News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« on: November 14, 2010, 05:05:07 PM »
What did we get out of the last 25 years of the golf boom and how will it affect the next golf boom if it ever happens?  

« Last Edit: November 14, 2010, 07:21:28 PM by Mike_Young »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2010, 05:50:49 PM »
sound points mike
I've seen lots of bad work by excellent shapers

why don't you talk about your work once in a while?
what do you like about your courses?

cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2010, 06:11:29 PM »

Mike

What did we learn, to those new to golf the answer is very little as they just play the game. For those a little bit more interested in golf realised that courses were the result of much thought on both its location and hole per hole design.  But what did we learn, the answer is very clear, look out over the last 25 years and you will see we learnt, Sweet F@#K All.

We continued the alienation of players from the game, we further developed and promoted the Tour Competitions, to such an extent that it lost the Spirit of what Golf is all about. Yet we knew something had gone wrong, new courses built after the war leading up to the 1980’s were not all what they should have been but then we were following a different direction for the game of making it easy and to attract more player. Nevertheless fundamental parts of the game seems to have been side lined, the idea of Golf being a challenge was frowned upon, any form of technology was accepted with minimal consideration to what it might do to the Game.

Yes Peter Dye, moved the game in part to try and get it back on the rails, but by then the new Age had dawned, life was to be easy, it was the time of convenience foods , we the disposable society had all the answers, golf courses we designed as sculptures as it they also functioned as courses, all well and good.

The post war years have been a total disaster for the game, instead of promoting the Game of Golf, we have gone out of our way to squeeze every drop of pleasure out of the game. Gone is the gentle exercise of walking, gone is the mental stimulation of calculating choice of club and distance from your own senses. Stress levels rise giving way to peaks of frustration and anger that sometimes resorts to violence thanks to the modern requirement to ooze testosterone showing how big one is by hitting a long ball. Perhaps can’t sink a putt but as long as you can hit a long ball. 

Penal is a scary word in golf today, it means you have to raise your game, improve your skill levels and take what comes , but that not golf, golf is easy, it’s all about strategy, of riding when you should be walking, of thinking instead of using distance aids, but hey tell yourself it makes you a better golfer.

The question I am surprised that has not been asked is ‘what more have we to learn regards Golf’ we seem to know it all, we over complicate the issues, we throw in facts and figure that are in truth just total bullshit because we have forgotten what a Game of Golf is all about       

Just what indeed did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA. Simple, how to die early of stress related symptoms, perhaps because we are so unfit and do not seem to be able to concentrate on the important issues any more like the Game of Golf.


Because some may be more aware of GCA it does not mean that we have actually learnt anything.

Am I wrong, perhaps, but if I am right, Golf help us all because we are doing nothing to stop the rot.

Melvyn

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2010, 06:41:47 PM »
sound points mike
I've seen lots of bad work by excellent shapers

why don't you talk about your work once in a while?
what do you like about your courses?

cheers
Mike,

Were they excellent shapers when they did bad work????
I don't really think we should talk about our work on this site....people tend to look at it as self promotion...plus I just like to throw stuff up on the wall here and hear some other thoughts....PLUS this site isn't interested in southern courses that much....
If I need to say something I like about my courses...it would be in general terms of....out of around 40 courses built...most owners have been able to turn a profit on the course without being subsidized by RE and only a couple have had financial problems......what I don't like is that most owners never maintain it to the level I would like when they don't have RE subsidy....but that's the way it works... ;)

"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2010, 06:59:38 PM »
As in other artistic pursuits we learned that money can't buy good taste.
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2010, 07:45:13 PM »
As in other artistic pursuits we learned that money can't buy good taste.

Golf will not survive on the backs of those with a Walmart mentality.

Jeff Dawson

Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2010, 07:45:19 PM »
As in other artistic pursuits we learned that money can't buy good taste.

That says it all.  I think we are also learning that golf may really just be a game and not a business.  

Kris Shreiner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2010, 07:56:36 PM »
Bravo to the prior posts! Some sound observations all (even much of your little rant Melvyn. ;D).


Jeff, Your last sentence shapes it best...we need to return to taking care of the game...then the other components, including the business side, will become healthier.

Cheers 8)
"I said in a talk at the Dunhill Tournament in St. Andrews a few years back that I thought any of the caddies I'd had that week would probably make a good golf course architect. We all want to ask golfers of all abilities to get more out of their games -caddies do that for a living." T.Doak

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2010, 07:57:57 PM »
As in other artistic pursuits we learned that money can't buy good taste.

That says it all.  I think we are also learning that golf may really just be a game and not a business.  

Jeff,

Does the Internet age allow those not born of taste the time and patience it takes to discover excellence on their own terms?  How can the working poor drive golf beyond anything but a gentlemans pastime?  The idea that taste is relative to business is the fools game that has driven our little hobby off the primrose path our fathers so enjoyed.

Chris Johnston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2010, 08:11:13 PM »
We learned more isn't better...better is better.

For the purist, remoteness doesn't hurt and less has a niche.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2010, 08:15:33 PM »
We learned more isn't better...better is better.

For the purist, remoteness doesn't hurt and less has a niche.

Remoteness is the enlightened mans privacy.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2010, 08:16:23 PM »
I think we learned that golfers as consumers and participants desire validation above all, including GCA.  They seek this validation via following top this and top that rankings and lists and then match what they have played with which courses are on the lists.  If they also enjoyed a course highly rated and ranked, they feel validated.  Need for validation and pursuit of what they believe validates them trumps taste in most golfers relationship to the game and it's fields of play architecture.  Validation also spawns branding and marketing schemes that are designed to hoodwink taste and authenticity of really good GCA.  Many seeking validation of their tastes don't really know what the actual elements of design architecture involve.  They know they like something, but often have to be told who designed it or what highly ranked celebrity pro is assoiciated with it, and where it ranks before they can say for sure how much they liked it.  

Not so much the case on GCA.com because these guys are a special lot of about 1500.  I'm talking about the bulk of all golfers as consumers.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2010, 08:31:41 PM »
I think we learned that golfers as consumers and participants desire validation above all, including GCA.  They seek this validation via following top this and top that rankings and lists and then match what they have played with which courses are on the lists.  If they also enjoyed a course highly rated and ranked, they feel validated.  Need for validation and pursuit of what they believe validates them trumps taste in most golfers relationship to the game and it's fields of play architecture.  Validation also spawns branding and marketing schemes that are designed to hoodwink taste and authenticity of really good GCA.  Many seeking validation of their tastes don't really know what the actual elements of design architecture involve.  They know they like something, but often have to be told who designed it or what highly ranked celebrity pro is assoiciated with it, and where it ranks before they can say for sure how much they liked it.  

Not so much the case on GCA.com because these guys are a special lot of about 1500.  I'm talking about the bulk of all golfers as consumers.

Dick,

No one cares about the critics opinion more than the critic himself.  You honestly can't believe that the golfing public cares more about rankings than the 1500 of this site. Half these guys wouldn't travel to see even one new course next year if it weren't for their ballot or the opportunity to blow off about it on this site. God knows our real world friends aren't interested about the latest conquest.   

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2010, 08:44:06 PM »
John, I might be wrong on the number, but I would guess not half of the participants on this site are panelists.  So, I think most folk that participate here, love the topic, but do IMO pay too much attention to ratings and rankings, whether they have a ticket or ballot, or just follow the rating and ranking game along with their actual interest in the subject. Don't we all seek validation of our ideas on GCA, however?  Why else do we spend endless hours here discussing the topic than to compare with those we think are pretty keen on the subject, and love it when someone says, I agree with your views on this course or that?


No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2010, 08:51:56 PM »
One thing we learned was ....the majority of the people having golf courses built could have cared less about how good it was architecturally....they weren't paying large design fees because these guys were better than someone else....they were branding projects and knowingly building courses that could never be maintained just by golf fees or membership fees.....that had not happened before nor will it happen again....golf holes provided premium RE frontage and community....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #15 on: November 14, 2010, 08:54:52 PM »
John, I might be wrong on the number, but I would guess not half of the participants on this site are panelists.  So, I think most folk that participate here, love the topic, but do IMO pay too much attention to ratings and rankings, whether they have a ticket or ballot, or just follow the rating and ranking game along with their actual interest in the subject. Don't we all seek validation of our ideas on GCA, however?  Why else do we spend endless hours here discussing the topic than to compare with those we think are pretty keen on the subject, and love it when someone says, I agree with your views on this course or that?




Dick,

I don't believe you have to be a panelist to have a critical ballot.  I can only speak for myself but being part of these 1500 has increased my golfing travels.  

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #16 on: November 14, 2010, 08:57:32 PM »
Oh God a lot....more than I can express.

Great time to be working in GCA. Can't think of a better one.

Good run and still running (barely)....no regrets.

Learned to type!
« Last Edit: November 14, 2010, 09:01:09 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2010, 09:01:53 PM »
One thing we learned was ....the majority of the people having golf courses built could have cared less about how good it was architecturally....they weren't paying large design fees because these guys were better than someone else....they were branding projects and knowingly building courses that could never be maintained just by golf fees or membership fees.....that had not happened before nor will it happen again....golf holes provided premium RE frontage and community....

Damn, all this time I thought your chubby little buddy was all about the branding.

Jeff Dawson

Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2010, 09:02:46 PM »
As in other artistic pursuits we learned that money can't buy good taste.

That says it all.  I think we are also learning that golf may really just be a game and not a business.  

Jeff,

Does the Internet age allow those not born of taste the time and patience it takes to discover excellence on their own terms?  How can the working poor drive golf beyond anything but a gentlemans pastime?  The idea that taste is relative to business is the fools game that has driven our little hobby off the primrose path our fathers so enjoyed.

I agree that taste and business are not always tied.  My taste in golf in this country is very much in the minority and most clubs that I like are not the best business models.  Look at the Biderman thread Tom Paul sums up my taste nicely in terms of a list

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2010, 09:07:43 PM »
One thing we learned was ....the majority of the people having golf courses built could have cared less about how good it was architecturally....they weren't paying large design fees because these guys were better than someone else....they were branding projects and knowingly building courses that could never be maintained just by golf fees or membership fees.....that had not happened before nor will it happen again....golf holes provided premium RE frontage and community....

Damn, all this time I thought your chubby little buddy was all about the branding.
That's all he's about dude....I didn't say I wasn't playing in the same cesspool ;D ;D
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2010, 09:11:00 PM »
As in other artistic pursuits we learned that money can't buy good taste.

That says it all.  I think we are also learning that golf may really just be a game and not a business.  

Jeff,

Does the Internet age allow those not born of taste the time and patience it takes to discover excellence on their own terms?  How can the working poor drive golf beyond anything but a gentlemans pastime?  The idea that taste is relative to business is the fools game that has driven our little hobby off the primrose path our fathers so enjoyed.

I agree that taste and business are not always tied.  My taste in golf in this country is very much in the minority and most clubs that I like are not the best business models.  Look at the Biderman thread Tom Paul sums up my taste nicely in terms of a list

Speaking of taste, I bought a couple of Johnny-O shirts and my wife gave them away before I made it home from work.

Randy Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2010, 09:12:13 PM »
One thing we learned was ....the majority of the people having golf courses built could have cared less about how good it was architecturally....they weren't paying large design fees because these guys were better than someone else....they were branding projects and knowingly building courses that could never be maintained just by golf fees or membership fees.....that had not happened before nor will it happen again....golf holes provided premium RE frontage and community....
Depends where Mike, its happening here in South America as the branding names move in and fill their pockets. Not one of these developments so far can substain from their golfing public.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2010, 09:14:27 PM by Randy Thompson »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2010, 09:14:35 PM »
JK, with out a doubt, being part of this 1500 has stimulated me to travel to see and experience golf course that these keen folk talk about and explain what is so special.  I wouldn't travel so much to just see a course because it is ranked and rated highly in a mag.  When I can travel to explore a course, it is because it has been featured for discussion, maybe has been chronicalled here during development, design and construction, and the descriptive analysis captures my imagination. 

Of course it turns out that the few new courses over the years that I have traveled to see happened to get ranked prior to or just after I've seen them if I get there soon enough.  That is just natural because I don't travel to see a mutt that someone whose ideas I value said it was a bow wow.  So, my efforts to travel and seek out new courses isn't to rate them (not a panelist) but compare ideas, and yes,,, validate my views for my own self esteem I guess. 

But, I learned in the last 25 years that our need for validation is a pretty natural trait, but it is exploited for branding and marketing, and has translated in some good but much bad architecture, if moving the ball forward in the craft of GCA is the goal.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2010, 09:20:28 PM »
Wow...RE subsidized golf course construction in the past 25 yrs...and tennis and swimming pools subsidized RE developments and CC's in the previous 25...wow.
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Jeff Dawson

Re: What did we learn in the last 25 year cycle of GCA?
« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2010, 09:23:41 PM »
As in other artistic pursuits we learned that money can't buy good taste.

That says it all.  I think we are also learning that golf may really just be a game and not a business.  

Jeff,

Does the Internet age allow those not born of taste the time and patience it takes to discover excellence on their own terms?  How can the working poor drive golf beyond anything but a gentlemans pastime?  The idea that taste is relative to business is the fools game that has driven our little hobby off the primrose path our fathers so enjoyed.

I agree that taste and business are not always tied.  My taste in golf in this country is very much in the minority and most clubs that I like are not the best business models.  Look at the Biderman thread Tom Paul sums up my taste nicely in terms of a list

Speaking of taste, I bought a couple of Johnny-O shirts and my wife gave them away before I made it home from work.

They make other wives