Are gca.com participants so obtuse that.....

[JC Jones]

... remember we aren't talking whole course renovations here, but elimination of the most unusual (to the public or golfers at large) features ....

I guess the other way to ask the question is, "Is our current architectural awareness now a permanent part of the architectural landscape - enough to overcome the natural tendencies to change stuff that was present in the past, and I suspect will still be present in the future for economic and golf technolgy reasons?"  

Historic adaptations are now part of the building architecture landscape, and environmentalism is part of the landscape and planning realm and they aren't going away.  Does golf architecture rate that kind of inclusion, or is it more "disposable by nature?

Do we really have a architectural awareness as part of the landscape?  I would tend to think for the majority of golfers that is not part of the mindset, and it is that desire to "have it all in front of you" that will overcome any resistance to change.  To state it another way, I do think courses, in general, will be modified to appeal to the majority of golfers.

Majority of golfers who have the chance to play them or to appeal to the majority of golfers, generally?

If the latter, your post should have concluded with the word, unfortunately.

Good question, and I'm not sure of the answer, but I think you are right and it should end with "unfortuanately".  I guess it depends on the market of the course, along the lines of what Jeff states above in post 23.  If the course is public, it must appeal to a broad enough population to fill its tee sheet.  If private, same idea.  So, wouldnt it mean that a course needs to appeal to enough folks to make it economically viable, and that it is the number of folks in the market that determines this?  

I dont disagree.  A course does need to appeal to enough folks to make it economically viable.  Hence the success of JN courses.  His name is attached, people operate under the assumption it is good, and they play/pay it.

However, Bandon is economically viable and people enjoy playing the course.  What I maintain is that they dont know why and therefore they dont know why the JN courses arent as good.

So, should a great course that is struggling economically change to look like a JN course in order to make money?

Not sure, I dont know of any great courses that are struggling economically.  People play them, they enjoy them, they just dont know why.  Because when it comes down to it, the are at the surface and they just enjoy playing the game no matter where it is.  There is a certain level of pureness in that mentality.

Mike, great Bud Light analogy.  I was actually thinking of the same one but somehow ended up writing about Dewars.  6 in one I guess.

[Powell Arms]

... remember we aren't talking whole course renovations here, but elimination of the most unusual (to the public or golfers at large) features ....

I guess the other way to ask the question is, "Is our current architectural awareness now a permanent part of the architectural landscape - enough to overcome the natural tendencies to change stuff that was present in the past, and I suspect will still be present in the future for economic and golf technolgy reasons?"  

Historic adaptations are now part of the building architecture landscape, and environmentalism is part of the landscape and planning realm and they aren't going away.  Does golf architecture rate that kind of inclusion, or is it more "disposable by nature?

Do we really have a architectural awareness as part of the landscape?  I would tend to think for the majority of golfers that is not part of the mindset, and it is that desire to "have it all in front of you" that will overcome any resistance to change.  To state it another way, I do think courses, in general, will be modified to appeal to the majority of golfers.

Majority of golfers who have the chance to play them or to appeal to the majority of golfers, generally?

If the latter, your post should have concluded with the word, unfortunately.

Good question, and I'm not sure of the answer, but I think you are right and it should end with "unfortuanately".  I guess it depends on the market of the course, along the lines of what Jeff states above in post 23.  If the course is public, it must appeal to a broad enough population to fill its tee sheet.  If private, same idea.  So, wouldnt it mean that a course needs to appeal to enough folks to make it economically viable, and that it is the number of folks in the market that determines this?  

I dont disagree.  A course does need to appeal to enough folks to make it economically viable.  Hence the success of JN courses.  His name is attached, people operate under the assumption it is good, and they play/pay it.

However, Bandon is economically viable and people enjoy playing the course.  What I maintain is that they dont know why and therefore they dont know why the JN courses arent as good.

So, should a great course that is struggling economically change to look like a JN course in order to make money?

Not sure, I dont know of any great courses that are struggling economically.  People play them, they enjoy them, they just dont know why.  Because when it comes down to it, the are at the surface and they just enjoy playing the game no matter where it is.  There is a certain level of pureness in that mentality.

Mike, great Bud Light analogy.  I was actually thinking of the same one but somehow ended up writing about Dewars.  6 in one I guess.

I think building Bandon took a lot of guts, and a real recognition that the project may not be a financial success short-term.  

I cannot think of a great course struggling financially, but I'm sure we can all think of a Doak 5-6 course that is doing very well because it has a great marketing machine.  For new course development, that is probably the path of development with the least risk.

I do agree with you, a truly great course will be enjoyed by many, and while the reason for the enjoyment and the greatness may not be something that the majority can articulate, the enjoyment is there nonetheless.

[JC Jones]

I agree.  A JN signature course with great marketing is like an ATM.  Assuming it is well managed.

I think it takes a lot of balls to set out to build a great golf course and hope that the public agrees too.

Neither mentality is wrong, one aspires for wealth, the other aspires for greatness.  That is why there are so few great courses and there are so many mediocre that make money (at least for the designer).

Just because the number of mediocre courses outweighs the number of great ones, does not mean that the great ones should conform to what sells to the masses.  My hope is that the great courses succeed financially so that they are immune to the winds of change.

The problem is, however, those great courses who are at the mercy of their membership.  I seriously doubt, however, that the members of a great course would be so inept as to want their course to look like a JN signature.  

Their wishes for a major championship, however.......

[Jeff_Brauer]

"I cannot think of a great course struggling financially"

Powell,

Read the history of Augusta National.  Or Lido, which was plowed under, or any number of good private clubs that are now city owned munis.  Several have struggled. Design and even greatness are no match for a stock market plunge.

BTW did everyone say Augusta was great soley because of Jones' involvement? Sorry for taking my own topic OT!

BTW, Donald Trump could build whatever he wanted, and really Mike Keiser was in the same situation.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,
Have you seen the pictures in the Royal St Georges thread?
I haven't seen many modern courses like that -- except for mine.

Budweiser & Miller lite both suck eggs.
Arrogant Bastard rules -- but only Kalen & I drink it.
Which one is better?

Cheers

Nice jab Mike.....

Its like what I tell people who brag about thier budweiser prowess.  I tell em, "I got a bud tap at home...its called my kitchen faucet."

Back on topic though, I would agree with the general premise that has been thrown around here by a few people.  I think more than a few people find themselves liking the great courses better, even if they don't know why.

I think its good that we try to educate others on why they might like them, but at the end of the day, they must want it, and you can't force them to drink the TreeHouse Kool-Aid.  

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

I think this is the type of subject one should not generalize about. And things are never as black and white as some on here sometims try to make them.

When considering restoring something that was removed or altered in the past it's always the best path to try to figure out why it was removed or altered in the first place. It's never as intelligent a path to just assume that everyone back then who did those things was obtuse.  

[Powell Arms]

"I cannot think of a great course struggling financially"

Powell,

Read the history of Augusta National.  Or Lido, which was plowed under, or any number of good private clubs that are now city owned munis.  Several have struggled. Design and even greatness are no match for a stock market plunge.

...

Jeff, fair point.  I was thinking of present day.  But the past struggles of those courses are relevant.  It'd be speculate if failures or sales are a result of the course or macro economic events.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:

I think this is the type of subject one should not generalize about. And things are never as black and white as some on here sometims try to make them.

When considering restoring something that was removed or altered in the past it's always the best path to try to figure out why it was removed or altered in the first place. It's never as intelligent a path to just assume that everyone back then who did those things was obtuse.  

I couldn't agree more, TEPaul and well said.  Sometimes, I think that the groupthink here is to "restore original intent" at all costs, but I think if we look at some changes, they are absolutely better than the originals.....and some, not so much.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent Hutto,

You should know that you hit over a very busy road at NGLA, not once, but twice, and over two other a far less traveled roads later in the round.

Jeff Brauer,

I think compromise in artistic persuits produces or leads to mediocrity.

When you have a good number of special interest groups, each lobbying for their agenda, you know the golf course is going to suffer.

Design by committee, where each member has an equal vote is a formula for disaster, yet, that's the way most green committees and boards are governed.

TEPaul,

There's no need to get defensive just because GMCC has a history of being architectually schizophrenic and obtuse  

[Brent Hutto]

You should know that you hit over a very busy road at NGLA, not once, but twice, and over two other a far less traveled roads later in the round.

Then I must assume that the course is a great one despite having to hit across busy roads, not because of it. I can't really see how having to avoiding killing someone with your golf ball is ever a good thing but I certainly wouldn't rearrange Cypress Point just to eliminate the tee shot over the road. The National is no doubt in that same category.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent,

Through the use of berms and in the context of the shot that traverses the roads, they're not as invasive as you would imagine.

Take a look at Google Earth and it should provide some insight as to how they're integrated with the golf course

[TEPaul]

"On the whole, I'd say that clubs made more mistakes than improvements.

But, TEPaul will never admit to that."

Patrick:

Not at all. I'll certainly admit that clubs have probably made more mistakes than improvements in what they've done to many of these old Golden Age courses over the years.

I just think it's pointless to constantly call the people who did that back then obtuse and idiots and destroyers of architecture.

The reason I say that is because what you seem to fail to realize is that was a wholly different time back then where none of what we believe in today with these old courses existed.

Remember that story I've told on here about the 94 year old guy on our Master Plan committee and what he said about trees and how he planted them and how back in that day they had no idea about many of the things we know and think today?

What in the world would possibly be the point of calling him obtuse or an idiot for what he did and thought back in the 1940s and 1950s?

The point is everybody thought that way back then but they don't anymore. Times change and you need to understand better what that means when you just gratuitously go around calling everyone obtuse.

[Ken Moum]

Remember that story I've told on here about the 94 year old guy on our Master Plan committee and what he said about trees and how he planted them and how back in that day they had no idea about many of the things we know and think today?

What in the world would possibly be the point of calling him obtuse or an idiot for what he did and thought back in the 1940s and 1950s?

The point is everybody thought that way back then but they don't anymore. Times change and you need to understand better what that means when you just gratuitously go around calling everyone obtuse.

Do you think it's possible that this way of thinking was a product of what I would call the "lost years" of GCA?

Once I got interested in GCA, I read (in order, over a short period) Strawn, Doak, Shackelford, MacKenzie, Thomas, etc., etc.  In that effort, I quickly realized that those guys had made some important intellectual and artistic breakthroughs but that the courses I was playing didn't reflect any of that wisdom.

Is was as if the library at Alexandria had been destroyed, and we had to learn it all over again.

So, while the perpetrators may not have been obtuse, they certainly could have looked to the brightest minds of the Golden Age, instead of making many of the same mistakes that were made prior to the Golden Age.

It's even more intriguing to me that it's taken so long to "rediscover" the wisdom found in the books by Thomas, MacKenzie, Wethered and Simpson, Ross, et.al.

Ken

[Pete Lavallee]

Arrogant Bastard rules -- but only Kalen & I drink it.

Whoa Yankee fan, retract that stament now or I'm flying to Texas to open up a can of whoop ass!

[Kalen Braley]

Arrogant Bastard rules -- but only Kalen & I drink it.

Whoa Yankee fan, retract that stament now or I'm flying to Texas to open up a can of whoop ass!

Ok Pete,

Mike can retract it, but only if you ship us a mixed case of Stone goodies.  I can't get it in Utah due to thier stringent transport laws.  I'll take a Ruination, arrogant bastard, double bastard ale, Imperial stout, and don't forget an Old Guardian as well.  

[Kirk Gill]

Let us not forget that during the early 1920's (also known as the Golden Age of golf course architecture), there were anti-lynching parades being held in New York city in support of an anti-lynching bill being debated in Congress. Yes, they actually had to stage a parade, and yes, we apparently really needed an "anti-lynching bill."

Things that seem apparent to one generation are sometimes not visible at all to another. It seems so clear to us now that the GA archies knew it all, and the guys who came later were mere mercenaries. But humans change, and humans learn, and so who knows how the courses being built today or being changed today will be viewed by generations yet to come. We can't avoid being part of the age we are born into and we can't just suck our thumbs and worship the past and live in a museum culture. In the narrow world of golf and golf course architecture, both past and present hold both beauty and ugliness, and what we change and what we preserve is up to us.

[Kalen Braley]

I've been lurking on this thread and thinking about this one alot..and I think I finally came up with an analogy that hopefully fits.

I compare a fine golf course to a beautiful woman.  In the context of Golden Age courses as compared to most that are done now, I think there are some parallels.  

To start with, my knowledge of golden age courses is limited at best in this group so I will just call it like I see it. Golden Age archies for the most part seemed to work with what God gave them.  As even moving amounts of dirts that would seem small by todays standards, was likely a huge undertaking back then.  They used the little imperfections in the land to give quirk and character to the course.  The courses and greens had a component of mystery and intrigue to them where it took several playings to really sort of figure it out.  They also were sort of left alone in terms of thier natural setting.   Yes they they were touched up a bit to accentuate thier finer features and to let thier inner-natural beauty shine.

All of these things is what I usually find attractive in women as well.  Not overly done, left as god made them, using a bit of makeup or a nice outfit to accentuate thier nicer attributues, and letting thier charm, personality, and natural woman-ness win you over.

Compare this to the modern course, where once again, this is just my perception whether it be accurate or not.  Don't like where that hill is?  Get a dozer, push it out of the way.  Don't like those rumpled fairways? Get a dozer and off with thier heads.  Don't like that there are no water hazards?  Get a big shovel and dig a watering hole.  Have a pre-set idea of what you want?  Get a dozer and impose your idea of what you want on the land.  Don't like undulating greens where three jacking could happen at any point?  Just build em flat.  

Don't like those boobs cause they're too small?  Call the doctor and he'll lift or stuff em with silicone.
Think your butt is too flat?  Get on the phone, the doc and those buttock implants are only a call away.
Is that nose just a bit too big?  Tell doc you don't like the ski slope on the front of your face.
Just can't lose those pesky love handles?  They can be sucked away with one swipe of the plastic.
Don't have a personality?  Don't worry just act and dress like Paris Hilton and you're on your way.
Don't like that skin complexion?  Just bury it under a ton of foundation and makeup and remember to smile pretty when the boys are looking.
Can't make a meal to save your life?  Don't worry, just marry a rich guy and let the maid do it.

So I guess in my mind its about substance over sustenance.
Natural over manufactured.  Function over form.  Beauty over glitz.

My two cents..