Architecture splits in two

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Tommy,

I just came off a break because no matter where I turn I pissed somebody off.  You are a big boy, a celebrity, so you should bounce back easily.  Most whom might criticize you have no passion and are only here to pick a fight. The small minded people will never get anything done, you get things done.  Keep it up.

Mike,

I see very little work compared to you so it is difficult to comment of the gap you speak of.  I do hear constantly about making things eyecatching, you got show me more sand, show me the fairway, show me the green surface, boy, that green was beautiful but I couldn't see it from the fairway, and blah blah blah.  I ignore it.  But, it must be a mantra common out there.  I think some prominent architects think they are in show business.  So, possibly the gap is caused in part by the desire to make every shot, ever view a work of art.  In the end, there is no strategy.  Again, I think the biggest gap may be caused by a lack of strategy.  Golf is a game that requires strategy.

[BCrosby]

Yes, there are two architectural universes right now.  One of these will prevail and I'm not sure it will be the good guys.

Take the Atlanta Athletic Club.  There is nothing architecturally interesting about the ACC.  It is enormously long, penal and unimaginative.  As set up for the PGA, no one I know would want to play it.  Even for the novelty.  It's just too brutal.

On the other hand, it made for an exciting PGA last year.  As long and as straight as today's best players hit it, a 500 yard par 4 with an island green - like no. 18 at ACC – may be the only kind of hole that will stand up to the game they play.  

Unlike so many other pro venues, the PGA at the ACC did not devolve into a PW/putting contest.  It was about hitting full shots to impossibly difficult greens from improbable distances.

Unfortunately, it made for great drama.  

That's troubling.  I fear that courses like the Walhala, Torrey Pines, Whistling Straights, The Ocean Course and the ACC are the future.  These kinds of courses will host majors in this decade and have a big impact on how new courses are built and modified in the next couple of decades.  They are the courses people will see on TV.

If you think my fears are exaggerated, we have an unhappy precedent.  When RTJ created his "monster" courses for the USGA in the 50's and 60's, those types of courses became a standard for good design for years.

The ideal for new courses was that they be big, hard and resistant to scoring.  End of design questions.  More than any other single factor (imho), the "monster" course model ushered in the Dark Ages of gca.  

It took golf course architecture about 40 years to recover from the "monster" model.  Maybe it never really did.  In any event, the ACC and its brethren are 21st century poster children for the revival of the old "monster" course concept.  

Getting back to Mike's point, these "new" venues have nothing to do with classic, golden age courses.  They don't even have the benefit of having once been Golden Age courses.  At least RTJ and others worked from (Oak Hill, Oakland Hills, Merion, TCC, Congressional, etc.) Golden Age templates.  The new monster courses were designed after the Golden Age and they don't have even a nodding acquaintance with the kinds of architectural concerns most of us care about.  From the get-go they were designed around the concept of defending par against players who hit seven irons 200 yards.

Necessarily these courses will host the vast majority of major tournaments in the near future.  The public focus this brings seems to me to be a bad thing.  It means that the new designs that get the most publicity, that host the most majors in the future - thus shape popular perceptions about good design - are going to be those courses that have less and less connection with Golden Age design principles.

It's not enough to dismiss these kinds of courses as just "major tournament" venues.  As freaks.  People with the money and clout to built the best new courses will see them as models.  These courses will have a powerful and pernicious influence on the kinds of courses that are built in the future.  My guess is that they are already having that kind of influence.

There is a split in golf course architecture.  We'll see where our modern architect heroes with Golden Age sensibilities end up in the pecking order.  I worry that  - as much as we love their work – we will not see it much on TV.  And that does not bode well for its future.

Bob

[Mike_Cirba]

Bob Crosby,

You stated my points beautifully.  Perception of reality creates more reality based on the same perception.  

[Tom Doak]

Dan Belden:  The answer to your earlier question is that while Pine Valley and The National are universally respected and popular, most people have never seen anything of them but a couple of bold pictures.  

They don't know that Pine Valley has only one par-4 of more than 445 yards, and four under 380.  They don't know Tiger Woods might be able to drive the first two greens at National, and would hit short irons to the par-5 fifth and seventh holes.  They don't know these things because those courses don't host televised tournaments, and they assume just the opposite because GOLF DIGEST rates them highly, and GOLF DIGEST believes in Shot Values and Resistance to Scoring, so they must be really hard, right?

For me the "split" happened the day I started to work on my own instead of for Pete Dye.  Every one of Pete's clients cared about the Tour players, and none of mine were likely to see them, so I just refocused on making courses that were fun for the other 99%.  (Although when Bobby Jones said years ago that tournament golf is an entirely different game, I don't think he was prophesizing the split that has taken place.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I hate to bring this thread back on topic, but could you tell us more about the respective sites.

Could you provide details on the land they sit on, its topography, wetlands, etc.,etc..  What internal and external constraints existed on both sites.

Data man, data.

[Tim Weiman]

Tommy:

Why did your pro friend dislike the fairway width at Rustic Canyon?  Did he say? Explain?

What did you think his reason was?

[BCrosby]

Tom -

It will be interesting to see how this "split" evolves.  By that I mean, how the marketplace for new courses evolves.

My sense is that more and more people thinking about joining a course are quite conscious of this split.  

Do I want to play a TV/monster course everyday with the attendant prestige or do I want to play a course designed to give normal golfers interesting playing options but without the curb appeal of a PGA event?

The irony of ironies may be that those newest to golf with the weakest games will tend to buy memberships at the TV/monster courses for the quick and easy prestige.  Those that have a longer, deeper connection with the game will tend to chose the latter.  Don't know.

A new golf course development would tend to attract, on the margin, more people new to the game than those with established roots.  Thus economically, the developer would have an incentive to build more TV/monster type courses.  Again, don't know.

There is some evidence that cuts against the above.  Here in Atlanta, Dye's (one of Pete's sons, I think) Atlanta National was designed with the pro game in mind.  It developed a local reputation as too hard and no fun.  Ditto for nearby Settindown Creek.

Both failed economically.  So maybe the markeplace is smarter than we think.  

Bob






Some evidence is already in.  Here in ATL, for example,

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Both courses are located in southern New Jersey, each on land that is somewhat atypical of the area in that they contain reasonably good natural elevation changes for golf.

Prior to construction, both courses were wooded with a mix of mature laurel, oak, holly, and pines.  The soil contains a significant mix of sand, which is typical of south Jersey, and a benefit, I'm sure.

Neither course had housing or other developmental considerations.  Both courses are therefore contiguous routings.  Environmentally protected areas do not really factor into the play (or construction) of either course.  In fact, the constructed water source for Hidden Creek is "off" the golf course, while at Shore Gate, there are 4 fairly sizeable bodies of water, small lakes, really, which I believe may have been man made and the source of a lot of the fill that is used to create features.  

In the case of Shore Gate, the literature claims that it was formerly the site of the Atlantic "beach" centuries ago, explaining the natural dunes and elevation changes.  However, it appeared to me that any dunes on that course were man-made.  

In the case of Hidden Creek, estimates are that 50,000 cubic yards of earth were moved to build the course.  In the case of Shore Gate, I would think that number might be a good estimate for each hole.  

In discussing the site at Shore Gate, Ron Fream said, "The natural character of this site is superb, lush and tranquil. This course is not just another course along the Jersey shore."

Routings of each course can be seen as follows;

http://www.shoregategolfclub.com/experience.html

http://www.hiddencreekclub.com/courselayout.htm

[Matt_Ward]

I don't have the time to go into detail on each hole at Shore Gate today, however, let me point out that what is being talked about is the utter extremes in architecture.

I enjoy tough and demanding courses -- probably far more than most. But Shore Gate has a 75.2 course rating and slopes out at 136 from the tips. I've never seen numbers that are so out of line with what I played this past Saturday.  

The operative word for architecture of whatever type  is some semblance of fairness -- in understanding shot values and how they can be integrated together. PGA West / Stadium and Bethpage Black are two demanding and difficult courses but there are clear avenues that do reward sound shotmaking. Shore Gate is just an over-the-top cluttering of every type of obstacle but little in understanding the "context" by which these features can be added to the overall mixture.  

Given all the obstacles that are present on the course the slope should easily be in the 145-150 range. In fact, an argument can be made that the number should go beyond 150.

If people detested the original Stone Harbor they will really cringe after playing Shore Gate. But as I said to my playing companions on Saturday (Mike Cirba and Bill Vostinak) there are players who will love the "over-the-top" elements and will be back for more. Hard to believe, yes, but in my mind it will happen.

I'll post a detailed hole-by-hole in the next day or so.


How average players will trek around this torture chamber will clearly be interesting. I would strongly suggest the club have rangers stationed at every 3rd hole to keep pace up or else you're looking at six-hour mayhem.

[TEPaul]

Kelly Blake Moran:

Do yourself, me and everyone else on here a favor and don't concern yourself one single iota about who you do or don't piss off on this website! It doesn't matter!

We all piss each other off all the time although most of us are friends still anyway. If we didn't piss each other of we probably wouldn't even care that much about what we say. Don't take vacations from posting on here because you think you're pissing someone off--it doesn't matter if you say what you feel about the world of architecture.

[Dan_Belden]

Tom Doak:
    Thank you for that bit of info.  
   Indeed at Pine Valley I rarely hit driver more than once on the front nine from the tips, and only hit 2 or 3  on the back nine.  Those greens are so difficult though that you absolutely need to be in the right spots if you are going to score well.  
    Tommy:
  I indeed do get it and basically said the same things that you did in previous posts on this thread: i.e. that the tour and brochures are driving current architecture.  The build me what he has theory, regardless of the topography, is unfortunately the status que within much of the field.  
  It also seems to me that architecture has suffered this split, very much as caddy programs across the country have suffered and been replaced by golf carts.  Fewer and fewer you men, and women are getting this kind of exposure.  A long term solution might be getting involved with caddy programs at everyones various home clubs, and getting young kids back into the game.  Dan Belden

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt,

Yes, the slope rating for Shore Gate is ridiculously low, especially when one considers that PGA West and Pine Valley are sloped 150 and 153, respectively.

On the phone this morning, BillV reiterated his impression that Shore Gate made both of those courses look easy in comparison.  

I do know that the owners asked the rating team to come back a second time, because the first set of numbers they were given were "off the charts".

Patrick;

Have I provided enough "data"?  

[THuckaby2]

Mike:  please remember what slope represents.  I know that you know this... but for players of the caliber of you, Bill V, Matt W and certainly many, many others that post here, slope is fairly meaningless.

But in the context of architecture and how a course plays for the bogey golfer, it is important.  Just remember what's difficult for him is not always the same as what's difficult for you.

I looked at the card and it does seem to have allow for this "lowish" slope... under the definitions used for course rating, absent any other factors, any hole over 380 yards will be unreachable in two for the bogey golfer - and thus their "green target" rating (which is the most important one and determines many other obstacle factors) will be based on a very short shot.  Thus no matter what horrors exist near a green, if it's a shot less than 50 yards (as many of these would appear to be, both on par 4's and the long par 5's from the tips) the rating won't be that high.  If there aren't that many forced carries off the tee, that would keep slope low also, no matter what's to the side... It's the exact opposite of a very high slope found at a club out here called Mayacama, where very severe green targets are all on holes where Mr. Bogey can reach, with his longest possible shot...

This is all generalizing, but from what I can see on the web site, I can see Shore Gate getting a very high course rating and relatively low slope, just based on the distance primarily.

PGA West, Pine Valley, Mayacama, many others wouldn't seem to have these mitigating factors....

And the final caveat is this:  you guys would be shocked to know how LITTLE objectivity is involved in these ratings.. it's all formulae, tables, consensus.  Perhaps a more experienced rater like John V can chime in here also but it seems to me it would be darn tough to get a "wrong" slope... you have so little choice on what you see....

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Huckaby,

From the back tees, Shore Gate is "forced carry" city.  The "bogey golfer" will get murdered out there, even from the whites or reds.  

Trust me, after having played PGA West last weekend, I would slope SG about 10 points higher for the average golfer.  (p.s. we also had a 14 handicapper in our group, playing back with us)   

Once again, though, I would rather have this discussion more about design trends than any one or two particular courses, extremes though they may be.  

[THuckaby2]

Mike:  forced carries off tees can be mitigated if the green targets are low, which seems to be what Shore Gate allows for.  I have played PGA West Stadium several times - I can absolutely see the high slope there - I'm just trying to come up with some explanations as to why Shore Gate may be "only" 135, even if to you it seems the same or worse difficulty than some others.

Please believe me - there is VERY VERY VERY little objectivity allowed in these ratings.  The New Jersey golf association would have to actively lie / cheat to get a slope that "wrong."

Naive me, I assume those things don't happen.

TH

ps - the typical 14 hdcp is WAY better than the "bogey golfer" for whom we rate...

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Green targets "low"?  I assume that means that they permit adequate run up areas?  

If so, I believe I can safely say that they are "HIGH"!  

[THuckaby2]

Whoops - I'm speaking like a course rater, sorry, just did one last week, the lingo sticks with one for awhile... what I meant in "forced carries off tees can be mitigated if the green targets are low" is that if the result of what we come up with for the green target rating is a low number (which could occur as I explained above) then that's going to mitigate the high numbers we'd get corresponding to the forced carries off tees in a very big way.  Green target rating is VERY important, that's all.

I'm starting a campaign out here to demystify course rating... stay tuned, I may have something on the internet before too long.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Huckaby,

Which of these green targets would you classify as "low"?  

http://www.golfplan.com/Shoregate/shoregategallery.htm

[THuckaby2]

Tom Huckaby,

Which of these green targets would you classify as "low"?  

http://www.golfplan.com/Shoregate/shoregategallery.htm

The way course rating goes, Mike - ANY of those could receive a low green target rating, if the yardage works out right.  Look at it this way - even for the bogey golfer, how hard is it to miss all that crap from 20 yards?  That's the shot he'd have on a 400 yard hole, what the green target rating would be based on.  It really matters little that this is his third shot...

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom H,

The third shot?  Why, that would be their second tee shot after failing to make the forced carry.  

Within 20 yards of the green?  Hell, most of the fronting bunkers are over 20 yards long!  

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

TomH

On a truly difficult 400 yard hole, most "bogey" golfers I know will be anywhere BUT 50 yards from the green in the middle of the fairway in 2.  More likely they will be 90 yards out in the right rough with the wrong angle to the pin, or deep in the foreshortening cross bunker with a 50 yard sand shot to a firm and fast green, or 230 yards out next to a gorse bush after taking a penalty drop or teeing it up again and playing "3."

With your intelligence and sense of fair play I predict that your career as a NCGA course rater will last as long and be as distinguished as Tom Paul's legendary non-career as a Golf World ranker.  

[THuckaby2]

Mike:  OK, OK, I get your point.  Just remember the bottom line here:  it is indeed VERY difficult to arrive at a slope that's "wrong" by much unless you TRY to do so.  I'll bring the field manual when I see ya - perhaps even "rate" one of the holes we play.  I swear to you this will make logical sense when you see how the system works.

Not saying the system is RIGHT - that's a different question... but that using the course rating manual, it's believeable that this course could get 135, from the tips.  Of PARTICULAR interest to me is that you heard the rating team was sent back for a do-over cuz the first set of numbers was off the charts... these guys are human after all and the numbers could indeed be "fudged" if that was the intent of the re-do.  IE, we have this green target at 7/+3... something must be wrong there... let's just bump it down to 5/flat and not give a good reason why....

TH

[THuckaby2]

Rich:  I am not doing justice to the course rating system in my explanations here.  It DOES make sense and believe me, hazards to the side do count a LOT.  It's just that green target is indeed a very important number.

Again, I'll show you the field manual someday also, if you care to see it.  Once you've done a few of these it does indeed make very good sense.  We don't rate based on where we think Mr. Bogey will be, we go to that spot distance wise (adjusting for prevailing wind / elevation / other topographical factors) and rate EVERYTHING he faces at that point... this starts at the tee, then we go to 200 (his drive), then to 370 (his 2nd)... everything is factored in, to huge degrees of specificity.

In any case, it's a good system and produces a valuable tool for handicapping.  I look forward to a LONG career doing this, if they'll have me.  So far so good in that respect, from what I hear...

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Thanks for trying to explain.  I do appreciate it, and I'm sure we'll discuss further over a beer in a few weeks.

However, if you walked out 200 yards to where the bogey golfer's drive would be at SG, I can think of at least three holes where you would drown.  

Factor in prevailing wind and you may never get within 20 yards of the "green target"

[Slag_Bandoon]

 We vote with our wallets. You know where my sodflyin', foozlin', divot-chasin', hard hat wearin' bailywick is.