IMO Discussion: A Renaissance Movement in Golf Architecture

[Ian Andrew]

You still have to contend with the clients wishes, and if the clients views are heavily influenced by the moderns as JNC puts it, then surely your work is indeed constrained by previous standards that the client then expects.

Niall,

The approvals process is a far bigger issue than client’s wishes. As for clients, they may have a strong opinion on length or maintenance but I’ve yet to meet a single client who expressed the desire to have a certain style.

I do spend a great deal of time explaining why I make the choices I do. I educate them on everything from style right through to hole design. I find by communicating all the ideas and by explaining why I made the choices I made I generally get a great deal of support.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

Of course I am the luckiest architect alive as far as finding good sites to work with, but there are not many projects we've worked on where permitting issues had a strong negative impact on the design.  We had some fairly stringent restrictions at Stonewall, and at Lost Dunes; and Sebonack had a lot of them but it just pushed us down into a narrower envelope, we didn't have many issues at all in the area where the course is actually built, apart from the crazy greens drainage system.  We've been working for years to get permission to do what we always wanted to do at The Renaissance Club, but that was more about politics and zoning than about environmental issues, really.

[MHiserman]

Sorry Tom, I disagree that the permit issues haven't had an strong negative issue.

Nor Cal.

Sorry to bring it up.
M

[Ian Andrew]

Tom,

I thought the final hole at High Pointe was altered due to enviornmental issues.

One of the projects I worked on took 22 routings and 12 years to obtain approval. The site wasn't that significant (river valley - warm water stream) - the head of an agency simply "hated golf on principle" (her exact word during a site walk to review the project) - and it went through the court system because the owner cared less about mthe oney and more about winning the fight with her. The routing was negatively affected by the process.

[Mac Plumart]

I was guided to the Linc Roden interview on this site from December of 2001 as being appropriate reading for this thread.
 http://www.golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/lincoln-roden-december-2001/

Very interesting stuff!

Here is a cut and paste from that thread.  It is worth a read.


When this course was built in 1927 and up until 1962 there was a rudimentary watering system. Outlets existed near each green and hoses were used to provide a bit of water. Jury rigs could be set up to water newly seeded areas. The whole course was hard and fast except after periods of heavy rain. Fairways and the rough turned light brown in the summer. Greens were very firm but not rock hard. The game was played with a lot of roll. To play at the highest levels it was necessary to work the ball, right to left, left to right, high shots and low shots, run shots and carry shots. On sloping fairways it was hard to keep the ball on the fairway. If the fairway sloped to the right, you would try to draw the ball into the hillside. A second shot from those hard, closely mown fairways could take a lot of spin if struck properly. If you were playing out of the rough you had to bounce and roll the ball onto the green because you could not spin the ball. Balls landing on the green would hold if well struck with the right trajectory and with spin, but otherwise would bounce over. Chips were extremely difficult on those hard and lightning-fast greens. With today’s overwatering on most courses, players don’t have to worry about the bounce and roll. Even on courses striving for the old standards, heavy rains can reduce the course to a soft bog with no bounce on the fairways or greens. The ultimate standards and the ultimate enjoyment of golf occur when the fairways and greens are really hard, and when only shots struck with the proper shape and maximum spin will stay in the fairways or stick on the greens!!! Those early greens had a lot of grain. No one verticut greens. Grain is very important to achieve these ideal conditions. I will address it in another question. May I remind you of a quote from Bob Jones in a letter he wrote to P.A. Ward-Thomas, Esq., dated October 31, 1961:

‘I cannot help being saddened by what you tell me of the changes in turf conditions at Lytham. I know I was shocked to observe the same changes at St. Andrews. If that sort of thing is happening to all British seaside golf, then, indeed, progress has been dearly bought.

‘When the Open was played at St. Anne’s a few years ago, it was obvious that something had happened to make it play much easier. I had thought at the time that this was no more than rain and an unaccustomed stillness. Apparently this was not so.

‘Although I did not feel this way in the beginning, I am happy now that I did not miss playing seaside golf when the greens were hard and unwatered and the fairways and putting surfaces like glass. Nothing resulting from man-made design can equal the testing qualities of such conditions.’ (Italics are Linc’s).

The modern pleasant over-watered fairways and greens result in an enjoyable experience for the mid and high handicappers, the majority of the memberships. But the better golfers can not experience the ultimate challenge unless the fairways and greens are hard and fast! One objective for the better golfers is to educate the other golfers on the joys of the greater challenge. With today’s equipment and soft course conditions, it is possible to score unbelievably well by hitting long, all-carry drives and all-carry short irons to the soft greens. That game is completely different from the one the architects knew in the 1920′s and earlier, and which the best golfers played.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I thought the final hole at High Pointe was altered due to enviornmental issues.

One of the projects I worked on took 22 routings and 12 years to obtain approval. The site wasn't that significant (river valley - warm water stream) - the head of an agency simply "hated golf on principle" (her exact word during a site walk to review the project) - and it went through the court system because the owner cared less about mthe oney and more about winning the fight with her. The routing was negatively affected by the process.

Ian:

Indeed, the 18th at High Pointe (NLE) was adversely affected when the DNR field representative arbitrarily mandated a 25 foot "buffer" around the flagged wetland during his site visit after construction had started, turning an S-shaped hole into a Z.  What I learned from that was to try and give environmental areas a wide berth in my routings so they wouldn't be compromised.  That's a decision you can't make if your client is trying to jam as much housing onto the site as possible, but I haven't had too many clients like that.

I was not saying I was immune to dealing with environmental issues; but architects always talk about their worst stories as if every single project is compromised.  On the contrary, at least half of the sites I've worked with had NO environmental areas which affected the routing, and only a couple of them have had major issues that limited the potential of the golf.

Merrill did try politely to point out that our project in Napa County was buggered completely by local zoning opposition, but that was really political, not environmental; the regulatory agencies seemed to be okay with everything we had proposed, at least up until the point the zoning case was decided.

[Ian Andrew]

but architects always talk about their worst stories as if every single project is compromised. 

Point taken.

I do deal with the bugs and bunny people an awful lot up here.

[Mac Plumart]

Also, Brad Klein wrote a great article in the latest (March 11, 2011) Golfweek entitled "Breaking doen the design playbook" in which he touched on this very topic.

Some of the key points were the mindset of the modern player, which focuses on the aerial game.  And the architects and Supers focuses on making the course interesting and alludes to requiring thinking before striking the ball.  Brad touches on many of the ideas that Linc Roden seemed to be espousing, as well as Tom Paul in his IMO piece.  

But how do we get the modern player to "buy in" to this concept?

EDIT...I found an online edition of this article (http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/mar/14/breaking-down-design-playbook/)

[David Harshbarger]

Also, Brad Klein wrote a great article in the latest (March 11, 2011) Golfweek entitled "Breaking doen the design playbook" in which he touched on this very topic.

Some of the key points were the mindset of the modern player, which focuses on the aerial game.  And the architects and Supers focuses on making the course interesting and alludes to requiring thinking before striking the ball.  Brad touches on many of the ideas that Linc Roden seemed to be espousing, as well as Tom Paul in his IMO piece. 

But how do we get the modern player to "buy in" to this concept?

The more people talk about the more traction it will get.  I'm sure a lot of golfers don't even know there's a strategic school of course design, or the variety of strategic options employed by architects, beyond just "risk/rewaed" holes.

Getting the announcers on national broadcasts to better articulate hole strategy would help. 

One other thought I had (and someone please post the forum link since it appears every topic has been covered since 2002) is to have an onlice GCA Scorecard for every course, kind of like a rating site, but with a hole by hole breakdown of the strategic merits of a course.  The scorecard would rank each hole based on its merits.  When people search the web, they'd find links to the GCA scorecard.  They could then read a strategic breakdown of the course they are going to/have played.  Over time, the GCA Scorecard database would grow.  Golfers reading it would learn.  And if they find value in it, they would start trying to get their courses rated higher.

Dave

[David Harshbarger]

A picture is worth a thousand words:



I think i read somewhere on here that there have been many versions of golf course architecture taxonomies developed over the years.  One of the interviews with Linc Roden http://www.golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/lincoln-roden-december-2001/ includes a mini-version of this with the William Flynn's ideal complete course challenge.  I'm sure others must have come up with the list of features that make up the qualities of a course.

With that as a starting point I see this as a sort of online golf course rater that would allow knowledgeable  raters to easily rate a course based on its features then use those ratings to derive an overall GCA Score.

The score is artificial, of course, as are the ratings to large extent.  But, ranking of the courses that would come of out isn't really the objective.  The real objective is to grow awareness of the value of the architectural/strategic qualities of courses.  By rating courses by how they embody those values, and encouraging people to talk about the relative merits of those values especially on courses they know and play, I think you might be able to move the needle.

And by you I mean if the tools were there, you the people on this board could be the army that goes out there and tap-tap-taps away on their iPhones to build up this quality GCA Scorecard database that would be the heart of this type of solution.

Dave

[Mac Plumart]

Dave...

I think you've got a really good idea here.  I wonder if we could start from a more macro standpoint (courses) and work our way down to the micro (holes).

We talk all the time about golf course architecture, but this IMO piece and the Linc Roden article seem to really embrace maintenance.  And it seems blatantly obvious that poor or improper maintenance practices (and under-educated greens committees and future rennovations of a golf course) can ruin the original architectural intent.

Along these lines, what courses embody both these principals on the maintenance and architectural intent criteria?

I'll mention Seminole first.  Fast and firm.  Hard/firm greens.  Brown is not taboo.  Which is great and what it seems like we are after. But check this out.  I've played it and talked to lots of non-architectural guru golfers who've played it...and the first thing they say is how ugly it is.  This won't fly with modern US golfer.  Thoughts?

[David Harshbarger]

Mac,

The image sizing cuts off my notes on the side. i'll see if I can fix that.  But thebidea is exactly as you describe, start at the micro, the holes, then roll up to the macro, the courses.

As far as the modern golfer describing the course as ugly, well, that's the heart of the problem isn't it?  What we're advocating here is a paradigm shift.  It's going to take a lot to do that, and some people will never make the change.

Take me as an example of some of the people out there.  I love golfing for the golf.  I've played enough courses to know I like some more than others.  However, I don't have enough knowledge about what makes one course different than another, or put another way, I don't have a language to talk about the differences to effectively articulate what I like and don't like.  Until now....

This site, Shackleford's book, like resources have fostered that paradigm shift for me.  I probably would have siad Seminole was ugly too. Now I know that fast and firm means golf at its most challenging.  Big difference. Paradigm shift.  And I figure if you can connect with me, there's got to be a lot more people out there who would grab onto this paradigm and run with it.

I'll try to put together a liilte prototype app so you can see how this GCA Scorecard might look.

Dave

[Mac Plumart]

As far as the modern golfer describing the course as ugly, well, that's the heart of the problem isn't it?

David, yes...I think that is one of the big problems with this idea.  I am with you and your thoughts thus far.  I look forward to seeing your next post on this.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

Your scorecard reminds me of an article I read in the paper in Myrtle Beach years ago, where a developer announced he was building his new course with the specific intention of qualifying for the GOLF DIGEST 100 Greatest Courses, and to be sure they would make it, his architect [name withheld] was carrying around the GOLF DIGEST criteria in his back pocket!  I wondered when he decided he needed to add a bit more aesthetics or more memorability to the third hole, how he would go about that, but I didn't write in.

My point is, golf course architecture is NOT paint by numbers.  It's a fine exercise to try and analyze what makes the great courses tick, but it's ridiculous to build a golf course by trying to tick all the boxes.  So, enjoy your scorecard exercise, but at the end of the day, throwing away the scorecard and having fun out there is what it's really about.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom, of course you are right.  But I am interested in hearing David's ideas in more detail.  I suppose I am more interested in how we achieve this paradigm shift for the average golfer in regards to what is a better maintenance standard (and I suppose an architectural standard as well) for fun and exciting golf. 

In a nutshell, how to we get the golfer to see that this...



is better than this...



Or maybe even better yet...can that even be done?  And what if the average golfer prefers golfing at the second place better.  Frankly, it is a distinct possibility.  And if that is the case, aren't we just beating our heads against the wall?

[Tom_Doak]

In a nutshell, how to we get the golfer to see that this...



is better than this...



Or maybe even better yet...can that even be done?  And what if the average golfer prefers golfing at the second place better.  Frankly, it is a distinct possibility.  And if that is the case, aren't we just beating our heads against the wall?

Mac:

There are two parts to that answer.

The first part is that, all things being equal, most people would prefer to be out on the second course.

The second part is that all things are not equal.  The maintenance costs for the second course are probably 50% higher than the first ... so the green fee should also be 50% higher.  So, you need to ask if the golfers really want to pay 50% more.  Free-market types insist that demand has resulted in more and more lavish conditions, but this is not really the case ... golfers have NOT been given the option of keeping green fees low and foregoing higher expenditures on maintenance, management makes these decisions for them and the golfers just haven't walked away. 

Also, the environmental costs of the second course are probably more than 50% higher, which may someday be solved by regulation driven by non-golfers.

[Kyle Harris]

Mac:

How do those two golf courses compare in look on the same day of any given season?

[Ian Andrew]

How or why was the reaction after WWI any different than WWII?  

The question was asked a number of times why post WWII was different from WWI.

I spent last night talking with my father about London post war. Dad said that prior to the Second World War Britain still held an enormous amount of assets throughout the world. For example they still owned the railroad system in South American and many assets accumulated throughout the British Empire. He described Britain as still being a very wealthy country after the first war and prior to the second war.

My father talked about how Britain had to sell every single asset it had to fight the war. He talked about the fact that England was already out of money by the time the Battle of Britain came around and still needed an enormous amount of resources to fight the war. They sold of every asset they had and then began to borrow at a very steady stream from the US. By the end of the war they had accumulated an enormous debt to the US.

Dad mentioned that Britain was essentially bankrupt at the end of the war. Rationing took place right up to 1952 because they had trouble getting food and coal. He talked about the coal strike in 1947 and the cold snap in 1946 (Thames ever froze over) as the worst two events he can remember. He said what destroyed the country was all the industry was smashed by the bombing and by the end of the war all the capacity had gone elsewhere. Shipbuilding was in Sweden, the steel mills were in the US. They quite literally lost everything.

The kicker for Britain was they now had this massive debt to repay and that held the country back for nearly two decades as they floundered under the debt and unions. The US had assumed much of Britain’s production and was also getting payments that helped spruce the economy. The Americans had the boom in the 1950’s.

[David Harshbarger]

David:

Your scorecard reminds me of an article I read in the paper in Myrtle Beach years ago, where a developer announced he was building his new course with the specific intention of qualifying for the GOLF DIGEST 100 Greatest Courses, and to be sure they would make it, his architect [name withheld] was carrying around the GOLF DIGEST criteria in his back pocket!  I wondered when he decided he needed to add a bit more aesthetics or more memorability to the third hole, how he would go about that, but I didn't write in.

My point is, golf course architecture is NOT paint by numbers.  It's a fine exercise to try and analyze what makes the great courses tick, but it's ridiculous to build a golf course by trying to tick all the boxes.  So, enjoy your scorecard exercise, but at the end of the day, throwing away the scorecard and having fun out there is what it's really about.

Tom,

What I'm suggesting here isn't intended to be prescriptive.  (though, if it were successful enough that architects carried the list in their pocket, wouldn't that be a victory?)

Instead, I'm suggesting that we attack the problem of GCA appreciation with an approach that is, descriptive, accessible, understandable, scalable, and relevant.

This site already meets many of these goals.  The long form course reviews, IMO, and discussion group threads are very rich sources of material.  But at the end of the day, detailed reviews of the best of the best are only relevant with a small portion of the golfing population. Granted, many of those are thought leaders, and given what happened at Pinehurst, the paradigm shift has happened for some of them.  But for the average Joe, not only will they never play Pine Valley or NGLA, they've never heard of them, nor appreciate or care about their significance then or now.

What they do know is the course they play on Tuesday, the local public courses, a couple of private courses, and the public/resort courses in Myrtle Beach/Hilton Head.  They also are familiar with the big tournament courses, but only from TV.  I think I read on this site an interview with a gentleman who has a perfect record of playing every course on some top 100 list. The folks I'm suggesting we target, like me, also have a perfect record; we've played 0 of the top 100.

That doesn't mean they/we don't aspire to play or emulate the top courses.  Quite the contrary.  The best of the best set the standard.

What I'm proposing in a GCA Scorecard is a scalable, relevant tool to connect the dots from the abstract qualities embodied in the best courses to the reality of the courses average Joe's play every day.  To be relevant, you need to drive down to courses average people play.  You also need a format that relates the best to the rest in a consistent manner.  To be scalable, which means to have a practical chance of capturing the data, you need something that is easy to create (from a data perspective).  

Keep in mind that scorecard comparisons are the norm today.  Unfortunately there are only four metrics: Par, Yardage, Rating, and Slope.  I think everyone on this site wants to get beyond the perverse strategic incentives those metrics drive.  But without an alternative, how?  Is this that alternative?  I'm proposing that yes, it could be, and not only that, but it is a doable alternative that the participants on this site could use to drive the actual change in paradigm down into the public.

For as persausive as the people on this site are, you are only going to get so many converts from people like me trying to find out who the hell Devereux Emmet is, and why should I care enough to join a club designed by him?

(and for the record, I have played Manele and soon will play Rustic Canyon .  So much for perfection, top 100 public course list!)

[Tom_Doak]

David:

As you noted, golfers today do a different sort of scorecard comparison when trying to assess the quality of a course, and that's had an effect on the business of golf course design -- a bad one.  It's the reason nearly every developer insists on a 7,000-yard course even though hardly anyone wants to play a course from 7,000 yards.

We don't need more false idols.  The problem with golf course architecture is that the business is being driven by people who don't really appreciate the full spectrum of golf, handing out too many instructions to the guys who should.  So, I will sit back and listen to your ideas, but don't be surprised if I come back later to tell you it's not working.

[Tom MacWood]

Classic architecture is based on rules, order and clarity. Straight lines and symmetry are favored over natural curves; strict proportions and defined volumes are favored over randomness. The Renaissance was a resurgence of the classical aesthetic. The golf architecture of the so-called Golden Age is the antithesis of classical architecture. Is the Renaissance movement in golf architecture an appropriate label?

[David Harshbarger]

Tom,

I gather you've never been known as sparing with your opinion.  (and the fact that a world-renowned architect and a past president of the ASGCA, among others, have deigned to engage in coversation with a newbie you don't know from Adam speaks volumes to the class and character of this site and the values embodied in Golf. My jaws bruised from hitting the floor about that!)

As far as false idols: which would you rather have, a demand for 7,000 from the tips, or 8 on the strategy scale?  (it's not clear what the answer is, btw).  Neither, however, is not an option.

Dave

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

As far as false idols: which would you rather have, a demand for 7,000 from the tips, or 8 on the strategy scale?  (it's not clear what the answer is, btw).  Neither, however, is not an option.

Dave

That's probably what Dr. Stimpson said ... what harm can it do to measure green speed?

[Jud_T]

Brings up a point from one of your other posts Tom.  I wonder how much the outsize weight placed on distance in the slope/ratings calculation has affected the golf course manhood measurement syndrome.....Kind of puts an exponential weight on distance in the sense that it's implicitly double or triple counted....

[David Harshbarger]

Tom,

As far as false idols: which would you rather have, a demand for 7,000 from the tips, or 8 on the strategy scale?  (it's not clear what the answer is, btw).  Neither, however, is not an option.

Dave

That's probably what Dr. Stimpson said ... what harm can it do to measure green speed?

Exactly my point, sort of.  Everyone understands that more is better, and then wants it.  So if you want people to value strategy, measure it.  Then people will demand more of it.