Business and Golf Course Architecture

[Adam Lawrence]

Adrian

I basically agree with you, but I wish you'd stop citing Askernish as some purist folly that can't succeed. It cost nothing to build, it costs next to nothing to maintain and it works just fine, thank you very much. It doesn't exist to be a profit-making enterprise, it is there to be a place for the island's golfers and anyone else who happens to be there to play, and it's already attracted plenty of attention to South Uist. It's never going to 'fail' as long as there's 20 or so people on the island keen on golf. I understand what you're getting at but you've missed this particular point.

[JMEvensky]

Short version, when did this group become the golf equivalent of Niles and Frasier Crane?

I agree with all of your response,I just really liked this line.

Short answer--they never did.GCA.com is the design equivalent of staying in a Holiday Inn last night.

The reality is that most of us play average courses when we get to play--and we're thankful for it.There's probably a greater awareness of what else is out there relative to the general population.But,that's just a function of being exposed to a few posters' comments--architects such as yourself in particular.

I think that this group has a much greater appreciation for,and knowledge of, maintenance and playability than the general golfing population.Again,a function of some knowledgeable posters such as the Supers.I wish some of these maintenance discussions were required reading at my place.

BTW--how can you simultaneously keep running commentaries on this and New Jersey train information?How many wpm can you type?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian

I basically agree with you, but I wish you'd stop citing Askernish as some purist folly that can't succeed. It cost nothing to build, it costs next to nothing to maintain and it works just fine, thank you very much. It doesn't exist to be a profit-making enterprise, it is there to be a place for the island's golfers and anyone else who happens to be there to play, and it's already attracted plenty of attention to South Uist. It's never going to 'fail' as long as there's 20 or so people on the island keen on golf. I understand what you're getting at but you've missed this particular point.

Askernish is something very rare and I hope it works. Askernish is not really the point though, it is more outlining that it fits the purpose of great land and yet its location is against it.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff Brauer,
Seriously? That's your idea of a nice conversation?
I just do not get why you write things like that. “Well I was talking to some guys the other day and they really think so and so is...
Nice talk.
I've been fortunate to spend some time with TD lately and all I can say is he is simply trying to deliver the best possible golf course in the best possible manner. Why is that so bad?

[Eric Smith]

To wit, at the senior open, I had a nice discussion with some pros regarding Tom Doak.  The general sentiment was (and I quote) "Why is he so F***ing famous?  I don't like his courses at all."  Of course, any such thinking would be trashed here, but the sentiment is far from isolated elsewhere.

but the sentiment is far from isolated elsewhere.

Jeff,

I don't understand your posting that 'nice conversation' on here...but then again, maybe I do.

Is it a part of that sentiment or the whole thing that is far from isolated elsewhere? I can see where the "Why is he so F*cking famous" part could come from jealous pro designers while the "I don't like his courses at all" part could come from frustrated pro golfers. The latter part could more than likely be seen as a badge of honor for Tom, ala his mentor, Mr. Dye, but again, I'd be only speculating.

[JC Jones]

To wit, at the senior open, I had a nice discussion with some pros regarding Tom Doak.  The general sentiment was (and I quote) "Why is he so F***ing famous?  I don't like his courses at all."  Of course, any such thinking would be trashed here, but the sentiment is far from isolated elsewhere.

but the sentiment is far from isolated elsewhere.

Jeff,

I don't understand your posting that 'nice conversation' on here...but then again, maybe I do.

Is it a part of that sentiment or the whole thing that is far from isolated elsewhere? I can see where the "Why is he so F*cking famous" part could come from jealous pro designers while the "I don't like his courses at all" part could come from frustrated pro golfers. The latter part could more than likely be seen as a badge of honor for Tom, ala his mentor, Mr. Dye, but again, I'd be only speculating.

I think you are spot on with the first part but perhaps their sample size is limited to Black Forest with the latter 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Not one comment about courses being over engineered - now that is rather interesting - still defending the selection of substandard land. If the land is not fit for purpose you should not build upon it, but perhaps that show the greed that now controls golf.

Melvyn

[Tom Kelly]

To wit, at the senior open, I had a nice discussion with some pros regarding Tom Doak.  The general sentiment was (and I quote) "Why is he so F***ing famous?  I don't like his courses at all."  Of course, any such thinking would be trashed here, but the sentiment is far from isolated elsewhere.

but the sentiment is far from isolated elsewhere.

Jeff,

I don't understand your posting that 'nice conversation' on here...but then again, maybe I do.

Is it a part of that sentiment or the whole thing that is far from isolated elsewhere? I can see where the "Why is he so F*cking famous" part could come from jealous pro designers while the "I don't like his courses at all" part could come from frustrated pro golfers. The latter part could more than likely be seen as a badge of honor for Tom, ala his mentor, Mr. Dye, but again, I'd be only speculating.

I maybe wrong but I believe what Jeff was trying do in perhaps a slightly roundabout way was to respond to Mike Nuzzo's statement

"It is possible to please both this group and the public golfer.
The question is why don't more courses please this group?"

I think he was attempting to say is that although virtually everybody on here loves Tom Doak's work, his work it is not universally loved and appreciated, even by people who generally 'know' their golf, the "pro's" and not just the pros but others within the game by saying the "the sentiment is far from isolated".

Do all the courses that please this group please the pro and public golfer as well?
Are we blinding ourselves and thinking that if we like it, it should please the public golfer and pro as well?
Is the modern golden era we talk about looked upon as a golden era by other knowledgeable people within the game?
Are we deceiving ourselves and being a bit too blinkered?
What is it that really pleases the public golfer and pro's out there?

"It is possible to please both this group and the public golfer."   

And the pro too?

I think it is possible to please everybody but I'm not sure whether anybody has found the definitive answer just yet unfortunately, we maybe getting closer but as the "sentiment" mentioned above shows, perhaps we are not quite there.

Unless Mike you know something the rest of us don't? Please enlighten us!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Working from the bottom up,

Thomas,

Yes, that is a good summary of my position.  Unlike others, I don't think we should throw the opinions of tour pros out completely, even if I don't always agree with them either.  They are nothing if not consistent, in my experience.

Melvyn, basically, the first funtion of a golf course as recreation requires it generally be close to golfers.  TOC was certainly a neighborhood course, before it became an international destination, no? And, was it great land, or "leftover land" without real dramatic features?

As to engineering, things are more engineered over time, in all fields, as new technologies come into play.  "over engineering" is an opinion, and opinions may differ.  For instance, if you owned a golf course, and lost play for the first three years to soggy fw, would you want more drainage installed at first than you do as an "expert with no vested interest?"

Don,

You have pissed all over my recent posts.  Not sure what put a bee in your bonnet, but I just reported what a few pros said. Don't want to name names on a private conversation.  The initiation and comments were all theirs, not mine.Yes, some were in the design biz, others not.  I didn't sense jealousy on their part, but just a well documented (at least to me) idea on what constitutes good design for their play.  I did presume that many here would have a different opinion.

I have no doubt that Tom both tries and delivers great golf courses, and has had the most spectacular run of sites any architect ever had.   To bring it back to the business side, he is obviously a great salesperson in the RTJ mode, and probably relies even more on great completed work and a unique design style in his sales.  It speaks forit/ himself.

To bring it back to specific design side, they cited greens too hard to reward good tee to green play, fw too wide which encourage the bombers, and overly thought out and hard hazards in the LZ which really encourage them to just lay up, rather than encourage strategy with the driver.  Regarding the analogy to Pete Dye, I think its apt.  Remember that when designing the TPC, those greens were all softened at least once for the pros, many two or three times until they were satisfied with them.  It will be interesting to see the reaction of pros playing a TD course repeatedly on tour.  (For some reason, there is alwys less critiques of USGA courses)

All of those things are what set TD's design apart, and of course, all those ideas have been discussed here. Just another confirmation that pros think differently than this group as a rule, and that it is a big world out there.  Hey, even the Beatles or Elvis didn't sell records to everyone.

[Randy Thompson]

Melvyn,
Very few in the last couple of years are over engineering, the last course that I saw of Normans could be classified in this catagory but even Nicklaus has backed off, at least down here.

To all,
In defense of Jeff, I agree with exactly what Jeff is saying and understand where he is coming from. He was quoting, what a percentage of the public thinks about TD and he & his teams courses, those are not his words or feelings. I have yet to play a TD course but the photos and decriptions are freaking incredible! He has formed outstanding teams and I have nothing but repect for him and wish him all the continued success but that does not change Jeff´s final point, there is a large percentage of the golf population that would not enjoy playing his courses day in and day out. There is a time and place for Tom Doaks incredible designs and there is the same for Jeff Brauer practical designs. I lprefer Wendy´s too but I won´t like Wendy´s so much if I have to eat there all the time and no longer can sneak in a double whopper!

[Tom Kelly]

Not one comment about courses being over engineered - now that is rather interesting - still defending the selection of substandard land. If the land is not fit for purpose you should not build upon it, but perhaps that show the greed that now controls golf.

Melvyn

Melvyn I believe you are missing the point slightly.

If from the beginnings of golf we only built golf courses on land fit for purpose there would be a point were the land where it was financially/logistically possible (location too isolated) to maintain these courses would be used and no suitable land left for golf courses. When this happened there would still be new people wanting to play the game and the demand for golf therefore increases, the prices would therefore increase to ridiculous levels...simple economics. Golf would be limited to the very rich and the joy of the game would not get passed on to as many people as perhaps should.

This use of land has effectively happened to a point (there is still land out there, but not much unfortunately). Due to laws and regulations the land which is truly suitable for golf as you state and financially viable especially in the UK is next to none. It was next to none along time ago, so when the real boom of new courses being built in especially in the 80's and 90's came along land that wasn't suitable was used to supply that demand for the game and although some of these courses are clearly not very good, they did offer people the chance to experience the game for better or worse and most importantly to you it meant that the course built on truly suitable land were not out of reach of the average person.

Perhaps if you had been in charge and only permitted courses to be built on suitable land we would be being charged over £1000 per round to play a links course which didn't make the most of the land when built back in the late 1800's of which there are a fair few. Instead you get to play these courses for £20 or £30. Be thankful that you still can.

We all wish every course we play/design was on perfect land, but the fact is it is often not and thus only makes the pleasure of playing these course even greater.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Not one comment about courses being over engineered - now that is rather interesting - still defending the selection of substandard land. If the land is not fit for purpose you should not build upon it, but perhaps that show the greed that now controls golf.

Melvyn

Melvyn I agree land not fit for purpose should not be built on but I would not build on a remote location because IT IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.

[Tom Kelly]

To bring it back to specific design side, they cited greens too hard to reward good tee to green play, fw too wide which encourage the bombers, and overly thought out and hard hazards in the LZ which really encourage them to just lay up, rather than encourage strategy with the driver.  Regarding the analogy to Pete Dye, I think its apt.  Remember that when designing the TPC, those greens were all softened at least once for the pros, many two or three times until they were satisfied with them.  It will be interesting to see the reaction of pros playing a TD course repeatedly on tour.  (For some reason, there is always less critiques of USGA courses)

All of those things are what set TD's design apart, and of course, all those ideas have been discussed here. Just another confirmation that pros think differently than this group as a rule, and that it is a big world out there.  Hey, even the Beatles or Elvis didn't sell records to everyone.

It is interesting to hear how the pros think differently. If we were playing for that much money every week as well I have a feeling most of us would lay up of the "overly thought out and hard hazards" too. I guess pros don't often get the chance to look at the game and play in a completely relaxed environment where they can have a bit of fun going for greens and tempting fate with these hazards.

Surely "fw too wide which encourage the bombers" contradicts the "overly thought out and hard hazards in the LZ which really encourage them to just lay up"? Also seeing Luke Donald a short hitter by tour standards walk the Scottish Open at Castle Stuart (almost a Doak equivalent course - similar strategic values anyway) which has hugely wide fairways surely also makes a good argument against "fw too wide which encourage the bombers"?

It is also very interesting to hear the comment regarding the hard greens not rewarding good tee to green play, especially after Open week and Rory McIlroys comments about not changing his game for one week of the year. Good tee to green play on a Doak course or equivalent and a standard Tour course is played in a very different manner and requires a different golf armoury. High and straight at the pin is not always the best route on a Doak course, many of the modern golden era courses or even courses from the golden era of which the pros rarely play, yet on a tour course it is nearly always the only route worth considering and perhaps therefore what the pros consider as "good tee to green play"?

[Mac Plumart]

Has commerical interest and mass appeal stunted the growth of quality golf course architecture?

That was the original question.  It has been answered in spades. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Adrian

“Melvyn I agree land not fit for purpose should not be built on but I would not build on a remote location because IT IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE”

I do not believe that you said that – you are either having a dig at Askernish or Old Tom.

Building remote courses are fine, just look to Brora, Dornoch, Askernish for Lady Cathcart, Tarland for the Earl of Aberdeen, Garth House for Sir Donald Curry (Loch Tay), Collieston again For Lady Cathcart, Saumarez for Lord De Saumarez on Guernsey, Lord Leitrim Co Donegal. All built on land fit for purpose and used by the Landed Gentry, their guests and locals. Then we have Machrie, what about Machrihanish, then Cullen, Warkworth, the list goes on all remote in their own rights.

No Adrian, that was poor, given the commission you would have jumped on all or anyone of the above.

I still believe that Askernish hold the clue to the games future, but how many modern architects have bothered to visit and understand just what has been done for a fist full of Scottish pounds. All already know he industry so no more surprised perhaps but then a course comes along for £50,000 and golfers are praising the hell out of it. Seek and learn before you make any more daft comments.

One thing is for certain ignore the warnings and soon trouble rears its head with mad statements being published.

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

Melvyn...

Askernish is a course worthy of serious study.  There is no doubt about that.  The routing in the dunes area of the course is simply amazing and very unique relative to anything I've seen.  The placement of many of the greens is also fascinating.  Now add in the fact that one of the holes (maybe the 12th) was re-built for, maybe $7,500 is simply mind-blowing!!*


*I'm sure my facts are not 100% accurate on those figures and hole #, but the point is valid.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Has commerical interest and mass appeal stunted the growth of quality golf course architecture?

That was the original question.  It has been answered in spades. 

Mac - My answer is NO. The type of architecture loved on here is just one part.

[Tom Kelly]

Has commerical interest and mass appeal stunted the growth of quality golf course architecture?

That was the original question.  It has been answered in spades. 

It seems like the general consensus on the thread so far is a big fat YES, but I believe I maybe be leaning towards Adrian's answer of no.

Business has definitely had a detrimental effect on Golf Architecture overall, but it was always going to have that effect and I believe it was unavoidable. I can't think of one sport which has not been damaged by the inevitable commercial interest in it?

So looking at it from the point of view that commercial interest was always going to damage the game to some level, I believe Golf Architects have generally done a very good job of trying to protect the values of the game in this business centered world. I believe Golf Course Architecture has survived as well as it could have done. They may have been a few wobbles along the way but the standard in the most part today is as good as it ever was (Melvyn will disagree).

"I'm standing my ground on the verge."

[Robin_Hiseman]

Tom

I'm sticking by my 'Yes'.  Having recently done a study into real estate and golf I spent a great deal of time trawling around Google Earth looking at the mass of newish golf course wedged in amongst houses.  This is perhaps the most obvious manifestation of how golf courses can be developed purely as a landscaping project, with scarcely a thought as to the architectural merit, so I do think that the growth of quality golf course architecture is stunted when the architecture is of no relevance to the performance of the product.

However, I am also of the opinion that we are fortunate to be enjoying a period during which more high quality designs have been produced than ever before and thanks to the internet, we are far more aware of them than we could have been before.  These are still inspiring times.

Oh, and I'm mad keen to see Askernish....

[Tom Kelly]

Robin,

Did most of these 'real estate' courses have absolutely no architectural positives at all? Also do you think the economic downturn has/will reduced the amount of these courses being built? I hope so.

I hope there is a chance that this recent economic downturn especially being global may inadvertently have a good effect on the quality of the golf course architecture being created. Bad courses can't survive as well as they used to and to me it seems that more average public golfers are becoming more clued up on good courses with the internet etc giving them more access to information as you suggest. They also have a greater choice of courses to join and play as there are lots of good courses with membership spaces and cheap rates which wouldn't have been the case 20 years ago or even 10. Courses will have to improve to keep their business (this seems to be happening in my area anyway). Every industry/sport has their low times, maybe golf is finally coming out of its and learning its lessons...or am I too optimistic?

The credit crunch may sort the wheat from the chaff as they say?

Cheers

[Mike_Young]

Has commerical interest and mass appeal stunted the growth of quality golf course architecture?

That was the original question.  It has been answered in spades. 

Mac,
I don't think so.
First, I think we could agree that if golf was politics then this discussion group would be far left.  But there also exist the middle and the right so that need to always be considered.
Also if the guys on here were Porsche enthusiast instead of JBD's (Jagged Bunker Dudes) then they would not consider the Camry or the Honda Accord as quality, well engineered automobiles.
But back to your question; I think it should say: "Has commercial interest manipulated quality golf course design."  The answer to that question is Yes.  If golf design had to answer to golf alone it would always been designed to be profitable or affordable.  However developers saw golf as a way to take mediocre land and create value for less than if the purchased lakefront, ocean front or mountaintop land.  They were not concerned with architecture as much as they were marketing.   When one considers the actual capital cost of some of these high end projects divided into per lot cost then you start to realize how things got out of hand.  That is when you realize one could allocate $50,000 per lot on a $300,000 lot to a golf course and  build these things.  With this going on the course contractors, architects, equipment manufacturers, irrigation companies and all got on the band wagon.  And they shunned projects being built w/o all the latest and greatest.  (especially if they were not USGA greens etc).  Now these same firms are being lauded at various conferences as they explain to everyone how we need to spend less and "go brown". 
So IMHO we are now at a point every aspect from the golf pro , to the supt, to the irrigation, to the arhcie, to the equipment purchases have to be justified and make good business sense.  When all of these come together and the project is viable then you have a project that can survive and I think that far outweighs "quality golf architecture" in an environment where it has to be subsidized.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I think you said most of what I was trying to say much better.

I especially think the Camry vs luxury car comparison is apt.  Most people need and want Camrys.  Building a quality, yet affordable car is a design marvel, really.  So is the fact that Camry's get closer and closer to luxury cars in quality, making it harder for luxury brands to stand out.

[Michael Dugger]

If you want a job, and you want to make a living designing golf courses, it's really quite simple.

You do what you have to do.  You build what your client asks of you.

The client, of course, in most instances, is taking on the venture to make money. 

Making money is rarely the same thing as building a golf course for all the "right" reasons.  Or building the "natural" course.

Like with a lot of things in life, the pursuit of wealth can spoil golf.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I find myself wondering, how many courses prior to about 1990 were designed with no thought to commerical success?  Or, at least breaking even?

Other than a few GA archies - namely CBM and Thomas, what architects weren't also under pressure to deliver what the owners wanted to collect their fee and get recommendations for others?


For that matter, if anyone could afford to subsidize a course, it would be Trump, so can we say that his waterfalls are his vision of the perfect golf course, or added for commerical effect?

Is the question in the OP really valid?  Has anything really changed, other than architectural styles, or perhaps, the technolgies that allow architectural styles?

[Adrian_Stiff]

I find it quite strange how some just cant understand the real situation of what happens .... the phone rings the man says I have some land, you go look at the land, he wants a course, he tells you how much money he has to spend and his buisness plan, you negioate a fee to design his course, you get the job, you do the best you can..... THE REST IS DREAMY STUFF.....i f the land next door is better TOUGH ..IT AINT YOURS... you try to convince him of some land parcel you have seen in the Falkland Islands but he is not intrested in building a course there he lives in South Carolina, his land is in South Carolina, you explain to him that the Falkland Islands land is special for golf, you dont listen AND you dont get the job, in reality the men with the white coats come along for you.