Kostis Says Architects Are to Blame

[Jim_Coleman]

     This ought to piss off a few people.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2011/4/16/architecture-has-been-abysmal-in-my-opinion-in-its-reaction.html

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I began debating the I&B issue with Peter over 15 years ago.
First, Peter's a great guy.
Amongst other things, He taught me a shot that I never would have dreamed of, and I in turn have shared it with others.

I think his relationshiip with Titleist has dictated his position.

There's an inherent blind spot caused by that affiliation that prevents him from seeing that architects/clubs simply couldn't stretch or redesign golf courses to meet the immediate and rapid increase in distance.

There's a tendency for his position to ignore a harsh reality, the widening of the spectrum of golfers caused by I&B improvements and the difficulty in a golf course/architect accomodating the extremes of that spectrum, a spectrum that continued to expand in the 80's', 90's, 00's and 10's.

Even if a club had "distance proofed" itself in 1980, it would have become obsolete by 2000.

Courses can't just morph to meet the manufacturer's advances.

He also ignores the cost to conform or defend.

If a club is landlocked, they extend their tees, and the process or redesigning/rerouting to combat distance is incredibly expensive and invasive.  It's almost akin to building a new course.

Tom Doak just redesigned an existing course at "Common Ground".  I'd like him to describe the process from an "invasive to the membership" perspective.  I realize Common Ground is a public course, but, I"m sure he can interpolate how those playing the course are dislodged in terms of their golfing routines.

The "distance" issue has made creating a "fun" challenge for all levels of golfers within the spectrum more difficult and more costly.
And, that spectrum keeps broadening.
I've discussed the design challenge with a number of architects.

My opinion, based on those discussions and my own observations is that you can't cater, equally, to all levels of the golfing spectrum at the same time, due to the fixed nature of the features.

Peter's position has and continues to be a manifestation of his relationship with Titleist.

You can't blame the manufacturer's for trying to produce products that perform better.
The USGA and the PGA should have stepped in much earlier.

But, it's too late to assign blame, the real question is, what's the solution that's best for golf.

I've always felt that the answer lies on Magnolia Lane

One of Peter's arguments to me was that golf was the only game in which only one competitor touched the ball and therefore each competitor should be free to choose the ball of his choice.  When I brought up uniformity and bowling,

[Mike_Young]

I actually think he hits on a couple of points without meaning too.  He says "architects who haven't played at the highest level don't get it"...
Well...is there one course in America that could survive if it was designed for play at the highest level on a daily basis?  Maybe a couple....
AND...could it be that architects that have played at the highest level have put a few courses out there that will not allow the beginner to learn the game or allow the lady to enjoy a round with her husband? 
Personally I keep pondering how the field of golf design has evolved over the last 65 years and it is mostly a marketing game....not much substance other than that....and now that real estate doesn't want to use golf as a marketing tool we have to ask just how will the field evolve over the next 25 years....some may say China...don't know....from my experience with it and a few other places around the globe....they aren't driven by the growth of the game as we would be led to believe but by emerging countries developing RE....  oh well....

[Kirk Gill]

Tom Doak just redesigned an existing course at "Common Ground".  I'd like him to describe the process from an "invasive to the membership" perspective.  I realize Common Ground is a public course, but, I"m sure he can interpolate how those playing the course are dislodged in terms of their golfing routines.

Patrick, the process used at CG might not be a good example, as it is my understanding that this wasn't a redesign as much as simply the continuing use of a piece of property as a golf course, with the course itself being largely a new design. In fact, weren't a number of the corridors used at CG formerly the property between holes?

Anyway, I'm interested by your statement that the answer lies on Magnolia Lane. Do you mean that there is a responsibility there to deal with the issue, or are you talking about the way they HAVE dealt with the issue as time and equipment changes have gone by?

[Jim Hoak]

Interesting points.  But I think that there has been too little discussion of the interplay between architecture and residential development--selling lots.  Isn't that the culprit to the architecture woes we have?  Think about the great golf courses in our country, How many were built as part of a housing project?  Any?  Yet haven't most courses in the last decade been that--just as a amenity to sell lots and houses?  There are a few expections--Bandon Dunes, for example--and we celebrate those here.  But isn't this the elephant in the room as we consider modern course architecture?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I don't think you're correct.

Mountain Lake, a wonderful Seth Raynor was one of the first housing development courses in America.

According to Mike Cirba, so was NGLA  

Augusta was initially a planned community course.

Many great courses started as resort courses, then, as things began changing in America, people transitioned from going to resorts to building/buying their own homes in resort areas (sunshine/warm climate).  Then courses like Pine Tree and others began their existance as part of a planned community.  Those early courses tended to be good courses, but, with numbers comes a dilution in quality.

As the demand expanded and as the game became more popular, the golf course ceased being the lure.
The weather/area and the value of the home became the driving force for the general population.

So, perhaps, as the masses searched for a home in warm climates, quality suffered.

More recently, many, if not most desination courses seem to be of the highest quality since few, if any, would venture so far, to such remote locations, in pursuit of mediocrity.

But, if the masses came to those areas, I think you'd see a diminishment in the quality of the courses constructed.

As the numbers increase, quality almost always suffers.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Kalen Braley]

I continue to remain baffled at the "common wisdom" of only one who has played at the highest levels can design a course.

I'd be willing to guess that eliminates at least 80 of the top 100 courses in the US?

Following that same logic, I guess he's not qualified to teach the pros how to play because to my knowledge he never played on the PGA tour.

[Ronald Montesano]

Is this only available on the Shack site? I cannot access it from home or work, for some reason...my browsers block Geoff's site.  Can someone send me the entire text in a PM?  Thank you.

[JNC Lyon]

Fact: modern equipment does nothing for nearly every golfer in the game.  Handicaps have not gone down over past decades, and a bad golf swing does not know the difference between a Pro VI and a Flying Lady.

Fact: nearly every golf course built sees no play from golfers of "the highest level."  Professionals compete on a handful of courses, and these courses host a tournament for, at maximum, one week per year.

With these two facts in mind, most golf courses should not waste the money to accommodate the best players.  Building 7,000+ championship courses is completely pointless and makes the game more time-consuming and expensive.  This is a fact, not an opinion.

Kostis has it all wrong.  The only thing the architects, builders, and owners have done wrong is to lengthen courses based on changes in equipment when equipment has no effect on virtually everyone who plays the game.  Kostis' words demonstrate that those who are consumed with the game played "at the highest level" have no perspective on the game of golf and no good point of view from which to judge.

[Jud_T]

I think someone in a position of authority needs to use the Konica Minolta Swing-Vision on Peter's GCA worldview...

[Ronald Montesano]

Second Attempt:  Is this only available on the Shack site? I cannot access it from home or work, for some reason...my browsers block Geoff's site.  Can someone send me the entire text in a PM?  Thank you.

[Adam Clayman]

Patrick, since I was the one that first suggested a Masters Ball in this forum I've had lots of time to think about it. Something tells me that in this instance the public won't embrace what they are doing on Magnolia ln. There's a recent push to bifurcate the rules which I believe is and will be detrimental to the overall sport.

[George Pazin]

Could it be that many are reading Mr. Kostis's remarks incorrectly?

"In my opinion, course architecture has been every bit as big a problem - if you want to call it that - as technology evolution. The bigger courses became, the more length became important. So guys naturally figured out how to do that.

"Then Tiger came along. The immediate reaction was to make the courses bigger. It was a knee-jerk reaction by architects who don't know how to play the game at the highest level.

Sounds to me like he is saying the way to confront the problems of technology and the new bombers is NOT to lengthen courses. Perhaps he would like to see more short game challenge. Maybe he's just saying to let the big boys play and forget about blowing up courses for the top players.

Fwiw, I rarely agree with Kostis, but I can't say that I disagree in this instance.

[JMEvensky]

There's a recent push to bifurcate the rules which I believe is and will be detrimental to the overall sport.

I used to think this,now I'm not so sure.

To paraphrase the late,great Rich Goodale--bifurcation is the only way back to unification.His point,I think,was that any I & B rollback at the top would eventually work its way down through the entire system.If the USGA requires an "Open" ball today,in a couple of years it will be the "Open" ball used in club tournaments.

Maybe the USGA could use bifurcation as a power for good.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think Tour Pro’s driving distance will help shorten all other non tour courses.  The length disparity is so dramatic and obvious now that the "average golfers" course selection model will change from courses where they can replicate the clubs pros hit on TV, rather than the approximate distances they play. 

Trying to play an distances "near the pros" has been the model as long as we can recall.  I would say that if the pros pick up another ten yards that we don't, that model will be dead forever.  We all know its impossible to play those lengths.

 So, no bifurcation of the rules, no negative changes to equipment.  Just a bifurcation of courses, with a 100 or so tournament courses, maybe 200 aimed at low handicappers, and the rest just forgetting the idea of challenging pros and being designed around the games of average golfers, which is to say, more interest, less length.

There will be only a few classic courses still capable of hosting major tournaments and defending par, but that has been the case since Prestwick.  Sad, but true.

[Adam Clayman]

JME, That is why the Masters doing it, would've been a bit safer than the USGA. Knowing that we all, at every level, play the same game all over the world, is one of those small aspects that make the big things work.

Bifurcating could make it possible for a limitless number of variations of the sport. Diluting it's nearly perfect balance.

Imagine pro tours for golf, golf with bigger balls, golf with bigger clubs, golf with kryptonite core balls, golf with one hand tird behind your back, golf with just your teeth...etc...etc. I hope you catch my drift?

[Jeff_Brauer]

BTW, if Kostis continues to make architectural comments based on the 0.0001% of players and few courses aimed at those Tour players, then I say Kostis is to blame!

I like Phil Young's former tag line - Golf for the People Baby!

[JMEvensky]

JME, That is why the Masters doing it, would've been a bit safer than the USGA. Knowing that we all, at every level, play the same game all over the world, is one of those small aspects that make the big things work.

Bifurcating could make it possible for a limitless number of variations of the sport. Diluting it's nearly perfect balance.

Imagine pro tours for golf, golf with bigger balls, golf with bigger clubs, golf with kryptonite core balls, golf with one hand tird behind your back, golf with just your teeth...etc...etc. I hope you catch my drift?

AC,if everybody showed up at the same restaurant at the same time on the same night and ordered the fish,there would be chaos.But,that's probably not going to happen.

There have always been "pro" tours where anything goes.Assuming that the RoG will be followed assiduously by everyone who plays is like assuming the IRS tax code will be followed by everyone who pays taxes.When ESPN covers the Vaselined Driver Face Open,then I'll worry about kryptonite core golf balls.

Why try to include those people who have neither the respect for nor the inclination to follow the rules?Whether bifurcated or unified,they don't care.

Agreed that the Masters could do it more easily but then there would be the risk of the Masters becoming a cute period piece.The USGA,along with the R & A,are the ones who have the clout to make things happen.Personally,I wish they'd try.

BTW--somewhere,TEP is reading this and thinking out loud that I just don't understand the limits of the USGA's power.Threads like this are(were) his bread and butter.

[Ken Moum]

Fact: nearly every golf course built sees no play from golfers of "the highest level."  Professionals compete on a handful of courses, and these courses host a tournament for, at maximum, one week per year.

With these two facts in mind, most golf courses should not waste the money to accommodate the best players.  Building 7,000+ championship courses is completely pointless and makes the game more time-consuming and expensive.  This is a fact, not an opinion.

If you think that's facts, you haven't been around much high school or college golf lately.

My home course is nothing more than an old, fairly short country club that went broke despite being a Ross design.

But, like every other course i have ever played, it hosts high school team practices, an occasional state champsionship or state qualifier, a round or two of the city tournament, etc., etc.

In the last three summers I have either galleried or served as a walking scorer for several of those events, and the number of "kids" who can hit it a legit 300 yards off the tee is astounding.

Several examples: 

A highschool junior, playing in the state HS championship, on a cool breezy day hit driver/nine iron into the wind to reach a 455-yard par four, and driver/three iron into a 555-yard par five, with the second shot both into to the wind AND uphill.  Two holes later he hit 8 iron on the green on a par three from 190.  I admit he only shot 68, but if his short game was even as good as mine, he'd have shot 63 or 64.

A law school student who hadn't been playing because he was getting ready to take the Bar, in the City Tournament final, hits a gentle cut over the trees on a 352-yard par four that ends up hole high.

And, of course, there's Gary Woodland who learned to play at my home course, and was hitting the same distance he does now when he was still in college.

There are more, but my point is that these young players, who grew up with huge drivers and ProV1-style balls, are ALL capable of making normal courses look silly.

K

[Pat Burke]

I am obviously a strange animal.  I hang out in GCA and other architecture sights.
I played for a while, now I teach, and do what I can to get kids in the game.
Cybil may explain it best.

I have many issues with this battle.
1.  My students, even the best ones, who are now mini tour players, are not leaving any great courses behind
2.  The average member at my course, is typically playing at least one tee too far back for his game
3.  I play one tee ahead of the blacks on my home course
4. Places like CPC still give me chills when I play
5.  In baseball, a pitch is thrown, making contact is the challenge.  The speed of the ball off of a composite vs wood bat is tremendous,
but the adjustment to hitting it is small
6.  Changing equipment for $ has destroyed many professional players.  How hard would it be for a kid to play different equipment
and then turn pro, having to make a HUGE change, relearn distances, shot patterns, feel, while competing against players who already are totally wrapped in to it?
7.  If that kid, decided to play the "tour" equipment, how does he compete for scholarships, sponsors etc against kids playing with the space age equipment.

8.  Very important to me, if any equipment changes are made, I believe it has to be across the board, but I am very concerned it would hurt an already struggling game economy.

Just my two cents

[JMEvensky]

Pat Burke,interesting take as you're on more sides of the issue than most.

Regarding your #7,don't you see a lot of high school kids playing C of C wedges because they're going to try and qualify for the Open?To me,that's de facto bifurcation.

I agree with your #8--but with a little different spin.I think that if "equipment" was taken out of the equation,golf would be helped.In other words,if we could get to a point where people didn't think that they could buy a game,properly fit clubs excluded,I think the game would actually become more attractive.

I'm pretty sure the manufacturers would disagree.

[Terry Lavin]

Architecture is seldom much of a factor in the calculus of hosting pro tournaments, so I think Kostis is off here.  Given how bloody far they hit the ball these days, that's a good thing.  It seems to me that the classic courses can handle the technology just fine, as long as they don't have the preternatural need to host professional tournaments.  Technology hasn't ruined Shoreacres here in Chicago, because 98% of people who play it don't hit it further than the pros used to hit it forty years ago, if they ever did!  Merion hasn't been ruined by technology, but let's see how interesting it is to see an Open there, with players hitting three-iron/wedge into 380 yard holes.

As for the courses that do host professional tournaments and championships these days, the architectural bona fides are very seldom at the top of the list when the club owner or the professional association is trying to set the course up.  One need look no further than Torrey Pines, which hosted an absolutely thrilling US Open with Tiger, Westwood and Mediate competing great down the stretch.  Very few people would argue that TP is an architectural masterpiece, with its 480 yard dead straight par 4 holes with pinching bunkers in the landing zones or it's muni pond on the par 5 18th.  Or the Tiger/Bob May PGA at Valhalla.  Tremendous theater, great championship, but the course could be called Vanilla rather than Valhalla, from an architectural perspective.

If the pro tours play only courses that are ungodly long and ridiculously difficult for us regular schmoes and we get to play courses that are just too easy for them, I say where's the problem with that?  So I wouldn't blame the architects, I would thank them for continuing to design and renovate great courses for people who love the game.  If they have to make courses too long and too narrow and with too many trees and hazards just to "test" the pros, who cares?  The golf course doesn't decide whether the tournament is exciting.  That's up to the players.

[Matthew Petersen]

His is a really poorly drawn argument. It's not as though golf course architects started designing 510 yard par 4s and tour pros had to go out and play them and focus on distance as a result.

We got 510 yard par 4s because pros hit it so far that organizations (pick one: USGA, Augusta committee, PGATour) wanted to lengthen the existing courses they were playing on. That has very little to do with a golf course architect, even if one was called in to build that new tee 60 yards back.

The vast majority of the courses they play on tour, and certainly in major events, are older venues (oftentimes, ahem, "updated" for the times). The past week's event in San Antonio is an outlier to that extent.

[Pat Burke]

JM

Can't disagree too much regarding the grooves, except for those wealthy enough, or connected enough,
the new configurations (when new), spin about the same as worn box grooves. 
So advantage there goes to whoever can keep grooves "fresh".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, since I was the one that first suggested a Masters Ball in this forum I've had lots of time to think about it. Something tells me that in this instance the public won't embrace what they are doing on Magnolia ln. There's a recent push to bifurcate the rules which I believe is and will be detrimental to the overall sport.

Adam,

I disagree.

If ANGC adopted a competition ball, my guess is that the USGA would adopt that ball for tournament play, and if that happened Regional and State Golf Associations would adopt that ball for tournament play.  And, if that happened, local clubs would adopt that ball for tournament play, and eventually, that would be the ball adopted by a good segment of the golfing public.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.