[Mark_Rowlinson]

I've just been reading an excellent 1988 magazine article by Donald Steel. It was about why up to that time there have been so few outstanding postwar courses in Britain. I'd love to reproduce the whole thing - it is beautifully written and the arguments are cogently put. However, at the end of it, Donald quotes Peter Thomson about the curse of developers' demands and trends in contemporary golf course design. Here is some of what he quoted:

The trick for the developer, as devised through his architect, is to build something that is photogenically stunning, however impractical, extravagant, or absurd. Never mind the golfer, that most gullible of all citizens. 'Just get us into the colour magazines' seems to be the working theory....
....The effect of this kind of marketing is to lead the game of golf down the garden path. By pounding out the message endlessly that golf is a gambit of tortures.....commercialism is doing great harm to a noble sport.

What do you think?

[Adam Clayman]

Hindsight is 20/20.

He was right. Especially as it has affected the GCA. Thank goodness there were those who could see through the ruse and build spectacular stuff.

[David_Tepper]

Mark -

My guess is you could go back 40, 60, 80 or even 100 years ago and find similar articles - when the guttie replaced the featherie, when steel shafts replaced hickory, when pros could actually making a living playing tournament golf, etc.

Several years ago, Ken Burns did a wonderful documentary series on the history of baseball in the United States. What struck me as uncanny was the problems that faced baseball in the 1870's (owners vs. players over pay, franchise rights, etc.) were almost identical to the problems facing the game today.

As the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.   

DT

[Bill_McBride]

Looking back, I think the turning point for golf course design, at least in the U.S., was the start of housing development golf.  Is there any good course that was designed within the corridors left when the lots were laid out?

There are great courses with homes alongside, but those homes were generally built later.  I'm thinking here of Cypress Point and Pasatiempo as good examples.  But built as part of a purpose-built housing development with a golf course as the attraction?  I dunno. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

St George's Hill

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Bill, I can think of one exceptional course built as part of a housing development - St George's Hill - but I don't know if Colt was given first choice of land or whether he had to work within certain restraints. And, Lo and Behold, Mark thought of it at the same time - except he got in first as his answer was concise! Well done, Mark!

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ya gotta just bang on the buzzer, Mark!

Clearly it's an issue when houses take the best land or when it introduces a major constraint on the architecture, like a million borrow pits cum water hazards.

I say commercialism has given birth to crap architecture as well as the bastard child of great architecture, for isn't art / design to some degree a reaction against what came before?

Mark

PS A fairer target is the golf ball.

[RJ_Daley]

I think that Mucci's thread on CCFAD resorts influencing local and private clubs folds into this thread very nicely. 

Commercialism desired by certain developers, if defined as the project that looks to maximise the most profit out of marketting the glamor of a resort, and attendant home site sales of those style courses, are the natural goal for said commercial developement.

It seems to me, that the only approach to golf course development with design goals that try to stay more rooted in historical and traditional architecture of the great old venues, is the less commercial profit oriented efforts.  That seems to only be available to projects that are either driven by a community desire to create a public recreational venue (like Wild Horse).  The older courses that fit that model may be the depression era public works projects designed to put laborers to work while providing recreational opportunities, like Bethpage or the Milwaukee County WPA projects including Brown Deer).  These are primarily golf venues created for recreation of citizens in a community, not commercially driven with maximum profit motives. 

As I stated on Mucci's thread, the developers with a collaborative vision to do something with traditional golf ideals ahead of the overall commercialism motive are rare and we see them in very rare cases when they get the right architect to collaborate.

[Anthony Gray]

Looking back, I think the turning point for golf course design, at least in the U.S., was the start of housing development golf.  Is there any good course that was designed within the corridors left when the lots were laid out?

There are great courses with homes alongside, but those homes were generally built later.  I'm thinking here of Cypress Point and Pasatiempo as good examples.  But built as part of a purpose-built housing development with a golf course as the attraction?  I dunno. 

  Bill,

  I made this point about Pinehurst several months ago. Neighborhoods do detract from the golfing experience. I know I live in one.

  Anthony

[Bill_McBride]

St George's Hill

I haven't had the pleasure.  When was it built?  Colt?  How do the houses interface (great verb!) with the golf course?  How do the houses affect the distances from green to next tee?

[Peter Pallotta]

David T - yes and no, I think.

I enjoy Ken Burns' work and think highly of his talents, but the reason the problems that baseball faced in the 1870s appear to be the same as the ones it faces today is because Ken Burns structured and wrote his documentary so as to leave us with that impression.  I don't blame him, really - if you're creating 9 or 12 hours of television on the history of baseball or jazz or the Civil War, one way to go about organizing the vast amount of material is to create a catchy but simplistic theme (and then support it with other similarly catchy but simplisitc sub-themes).  Yes, in a superficial sense the problems then and now are similar (given, for example, the inherent tensions in management-labour relations), but do we really believe that the owner-player relationship in 1870 is similar to the owner-player relationship of 2009? I may be wrong, but I think players back then might've been fighting for subsistence wages and the status of human beings and not cattle, whereas today the players are fighting for tens of millions of dollars and for superstar vs simply star status.  In other words, I think Burns tends to put the demands of narrative structure and flow (as he sees them) above a desire for detail and nuance.  Again, I don't mean to criticize too harshly -- in gca terms, it's just that he's very big on obvious and accessible routings, perhaps at the the expense of subtlety and charm.

Mark - similarly, that paragraph rolls of the tongue alright, and I think I understand what Mr. Thomson means to say, but to be honest it seems to me that it could mean just about anything.  For example, he equates golf courses that are photogenically stunning and extravagent with gambits of torture, but does that really seem to be the case? The garish and overblown bits of expensive eye-candy that passed themselves off as golf courses for a couple of decades - were these all that hard to play? Or did they instead (more often than not) offer people who'd paid a lot of money to play them the satisfaction of scoring better than they usually did, what with all the elevated tees shaving yards of the posted length and containment mounding not punishing but helping the mishit shot? But then, on the other hand, would it have been better for golf (and more in keeping with the game's noble spirit) if those bits of overblown eye-candy were ALSO tortures of unrelenting shot-testing?

Sorry - don't mean to be too much of a pest, but lately I've been reading quite a lot of marketing and/or self-promotion passing itself off as fact and/or deeply held philosophical belief. 

Peter

[Lyne Morrison]

Mark - It does appear that the commercialisation of golf was a major contributor to a design shift which saw the move 'from a player adapting to the field -- to adapting the field to the player.' The game that had previously been played in an unencumbered environment and that had drawn upon maximum use of natural features had now shifted to a game played in a manufactured form of nature.

This approach to development is increasingly recognised as being at the core of many of the environmental and economic challenges facing the golf industry today. The good news is that a commitment to necessary sustainable development principles will allow golf courses and the environment to co-exist while serving communities well and reconnecting the game to its traditions.


Cheers -- Lyne

[Peter Pallotta]

"A move from a player adapting to the field to adapting the field to the player"

Lyne -

thanks much for that short and elegant phrase. I've never thought of it in that way, but it seems a very good description of the underlying change in ethos. 

Peter

[tlavin]

Heck, we'll be lucky if there's any "commercialism" in the next three years to do anything to this sport, other than to withdraw sponsorship money.  I know that we all like noble architecture, but we have to remember that the straw that stirs the drink is the people who risk the capital to build the land and develop it into courses and resorts for our patronage.

[Lyne Morrison]

Peter - I must acknowledge Richard Mandell. Those words - or something similar at least, stayed with me after scanning one of his articles. They do capture a fine point.

Cheers -- Lyne

[Melvyn Morrow]

Commercialism, the curse of the Golfing Classes.

Money has been allowed to drive the sport, it’s in every corner of the game including being responsible for slow play in tournaments. Yes even slow play because each Pro’s want to make each missed shot counts because each stroke could cost thousands of dollars in prize money.

Developments can and should in this day and age be more compatible but they generally are not because the short term money is in each home. In other words Golf is the after thought or the Cherry that sell the project. But it’s normally flawed due to location, development/course not correctly balanced and lack of budget for the golfing requirements. The golf attracts the buyers but the golfers get the raw deal in a limited and perhaps a high maintenance course. Whichever way you look guess what, the Golfer gets second best.

Yet there are ways to work both packages, but the cost of that is reduced profits for the developer and lets face it he/she is not here to do us a favour, its just our money they want and sod the golf.

Regrettable we all end up getting what we deserve because we for the most part keep our head buried in the sand. We let and encourage the Professionals to take millions out of the sport. I see very, very few given any thing back. They are like the Greek Gods untouchable and try and contact them, well I have more chance of walking on the Moon.

We, of course need our golfing heroes. As I have mentioned previously but I agree with Peter P that Lyn’s comment is really well put - "A move from a player adapting to the field to adapting the field to the player".  I of course will go one step further and call it the modern sickness overtaking our game.

Perhaps I would feel less anxious if our heroes were seen taking less, appearing more and showing some of that restraint and Etiquette when on the course or TV. 

Just in case they and some of you have forgotten, it’s all about the Game of Golf. Money was and is meant to be a side benefit. How we have debased ourselves and the game we say we love for just a hand full of bucks.

Melvyn

[Mike Sweeney]

Developments can and should in this day and age be more compatible but they generally are not because the short term money is in each home. In other words Golf is the after thought or the Cherry that sell the project. But it’s normally flawed due to location, development/course not correctly balanced and lack of budget for the golfing requirements. The golf attracts the buyers but the golfers get the raw deal in a limited and perhaps a high maintenance course. Whichever way you look guess what, the Golfer gets second best.

Melvyn and Mark,

Thanks for sending me back to a third tier muni in the form of Walnut Lane:



http://www.golfclubatlas.com/walnutlane1.html

Growing up in Philly there were very few public options beyond the munis. My Dad did not play golf, so other than playing the privates with some friends who had dads at the privates, I was playing the no grass tees at Cobbs and Walnut Lane.

I would have killed for Tattersall  in 1979:



Let's be realistic, the golf that we all celebrate here was discriminatory and was class based when most of these clubs were formed. Me personally, I want to be able to bring Pat Mucci, Shelly Solow and Barack Obama to my club without any BS. Okay Barack may need to work on his swing, but you get my drift.

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

Joe Bausch and I played Walnut Lane for the first time this past Saturday.

It really is phenomenal, especially the par 4s.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Did you use every club in the bag?

[Mark Bourgeois]

And Peter and Lyne, just try to get through the day without one good antimetabole.

[Kyle Harris]

Did you use every club in the bag?

I think so - except for my fairway woods. I carry a 2 iron and the ground was frozen.

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike,

Joe Bausch and I played Walnut Lane for the first time this past Saturday.

It really is phenomenal, especially the par 4s.

When you guys schedule a Philly outing at The Lane and get Tom Paul to PLAY golf (none of this walking the course stuff) then I will get Patrick to come down and play too. Maybe Melvin will leave the Ivory Tower in Scotland! 

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

Joe Bausch and I played Walnut Lane for the first time this past Saturday.

It really is phenomenal, especially the par 4s.

When you guys schedule a Philly outing at The Lane and get Tom Paul to PLAY golf (none of this walking the course stuff) then I will get Patrick to come down and play too. Maybe Melvin will leave the Ivory Tower in Scotland! 

We've discussed some alternate format tournaments like a 4 club even at Walnut Lane, Paxon Hollow and McCall (PECO).

I really want to try and set something up for the locals this upcoming season.

Would you be interested?

[Mike Sweeney]

I will only travel for The Lane. 

PS. I think The Lane smokes that Painswick place of Richard Goodale.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Walnut Lane was my "home" course during my law school days. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()