[Mike_Cirba]

A couple of days ago, I was looking at the 1989 US Amateur program and took note of the fact that many of the tee boxes at Merion are not positioned in line with the fairways, and probably intentionally so.  

Then, I noticed the bunker that sits about 20 yards over the 3rd green, in a place that makes one scratch their head over it's seemingly useless placement.

Recent topics here have discussed blind shots, split fairways, and classic restorations of late have focused on bringing back original features that have been discarded over time.

Which got me thinking...

Back when many of these courses were built, the architect in charge was generally assumed to be the only person who had a clue about how to build a golf course.  Many of the early pioneers were either former professionals, or others who happened to grow up "in the game", like Tillinghast or Ross.  

Generally, these men had their way with a design to a great extent, without every Tom, Dick, or Harry (like us), every developer, every club member or paying customer, generally scrutinizing and criticising the work of the architect.  

Over time, this seems to have led to a general expectation and public mindset of what is sound golf architecture, and I think you'd agree that if you came upon a course that didn't have fairly homogenic features (i.e. multiple sets of tees), you'd be fairly surprised.

Playing at Yale recently, my first thought on seeing the wild 10th hole was "nobody would ever build a hole like this today".  The same could be said for holes like the 17th at TOC, or the 1st or 6th green at NGLA, or the off-center tees at Merion, or the blind 11th at Reading CC, for that matter.

In examining why this would be, it occurred to me that the design of those holes is too far out of some safe "norm" that the lowest common denominator majority of the golfing public expects to find in a golf hole.  

Which leads to the question; if greater public knowledge of architecture is generally agreed to be a good thing, why has the advancement of that knowledge to date instead created an expectation of what a golf course should be that seems to fundamentally stifle anything truly different, unorthodox, or wildly creative?

[George Pazin]

Interesting hypothesis, Mike, but I'm inclined to think these problems you suggest are reflective of the greater problems of society in general. Few people want challenges anymore - life is all about how we can make things as fair & easy as possible.

If you can figure out a way to change that, you're a much smarter man than me!

[ForkaB]

Great Question, Mike!

This links very closely to Tom Paul's earlier thread on thinking "out of the box."  Unfortunately, we do live in an age where people's expectations are fixed by stereotypes.  We want to eat unblemished fruit, no matter how insipid it tastes.  We want to drive low-fuel-economy high WOW factor cars.  We want 7200 yards of 18 holes of golf with 4-3's, 10-4's, and 4-5's, with carts and a cool clubhouse and not a blade of grass out of place.  At least most of us.

Who would come to play a 22-hole course, with holes ranging from 35 yards to 750, with a course rating, but no par, with lowly maintained natural areas outside of the normal field of play, with no carts and a small, but friendly clubhouse that offerred tasty apples which had just fallen off the tree?  Who would finance it?  Who would have the balls to build it?

Sounds a bit like the Garden of Eden, doesn't it?  Pretty scary.........  Not to me.

On the other hand........  On my recent vacation to the UK, there was an article in the United Airlines flight magazine about one of Jack Nicklaus's new golf architecture strategies. Esssentailly he is offerring developers not just a virtual cookie-cutter course, but a real one.  This is to say, you (the developer)can now buy the "Signature Package" (or something like that) and you will get a course that is, near as dammit, EXACTLY like all other courses bought and paid for under that brand.  Each will have the exact same terraformed replica of the 16th at Grand Cypress, the 12th at Muirfield Village, The 3rd at St. Mellions, etc., etc.

Now this IS scary.............!!!  But it is the reality within which we are living today.

[RJ_Daley]

Mike and Rich,

This is about the same as why so many people go to Applebys, Red Lobster, Tumbleweed, or other cookie cutter restaurants.  They are fast, popular, consistent in taste, and cheap with no surprises.

Now, CCFADs aren't usually cheap, but they offer that consistency of feel and sameness of playing style and look.  That allows people to stay in their comfort zone, not seeking the more quirky or out of the box challenge that the old funky courses present.

Mike's observation about who the old architects actually were regarding guys that were growing up with the game as it was being conceived by a small number of people familiar with it, is interesting.  They were making it up as they went.  Then as the profession grew, more conventional wisdom came along - and conventional wisdom soon leads to mediocrity.  We need more firebrands to challenge the status quo, like around here  

[aclayman]

I too have been contimplating these q's and have come to the realization that the "good" that comes from the disemination of knowledge must co-exist with what eventually leads to the "bad" homogenius evolution mentioned, of not only the architecture, but other aspects of the whole enigma that is GOLF.  

[T_MacWood]

Mike
I think you hit hammer on the nail. Everyone now has a little knowledge and now knows exactly what they want. A perfect example of a little knowledge being dangerous. And to complicate the issue, it is now possible to create just about anything anywhere. In the old days even if you had an idea of what you wanted, you were still forced to work with what mother nature left you - chich led to some of the interesting features of the past.

Today those with the most knowledge are able to find an architect whose style they admire and then generaly get out of his way.

[jglenn]

It's not really a question of more people understanding golf course architecture, but rather a question of those people THINKING they understand.
______

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.  Avoid him.  He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, will learn.  Teach him.  He who knows, and knows not that he knows, will fail.  Pity him.  He who knows, and knows that he knows, is a wise man.  Follow him."

[TEPaul]

This topic reminds me of another good one that was posted not long after Golfclubatlas came on the web (a few years ago).

I believe all you guys are going to have to just accept the fact that the very best to hope for is that some good architecture (what most of us think of as good architecture) is getting built and more of it will get built in the near term. And it will be considerably more and probably quite different than much of what has been done in the last fifty years.

The other thing to really key on, in my opinion, is that a considerably greater amount of older architecture is going to get saved and restored than has happened in the last number of decades.

But if you really think that the kind of architecture that we talk about is going to sweep the world in some kind of massive renaissance, then I really think you are absolutely dreaming. That will never happen, not soon, not ever!!

A very strong niche is the best to hope for, in my opinion, and if you think about it what's happening now and what will likely follow is far better than what we've seen in the recent past.

MikeC:

I've been thinking a lot recently about misaligned tee boxes (on purpose). Some say that Ross did this sometimes on purpose. Possibly, but with some of the restoration efforts (and research) I've seen recently it might be more likely that the tee boxes originally were aligned but over time the fairways became misaligned. I'm seeing more holes where when the trees are removed and the fairways widened and repositioned back to where they originally were you are seeing that the tee boxes are miraculously coming back into alignment.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike, Someone did build something like the 10th at Yale and his name is Brian Silva and he did it at that course he recently built in Tennessee. Brian was the guy that was so ruthlessly torn to pieces for his work on Ross courses, before it became passe' to restore them as precise as possible.  

Not only does Brian "get it," He is striving to learn it further and further. He is the ultimate example of an architect that was doing the same as everyone else, until he reinvented himself. The World of Golf is a better place for it too!

Jeff Brauer has enlightened us that he has been inspired to think more classically in a sense. Supposedly he is building a course that will be inspired by one of his favorites--Chicago Golf Club.

Hopefully what is happening is that these professionals are seeing the true artist come out to produce the very best with-in.

[Ed_Baker]

Tommy N.,

When did it become passe' to restore Ross courses as precisely as possible? Isn't anything else a re-design?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tommy,

I understand what you are saying about Brian Silva, but wasn't that also a case of him being asked very specifically to design something in the Seth Raynor vein?  If that is the case, then the developers were certainly not your average course builders.  Still, I'm as happy as you about seeing things like that.  

My point, however, is that in most new construction, the developer, members, paying public, etc., already have very definite preconceived notions about what a modern golf course "should" be, and it would seem to me that the architect might be very "boxed in" (stealing Tom Paul's term) by those expectations.

What if an architect said, "this hole only has one good spot for a tee, and I think everyone should play from right here...it's perfect for every level as it is.  Building anything else in the surrounding environs would be a sin due to a multitude of reasons.  The single tee I'm proposing is large enough to support continual grass growth and traffic, and we can move the placement of the markers around enough and still keep the design intent of the hole."

So, now, everyone from the professional to the seniors and ladies come to the hole and there is a single set of markers.  How do we think that would play?

This is an oversimplified, overdrawn example but the point is that because almost everyone now has some preconception of what a course should be, that shared definition works against an architect doing something revolutionary.  In the worst cases, it also can prohibit architects from trying anything creative, whimsical, daring, or even frivolous, like the bunker 20 yards behind the 3rd green at Merion.

[George Pazin]

Mike -

Have you, in your amazingly wide repertoire of courses played, seen any correlation between the level of any development - ie big name signature design/big money development versus low cost low profile designs(be they by minimalists or maybe even small time dreamers) - and the willingness to try something new? (Sorry about the monster run on sentence!)

I'm wondering if the big money that is required tends to lead those involved to make "safe" decisions, avoiding anything approaching controversial or quirky. You'd almost think that controversy would lead to more PR & thus, at least in the short term, more $$$.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I'm glad to hear that Brian Silva has changed his philosophy regarding old courses.

I do know that I objected strenuously when he installed a new bunker style on four (4) holes on our 1927 Tucker designed golf course years ago.  They are totally out of context with the rest of the golf course, and will soon be restored.

Respect for the original architect and his design integrity tends to be a sign of maturity/security.

[rj struthers]

Gotta think there are more Mike Keisers out there. People with money and the love of the game who give he builder/architect plenty of leash.What a treat it would be to just let your imagination run wild and build something really phenomenal and not be constrained with making it work economically. This doesn't necessarily translate into spending mucho dinero, but requires a lot of stars to get in alignment.
Not having been to PacDunes, I suspect this was the case as it certainly was at Sand Hills.
In many ways I respect some of the off the wall concepts Desmond Muirhead used at Stone Harbor, I just don't think he has played enough golf. He certainly wasn't worried about the rank and file criticism of his work, as many are!

[rj Struthers]

Just want to clarify, I think the golf course design Muirhead did at Stone Harbor was atrocious, but he wan't pandering to the masses, for sure. See worst golf holes'

[C. Rokke]

Have environmental and liability issues stifled architectural creativity as well?

[rj struthers]

to C. Rokke

Absolutely the environmental and permitting requirements hinder creativity. The ability to work in or around wetlands is extremely limiting. Witness NJ or California as great
examples of this. Coastal commissions et al.
Perhaps some of the great work will be done in developing neations with coastline.

[aclayman]

rjs - There are those places, they are just very private. I can't even mention one I know of in a town no where near the coastal comm. jurisdiction.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()