[Jordan Wall]

Mike's new thread on distance and why we should care got me thinking.

Except for a fraction of golfers, plus the Tour guys, what does architecture matter.  Has it ever happened to you that you say, I love this hole, and everyone you are playing with looks at you funny??  To the weekend golfer all they care about is courses that look cool right, maybe some water that hopefully they can avoid, coollooking grasses, beer girl (OK, maybe we all like that...).  But do they really appreciate the architecture of a course??  How many golfers actually care and understand golf architecture??

I know that I absolutely love thinking on a golf course.  But when on almost every hole I have to explain to my dad why the hole is great due to its strategy and not it looks it can become frustrating.  If there was no strategy as in thinking your way around a golf course, what percentage of golfers would actually know and understand that??

[cary lichtenstein]

I'd say the percentage who care and understand is way less than 1%.

Even guys I know who are excellent golfers, just like to play and love the challenge of the game, but don't know or give a hoot about architecture.

[Brent Hutto]

Jordan,

Lots of people look at a golf course like we do and lots of others don't. It's just like some guys never want to play without a couple bucks on the line and for others competing or betting ruins their enjoyment of the game. It's just a "different strokes" thing.

An acquaintance of mine invited me to his very posh, nice private club back in the fall. I'd never been there before and thoroughly enjoyed the afternoon. We talked a little about the changes at the course over the years (he's played there since the 1960's) and on one hole in particular I was saying how perfectly situated the green was relative to the slope falling off its left side and position of the fairway bunkers. It really is an exquisite hole for those of us who can't hit a pitching wedge 150 yards.

Now this is a guy who really gives no attention to golf course architecture. A golf course is just the place he plays golf and he mostly takes the design features for granted. But he was really excited to talk about that hole and how it had evolved over the years. He said something to the effect of thinking he was the only person who ever wondered about what makes one hole "perfect" to play over and over and a similar hole just ho-hum.

I assured him there were hundreds of us discussing junk like that every day. Needless to say, I don't expect him to be signing up for a golfclubatlas.com account any time soon but he does think the way we do just not as elaborately and analytically.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jordan:

I asked this same question, more or less, a few years ago.  The same things struck me, as I played with so many people for whom architecture meant houses or buildings, and strategy meant something used in football or baseball.  That is, they were just like you say:  there for the beer, the views, to hang out with friends, and to bash the ball as far as they can, firing dead at every single pin no matter what, "I didn't pay $___ to lay up" being their mantra.

There are a LOT of golfers like this.  I'd venture to say they are the vast majority on a public golf course on any given day. And there's really nothing wrong with how they feel about the game.  

But I too asked - why do we get worked up about all of this stuff?  Why does it matter if so few people care about it?

Over time, with the help of some great knowledge gained in here and elsewhere, I have come to see that it does matter, a lot.  And why?

Because they can play their game anywhere.  We can't play our game - a game involving thinking, shot choices, appreciation of subtleties, etc. - on a course that doesn't allow for such.

And if we cater to these people - if we just throw up our hands and accept the horrid courses devoid of strategic options but filled with eye-candy hazards that tend to please them - then that is a step in the wrong direction, and each one of those hastens the ruin of the game for people like us.

In many ways I had given up the fight - or at least found it SO daunting as to just accept what's what - but no longer.  I'm still not 100% sure what any of us can do in a concrete way about this, but no longer will I give up and accept it all.  No longer will I celebrate these horrid courses as being great for the masses.

Because I've turned selfish in a way - I want more courses that are fun to play on the mental level.  I want more courses that are cheaper to play on the financial level.  I want more courses on which brain is as important as brawn!

BUT here's the kicker also - if these courses get built - and if they are the ones that become celebrated - then I have to believe the masses will come around.  They may not even know why particularly, but they will find themselves liking these courses and returning to them.

There remains hope.

I thank guys like Dave Moriarty and Tommy Naccarato for helping me see this.  It's been a long journey.

So Jordan - don't you lose the faith - you are our future.  There does remain hope.

TH

[PThomas]

I'd say the percentage who care and understand is way less than 1%.

Even guys I know who are excellent golfers, just like to play and love the challenge of the game, but don't know or give a hoot about architecture.

Cary -I would think it's a relative appreciation....if you put them on a course with parallel fairways, simlar bunkers, etc - like Firestone? - they would get bored quickly

but as to looking for the way the greens tie into their surrounds, shapes and styles of bunkers, etc., then I can see their interest  levels quickly fading

[jeffwarne]

I would say that most on this site consider themselves "into architecture"
Cary, I also would venture that the percentage that architecture matters(at least to some degree) is significantly higher than 1%. I mean despite most golfer's first preference for conditioning,I find many of the same players comment that they play a certain course because it's interesting. Now we might disagree with their assessment of the architecture (containment mounding,fake water hazards,floating island greens) ,but they are choosing to play certain courses because of the features designed or naturally in the course,which is architecture for better or for worse.

What I find interesting is how almost all on this site revere older,classic looking clubhouses (on newer courses)yet most architectural buffs in the building /structural world would laugh and quite snobbishly call them shingled  fake McMansions lacking in any originality.
Kind've the way we do with a Trump Waterfall

Since I don't like clubhouses at all I am of course exempt from this criticism

[Kyle Harris]

I liken it to an analogy with gambling.

99% of all casino gamblers play slot machines. They want to put their quarters in, pull the level, and see what happens.

The othe 1% (myself included) play table games like Blackjack and Craps where a decent amount and balance of skill and luck make the game fun for us paralysis by analysis type. Sure, the odds are still stacked against us, but the numbers and decisions in the game have us coming out on top every now and then.

Things are much the same way with golf: stick a hole in the ground far away and people will eventually start hitting balls toward it - make it pretty and you'll cover your market. BUT - a lot of non-intended utility is derived from those courses that offer the strategic merits that those 1% appreciate, it's just that the average golfer doesn't realize it. Much like people who play craps or blackjack with little knowledge of the inner-workings of the game. It's a different type of thrill.

***************

SOMEONE has to worry about architecture, even if only 1% of the players actually see the result. I'll take on that relatively underappreciated role because the game needs it.

[MikeJones]

Ditto I'm sure that the vast amount of players have no clue as to why's and why not's of golf architecture. They do however know when something is fun to play or not.

That's why architecture matters.

I don't have to know exactly how the engine in my car works but I do know it's fun to drive.

[Jordan Wall]

I know that many people do not really appreciate the architecture on courses.

A great course might be bad to many people.

I wish there was someway there was a way for people to actually understand what they play...

Am I the only one who enjoys playing golf more when you actually understand what you are playing??

[Kyle Harris]

Jordan,

Your idealist view is admirable, but frankly, this apathy is true of many consumer arts. The public doesn't give a damn about how they get what they get, just that they get it.

Frankly, it's not necessarily a bad thing - just frustrating at times.

[Glenn Spencer]

Jordan,

I agree with Kyle here. It seems that the older people get, they seem to care about fewer things more deeply and golf course architecture does not seem to be high on the list. I think that somewhere along the line, it helps to have played either a great course early in life or many great ones throughout your existence.

[Garland Bayley]

One in eight are interested.

My club came out with a 10 year plan for modifications of the golf course. I set up a yahoo groups website to discuss it and suggest alternatives. When I get ahold of email addresses of members, I invite them to join the site. One out of eight invitees join. Therefore, about one out of eight are at least interested in reading ideas about the design and architecture of the course. What surprised me was that of the three green committee members invited, only one joined. I thought they would be the most interested.

[Mark Brown]

Us

And that's enough

[Jordan Wall]

Mark, us is surely enough for me.

I know I love thinking on a course and love golf architecture.

I also know that many people like other things and architecture might not be high on their list.

That being said however, I do wish that golfers would realize what makes a course good instead of just looking at how it looks and its surroundings.  To me that is one of the biggest parts of the game, understanding the hole in which you are playing as well as the course.  Maybe it is true many weekend golfers dont care but I refuse just to let them de-appreciate how hard it is to have good architecture and just have them take the 'who cares' mentality.

I care, we care, and I surely get frustrated when people say how horrible hole or a course is without even understanding it.  Hopefully someday golf will get to the point where all golfers can enjoy it and understand it[/color].  Will this ever happen, and is it our responsibility to make this actually happen??

[mike_malone]

 When I hear  the average member of my club  compare our course to other highly regarded courses in Philadelphia I think their opinions are architecturally based for the most part. While they may think they aren't much interested in gca they need a concept of it to form their opinion.  While they don't get specific as to why they think , for instance, that it is better than Aronimink they are using gca as their framework to say "Aronimink is boring".

  I believe that many golfers are unconsciously interested in architecture. And it does matter to them. I can think of growing up in Delaware and playing with other guys my age. We enjoyed the holes with more interest at Rock Manor than the mundane ones. We preferred Greenhill to Delcastle. Greenhill , I believe , used to be Wilm. CC ; Delcastle was the county course with little going on.

     When Pike Creek opened with its elevation changes and angles we gravitated to it thinking we were playing a private course at public course prices.

   In many ways I feel that in my discussions with the average member I need to appreciate that they are thinking architecturally when they say "you will make the hole easier" and answer their concern in language they know.

[Glenn Spencer]

Jordan,

To put architecture in its proper perspective amongst weekend golfers, simply ask them which course they would rather play before they die? Pebble Beach or Cypress Point?

[Jordan Wall]

That is an unfair question.

BUT, do you think if they played either of those courses do you think they would like them for the architecture each course presents or the ocean??

[Glenn Spencer]

I don't know what is unfair about it, but I think that the weekend golfer would only remember the ocean and the cost of the round.

[Jordan Wall]

So what does architecture matter?

How can we make it matter?

Those courses have so much going for them besides the ocean, its sad people see the cost instead of that.

[mike_malone]

 Does the average player choose NGLA over Shinnecock ? What accounts for the interest in traveling to Scotland or Ireland to play?

[Glenn Spencer]

I think it starts on television. The network announcers talk like the pros are the only actors in the play. A major is always referred to as the The 1995 US Open at Shinnecock, not the The 95 US Open won by Corey Pavin. I can't understand how the golf channel does not have a show on architects and GCA, I just don't get it.

[Glenn Spencer]

Mayday,

I would love to think it is GCA, but I am more inclined to think it mainly lies with access.

[Evan Fleisher]

Mark, us is surely enough for me.

I know I love thinking on a course and love golf architecture.

I also know that many people like other things and architecture might not be high on their list.

That being said however, I do wish that golfers would realize what makes a course good instead of just looking at how it looks and its surroundings.  To me that is one of the biggest parts of the game, understanding the hole in which you are playing as well as the course.  Maybe it is true many weekend golfers dont care but I refuse just to let them de-appreciate how hard it is to have good architecture and just have them take the 'who cares' mentality.

I care, we care, and I surely get frustrated when people say how horrible hole or a course is without even understanding it.  Hopefully someday golf will get to the point where all golfers can enjoy it and understand it[/color].  Will this ever happen, and is it our responsibility to make this actually happen??

Jordan,

The SAD truth is that more than likely the massess will never "get it".  Is that a bad thing?  Not so sure either way.

As a quick aside, but to illustrate your point, here is an example based on a local course in my area.

Just West of Dubuque there is a public course called The Meadows which I like to call a prairiie links style course.  It was built on old rolling/windy farmland.  There is hardly a tree on the entire course (cool!), wide fairway corridors (relatively speaking), greens that allow for ground-game options, and hard green surfaces coupled with the ever-present winds making for the typical "target golf" hard to come by.

So what?  You may be asking...well I happen to "get it" when it comes to this course and adjust my game accordingly and usually have a fun time trying to solve the mysteries out there.  Most others I know that play it think much less of the place while others yet REALLY dislike it.  Why?  It doesn't fit their perceived notions of what a typical US golf course should be, and they certainly do not adjust their game to accomodate the unusual features in play and they therefore do not have an enjoyable time playing golf there.

For whatever reason these folks expect certain things on their golf courses, and when faced with something "out of the norm" they say that it's crap, poorly designed, yada-yada-yada...and I doubt it will ever change for these folks.

---------------

Another quick example with a positive spin...last year I had the great fortune to play up in Bismarck, ND at Jim Engh's Hawktree.  I played with two business associates (lay people in terms of architectural appeciation).  A few days after the trip I asked my work colleague what he thought of the course, and he was so excited to talk about the holes we played and how many of the actual holes and shots he could remember.  Now this guy did not have a career round or anything that day, quite the opposite...but he REMEMBERED so many of the features because they made him think, strategize, we bold/memorable for some reason, whatever.  I told him...that's what makes good architecture...your ability to remember shots, features, whatever.  We both thought that to be quite interesting, and I know he remembers that lesson to this day.

[mike_malone]

 I am assuming those who play both NGLA and Shinny so it is not access. I think the difference between links courses and the average U.S.course forces the average guy to think about gca.

[John Foley]

Glenn,

I have a good friend who used to be w/ the Golf Channell & he said there is no way a show on architecture would ever make it. They get viewers to improve their games.

Anyone remember the shows that was out on cable about 12-15 years ago? They used to have views of new courses out mostly from out west. They used to inverview the pro/owner/developer and had some helicopter views of the courses. It was deisgned to create interest and generate tee time revenue. It obviously didn't do so well.

Somethign along those lines today would be great!! The Wandering Golfer is probably the best we can do, but it needs more pictures & less game. The section on Wildhorse was waaay too short.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()