"Golf and its Architecture is a great big thing.....

[TEPaul]

and, there really is room in it for everyone!"

Since I've used that expression so many times on here I guess I've been the purveyor of this "Big World" theory of architecture and where it may continue to go in the future.

And I really do believe it. I think difference in architecture, the variety of styles, playabilities, look, whatever is a good thing even if the spectrum is wide and hugely diverse. Some may even call it the "rainy day" theory of architecture where it takes real crap to make the best look even better. But I don't really believe that---I think it really does take all kinds because there're enough golfers out there with entirely different preferences and it will probably always be that way.

But this site has been accused of latching onto about a handful or so of architects in what Pat Mucci calls "favored son status".

Those so-called handful or so "favored son" architects have now done some significant courses that have gotten a good deal of attention and they all seem to be hitting their stride with more to come.

The ultra natural look of the features of those favored architects on here, their different direction in playablilities, the definite eye these architects have to some of the principles and applications of the past is obvious compared to most of the other modern and present architects.

Enough time has gone by now for some interesting feedback on this renaissance style of architecture or whatever it should be called.

How do you all think the general golfing public is receiving this renaissance architecture or will receive it?

I've heard from enough people---I'm definitely not speaking of those on this website---to get a general impression.

Many of those I've spoken with love it but certainly not all. Those that love it sometimes even struggle to explain why. But those that don't like it don't have any problem explaining why they don't like it.

It looks to me like the differences in architecture in the future may get even greater but that doesn't bother me at all. I truly do believe in the "Big World" theory of architecture but I suspect many if not most on here don't believe in it!

Who thinks a really wide spectrum of types and styles of architecture in the future is a good thing--and who doesn't?

[RT]

TEP,

Nice post, its just as we look into the future water issues will be the biggest obstacle.

Already on-going research into more drought tolerant grass species has brought us newer varieties that have helped assuage the situation, but this will probably not be enough, and continual development and learning more about their management strategies will be of utmost importance.

I say this knowing the firm and fast brigade, which I am wholeheartedly with as I prefer that way too out here in SE England, might say let's turn off the water.  The reality, in the most broadest of generalizations in this internet soundbite, 60/24/7 information culture has spawned (well CNN actually probably started it), is one can turn it down, but not off.

Plant metabolic processes are reliant on the presence of water to complete their various cycles which allow them to survive, and not just to make the plant "green."  And when we are asking a plant such as turf to act as a close cut "surface" for which it was not biologically adapted, to afterwards accept all kinds of stresses, and of course human judgement, then we need to take that into consideration, the role of water to help the plant keep up minimum processes in order for it to survive and still provide us with that fine surface.

Which leads on to the issue of soils.....

RT

[A.G._Crockett]

TEP
I think you're absolutely right that "many, but not all" like the type of new courses generally favored on this site.  There is a lot of power remaining the "other" type of current construction.  The flash and glitz, with immaculate grooming and feeling of money dripping off the trees attracts many, and will continue to in all probability.  Additionally, there are some great golf courses in that mode.

Having said that, I think that the general golfing public right now is ready for courses that are playable, appear somewhat natural, and are more somewhat more affordable.  They may not be GCA nuts per se, but they know what they like when they see it.  I think that goes a long way toward explaining why so many old clubs are taking hard looks at their golf courses and the possibility of having a living architect restore, in some measure, the work of a dead one.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- I'm curious about the statement you made about those who are able to quantify why they don't like it.

When I've asked regular golfers about TRC or Wild Horse, the look in their eye tells the story. They don't need to quantify 'why' they liked it, as long as it left them with this unique feeling that golf is suppose to.

When I ask them why they don't like it, it always involves some individualistic shot or predicament they encountered, and because the lie was not level or severe in anyway, they felt it was bad.

What are some of your responses to "why" that these infadels site?

As for how I perceive the general publics view of this style, I'd say that if they can benefit from the lower costs of construction, that seems to accompany these designs, the general public will like it very much. Mike Keiser comes to mind as someone who has filled the middleman spot very well, but his pricing only allows for "general" public play in the winter. The general public has a hard time paying more than a couple bucks a hole to golf.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

All I can really say about the golfers who have been negative about the kind of architecture we're talking about here--that of the so-called "favored sons" is that it's not defined enough, not clear enough what the golfer is supposed to do or what he can expect when he hits a shot. Unfortunately there are a great many golfers who don't think architecture should make a golfer think--only clearly point out to him what he's supposed to do!  

Also many feel this architecture we're talking about is simply not immaculate enough. Some of these golfers simply equate a natural look in architecture with something that's not very well maintained. I know that's hard for some of us to understand but it's definitely true. One of them actually told me the other day that a Gil Hanse bunker looks to him like a bunker that's only partially built!!

[Forrest Richardson]

As I have said here before: Golf is much larger than all of us and our short time here. We should enjoy the game while we are around, take care of it, and wonder — as we are doing here — what it will be in 200 years. Knowing, as much as it may hurt, that what we like and dislike today might be opporite or of no concern 200 years beyond this moment.

[Tom_Ross]

TEPaul,

Such an innocent thread that could potentially turn into a 20 pager that indicts golf architects, TV, PGA Tour, etc. for the evils of modern golf  

Here's my list of concerns about today's architecture and the mentality of the American golfer:

1) There truly are some interesting courses being built these days, but so many of them are being built in non-metropolitan areas.  Granted it's difficult to find a Sand Hills region in downtown Chicago, but the result is the metropolitan areas are developing a sameness of design and the new gems are being built in places that are inaccessable to planes, trains and automobiles.  

2) People believe what they see and hear on TV.  Green does not equal proper maintenance, or more specifically maintenance meld, but when you see that week in and week out, it's no surprise that green becomes the dominant trait on courses that the public (or private clubs) demand.  Just because it looks nice in your backyard doesn't mean it's appropriate for your golf course.

3) Tiger is not that good for the game.  He only plays a few events a year, and when he doesn't play people don't watch.  So other than Torrey Pines, La Costa, Bay Hill, TPC-Sawgrass, Augusta, Murifield and Cog Hill (plus the majors), the public isn't seeing much architecture.  And now he's boycotting placeslike Pebble Beach because the greens aren't perfect, so this adds to the "it must be fair & perfect" mentality.  

I'm definitely in the camp that variety is the spice of life and golf has its own set of spices, but I do wonder when the Golf Bubble is going to burst and we get back to defining quality in reasonable terms.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

RT,

I agree with you, I think water is/will be a critical factor affecting future and existing designs.

TEPaul,

I've noticed an amazing popularity in Fazio's designs from a broad base of golfers.

As a member of the cognoscente are you saying you should disregard their satisfaction with his designs ?

Should you also tell people what they should read or see at the movies too ?

Just because you and I may like a certain type of design doesn't mean that we should force others to like it, rejecting their preferences.

Taste..... is something else  

[Tom_Ross]

Pat,

How much to suppose Fazio benefits from his association to ANGC or PVGC ?  By that I mean, do you think people hear that those two are ranked #1 & #2, and since he's done the most recent work there that his skills are currently superior to anyone else?  

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said;

"I've noticed an amazing popularity in Fazio's designs from a broad base of golfers."

Then he asked me;

"As a member of the cognoscente are you saying you should disregard their satisfaction with his designs?

No, Pat, I'm saying just about the opposite. Read my initial post. What do you think the "Big World" theory means? Does it sound like it means we should criticize some golfer for what he likes if we don't? No, it means the opposite--it means let him like whatever he likes and leave him alone to like it.

You asked:

"Should you also tell people what they should read or see at the movies too?"

No Pat, the "Big World" theory of golf architecture and the phrase; "Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone" means just about the opposite of telling people what to read and see and what they should want from architecture!

You said;

"Just because you and I may like a certain type of design doesn't mean that we should force others to like it, rejecting their preferences."

Where did I imply that? I said almost the exact opposite! Is your reading ability dyslexic?

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom,

First of all, I agree with those who have praised your posts. You deserve an award for the best posts among newbies.

"Tiger is not that good for the game..." Really?

I believe that he has been good for golf. In fact, many of the outstanding projects cited as "good" here and elsewhere were partially made possible by the enthusiasm for golf among people who watched Tiger transform from a boy into a "boy wonder."

Your comment about TV is perhaps what you refer to. Tiger, however, stands as a great icon in golf, and one which will continue to bring new people to the game...thus allowing us all the opportunity to create new and better projects out of the old and the not-yet-envisioned.