Has golf's broadened popularty been at the expense of the architecture ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Reading the "Wall Street Journal" article today, I was struck by the rapid capitulation on the part of the club when it came to dumbing down, disfiguring or destroying the architecture, vis a vis an ad hoc referendum.

Is this "architecture's" fate ?

As the spectrum of golfers expanded and broadened, as more people were brought into the game with NO prior connection, has challenging architecture fallen out of favor ?

Had Gil Hanse converted this California course to a Pine Valley, would the outcry have been even more shrill ?

HERE'S THE QUESTION:

If Gil converted this course to a perfect replica of Pine Valley,
Would the distinct architectural life of that golf course be altered/disfigured/destroyed by an ad hoc referendum ?

Has the broadened spectrum of golfers resulted in more whiners who want to see the challenge "softened" to suit their own games ?

[Matt Vandelac]

Yes: I do believe the average golfer these days would cry for an ad hoc fix to compliment their game (or lack there of).  As the average player visits our firm and fast conditions it's amazing how so many leave frustrated and without discovering how to be creative enough to get it around.  The last thing they look at to blame - after the super, the layout, etc. is their inability to overcome conditions other than flat and over-watered.  To me, in my area, I think that the short sighted developers choosing way below 'architects' have created a pile of new golfers without a clue of what a good golf hole looks and feels like.

[Mike_Clayton]

Patrick.

The best short hole in Australia is the 15th at Kingston Heath.

MacKenzie built it with Mick Morcom during his three months here.
The hole is 155 yards with a long,narow green flanked by deep bunkers.
Anything long falls down a steep bank and missing the green aywhere is a probable bogey for good players.
For poor players it is possible to take multiple bunker shots and I have seen many players take four or five in the bunkers and just pick up.

Unless you can play a servicable bunker shot the hole is not member friendly but the members love the hole and ensure any small alterations to the bunkers maintain the level of difficulty.

I am certain if we built the exact same hole - especially on an established course- there would be an extreme reaction all in the negative because ' this is a members course  and this hole is not playable for the average player.'

[Mark_F]

As the spectrum of golfers expanded and broadened, as more people were brought into the game with NO prior connection, has challenging architecture fallen out of favor?

Patrick,

Isn't this a bit of the cart before the course?

Like all creative endeavours, new people arrive to practice with their own conceptions of what constitutes good art. New courses built to satisfy demand surely came first, and were what they were because of the ideas behind them, not because of what the new spectrum of golfers wanted.

Surely much of that architecture was as challenging, just in a different matter.  Obvious replaced subtle, execution replaced thought, fairness replaced quirk.

Now we are back to another, old-style era with courses like Sand Hills, Barnbougle, Pacific Dunes, Ballyneal.  The difference is that they are far away from the cities because all of the land there is gone, and consequently they have less influence.

[Jim Nugent]

Reading the "Wall Street Journal" article today, I was struck by the rapid capitulation on the part of the club when it came to dumbing down, disfiguring or destroying the architecture, vis a vis an ad hoc referendum.

Is this "architecture's" fate ?

As the spectrum of golfers expanded and broadened, as more people were brought into the game with NO prior connection, has challenging architecture fallen out of favor ?

Had Gil Hanse converted this California course to a Pine Valley, would the outcry have been even more shrill ?

HERE'S THE QUESTION:

If Gil converted this course to a perfect replica of Pine Valley,
Would the distinct architectural life of that golf course be altered/disfigured/destroyed by an ad hoc referendum ?

Has the broadened spectrum of golfers resulted in more whiners who want to see the challenge "softened" to suit their own games ?

There may be more whiners.  But architecture, it seems to me, is its strongest in many decades. 

Look at all the fantastic courses built the past 20 to 25 years.  This matches up with a big growth spurt in the game. 

Could Chambers Bay have been designed and built in the 1960's?  !970's?  Even the 1980's?  I think it took golf's growth and architectural development/evolution to make that course.  It looks like anything but boring. 

Or take Pacific Dunes.  If golf had not become much more popular, would Keiser still have built those great courses in Bandon?

Gil took an established course, with regular players, who had come to expect a style of play on it.  Not surprising that some or many of them didn't like it, when their course suddenly got too hard for them. 



 

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I think the criticism of Gil's course came up for two reasons:

1.  Weak management who want to please everybody, and
2.  He did this work on an EXISTING golf course full of members who might not appreciate it.

You can do cutting-edge work on new courses -- there's been a lot of it in the past ten years -- and if it finds an audience, it's widely praised.  BUT when you redesign a course you are at the mercy of the regular customers.  This is exactly the same reaction to the Nicklaus redo in south Florida which was being discussed at this time last year.

Now, management could just ignore them and hope to replace them with players more receptive to the design.  But that might be hard on a course in a relatively isolated location.

Oh, and to answer your question:  Believe it or not, not everyone WANTS to play Pine Valley.

[Steve Lang]

   One thing is for sure in my mind.. where you start to play golf and learn its fundamentals, and are mentored in the game goes a long ways to how you can appreciate the good, bad, and ugly gca in the world..

O yeh, and the game is so simple with the ball just sitting there, ready to be hit!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I know that everyone wants to play Pine Valley.

What I was alluding to was the reception Gil Hanse would have gotten from the members had he replicated Pine Valley in CA.

Would it have been critical or praiseworthy ?

Wasn't their a famous architect who declared that a controversial feature was inherently a good feature ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I'm not saying Gil's features weren't good features, just that controversial features are not always accepted, particularly on a remodeled course.

Even Dr. MacKenzie had some of his work modified soon after it was built -- from Sitwell Park to Augusta National.

[Adam Clayman]

Pat, I'd say yes to your question on fundamental grounds.

When any product goes for mass appeal there is always some loss in quality.

[Peter Nomm]

Anything that increases in popularity (a.k.a. changes) both suffers and succeeds.  There are a lot of musicians that get a contract and ultimately change the style they play to please the masses.  While more people may be exposed to his style, not everyone will like it.  There will always be pure musicians to appreciate the real masters.

Same with architects - I am sure there are course designers more interested with securing their contracts ($$$$) than defining their own style.  But there will always be those of us and others that appreciate the pure works and will continue to support their work.

Absolutely architecture has suffered - there are many courses designed with the primary purpose of ringing the register.  They serve their purpose and those golfers that don't think much about it are happy to help with the ringing. 

But along those same lines, is the group of golfers that appreciate fine architecture growing? 

I would imagine that with the successes (acclaim) of Sand Hills, Ballyneal, etc. that it must be.  The rise of mass-production facilities has also born a rebirth pf pure architecture.  So maybe it was a good thing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

It has to be painful to see features you've created, softened, modified or eliminated.

I know that it would be painful to me.

Many green chairmen that I've spoken to remained upset for years when a feature they uncovered or restored was re-altered, and they weren't the original creator.

While your presence and prominence in the world of golf course architecture remains high, as time goes by and you become less active, less accessable to consult on courses you've designed, outsiders will be called in to pass upon the suggestions of the owners/members.   They'll also be asked to make their own suggestions.

In addition, the internal erosion of the architectural integrity of your designs will begin to come under attack from within, subjecting alterations to the whims of the members and the latest architectural fads.

In my limited observations, these amendments to the golf course can be almost universally categorized as "dumbing down" the golf course, not improving it or adding more to the challenge.

CBM, SR, CB, Ross, AWT, Dr AM and others had their works altered/disfigured/destroyed so it's nothing new.

My question to them would be, if you had it to do over, what would you do to try to insure that your creations would be preserved rather than dumbed down, altered, disfigured or destroyed ?

I would ask you the same question.

And lastly, who's work has been altered the least over the years ?

Perhaps another trend will take hold, that of preserving rather than altering the Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Friar's Heads and Sebonacks of the world.

[David_Tepper]

Let's remember that, in this specific example, Soule Park is a public, municipal golf course. My guess is the majority of golfers who play there on any given day do not regularly break 90 (and are delighted any time they do!).

Had a GCA renovated this course to replicate Pine Valley, he would have done a massive disservice to the client (the public entity that owns Soule Park) and its customers. 

While the notion that a well-designed golf course can appeal to golfers across the entire range of abilities, ages and handicaps is an ideal to which a GCA can aspire, the reality is that such a golf course is a rarity.

Some people are capable of driving a Ferrari. Most of us are far better off driving a Honda Accord. 

[Eric_Terhorst]

David,

Can't muni players at least be expected to appreciate a Lexus when they get one?   

See David Stamm's pictures on the other thread covering this topic.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,33266.0.html

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's remember that, in this specific example, Soule Park is a public, municipal golf course. My guess is the majority of golfers who play there on any given day do not regularly break 90 (and are delighted any time they do!).

How did you come into possession of the scoring at Soule Park ?
Do you have the handicap sheets ?

Is not breaking 90 a product of their ability ? Or, is it playing from the wrong tees ?  Or, a combination of the two ?[/color]

Had a GCA renovated this course to replicate Pine Valley, he would have done a massive disservice to the client (the public entity that owns Soule Park) and its customers.

That's one of the all time dumbest remarks I've ever read on this site.

I wish someone would do the munis in my area that kind of massive disservice.

Are you aware of the average age of the membership at PV ?
How does it compare to the average age of the golfers at Soule Park ?[/color] 

While the notion that a well-designed golf course can appeal to golfers across the entire range of abilities, ages and handicaps is an ideal to which a GCA can aspire, the reality is that such a golf course is a rarity.

Then how do you explain that the average handicap at most clubs is in the 18-20 range, and that the membership tends to be much older, yet, the golf course is enjoyed by every level of golfer, from the scratch player to the 36 handicap.

You can use Pine Valley, Hollywood, Essex County, Canoe Brook, Baltusrol, GCGC, Ridgewood, Montclair, GCGC and NGLA as typical examples.[/color]

Some people are capable of driving a Ferrari. Most of us are far better off driving a Honda Accord. 

I'd say that most, if not all of us are capable of driving a Ferrari, it's no different than driving a Ford or a Chevy, operationally, it just costs more and is more of a high performance automobile.  But, with a general speed limit of between 25 and 55, its performance capabilities are useless.[/color]

[David_Tepper]

Pat -

1) I made no claim to knowing the range of handicaps at Soule Park. As I CLEARLY stated, I made a guess of what the handicaps at Soule Park might be.  That guess is based on my playing of 30 or more rounds of golf a year at various public/muni golf courses in the SF Bay Area and witnessing the abilities of golfers at those courses (including my own!).

2) In mentioning the variety of golfers who access muni/public golf courses, I did not mention beginners or the casual golfers who play 4 or 5 times a year.  I feel a municipally owned golf course should be accessible and accommodating to those golfers.  The vast majority of members at the fine private clubs you mention have likely been "serious" golfers at one time or another.  Even though many of the members are now older and are sporting double-digit handicaps, they have the experience and ability to negotiate their way around a challenging course without getting into too much trouble.  Beginning golfers do not. Would you like to get stuck behind a foursome of beginners (regardless of what tees they are playing from) the next time you play Pine Valley or AGNC?

3) A Ferrari has a clutch, accelerator, steering wheel & brake pedals that are FAR more sensitive than a Honda Accord with an automatic transmission.  If you were teaching someone to drive, would it be easier to teach them to drive in a Ferrari or a Honda?     

DT

[David_Tepper]

Eric T. -

Have nothing against rolling in a Lexus from time to time! Take me for a ride in yours sometime!

I just am not sure a muni golf course should be catering to that market.  If a privately owned/operated daily fee course wants to cater to the better player (Bandon, Tobacco Road, etc., etc.), that is fine.  I think a muni course has some obligation to accommodate the beginning/casual player.  If that compromises the challenge of a muni course for the very small minority of highly skilled golfers, so be it.  Which is easy for me to say, as I don't fall into that category.  

DT   

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Tepper,

When you're stuck behind four beginners, the venue is irrelevant.

Pine Valley has VERY generous fairways, that's one of the reasons that older members and higher handicap golfers can negotiate their way around the golf course in a timely fashion.

Good caddies are also a great help.

I think you'll find the the latest Ferrari models have sequential and semi-automatic transmissions.   The clutch may be akin to a vestigial organ.

[David_Tepper]

Pat -

"Good caddies are also a help."

Of all the rounds of golf that are played daily in the U.S., what percentage do you think are played with a caddy?

Of all the rounds of golf that are played daily on municipal golf courses in the U.S., what percentage do you think are played by golfers who even have and maintain a formal handicap/GHIN?

DT 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

"Good caddies are also a help."

Of all the rounds of golf that are played daily in the U.S., what percentage do you think are played with a caddy?

At Pine Valley, since we're referencing Pine Valley, ALL of them.

My reference to caddies had more to do with their ability to find a ball hit into the woods.  It's been my limited observation that EVERY ball I've seen that's been hit into the woods, comes to rest with a good lie and an escape route back to the fairway.

Since Gil wouldn't be replicating the pine forests, only the playing surfaces, you wouldn't need a caddy unless you wanted sage advice.[/color]

Of all the rounds of golf that are played daily on municipal golf courses in the U.S., what percentage do you think are played by golfers who even have and maintain a formal handicap/GHIN?

In what context would you judge my answer ?

If the answer is a very low percentage, wouldn't that confirm the need for experienced caddies ?

With green fees of $ 42 on weekends, and a cart with a GPS for $ 13 more, Soule Park converted to Pine Valley West would be overbooked the day it opened.  Those that didn't like the "massive disservice" that Gil had done in recreating Pine Valley would be replaced by legions of golfers, locally, regionally, nationally and internationally.

"Build it and they will come"  [/color]

[tlavin]

I can't remember if Mencken or Twain said this but, you'll never go poor overestimating the idiocy of the American people.  Private country clubs are a prime example of people who find themselves in a position to make decisions that they are wholly unqualified to make.  Reminds me of George W. Bush, but we won't have him to beat up much longer.  Back to the point, there's no question that the broadening of the popularity of this game has allowed a proliferation of dumbing down of golf architecture, especially in the private club sector.  In the public sector, I think an architect and an owner have to be very careful before they invest in courses that are expensive and architecturally significant, because there may not be big enough market for it.  There's only so much room for the Bandon Dunes of the world.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Tepper,

Just because golfers don't have a handicap, doesn't mean that they don't keep score.

The golfer universe wants to score as well as they can, irrespective of their having or not having a handicap.

The one contradiction to this is the failure of golfers to move up to the tees most commensurate with their ability and game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Terry Lavin,

Private clubs have an over-abundance of bright, industrious, pragmatic members, members that you would seek out for professional, business, legal or medical advice.

They just have a blind spot when it comes to their club.

Kinda like parents and their children.

[Kirk Gill]

Patrick, if I accept your notion that golf courses have historically been disfigured or changed to "dumb down" the architecture, then is it really the popularity of the game that is the root cause of any more recent, similar changes? Or is it just a function of demographics: if there are more players, more courses, then the same percentage of dissatisfied "This is unfair!" golfers are going to demand about the same percentage of changes. The overall number of such changes may be higher, but the percentage of courses changed remains about the same.

Am I making sense? What's your take?

[Jim Nugent]

Many of you keep saying architecture has gotten dumbed down as golf has grown more popular.  But the best, most innovative, strategic and fun courses of the past 70 years have been built since 1975 or 1980.  Exactly during one of golf's biggest growth spurts. 

[Tags:]

Tags: