How has your appreciation of course architecture changed as you’ve got older?

[Thomas Dai]

How has your appreciation of course architecture changed as you’ve got older?
Atb

[John Emerson]

I remember when I was a teen (just started golf) into my 20’s and early 30’s, the characteristics of what I “thought” made a good golf course are now almost polar opposite of my beliefs now. I thought green and lush wall to wall, a million white sand bunkers, flowers and azaleas everywhere, water features galore, rinse and repeat was great. Now I loathe all of those things. Basically ANGC ruined what I thought great golf was, as it has for many. It wasn’t until I was well into my 30’s, and started to visit what I now know to be, great golf courses with variety. I also read everything I could get my hands on regarding golf architecture. But, the biggest eye opening of my golf life and turfgrass career was my time in the British Isles. Nothing is the same for me. It forever altered my views on the game, architecture, and how turf is managed here in the USA.


PS: I have some pretty strong opinions of how ANGC has been awful for golf, but I won’t be getting into that as there is another thread on that topic.

[Peter Flory]

I've morphed into being interested in those quirky little half-kept obscure courses that once felt strange to me, but that were highlighted a lot on this site.  I don't think that I've been brainwashed, but it is possible. 

[Carl Johnson]

Along with age, and especially insights from this discussion group, I've come to appreciate aesthetics more, and particularly how architecture can add interest and enjoyment to the game, through strategy.  Those are things you need to grow to appreciate.

[Tom_Doak]

I have learned the most in the past 10-12 years by traveling to smaller and more remote places for The Confidential Guide, and being impressed how the golf is still golf.  In fact, those far-off courses may resemble the game I grew up with more than the top 100 courses do now.


I used to be impressed with how some of America's great courses could get away with shabby-chic facilities and patches of bare dirt between the tee and fairway.  Nowadays they need irrigation for all of that, and a big old irrigation reservoir hidden somewhere in the back to make it happen . . . all for a part of the course where practically nobody hits their ball, and where nobody would expect a decent lie if they did.  And then I remember all the courses I saw in India and Africa [and the rural part of the U.K.] that didn't have any fairway irrigation at all, and everybody just plays and it's no big deal.

[Cal Carlisle]

As my clubhead speed has gotten slower I have gained an appreciation for the courses that were designed to accomodate most everyone. When I was younger I couldn't have cared less.


Like restaurants, I find some of the greatest joy from going to places that put out a great product but mostly just locals know about.

[Ira Fishman]

On well designed courses, angles matter.


Ira

[Erik J. Barzeski]

On well designed courses, angles matter.

Not if you're talking about scoring. 

[Matthew Rose]

I grew up watching TPC golf in the 80s and 90s, and thought that's what it was supposed to be, since I saw it on television. I'd then watch the two Opens each summer and would get bored with the courses because the subtlety was lost on me. I blame that on youth and insularity.

It was when I started getting to play some nice courses on family vacations and that I started noticing a sameness to so much of what I was playing - suddenly I began appreciating what was different, and I also began to notice how the older school was able to build interesting holes without using contrived and manufactured hazards as a crutch.

But I also grew up playing muni golf and did not have access to private clubs, so that was also the brunt of my exposure to architecture.

When I came to Australia in my 20s and had the chance to see (and play) some sandbelt courses also had a profound effect on me as well.

I believe I have developed a much more varied and rounded view and an ability to experience the joy and pleasure of playing golf in many vastly different environments, climates, and styles.

[Sean_A]

I stopped playing golf for 10 years after I left high school. I picked up the game again when metal woods had invaded the game, but I never played seriously such as in high school. It was purely recreational. With a completely different view of the game I started paying closer attention to the courses. I had to as it was my money being spent rather than a comfy junior membership of a club. I soon realised that I grew up on a course that was better than publics and munis I was now playing. I also saw the stark difference in conditioning. The privates I occasionally played were without exception much wetter than the public courses. This dichotomy of conditioning peaked my interest and sent me into a deep dive of architecture. Certainly by the early 1990s (after a trip to the UK) I was learning about the strong connection between conditioning, presentation and architecture. That connection remains one of the most important things I see in golf courses.

After moving to the UK in the late 90s I was clocking into smaller, lesser known UK courses which it seemed to me sacrificed on conditioning because it wasn't deemed necessary or affordable. This was sometimes in stark contrast to the famous courses. Over the past two decades I have watched golf get more expensive and more manicured. This mantra has spread further and further down levels of courses. As this happened I started to appreciate more and more the smaller courses that get on with it, sometimes offering remarkable conditions and presentation despite small maintenance budgets and green fees.

Over the past few decades I have also learned to appreciate good architecture despite poor presentation and conditions....if the price is right and the poor conditions isn't a wet course.

Over the past few decades I have come to realise that there often isn't much architectural quality difference between well known and not so well known courses. It's often a matter of conditioning and or setting which sparks off wildly opposing opinions on the differences in quality. It's the kind of thing top 100 lists thrive on.

Finally, over the past 20 years I fallen firmly into the camp of what is better doesn't matter. Where I am willing to hand my money over the counter is far more important.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Some splendid and insightful posts so far. Thank you. Seems to be a trend? Looking forward to reading more.
Atb

[Tim_Weiman]

Some splendid and insightful posts so far. Thank you. Seems to be a trend? Looking forward to reading more.
Atb

Thomas,


I’m inclined to say that my appreciation for golf architecture hasn’t changed or grown. That’s because I fell in love with it when I was about 3 years old, at Leewood Golf Club in Eastchester, NY, a course that has no claim to fame except Babe Ruth played there.


At ten years old I got my first book on golf courses: Sports Illustrated’s “The Best 18 Golf Holes in America”. It was then that I realized I wanted to travel and see as many of the best as I could.


Two thoughts about golf architecture did emerge over the years: for me the single most important thing about a golf course is “does it have its own character”. There is no point in traveling just to see the same thing all over again.


The second thing is the desire to see a property before work has begun and to see a course under construction. I think doing that gives one a sense of the creativity required by the architect and all the work that needs to be done to create something special, including countless details that need attention.


A great example was the tour Tom Doak gave me and Paul Rudovsky recently. We saw all 18 holes which, while all were cleared, the design and construction of the holes were at different stages.

[Jim_Coleman]

  I can’t think of a single topic for which one’s interest and appreciation would not grow the more one learns. 

[Tim Gavrich]

The more golf courses - both excellent and pedestrian - I see, the more the notion of interesting architecture becomes decoupled from that of prestige or exclusivity or cost. I've played several higher-end courses that are really mediocre, and I've played a lot of affordable courses that are brilliant. Golfers are savvier than ever about design, but it is still fascinating to see how the external mystique of a golf facility can muddle perspectives of how excellent the course actually is, or isn't.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think so.  I am hoping to finally fully understand it on my death bed to achieve that cosmic moment.

[Ben Stephens]

Yes it has. I have been playing with Disabled golfers in the last 10 years and have recently been involved in the Diversity/Inclusion group in European Institute of Golf Course Architects which has opened my eyes how a golf course needs to accommodate the weaker player more.


Its not all about designing 7000 yard plus championship courses for a small amount of golfers - the hardest thing is to design a golf course for all with different playing abilities or restricted playing abilities - there is a huge market out there for golf courses to be more accommodating towards women and disabled golfers - this has changed my thinking of designing golf courses and to get the right balance between the top and bottom where the gap has really widened over the last 25 years.


The UK is so far back in the dark ages in respect of this - the tees need to be more spread out and the greens need to be a bit more forgiving as most clubs have greens with bunker right and left??!


Also I have gone off the minimalist approach to GCA and always on the look out for something different to take the game forward and make it more attractive to a younger generation.

[Bernie Bell]

The more you learn, have you become more or less fixed/dogmatic in your opinions?  Do you enjoy your golf more or less?  (Some people with vast knowledge seem a little grumpy with/about it.)

[Kalen Braley]

I've morphed into being interested in those quirky little half-kept obscure courses that once felt strange to me, but that were highlighted a lot on this site.  I don't think that I've been brainwashed, but it is possible.

Peter,

Then so have I.  Agreed on all counts, I love quirk, uniqueness, and even the oddball holes that ask you for something different, and especially so when you find it in unexpected places.

P.S.  I hope to find such this summer here in Utah, if all the snow ever melts.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I can’t think of a single topic for which one’s interest and appreciation would not grow the more one learns.

Oh, there are plenty, but they're the seedy or "bad" things in the world. For me, politics is included in this. 

But within the context of GCA… definitely agree. The more you know, the more you can appreciate others. You have a broader context, more comparisons, and can more easily recognize truly unique ideas and applications.

[Ira Fishman]

The more you learn, have you become more or less fixed/dogmatic in your opinions?  Do you enjoy your golf more or less?  (Some people with vast knowledge seem a little grumpy with/about it.)

This is a great point. I definitely have become more dogmatic regarding architecture. I know what I like, and I know what I do not. I do not have enough time or money to pretend otherwise.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

The more you learn, have you become more or less fixed/dogmatic in your opinions?  Do you enjoy your golf more or less?  (Some people with vast knowledge seem a little grumpy with/about it.)

This is a great point. I definitely have become more dogmatic regarding architecture. I know what I like, and I know what I do not. I do not have enough time or money to pretend otherwise.

Ira,


I hesitated to answer but was thinking along your lines, i.e., I was always willing to listen, sometimes willing to try unconventional things, and learn about whatever new design paradigms come along.  In the end, while there are a few things I realize I was too dogmatic about, for most design issues and situations, the more I think about them the more I go back to agreeing with what I was taught or learned many years ago that comprise good golf design. 


Things that many love here, like blind shots, crazy green contours, centerline fw bunkers, ultra-wide fw, or defending par at the green (if that is what you want to do, why wait until the green?) still don't have that much appeal for me, unless forced on the designer, which I understand.  Or a few examples per course is okay as conversation pieces and variety, but really, the basics slowly evolved over the last 200-300 years (and probably accelerating after about 1890) and fighting against them seems to really be a matter of hating the standardization that centuries of experience usually lead to.

[Peter Sayegh]

Yes.
I'm no longer bothered by the snickers of my playing partners when I elect to putt from anywhere. Hence, I've grown to evaluate and appreciate green complexes more than I'd ever imagine.

[Sean_A]

The more you learn, have you become more or less fixed/dogmatic in your opinions?  Do you enjoy your golf more or less?  (Some people with vast knowledge seem a little grumpy with/about it.)

I don't think I have become dogmatic at all. I am still willing to be surprised. I am also willing to return to places which previously didn't overly impress. But, with green fees sharply rising over the past few decades the willingness faded quite a bit. It isn't a coincidence that I started seeking out no name courses at the same time as crazy green fee hikes started cranking up.

Ciao

[V_Halyard]

Enjoyable question.
The more I spend within "The GCA", I have found that the delivery of great, and even good golf architecture respects both the game and the player. This is evident across the Muny's in the US. Care for the architecture shows respect for both the game and the players. Conditioning goes hand in hand with that. Nothing needs to be pristine like ANGC, but in this market, a course that is taken care of to the best of the ability of the caretaker is rewarded.

For example, there are more 9-hole golf courses per capita in Iowa than anywhere else in the US. Many are Top 5000 Mom and Pop or storefront operations. Quite a few are bespoke, hand manicured and a hoot.Visiting some of these has been a hoot.  The snow piles are just melting in some of the parking lots.

My most vehement pet peeve are the municipalities that scrape the treasure chest of golf operations revenue and redistribute into general funds without meaningful reinvestment into the GCA and Golf Ops. Yes it is reasonable to fund other operations. It is unreasonable to do so without making appropriate reinvestments into the asset that generated that revenue.
No names, but many of us could easily populate this long list of offenders.


In closing, my appreciation of good to great GCA has helped me a better observations.  I better appreciate the effort taken to maintain, recapture, and/or deliver whatever available measure of GCA integrity. In the mass market, those efforts are seemingly becoming better appreciated. The efforts absolutely increases golfer enjoyment.
Great, even good golf architecture coupled with sincere efforts to deliver good conditioning increases the quality of the golf experience.
Good golf increases the quality of life of a community.

- The Good Reverend "V's" sermon has concluded for the day.
Tune in tomorrow on UHF Channel 75 and remember your tithing contribution to this church

[Tommy Williamsen]

My ability to hold firm greens from outside 150 yards has diminished as I have gotten older. As a result, courses that allow running shots to get on the green have become more important.


When I was a kid, those areas that allowed a running shot to skirt between two bunkers were called the "lady's aid. I don't call them that anymore.