[TEPaul]

....all kinds of types and styles of golf courses and golf architecture is a good thing and who doesn't? And the second question is how narrow or how wide do you think the spectrum of difference should get before it begins to become unhealthy for the art of architecture and for golf?

Whichever way you think about it, I'd very much enjoy hearing your specific reasons why.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

In the past weeks I've toyed with the idea of starting a thread titled ""It's a Great Big World" is Total BS", but haven't had enough time, although the title should give you a pretty clear idea of where I'm coming from.  

My major gut reaction, not yet fully baked, is that the dumbing down of architecture can't help but dilute the good and classic stuff, as well.

Just look at the pictures of Riviera that MikeyOlympic posted.  Take a drive down Ardmore Ave.    

I need some think-time to try to put my opinions together in a way that could withstand scrutiny and debate here.    

[A_Clay_Man]

I see no problem with "dumber" courses except that they had become the norm, and since price is everything, they became dis-proportionally uninteresting other than "how much did they spend on that one?"

The extreme that I am aware of that makesthe BWT work, is the course in Arizona that is played over dirt on hard pan in the desert. Much as the games origin. There's no bells, no whistles, no greens. Just people golfing their ball in the only way they know how. I wouldn't want to deny them the ability to call what they do, golf.

But, as Mike touches on, accepting mediocrity in the marketplace, has become so Mickey Mouse (in all aspects of modern life) combined with the dollars needed to sustain the inferior, must cloud better judgement. Similar to pop music.

To most of us, golf is special. So special that to watch it fall into the abyss, created by ignorance, is at times, overwhelming.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Tom,

One thing you will never change is the wide variety of clients and their needs.  Not every project can be on Ardmore Avenue, or Riviera.  Many projects will be modest affairs and many clients do not know exactly what they want, and therefore are subject to getting whatever the architect is capable of giving, which as Mike alluded to could be dumbed down architecture.  

My belief is that even the most modest project can be a strategic gem to play by the sheer will and force of the architect's talents.  It may not be the greatest course, not even the best course in the county, but it can be full of strategy, and delight.  The quality of the design is particularly acute at the mid-level range because creativity and personal attention by the architect is desparately needed or it will become dumbed down architecture.  Dumbed down architecture comes from two sources, architects whom lack creativity and devotion, and large architecture firms that take the smaller projects to feed cash flow.  Both approaches fail to fully engage creative minds in the venture and the course suffers.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Tom,

With close to 20,000 courses in the US and more overseas, I have personally come to the conclusion that there are about 40 must plays for me and about 200+ "would like to plays" meaning if they fit into the logistics of family, work, life. Behind that there are a ton of courses that I would be happy to play including some of Mark Rowlinson's hidden gems.

If someone goes out today and builds 10 or 100 Stone Harbors, I don't think that will change my view.

However, I am not a big fan of:

Par 6's - I used to play Cherry Creek on Long Island which has a Par 6 closer of 650+ yards into the wind. There was never any real satisfaction in making a "birdie" there. Thus why build a gimmick if it has no real purpose for the golfer.

Par 7's - see above

Par 3's - more than 250, what's the point other than to torture the golfer? Add 30 yards and make it an intersting short Par 4.

Stone Harbor original - I actually played there frequently when it originally opened. The Jaws hole was clearly over the line, but many other holes were in a "grey" area. Too hard for everyday play, but interesting once or twice to see.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

I believe in the free market place.  If someone wants to design and sell bad cars, so be it.  The problem in golf is the free market place is not driving golf.  It is the Tours, real estate developers and equipment companies who are driving the game.  Golfers are led to believe that long and hard is good.  New golfers think that carts, 5 hour rounds, houses and $100 green fees are part of the game.  But golf lost rounds again in 2003, so something is wrong somewhere.  It is the 4th straight year, weather and economy cannot always be the blame.  We need more playable public courses.  This would elevate the education and expertise of the player.  The free market place is not working here.  

[TEPaul]

I'm not exactly referring to something like Fazio dumbing down Merion or Riviera. I'm talking about architecture of varying types and styles that are ALL theoretically maintained and preserved the way they were designed to be which would serve to increase (widen) the spectrum of available types and styles out there. I'm definitely not talking here about a blurring together of styles through mis-applied maintenance practices and redesigns---that have been so prevalent in the past.

My personal feeling is that a wide spectrum probably serves the tastes and preferred styles of a wide array of golfers out there. The thing that's increasingly disturbing me on this web-site is the sort of purist mentality of "one size fits all" and that that should be the direction of all golf architecture---in other words something like the older naturalistic look and classic/strategic theme should be adhered to everywhere. Personally that's my preferred type and style but I recognize that most may not feel the way I do! What if some golfers simply don't like that? Is anyone on here so arrogant as to suggest they should like it anyway or do without something they do like that's vastly different?

One of the reasons I posted this thread was on a few of the recent threads that discussed what the regulatory bodies need to do in the future with distance and such a number of contributors fairly clearly suggested that the great golfing public should not be even asked about that issue because their opinions may prove to be dangerous.

So I'm sort of wondering what some of those on here feel about the spectrum of types and styles in architecture. If they feel that there should be basically one type--a type and style somewhat akin to the classic/strategic, natural looking type, the type apparently dedicatedly preferred by this website, then where does that leave others?

And I guess the ultimate question would be whose game is this anyway? Is it everyone's or just those who think they know better?

Another reason I posted this thread is from a long conversation with Frank Thomas recently in which he kept stressing that one thing architecture really needs now is something he calls "bunny slopes"---eg architecture that people can learn on without becoming totally overwhelmed and possibly depressed by what's generally out there!

As time goes on I'm getting the feeling that many golfers and particularly golf analysts who believe their preferred type and style is what should sweep the world at the exclusion of the opinions of others who believe in other types and styles are basically nothing much more than neo-elitists!

[Evan Fleisher]

I think it's all good...as long as you accept it for what it's worth.  How would we know what is "good" if there was no "bad"?  As stated above different types/levels/styles of courses are dictated by a number of factors, and in my mind if you are out there golfing your ball that's better than nothing.

But...for the purists out there, seeing a proliferation of crap courses, or cookie-cutter designs/styles popping up all over the place it must be quite disconcerting.  Are the levels of good and bad being diluted because of this phenomenon...perhaps...but as long as there are all levels of player abilities, people living in all types of regions and climates with differing levels of wealth and income you will see as many if not more style of courses being built.

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

There is so much to this.  Lynn's words are powerful, and to some extent echo those of his son in the latter's new book.  As a course operator, Lynn needs more golfers, not less, and it is going the wrong way.  A very valid reason for this might be that the game on courses such as those being built today is too difficult, takes too long and is too expensive - all due to the architecture.  So in essence, we need more Rustic Canyons and less Lost Canyons, - more courses where one can play quickly, inexpensively, with strategic choices allowing one to love the game instead of being pained by it.  That all makes great sense to me.

Then it also seems to me we sure as hell do need more "bunny slopes", making the game accessible and fun for the beginner... more par 3 courses, more exec courses, etc. which also are cheap and yet provide fun and stimulation.  That too makes great sense.

But I can't get over this nagging feeling that there does remain a segment of the golf population that PREFERS Lost Canyons, with all of it's high-octane thrills and frills, to Rustic Canyon, which is no frills and has architecture much more subtle, with many layers to peel back and study.  If these golfers exist, then why shouldn't they have their outlets as well?  

That brings me back into the "big world" theory.... why does it hurt us who prefer the subtle and strategic if these high-octane CCFADs exist?

Then I have another question that I can't get a handle on either:  I can see that Lynn needs more golfers, but why do I? Dammit this is selfish I guess and I mean absolutely no offense to Lynn, but as I fight for tee-times week after week, I want LESS golfers, not more!  How does it help me as a consumer if there are more golfers?  I ask that with simple naivete and absolutely no agenda or advocacy.  However I think of this, I can't get a good handle on it.  I know somehow it must be true that I need the game to grow... I just can't figure out for sure why.

So my apologies, I give lots of questions here and very few answers....

TH

[TEPaul]

"How would we know what is "good" if there was no "bad"?"

Evan:

Excellent thought there! I call that the "rainy day" theory for some of these ultra purists on Golfclubatlas.com. It takes a few rainy days to make them appreciate or even understand sunny days better!

But again, my point here is not so much just their own personal opinions about golf architecture in a universal sense it's their opinions about what others feel about architecture!

[TEPaul]

"That brings me back into the "big world" theory.... why does it hurt us who prefer the subtle and strategic if these high-octane CCFADs exist?"

Tom Huckaby:

The question of this thread precisely!!

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

Thanks.  Ok, at least I grasp the question.  I just can't get a handle on any good answer.  As I try to say, one possibility is that for the future of the game, we need more golfers... and they just aren't coming, due to the architecture of these high-octane CCFAds and resorts and ultra-expensive private clubs.  But then I look at it and say that even if that is true, why do I need more golfers as I battle too hard for tee times as it is?

I need Cirba to explain this to me.

 

[TEPaul]

"I know somehow it must be true that I need the game to grow... I just can't figure out for sure why."

TomH:

The reason why probably doesn't have much more to do with anything other than the laws of supply and demand! We look at it from the point of view of the golfer but we can't forget to look at it from the point of view of Lynn the operator too.

[TEPaul]

Does this world need five star quality restaurants and Macdonald's hamburger outlets too or does this world just need five star quality restaurants only? This architectural question isn't that much different.

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

Well then there it is... I see why LYNN needs more golfers, I just can't see why I do.  But this is getting closer... is it so simple as just that if supply exceeds demand, then costs go up?  Yes, that would suck for me.

I just can't see that realistically happening, and again, it might be due to the unique nature of the SF Bay Area, where demand exceeds supply by such a ridiculous margin that it's damn near inconceivable to think it ever gets reversed.

OK, in that scenario, where supply exceeds demand, that is good for no one.  So how realistic is it that that ever occurs?  Yes, rounds are down... but wouldn't they have to continue to plummet for many years for this take effect?

[THuckaby2]

shivas:

Great way to put it, and not wholly different from what I was trying to get at!

But ok, say we aren't gonna be selfish though.  Even trying to be altruistic I still don't see supply exceeding demand to such an extent that it hurts us all... is that on the horizon?

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- I just was reading from Rees Jones website. Under "Philosophy" he refers to this 'not beating-up' the newer golfer that you say Mr. Thomas spoke of with his bunny hills analogy.

I'd have to say that a big part of the educational process is the adversity to overcome. Building bunny hills seems like it removes this aspect(somewhat) from the formative years of would-be golfers. Max called the dumbing down, nursegirls. Playability is the modern chant. But at what expense? Well, maybe the numbers speak for themselves? The anti-Max movement, already created the Bunny Hills, and they attracted a fair number of new golfers, but there seems to be a marginal slowing down in the anticipated growth. Why?

Costs are one thing, but uninspired designs may be an over-looked kettle of fish.

[THuckaby2]

AC:

Isn't the assumption that the bunny hills also include inspired architecture, like at the wonderful SINALOA GC?

Give them inspiration, choices, strategy - just don't give them too difficult hazards.  Make the game a series of positives to reach, rather than negatives to avoid.  Climb up the mountain from plateau to plateau, rather than run a flat race around quicksand pits.

OK, that was off the deep end.  But I hope I am conveying some of what I mean...  

[TEPaul]

Adam:

Tom Huckaby is exactly right there about Max Behr's philosophy on this and what he was referring to by the term 'nursegirls'. That, to him, was architectural technique and philosophy that removed thought from architecture and golf such as lining narrow strips of fairway with highy penal hazards on either side (freeway architecture of the modern era) or alternatively penal cross-hazards in the perpindicular arrangement of the old penal style of architecture.

He referred to that as nursegirl, because the golfer's ability to think his own strategic thoughts was removed from the equation--one must just do as one is told or he'd be penalized by what Behr referred to as "Mrs Grundy" bunkers---the "Mrs Grundy" analogy being one of the super moralist concerned only with good and evil. This, to Behr crushed the spirit of golfers who may not even be beginners!

"Bunny slopes" referred to by Frank Thomas are supposed to accomodate beginninng golfers whose own games are their biggest challenge, not architecture. Give them the opportunity to learn how to hit the ball on simple golf courses without having their spirits crushed somehow!

As to Max Behr again, his ideal in architecture was that the architect hide his hand so that architecture wouldn't appear artificial looking (man made looking) to the golfer but he also said that the architect should also hide his hand to some extent in the way one MUST play the course---so there would be very little if any "architectural dictation". This was simply to encourage the golfer to think for himself and to truly feel that he was doing that. Behr thought that alone was both mentally gratifying and sometimes exhilerating to the spirit.

Ideally, he believed that every golfer should feel he was almost making up his own strategies! That was when Behr to "freedom"---the freedom of a golfer to express himself in his own strategies--those ways to go he'd almost discovered for himself--almost as if he were in nature itself with all its inherent randomness.

There's alway a time to learn the adversities in golf and architecture. That doesn't need to happen on bunny slopes. They need to encourage the spirit of beginners to "shoot the bones for the whole works" as Behr said!

[Jeff Fortson]

If one were to compare beef to golf then I would make this argument.....


Steak houses should strive to be more like Peter Luger's.  High quality beef that focuses your experience on the "meat".  While a place like Morton's can deliver a good meal, the focus of your experience is on the ambiance.  In some ways they are masking the quality of their food with excellent service and nice lavish decor.

I guess Peter Luger's to me represents the NGLA's and Pine Valley's of the world while Morton's represents places like Trump National, Trump International and Trump National West Coast.  Get my point?

Now when it comes to more public forms of beef I'd like my hamburgers to be more like In-N-Out.  The menu is simple..... you can have a burger, cheeseburger, or a double-cheeseburger (aka Double-Double).  It's that simple.  The focus is on a high quality burger.  MacDonald's burgers are not even made from beef and the menu is endless.  All I ever take away from my experience at MacDonald's is a 30 minute seat on the toilet.  

I'd say In-N-Out would represent the Rustic Canyon's, Tall Grass's, or Bethpage's while MacDonald's represents every Ted Robinson designed public course in existence.


I hope that makes sense.  I know it's obscure but I figure everyone here probably likes steaks and burgers so I figured I'd relate my feelings via the stomach.


Jeff F.

[Mike_Cirba]

The question assumes a static environment, where existing and new courses of both classic and modern influences can peacefully coexist so that everybody's happy.

I think the spiffy water features fronting greens at George Thomas's BelAir CC shows that this is hardly the case.



painting courtesy of faegrefineart.com

The golf world, along with being made up of individuals, has a collective mentality that is influenced by trends and peer pressures.  

Why did Aronimink turn their 1920s Donald Ross course into just another version of the RTJ Frankensteinian monster in th 1960s?

Why do clubs compete with each other to see who can hit the fastest stimpmeter numbers?

Why did most clubs in the middle part of the last century turn their open farmland into parkland nurseries through "beautification" programs?

Why, after Pete Dye built the 17th at Sawgrass, was the world inundated with replicas and takeoffs?

Why the latest arms race to keep building back, and back, and back and back tees to stretch courses out no matter how ungainly?

It's simply because like anything else, golfers are people, and people are driven by various motivations including keeping up with the Joneses, wanting to be stylish and trendy, wanting bragging rights in the neighborhood, being influenced by ideas, both good and bad, and copying them as they see fit.

What happened during the Trent Jones post-war era (probably beginning with his remodel of Oakland Hills) is that golfers en masse began to get a visual interpretation of what a golf course should look like and everyone followed suit.

Today, the USGA would have us believe that doing much the same thing...pinching in landing zones, stretching the course to 7,500 yards, thick rough, wavy amoeba bunkers of glaring white, manicured sand, flattish but FAST greens ala Torrey Pines, is what a golf course should be.  

People watch that stuff on TV, and all of a sudden their club back home with WIDE fairways, slower but undulating greens,
6,400 yards from the tips, and some raw hazards begins to seem seriously outmoded.

Next comes a new Greens Chairman, and we hire a modern architect....

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Ok, so bad examples are being set.

But so many GOOD examples are set these days also... Sand Hills... Bandon Dunes... WildHorse... Rustic Canyon... Applebrook... Talking Stick...Doak's new stuff down under... just to name a few off the top of my head.

Maybe the bad is outweighing the good, and that sucks.  But so much good is being done these days, isn't there room for optomism?  Am I to believe that none of this that we would call "good" is being copied?  It's not a trend also?

And if there is room for optomism, isn't there also room to give the people who LIKE this kinda stuff we'd call "bad" their place to enjoy it, and leave alone those of us who prefer the types of courses I listed?  Or is it all to be utterly cryed down?

The glass to me remains half full.  But I sure as hell could be wrong.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Huckaby;

Yes, there is plenty of room for optimism.  And, this site has been a beacon in shining light on those efforts you mentioned.  I'm hopeful that they help to create their own "retro-trend", and others will be inspired by their example and build others, or continue efforts to restore lost features at their own clubs.

But, the question was whether it's a great big world, and by implication, I think that question assumes that those of us who like what we like can just assume that our interests and our courses will be protected from modern design trends, the influence of television, equipment issues, collective conscious of the golfing public, peer pressure and social status factors and I have seen too many examples where this has gone awry to believe we can just assume we can live in happy isolation.

They're playing at one of those places this week, by coincidence.    

[A_Clay_Man]

Toms- Mike C. dances around it but states it, nonetheless. Negative influences, influence.

Now, market forces should correct mistakes, eventually. That's why we're seeing the newer courses, Huck mentions.

Good to great American golf Courses need to start to act similar to the way golf is treated in Germany. Only allowing golfers who can prove they know the game, inside and out. Ettiquette and ability.

Now, that could mean that a guy like George Pazin can't get on at Pine Valley, just because his handicap is too high. Is that fair? I'd be interested in what Geo. will say. I'd bet he would work harder to get his scores down and then appreciate the expereince even more.  

Courses have become the hookers of the sports world. If they acted more like they had some real intrinsic value, by being a little picky about who golfs there, they'd be better off. And those who don't want to be so discerning, will be the bunny hills. BWT

[THuckaby2]

Mike:  that is a big meal for thought.  So you do believe what we like here will be overwhelmed? That the battle is done?  That it's just a matter of time that those great courses I listed get closed for lack of interest?

I don't see it.  Yes, the bad examples are out there, and maybe they are winning this war.  But there does remain so much good... and in a very real way I don't see the bad examples ever going away completely... that it does remain a big beautiful world of golf with room for one and all.  
They have theirs, we have ours.  I refuse to believe ours will be overwhelmed or go away.  The second that changes though it ceases to be a big beautiful world.  I just don't see that changing.

Look at it this way also:  99.9% of SoCal golfers will never play Riviera anyway.  So they play courses that are available to them and well... Rustic Canyon is damn popular.  I'll take the first-hand experience golfers are getting there, and feel pretty darn good about it.  Hopefully this weekend they won't watch TV too closely.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()