[Patrick_Mucci]

Years ago, especially in the 60's, 70's and even into the 80's, I would have felt that they created negative trends in GCA for a variety of reasons.

Fountains, waterfalls, overly user friendly, benign bunkers, etc., etc..

But, recently, when you consider Kohler, Bandon and other "destinations" where golf is readily available, it seems as if the trend has reversed itself.

When one considers the influence on local courses, derived from golfers who play resort courses and return to their home course, has the architecture found at the Bandon's and Kohler's of the world, coupled with the architecture found at private destination courses had a positive influence on local courses ?  And, if so, how so ?

What local courses have been influenced by Resort Courses ?

Lastly, have these destination golf courses had NO influence on local courses save for the golfing experience enjoyed by the members ?

Is their architectural function, event specific ?

[John Moore II]

But is this a product of the resorts themselves, or is it a product of a general trend in GCA? That would be my question. I would say the resorts of the 60's 70's and 80's had courses that were a product of the times: generic routings, oval bunkers, etc. Today, after Sand Hills, et al., the resorts are simply trending towards the style that is popular today.

I think with resorts being totally dependent on outside play, without a 'name' or other brand recognition, the courses have to follow the trends of the times to get publication recognition and people in the doors. This is all just a simple man's opinion however.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

How did Sand Hills represent a trend of the times in 1990 ?

[John Moore II]

JKM,

How did Sand Hills represent a trend of the times in 1990 ?

Depends how you want to look at it. It bucked the trend of the 'vanilla' courses that had been seen before and in many ways might have started the current trend of 'natural' courses we are currently seeing built. My reference to Sand Hills was saying it was the trendsetter for the new construction we are seeing today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

I believe that's what I stated in my opening post.

[John Moore II]

JKM,

I believe that's what I stated in my opening post.

Then I am not sure what your question is overall. My position on this situation is that the resorts don't set or determine trends at all. The trends are set and put in place by the private or semi-private member clubs, IMO. The (newly built) resorts generally follow the trends of the current time. The new resorts are unable to survive without outside play since they generally don't have members (at least not many). So they just fall in line with the 'hot' trends of golf.

Think of this: Would Bandon Dunes or Pacific Dunes have been built the way they were, i.e naturalist styling, had it not been for Sand Hills making such a huge impact on 'rating lists' and public opinion? (now this is exclusive of the architects. Certainly if Kidd or Doak were chosen they would have been much the same as now. What I am asking is would they have been chosen if the current trend were not leaning towards minimal) And I think that Dye made a shift from say TPC Sawgrass to Whistling Straits (at least from how they appear in pictures, I've personally played neither).

So, I think the real answer to the question is that the public resorts have no real effects on trends in architecture at all. The trends, negative or positive, are set by the private members clubs.

As far as any trends in local courses, I think that new courses tend to follow the trends as well. I noticed a course in Idaho Falls that was built to a minimalist type while the other courses in the area are 'standard' type designs. Its a bit the same in Pinehurst, Forest Creek goes a bit more to the natural side that other Fazio creations I have seen, because that is the popular style right now. Yes, new, local clubs follow the trends.

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat:

I would have to take issue with your identifying Bandon as a resort - to me, a resort would need to have more than golf - Kohler is clearly a resort as are others such as Nemacolin, etc.  Kohler is the exception as far as resorts go with its very challenging and innovative courses.  My experience has been that the resorts care more about appearance than quality.  The reason is obvious - more resort guests are above 20 handicaps than below and really challenging courses are not well received.  Everyone I know who has been to Kiawah either doesn't play the Ocean Course or plays it just once - they find it too difficult and just don't find it to be fun. 

I just wonder what percentage of the golfing public has ever heard of Bandon, and of those, how many have been there.  I think the percentage would be very small so a resort developer would have no reason to use that style in developing a course. 

[Kalen Braley]

Jerry,

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but if Bandon isn't a resort then what is it?

[Matt Vandelac]

I think the modern resort courses have had both positive and negative influence on architecture.  On the positive side they have developed successful models for maintenance, new grasses, and allowed some very good archies the opportunity to work with sites unavailable since the 30's.  Fortunately many projects have gone to the likes of Doak, Hanse, Liddy, C&C, and Dye, who emplore great routings with variety, fun, and walking in mind.  After a many decade dominance in the course rankings by the old private clubs, the new sites and technology has allowed the great architects the opportunity to do the work that really has not been done for about 80 years (IMHO).  Guys like Klein and many of the USGA regional turf reps have also come a long way towards telling it like it is and the playing characteristics of many old private clubs in my area have done a 180 from just 10 years ago; they have brought back the firm and fast, open feel they were intended to have.
On the negative, I think the implied luxury of bent fairways has dug in deeper and the shortsighted owners making carts necessary (especially at CCFAD'S) or mandatory have already effected core golfers habits for the worse.  

[Jerry Kluger]

Kalen:
I would not call Bandon a golf resort just as I would not call Sand Hills or Ballyneal a country club.  Let me suggest calling Bandon a golf destination while BN and SH are golf clubs. 

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:
I would not call Bandon a golf resort just as I would not call Sand Hills or Ballyneal a country club.  Let me suggest calling Bandon a golf destination while BN and SH are golf clubs. 

Jerry,

Fair enough, and I think i know what you mean by golf destination as opposed to golf resort.  To me it just seems to qualify in that it has the golf, dining, drinking, lodging, practice range, etc. It only comes up short in not having something for everyone else, although there is a sweet mini-mart in town and a beach for the kiddies to play. 

[RJ_Daley]

I think Matt is on to the right explanation.  I'd say along those lines that it is a convergence of well studied and well travelled architects collaborating with discriminating and purpose driven owner/developers that have created these site specific golf architecture design efforts.  A few golf writers (particularly Whitten and Cornish in their first edition book) lit the fire of imagination on encouraging developers and certain architects to reflect back onto the historical nature of the grand old courses of the game and 'where' they could be emulated in similar site terrain in modern courses (whether those new intended development sites were private clubs or CCFADs)

Anotherwords, a guy like Kohler first hired Dye to do BWR and that design wasn't really anything of a breakout design for a parkland course.  It was very good design in its specific layout of the golf holes, but still it fit the parkland site and was high quality compatible with the overall American Club.   Then Dye went to Kiawah and designed what he knew from experience and travel to the great old links - seaside courses to be a specific venue for an historic Ryder Cup, and what would be a seaside resort CCFAD course to incorporate the need for competition and proper aethetics for that geographic area.  He fit that to the site specific nature.  Yet in other site specific areas, he still designed parkland appropriate venues.  He didn't try to fit a round peg into square holes.... yet.  But, when Dye got the marching orders from Kohler back at Whistling Straits, they did sort of put a round peg (desire to have a somewhat Irish dunes-links on a property that wasn't that at all)  Thus some see it as a great construction triumph, and some see it as unnatural and strained.  

After Kiawah, a keen golf owner-developer like Youngscapp comes along (with some inspriation of all the possibilities that the sand hills held for site specific emmumlation of a dunes-links like design in the heart of the country as pondered by Whitten's love of his native sand hills, far from seaside shores)  Youngscapp wanted Dye first, then Dye recommended Coore and Crenshaw.  And, due to their experience and knowledge of links golf, and desire for minimalist disturbance approach to that great land, and the keen insight of a owner developer they came up with a design that started a new round of owner-developer and architect awareness of the unique and appealing nature of this sort of approach to golf designs, and that it would work as destination venues, if site specific.

Then more keen owner-developers with a greater sense of historical golf said they wanted to do more of that and we get the guys like Kaiser, Bakst, etc.   They spawned a new collaboartive vision of harkening back to the golf roots.   But, they are still site restricted.  They still can't put parkland designs in sand hill or seaside courses without drawing criticsim and ridicule.  Yet, there are those owner developers that have little sense of place and appropriateness, and hire a name pro-designer for their marketting appeal, who also have little sense of site appropriateness.  And there is where we see the ugly side of trend following gimicks, waterfalls and glitz and artificial features designed for sales, not golf appropriate site sensitive design.

So Pat, I'm trying to say that we have winners and losers in the realm of owner-developer collaborations with keen architects who know how to do site appropriate golf designs.  Some have taste and restraint, some go for the marketting sizzle of glitz and artificiality.  It is a mixed bag.  But at least there has developed a trend or rennaisance philosophy by many architects and developers to go the site sensitive, traditional and historic revival.

[Garland Bayley]

I think architects create trends, not Resort Courses. I the Resort hires RTJ II, they get one product. If they hire Gil Hanse, they get a different product. If an architect  or group of architects are recognized for producing the better product, other architects will start to mimic them.

[John Moore II]

I think architects create trends, not Resort Courses. I the Resort hires RTJ II, they get one product. If they hire Gil Hanse, they get a different product. If an architect  or group of architects are recognized for producing the better product, other architects will start to mimic them.

And this goes with what I was saying. The resorts do not create trends at all. They are generally forced to do what is necessary to get them recognition by the magazines and other media in order to get customers in the doors. If the popular trend was 8,500 yard courses with no bunkers, wild greens, and knee deep grass lining the fairways, I would think the resorts would start building away in just that model. Resorts follow the trend set by private clubs and 'popular' architects, they don't set trends.

[RJ_Daley]

I guess after rereading Pat's post, I still didn't answer it.  

I don't think many existing courses can afford to emmulate resort courses, when they look at the resorts that have so much "overdesign" features.  those courses that pick highly ornate or artificial feature ridden resort courses to emmulate, are probably entering an overreach in terms of costs that would ultimately be their unduing, like in these new economically desparate times.   If the emmulations are marketting driven, and the local course identifies their customer as those golfers looking for expensive features found at ornate CCFADs, yet the local market is not on the same affluent strata as the traditional customers at the CCFADs, then they won't succeed in the end, IMHO.  

If a local course operator looks at new designs that are driven towards site and environment friendly compatiblility, and the local course has the potential in terms of natural terrain and resources to conserve, then that is fine.  But, I'd think that is the exception, not the rule when locals start to look at resorts and CCFADs.  Keeping up with the overreached, is not good business, IMO.  

[JMEvensky]

I think there are 2 parallel trends-1 good and 1 not so good.

Those "golf specific" resorts(Bandon) which cater to the hard core golfer,have,IMO,provided an opportunity to showcase those things most important to golf.Things like fast/firm playing conditions and walking(maybe with a competent caddie) remind people that golf isn't about the cleanest carts or fluffiest towels.It's about the bare-bones experience of PLAYING with friends.The rest of the stuff just tends to cause problems.

The other resorts(spouse/children activities with golf as an option),tend to emphasize all the irrelevant stuff.

So,the hard core golfer comes back to his club and says"we need to get back to the basics" while the resort golfer comes back and says"we need to get misters installed on the backs of our carts like X".

Unfortunately,the hard core guys are frequently in the minority.

[Matt Vandelac]

RJ - I agree with all you said, wish I could phrase it as eloquently!  To Patrick's point, Resort courses have influenced golf architecture...mostly for the better, IMO.  I hope some of the courses built in the last 50 years can be renovated or started over soon. 
JM- I'm with you on all the fluff not having much to do with golf us core golfers have to pay for, but when committees, GM's and owners get in in their head they need to keep up with down the street or they might squeeze in a few more bucks they have a hard time seeing the forest through the trees.  Members passionate about their clubs need to get up and get involved with a master plan.  Many now look at that huge clubhouse with a restaurant on their golf course, pool/tennis, waterfall, etc., saying I told you so.     

[David Botimer]

In the context of a Bandon Dunes, I believe you have to identify two trends:

1.  The architectural return to the roots of golf, ala links golf of the British Isles.  Call it minimalism or whatever you want; what Keiser did was simply gamble, to the tune of about $25 mil initially that a true links experience would succeed in America, regardless of location.  I believe his desire to do so was started WAY before Sand Hills came along, and thus Sand Hills simply reaffirmed his idea.   By the time BDGR opened there were several examples of resorts with linksy experiences such as Kohler and Kiawah, but none that were as close to a pure links experience and none that could have been identified as a destination (4 hours from any major metro area IS a destination!!)

2.  The identification of what Mike Keiser calls the "retail" golfer.  Having worked at Sawgrass and Sea Island, and having at least a perception of the Pebble Beach customer base, never before was a resort built to attract such a "retail" customer.

To compare Sawgrass and Bandon, a significant amount of Sawgrass business is corporate outings, often made up of borderline non-golfers, ALL excited about the chance to hit the island green..... Woo hoo!!  Average handicap of Sawgrass golfer, north of 20.  And they play mostly 1 round and leave.

Bandon comparatively does little corporate business, attracts a golfer with average handicap 10-12, and they play 4-10 rounds per trip playing in groups of 4-20 GOLF BUDDIES (not co-worker).  That retail golfer is also a LOT more savvy about golf, golf history, golf architecture, and has precious little in common with the country club golfer who cares about the fluffy towels and fast carts at the club.  And oh, they like the authentic walk with caddie experience  .

In both regards, I believe Bandon is a pioneer in the USA.

[John Moore II]

In the context of a Bandon Dunes, I believe you have to identify two trends:

1.  The architectural return to the roots of golf, ala links golf of the British Isles.  Call it minimalism or whatever you want; what Keiser did was simply gamble, to the tune of about $25 mil initially that a true links experience would succeed in America, regardless of location.  I believe his desire to do so was started WAY before Sand Hills came along, and thus Sand Hills simply reaffirmed his idea.   By the time BDGR opened there were several examples of resorts with linksy experiences such as Kohler and Kiawah, but none that were as close to a pure links experience and none that could have been identified as a destination (4 hours from any major metro area IS a destination!!)

2.  The identification of what Mike Keiser calls the "retail" golfer.  Having worked at Sawgrass and Sea Island, and having at least a perception of the Pebble Beach customer base, never before was a resort built to attract such a "retail" customer.

To compare Sawgrass and Bandon, a significant amount of Sawgrass business is corporate outings, often made up of borderline non-golfers, ALL excited about the chance to hit the island green..... Woo hoo!!  Average handicap of Sawgrass golfer, north of 20.  And they play mostly 1 round and leave.

Bandon comparatively does little corporate business, attracts a golfer with average handicap 10-12, and they play 4-10 rounds per trip playing in groups of 4-20 GOLF BUDDIES (not co-worker).  That retail golfer is also a LOT more savvy about golf, golf history, golf architecture, and has precious little in common with the country club golfer who cares about the fluffy towels and fast carts at the club.  And oh, they like the authentic walk with caddie experience  .

In both regards, I believe Bandon is a pioneer in the USA.

I think you hit it very close. The destination resorts set a trend as far as the business model goes, but I am still not sure about whether or not they set a true trend from the perspective of course design. Sawgrass was built somewhat as a resort, but was the design truly groundbreaking when compared to other courses that had been built in the last 15 years (well, beyond the stadium mounding and island green)? I am not totally sure it was a groundbreaking design. And as I asked before, would Keiser have taken that huge risk on Bandon with a somewhat unknown architect if it wasn't for the success of Sand Hills being a course in that same general design model?

I will ask this: How many resort courses have truly set the trends as far as course design and how many private clubs have set the trend? That is a key question in this discussion.

[Scott Weersing]

"What local courses have been influenced by Resort Courses ?"

Resort courses are often trying to be the next Pebble Beach. For example, Trump National Los Angeles, tries to be an over the top resort course that you play just once. On the other hand, Trump has more influence than any resort course. Another resort course would be Pelican Hills.

I can't think of very many new resort courses that members of this group would go play. The only new resort courses that have opened that I can reall now are the Ginn resort courses, and the RTJ golf trail courses.

I would even argue that resort courses do not influence local courses because local courses are designed for the local golfers at an affordable price, while resort courses are designed to attract people to travel to them and pay a high price. I think comparing local courses and resort courses is like comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they are both fruit, they are both enjoyable, yet they are different.

[Tom_Doak]

RJ:  You might want to check your history above.  I'm pretty sure that Pete Dye did not recommend Coore & Crenshaw (or anyone else) to do the job at Sand Hills; he just declined to do it himself, and did so without knowing exactly what he was declining.

Patrick:  I would not want to claim that the Bandon courses (including my own) have created any trends in golf architecture, but if they have, it's because they get so much attention in the golf magazines.  In the old days, it was top-10 private clubs and tournament sites that got the most attention and therefore became the model for others.  Nowadays, the top public-access courses (Bandon, Kohler, etc.) get FAR MORE publicity than any private course, because they are open to retail READERS of those publications.  Just in the past year there have been two articles in the New York Times and one in the Wall Street Journal about Bandon, in additional to all of the golf magazine and golf travel magazine pieces.

[Carl Rogers]

Tom, Patrick et al,

I think there is a more general set of sensibilities involved which I probably can not explain well ..... it goes like this... We all have the problem (across many walks of life) that can be stated in this way:

'We do not know what we do not know'

Thus 99.8% of the population does not have a conscious or unconscious  understanding of the range of possibilities.  Examples of golf courses frequently mentioned on this site expand those possibilities to a wider range of the public.  They get some people thinking.

On the negative side of the ledger is the pre-occupation with gimmicks such as cute cart girls, waterfalls and island greens.  You can also add the intent to copy the 'look' from one course to another though the climate, terrain and soils make that impossible.

Another big difficulty is putting a price tag on 'imagination and inspiration' (design fees).

So my answer to the question of this thread is a 'yes'.

[John Moore II]

RJ:  You might want to check your history above.  I'm pretty sure that Pete Dye did not recommend Coore & Crenshaw (or anyone else) to do the job at Sand Hills; he just declined to do it himself, and did so without knowing exactly what he was declining.

Patrick:  I would not want to claim that the Bandon courses (including my own) have created any trends in golf architecture, but if they have, it's because they get so much attention in the golf magazines.  In the old days, it was top-10 private clubs and tournament sites that got the most attention and therefore became the model for others.  Nowadays, the top public-access courses (Bandon, Kohler, etc.) get FAR MORE publicity than any private course, because they are open to retail READERS of those publications.  Just in the past year there have been two articles in the New York Times and one in the Wall Street Journal about Bandon, in additional to all of the golf magazine and golf travel magazine pieces.

While I agree that the public courses get far more attention and press than the private ones, I think you hit it right, Tom, when you hinted that the Bandon courses may not have created any trends.  I think the trend was created by your previous work and other architects in the same general mold, natural, minimal, etc.

For you Tom (if you are at liberty to answer, or if you want to answer): were it not for Sand Hills getting such high praises by using all the naturalism in the golf course and other courses also designed by yourself, Crenshaw, and others, would Bandon have been built the same way? Would those courses have been built in the minimal, natural way, given the financial risk involved, had Sand Hills not shown the interest in such courses? Or would Pacific Dunes wound up looking more like Torrey Pines than what is seen now because there was less risk involved? Just a thought.

[J_ Crisham]

Patrick,   I like to consider the Ocean Course at Kiawah as one of the finer resort courses in the USA. It is scenic ,well designed,and quite a challenge for golfers of all levels. I like to think it is probably the best resort course on the Eastern seacoast. One could argue that it is very penal if the wind is up but I feel that if players are on the proper tees it is quite playable. I think this is a course that other archies would study and incorporate some of it's finer points in future designs.     Jack

[Tom_Doak]

John K Moore:

Certainly, the success of Sand Hills had a very positive effect on Mike Keiser's plans to build Bandon Dunes.  Not many remember that Mike was one of the pioneer investors in Sand Hills, and it was in some respects a market study for his own project.

However, I think it's wrong to say that the Sand Hills course itself had a major impact on Mr. Keiser's thoughts about what he wanted.  He ALREADY wanted the kind of natural course he had seen on many older courses around the world ... he did not want Torrey Pines.  Sand Hills just proved that it was commercially viable to build the kind of course he wanted to.

Your use of the word "risk" at the end of your post is something I see often, and always find strange.  The big RISK in golf development is simply getting something into the ground at today's high prices ... and the key reason for the success of Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes is that the golf courses were built dirt cheap, in perfect sandy soils, to mitigate the risk. 

I'm not sure how much more it would have cost to build Torrey Pines or some other course in that style, but using others' cost models would have added to the risk more than a familiar style subtracted from the risk, IMHO.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()