[Aaron Katz]

Overall, I think we would have to concede the private golf courses tend to be better architecturally in the United States.  Obviously one reason for this is that most courses built during the Golden Age were probably private courses, and so it's just a matter of numbers.

But let's limit ourselves to courses built in the past 10 years.  For every Pacific Dunes, there are probably five Ballyneals.  Off the top of my head, in the past decade we've had Friar's Head, Sebonack, Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Dismal River, Old Sandwich, Boston Golf Club, Cuscowilla, etc.  Although we've certainly had a lot of great public courses developed during this time, I seriously doubt that in a "Ryder Cup" style match they'd be the equal of the private courses.

Does anybody know the reason why this is so?  One possible reason is that the best architects charge fees that, for the most part, only private clubs can handle.  But this argument probably breaks down when you compare an architects own work.  Tom Doak might be an exception, but I think most people would agree that the best work of Coore & Crenshaw, Nicklaus, Dye, Silva, and Hanse are found on private courses.

A second possible reason is that the best sites for golf are priced higher, and so private clubs tend to get the best land.  Is this really true?

A third possibility is that the costs of construction go up and architectural quality goes up.  But minimalism has shown that this is not always the case (and perhaps not even usually the case).  Could it be a confluence of the second and third possibilities (i.e., that the only sites where minimalism works are more expensive to obtain?).

A fourth possibility is that the varying quality of course conditions is the reason we perceive differences in architectural quality between two courses that, if each were in perfect condition, would be judged equals.  

A fifth possibility is that a developer doesn't make the public vs. private choice until he sees the quality of the course that he's got on his hands.  But I doubt this is the way that the business works.

A final possibility is that the architect himself approaches the project differently depending on whether the course will be public or private.  Tom Doak has stated that some of Pacific Dunes's greens were "toned down" because it is a resort course.  But I doubt Tom Doak woud stop using diagonal hazards, contoured greens, "true bunkers," rippled fairways, and center-line hazards simply because the course is a public one.  Do other architects compromise the strategic integrity of the course if it is a public one, however?  

Thoughts?

[Brad Klein]

Friar's Head, Sebonack, Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Dismal River, Old Sandwich, Boston Golf Club, Cuscowilla  - why do I think you haven't been to all of these, and just group them together?

Meanwhile, I'd also suggest you consider:

Whistling Straits, Pacific Dunes, Bandon Dunes, Bandon Trails, Rustic Canyon, Angels Crossing, Wintonbury Hills, Wild Horse, Links of North Dakota at Red Mike Resort, Black Mesa, Pa-Ko-Ridge, Glen Club, World Woods & Talking Stick.

But of course they are all public . . .

. . .  which suggests a seventh possibility.

[Garland Bayley]

What do you mean by public?

Municipal?

Daily Fee?

Resort?

All of the above?

If all of the above, I believe the question needs to be answered for each.

[Aaron Katz]

Friar's Head, Sebonack, Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Dismal River, Old Sandwich, Boston Golf Club, Cuscowilla  - why do I think you haven't been to all of these, and just group them together?

Meanwhile, I'd also suggest you consider:

Whistling Straits, Pacific Dunes, Bandon Dunes, Bandon Trails, Rustic Canyon, Angels Crossing, Wintonbury Hills, Wild Horse, Links of North Dakota at Red Mike Resort, Black Mesa, Pa-Ko-Ridge, Glen Club, World Woods & Talking Stick.

But of course they are all public . . .

. . .  which suggests a seventh possibility.

Brad, I agree with you that there are loads of great public courses, many of which have been built in the past 10 years.  I've played many of the courses on your list of publics, and concededly have only seen in pictures or walking the private courses I noted.  

I would concede that the depth of the great public "modern" courses probably meets that of the private modern courses.  But at the very, very top, would you really argue that the privates aren't better (say, the top ten privates vs. the top ten publics?).  

[Aaron Katz]

I'm saying let's take the creme de la creme of the private courses built since 1990 (say, top 20).  Compare that to the top 20 publics built during the same time period.  Assuming the privates are better, why is that the case?  There could be a number of reasons, of course, and you could reject my premise entirely.  However, what intrigues me is that I've played both public and private courses designed by the same architect around the same time period (and even built on what I see as equally meritorious golfing ground) and almost every time I think the private course is the better one architecturally (not by much most of the time, but noticeable nonetheless).  

[Paul Payne]

I'm not sure this generalization holds true. I think once you exclude the top tier of privates you will find there are as many snoozers in the private sector as there are in the public. I truly thinks it entirely depends on the vision of the club and the architect and possibly... I reluctantly say possibly, the investment they make.  

[Steve Burrows]

The relationship between time and money influences to a great degree most decisions that are made in the modern world, and, perhaps, even those of the past few centuries.  

Consider even the writing of literature.  Charles Dickens, for example, was renowned for sending out his novels in installments.  He would write, have that piece published, get paid for it, and then work on the next chapters, all the while creating interest in the series by ending the various installments  with intriguing cliffhangers, drawing his crowd in for more.  And, money notwithstanding, time alone allows for the possibility of greatness; James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake" took 17 years to complete (though the greatness of this book could just as easily be assigned to Joyce's genius).  Money and time created both.      

I don't suspect that this changes with golf course design.  More money from investors affords designers more time and, therefore, more freedom to create a product that (with some argument) is of higher quality.  There are schedules, to be sure, but money and time help to allow for changes to be made when necessary.  

But more than this, I think it is that we are a selfish people, particularly here in America.  We want our greatness to be almost unattainable.  Further, with the bulk of the courses that we consider great, from the early, Golden Age designs to the present (and with some notable exceptions), developers and investors are simply willing to spend more money and time on private clubs, because they are ultimately reflections of themselves and, often, their business savvy.  Again, this extends from the autocratic nature of MacDonald, Crump, and Fownes, to the New York Athletic Club demanding a "Man-sized" course from Tillinghast, and even through the Wynn/Fazio experiment in alchemy in the Las Vegas desert.

[Tom_Doak]

Aaron:  It was darned clever of me to save my best work for the public sector, wasn't it?  

I do not remember saying that the greens at Pacific Dunes were toned down because it's a public course.  (The only thing I remember saying is different because of the public aspect is avoiding blind shots, and we're probably going to break that rule at Old Macdonald.)  The greens at Pacific are toned down because it was a windy site, and because I understood that's what the client preferred.  

There are probably still some architects who consicously build less interesting or less challenging courses for the public sector -- the big-name guys -- but most who are busy trying to make their mark must do so in the public sector in the hope of getting more private commissions down the road.

There are certainly some clients who don't want anything too fancy or too controversial, and I suspect more of those come from the public sector.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Aaron,

I don't think it's any of the reasons you cited.

It may be:

1   linked to the end user
2   the vision of the creator.
3   legal issues
4   the availability of funds

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Aaron, I too have trouble accepting your primise, therefore feel you are shouting a message that has some discussion merit but not in the direction you are trying to take it.

[Tim Bert]

I saw Aaron's comment about the greens at PD and immediately thought what Tom replied - I didn't remember him saying that.  I thought the comment was about the wind.

I went and dug it up, and I think I found what may have caused the confusion...

I am pretty darn sure I've never "admitted" that we made design "concessions" on the greens at Pacific Dunes.  They are less severe than some of my other courses because a) you have to take into account the effect of the wind on the greens and you can't make them too steep or the ball will blow off them, and b) the client prefers gentler greens.  And most people who have discussed Pacific Dunes with me believe that it's a better course because the greens are a bit less severe.

I think Aaron may have read this comment about the client's preference and took it to mean that it was due to the course being public.

[Jim Nugent]

Let's put some meat on the table.  Using Golfweek's ratings, around 2/3rds of the top 100 modern courses in the U.S. (built after 1960) are private.  Nearly all the remainder are high-end resort courses.  That ratio holds, give or take, for the top 10, top 20, top 30, etc.

For classic courses, 90% of the top 10, top 20 and top 30 are private.  I got tired of counting after that.  

So Aaron's premise is true, if we accept Golfweek ratings.  As for why, my guess is that Patrick is right, though money probably trumps all.  

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

Well if you want to look at it that way, the reasons boil down to

a.  Money talks, and
b.  Well-known architects who are more likely to get their courses rated highly, get many more commissions from the private sector than the public [see (a) above]

[Jim Nugent]

Tom, sounds reasonable to me.  Seems to me that many well-known architects ARE near or at the top of the design heap.  I have zero personal experience with it, though.  

[Dan_Callahan]

Is it possible that we are confusing maintenance with design? The quality that all highly rated private courses and high-end publics share is exceptional maintenance. Low- to mid-level public courses aren't necessarily lacking in design. Instead, they are often in tough shape due to lack of financing to keep them looking like Augusta.

[Garland Bayley]

Let's put some meat on the table.  Using Golfweek's ratings, around 2/3rds of the top 100 modern courses in the U.S. (built after 1960) are private.  Nearly all the remainder are high-end resort courses.  That ratio holds, give or take, for the top 10, top 20, top 30, etc.

For classic courses, 90% of the top 10, top 20 and top 30 are private.  I got tired of counting after that.  

So Aaron's premise is true, if we accept Golfweek ratings.  As for why, my guess is that Patrick is right, though money probably trumps all.  

Don't the magazine ratings put too much emphasis on conditioning to the detriment of architecture?

[Jim Nugent]

Garland, perhaps you are right, but I know nothing about that.  The raters here could tell us more.  Brad Klein?  Do the ratings pretty well reflect design?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()