Randy
Have you not hit the nail firmly on the head of the problems that has been facing Golf since the end of WW2.
Examples
A). You have to understand not everybody likes links, firm and fast, rocket speed greens, foot and half rough three feet off the fairway or around a green, deep punishing bunkers, rolly pollly fairways, ect! These courses are works of art and wonderful test of golf but not eveybody´s cup of tea
B). So I see a continual increase in quality with more attention to strategy and more and more amazing artistic elements implemented and this will be attributed to an increase in overall competition amongst architects for the few projects coming on line.
As for example A). I would say that there is already enough choice in courses without the need to service each individual player’s requirements – well there would be if we just kept close to Nature and the original land that was deemed Fit for Purpose for the game of golf. Clearly it was not so as along comes the bulldozer and produces the design (which within its self on the right terrain would probably be regarded as blood good) and created a full compromise both in the way its plays and how it blends in with the surrounding countryside. The lesson I would have thought is you build courses within the brief but for the average golfer. Then the choice is down to the golfers if he likes or dislikes the course. For years my local course was a new course dated 1972 built at Beauport Park (
http://www.beauportparkgolf.co.uk/pages.php/index.html) at Hastings but it’s a rather poor course, so we would trek around the country looking for more entertaining courses, and as Hastings is only 15 miles from Rye we have a course of note, then - well it was not long before we found some rather great out of the way courses as defined on Fine Golf (
http://www.finegolf.co.uk ). Have we not become too picky, too fussy as the 20th century progressed, watering down what was once great golf more to fit our way of play rather than being committed to the game. The choice should be inland or seaside courses, how deep the rough depends upon the designers understanding of the land, his design and have zero to do with the players moods or personal requirements. Don’t like it, don’t play it.
As for example B). I first think we need to understand the meaning of strategy, some seem to feel it has to do with course being difficult, hard or easy. I say it has zero to do with that because the inherent quality of a golf course is its challenge, some might say penal nature or even rating on a penal scale. Easy is escapism and IMHO has not place on a golf course because the player is there to be challenged, seeking a more sportier course not an easy course. Where is the satisfaction in easy knowing then even your 10 year old son with few skills can better that hazard and course.
The problem is penal today is a nasty word because it means commitment, determination, of facing the challenges and being man (or woman) enough to want to face the traps and perhaps if the designers has done his job well, the unexpected – some might call them hidden (but once known no longer hidden) traps deployed in parts of the course to catch the unwary. Strategy for a golf course must have its foot firmly in the penal corner, because it is as much to do with the game of golf as the golf ball.
I firmly believe that the game is losing interest with many leaving, some looking hard at the Hickory side because main stream golf is seen as easy. I’m not going to discuss in detail the usual aids but they have had a major part in eroding the need for skill, be it through the eyes or understand the need to observe the course with legs doing their part by sending through messages about the terrain. Then what about understand fitness and balancing fatigue which is also part of the game.
We have offered too much of the Good Life to the modern player, so when he has to exert himself, interest in the game wains as this is not what he thought he signed up for. We need to learn from the terrible mistakes since WW2 and put the challenge back into the game - and no, not through players equipment technology, because we will start the whole sorry business all over again.
I hope I have been constructive and tried to develop the good point raised by Mac. The designers have an important part to play, perhaps more so now than ever before so have to stand up for their beliefs, even in these hard times, because gentlemen no one else is going to design our top courses.
The game is just too cluttered, its getting over complicated, it needs to get back to basic and I also feel that a single designer should be credited with a course design, not a design house as that is just too impersonal. Golf needs it heroes, and we should be allowed to know which individual actually designed the course. Design Houses need to understand this simple fact otherwise the history of Golf from the late 20th to early 21st Century will become a minefield with the real designers not getting a look in and claiming their right – Don’t screw with history guys, give credit to either one or two, but not a design house name.
Melvyn
PS Robin The real world, OK but your real world is the reason this game is in such a mess, perhaps you need to get into my real world and stand up for what you believe in or is that too much of a challenge for many these days, preferring to do nothing hoping things will get better by themselves. You may think me a dreamer, or whatever but I am in my own way trying to do something with my home game. They say Gold loves a trier - perhaps I should have said God loves a trier, but Gold just seems the right word or should I have used silver as it only took 30 coins to, well change the world according to the bible