Why is Golf Course Architecture so subject to fads ?

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff B:

Well said -- one of the most insightful retorts I have read on GCA. There are high holy priests on this site who see change -- even the hint of it -- as being an abandonment to some base line of what is thought of as being ideal. The game of golf -- like design itself -- has evolved and will continue to do so. Those facilities capable in understanding how to balance the demands between the past and future will be the ones with the greatest staying power. Oakmont is a great case study in that regard from a positive point of view in my mind.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Well let me tell you something mister....oh wait, we agree. Never mind!

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff. I was only following your lead on the tone. Any enlightenment I may or may not have came from divorcing my prefrences as it relates to my game. I have very little respect for the member/golfer who wants change because he can't score well due to the way things are.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

A.  Because it is easier to follow than to lead.

Agreed

B.  Don't forget that "restoration" may be a fad, too.

By definition, won't "restoration" exist in perpetuity as opposed to being a fad ?

C.  I think that holes out of context with the original design are just as often about construction as they are about design.  For example, Riviera has been trying hard for some time to restore features of their golf course, but the guys who are carrying out the work never built any features like Billy Bell's bunkers ... they are trying but they just don't have the knack for it, so those features stick out, even though they're in the same place as the originals.


That's an interesting observation.

So, even if a club wanted to embark upon a restoration, had the documents and photos to support the restoration, the selection of the overseeing architect and contractor would seem to be the critical elements to insure the success of the project.

Does that alter the selection process in terms of the architect and the GC ?

Does an architect and the GC come as a package deal, with the selection of the GC left to the GCA ?

Or, does a modified bidding process to determine the GC become preferable ?

In other words, the lowest bidder doesn't necessarily get the job, but, the lowest "qualified" bidder, with the GCA and the club making the decision ?

If you were a member of a club designed by Billy Bell, would you entertain selecting and GCA and a GC that had never worked on a Billy Bell design, no matter how good their resumes read ?

[Mark_Fine]

There are very few things that don't evolve and/or go through change (good and bad).  Furthermore, there will always be some level of interest in restoration (as there is in just about every kind of architecture/design). 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff. I was only following your lead on the tone. Any enlightenment I may or may not have came from divorcing my prefrences as it relates to my game. I have very little respect for the member/golfer who wants change because he can't score well due to the way things are.   

I agree on letting members design to their own game although it dates back to at least CBM at Chicago Golf.  But, designing to a general consensus - like easier bunkers because its an aging membership is a value judgement to be made by club and gca that might be just as valid an opinion as "restoring the course to XXX's intent."  What if that intent doesn't work anymore, either because of the aging membership or the fact that its now a public course?

[Mike Nuzzo]

So, even if a club wanted to embark upon a restoration, had the documents and photos to support the restoration, the selection of the overseeing architect and contractor would seem to be the critical elements to insure the success of the project.

Does an architect and the GC come as a package deal, with the selection of the GC left to the GCA ?

If you were a member of a club designed by Billy Bell, would you entertain selecting and GCA and a GC that had never worked on a Billy Bell design, no matter how good their resumes read ?

It doesn't take too much R&D to develop different bunker techniques if one is willing to experiment and think through details.  Someone experienced with building and maintaining lots of different bunkers has a significant advantage.

The architect, contractor & superintendent would need to be talented and show a willingness to get everything right.

[Forrest Richardson]

Pat's question is very interesting.

My perspective is that golf design is one of the least "fad-prone" of all the arts. Consider fashion design, industrial design, interiors, fabrics, theater, etc — there is little, if any, tradition that cannot easily be replaced in just a few months in these design endeavors. While in golf we always seem interested in the originals, even if the designs eventually depart...BUT...it takes a long time for anything to happen in golf.

Tom D. says: "Don't forget that "restoration" may be a fad, too..."  I think this is a tremendous observation. Like the retro design of a re-done restaurant trying to appear as an authentic diner, some 'restoration' work is faux at best. But, that does not make it bad.

I still maintain that golf architecture is a very stale art form. If I were to land on one criticism for what we do, it is simply that new ideas and looks are a long while in coming, and they happen rarely. There are very few new greens, holes or concepts when you consider the volume of designs.