[Powell Arms]

Over the past few months, there have been threads that contemplated the definition of “retail golfer”, the question of greatness as it relates to Dr Mackenzie’s definition (“most enjoyment to greatest number of golfers”) and a small thread that discusses one man’s definition of greatness.

It is often said on this site that those that appreciate golf course architecture are but a small minority of golfers.  If that statement is true, and I do believe that it is, at least at a conscious level, then it begs a few questions:

Do the majority of golfers appreciate what makes a great architecture timeless?  In the hopes that we don’t devolve into a definition of greatness, lets be specific – If we took this “standard golfer” to Oakmont, The Old Course, Augusta, Pine Valley and Sand Hills, would they come away with an appreciation of architecture that they did not have before playing?

It’s acknowledged that Bandon presents courses that are thought of as very high accomplishments architecturally.  They are also very busy.  Are they filled with folks that appreciate the architecture, and/or folks that don’t consciously appreciate the architecture but it still remain the draw, or is it good marketing?

If the majority of golfers do not appreciate architecture, why do it?  Or, does great architecture have a timeless quality to it that allows it, over time, to have staying power over lesser rivals, and is this true even if the conscious mind of the majority of golfers does not understand the reason for the attraction?

[Garland Bayley]

The pro at a local muni doesn't see greatness in Bandon. He says that after golfers pay the price they feel obligated to say it was great. Look up Veblen goods on Wiki-pedia if you find this unusual.

[Kalen Braley]

Powell,

Great question and I will also agree with your conclusion.  The vast vast majority of golfers I have run into and played with on the course don't give architecure, or "golf course evaluation" as Tom puts it, more than a few fleeting thoughts.  And I do ask, all the time.

The golfers I have played with view it much more like a commodity and they are all the same, like selecting a bowling alley.  

Does it have carts? Check
Does it have a cart girl with beer?  Check
Are the conditions good?  Check
Is the grass green?  Check

And on it continues with all of the superficial stuff, well at least superficial to me and most in here I would guess.  I've played with guys on Doak 1 and 2 courses and asked, "Have you checked out such and such course?  Its got some neat holes and the green fees are the same?" The typical response is no I always play here, I'm a member of the mens club and its close to home.  The course evaluation is way down on thier list of criteria of why they are playing golf. Its far more about having a few beers, a few laughs, and something close to home cause a golf course is a golf course.

As for the success of Bandon, even if only 1% of the golfing population ever plays there, which to me would seem like an acceptable % of golfers who love "great" courses, that is still 2.8 million golfers in the US alone.

[Rich Goodale]

Kalen

Check your arithmetic.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen

Check your arithmetic.

Doh!!!

Richard, good call.  That would be 280,000 golfers which is a different kind of number.

Is it reasonable that 10% of golfers would visit Bandon?    

[Powell Arms]

Kalen

Check your arithmetic.

Doh!!!

Richard, good call.  That would be 280,000 golfers which is a different kind of number.

Is it reasonable that 10% of golfers would visit Bandon?    

I'd tend to think Bandon really only applies to avid golfers, a much smaller number.  

Maybe that is a bad example.  I do not think it was set up as a Veblen based business model.  

Thoughts on the first example, if we took this “standard golfer” to Oakmont, The Old Course, Augusta, Pine Valley and Sand Hills.  Would they love it, hate it but feel the need to love it, or some combination?

[tlavin]

I'm not sure that a majority of golfers appreciate architectural greatness, but I do believe that the substantial minority that does appreciate this characteristic is happily growing.  We wouldn't see the dramatic increase in quality designs (read: non-Robinson) across the U.S. and abroad unless there was a large enough number of aesthetes to support them.  The entire business model of Bandon Dunes is largely contingent upon a large number of golfers caring about architectural greatness.  I'll take that as a favorable barometer.

[Phil Benedict]

Kalen

Check your arithmetic.

Doh!!!

Richard, good call.  That would be 280,000 golfers which is a different kind of number.

Is it reasonable that 10% of golfers would visit Bandon?    

Assuming Bandon's 3 courses each get 40,000 rounds per year, that's 120,000 rounds in total.  If, on average, everybody plays each course once, we're talking at most 40,000 players per year, a tiny fraction of all US golfers.  My guess is a fairly high percentage of these players appreciates architecture.

[Doug Ralston]

I'm not sure that a majority of golfers appreciate architectural greatness, but I do believe that the substantial minority that does appreciate this characteristic is happily growing.  We wouldn't see the dramatic increase in quality designs (read: non-Robinson) across the U.S. and abroad unless there was a large enough number of aesthetes to support them.  The entire business model of Bandon Dunes is largely contingent upon a large number of golfers caring about architectural greatness.  I'll take that as a favorable barometer.

True Terry;

But we will never know if the vast majority would appreciate 'greatness', as defined by those courses, because the vast majority never play them.

I do know that I have met many members of the GKL website forum, and that they/we discuss golf architecture quite a lot. Do not be TOO dismissive of the general golfer. He still loves to try challenges, appreciate beauty, and later discuss his experience. At least those I have met did.

Doug

[tlavin]

I'm not sure that a majority of golfers appreciate architectural greatness, but I do believe that the substantial minority that does appreciate this characteristic is happily growing.  We wouldn't see the dramatic increase in quality designs (read: non-Robinson) across the U.S. and abroad unless there was a large enough number of aesthetes to support them.  The entire business model of Bandon Dunes is largely contingent upon a large number of golfers caring about architectural greatness.  I'll take that as a favorable barometer.

True Terry;

But we will never know if the vast majority would appreciate 'greatness', as defined by those courses, because the vast majority never play them.

I do know that I have met many members of the GKL website forum, and that they/we discuss golf architecture quite a lot. Do not be TOO dismissive of the general golfer. He still loves to try challenges, appreciate beauty, and later discuss his experience. At least those I have met did.

Doug

I hope I wasn't being dismissive of the average/general golfer in this context.  I'm quite certain that a "general" golfer would appreciate the beauty in courses that have great architectural merit, even if some of the subtleties would evade him.  I was just trying to suggest that the size of the cognoscenti class in this arguably arcane area is growing.

[Phil Benedict]

Elitist threads like this one make me a little uncomfortable.  Maybe GCA connoiseurs are just a bunch of geeks.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Most of the guys I play with comment on the design of a hole.  Not all of them "get' the strategy part.  They do know if a hole is pretty  and bunkers or a sloping green.  What I think many golfers miss are subtleties.  For instance the fifth hole at my course Four Streams is a 310 yard par four.  The hole goes up from the tee and then slopes from right to left from the top of the hill that is about 220 from the tee.  There is a bunker  on the left front of the green.  To the right of the green is a mound that will kick any shot toward the green.  The green is relatively large for such a short hole but is severely sloped from right to left.  Longer hitters can aim down the right side of the fairway and hope to get on or close the the green.  Pull it, however, and you are in a deep bunker.  Mortals try to hit it to the top of the hill so you have a flat lie and hit a spinner at the hole.  It is a relatively easy four but three is what you want.  It is just tricky to get the ball to stop close to the hole.

Lots of guys will see the hill and the bunker but completely miss the point of the mound or the severity of the green.

[Powell Arms]

Elitist threads like this one make me a little uncomfortable.  Maybe GCA connoiseurs are just a bunch of geeks.

This was not an elistist question.  It was intended to specifically address the comment that gets thrown into posts and threads from time to time.  Perhaps I should have said consciously appreaciate architecture.

[Kalen Braley]

Elitist threads like this one make me a little uncomfortable.  Maybe GCA connoiseurs are just a bunch of geeks.

Phil,

Just because others don't appreciate it, does not mean that I think less of them.  They play golf, have thier fun, it probably really doesn't matter to most which course they play, but just to be out playing.

I do agree with Sean, that the average golfer probably would be wow'd by playing something like Bandon, but it doesn't mean they would neccessarily seek it out.  I would claim that they will mostly play whatever is closest and most convient to them and not think about what else is out there.

[corey miller]

The people I know, the ones that do not frequent this site appreciate greatness.  What they do not appreciate are the non-flashy classic courses that populate the GW list from 30-200.

[Ken Moum]

Most of the American golfers I know do not appreciate it.

And I don't see that it's much of a problem.

As a group, we have long since recreated the game in our own image, and pretty much all of us are comfortable with that. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we have reached the point where we think anyone who dislikes American style golf is off base.

Take for instance, the typical American reaction to Scottish conditions. The head greenkeeper at The Old Course told me in 2006 that he commonly talked to Americans about the conditioning, and almost always got a positive reaction.

Then he asked if they'd tolerate those conditions at home. The reaction was universally negative.

The same applies to architecture, in my experience. I recently played Albuquerque CC three days in a row, followed by a round at Black Mesa. For reference, ACC is in the valley and about as flat as a golf course can be.

After last day, I was back at ACC with my brother, who's a member. It was fascinating to here him talk to the other guys about Black Mesa. The consensus is that courses like Black Mesa and Paa Ko Ridge are "goofy," not something you'd want to play all the time.

I appreciate Black Mesa--except for the difficulty in walking it--but I see their point.

ACC is what they expect in a golf course, and while it's not all that easy to score on, it doesn't have much of the do-or-die challenges some of the courses beloved here on GCA.com.

If I had to chose one or the other for everyday play, I would probably reluctantly pick ACC. I HATE riding on a golf course, and I simply could not walk Black Mesa as often as I like to play. Where I play now, I can stop by after work and play 3, 5, 6 or 9-hole loops

I have other friends who will never walk a course, and their criteria are different from mine.

One of them is obsessed with having trees, water and flowers on the course.

Another is almost entirely interested in whether he can score on the course. If the greens are soft and the fairways offer excellent lies, he's happy.

Golf Course Architecture, as it is talked about here, is completely off the radar of 99 percent of the golfers I know.

Ken

[John Kavanaugh]

99% of the golfers I know appreciate greatness and 1% validate it.

[Tim Pitner]

The entire business model of Bandon Dunes is largely contingent upon a large number of golfers caring about architectural greatness.  I'll take that as a favorable barometer.

Terry,

I think there are a lot of factors besides architecture that help Bandon.  The Oregon coast is one; the walking-only, throwback nature of the place is another.  And now, it's popular because it's well-known.  You could probably dumb-down the architecture and it would be just as popular, if not more so.  

[George Pazin]

I think they do, at least on a subconscious level. They might know realize why they love something, but I think they do end up loving it.

And I think they certainly can figure out why they love it, they just don't feel like wasting the time doing so.

[Mark Smolens]

As a newbie to GCA, a non-architect and public course trunk slammer to boot, it seems to me that this inquiry assumes a fact simply not in evidence -- that the average golfer has a conscious capability to even consider "greatness" in the architecture of the courses he plays.  Mr. Williamsen talks about the varying ways the design of his course's 5th hole may be attacked -- that type of conscious course management is foreign to the vast majority of players that I play with.

[Jim Thompson]

I think golfer's do appreciate greatness and are grateful for it, that said we all must recognize the difference between golfers and customers.  I believe the golfers come for the experience they make for themselves on the playing field while the customers come for the experience the industry provides them.  There are not a lot of golfers left out there, at least not that I see, and as such the product continues to get transformed into a visually dependent habitrail so that the customers can subsidize our golf habit.  That doesn't excuse excessive blindness or quirk, but eye candy design gets boring after about three holes for me.

Cheers!

JT

[John Kavanaugh]

As a newbie to GCA, a non-architect and public course trunk slammer to boot, it seems to me that this inquiry assumes a fact simply not in evidence -- that the average golfer has a conscious capability to even consider "greatness" in the architecture of the courses he plays.  Mr. Williamsen talks about the varying ways the design of his course's 5th hole may be attacked -- that type of conscious course management is foreign to the vast majority of players that I play with.

Mark,

I'm a pretty regular poster on this site who has met most of the interesting characters that also post and I can say confidently with zero regret that I have not met one poster on this site that is any better at seeing or defining what is great architecture than the friends who I have made and lost during my entire life as a golfer.  If you are looking for answers you have come to the wrong place, if you are looking for opinions and arguments we have plenty.  These threads about how much smarter we are than the rest of the golfing public always make me want to puke.

Welcome to the site!!!

[Garland Bayley]

I think most golfers appreciate greatness. If you put almost any golfer on CPC 16, or ANGC 12 they will tell you it is a great golf hole. However, their degrees of greatness are not so finely tuned. For them, there are a few terrible holes, mostly good holes, and a few great holes. For most here, there is a perhaps 10 or more degrees of quality ranging from super stinker to I'm in heaven.

I think you will find a similar phenomenon with wine drinking.

[George Pazin]

John, I've always felt that the posters on this site weren't necessarily smarter than any other golfers, they simply had different interests. And I never got the feeling that posters felt they were smarter than other, just differently motivated.

Most of my close college friends are golfers and very successful businessmen, doctors, lawyers, etc. They're plenty smart (they certainly made better choices than me, at least by most people's standards), but they just shake their heads and laugh when I mention a discussion on the site.

They do, however, ask me from time to time to find out the inside scoop on various golf courses, however!

 

[Powell Arms]

As a newbie to GCA, a non-architect and public course trunk slammer to boot, it seems to me that this inquiry assumes a fact simply not in evidence -- that the average golfer has a conscious capability to even consider "greatness" in the architecture of the courses he plays.  Mr. Williamsen talks about the varying ways the design of his course's 5th hole may be attacked -- that type of conscious course management is foreign to the vast majority of players that I play with.

Mark,

I'm a pretty regular poster on this site who has met most of the interesting characters that also post and I can say confidently with zero regret that I have not met one poster on this site that is any better at seeing or defining what is great architecture than the friends who I have made and lost during my entire life as a golfer.  If you are looking for answers you have come to the wrong place, if you are looking for opinions and arguments we have plenty.  These threads about how much smarter we are than the rest of the golfing public always make me want to puke.

Welcome to the site!!!

John,

If you’re puking then you misunderstood the point of the thread, or I didn’t state it clearly in the initial post.

To restate it – does the general golfing public actively appreciate good architecture, or is it something that is appreciated in the subconscious, or, in the extreme, do they hate it but feel compelled to say they like it because it’s ranked highly on a list?

I think the answer is that it is appreciated in the subconscious, and that is what makes the truly great courses what they are.  Many could argue that conditions are all that matters to the general golfing public.  Still, given the choice between two, with all other things except architectural merit being equal, which would get more play?

Powell

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()