Latest thought from Ian Andrew

[Mac Plumart]

I am a big fan of Ian Andrew and I check his blog out quite frequently.  I saw this post today...

http://ianandrewsgolfdesignblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-technology-progress.html

In this post, he states that the growth of the game stagnated with the introduction of the Pro-V.  Interesting concept and post.  I thought some of you guys would enjoy it.

[Kalen Braley]

I love Ian's comments in general on GCA.com...but that's quite the stretch in trying to show causality all based on one golf ball.

How about the fact that wages in America have been stagnate and dropping over the last 10 years?
Or that the average person works nearly 10 hours more per week?
Or the invention of other fantastic time wasters like the internet, MMO gaming, smart phones, Video on Demand, etc?
Or that other basic living costs like rent, healthcare, gas prices, grocery prices have sky-rocketed in the last decade?
Or that most households now have dual and triple income earners just to compensate for the above?

People just plain don't have near the same time and choose not to spend money on golf...especially in light of the other cheaper and more readily available distractions.

P.S.  And this doesn't even get into the fact that distance increases have been pretty much nil for 90%+ of golfers.  We still hit it the same crummy distances that we were 10-15 years ago...even if we do hit it slightly straighter.

[Garland Bayley]

It has been posited on this website earlier that the ball would have a negative effect analogous to the negative effect that technology advancement in tennis had.

To the extent that there are some added costs for some larger courses, I agree with Ian. However, I see the obscene prices on the clubs to have a larger effect.

[Ronald Montesano]

Growth in what sense?

I think that Tiger's arrival had a tsunami-like effect from 1996-2000, perhaps even 2005. The young'uns that were swept along by his wave, to borrow someone else's notion, then found they had neither the time nor the money to keep playing this game. I believe that the "growth" of the game may have been overstated then.

[Ian Andrew]

Kalen,

I read A Short History of Progress this week.
It talked a great deal about "the progress trap" where technology often has unexpected and unwanted repercussions.
That was the influence on the piece, along with a running dialogue with Tom Dunne about alternatives for growth in the game.

I think your entirely right with all your observations, but I think the ball has played a role too. The piece was not designed to place all the blame on the ball, but to point out the unexpected consequences that the ball has created. I wanted to show how easy it would be to reduce one of the contributing factors to the rising costs in the game.

[Mac Plumart]

I think if people read the linked post, Ian makes his case quite clearly that it is a piece of the puzzle and it has certainly had unintended consequences.  I thought the piece was well-written and makes a great point...in an almost indisputable way.

Ian, it was never my intention for you to have to defend it.  I am sorry if people didn't read it and posted about it anyway.  My apologies, perhaps I should have never posted the link.  I, quite frankly, just thought it was really well done and directly applicable to the world of architecture.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

I read A Short History of Progress this week.
It talked a great deal about "the progress trap" where technology often has unexpected and unwanted repercussions.
That was the influence on the piece, along with a running dialogue with Tom Dunne about alternatives for growth in the game.

I think your entirely right with all your observations, but I think the ball has played a role too. The piece was not designed to place all the blame on the ball, but to point out the unexpected consequences that the ball has created. I wanted to show how easy it would be to reduce one of the contributing factors to the rising costs in the game.

Fair enough Ian,

I would certainly agree that its potentially played a role in whats happened over the past 10-12 years.  It certainly has been odd how much money has been spent on lengthening courses that certainly didn't seem to need it.

[Mark Pritchett]

Mac,

Thanks for posting the link, I enjoyed reading Ian's post, very interesting. 

Mark

[Philippe Binette]

Ian, A short history of progress is a GREAT book... maybe our government should read it but that's another issue.

On this discussion, I'd like to propose light at the end of the tunnel:

"The world of golf course design and the world of golf in general is in difficult times currently. The number of rounds stagnates or is going down; mainly due to the cost of the game and the time it takes to play it. Golf course architecture has partly been responsible of this situation. The basic point of its mission: to present courses that allow the appreciation of the game par the greatest number, ideally everybody has been forgotten.

The good news is, by changing our approach in golf course architecture, it is possible to change the result. The golf course architect is a vector of change; he can change the current situation by its design decisions and his efforts in educating golfers...."

It's part of my list for the new year on my blog.. feel free to read the list, (the english part is after the french one)
http://binettegolfarchitecture.blogspot.com/2012/01/liste-de-nouvel-new-years-list.html

[Ian Andrew]

Ian, it was never my intention for you to have to defend it.  I am sorry if people didn't read it and posted about it anyway.  My apologies, perhaps I should have never posted the link.  I, quite frankly, just thought it was really well done and directly applicable to the world of architecture.

Mac,

No sorry is required at all.
If you want to post the whole thing for ease of discussion - go ahead - I'm fine with that.


Kalen,

I think there are holes in my arguement too.  

[Wade Schueneman]

Ian,

I enjoyed your article.  Do you think that producing a ball that also flies lower and runs harder would help grow the game by encouraging firm course conditions that require less water (and might encourage slightly slower green speeds which could also ease the maintenance burden)?  This is truly a question, by the way.  I know nothing about this kind of stuff.

[Philippe Binette]

I would say I agree with Ian's arguments about the ball...

but I'm not sure the PRO V1 made the game easier... maybe only for the best of the best, but for the average guy, 10 yards longer (if that) is more than often 10 yards further in the woods.

A question: Wasn't it the architect responsability to at least inform the developer of the impact of building a 7200 yards course.

Since it impact the building cost, buying land cost and maintenance cost on the long term, in a way that course influence the sustainaility of its investment... I would think it is. The owner is still free to built a 7200 yards course after the architect's advice.

[Terry Lavin]

I read the articulate but rather brief post and would have to agree that the pro v has had a big effect on the game, especially as it relates to the need to lengthen golf courses. But this blurb ignores so many other factors (clubs, player conditioning, economic issues) that the main point is somewhat diluted.  I would be interested in a more comprehensive analysis by Ian, should he be interested.

[D_Malley]

i agree with alot of what Ian says about the effect that the PV1 has had on lengthening golf courses and the additional costs involved with that.  but,one thing that i do not think has been proven is that the cost of golf has risen.  i got into the golf business about 20 years ago and the price for a round of golf at a public or resort course in my area has hardly changed in those 20 years. 

when you factor in inflation over the past 20 years, the price to play golf has probably gotten lower.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac,
The game came to a screeching halt on 9/11/2001. Every project in my neck of the woods ( there were several from guys like Fazio, Nicklaus, and even Ivan Lendl was trying to build a course) either came to an abrupt halt or were shelved until a later date.

The ball may have had some influence but the era of the CCFAD predated the PROV1 era by quite a few years.  


edit: read the essay twice before posting  

[Mike Nuzzo]

P.S.  And this doesn't even get into the fact that distance increases have been pretty much nil for 90%+ of golfers.  We still hit it the same crummy distances that we were 10-15 years ago...even if we do hit it slightly straighter.

Kalen
Your not the one telling Ian to make a course longer
The point of many threads is you have nothing to do with the game - that is a big problem
Cheers

[Robert Thompson]

What if, as is the case with at least one noted American designer, your fees are based on the overall cost of the build? Thus bigger, longer and more expensive puts more money in your pocket, thus the architect is very keen on the 7400 yard beast.

I would say I agree with Ian's arguments about the ball...

but I'm not sure the PRO V1 made the game easier... maybe only for the best of the best, but for the average guy, 10 yards longer (if that) is more than often 10 yards further in the woods.

A question: Wasn't it the architect responsability to at least inform the developer of the impact of building a 7200 yards course.

Since it impact the building cost, buying land cost and maintenance cost on the long term, in a way that course influence the sustainaility of its investment... I would think it is. The owner is still free to built a 7200 yards course after the architect's advice.

[Mike_Clayton]

I could not agree more re the negative effects of the ball on golf but I think there is an argument that this started way before the Pro V
It was the ultimate manifestation of the technology but didn't it start with the 1985 Spalding Tour Edition?
I used that ball for a bit - it was horrible ball - and Greg Norman won the 86 Open with it and probably lost the 86 PGA because of it when he spun it off the 18th green at Inverness.
It was the first ball to spin but not cut and that was the key breakthrough.It allowed all players - hackers to pros- use the same ball for the first time ever. Before then the average player using a balata ball would have needed 6 a round because every time you thinned it you cut it.
From there it took 13 years about to get the spin rates down so the ball was ideal for pros - and it has only improved from there.
And, to the delight of the manufacturers, it cost less to make because it was just a glorified Pinnacle - no winding and no balata.

[Philippe Binette]

Robert: You're asking a great question.

The "fee based on percentage of the cost" is not an ideal format because the client often feels you're not trying to give him the cheaper answer to a problem.

Should part of the architect fee be paid as a partnership action on the project to insure long term solutions ?

It's a debate that is pertinent in more than golf course architecture. I should apply for a MBA I guess

[Sean_A]

Even if the ball is the major reason for the cost increase in golf (which I disagree with - the major reason is greed), the solution is fatally flawed.  The courses are already built!  Its not like we are now plowing ahead at 300 courses a year in the States.  The solution, if there is one, has to be much more radical.  That said, many believe for the golfer, these are the best times in many a year - count me as one of these.  Its only those in the industry who really worry about this stuff.  Not to be harsh, but those in the business had unrealistically good times for quite a while.  Those in the game should have known the importance of housing to the game and how we always have boom and bust in this sector.  It was up to them, just like any other business (or government for that matter), to read the writing on the wall and figure out how to kick on when things were inevitably going to turn tough.  

Ciao

[Tim_Weiman]

I very much support Ian's view that what amounts to the golf technology arms race makes no sense.

We don't need ever longer golf balls and ever longer courses. The essence of the game is the balance between player skill, technology and the playing field. Making everything bigger and longer doesn't make them better; it just forces money to be spent trying to maintain the balance.

I grew up playing golf at Pelham Country Club, a relatively short, quirky course that has no claim to fame other than being the site of the 1923 PGA, but that was before the New England Thruway was built forcing a redesign.

Back in the 1960's Pelham had a lot of grumpy old men who really didn't like kids being on the golf course. So, I used to find different places on the course to just sit and watch play.

My family moved away from Pelham and it would be about 35 years before I would go back and visit. Most striking to me was a new tee built way back up on a hill on the 4th hole - a bit like those crazy new tees Oakmont built a few years back.

Anyway I played dumb with the greens keeper and asked why this new tee was built. He explained that it was needed to make clearing the hazards in the landing area a challenge.

The hole had no such problem in the 1960s.

Hard to see where anyone could think technology has made things better.

[Terry Lavin]

Hard to see where anyone could think technology has made things better.

Well, I, for one, think technology has made things a heck of a lot better for the average player.  There are multiple issues about what it's done to the professional game and how those changes have wrought havoc with golf course design, which I'll just park on the shoulder so we can have a different discussion.  Technology has helped every casual golfer in multifarious ways.  The clubs are easier to hit, whether you're talking about the driver, a fairway wood, hybrids, irons, lob wedges or putters.  It's much more user friendly.  With proper instruction, the average player can become a better player quicker and more consistently with the equipment of today.  The average player, generally speaking, can hit the ball longer and straighter with the new equipment and new golf balls.  The average player can actually play his golf balls a heck of a lot longer, because they don't get all beat up like balata balls.  Finally, as a player ages, the technology is most definitely his friend.  It keeps him in the game longer, without any question.

Now, some would put on the Luddite hair-shirt and say that we should still be playing with Haskells, gutta percha, hickory clubs, mashies or shovels, for Chrissakes, but I'll just be honest and say that while the advance of technology has created problems with professional golf and with golf course design, it has been great for the average player.

[Niall C]

Growth in what sense?

I think that Tiger's arrival had a tsunami-like effect from 1996-2000, perhaps even 2005. The young'uns that were swept along by his wave, to borrow someone else's notion, then found they had neither the time nor the money to keep playing this game. I believe that the "growth" of the game may have been overstated then.

Ronald

To my way of thinking Tigers influence in "growing the game" and the subsequent "decline of the game" due to his indiscretions is one of the biggets golfing myths ever. As ever Kalen's post suggests, the growth or otherwise of the game, however you want to measure it, is primarily due to the prevailing economic climate pure and simple. In Tigers absence, those kids you refer to would have been idolising someone else. The important thing is that the economic climate gave them the opportunities to play.

Niall

[Terry Lavin]

Niall,

While there is no doubt that Tiger opened up the game to a huge chunk of fans who were otherwise "unengaged" with the game, one would have to concede that the economic climate is a bigger factor on the direction that the game has gone.  I would take some issue with an implication in your post, however.  If you are inferring that Tiger's "indiscretions" have driven the new fans from the game, I think you would be wrong.  Just look at the difference in television ratings if Tiger is involved in a tournament.  Look at the crowds at the tournaments that Tiger plays in.  As one example, last year at Firestone, Tiger's following was 20 or 30 times larger than Phil Mickelson's.  The high minded moralists are well within their self-appointed rights to cast opprobrium on Tiger for his philandering ways, but there's no way that his troubles have materially depleted the enormous following that he has. 

[Niall C]

Terry

To be clear, what I was trying to say was that the ups AND downs of Tiger have little or no bearing on growth/decline of the game. Growth/decline is primarily a function of economics.

Niall