[Mac Plumart]

Looking at old threads on the site, I stumbled across this one.  In my opinion, it is totally awesome and right in-line with my interests.


October 17, 1999 Tony Dowling asks the following question: “What are the best sources for me to keep learning about golf course design?”


Ran responds, “In thinking about your question, I wondered is there a single characteristic that the people with the encyclopeadic "knowledge" seem to have in common? The answer is yes: They are well travelled historians.”


Tom Paul answers, “I recommend that you read everything you can about the thoughts and philosophies of these dozen or so classic designers…After all this, the real test is what you like after playing a course or courses over and over, regardless of what you've learned”


Tom Doak says, “Tony,I really believe I had the best education you can get for golf architecture, and the most important part was my year in the British Isles.I thought I knew a lot about design, but living and playing golf in the UK and Ireland for a year taught me about the spirit of the game.”


And finally Lloyd Bickerton states. “Go live at St. Andrews for one year. All you need to know is there!”


I suppose it is nice to know I am on the right track.  But a year at St. Andrews/British Isles for a year straight?  Hmmm...how do I pull that off?    I am sure I'll figure something out.

Great thread...frankly, one of the many gems in the "archives" on this site.

[Anthony Gray]

  Just visit as many courses that you can by different architects. The question I have is there anything new out there? Is the new stuff a slant on what has come before it?

  Anthony

[JC Jones]

  Just visit as many courses that you can by different architects. The question I have is there anything new out there? Is the new stuff a slant on what has come before it?

  Anthony

there is, of course, nothing new under the sun.

[TEPaul]

Mac:

Perhaps this may not be very understandable but I might say in the app. 2000+ year history of what might be labeled Western culture it might have undergone perhaps 3-4 significantly important renaissances of one kind or another but with the history of golf course architecture I think it is now in perhaps the second significantly important renaissance in its app 160 year history.

I have no idea how others feel about things like that but for me it is very important to know and consider to really understand golf course architecture or to form a well informed opinion about it all, at least for me.

[John Moore II]

  Just visit as many courses that you can by different architects. The question I have is there anything new out there? Is the new stuff a slant on what has come before it?

  Anthony

I think every so often something new comes up. But these days, I would say its fairly rare.

And to answer some of the original questions. Certainly living in England/Scotland for a year would be of great benefit, but then again, so is living in the North Carolina Sandhills or the Monterey Peninsula. But those are very hard things to do unless you are straight out of college, with no family and just a general urge to travel and be something of a gypsy.

[Mac Plumart]

John...being a gypsy sounds like a lot of fun!!   

But here is the kicker on the point..."is there anything new out there?"

It is ALL new to me.  I just played NGLA for the first time a few weeks ago and that course has been there since 1907/1911.  I just played some courses in the Pinehurst area.  I haven't played The Old Course.  I haven't played Pebble.  So, it is all new to me.

I've read a great deal, here is a link to the books I've read thus far...http://www.mrpgolf.com/books.html

Here is a list of the courses I've played...http://www.mrpgolf.com/MY_RANKINGS.html

So, I am making solid progress...but I've got a lot more still to do.  It will take a lifetime, but that is ok.

I've heard people (Tom Doak specifically) say, that I'd get more out of studying a few courses in depth rather than going here and there and playing this course and that.  But if all I do is play a few courses and study them, then I have no context to contrast and compare against.  And his resume of courses played and knowledge base seems second to none, so it would appear that playing the key courses (and some clunkers) are important to a well rounded education on the topic.

So, my idea (which is further bolstered by this old thread) is to:

#1--read and study (Tom Paul's point mentioned above) and ask knowledgeable people their opinions on things and get clarification on other things.

#2--travel and play significant and important courses (Ran's idea above).  But I have no plan to play the Top 100 or anything like that.  But there are a few courses that I feel must be played in order to be knowledgable and experienced enough regarding golf course architecture to have enough context to accurately judge things.

#3--the big hole in my education is St. Andrews and the British Isles.  But I've already got my trip in place for early next year to start that portion of the education.

One of the courses that I've already played that I plan to play again and again and again and study continuously is: Pinehurst #2.  Hopefully, the Old Course will be added to that list and a few others.  And once I've at least seen the courses I feel are vital to have experienced, then I will settle in on a handful of courses to simply play as part of a continuing educational process. 

I've already begun to understand what I like and what I feel regarding certain courses and architectual features on a golf course (another Tom Paul point above), but seeing and experiencing more probably will further refine those feelings and ideas.

Anyway, that is the plan.  And thus far, I am really enjoying myself...so why not keep pressing forward.

[Tom_Doak]

John K.:

I'll defend my original answer.

I have been fortunate to hang around many great courses over the years, and I don't mean to discount the greatness of Pinehurst No. 2 or Pebble Beach and Cypress Point.  But, my recommendation to live in the British Isles [and Ireland] for a year was just as much about the PEOPLE as about the golf courses.  

In my opinion, people in Scotland and England and Ireland have a healthier attitude about the balance of golf and life, than Americans do.  In some ways, golf is profoundly more important to them; yet they waste much less time and money on the game than we do.  They know what's essential and what's not; they are more open to considering a 5700-yard course good golf.

With all that going for them, it seems strange that more great golf course architects have not come from there over the past 50 years ... but their economy [and the scarcity of developable land] have given them fewer opportunities than we Americans have had to develop our skills.  Or maybe you just have to have seen the other side before you can appreciate what they have.  Anyway, I don't know Mac's background or life or anything else, but my recommendation stands.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mac - it's good to see the deepening interest, and I hope you enjoy the journey (I have a feeling you will).  I've been thinking about this lately: I've concluded that I'm probably not all that interested in architecture as architecture.  I like reading about the history/evolution; I'm interested in the ideas/philosophies behind it; I enjoy following the process and the craft of those who are designing today, and are at the tops of their games; and I feel good and peaceful on a course that is natural-looking and that follows the land and that is not crowded with signifiers.  But I guess I've not played nearly enough golf yet in my life to have grown tired of golf just the way it is, the game itself, the challenge of it -- and so I see courses as primarily fields for that experience. And in that context, I find myself thinking that I have played very few poor courses, many good ones, a few very good ones, and one great one. Was playing the great course a wonderful experience? Yes. (And if I could without too much effort play most of my golf on such courses I'd feel lucky and grateful.)  But it wasn't an exponentially more wonderful experience than most of the rest.  

Peter  

[Jon Wiggett]

John K.:

I'll defend my original answer.

I have been fortunate to hang around many great courses over the years, and I don't mean to discount the greatness of Pinehurst No. 2 or Pebble Beach and Cypress Point.  But, my recommendation to live in the British Isles [and Ireland] for a year was just as much about the PEOPLE as about the golf courses.  

In my opinion, people in Scotland and England and Ireland have a healthier attitude about the balance of golf and life, than Americans do.  In some ways, golf is profoundly more important to them; yet they waste much less time and money on the game than we do.  They know what's essential and what's not; they are more open to considering a 5700-yard course good golf.

With all that going for them, it seems strange that more great golf course architects have not come from there over the past 50 years ... but their economy [and the scarcity of developable land] have given them fewer opportunities than we Americans have had to develop our skills.  Or maybe you just have to have seen the other side before you can appreciate what they have.  Anyway, I don't know Mac's background or life or anything else, but my recommendation stands.

I think the biggest reasons for the lack in numbers of star GCAs out of GB&I is partly to do with your one point of people not getting so hung up on what a course requires. There is far more acceptance that a new course might be a bare bones set up to begin with. Also, a majority of golfers finding the idea of golf courses with housing developments somewhat repugnant and so they find less acceptance here. Due to this many new courses are quite low budget affairs and don't attract the media attention as much.

Jon

[John Moore II]

John K.:

I'll defend my original answer.

I have been fortunate to hang around many great courses over the years, and I don't mean to discount the greatness of Pinehurst No. 2 or Pebble Beach and Cypress Point.  But, my recommendation to live in the British Isles [and Ireland] for a year was just as much about the PEOPLE as about the golf courses.  

In my opinion, people in Scotland and England and Ireland have a healthier attitude about the balance of golf and life, than Americans do.  In some ways, golf is profoundly more important to them; yet they waste much less time and money on the game than we do.  They know what's essential and what's not; they are more open to considering a 5700-yard course good golf.

With all that going for them, it seems strange that more great golf course architects have not come from there over the past 50 years ... but their economy [and the scarcity of developable land] have given them fewer opportunities than we Americans have had to develop our skills.  Or maybe you just have to have seen the other side before you can appreciate what they have.  Anyway, I don't know Mac's background or life or anything else, but my recommendation stands.

Tom-I wasn't trying to argue the point that living in the British Isles would be a great place to live and learn golf. My reason for mentioning the other two is the volume of golf that can be seen in both areas by a large number of different designers. I can think of courses designed by at least 15 different designers that I played in my time in Pinehurst, and all those within roughly an hour of that area. That is a pretty big variety of golf courses and designers to study. Certainly not all those courses are great, but the bad and average courses must be seen, I think, to really appreciate the excellent courses. As far as people, I think depending on where you go, the people in Southern Pines are very nice, balanced folks.

[Wade Schueneman]

I too am always searching to expand my golfing experiences.  However, due to pragmatic concerns, I will probably never play a whole slew of educational courses, even if they are accessible.  For example, I have played a number of courses in Scotland, but I do not think that I will ever play Royal Troon.  This is a shame, because I will never play the postage stamp.  However, I have gone to great lengths to study that hole by studying photographs and narratives.  My question is, how well can you actually understand and appreciate a hole (or a course) without ever playing it?  I concede that the feel and aura of certain courses can never be adequately understood without actually going there (ex. RCD, TOC, Lahinch, the Machrie), but I have played many courses that I feel could be well understood without ever visiting (ex. Dornoch or North Berwick).  What say you?

[Scott Warren]

I have played many courses that I feel could be well understood without ever visiting (ex. Dornoch or North Berwick).  What say you?

Those are probably the two courses I don't feel I could describe the experience of to someone who has not played them. If two courses had to be played to be understood, I'd say Dornoch and North Berwick may well be the two among those I know of.

[Tom_Doak]

I think the biggest reasons for the lack in numbers of star GCAs out of GB&I is partly to do with your one point of people not getting so hung up on what a course requires. There is far more acceptance that a new course might be a bare bones set up to begin with.

Jon

Jon:

That's true.  It's also true that most U.K. golfers ascribe the quality of their courses more to the land than to the designer, so that the architect is less valued generally.  Most of the new U.K. courses which have met with acclaim were not only designed by Americans, but paid for by Americans.

[Gary Slatter]

I think the biggest reasons for the lack in numbers of star GCAs out of GB&I is partly to do with your one point of people not getting so hung up on what a course requires. There is far more acceptance that a new course might be a bare bones set up to begin with.

Jon

Jon:

That's true.  It's also true that most U.K. golfers ascribe the quality of their courses more to the land than to the designer, so that the architect is less valued generally.  Most of the new U.K. courses which have met with acclaim were not only designed by Americans, but paid for by Americans.

and designed and paid for by Americans hoping to attract American golfers?   

[Tim Nugent]

I think the biggest reasons for the lack in numbers of star GCAs out of GB&I is partly to do with your one point of people not getting so hung up on what a course requires. There is far more acceptance that a new course might be a bare bones set up to begin with.

Jon

Jon:

That's true.  It's also true that most U.K. golfers ascribe the quality of their courses more to the land than to the designer, so that the architect is less valued generally.  Most of the new U.K. courses which have met with acclaim were not only designed by Americans, but paid for by Americans.

and designed and paid for by Americans hoping to attract American golfers?   

And therefore MARKETED by Americans.  Unfortunately, with so many venues out there, even great new ones will languish outside a core group of proponents until enough critical mass can be generated.  A study of successful American Architects (sans Golf Pro Architects - who generated their notarity on the course) will find a correlation between much advertised resorts and housing projects.  I call this the Marquee effect - pioneered in the post war era by RTJ.

[Don_Mahaffey]

So, if you have a young son who is about to enter his college years who has expressed an interest in going in to the golf biz, where would you advise him to soend some time to really learn about the game. I always thought he should spend some time on maintenance crews in places like Scotland or Ireland, but he has expressed more of an interest in working in the front of the house. Thus, i would think a caddy experience would teach him much about the game and the people who play it.

Is St. Andrews the place to try, or somewhere a bit more remote with more locals and less tourists?

How hard is it for an American kid to get a bag at places like Carnoustie, Western Gails, or up North?

 

[Mac Plumart]

Don...

I know your post isn't aimed at getting a response from me...but I can't help myself as I think you are so on the money.

If I am recalling correctly, both Tom Doak and Brad Klein caddied at St. Andrews.  I know for sure Brad did.  And there can be no doubt about it that caddying in general has to be a great way to get to know that game and all the different people who play.  Let alone caddying at St. Andrews for an exteneded period.  I hope they both can comment on that.

Also, I believe Ben Hogan, Byron Nelson, Gene Sarazen (and I am sure a few other big time players) caddied in their youth.  Seems to have worked out for them!!

Great point and questions Don!

[Gary Slatter]

So, if you have a young son who is about to enter his college years who has expressed an interest in going in to the golf biz, where would you advise him to soend some time to really learn about the game. I always thought he should spend some time on maintenance crews in places like Scotland or Ireland, but he has expressed more of an interest in working in the front of the house. Thus, i would think a caddy experience would teach him much about the game and the people who play it.

Is St. Andrews the place to try, or somewhere a bit more remote with more locals and less tourists?

How hard is it for an American kid to get a bag at places like Carnoustie, Western Gails, or up North?

 

send him to University in St Andrews where he can caddie and play great golf cheaply! 

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

I don't know how easy it is to turn up in St. Andrews and be allowed to caddie anymore, although, there was a DG participant from Australia doing it a couple of years ago ... hopefully if you make this a separate post he will chime in.

Places like Dornoch and Western Gailes don't have much of a caddie program, as far as I know ... in Scotland they are only thriving where there are plenty of tourists to over-tip.  Again, it is worth posting this to ask our UK correspondents where a caddie job might be feasible.

[Ken Moum]

But a year at St. Andrews/British Isles for a year straight?  Hmmm...how do I pull that off?

Hey, the good news is that i am 1/26th of the way there....

The bad news is that so far I am not adding to that on an annual basis.

K

[Jon Wiggett]

I think the biggest reasons for the lack in numbers of star GCAs out of GB&I is partly to do with your one point of people not getting so hung up on what a course requires. There is far more acceptance that a new course might be a bare bones set up to begin with.

Jon

Jon:

That's true.  It's also true that most U.K. golfers ascribe the quality of their courses more to the land than to the designer, so that the architect is less valued generally.  Most of the new U.K. courses which have met with acclaim were not only designed by Americans, but paid for by Americans.

Tom,

I think you have to ask where and by who these new courses were met with acclaim. 90% of golfers in the Lothian area are not really aware of your new course there and this can be said of Dundonald, Castle Stuart, Machriharnish Dunes and a few others. The Castle course at St. Andrews is well known but mainly due to its location and a steady stream low key promotion from the Links Trust. The soon to be 'Greatest Course in the World' is also well known though I suspect that the style of promotion will be the surest way of putting the average Brit off going to play it.

I would point out that Kingsbarnes now enjoys a good reputation amongst british golfers though this took some years to establish. But then again a reputation that is earned over a number of years is probably going to stand the test of time better than one that is buillt on hype before the first shots are struck.

Jon

[John Moore II]

So, if you have a young son who is about to enter his college years who has expressed an interest in going in to the golf biz, where would you advise him to soend some time to really learn about the game. I always thought he should spend some time on maintenance crews in places like Scotland or Ireland, but he has expressed more of an interest in working in the front of the house. Thus, i would think a caddy experience would teach him much about the game and the people who play it.

Is St. Andrews the place to try, or somewhere a bit more remote with more locals and less tourists?

How hard is it for an American kid to get a bag at places like Carnoustie, Western Gails, or up North?

If he wants to get into the front end/golf professional part of the business, I would say he needs to start off in the bag rooms, caddy houses and places like that and work his way up. But if he wants to make a career out of it, he needs to start and work in the place he intends to stay for a while. Because the golf business is different from place to place. Its not the same in North Carolina as it is in Florida or California. Expectations are different and the like. But he really needs to make sure he can deal with the people and a certain type of club. The people are far different at Private clubs, Public courses and Resort courses. Totally different worlds, all three. Just something to think about.

[TEPaul]

"Also, I believe Ben Hogan, Byron Nelson, Gene Sarazen (and I am sure a few other big time players) caddied in their youth.  Seems to have worked out for them!!"

Mac:

It certainly is incredibly ironic and coincidenctal when we think of their later stature in golf but I think Hogan and Nelson actually came out of the very same caddy yard. They were just about the same age too. If you haven't read the book The Match you should. Nelson quit competitive golf quite young; not as young as Jones but still very young, and from The Match it seems when Nelson was playing competitive golf Hogan basically felt like he just couldn't beat him.

[John Moore II]

"Also, I believe Ben Hogan, Byron Nelson, Gene Sarazen (and I am sure a few other big time players) caddied in their youth.  Seems to have worked out for them!!"

Mac:

It certainly is incredibly ironic and coincidenctal when we think of their later stature in golf but I think Hogan and Nelson actually came out of the very same caddy yard. They were just about the same age too. If you haven't read the book The Match you should. Nelson quit competitive golf quite young; not as young as Jones but still very young, and from The Match it seems when Nelson was playing competitive golf Hogan basically felt like he just couldn't beat him.

Though I think that early in his career, Hogan fought a hook much of the time and hadn't really found the game and swing he was known for later in his career. Plus, many of Nelson's victories came during the war when Hogan was part of the Armed Forces. So, we never really got to see them go head to head while both were at their peak levels. I have never read The Match, but I know the concept of it. What year was that?

[Sean_A]

I think the biggest reasons for the lack in numbers of star GCAs out of GB&I is partly to do with your one point of people not getting so hung up on what a course requires. There is far more acceptance that a new course might be a bare bones set up to begin with.

Jon

Jon:

That's true.  It's also true that most U.K. golfers ascribe the quality of their courses more to the land than to the designer, so that the architect is less valued generally.  Most of the new U.K. courses which have met with acclaim were not only designed by Americans, but paid for by Americans.

More than generally speaking most British golfers don't have a clue about design attributions - furthermore they don't care.  To be honest, so many of the well known championship courses have been mucked with so much over the years that its probably better to ignore design attribution unless one is sure.  Indeed, it doesn't much matter about designers anyway unless you are one to seek courses out of specific designers.  If anything, most Brits who care about this stuff get their info and desire from top 100 lists.  These lists probably have 200 contenders of which 175 have likely always been the contenders even before lists were made.  Mind you, with books like Darwin's, Penninck's, Dickinson's, Allen's, Steel's and World Atlas of Golf, etc, "lists" have been around much longer in the UK and reputations die very hard.  

We must all remember that the reason the UK is so strong with its courses top, 2nd and 3rd tiers is partly because the very concept of architecture was born in the UK and the first wave of modern practitioners were British.  It just so happens this was a very good wave and left one hell of a lot of fantastic debris laying about when the wave receeded.  A great many of these courses are still gems that were "forgotten" these past 40 years in our mad rush to create modern championship golf.  We must also remember that to this day there are direct connections to this first wave through guys like Hawtree and Steel.  Personally, I don't believe the quality of architecture dropped, only the opportunities dried up and the second wave was left to redo a hole here and there and that they did usually on very low budgets.  Importantly, this second wave of say PM Ross, CK Cotton and Pennink were no spry chickens when they started.  They knew exactly what the masters had created.  Even so, these guys were in the main rebuilders.  There are a few standout designs in the GB&I from this lot, but even these were usually on "old" ground. These guys essentially produced what Colt did without what would be expensive flair which was largely unaffordable.  In other words, we need to take a good look at the briefs of the 50s, 60s & 70s compared to the teens, 10s and 20s.  It is easy to blame archies, but the truth of the matter is much more complicated.  Sure, we can say that these guys weren't go getters like RTJ, but I don't think that was the style of these chaps 50 or 60 years ago.  Some of these guys were good golfers enjoying the amateur circuit and doing other golf related work.  It was a different time.

The newly heralded courses of GB&I aren't really any different from what the second wave created.  What is different is that folks are now looking back and admiring many of these forgotten courses which these new courses are patterned after.  This is a different time.  The architecture isn't any better, its just more accepted at the moment and likely more consistent which makes sense because they are new.  That said, it is interesting to me how we can have the juxtaposition of Loch Lomond (a course I have always suspected as being way over-rated), Dundonald & Skibo (courses I suspect are under-rated probably because they are more consistent examples of grade architecture), Castle Stuart & St Andrews Castle and Doonbeg & Ballybunion New (I wonder if Doonbeg will drop down the rankings like Bally New did?).  These are interesting compare and contrast courses as a handful picked out of the crowd.   

Ciao      

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()