The future of gca?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I thought my last post on Ron Whitten's article would generate some discussion, but it was a "thread ender."  I am often wrong on such things, but in case that just ran its course without help from me, I ask again:

Which futuristic Whitten predictions on gca for the next 20 years will come true?  A summary (including my opinions):

Most courses still 18 holes.  Yes

Standard Par drops from 72 to 69.  Yes

No one will miss the Par 5.  Yes

FW wider, browner.  Yes

Rough Scragglier.  Not sure. A new course of mine just mowed down all the natives....I predict genetic, drought tolerant grasses, still mowed.

Fewer, deeper, steeper hazards.  maybe

More eclectic.  Yes (I have been calling my style eclectic for years. Others say I just can't make up my mind...)

More strategic greens (i.e. contour) He also mentions smaller greens somewhere, using more ball mark tolerant grasses.  (yes on smaller, maybe on more strategic - I think only on the top end.  Other courses will continue to dumb down.


Here are some other Brauer (Carnac) predictions:

USGA (and maybe Tour Championship) will buy and remodel or build a rota of championship courses for the US Open and Tour Championship.  Without ball regulation, the next logical trend is to admit that ams and pros don't play the same game and build a handful of 7600 yard monsters, and leave most other courses under 7000 yards (or as is) where most ams play.  Of course, the branding opportunity can't be ignored.

The big question would be, which courses?  Certainly, a USGA investment in TP, Chambers Bay, Erin Hills would be logical.  They would need 7-9 (with every decade year being played on a traditional course) spread around the country.


What say ye?

[Ken Moum]

I thought my last post on Ron Whitten's article would generate some discussion, but it was a "thread ender."  I am often wrong on such things, but in case that just ran its course without help from me, I ask again:

Which futuristic Whitten predictions on gca for the next 20 years will come true?  A summary (including my opinions):

Most courses still 18 holes.  Yes Yes, golf takes too long, but 12 holes isn't the answer

Standard Par drops from 72 to 69.  Yes Yes, it comes with the 500-yard par four

No one will miss the Par 5.  Yes No, for guy like me anything over 425 is a par five

FW wider, browner.  Yes I hope so, but have little confidence

Rough Scragglier.  Not sure. A new course of mine just mowed down all the natives....I predict genetic, drought tolerant grasses, still mowed. Scragglier, less consistent, yes. Longer and unmowed, probably not

Fewer, deeper, steeper hazards.  maybe Fewer, bunkers? Yes. Deeper bunkers? Doubtful. Less water? I wish.

More eclectic.  Yes (I have been calling my style eclectic for years. Others say I just can't make up my mind...) Whatever does that mean?

More strategic greens (i.e. contour) He also mentions smaller greens somewhere, using more ball mark tolerant grasses.  (yes on smaller, maybe on more strategic - I think only on the top end.  Other courses will continue to dumb down.) Green creep will affect courses as it always has, and with less $$$ people won't worry about it.

Here are some other Brauer (Carnac) predictions:

USGA (and maybe Tour Championship) will buy and remodel or build a rota of championship courses for the US Open and Tour Championship.  Without ball regulation, the next logical trend is to admit that ams and pros don't play the same game and build a handful of 7600 yard monsters, and leave most other courses under 7000 yards (or as is) where most ams play.  Of course, the branding opportunity can't be ignored. That would make sense, and with Bethpage, Valhalla and Torrey we have reasonable templates for how it could work.

The big question would be, which courses?  Certainly, a USGA investment in TP, Chambers Bay, Erin Hills would be logical.  They would need 7-9 (with every decade year being played on a traditional course) spread around the country. Add Chambers Bay to the existing examples of public courses (Torrey and Bethpage), but I don't think a daily fee like Erin is a likely choice. What other publicly owned courses have possibilities?


What say ye?

I hope that something happens to eliminate the need for longer courses. My solution would be to go back to the 'balloon ball" of the 1930s, which would force the best players to throttely back for control, while helping the growing number of senior golfers by being easier to get in the air.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I see architecture trending more toward ease of maintainance and away from flamboyant "styles"

[Jeff_Brauer]

More eclectic.  Yes (I have been calling my style eclectic for years. Others say I just can't make up my mind...) Whatever does that mean?

Ken,

Well, at first, I thought it meant a lot of different bunker styles.....you know, like a long strip bunker on one hole followed by a series of pot bunkers on the next.  Then, I got to thinking, maybe eclectic means mixing square and round tee boxes, but wasn't so sure.  Then, I was certain that it meant mixing big and small greens, flat and contoured ones, etc.  Now, I am not so certain......I'll get back to ya!

Pat,

I agree, at least in the short term.  Whitten mentioned 20 years (which in the 600 year history of golf IS short term.  But, the trends of depression in the 30's lasted 60 years until the next boom of the 90's, so I gather that in our lifetime, the trend will be more towards maintenance and cost efficiency - although I don't think golfers will go back too far in terms of conditioning, just like we won't go back to Edsels.

[Jim Franklin]

Standard par will be 70 not 69.

[Ken Moum]

I don't think golfers will go back too far in terms of conditioning, just like we won't go back to Edsels.

I suspect you're wrong about that, at least at the kind of courses I usually play.

At my struggling country club we have already seen number of changes that are directly related to a tight maintenance budget.

If a course has the choice between lowering maintenance standards and closing, they're going to lower their standards.

Golfers will adapt. Here in Topeka, the busiest course in town isn't the one with the highest standards.

Ken

[John Burzynski]

I just don't see the par 5 disappearing.  Maybe dropping to one or two par 5's a course, but many golfers still like that opportunity for carding a par on a reasonable par 5.   For some golfers it is perceived as an 'easy par'.

Maybe it will disappear on the pro tour setups, but not for everyday golf.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ken,

Yeah I see that, too.  I think we all forget that 90% of rounds are played as determined by cost and convenience while we focus on the top 1% of courses here. Its a rare day when we discuss courses any lower than the top 2-5% in the country.

I also see a return to lower crew sizes - on two recent projects, the crew was 6 people, to be perhaps supplemented in busy seasons.  When I worked on a golf course, it was 9.  Now, I think average crew size is 14-18, with many courses doubling that.  (only top end, of course)

I was blown away at an outing at a top end course recently - 7 guys were tending to one bunker.  One on the rake, one hand raking, two trimming and three blowing grass clippings away.  That will stop.

That said, I still believe that with the new generations of supers, equipement, irrigation, etc. that the definition of an "average maintenance level" is much higher now than it was in 1977 when I entered the bizness.

John,

I agree.  The Par 70 USGA model will prevail.  The two remaining par 5's will be seen as birdie ops for good players and par ops for the rest of us.

[Ian Andrew]

I think legislation will fundamentally change golf design in the next 10 years.

Designers will have to incorporate more of nature in as part of the design and strategies. They will be forced to touch less of the site, leaving more of the natural features and leave less maintained area. They will need to build courses that retain the natural surroundings like Prairie Dunes does.

Economically these courses will have to become cheaper to build by minimizing earthmoving, reducing the stripping of topsoil, and getting back to more seeding and less sod. The courses will be become more realistic economic models that will allow them to open with lower greens fees.

We are spraying less already, but will be forced to reduce that even more over the next 10 years. Our playing fields are going to have to get less input – the courses will play firm and fast – so we will need to be designed to accommodate that style of play. The fairways will need more width to accommodate the run in the ball. This will place more emphasis on the rumples and rolls in the land since the ball will bound more. Designers will have to make greater use of the undulation to dictate strategy and reduce the modern reliance on bunkering. The small rumples and undulations around the greens will become far more important particularly if kept short. These courses will feature far more greens on grade and be more open in front to allow running approaches since the ground will return as part of play.

The designs are going to have to have extensive water collection systems and large storage facilities from the outset. The goal may have to become – and potentially a requirement – that courses must become somewhat self-reliance ith water. The approach of collecting everything and distributing it back to the irrigation system will become common practice. This will also control what leaves the site and prevent any residue from escaping the property. The use of natural filtering for any water collected or more importantly any water leaving the site will be required to ensure that nothing with any toxicity quotient will every leave the property.

I expect a lot of course closures in areas where water is already at a premium. The future sees the rise of water rights being the largest pressure on existing courses and a roadblock for the building of new courses.

I see a lot more tree removal to provide far more open green sites – and even routing around those sites that have ridges or hills that block the sun. Golf is going low input really soon whether golfers are ready or not – this is a given! I think the real future of low input golf is with the turfgrass research industry. They are the ones that will eventually make the greatest stride. Velvet Bent has unfortunately had very mixed results - but there is no question about the potential environmental benefits of Velvet if they can figure out the problems with it. It’s finding the right grasses to do the job.

Thinking outside the box – nothing could be more beneficial than a return to walking courses. Imagine not requiring cart paths, carts and cart storage facilities – that would save a million dollars or more. Think about all the petroleum products that would be saved.

I believe that we better hurry up and change our ideas about what we think about golf and realize there are better ways to be more environmentally responsible without compromising the quality of the game. The current state of golf is not sustainable.



I have not yet seen Ron's article but I look forward to reading it. I presented my future vision to the Canadian Golf Superintendents last year and got an interesting response. They are very much for a change to a more environmentally responsible approach but will need a lot of support to go brown and hard - they worry about losing their jobs over this.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

At a recent ASLA event, there were loads of vendors pushing porus paving materials - either blocks on sand or gravel with some kind of binder that lets water through to reduce runoff.  I don't see cart paths being reduced, but I do see different paving types coming on line.  Earlier versions of such things didn't work well, but I think they will be better this or the next time around.  I agree in principle though!

I still say that the easiest way to reduce all those things on golf courses is to eliminate the back tees on 90% of the courses that no one uses anyway.  Build regular courses and championship courses, but don't build both at the same place!

[Melvyn Morrow]

I agree totally with Ian and have been following his comments on Caddy Shack over the last year. Finger on the pulse again Ian, well done.

Golf is turning nearly full circle and the type of game played will need to adjust to the more natural course.  But don’t worry, most of us over here play golf on natural courses and let me say I still won’t change it for any of the artificial courses in the world.

Look forward to it, you will relax and enjoy your game more, after all you may just be getting back to the basic game of golf, nothing at all to scare you and perhaps Green Fees will tumble, benefiting all.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Human nature being what it is, I wonder if the economy will spur more walking just to save money, much as it has done for senior golfers playing munis on limited budgets for years.  History shows that in tough times, golfers move from private to public, play closer to home rather than travel, etc. 

One easy way to reduce your golf costs and still keep playing is to avoid the half cart charge, no?  I also predict that the free water in golf course coolers is getting replaced a lot more often these days as golfers drink that, rather than beer or soda.  Cart girl tips could be the biggest indicator of the health of the golf industry.

[Anthony Fowler]

I don't see any reason that Torrey, Chambers, Bethpage, etc. would need or want the USGA to invest, unless their respective governments fall on very hard economic times and need the quick cash.  Thanks to the USGA, they are all huge moneymakers.  I think there should be plenty of incentive for them to properly take care of their course and update it as needed because future U.S. Opens will be worth so much to them.  If these courses can't make money, then the golf industry will be in far worse shape than we ever imagined.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good posts.

Jeff - I wish I had an answer or even an informed opinion. All I know is there's no one here but us chickens, i.e. golf courses will be what golfers choose to make them, the choice made by how/where they spend their money.  Other than that, I can't see anything standardized: golf in China, golf in South America, golf in Eastern Europe, golf in North America -- I can't imagine that one size will fit all.  But as others have said, water restrictions will almost certainly play a role here at home.

Edit - actually, one size may fit all, that size being extravagent and expensive everywhere in the world except the U.S., where a semblance of modesty may come into fashion.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I've seen lots of people in recent years PREDICT that new courses will be built which shed strokes off par, but I haven't seen many architects actually doing it -- perhaps because clients are still resistant to the idea.  It's certainly a very hard sell in the Far East, where a lot of the new growth will be. 

To all the architects here:  of the last ten courses you've designed, how many were par-72?  71?  70? 

(Of our last ten, only Tumble Creek, Sebonack and Wicked Pony were par-72, and all the rest were par-71, which is pretty much my lifetime average.  Our only par-70 courses were the two at Stonewall, The Village Club at Sands Point, and St. Andrews Beach.  Aetna Springs is par-35 for nine holes.)

And how many par-70 courses have won GOLF DIGEST awards in the past few years?

If this changes, I suspect it will change because there are few new courses being built, while older courses will ratchet par down as existing par-5's become easily reachable.

[Jason Topp]

Which futuristic Whitten predictions on gca for the next 20 years will come true?  A summary (including my opinions):

Most courses still 18 holes.  Yes Yes

Standard Par drops from 72 to 69.  Yes No - par fives are a big part of the fun of the game.  I would instead expect 500 yard holes to be 5's from the normal tees and 4's from the back tees allowing different par figures to substitute for greater length differentials between front and back tees

No one will miss the Par 5.  Yes No - for most of my friends they are the most enjoyable holes on the course

FW wider, browner.  Yes Wider yes, firmer yes - browner _ doubt it unless severe financial strain hits or customer tastes change

Rough Scragglier.  Not sure. A new course of mine just mowed down all the natives....I predict genetic, drought tolerant grasses, still mowed. I doubt it

Fewer, deeper, steeper hazards.  maybe I doubt it

More eclectic.  Yes (I have been calling my style eclectic for years. Others say I just can't make up my mind...) I do not know

More strategic greens (i.e. contour) He also mentions smaller greens somewhere, using more ball mark tolerant grasses.  (yes on smaller, maybe on more strategic - I think only on the top end.  Other courses will continue to dumb down.) I don't think you can predict this one.  There are a variety of customer tastes on green contour.  I would think more tolerant grasses will continue to evolve 

Here are some other Brauer (Carnac) predictions:

USGA (and maybe Tour Championship) will buy and remodel or build a rota of championship courses for the US Open and Tour Championship.  Without ball regulation, the next logical trend is to admit that ams and pros don't play the same game and build a handful of 7600 yard monsters, and leave most other courses under 7000 yards (or as is) where most ams play.  Of course, the branding opportunity can't be ignored. I doubt it.  Hosting a tournament is too big a carrot for too many courses.  One thing that will be interesting is that I believe most players think that their 7000 yard course is long enough for tour players now.  That illusion should be shattered but I doubt it has been.  Will consumers demand longer courses to keep that illusion up or will they care? [color]

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Yeah, but as they have been saying in the financial biz the last few years, "This time, its different!"

If the logical reasons for dropping to par 70 have been in place for decades, (distance) and we add environmental and water issues, it may eventually happen.

Not yet, but eventually!

[Jim Nugent]

If they hold pro tournaments on courses without par 5's, we'll see a lot fewer rounds under par. 

[David_Elvins]

Very few course to be built.

Those that are to be far more economical.

Less bunkering, narrow fairways.  locations close to population centres. realtively unexciting terrain.

[JSPayne]

I just had a really pessimistic thought, and don't really WANT to share it......but it might actually be relavent. See what you think......

I could honestly see golf reverting back to the day when it was more of an "elitest" game, played only by those with money, on exclusive clubs only they could afford, with only a few "cheap" packed tracks for the blue-collar worker to muddle around on his one day off a week.

I only say this because it seems that most new construction, at least the real good architectural stuff, is coming in the form of private or high-dollar destination courses in somewhat obscure locales (see: Dubai, Sandhills, Montana).

Am I wrong? Architects.........break it down for us, what have your most recent dozen projects been on? New construction, remodels, private, muni, affordable public? I'd love to know......