"Big World Theory"

[Lou_Duran]

Pine Valley was definitely not conceived and created to accommodate other than quite good players and I do not believe that fact should limit the perception of its quality at all. To me this simply involves the adage of “different strokes for different folks” and my theory of the spectrum of architecture I call “The Big World Theory.” I coined this term about a dozen years ago. What it means to me is since golf architecture is in ways an art form there should necessarily be a wide spectrum of types and styles of golf architecture out there at any time and certainly if there are enough people who like all those different types and styles and are willing to support their existence. It is a term and a philosophy that I developed through conversations with Bill Coore on the subject of golf courses as art forms and the idea of the importance of difference in an art form. Unfortunately, the one thing that is not possible under the “Big World Theory” is to be able to incorporate all the differences in types and styles into any single golf course! And that is why there needs to be many different types and styles of golf courses out there.  Tom Paul, 5/2012 Interview


I spent a few days in Philly recently and, unbeknownst to me at the time, apparently drove near Tom's home.  This super-rich golf area offers the variety of outstanding courses Tom writes about, and prompts me to reminisce a bit (I think that the loss of Tom Paul to this site is a tragedy).


As an admirer of MacKenzie's work- I think he typically took liberties and idealized way too much in his writing- I have generally discounted or tried to contextualize some of his stated design principles, e.g.:


1.  A really great course must be a constant source of pleasure to the greatest possible number of players.


2.  It must require strategy in the playing as well as skill, otherwise it can not continue to hold the golfer’s interest.

3.  It must give the average player a fair chance, and at the same time, it must require the utmost from the expert who tries for sub-par scores.




I think that Tom gets it right.  A course which attempts to be all things to all people will likely fail in both counts.  Different courses in varying styles make the game more interesting.  And following fads like the now long-running deforestation and super-wide fairways might deserve a second, more considered look.

[Niall C]

Lou
 
I’m in general agreement with Tom’s Big World Theory and if you believe as a general rule that architecture should have regard to the nature of an individual site and not just superimpose generic design then it is inevitable that you will get a variety of design solutions as every architect will see it differently.
 
As to MacKenzie, I think I’m right in saying that even he said in latter years that his design principles were meant to be general guidelines rather than being treated as gospel. He’d certainly agree with your last line about following fads as he said “In regard to the fifth principle that every hole should have different character. A common mistake is to follow prevailing fashions.”
 
Niall

[Jason Topp]

Good topic Lou!


As a member of a course that was explicitly designed as a good player's club before it went into receivership I see both sides of this.  In most situations, I believe that a course will have the best chance of financial success if it appeals to the widest possible audience.  Mackenzie's formula works in most cases. 


Our course has a number of features that are simply too difficult for certain levels of player.  The bunkers are deep enough a decent percentage of players cannot get out of them and the out of play areas are punishing enough that a random group from the office is going to struggle to finish the round without taking some drops after ball searches.  One of the water carries is almost impossible for a segment of the playing population.  Those with the threshold of skill necessary to handle these features usually finds the place very enjoyable. 


On the other end of the spectrum, I found some very engaging 5800 yard courses in the Palm Springs area that would involve nothing but partial wedges for players of a certain skill set.  I can hit a full range of shots on such a course and enjoy the shorter walk most such courses provide.  It seems difficult to command a premium fee for shorter courses. 


In both of my examples, the experience may be enhanced by not trying to be all things to all people. 


I think the Mackenzie approach is a useful principle but should be considered an ideal rather than a commandment for a quality golf course. 


 

[Thomas Dai]

Nice topic Lou.
Whilst appreciating that all things to all people is unlikely, more things to more people can be surely be achieved even on an essentially very difficult and challenging course if all but the very shortest of forced carries are eliminated. As to bunkers, these can be made exceptionally hard but with a rule change, ie drop out for only 1 shot, optional if a player struggles to play out of, or even climb into/out of, a bunker. This would permit such players to still get around whilst still allowing those who wish to take on the recovery challenge to do so. Maybe such a rule could be used for other areas as well? As to other features creating more difficulty, for example narrowness, forced carries aside, such situations can normally be overcome (if the ego permits) by lessor or inaccurate players by being less ambitious with club selection.
Atb

[Michael Chadwick]

 He’d [MacKenzie] certainly agree with your last line about following fads as he said “In regard to the fifth principle that every hole should have different character. A common mistake is to follow prevailing fashions.”
 

Niall, I don't think the usage of Lou's "fads" is applicable to the "fashions" MacKenzie argued against. MacKenzie in The Spirit of St. Andrews was criticizing a preceding era that he considered a "Dark Age" of design, that is, Victorian golf--"courses designed with a complete absence of variety, with a straight line of rough in front of the tee, and two straight lines bordering the fairway, with a cross bunker for the drive, and another for the second shot" (10). What Lou appears to be referring to as fads--"long-running deforestation and super-wide fairways"--are, to me, incorporated within in the positive values from which MacKenzie believed design originated among links land and early heathland courses, and to which new design should aspire. My understanding of Lou's OP leads me to think that Lou would like greater respect to be paid to the design elements MacKenzie personally opposed. 

Lou--you bring up a good contrast in the OP between MacKenzie's ideals and Pine Valley. It's a course he considered "with exception to Cypress Point, by far the most spectacular course in the world" (162) yet comments soon after "On the other hand, I do not consider any course ideal unless it is pleasurable for every conceivable class of golfer" (163). I agree with Tom's thesis that the game benefits from having both The Old Course and PV mutually exist, as well as your claim that "Different courses in varying styles make the game more interesting."

I do not agree, however, with your suggestion that a "A course which attempts to be all things to all people will likely fail in both counts." Six of the top 10 ranked courses in GOLF World 100 ostensibly (I haven't played them, but my assumption is based on the architects' and their stated design values) can be both playable, strategic, and challenging for pros under tournament conditions. Those six are Cypress, St. Andrews, NGLA, Royal Melbourne, Augusta, and Sand Hills, and half of them do host notable professional tournaments.

Your use of fads is also what prompted me to chime in. If the point of view pertains from 1950 - 2022, then yes, I can see someone arguing that tree removal seems to be a fad, insofar as it's a change from the starting point (an era in which tree-lined was predominant). But if we broaden the timeline of how long golf's been a sport, not even with the 16th century claim, but late 19th century, and the sport's origination among treeless expanses of links land, that to me makes the years where tree-lined golf enjoyed popularity all the more short-lived. I have no objection to anyone personally preferring treed golf courses. But if we're talking about which style of golf is the fad from a historical perspective, I think the term's usage very much needs to be flipped the other way around. 


Here are a few additional quotes from MacKenzie, which still seem applicable both to the "dark age" he himself was referring to, as well as the (admittedly ungenerous) designation for much of the Post WWII era of golf design as well. 
   

"The chief object of every golf architect or greenskeeper worth his salt is to imitate the beauties of nature so closely as to make his work indistinguishable from Nature herself" (50)

"The beauty of golf courses in the past has suffered from the creations of ugly and unimaginative design. Square, flat greens and geometrical bunkers have not only been an eyesore upon the whole landscape, but have detracted from the infinite variety of play which is the heritage of the game." (50-1).

"Narrow fairways bordered by long grass make bad golfers. They do so by destroying the harmony and continuity of the game and in causing a stilted and cramped style, destroying all freedom of play." (59)

"Playing down fairways bordered by straight lines of trees is not only unartistic but makes tedious and uninteresting golf. Many green committees ruin one's handiwork by planting trees like rows of soldiers along the borders of the fairways." (83)

"long grass is of little interest as a hazard. On the other hand, undulating ground consisting of hillocks and hollows is of enormous interest." (66)

"On many courses there are far too many bunkers. The sides of the fairways are riddled with them, and many of the courses would be equally interesting and infinitely more pleasurable if half the bunkers were turfed over and converted into grassy hollows" (57)

Good topic, and touching on similar divergences of taste brought up on the recent RTJ and Oakland Hills thread. Thanks.

[Peter Pallotta]

The vast sunlit uplands that Tom P sought for and celebrated can't be confined to a single architectural ethos or design ideal, and even less so to any particular set of rules, guidelines, or even principles. I mean, how can you have the diversity of a Big World if it's all based on the same shared value system? I don't think it's a coincidence that TE so often referenced the 'art' of gca, and that he saw every golf course as a specific and unique example of that art form. If we are only concerned about how a golf course 'plays', I don't think we can fully embrace the Big World Theory the way Tom conceived of it, because we are too focused on tangible outcomes and results, and on how the golf course impacts us specifically. Yes, a utilitarian and function-based lens on the craft of gca certainly has its important place, as evidenced by Tom's love of the playing experience (and challenges) that Pine Valley provides; but I think he might say that to truly appreciate the art of gca in its broadest Big World sense and infinite variety, we need to bring a kind of disinterested non-attachment to bear, so that we are then able to see clearly what there is actually there to see. And I think it is this state/ability that TE equates with those sunlit uplands of his architectural dreams. The value of art is inherent in the art itself, not in how well it might happen to serve us.

[MCirba]

Lou,




Great topic.   Sorry I missed you...too much going on here at home and work these days.

[mike_malone]

Playing three Flynns in four days can be intoxicating.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pine Valley was definitely not conceived and created to accommodate other than quite good players and I do not believe that fact should limit the perception of its quality at all. To me this simply involves the adage of “different strokes for different folks” and my theory of the spectrum of architecture I call “The Big World Theory.” I coined this term about a dozen years ago. What it means to me is since golf architecture is in ways an art form there should necessarily be a wide spectrum of types and styles of golf architecture out there at any time and certainly if there are enough people who like all those different types and styles and are willing to support their existence. It is a term and a philosophy that I developed through conversations with Bill Coore on the subject of golf courses as art forms and the idea of the importance of difference in an art form. Unfortunately, the one thing that is not possible under the “Big World Theory” is to be able to incorporate all the differences in types and styles into any single golf course! And that is why there needs to be many different types and styles of golf courses out there.  Tom Paul, 5/2012 Interview


I spent a few days in Philly recently and, unbeknownst to me at the time, apparently drove near Tom's home.  This super-rich golf area offers the variety of outstanding courses Tom writes about, and prompts me to reminisce a bit (I think that the loss of Tom Paul to this site is a tragedy).


As an admirer of MacKenzie's work- I think he typically took liberties and idealized way too much in his writing- I have generally discounted or tried to contextualize some of his stated design principles, e.g.:


1.  A really great course must be a constant source of pleasure to the greatest possible number of players.


2.  It must require strategy in the playing as well as skill, otherwise it can not continue to hold the golfer’s interest.

3.  It must give the average player a fair chance, and at the same time, it must require the utmost from the expert who tries for sub-par scores.




I think that Tom gets it right.  A course which attempts to be all things to all people will likely fail in both counts.  Different courses in varying styles make the game more interesting.  And following fads like the now long-running deforestation and super-wide fairways might deserve a second, more considered look.

Lou,


Thanks for this post and for starting this thread. I had the good fortune quite a while back to speak with Tom Paul by telephone a few times. It was always a pleasure. He was a gentleman as much as he was knowledgeable about golf architecture. He was also quite articulate on the subject. Yes, I miss his contribution to this site.


Now, as to his “Big World” theory relative to Alister Mackenzie’s notion of an ideal course, perhaps it is a cop out but I agree with both perspectives. To me, Mackenzie’s notion of an “ideal” makes sense but that doesn’t mean there is no place for a Pine Valley.

[Mike Sweeney]

Lou,


Fun throwback thread!!


The Country Club setup was a really fun throwback to the old US Open days. I am looking forward to "The British Open" at Saint Andrews. The Masters - Augusta is pretty consistent - they screw the course ALWAYS to benefit the tournament.


I have never played Southern Hills, but it just seemed like there were trying too hard this year. I have fond memories of the 1977 US Open at Southern Hills. I like the PGA at Kiawah, and in the past I have suggested it should go overseas once in awhile.

[Tim Leahy]

Isn't the upcoming British Open venue St. Andrews a perfect example of MacKenzie's ideal course values? The public can play and enjoy the course while it can challenge the best players in the world as well. Sure some bunkers are hard to get out of, but no worse than hitting a ball into a lake, pond or creek and having to take a penalty stroke to get your ball back in play.

[archie_struthers]

 


Great stuff here guys and the stuff by TEP over the years was so interesting and insightful. And a great variety of stuff it was !
From the minutia to the "Big World" theory Lou reminded us of.


Also so happy that Lou made it to "PHILLY" and got to see some of our best clubs with a super tour guide in Mayday. Wish they could have taken a detour and met us down here at the at the beach for golf or repartee about same. Plenty of seats at my favorite dive "bars" even in the summer so maybe we schedule another Shore trip for all sooner rather than later.


This time we can do live music with the golf talk!  Best of health to all

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:


It’s never been too hard to accept the Big World Theory since your example of a course that’s “not for everybody” has been rated #1 in the world for 25 years now.


I don’t believe it should be #1, because it’s not for everybody, but I’ve never argued that PV wasn’t great or that there wasn’t room for a course that hard in the Pantheon - only that it shouldn’t be #1.


As to current trends, the people you need to talk to are not architects, but developers.  Developers are the ones afraid to stick their necks out and write off any one segment of the customer base, to appeal more to another.  There are plenty of designers (myself included) who would jump at the chance to build another Pine Valley.  But our best clients don’t want that.  They are older men with 12-handicaps who want the course to be fun for them and their peers.

[Sean_A]

The Big World theory always puzzled me. Isn't it self evident that variety is what makes golf golf? Of course we want all styles and types of courses. I see the latest push in architecture fulfilling the variety is king role as well as ever. Ignore the aesthetics. That comes and goes.

Ciao

[Niall C]

 He’d [MacKenzie] certainly agree with your last line about following fads as he said “In regard to the fifth principle that every hole should have different character. A common mistake is to follow prevailing fashions.”
 

Niall, I don't think the usage of Lou's "fads" is applicable to the "fashions" MacKenzie argued against. MacKenzie in The Spirit of St. Andrews was criticizing a preceding era that he considered a "Dark Age" of design, that is, Victorian golf--"courses designed with a complete absence of variety, with a straight line of rough in front of the tee, and two straight lines bordering the fairway, with a cross bunker for the drive, and another for the second shot" (10). What Lou appears to be referring to as fads--"long-running deforestation and super-wide fairways"--are, to me, incorporated within in the positive values from which MacKenzie believed design originated among links land and early heathland courses, and to which new design should aspire. My understanding of Lou's OP leads me to think that Lou would like greater respect to be paid to the design elements MacKenzie personally opposed. 

Michael,


For sure the specific fashions that MacKenzie was referring to were different to the fads that Lou was referring to, and indeed MacKenzie might heartily approve of some of the design fads such as wide fairways, but the principle is the same I'd have thought.


Indeed it might be argued that if MacKenzie was alive at 152 that he might by now be designing, courses with lots of rough and narrow fairways as an antidote to the present fads. 


Niall

[MCirba]

When folks ask me what is best course in the United States my answer is pretty simple.  I just say I've played or walked all of the contenders and Pine Valley has 17 great holes and one very good one and that knowledgeable folks generally debate which is the very good one.

[Lou_Duran]

I did not contemplate a distinction between fads and fashion.  Nor do I think that parkland courses are of relatively short duration in America- as far as I can tell, though many early courses were built on mostly cleared land (cost of construction?), trees became a major design feature much earlier than 1950.


Consider also that our golf history does not go back significantly before 1900, so if a fashion is of much longer duration than a fad, then the 10-20 years of serious tree removal and widening of fairways might better qualify as a fad.  BTW, I am a fan of wide fairways and trees not interfering with the lines of play so long as other design features add strategy and interest.


However, I am hearing more and more of golfers objecting to these things.  In parkland areas, probably a good majority in America, I don't hear the praises for tree removal and wide fairways that we read on this site.  Trinity Forest in Dallas is one of my favorite courses in the area, yet a good number of well-traveled, good golfers don't have a lot of love for it.  I also know of two area clubs that did extensive tree removal and have a good number of members unhappy about it.


To Michael C and Niall- I have carefully considered MacKenzie's principles and tried to see where they applied to his courses.  I hope they were ideals and not prescriptions because other than the lesser of his courses that I've played (Jockey-Red comes readily to mind), I can't think of how he approximated them on the ground.  His beloved Pasatiempo, at least on this site, violates nearly every one at a point or another.  Of his majors, CPC may fit the bill more closely, but it is hardly a championship course (I know of a Hall of Fame, major tournament winner who described it as a good muni with the Pacific Ocean as background; nonetheless, it is one of my three or four favorite courses in America).  Having read both of the Good Doctor's small compilations and Tom Doak's  excellent book, I tend to believe that the contrarian, utilitarian, frugal, economically conservative Scot (wannabe) would have already taken a different twist to today's fads/fashions.


Niall, hopefully we will have a chance to explore the subject matter at greater length during the Buda.  I can't think of two compelling courses which contrast more (PVGC vs. CPC).  When I was a Golfweek rater, the only serious criticism that I got from Dr. Klein was that I seemed to like golf courses too much.  I attempted to show him through a mix analysis of the courses I had rated that perhaps that was not the case, but I took it as a compliment.  I do like golf courses of different types a lot.  I see no dissonance here, only perhaps that I would not be a good critic in the sense that he was/is one. 

[Niall C]

Lou,


I very much look forward to carrying on the discussion at BUDA. Unfortunately I've never played either of the courses you mention so in order to make it a more worthwhile chat I'd be grateful if you could arrange access for me to play those courses before September.


In terms of MacKenzie and his 13 principles, I don't have the quote to hand but he did later say something along the lines of that they were meant to be ideals only and he maybe also even said he wished he'd never published them. I might be imagining that last bit. But in general I agree with the "Big World Theory".


Niall

[Jim Sherma]

Please correct me if I am wrong as I do not have any documentation to support this at hand. I believe I remember that the early Philadelphia school of architecture believed that one of the "problems" with American golf was that the courses were not sufficiently challenging to produce top level players that could compete with the best. The work of Crump and Wilson were a direct response to this with the goal of helping make players improve through being sufficiently challenged. Difficulty was not seen as sadism, but rather a necessary condition for improvement.


An example of this is what I see this in my own game at my club, Hershey CC. A members course that also provides resort access to the Hershey Hotels. Because of this they tend to not let the rough get too high in order to promote pace of play. For better players this means that there is less concern with hitting the fairways as there is little risk of the rough itself creating any significant issues with the next shot. In the spring when the rough is up the presentation makes you concentrate on hitting fairways and I think it is safe to say that this would drive one to be a better player if forced to play it year round. Obviously it would become more difficult for worse players, but they would likely be driven to improve as well. [size=78%] [/size]

[MCirba]

Jim Sherma,


You are spot on, my friend.


Merion East, Pine Valley, and Cobb's Creek were all designed with the thinking that Philadelphia needed championship level courses to produce champion golfers.

[Lou_Duran]

Niall,


I will inform the starters to put our balls in the rack and to let me know when they reach the bottom sometime in the next decade.


My introduction to MacKenzie came early in my addiction to golf.  I learned to play golf on the courses he designed for Ohio State and between the spring of 1971 to the summer of 1978, I probably played 300-400 rounds on the championship Scarlet course. Though Scarlet was completed some four years after the designer's death, the routing was true to his plans even though the major design features lacked his artistry and attention to detail (it was built through a WPA grant during the Depression).


Scarlet was then as it is now, a very masculine course.  Though it got an inordinate amount of play by all types of players even when the much friendlier and fun Gray course was usually uncrowded, it was a demanding test of golf and particularly punishing to double-digit golfers.  Five hour rounds with multiple penalties were not unusual, yet it is a compelling course.


Just like Hogan's famous "Five Lessons" seems more aspirational to me than useful instruction, MacKenzie's writings appeared to describe a type of all-encompassing, theoretical golf architecture that could only be approached but not substantially achieved in reality.  I do note that MacKenzie appeared to place considerable focus on the financial aspects of gca, its economy in construction and ongoing maintenance.


TEP notes in the quoted paragraph the requirement of sustainability for the different types of courses.  In some cases, as Jason T mentions of his player's course, there is just not enough market support at a given point in time in that area for that type of course.  And it does make sense why developers such as those alluded to by Tom Doak choose a model which appeals to a larger market segment.  I belong to such a course, fairly easy for excellent players, a good challenge for distance-deprived low handicappers, and still fun for a 15 who plays loose with the rules.  It won't win any design contests, but we keep showing up and paying dues.