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

[John Kavanaugh]

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?

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.

Could anyone please give even one example how the above have impacted the game besides being glorified travel agents? Even my beloved Ran has done more to promote his status in the game than the game itself. Why not list the modern photogs who have taught us how to look at a course in ways we never imagined. Goats wearing blue ribbons is not why I love the game before or after the internet.

[John Kavanaugh]

Crickets. I guess you guys don’t take relationship advice from TMZ or People magazine. My apologies.


Not a single example.

[archie_struthers]

Jaka   


Isn't killing or shooting at the fatted calf too easy? Not thinking that architecture sites are meant to "promote" the game but rather share information on what people like , or dislike. So , dissing those guys and sites doesn't resonate.


How do you "promote it anyway". Maybe the best way is to try to make it fun for others if you have the wherewithal to help people that love it but can't afford it.. Pretty hard to find any sport that can be played competively  into your golden years , unless pickleball floats your boat....lol








 

[MCirba]

unless pickleball floats your boat....lol

Archie,

If you ever see or hear of me playing pickleball, please hunt me down or kill me on the spot.

Thanks!

[John Kavanaugh]

I love history but I won’t credit the founders of Wikipedia for changing it. Quick, cheap knowledge is static noise that filters true learning.

[Mike_Young]

I don't think this site should flatter itself by thinking it actually hurts an architect.  That's almost up there with Titleist thinking they could hurt Srixon...

[Tim Martin]

unless pickleball floats your boat....lol

Archie,

If you ever see or hear of me playing pickleball, please hunt me down or kill me on the spot.

Thanks!

None of the cool kids at The Villages play shuffleboard any more……

[mike_malone]

I don't think this site should flatter itself by thinking it actually hurts an architect.  That's almost up there with Titleist thinking they could hurt Srixon...

Mike,


I chose “hurt” because that’s what I heard in his tone as he spoke and as discussion starter. “Devastated “ would be a bit much.


It’s good for us to occasionally examine whether we criticize architecture not people.

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't think this site should flatter itself by thinking it actually hurts an architect.  That's almost up there with Titleist thinking they could hurt Srixon...

Mike,


I chose “hurt” because that’s what I heard in his tone as he spoke and as discussion starter. “Devastated “ would be a bit much.


It’s good for us to occasionally examine whether we criticize architecture not people.

Anyone would be lucky to be mentioned alongside Fazio and Rees on this site. It’s a right of passage.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't think this site should flatter itself by thinking it actually hurts an architect.  That's almost up there with Titleist thinking they could hurt Srixon...

Good points.  The internet may not be as impactful as we think.

• 75% of people in the U.S. never tweet.
• Despite all the hand wringing about Fox New impact on America, only <1% actually watch it - 2.2 Million recently.  Only half of that watch the ultra lib MSNBC (1.15 million). 
• Related: Dems 29%, Repubs 27%, Independents 42% (Nixon's silent majority)
• Only 25Mil (about 7.5%) of American play golf.
• Only 10% of those have an official USGA handicap.
• Only 1700 (0.007%)of us have signed up for golf club atlas and spend hours per day here wasting time.  Even if 20X reads this from time to time, it is less than 1% of golfers.

The point is, even in national politics, given for comparative background, those we hear the most about aren't really in the mainstream.  In golf, it may even be smaller percentages.


Anyone can go look up NGF stats on "why golfers play."  Sadly, architecture rarely makes the top ten.

[Mike Bodo]

So, if golf course architecture holds such little value in the minds of the average golfer (which I completely disagree with), why do as many Vloggers and podcasts dedicate so much time to the subject and highlighting those responsible for creating some of the best courses in the world if there is such little interest? Seems counterintuitive if you're trying to build an audience.


To further promote my contention of the growing importance golf course architecture is having on interest and where people play, Andy Johnson just started a long-format roundtable course architecture discussion series on his Fried Egg YouTube channel where the first course profiled is Pacific Dunes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxF521WuIB0


Also, recently, the NLU guys started a new series on their YouTube channel called Under Construction, in which they go on-site to show viewers how courses come into being, which I found fascinating. The first installment featured Bobby Weed as he and his crew shape and build the new Stillwater Golf and Country Club in St. Johns, FL.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-GtQeKrcGM


For those who are all too easily dismissive of the efforts of these Vloggers, please enlighten me on how they are little more than glorified travel agents when they proven time and again they have a passion and interest in golf course architecture and are doing more to educate the average golfing enthusiast on the subject than this site could hope to simply due to the number of eyeballs they are reaching. In fact, NLU's website has a very active forums (discussion) group where courses and architecture is discussed plenty. They are doing a better job than most highlighting the importance course architecture plays in the overall golfing experience, which too many casual golfers take for granted.


Whether its sites such as GCA and others, Vlogs and Podcasts such as those previously mentioned, the more we educate the average golfing consumer on the relevance golf course architecture plays in their enjoyment of the game, the better, no? I guess unlike some, I don't view this as being a bad thing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Yes it is increasing, but golf architecture is still a mere pimple in the Metaverse or whatever they call it.  I love all those efforts, and encourage them, but we still don't know if it is just five more preachers and the same choir, statistically speaking.


As to whether golfers appreciate architecture, I think it falls into the "I know it when I like it" category, just like art, but probably more focused on, "Hey, this course looks nice AND it fits my game."  An old saw in gca is, "Don't ask a golfer if he likes a course, just ask him what he shot relative to his normal score, and you have the answer."


I have no idea how much that anecdote, or any other one regarding architecture is universally true.

[Tommy Williamsen]

There is a substantial number of golfers for whom architecture is important. They tend to belong to clubs with architecturally interesting courses. There is a larger number of golfers that belong to Doak 2 and 3's for whom conditioning matters. I live in a little resort with a Doak 4. The guys I play with there don't see any of the deficiencies of the design. They only care about conditioning. They want the ball to sit up in the fairways, not swallow their balls in the rough, and not have greens so fast that downhill putts geet away from them.


I belong to away clubs that are Doak 6 or 7s where the membership knows and talks about architecture. The discussions with other members there are more about how some holes could be changed or the particular merits of a hole.


Personally I don't understand how guys can play a boring course, but most golfers don't know their course is boring.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The first and last sentences are partially contradictory.  The key is defining "substantial."  I don't know that either, and the NGF studies I refer to I believe cover mostly public courses, and I don't know the number of respondents, but I know architecture ranks pretty low on those charts.  I will check to see if it has risen with the rise of the internet golf podcasts, just to make sure I am not relying on old information here.

[Mike Bodo]

The first and last sentences are partially contradictory.  The key is defining "substantial."  I don't know that either, and the NGF studies I refer to I believe cover mostly public courses, and I don't know the number of respondents, but I know architecture ranks pretty low on those charts.  I will check to see if it has risen with the rise of the internet golf podcasts, just to make sure I am not relying on old information here.

I think if some extensive polling were done you'd find a number people in the 35  - 45 age demographic that have become aware of golf course architecture through the YouTube vlogs previously mentioned, in addition to Instagram and TickToc. A lot of younger guys I talk to (I'm 56, mind you) are more in tune to golf course architecture and architects than are guys older than me. That's largely do to the aforementioned outlets catering to a younger audience. Don't get me wrong, a lot of them aren't aware of most, if any, golden age architects. They don't care about them for the most part. They're dead. LOL! They're more interested in contemporary (living) architects, because those are the ones whose work is most commonly shown and are courses many seek out to play. I mean, how many Doak courses have the NLU guys played and highlighted over the years? A Lot! Not to mention Tom's appeared on a few episodes. Thus, viewers have a face and personality they now associate with the name. I didn't know squat about Bobby Weed prior to NLU's feature on his Stillwater course recently, but he seems like a super cool and fun guy. The fact that he can operate power equipment and is hands-on with construction was an added bonus.


Through the power of the internet we have the ability to associate faces and personalities with once obscure names making these architects and golf course architecture in general, more accessible to the general golf consuming public. This can only be a good thing, as the more golfers are aware of what goes into making a good golf course, the more appreciative they will be of an architects work. At least that's the hope.

[John Kavanaugh]

Just cause I met Tommy Hillfinger doesn’t make me look fit in my XXL. Who cares who knows who is, it’s all just Instagram status.

[Thomas Dai]

… guys I play with there don't see any of the deficiencies of the design. They only care about conditioning. They want the ball to sit up in the fairways, not swallow their balls in the rough, and not have greens so fast that downhill putts geet away from them.
Personally I don't understand how guys can play a boring course, but most golfers don't know their course is boring.

Very apt.
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


The Fried Egg Podcast has 2,472 followers out of 25,000,000 golfers, generously rounded to 0.01%.


I couldn't quickly find the following of the Tartan Talks (subject of the OP) but their parent magazine (and my former editorial outlet) has about twice that many followers, presumably within the golf industry given their subject matter.


I haven't kept track (and have no way of doing so) of the sales of recent gca books.  I do know that many of those gca books in the 1990's only sold about 3,500 copies each.  The Golf Course (and several editions of The Architects of Golf supposedly sold close to 100,000.


Tom Doak's Confidential Guide sold 12,000 copies and probably would have sold more, had they been available.  Getting to 18 was a limited run of 1,500 copies.  Doak's Little Red Book has been discounted, indicating a possible overstock.


The math side of me always wants to double check vague words like "a substantial number."  Even if the combined sales of the Confidential Guides old and new were close to the Architects of Golf, 100,000 is only half a per cent of golfers, maybe 1% if you figure two people had read every copy sold.


I would love to be wrong in this case, and it makes sense to me that more golfers than those who subscribe to podcasts or buy books are now "more aware" of golf design via various outlets, including having the architect's name on the scorecard.  However,  as I mentioned before.....not all of us spend a few work hours per day on a golf course architecture site, so we may not be the ones to ask.


As to your other contention that most golfers don't know their course is boring.....that one would be an interesting theory to test out, although it would take suspending our view of architecture and seeing it from their perspective, I suppose.  I'm not sure we could!

[Bruce Katona]

JK:

Did Tommy Hillfinger personally sculpt & tailor your XXL after your meeting? 


I hope their is a selfie for you to post


BK

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


The Fried Egg Podcast has 2,472 followers out of 25,000,000 golfers, generously rounded to 0.01%.

I couldn't quickly find the following of the Tartan Talks (subject of the OP) but their parent magazine (and my former editorial outlet) has about twice that many followers, presumably within the golf industry given their subject matter.

Do you really think Fartan Talks has more listeners than Fried Egg? 

AND..a better indicator of golf...while all the architecture talk is going on GolfNow made over 60 million in bartered tee times with no skin in the game and Golf channel losing 6 million and using much ad space to promote them.  Sort of tells you where golf is....

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Interesting post on the book sales.  I always joked to my wife when we got our regular "royalty check" from John Wiley & Sons (they published our book Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards), that I could take her out for coffee and if it was a really big check, maybe a donut as well     I don't know the exact number of sales any more (the first two printing all sold out and they now the print the books "on demand".  I think the total sales were around 12,000 but could be higher because of the way they handle it now. 

There is just not a lot of interest in golf course architecture.  I like to think this site helped change that (and I think it has) but most of the time we are talking to ourselves

[David Cronan]

I’m not sure that the study and/or appreciation of golf course architecture is particularly prevalent in the US. I’m reminded that when I served as the chair of green committee at a club I once belonged. We had a master plan drawn up by an architect and decided to replace the rye with zoysia (the club is in KY).


2 comments from a couple of longtime board members (and green chairs) stood out:


1. “I don’t want to replace the rye (suffered major disease in the summer) because we’ve always had it, nobody else in town has rye and I like that we’re different.”


2. “I think we need to put flowers around all the tee boxes. The club I belong to in Florida does this and it’s really pretty.”


Not to say their opinions were wrong but we/I chose not to implement their ideas.

[Garland Bayley]

I don't think this site should flatter itself by thinking it actually hurts an architect.  That's almost up there with Titleist thinking they could hurt Srixon...

Good points.  The internet may not be as impactful as we think.

• 75% of people in the U.S. never tweet.
• Despite all the hand wringing about Fox New impact on America, only <1% actually watch it - 2.2 Million recently.  Only half of that watch the ultra lib MSNBC (1.15 million). 
• Related: Dems 29%, Repubs 27%, Independents 42% (Nixon's silent majority)
• Only 25Mil (about 7.5%) of American play golf.
• Only 10% of those have an official USGA handicap.
• Only 1700 (0.007%)of us have signed up for golf club atlas and spend hours per day here wasting time.  Even if 20X reads this from time to time, it is less than 1% of golfers.

The point is, even in national politics, given for comparative background, those we hear the most about aren't really in the mainstream.  In golf, it may even be smaller percentages.


Anyone can go look up NGF stats on "why golfers play."  Sadly, architecture rarely makes the top ten.

It would seem your reported viewership stats are misleading. My best guess is you are trying to quote average daily viewership, not total viewership. Those two numbers could be significantly different.

How many people tweet is much different than how many people read tweets.

And, how many people post here is much different than how many consume here. That accounts for the pizza men and friends.

[SL_Solow]

Interesting how this thread has gone off track.  As the original poster noted, he was commenting about the impact on the architect's feelings, not his pocketbook.  I read it as a plea for civility and I commented on that topic.  Now we have changed to one of our frequent debates, "how much impact this site has on the general perception of golf course architecture and whether anybody outside of our group really cares".  That debate has been ongoing since I came here more than 20 years ago.  I am not sure we will ever have an answer and I am not sure it matters.  If you come here seeking to "change the world" of GCA I wish you luck.  I come here to learn and to engage in discourse with those who have similar interests.  With a bit of luck, I have made some good friends.  That is more than enough for me.  If anyone cares, I have been involved in educational efforts for Greens Committees in the Chicago District for more than 20 years.  The degree of knowledge/interest about architecture and maintenance varies widely and has remained about the same, despite our best efforts, during that period.  Most enjoy the game and seek improved (however they define it) conditioning.  It is rare that even Greens Chairs have more than a modicum of knowledge about architectural principles.

[John Kavanaugh]

Shel,


And still the tree stands?