[Peter Pallotta]

The title pretty much says/asks it all.

If some of the great golden age classic courses now seem subtle and natural looking because their once clearly artificial features have softened with age and the erosions/accretions of time, will the great courses of today that already blend (and play - golfing wise) beautifully and subtly into their surroundings get softened over time into dullness?

Peter
(sorry for the 2nd thread today, have a bit of time on my hands and questions popping up)

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Might some modern courses with the very bold and un-natural looking features that many of us decry actually 'age' better than some of today's subtler modern courses?

Can some of the quietest, subtlest work of designers like C&C get so softened with age that in 50 years those courses will seem/play more like the so-called tier two English courses that Sean profiles?

(Not that there'd be anything wrong with that in my books, or anything to be embarrassed about -- Sean's lovely, playable, walkable, old-cardigan sweater type courses that drape so gently and humbly over the land seem ideal to me).  

Peter

[Grant Saunders]

Peter

I think the generations coming through will "view" them as dull purely as a function of the high impact instant gratification society they are growing up in. Dullness is a comparative term and means different things to different people.

Certain features may well soften with time either naturally or at the hand of man as styles and tastes change to reflect the ideals in vogue at the time. Maintenance pressures and resources may also dictate the need for a softening of forms or reduction in manmade features.

I’m not sure we will see a return to the grand scale and excess of the 80's and 90's as sustainability and environment responsibility are too prominent in today’s society. I do feel though that changing attitudes will see gravitation towards a bolder style again somewhere in between what we currently view as subtle and what is considered over the top.

[Ian Andrew]

Peter,

The game is played along the ground.
People will still play them even if they don't photograph well or make a national list.

To be contrarian ....

I fear more for the "pretty" courses that play way too hard.
I don't think the "instant gratification generation" wants that much challenge...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

Interesting point. I agree they will want them easier.  That has really been the trend for 100 years, so why would it change now?

I also think as computer graphics etc. become more vivid, and we become even more visual generation by generation, that yes, a dull looking golf course that is subtle will be far less understood by the masses.  More visual, less challenge (oddly enough, for more predictable results closer to the video games future kids will almost inevitably play first.....)

Hard to imagine, but the gap between Joe Six Pack (that golf will need to appeal to) and gca.com may widen......

[Jim Nugent]

Peter, which courses do you have in mind?

[Paul Gray]

Millions of years of nature has not left the sand dunes of the world looking bland so why would a further 50 years? I take the point about the softening of artificial features but surely the lesson then is that nature, whilst taking the edge off man's brutality, does not leave the land devoid of interest.

Changing perceptions however are a different matter. I am (and this surprises me more than any one) optimistic about the future. The intellectually lazy will continue to want golf which doesn't require them to stop and think but I see no signs that there is a wholesale generational shift towards golf for the brain dead. I know eleven year old kids that 'get it' and plenty of older men that don't so let's not assume the worst of the forthcoming generations.

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, Natural looking courses have, and will, stand the test of time. Bowing to the whims of the day may have a temporary surge in popularity with those who play golf, but a real golfer only needs the challenges and variety mother nature provides. I was thinking along somewhat similar lines as it relates to the future of gca, but what I was wondering was, who, or what, will be the next disruptor?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - I can't say I had specific courses in mind save for a general impression (culled from readings here) re the quietest/subtlest of modern day courses.

The genesis of the thread was simply that first post/thought, strange as it seemed even to me: i.e. that some of the great old courses were, when first opened, considered both great and bold - with bold (and created) features that, over time, have softened and bleneded in better and better with their surrounds. So, if great courses today open with their features (created or not) already blending into their surrounds, how well will they age in comparison?

Peter

[Jim Nugent]

Peter, while I haven't played them, it seems like a lot of the bold features at courses such as Sand Hills and Pac Dunes come from their dramatic sites and stunning land forms.  I don't expect those to change.  So for these courses to appear dull, will take some wholesale dumbing down, of things like routing, greens and bunkers.  

[Ally Mcintosh]

Peter, while I haven't played them, it seems like a lot of the bold features at courses such as Sand Hills and Pac Dunes come from their dramatic sites and stunning land forms.  I don't expect those to change.  So for these courses to appear dull, will take some wholesale dumbing down, of things like routing, greens and bunkers.  

Agreed Jim...

Despite blending perfectly naturally in to the terrain, I'm not sure many of the above mentioned courses are subtle in their appearance... In their playing strategies maybe but there is some pretty bold design in amongst that naturalness and minimalism... "Bold and Big"

[Jeff_Brauer]

No brainer that the great site golf courses with a minimalist style will always look pretty good with any level of design maintenance.   I took the question to mean "how will subtle designs on average sites hold up?"  That is a question worth of some discussion.

Although, a theoretical test case might be Cypress Point.

What if Raynor designed it in his steep bank and geometric style?
What if Billy Bell or Maxwell did it in a style closer to Torrey Pines?
We know Mac did some pretty spectacular bunkers on a very spectacular site, which contributed to the overall design, and has worked out fine.  As to the softened with age part, in this (and most) cases, the softening was a reduction in bunker shapes and edge quality.  They redid them (maybe several times)

We could even compare it to Pebble, which has more ocean, but lesser bunker style.  

Hard to rank 'em.   But, I suspect that even a spectacular ocean side golf course does better overall if the golf features are also very good looking golf features.  

Now, some of you might argue that minimalist bunkers fit seaside best, but is there really that big a difference between Mac bunkers and Doak bunkers?  Neither are subtle are they?

[jeffwarne]

I'm struggling to think of a modern, subtle course that is highly regarded, other than one in a highly dramatic landscape

edit:Commonground may well fit the bill, but how many GCAers would ever be exposed to it unless it was a Tom Doak design

[Mike_Young]

Dull is in the eye of the beholder.  A blue blazer and gray slacks may seem dull but it has held up much longer than the yellow double knit leisure suit.  As for golf courses, they aren't going to sit still for 50 years and not have constant change.  Some may not notice but the changes will be occurring.  Our bigger concern should be the sheer number of courses that are unplayable for so many beginning golfers.  In some emerging golf countries the courses are more for pizazz than playability and a beginner will just quit before he can learn IMHO.  It's sort of like needing first homes for first home buyers and the market is saturated with much larger homes for third home buyers.  Blame it on RE and aerial photography

[JESII]

I'm struggling to think of a modern, subtle course that is highly regarded, other than one in a highly dramatic landscape

Jeff,

I think Hidden Creek fits the bill on this. Haven't played it but by all accounts Wolf Point (Mike Nuzzo's course) should as well.

[Lyne Morrison]

Peter,

An outstanding and seamless design of today can certainly be an outstanding course of tomorrow.

The older courses I see that present as dull seem to lack a sense of maintained art and craft - this is surely tied to the story and abilities of the caretakers.

Lyne

[jeffwarne]

I'm struggling to think of a modern, subtle course that is highly regarded, other than one in a highly dramatic landscape

Jeff,

I think Hidden Creek fits the bill on this. Haven't played it but by all accounts Wolf Point (Mike Nuzzo's course) should as well.

Jim as much as you and i may like HC, I would never consider any of the Coore/Crenshaw courses I've played to have subtle greens.

[JESII]

Other than Pat's Pimple on #8 they're pretty low profile, aren't they?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()