"A Modern Day Winged Foot"

[Michael Chadwick]

Derek Duncan was a recent guest on The Tie podcast with Henry Shimp and Walker Simas. For whatever reason, I never really stumbled onto Derek’s own Feed the Ball podcast in the past, so I enjoyed hearing how well he can speak about golf and himself—including his fondness for Don DeLillo. I’ll need to take a look at his own pods.

At roughly the 1 hour mark, Henry’s last question was directed towards current trends in modern architecture and whether there’s a particular theme Derek’s been mulling. Derek brought up a perhaps contrarian enthusiasm for examples that could buck the trend towards large scale, remote destination designs. He wondered if there could be a “modern day Winged Foot,” focusing more on smaller acreage, ostensibly on sites that are not as far flung from metropolitan areas. These parcels, he concedes, would likely not be as dramatic as a remote sandy site, but for him would pose a more acute routing challenge for a modern architect. Embedded within that sentiment is a willingness to see new designs narrowing its playing corridors, an appetite for a counterexample to how wide many modern builds have become.

Two examples he referenced that might nudge in that direction include Scott Hoffman’s Lost Rail, 30 mins from downtown Omaha, and Hanse’s Kinsale, a Macdonald/Raynor tribute course that will tip out under 7,000 yards in construction in North Naples.

It’s an interesting opinion, particularly as Digest’s architectural editor, and one worthy of more discussion.

Now, I don’t think he’s saying he wants to see a full-on pendulum swing towards tighter regulation length courses, but would rather there be opportunities for modern architects to negotiate a site comparable to Winged Foot, so that the golf community might be able to see how a modern design could compare to it in a more apples to apples way than, say, Mammoth Dunes to Winged Foot. 

Or, without putting words in his mouth, I personally would not want to see a genuine pendulum swing, because so many Golden Age courses, whether they be highly ranked or not, are exactly just that—tightly routed designs on metropolitan or suburban parcels. The number of courses in that style, be it from pre-WWII or pre-Sand Hills, still overwhelms the number of courses that might resemble Ballyneal, do they not? Not to mention how hemmed in most average private clubs and American municipal courses have become due to tree growth, or squeezing in 27 or 36 holes on sites that may have started with 18.

Without any data to back this up, of the entire American playing population, I would still suspect a small percentage have actually experienced a wide course—and it’d be those who can afford to visit a Dream Golf resort. It’s predominantly the private club golfer who’s been able to experience the width and angles trend. And I think it’s still more important for that trend to make greater inroads within publicly accessible courses, like The Park in West Palm Beach, or Rustic Canyon, or Wild Horse.

But at the same time, variety is a wonderful thing for golf architecture, and I’m not opposed to seeing new builds reign in their overall widths either. High Pointe 2.0 strikes me as another example that might lend itself to influencing width back towards a more happy medium. After all, it’s bringing back 4 playing corridors (excluding the 2 par 3’s) on the back 9 that were laid out before 1990, and my impression from touring the site last summer was that most of the other holes correspond to a similar amount of respectable but not excessive width off the tee. New hole 10 will probably be the widest, justifiably so since it’s also going to be one of the longest par 4s on the course.     

Do you think there’s room in modern architecture for a modern day Winged Foot? Or Harbor Town? Are we interested in a few of those examples to perhaps serve as a check on ultra-wide fairways? Or is there anyone out there who thinks completely pivoting in that direction would be better for golf design?

Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-tie-podcast/id1583596139?i=1000648412174

[Adam Lawrence]

I wrote an article late last year for 'The Gateway', the magazine published for customers of Harrods Aviation, the UK's leading private air service provider, on how golf design had been transformed in the years since Sand Hills opened. In it, Bill Coore made several well thought-out comments (as is normal for Bill), and specifically he contrasted 'demographically-driven' golf development, which is to say building courses where people lived or where they wanted to go for leisure with the sort of site-driven development that we see so often nowadays. Bill pointed out that, in demographically-driven development, the good sites have mostly been used a long time ago.

It's true that designing fine courses on sites that are not absolutely pristine is a good test of a golf architect. But we know that the quality of the land and the quality of the course are very closely linked. If you can't get good land, it's hard to do anything desperately interesting.

[Tom_Doak]

It's important to distinguish what we are categorizing as a "Winged Foot".  Here are a few potential conclusions that mean very different things:


1.  An urban or suburban, core golf course on less than 200 acres.
2.  A course with tree-lined, parkland fairways.
3.  A course with relatively narrow fairways.
4.  A course on gentle land with pushed-up, challenging greens.


The first two things are all about site selection, which is mostly the province of our clients.


The last two things are more about what an architect chooses to do.


It's pretty hard to do #4 because in the modern world, nobody wants greens as challenging as Winged Foot.  I believe Talking Stick's South course was supposed to be modeled like that, but nobody ever talks about it; the North course, with its wider fairways, gets all of the attention.


We will see what everyone thinks about all the new courses in SE Florida when they open.  None of them are really "parkland" with trees like Winged Foot for obvious reasons, and most are fairly spread out.  Mine is modeled more after a links than a parkland course, because we had no existing trees at all, but it is a core golf course on +/- 200 acres.  So is The Park in West Palm.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,


I agree with your comment on #4. Unless you are someone like Neil Regan, putting greens like those at Winged Foot wouldn’t be that much fun.

[Charlie Goerges]

Tom,


I agree with your comment on #4. Unless you are someone like Neil Regan, putting greens like those at Winged Foot wouldn’t be that much fun.

Not true. They just need to be slowed down some. There was a time when they probably made perfect sense and were a blast to play for average players.

[Ira Fishman]

Regarding number 1 and maybe number 2, why aren’t there more top notch courses near the major cities in Texas? The golfing tradition is rich, the land is, or at least was, plentiful, the barriers to development were/are relatively low, and there was/is sufficient finances. NY, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit seem to have had more success in producing top notch courses. And it cannot be a function of “old age” because so did LA and SF.


Ira

[Wayne_Kozun]

Could there be a modern day Winged Foot?
How much would you pay to acquire 200 acres of land in close proximity to a major city?

[Tom_Doak]

Regarding number 1 and maybe number 2, why aren’t there more top notch courses near the major cities in Texas? The golfing tradition is rich, the land is, or at least was, plentiful, the barriers to development were/are relatively low, and there was/is sufficient finances. NY, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit seem to have had more success in producing top notch courses. And it cannot be a function of “old age” because so did LA and SF.

It's because Dallas and Houston weren't real cities until the 1930s, when most of the Golden Age designers stopped practicing.  John Bredemus was a good guy by all accounts, but he was no A.W. Tillinghast.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,


I agree with your comment on #4. Unless you are someone like Neil Regan, putting greens like those at Winged Foot wouldn’t be that much fun.

Not true. They just need to be slowed down some. There was a time when they probably made perfect sense and were a blast to play for average players.

Charlie,


Do you think there is any prospect for slowing down the greens?

[Charlie Goerges]

Tom,


I agree with your comment on #4. Unless you are someone like Neil Regan, putting greens like those at Winged Foot wouldn’t be that much fun.

Not true. They just need to be slowed down some. There was a time when they probably made perfect sense and were a blast to play for average players.

Charlie,


Do you think there is any prospect for slowing down the greens?

I actually do, but it will take a major effort. I think that effort would be worth it, unfortunately, lots of "average golfers" probably disagree at this point. That said, they are followers and if enough people start decrying flat, fast, billiard table greens, maybe we can sway opinion.

[Matt MacIver]

Do you think there is any prospect for slowing down the greens?



I think the best chance for slow greens starts with a new private local or destination club where the members (like most here) embrace very undulating greens and understand the high cost of fast greens.  Back to the future.  Lots of new privates being built these days and they seem to be attracting members that will embrace and get used to the slopes + speed.  IF it’s successful perhaps others would follow, ala Oakmont’s trees, US Open fairway width, brown is beautiful, etc. 

[Tim_Weiman]

Charlie,


We share a preference for greens with contour but maintained at slower speeds, at least for everyday play.


Just curious, do you really think “average golfers” prefer flat, fast billiard table greens? Or is that typically the preference of better players?

[Ben Hollerbach]

Do you think there is any prospect for slowing down the greens?



I think the best chance for slow greens starts with a new private local or destination club where the members (like most here) embrace very undulating greens and understand the high cost of fast greens.  Back to the future.  Lots of new privates being built these days and they seem to be attracting members that will embrace and get used to the slopes + speed.  IF it’s successful perhaps others would follow, ala Oakmont’s trees, US Open fairway width, brown is beautiful, etc.

I have not seen Chris Cupit around these parts recently, but that's pretty much what he did at Rivermont. Built large undulating greens that are/were kept at a much more reasonable pace.

[Charlie Goerges]

Just curious, do you really think “average golfers” prefer flat, fast billiard table greens? Or is that typically the preference of better players?

I think it's both, but the better players are the thought leaders there. Then we come the question of whether it's easier to change the minds of the better players or to try to convince the average golfer that they should listen to nerdy architecture aficionados instead. Maybe do both?

[Tim_Weiman]

Just curious, do you really think “average golfers” prefer flat, fast billiard table greens? Or is that typically the preference of better players?

I think it's both, but the better players are the thought leaders there. Then we come the question of whether it's easier to change the minds of the better players or to try to convince the average golfer that they should listen to nerdy architecture aficionados instead. Maybe do both?

Charlie,


Old Barnwell offers an interesting case study as it offers significant contour on most of the greens.


Last week I followed a group of college kids from the Seton Hall golf team, including one player from Australia, Ireland, China and the United States. They loved the course and estimated the greens were running at about 9.5.


They also said taking the greens to 11 or 12 would make the course really challenging for players of their skill level. On the other hand, if their estimate of 9.5 is correct (I don’t know), I think the greens offer interesting and fun challenge for “average” golfers on both putts and recovery shots around the greens.

[Michael Morandi]

My experience is that club members like to boast about their green speeds and as long as that’s the case, a move toward more moderate speeds is fighting an uphill battle. Fast is appropriate at my club but, as noted, doesn’t make sense everywhere. Is this called “the AUGUSTA effect”?

[Charlie Goerges]

Charlie,


Old Barnwell offers an interesting case study as it offers significant contour on most of the greens.


Last week I followed a group of college kids from the Seton Hall golf team, including one player from Australia, Ireland, China and the United States. They loved the course and estimated the greens were running at about 9.5.


They also said taking the greens to 11 or 12 would make the course really challenging for players of their skill level. On the other hand, if their estimate of 9.5 is correct (I don’t know), I think the greens offer interesting and fun challenge for “average” golfers on both putts and recovery shots around the greens.

Tim, it's a good example and it shows that on an individual basis, we can get our point across (obviously with a lot of help from some excellent architecture to back it up).


I do think it will take concerted effort, but we know that sort of effort has worked before. A lot more courses are being built in accordance with golden-age principles now than were 30 years ago. It started with a small number of people pushing for it and now thousands are. If it worked with strategy and minimalism and naturalism, why can't it work with green speeds and contour?


I'll bet a lot of the folks on this discussion group have some good ideas for continuing the push.


P.S. let's get somewhat more rustic conditioning in general on the list too.

[Tim_Weiman]

My experience is that club members like to boast about their green speeds and as long as that’s the case, a move toward more moderate speeds is fighting an uphill battle. Fast is appropriate at my club but, as noted, doesn’t make sense everywhere. Is this called “the AUGUSTA effect”?

Michael,


How would you describe the contour of your clubs greens?

[Ira Fishman]

We have had a lot of discussion about green speeds. Someone offered the idea that US Superintendents should subscribe to a pact to just tell the members that they are a 14 when they are really a 9. Less than 1% of the members at clubs would know what question to ask.


Ira

[mike_beene]

If there is not a flat spot, how do you stimp greens? Do you average an uphill and downhill? Seems that would not give a true answer. I am not sure my club has a flat spot, but we think we know the stimp number.How?

[Tom_Doak]

If there is not a flat spot, how do you stimp greens? Do you average an uphill and downhill? Seems that would not give a true answer. I am not sure my club has a flat spot, but we think we know the stimp number.How?

You take a reading going downhill and one going uphill, and average them.  And if there's more than 2% slope, there is a formula involved, because the downhill slope will yield more extra feet than the uphill slope will take away.

[Michael Morandi]

My experience is that club members like to boast about their green speeds and as long as that’s the case, a move toward more moderate speeds is fighting an uphill battle. Fast is appropriate at my club but, as noted, doesn’t make sense everywhere. Is this called “the AUGUSTA effect”?

Michael,


How would you describe the contour of your clubs greens?

[Michael Morandi]

Tim,


The contours of the greens at my club are mostly subtle, with a few exceptions in some spots on a few greens .


Michael

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,


The contours of the greens at my club are mostly subtle, with a few exceptions in some spots on a few greens .


Michael

Michael,


Based on your comments about speed, I assumed that was the case. If most of your fellow members haven’t traveled and had exposure to greater contour, then it is not surprising they have a preference for faster greens.

[jeffwarne]

Tom,


I agree with your comment on #4. Unless you are someone like Neil Regan, putting greens like those at Winged Foot wouldn’t be that much fun.

Not true. They just need to be slowed down some. There was a time when they probably made perfect sense and were a blast to play for average players.

Amazing that we celebrate such amazing greens then decide they are not desirable because of a condition we impose on them at great expense....
Score another for mindless punters.