What are the trends in architectural features ?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Bunkers ?
Tees ?
Greens ?
Water features ?

Are the trends toward or away from heightening the challenge ?

Are bunkers softer, greens less contoured and the overall experience geared more toward fairness, or, is there an attempt to introduce more penal features ?

View the question in the context of private, public and resort courses.

[redanman]

Generally

Beautiful
Water features
dumbed-down

 

Private courses?

Major ass-kissing by waves of lackeys
Exotic wood lockers
Obscure single malt whisky collections
"Signature Holes"

CC-FAD's

Fair, fair, fair
Beautiful
Look impossible, play easy

I shouldn't drink and type

[Brent Hutto]

The trend for a couple decades now has been toward longer, more expensive, more elaborate, longer, more maintenance intensive, more difficult courses that are getting longer and longer. This has been true for public, private and resort courses. At some point you've got to figure there will be a swing back in favor of more affordable golf with not every new course pitched at the long-hitting golfer who wants to get beat up on every hole. Not sure when if ever that will actually happen.

[Glenn Spencer]

Not just because I played Longaberger yesterday, but I feel like I can remember seeing a lot more lone trees in the middle of the fairway on a par 4. I can think of at least 5 examples and I don't remember this being the case before.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Will smaller greens ever be in vogue again ?

[Tim Taylor]

Will smaller greens ever be in vogue again ?

Probably not on public courses!

This is a cool topic Patrick.

For a while it seemed like the "beach bunker" was in vogue but I haven't seen it much lately.

I'd like to see the trend (if you will) of water retention ponds being used as hazards on the 18th hole die a horrible death.

It seems like every newish course I've played has at least one par three over water. Why? Is there some sort of formula in the GCA cookbook that demands it?

It also seems like bunkers are farther away from greens than they are on older courses. I guess it's for maintenance reasons. But then I always see them hand mowing the greens anyways. What gives?

Can't comment on private as I haven't played enough new clubs.

What I'd like to see -

More centerline hazards. Or at least bunkers that are surrounded by fairway and not 5 yards over in the rough.
More front to back sloping greens.
Lower green fees, even if it means more basic courses. Most metro areas (I'm in Northern Virginia) need more decent, solid courses and not more $100 cart ball joints.

TimT

[Tim Pitner]

What I'd like to see -

More centerline hazards. Or at least bunkers that are surrounded by fairway and not 5 yards over in the rough.
More front to back sloping greens.
Lower green fees, even if it means more basic courses. Most metro areas (I'm in Northern Virginia) need more decent, solid courses and not more $100 cart ball joints.

I couldn't agree more.  It seems like no one builds just a good solid course anymore.  I think the golf industry is in an economic downturn and the only courses being built are private or driven by housing.  So, economics is a definite factor here.  Still, I think people would flock to a course that was affordable, walkable and interesting.  Where I live (Denver), there are some other challenges too--the land (east of the mountains) is mostly flat and the soil is rocky.  But, I think you could build an interesting course, utilizing the gradual movement in the land, strategic centerline hazards and maybe some creatively built greens.  And, it wouldn't have to be cartball, have artificial water hazards or use any other devices too many architects/developers fall back on.  

I haven't played it, but I might be describing something like Rustic Canyon.  Why aren't more courses like this built?  I know Gil Hanse is very talented so I don't assume every course would be as good as Rustic, but more courses along these lines ought to be built.

[Dan Herrmann]

Let me try to answer Patrick's question by comparing two courses I played yesterday - 1915's Phoenixville CC (Hugh Wilson) and 2003's French Creek (Gil Hanse).

I played @ Phoenixville (PA) CC yesterday in the GAP interclub matches, a Hugh Wilson 9-holer from 1915.  

The course was/featured
  . quirky,
  . natural,
  . small poa annua greens,
  . full of blind shots
  . didn't require a driver on every hole
  . tight
  . intimate

PCC had a few holes that would never be built today.   They were just too "strange" for today's game, but were very fun to play.  Some green complexes featured sunken greens, for example.  Their par 4 #9 required a 100-150 yard 2nd shot over a pond from a downhill lie.  I don't know if you'd ever see that built today.
 
Later in the afternoon, I played 9 at French Creek (Hanse).  The differences:
  . FC's greens were much larger (but Gil had the good sense to make shorter holes have smaller greens - they're not all big!)
  . Green speed was quite a bit faster (bentgrass at FC)
  . More forced carries at FC
  . more penal bunkers at FC
  . significantly wider fairways at FC
  . only 2 trees are in play at FC.  There were hundreds at PCC
  . FC was built with wetland protection in mind/required, which has resulted in a few longish walks between holes .  PCC's tees were probably too close to the green ("Fore" was heard frequently)

One final note - PCC was very park-like.  I love parkland courses.  It's the one feature I really miss at French Creek.  (don't get me wrong, though - I absolutely love French Creek)  
 

[Dan Moore]

If length is a feature, and why wouldn't it be, then longer courses is clearly a trend.

Erin Hills.  Room to expand to 8,000 yds.

John Daly has an 8,000 yarder "Big Stick" in the grinder for Bolingbrook, Il.  

[Craig_Rokke]

Dan-
Thanks for the comments on P-ville (as well as FC). My Mom just joined there(PCC), so I'm looking forward to playing some golf up there on occasion, after last playing there some 20 years ago. #9 did look interesting from the vantage point of
Easter brunch. I understand they've softened some of the greens that could not hold a downhill putt. It definitely is a fun little track.

[Dan Herrmann]

Craig,
I think you'll enjoy PCC.  The membership seemed to be very friendly.

The 2 par 3's, 6 and 7 are quite difficult.  6 is about 190 with OB on the right.  7 is the brute - about 210 all uphill into a prevailing wind.  We all hit drivers and missed the green (our GAP foursome was all 10-13 hdcp).

I know that the greens will be very good once the poa gets out of the seed mode.  

The par 3 2nd hole may be the sleeper of the course, though.  It's only 130-ish, but it's WAY downhill with OB on the right and an amazingly tricky green.  The greenside bunkers are very well placed.  All 4 of us had pars on the 'back 9', and the members told us that it was very unusual to have that happen.

It really showed the tremendous differences that 80 years of golf course architecture styles bring about.    It was a very enlightening day of golf - the type of experience that makes the GAP interclub matches so special.  (you can't go wrong playing Hugh Wilson and Gil Hanse on the same day)

[Jim_Bick]

On new courses, most but not all real estate related, I see many fewer trees within the playing corridor, although that is usually cut out of forest. The feel looked for is parkland and if the ball gets outside that corridor, it's pretty ugly (hazard if the land undevelopable, OB if it could be a lot). Look hard, play easy.

Other trend, both public and private, is much deeper greenside bunkers, private more than public but probably in similar proportion to the past. A greater than 6 foot deep bunker used to stand out. Now it's commonplace. Of course, disproportionately harder on the weaker player.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Why hasn't Wild Horse become a poster child course for public play ?

Why wouldn't a developer want to emulate its design ?

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick - I've asked these same questions, using Rustic Canyon as an example.  I know you haven't played there, but it's the same model as Wild Horse, in an area of MUCH more expensive land.

And it works tremendously, on all levels - just as Wild Horse does.

So why isn't it more emulated?  Why do we continue to see more overblown CCFADs?

Was Tim Weiman right in saying we want to play more, not pay more?  On the face of things I say yes... and the tide does seem to be turning... but the market does still seem to support a whole lot of these overblown cartball CCFADs... which do continue to get a whole lot of praise...

It makes one wonder.

TH

[Jason Topp]

Tom and Patrick:  I fully agree with your sentiments.  Having played Wildhorse and Rustic Canyon they are both terrific and I would love to see that type of approach even in areas not so conducive to hard fast links style golf.

Nonetheless, when looking for a course to play in a city when travelling, I will usually avoid the low priced municipal courses.  I do not really care about having a bunch of people serving me or having a perfectly conditioned course.  What I do absolutely want to avoid is the 6 hour round on an overstuffed course.  While play can be slow on CCFAD, usually people with no knowledge of etiquette and pace of play issues are priced out of playing at such courses.

If one could market a course as reasonably priced, well designed, and with reasonable pace of play guaranteed, I think it would do extremely well.  Very few exist.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jason:

I for one am not willing to equate knowledge of how to play fast with financial abilities to pay.  You may want to re-think that part.  The reason munis - and CCFADS - tend to play slow is if the courses are overstuffed far more than due to the habits of the players.

The slowest player on earth is a guy who says "I've paid ____ for this and will take as long as I want."  You don't find those at munis.

But in any case, I too would pay and have paid a premium for fast play - that is, for lack of crowds.  In fact I suggested this to my beloved Santa Teresa - charge a premium for block of two hours with 10-15 minute intervals instead of the impossible 7.5 they try to maintain.  I was shot down, of course.

But yes, I completely agree with:

If one could market a course as reasonably priced, well designed, and with reasonable pace of play guaranteed, I think it would do extremely well.  Very few exist.

How does one make this happen?

TH

[Tim Pitner]

I completely agree with:

If one could market a course as reasonably priced, well designed, and with reasonable pace of play guaranteed, I think it would do extremely well.  Very few exist.

How does one make this happen?

This is something that I was trying to get at with my post above.  My observation is that the vast majority of courses being built right now are private or housing development courses.  It's hard to build a well-designed, walkable course in most housing developments and besides, most developers want something more flashy than a Rustic Canyon or Wild Horse to sell their real estate.  And, if you're a municipality or other entity building a non-housing driven course, you probably don't have the budget to hire Tom Doak or Gil Hanse to build it.  So, you have to find a lesser known architect who's up to the challenge.  

I don't think these obstacles are insurmountable.  I think a Wild Horse-type course would be very successful in the Denver market, for example.  But, Gothenberg sort of caught lightning in a bottle there with the Bunker Hill firm.  I don't know if there were any similarly unique circumstances with Rustic.

[Jason Topp]

Jason:

I for one am not willing to equate knowledge of how to play fast with financial abilities to pay.  You may want to re-think that part.  The reason munis - and CCFADS - tend to play slow is if the courses are overstuffed far more than due to the habits of the players.

The slowest player on earth is a guy who says "I've paid ____ for this and will take as long as I want."  You don't find those at munis.

Tom - You make a fair point.  There is no doubt I am making an overly broad and partially innacurate generalization.  In fact, the course I played for about 10 years cost $20-$30 and played at 4:15 with 5-somes up until around 2000.  Many of the players could not afford a more expensive course.

The reason it played quickly was because you basically had to be a member of the "Men's club"  (another unfortunate non-PC term - there are some female members) to get a tee time on weekend mornings.  

Nonetheless, with the notable exception of scrambles, I have not had too many 6 hour round experiences on CCFAD's (more like 5 which is still horrible).  I have had many such experiences at munis.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - I've asked these same questions, using Rustic Canyon as an example.  I know you haven't played there, but it's the same model as Wild Horse, in an area of MUCH more expensive land.

And it works tremendously, on all levels - just as Wild Horse does.

So why isn't it more emulated?  Why do we continue to see more overblown CCFADs?

My guess is that it's the owner-developer's perception of what will sell.

A misquided concept of what the end user really wants, or what the market can afford.

I can't imagine Wild Horse not being a successful venture no matter where it was located.

If it can make it in Gottenburg, NE, it can make it anywhere.
Although, winds seem to be a vital element in accentuating the fun and challenge

I think developer-owners have discounted that golfers want to have fun, while being sufficiently challenged, and as a result, they've gravitated toward different products.[/color]

Was Tim Weiman right in saying we want to play more, not pay more?  On the face of things I say yes... and the tide does seem to be turning... but the market does still seem to support a whole lot of these overblown cartball CCFADs... which do continue to get a whole lot of praise...

David Suskind said words to the efffect that, "there are no bad TV shows, only bad audiences"  and perhaps that's true about golf courses.  Perhaps the expanding base of golfers gravitate toward those courses you/we find less then appealing.

My own views are along those lines.

As increased numbers of golfers took up the game, what influence them ?  
TV ?  
PGA Tour courses ?  
or Wild Horse and Rustic Canyon ?

I'm afraid that David Suskind was right.[/color]