[Dan Herrmann]

Overcoming mental and physical challenges on a golf course is what gives me the most joy. 

I love a hole that makes me a little scared - play a big match and notice your hand stumbling just to put the tee into the ground - now THAT's fun!

Bomb and gouge is boring.

Golf is a metaphor for life.  You can have eveything easy and cushy (and boring) or you can LIVE and experience challenges and overcome fears, doubts, and anxiety and be a champion for it.    Good GCA gives golfers those opportunities.  I've never seen a tennis court or bowling alley do that!

[Mike_Young]

as a manager (not highly respected  ) of a busy public facility for the past seven years I've been involved with a lot of course changes that were designed to make the course more interesting to more people.

What we have done is basic stuff but has worked really well (not to tell you guys anything you don't know)

- new fairway bunkering that added interest for the better players but were out of reach from the tee for average golfers
- challenges on the green without being too hard. We can pin it tough if we want too but for day to day golfing its reasonable
- greens where possible have an area where the ball can be run onto the green, although it isnt necessarily going to guarantee the best result
- as new tees have been built added where possible distance to give us more options

As I write this we will do today around 600 rounds for 36 holes, our daily average is around 480 all year long. What we hear continually is that course condition is the main reason for our success, followed by design and interest. The other major feedback from better golfers is that they want quicker greens and that's a fair point, but this has to be weighed up against speed of play and skill of the beginner.

If we went down the path of reducing player numbers for a higher gree fee, green speed and firmness would increase.

Reading forums such as these has helped significantly in how I manage the course, and things such as tree reduction in play areas that a few years ago weren't on the radar are now a priority to improve the enjoyment  of the golfer. Enjoyment to me is a key word, and that's a major reason in why I think my track get the continued repeat business.

I'm thinking of doing a photo course tour in a few weeks if anyone's interested, it hopefully will show how a public course in Australia can provide a good product at good price on a medium level budget

Matt,
The thing I find most interesting in your post is the number of rounds and good maintenance conditions.....my calculations come to 85000 rounds per 18 annually.  How do you do this and maintain a golf course....

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jeff,

In reading your initial list it would appear to be one that strips the game of its challenge, catering instead to the lowest common denominator, those that want golf to be an easy game.

NGLA meets the fun test, but, other than wide fairways, it diverges from the items on your list.

As I read your list, I equated it with bland design.

I want interesting design.
I want challenge in the design
I want fun in the design
I want diversity/variety in the design

Absent those items I can always hit balls on a football field.

Perhaps, based on your relating your conversation, golf design in America is   
doomed to mediocrity.

Perhaps, the concept of "struggle" has and will elude future generations.

When you consider the struggles that our parents and grand parents went through in the latter part of the 19th century and early to mid part of the 20th century, perhaps that related to the challenge inherent in the designs of the golf courses built in those periods.

Yet, as difficult as those courses seemed to be, golf grew and flourished.

Was it because, deep down, people thrive on athletic challenge ?

Or because everything was handed to them, including pars ?

[Jeff_Mingay]

I hope that 7-11 guy has done it enough to be educated on the best way to get to that beer cooler.....as you are aware.....it's those little things you learn that aren't seen or known by the ones that don't know any better.....that's why this site is in such awe of the ODG's....and it is the reason so many assume they can do it their first time.....oh well....

Mike,

I feel an urge to respond to this, but I can't understand your point 

As for the so-called "ODG's", I have a simple question: Why wouldn't people be in "awe" of a group of golf architects who've designed what have been recognized as the premier courses throughout the world for nearly a half century?

This is a pretty awe-inspiring accomplishment, actually.

[Mike_Young]

I hope that 7-11 guy has done it enough to be educated on the best way to get to that beer cooler.....as you are aware.....it's those little things you learn that aren't seen or known by the ones that don't know any better.....that's why this site is in such awe of the ODG's....and it is the reason so many assume they can do it their first time.....oh well....

Mike,

I feel an urge to respond to this, but I can't understand your point 


As for the so-called "ODG's", I have a simple question: Why wouldn't people be in "awe" of a group of golf architects who've designed what have been recognized as the premier courses throughout the world for nearly a half century?

This is a pretty awe-inspiring accomplishment, actually.

Jeff,
I agree that it is an awe inspiring accomplishment...but since that time , thru trial and error, ( and plenty of error) much has been learned re GCAture....thus "education".......what I was trying to say is that so much of what we see today as the product of the ODG is much more the product of 60-75 years of maturing and pampering by clubs and supts.....I think you would agree that a traditional, minimalist course built today would have much more thought given to drainage, ingress /egress , maintenance issues etc than the ODG guys did....all because of trial and error.....IMHO I just don't think they thought about it as much as guys do today.....
Mike

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Let's talk about designing a new course.

To all you architects and avid low handicap golfers out there who want a "challenge", let's say you're hired to design or renovate:

1. a municipal course
2. a daily fee course
3. a resort course
4. a mid level private club
5. a high end private club

Does your design philosophy differ depending on the type of course or take into account who(what kind of golfer) will be playing the course or do you just say something like, "this is my course, play it?"

[Jeff_Mingay]

I hope that 7-11 guy has done it enough to be educated on the best way to get to that beer cooler.....as you are aware.....it's those little things you learn that aren't seen or known by the ones that don't know any better.....that's why this site is in such awe of the ODG's....and it is the reason so many assume they can do it their first time.....oh well....

Mike,

I feel an urge to respond to this, but I can't understand your point 


As for the so-called "ODG's", I have a simple question: Why wouldn't people be in "awe" of a group of golf architects who've designed what have been recognized as the premier courses throughout the world for nearly a half century?

This is a pretty awe-inspiring accomplishment, actually.

Jeff,
I agree that it is an awe inspiring accomplishment...but since that time , thru trial and error, ( and plenty of error) much has been learned re GCAture....thus "education".......what I was trying to say is that so much of what we see today as the product of the ODG is much more the product of 60-75 years of maturing and pampering by clubs and supts.....I think you would agree that a traditional, minimalist course built today would have much more thought given to drainage, ingress /egress , maintenance issues etc than the ODG guys did....all because of trial and error.....IMHO I just don't think they thought about it as much as guys do today.....
Mike

Mike,

I don't disagree that, IN SOME CASES, 60-75 years of "maturing and pampering" by clubs and superintendents has made certain aged courses better. But, decades of evolution elsewhere has been devastating. So, your argument certainly is NOT a consistent.

Moreover, I look at the BIG PICTURE: 1) Taking advantage of great properties through really smart, creative routings; and, 2) Varied and interesting green complexes. These two aspects are what make the best of the "ODG" courses, great.

Sure, Mackenzie, Ross, Tillinghast, Flynn, Thompson, et all missed dealing with a couple drainage problems, here and there, during initial construction. But, I'd guarantee they knew this would happen, and that such relatively minor problems would in fact be rememdied over time as these courses matured and were "pampered" by capable green-keepers. This happens today. It's the process.

Last, if "much has been learned" about golf course architecture since the so-called "ODG's" were creating their (soon to be over-rated!) works, where are all the great modern courses? Not that I put a lot of weight in rankings, but just two post-WWII courses have cracked GOLF magazine's world top-10...

... maybe we're not on the same page here, Mike. Are we talking about designing and building world-class courses or simply making courses which meet the status quo?

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I think for the most part we are on the same page.....but I think you are describing a handfull of courses and I am discussing the body of work from one decade to the next.....I think where we differ is that I do not think their works are as overated as I think they, themselves, are overated.   

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeff,
I think for the most part we are on the same page.....but I think you are describing a handfull of courses and I am discussing the body of work from one decade to the next.....I think where we differ is that I do not think their works are as overated as I think they, themselves, are overated.   

They, themselves, are over-rated! Very interesting, Mike.

I'm of the opinion that human beings, in general, are typicall over-rated... so, I think we agree 

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
I think for the most part we are on the same page.....but I think you are describing a handfull of courses and I am discussing the body of work from one decade to the next.....I think where we differ is that I do not think their works are as overated as I think they, themselves, are overated.   

They, themselves, are over-rated! Very interesting, Mike.

I'm of the opinion that human beings, in general, are typicall over-rated... so, I think we agree 

Good....we got this thing figured out now...

[Adrian_Stiff]

Let's talk about designing a new course.

To all you architects and avid low handicap golfers out there who want a "challenge", let's say you're hired to design or renovate:

1. a municipal course
2. a daily fee course
3. a resort course
4. a mid level private club
5. a high end private club

Does your design philosophy differ depending on the type of course or take into account who(what kind of golfer) will be playing the course or do you just say something like, "this is my course, play it?"

Youdesign to what your client pretty much wants, if you feel you don't agree with his instructions you can always walk away. For me I would want the course to be a certain standard, generally my courses are fairly easy but capable of staging a county championship.

[Lou_Duran]

Some random thoughts on this great topic.

Most GCAers I've played with like a bit of quirk, nostalgia, wide playing corridors, little rough, and SHORT.

The words "interest" and "strategy" are grossly overused and nearly meaningless for a vast majority of golfers.  Most of us ain't that good to aim for spots on the fairway, instead we hope to find a place anywhere we can play from again without a tree in front of us, and end up on or near the green for a chance at a bogey or a par.

Firm greens are score and time killers; double the consequences if they are also fast and tightly bunkered.

Some of us like to play in the wind sometimes, most golfers do not.

Score does matter.

Courses that appear difficult but play easy are very popular; courses that beat up a player are not.

Good green maintenance and just a tad of speed can make up for a lot of sins.

The combination of well maintained greens and low green fees goes even futher.

Heavy contouring and steep slopes are not desired by most golfers.

"Sticks" like bunkers in play; most golfers like bunkers more as eye candy than actual hazards.

     

[Brent Hutto]

Most GCAers I've played with like a bit of quirk, nostalgia, wide playing corridors, little rough, and SHORT.

The words "interest" and "strategy" are grossly overused and nearly meaningless for a vast majority of golfers.  Most of us ain't that good to aim for spots on the fairway, instead we hope to find a place anywhere we can play from again without a tree in front of us, and end up on or near the green for a chance at a bogey or a par.

The part about SHORT is a key that shouldn't be overlooked. I think several of Lou's other observations are related to it.

As a very short hitter it doesn't take much length at all for a course to be reduced for me to primarily the challenge of simply hitting two shots in a row that manage to advance the ball something close to as far as I can hit it. And not ending up behind a tree. If there's going to be any "strategy" or even much "interest" beyond the green complex contours in play for me, the course has to be playing short enough that once in a while I can hit something less than driver off the tee of a Par 4, lay up with something shorter than a hybrid or wood on a Par 5 or go flag-hunting with a short iron on at least one or two Par 3's. On a typical soft, overwatered, overgreen USA course that usually means moving up to 5,600-5,900 yards or so and it's hard to get a game playing from those tees (plus many courses are not laid out to offer the full range of architecture when playing up 60 yards/hole.

Now not everyone hits it as short as myself. But it's been my observation that the vast majority of USA golfers want to "test" themselves at the maximum reasonable course length, if not a little longer. They would honestly rather hit a dozen holes of driver/hybrid or driver/wood, not have a wedge to a single green (even Par 5's), and say they shot 84 from 6,800 yards than play a more interesting and varied game and shoot 81 from 6,200 yards. Preferences about golf course architecture in this country have a tendency to flow from this (to our view) irrational and bloody-minded refusal to play courses at their most "interesting" length.

I also believe the emphasis on green speeds and perfect conditions flow from the same basic mindset. The most simplistic (I almost said "simple-minded") way to view a round of golf is as a "test" of how many times you can string together two good shots in a row plus a "test" of how many putts of decent length you can hole. Distance provides a rubric for the first "test" (obviously there's more challenge hitting long shots than short ones) and Stimpmeter is the accepted rubric for the second (as in "I had 38 putts with six three-putts...those greens must have been rolling at 13!").

Once you adopt this rather cynical view of your fellow club golfers, nothing said in the original quotation in this thread and very little of what you see done to courses or in terms of equipment trends is hard to understand. There's a lot of mumbo-jumbo and a few true complexities that this over-simplification ignores but mostly it's the continuing reduction of the game to how far you can hit it in two shots and how well you putt on lightning fast, perfect, not-too-sloping greens.

P.S. Let me add that when you move up from the club golfer's skill level into the more elite ranges, all that adds to the equation is a third test of how often you can hit a wedge shot to within eight feet of the hole from 100-150 yards.

[Randy Thompson]

Steve,
 Only a handful of fortunate architects get a free say on how and what and why! Ususally it is dictated by the client and if your lucky you slip in a few philosophies when nobody is looking. Time and Time again, its, "I pay, I say"! And it happens to the biggies also, they fight harder, have their fees paid in advance and so have more leverage especially if its a marketing name architect but in the end, they give in a lot also! You have to wear many hats but one of the most important hats is that of a teacher, you have to educate the client to how and why but there are a boat load that have no intrest in being educated. Seems like the more money you have the harder headed you become and hard heads lead to hearing problems or better yet, listening problems.

[George Pazin]

Had an interesting discussion with a respected golf course manager the other day, basically asking what features of courses I have designed were popular and unpopular.  (I do this regularly)

The summary of his response was that the features that made holes fun to play were the most popular.   Features that raised scores were not.  "Good Features" in his opinion (gleamed from golfers on his course and other GOOD players) included

Wide fw (not for strategy - just allows golfers to bust a driver)
Big Greens - to allow players to hit more greens in regulation rather than face chip shots
Flat Greens - no tricks, ability to make a birdie on many holes if close enough to the pin
Reasonable recovery shots, including chips.  Most players hate chips that "run away from them"
Feeling comfortable off the tee
No awkward shots where a tree blocks or forces a shot around.

Basically, the Tour Pro philosophy of "The course shouldn't EVER hurt you" is in the mind of the better club player now, which I guess I knew.  The funny thing is, he asks why I would ever put a feature in a golf course that would cause a bogey.  I replied "Well, I guess its the old gca and RTJ idea of "defending par", ya know".

His response?

"Those days are over!"

Thoughts?

My theory is that each golfer wants a course that is right at or just slightly below his own level - and decidedly above his competitions'. That is an exceptionally difficult standard to achieve.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

The corollary is that they want the fw hazards just five yards further than they hit, in the landing zone of their partner who hits it just a bit further.

[Anthony Gray]

George,

The corollary is that they want the fw hazards just five yards further than they hit, in the landing zone of their partner who hits it just a bit further.

  I love center-line hazards around 265 yards off the tee. I find that these have great "Design Interest".

  Anthony

[Tim Nugent]

Always thought the centerline bunker was perfect,  the average golfer just has to aim for it - thus guaranteeing that he will never be in it, while the accomplished striker of the ball, who can actually hit what he aims for has to aim either left or right, thus making his fairway less than 1/2 the width.  The problem rests in the fact that it only works if the good guys doesn't get a new driver that allows him just to blow it over and negate it.

The one thing I haven't heard anyone bring up is the aging demographics of golfers.  Does anyone think this may factor into the equation? 

[Norbert P]

"An architect should never lose sight of his responsibility as an educational factor in the game. Nothing will tend more surely to develop the right spirit of the game than an insistence upon the high ideals that should inspire sound golf architecture." - Wm. Flynn

Great quote. 

The architect or artist of any medium should not be so detached from his clients or end users to be indifferent, but I should think that what made them capable is their inspiration from sound notions and ideals, and satisfying result learning experiences, and not from the motive of comforting buyers/players. Once that latter practice creeps in,  commodity design will ruin the worthiness of the entire portfolio of the designer. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()