actually hold a conversation on the subject or be able to mention the name of the architect of an awesome course they recently played or be able to name the architect that designed the golden age club they're a member of. I consider that progress. Back in 2005 when this site launched you'd be lucky to find 1 in 100 that could that. That's all I was trying to get at by making that statement. My apologies to anyone I offended again.

[John Kavanaugh]

They greatest gift golf has given the world is how it has given the least greatest legal minds of our day a way to make a living outside of politics.

[Steve Lang]

   errrr Mike, this site launched years before 2005...


And an anecdote to ponder, I had an afternoon regional gca discussion with a couple of complete strangers back in March 1980 in Southern Pines, NC... waiting out a rain delay.  I guess it was due to the location and the well travelled migrant golfers seeking out new courses one can encounter... almost anywhere.  There was life and a big world out there before the internet and social media began to dominate it...