Which emerging architect will save the game?

[Mike_Cirba]

I've only had time to read and not post much in recent days, but it seems that there is an overriding theme in many of the more recent posts that laments the loss of the "challenge" factor for the best players in the game.

A recent trend started by some of the new, "neo-classicists", has been to reintroduce strategy and "fun" into the game.  The efforts of these architects should and have been applauded here and elsewhere, yet I don't think that any of us are so naive to believe that the great majority of these courses would present anything more challenging than an interesting diversion to the game's top players in competitive situations.  And yes, I'm speaking of Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes, and a host of other modern courses we enjoy and delight in playing.  Does anyone here doubt that if a 72 hole tournament was played at either in prime weather conditions that the best golfers would go very, very low?

In a significant way, this is a departure from what great courses of the past offered.  Almost every great course of the past was not only a fun and strategic endeavor, but also provided more than enough challenge to be respected and even feared under tournament conditions.

After the golden age passed, and then the depression and WWII, it seems that many similar game improvements led to a situation where the best courses no longer had quite the same challenge as they had 20 years ago.  Arriving on the scene was RTJ Sr., who modifiied classic courses and built new ones to fill the "challenge" void.  Think what you will about his style, but there is no doubt that he made a lasting impact with what for the time was a pretty revolutionary and even creative methodology of bunkering in the landing zone, long tees to accommodate everyone, and humungous greens that were segmented to penalize the indifferent approach.

In thinking about the future, I don't believe that length is the answer.  We seen any number of ultra-long courses being routinely butched.  I'm not sure that strategy alone will do it either, as we are seeing "strategy" being "carried" at courses like TOC.  Fast and firm conditions might be a part of it, but is dependent on benign weather conditions (i.e. Merion after some soaking rains).  High rough can be easily vanquished as well, as witnessed by those who hit the ball not only long, but straight as well.

I think there is a natural law of action/reaction out there somewhere that makes inevitable some type of architectural reaction to technological improvements in the game.  I just don't believe we've seen the latest architectural creative response yet.  

However, I am certain we will.  

Some current or future architect will come up with some creative and original design philosophy that will provide a new direction...a new paradigm, if you will, that will probably borrow from the past but also set out in new directions that will not only keep the game fun and strategic, but offer some new type of challenge that the game's best players will not only have to respect, but also struggle against.

Are there really only so many notes in the symphony?  Or are we just inherently limited creatively in understanding what new notes are out there, until some next prophet of the game unveils them for our understanding and appreciation?

Are there any architects out there who are doing things differently?  Who are undertaking ground-breaking, bold, innovative designs that pay homage to the old rules but break them in fresh, creative ways?

If so, what are they doing, and why do you think they will have a lasting impact on the future of the game?

I can think of one, but I'm not sure yet if he's the new messiah.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I don't think it will be an architect that saves the game.

Hopefully, the head of the USGA, R&A, or ANGC, or all three.

[Tom Doak]

Mike,

I am certainly not setting out to be a messiah, but I know how to make a course hard for the best players if I want to.

I think there have only been two rounds posted under par 70 from the black tees in the history of Stonewall; and not many under par 73 at Black Forest!  [Neither of them is very long, either.]  For that matter, I haven't heard anyone brag about a score at High Pointe or Beechtree or Apache Stronghold, either.  However, I took this as a sign that I was probably making courses too difficult, considering they aren't likely to be chosen as PGA Tour venues.  Pacific Dunes is designed as a resort, and the ones who have reacted most favorably are the good players, who appreciate being given some birdie opportunities.

If you're looking for someone to control the Tour players, then it would have to be someone who's designing courses for a Tour event -- and then the Tour gets involved and stops you from making it too tough.

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, I'm with Pat on this one.  The archie that will do it is the archie played by John Cleese in the Titelist commercials.  The more ad vignettes I see him in, the more I flat out love the guy.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'll answer the original question with maybe, Ken Dye.

 My recent exposure to his, and his firm's work, leads me to spring the light of eternal hope, (which as a Chicagoan is part of my DNA). I admit that the firm and fast conditions which the high-desert holds at the moment, have been fascinating learning conditions and are grossly swaying my opinion. IMHO his use of an almost Maxwellian roll in both Fairways and Greens is exciting and demanding as most of the character  emulates the geographical and evolutionary processes of the local environs.

[JSlonis]

Mike,

Don't you think that architects are in a very tough spot?  They can clamor about distance, technology, and the need for more land to build bigger courses, but they are caught in the middle of equipment manufacturers and golf course developers.  To some extent the architects have to cater to those that pay them, even though they would rather see the USGA/R & A do something about the advancement of technology.  Another point to consider is how much of an effect today's tour player has on overall design. It coincides with my view on a different thread. Should the end result of a particular design depend on what a small minority of players can shoot?

[JP Morgan]

Perhaps someday there will be an alternative to the PGA Tour as it currently exists.  In football, the AFL survived and merged with the NFL.    The CFL has had its share of popularity and noble figures.  Even the USFL had its moments, and the Arena league draws crowds.  In basketball the ABA did well, then merged with the NBA.  It changed the game to some degree.  In hockey, the WHA eventually sent several teams to the NHL.  

Perhaps this is an illusion, but picture the following.  Big money with an interest in preserving classical golf and a distain for the tight control and expectations of the PGA , course setup, and the like (tech perhaps included), goes a "retro" route, pays large dollars in purses to attract key players, de-emphasizes condition, length, raked bunkers, and the like, and plays classical design with whatever strategy elements are of value to emphasize shot making, decision making,... We're not talking about Norman's escapades in the International Tour or something like that, just an alternative in design philosophy.  

Likely to happen in the near future?  Absolutely not.  Possible at some point, ever?  Perhaps likely.  Will it succeed if ever attempted, perhaps not, but it certainly would be interesting, and may eventual bring about change to the present status of tour events.

Skiing led to snowboarding.  Roller skating to skateboarding.  Skateboarding to the XGames.  XGames to Olympic champions.  I think there are other examples.  The point being that things can grow stale.   Golf is becoming more popular, but eventually it may fall the way of other professional sports that at times have fallen on bad times, only to see competing leagues or alternative methods of play be born.

Will I see this in the next two decades?  Doubtful, but just a thought to ponder.  I think the "competition ball" has a better shot.