Richard Mandell's Feature Interview is posted

[Ran Morrissett]

Starting with this one, the next 5-6 Feature Interviews on this site are going to be with golf course architects.

In this March 2002 one, Richard Mandell, who is based locally in Pinehurst, talks about what it's like to be a golf course architect if you haven't won a bunch of majors  

He brings the perspective of both being a professional in the field as well as dealing with real life issues such as no money and indifferent property.

While I haven't played any of his courses, we have played golf together and he has a great eye for everything that is going on in a course, both above and below the ground.

Richard will be fielding questions as his travel schedule permits.

Cheers,

[Mike_Cirba]

Thanks Ran...I've played The Easton Club and it's an interesting course.  

Richard;

You state that your design philosophy is such that you only "challenge" a player with a hazard, as opposed to "punishing" them with a hazard.  Could you explain the distinction, possibly using an example?  Thanks!

p.s.   Since I'm the one who started the thread of "Which Golf course architect will save the game?", I'm glad you had a memorable reaction.  It was meant to be provocative, but also meant to indicate that I don't believe we should all assume the architects should be fresh out of original design ideas.  I think you'd agree that the design envelope needs to be stretched in many ways, and that it's inherently limiting to assume otherwise.  

[Richard_Goodale]

Richard

Following on to Mike's idea of "stretching the design envelope" how does this square with the quote you provided, namely:

"Charles Blair MacDonald once said, 'Never seek an original idea in building a golf course'".

I'd side with Mike, rather than CB, in this instance.

[Richard Mandell]

Dear Mike and Rich:

Let me respond to both your inquiries together.

Mike:

The distinction between challenging a golfer with a hazard instead of punishing with a hazard is, generally speaking, that the hazard in question will reward a golfer if negotiated properly versus a hazard that is along the side of a fairway that clearly will only punish an inadvertent shot.  In other words, a hazard that is, lets say, along the side of the fairway 310 yards off the tee, yet 100 yards short of the green (par four), will only punish a bad shot and never be a challenge to the golfer.  That is the most concise, simple, and direct example of your inquiry.

You can maybe sum up my quote as someone who would rather minimize my use of hazards yet make them count, also those hazards may break up the direct line of play instead of appear along the side of the golf hole.  It can also be simply interpreted as promoting strategic design (of which I simply define as "options" versus penal design (one option).

In Rich's question, he refers to CB MacDonald's quote, which always seems to be very controversial.  Why I bring it up, I don't know.  Nonetheless, his quote really means the opposite of what it appears to be inferring.  He was the first Architect to openly embrace the concept of replication.  What he is saying is that one should embrace successful ideas, expand upon them, and out of those concepts, truly new ideas become original.  That is what National Golf Links is all about.  He also is saying that if one puts oneself in a vacuum and tries to "become original" it may lead to failure.  Of course, he didn't directly tell me all this...

This quote actually backs up Mike's idea that the envelope of design needs to constantly be pushed.

[Richard_Goodale]

Richard

Thanks for bringing up the CB quote and explaining it.  I fully agree with your interpretation.  If one sees "replicas" and "concepts" as a starting point rather than an end, GCA is moving forward.  I personally feel that the envelope can be pushed much. much further than it has been to date, particularly in light of the very recent advances in technology, fitness and technique.

[Dunlop_White]

Richard,

I enjoyed reading your feature interview very much.

Your distinction between "challanging" golfers, instead of "penalizing" them, by your use of bunkers will certainly win you support from many who frequent this site.

You described a situation where a bunker could be placed in the direct line of play to challange the golfer. Classic architects evidently utilized bunkers in a similar manner as you well know. Here, the golfer is challanged with strategic options as to whether to go to the right, left, short or carry such a bunker. When a bunker is used in this fashion, I am assuming that the hole will manifest a great deal of lateral movement? I am also assuming that the fairways would have to be wide to accomodate the centralized bunker and the inherent lateral choices it presents?

Do you ever "push the envelope" and incorporate ultra-wide fairways without the centralized bunker to strategically challange the golfer in less subtle ways - such as giving him the options of playing extreme right or extreme left to create preferred angles of approach to varying pin locations?

I simply do not see many situations as described above in today's architecture, and unfortunately many classic designs have evolved in such a way that they these situations seldom exist today.

I truly enjoyed our phone conversation last month. You are welcome to visit us in the mountains anytime this summer!

Best wishes!

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich,

Ross built numerous wonderful courses in the Pinehurst/Southern Pines area.

How would you characterize the quality of the golf course designs built here since his death over 50 years ago?

Cheers,

[Richard_Goodale]

Hard to say, Ran.  I've only played two, Cheviot Hills and Talamore, both in 1996 with an old Scottish business partner, who was and is a well kent golfer frae Fife.  He, like me, had played #2 in the mid-80's when it was crap, and so we did the Rees's pieces/llama caddy trip in stead of going back to DJR's masterpiece.  It was OK.  Cheviot Hills was probably better.

Cheers

Rich

[Richard Mandell]

Dunlop-

I often use the shaping of contours to gain an advantage as well as create options without sand that will provide the golfer with a better angle into the green or at a specific pin.  
I like to design a landing area by creating specific targets that, if reached, will give a great advantage to the golfer on the next shot.  For instance, a straight par four without any sand bunkers or water in the fairway may be designed as follows:  a small area can be elevated above the rest of the fairway in such a way that the golfer may have a much shorter shot to the green, an unobstructed shot (no hazards guarding that pathway), or be of the same elevation as the green (providing better views of the putting surface).  These are all advantages the golfer can achieve if he successfully hits his tee shot into this area.  

If the golfer fails to reach this area, he may have a much longer approach, over hazards, and possibly uphill, all created just by contouring the land and not utilizing sand nor water.The golfer looking for birdie will seek out this area, whereas the golfer hoping to get his tee shot just airborne and make bogey has a wide open fairway to aim at and is not concerned with this option.

Ran:

In answer to your question, I think that the quality of golf course development in the Sandhills has partially suffered in the past 50 years since Ross's death if you are addressing classic golf architecture, all the characteristics of golden age courses, Ross's designs and other items the GCAers discuss here.  The reasons are a few:

1)  The golden age of design gave way to the next dark age of design in the middle of the 20th century and time has shown that the golf courses built in this period are not as strategically nor aestheticaly sound as the courses of Ross's age.  This is true all over as well as the sandhills.  Utilizing the land as it lays was replaced by the ability to move dirt, resulting in lost character and manufactured strategy.

2)  The primary reason design has suffered in the Sandhills since Ross is primarily that the majority of golf courses built since then in the Sandhills have all had a residential component to them.  As a result, these golf courses will never stackup to Ross's classics at Pinehurst, Pine Needles, Mid-Pines and Southern Pines CC.  

BUT,  

From an industry standpoint and from a general golfing standpoint (not golf architecture aficionados), the quality of golf has not suffered at all. The Sandhills as a resort destination has grown consistently since Ross's passing.  There is great aesthetic variety here that attracts golfers from all over.  Whereas the greats of Ross are always highpoints, courses such as the Pit, Tobacco Road, National, Plantation, and even Pinehurst #7 & #8 all attract their own niche.  What this illustrates more than anything else is that the average golfer does not embrace the virtues of truly great golf design as some of us may.  They are caught up in the bells and whistles and eye candy of modern design.

How's that for being careful, the CCAers are right upstairs, shh!

[Dan Kelly]

Mr. Mandell --

You write: "... the average golfer does not embrace the virtues of truly great golf design as some of us may. They are caught up in the bells and whistles and eye candy of modern design."

I've posed this question on a couple of previous threads, and I don't recall getting any good answers. Maybe you have some:

What EVIDENCE do we have that this widely held view of "the average golfer" is accurate?

What "truly great golf design" has "the average golfer" ever shunned?

Yes, I'll grant you: We know that "average golfers" will, in fact, flock to courses with lots of "bells and whistles and eye candy" -- because flock they do, they have, and they always will.

But why does anyone think the average golfer PREFERS bells and whistles and eye candy to truly great golf design?

How would we ever know what "the average golfer" thinks of "truly great golf design"? Most of the "truly great golf design," at least in this country, does not ALLOW the average golfer on the grounds, except to make a delivery to the kitchen.

My own view is: Average golfers will flock to the best, most interesting golf courses that will allow them to flock there. Many of those courses, these days -- the so-called Country Clubs for a Day -- heavily feature bells and whistles and eye candy ... but, and please don't forget this, they also feature, in many cases, more interestingly designed (and better maintained) golf holes than most of the run-of-the-mill municipal and other public-access courses where "the average golfer" is welcome.

Look at the lines at Bethpage Black, and then tell me "the average golfer" doesn't have a clue.

I absolutely hated "Field of Dreams" -- but loved one line in it: "If you build it, they will come."

Build a Country Club for a Day, and they will come.

Build a course featuring Truly Great Golf Design, and they will come -- if you allow them to.

We just don't have enough owners and architects gutsy enough to have faith in the tastes of "the average golfer." And until we do: We'll keep on building courses heavy on bells and whistles and eye candy -- and we'll keep on blaming the customer. It's very discouraging.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

[Craig Van Egmond]

Dan,
        They did build a course with Truly Great Design and its called Pacific Dunes and they are coming!

        I can only speak of the people I play with mostly single digit handicappers who could care less who built the course as long as its well maintained, the greens putt true and they can score well.

        Here is the Seattle area your choices are low end muni's with 65,000 rounds of play and long rounds or CCFAD with great conditons and shorter but still long rounds. There really seems to very little middle ground.  

         I for one am not a bells and whistles kind of guy, but apparently there must be profits in that or it wouldn't be around. All golf courses are built with a target audience and apparently the audience you speak of is not one of them.

         I do think there will be/is a shake out in the CCFAD world coming though.

[Richard Mandell]

Dear Mr. Kelly:

I never said the average golfer does not have a clue, I said the average golfer does not embrace truly great golf course design.  Big difference.  That is why we all frequent this website and hope that we can educate people about design.

I respect your opinion, and there are exceptions to every rule, as Bethpage is and countless other great public courses.  I think that the average golfer, at first, is attracted to Bethpage and other places due to the low green fees.   I talk with the average golfer all the time from all walks of life and ask them specifically what they like about a golf course, generally and specifically.  They are most concerned with conditions, they love water, They love seeing sand and waterfalls.  Again, we are talking about the average golfer and there are exceptions.  I've talked to people who have come to play Pinehurst #2 and many people ask me what all the hubbub is about.  Yet they come each year to play the Pit or are attracted to llamas at Talamore.  The average golfer, with exceptions, likes to be beaten up with difficult golf courses, which is why people continue to design and build them.  

I hope that the average golfer would embrace truly great design, if they could see the subtleties of it.  The average golfer does not understand why we all love Donald Ross golf courses and they would rather go play somewhere which had a glossy photo in the back of a magazine featuring acres of sand.  That is wow to them.  This is untrue of the people who frequent this website.

You are absolutely right when you say we don't have enough Owners and Architects who don't have enough guts to satisfy the tastes of the average golfer.  Mostly, though it is the Owners and Operators more than the Architects.  I have talked until I am blue in the face about design with Clients, yet most of them make decisions based upon aesthetics or cost.  Marketing firms say it is easier to promote a name like Nicklaus or Palmer moreso than 18 great golf holes.  That is what all us golf course design fans fight.

[Dan Kelly]

Mr. Mandell --

Thank you.

It's too bad that the likes of Golf and Golf Digest -- which really COULD educate millions of people in these matters -- don't see fit to expand their coverage of golf course design, Modern and Classic, so that, even if the Average Golfer isn't welcome to play at, say, Merion or Pine Valley or Cypress Point or (you name it), he or she could be exposed to their charms, and could have those charms -- particularly the more subtle ones -- explained ... and could, thereby, learn to appreciate things other than bells, whistles and eye candy.

Instead, we'll get the 50th Annual Guide to Curing Your Slice (GUARANTEED!).

I hope you'll continue to talk yourself blue in the face. Thanks again.

Any other architects out there who'd care to address this matter of what the Average Golfer likes, or doesn't, or might?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Dan,
I am the GM/Supt. at a public course. I can tell you from my experience that the average player cares more about how often the beverage cart comes around then whether a golf hole has strategic design. I have more examples of this type of attitude then anyone here cares to read about. But, I will say this, I've had more people comment lately about the fast conditions, when I used to get raged on about the course being "dryer than a popcorn fart". Not all golf course developers are idiots, they are just more concerned with profits then building a "classic" course. What is good about the present correction occuring in the golf industry is money is tighter and some courses are being developed with fewer frills. This is a good thing, IMHO, because I believe we missed the mark a bit with all the high end stuff built in the last decade. We need more 2.5 mil. courses to make money so more developers will go that route.

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich,

Whereas the golfer is unlikely to ever get wet more than once in 72 holes at Mid Pines, PineNeedles, No. 2, and Southern Pines, the same cannot be said for many of the modern courses that followed Ross in Pinehurst.

Do you think the frequent use of lakes/mounding was just a sign of the times in the courses built from 1965-2000 in Pinehurst? Regardless, it seems curious to me that architects elect to go that route here when he knows the locals (and those that travel to Pinehurst) love the kind of course that you can play with one ball for most of the year (ala Pine Needles, Mid Pines, etc.)? I  don't see many of Ross's features emulated on the modern courses here - and that thought leads me to my next question:

What are the extra pressures in building a course in the backyard of one of the greats (i.e. you win a project in Pinehurst under Ross's shadow, or in Melbourne under MacKenzie's or in London under Colt's, etc.)? Does the architect feel compelled to build the polar opposite kind of design so as to avoid the inevitable comparison (and an unflattering one at that) with a course like No. 2?

Cheers,

[brad_miller]

Ran, thats a great question and one I have a keen interest in  Hope you add that question to your list when you do the upcoming interviews. Body double probably isn't the best, but you must take what the land-ground will give. Question, what are some of  the best modern courses within a short drive of a masterpiece (defined as world top 30)? Why?

[Ran Morrissett]

Brad, I haven't seen it but the rankings would tell you that Kingsbarn is the best course to open near one of the world's titan courses.

There is also Spyglass which I have played and I'm not so sure just how wonderful it really is - Golf Digest has it two spots ahead of Sand Hills   :-/  

I think time will prove that Friar's Head holds up well in the toughest golf neighborhood imaginable.

[Richard Mandell]

Ran:

Great questions and Brad Miller hits it on the head for me in you must take what the land gives.  Regardless, you can take that land, routing-wise yet can spin it any way you want regarding the shaping and details.

In answer to your first question,  it is definitely a sign of the times that people utilize lakes/mounding in courses since the golden age.  That is, in part, the influence of heavy machinery and of Robert Trent Jones and his peers.  They indeed decided to do the polar opposite of the golden age in an attempt to distinguish themselves from Ross and his contemporaries.  RTJ was a great marketer and thats what marketing people do.  He coined terms (Modern golf course architecture, heroic design) he was the one who gave birth to the signature course (an early RTJ ad, "Give your course a signature"), and he did the opposite of everyone else.  The problem (not in everyone's eyes) is that everyone else quickly followed suit.  Only now are we going back to the greats of the golden age.  Something tells me in 15 years we will all be "re-discovering" the genius of 1950-1980 and urging to preserve golf courses of this period.  I hope that we do because it just contributes to variety and these courses do have a place in the history of design.

The pressures to compete with a legendary course should really not be there, although they are inevitably existant.  It is really a project by project situation yet most people, for variety's sake, will try to do the opposite early on.  I clearly see this when one architect is doing thirty-six holes or more at the same facility (see Forest Creek).

The answer to this question is one that is true of golf course design in general.  That is that people decide to make a site into something that it is not moreso than letting the site dictate the design, to be different from what is immediately around, yet the same as what they have done elsewhere.  Why destroy something that is found only in one place to make it look like fifty other places?  I do not understand and that is why I am doing what I am doing, to prove that is not necessary.

I can not answer Ran's last question about being afraid to compete with Pinehurst #2.  To me, I would not let that influence my design nor would I let other course influence my decisions either.  A naked truth is that no matter what you design, someone will compare it to something else and you have to deal with it.  Critics are always the first to deride a new course in comparison with a masterpiece.  The answer there is for these critics to evaluate a golf course on its own merits and those alone.  

The best way for me to answer your question, Ran, is to design a golf course here in town and see what the reaction is.  I think Pinehurst has room for a great, old, traditional golfers course that can be built for $2.5 million (or less) and we can re-introduce the characteristics that helped shape Pinehurst originally. We can clearcut the trees and get the barren character of the original courses back (by the way if anybody translates that line into "links-style", i will hunt you down!). It can certainly be a walking course with firm playing conditions and no cart paths.  That is the best way to answer your question.

Now, if we all throw 100 bucks in the pot...

[George Pazin]

Pinehurst has enough courses like that - come build one in western PA!! I'll even throw in the first $100.

I really respect your view that courses of the 50s-80s deserve the same preservation efforts, even though these courses seem at odds with your methodology. A sure sign of a healthy sense of self-esteem  -  too bad some others in your profession don't have the same respect.

[jim_lewis]

Ran and Richard:

This is the best interview I can remember on GCA. Not only are Richard's comments insightful, candid, articulate, complete and instructive, but Ran's interview is his best. The questions are well tailored to the interviewee and are a big improvement over some of the standard questions found in some earlier interviews. Both guys obviously worked at giving us a good product. My congratulations and thanks.