Why cant golfers accept odd/quirky features on golf courses?

[Tim Lewis]

One thing that I have noticed about this site is that the phrase "A course like this could never be built today" is thrown around alot. For example I was just reading the Royal County Down course profile, and in the second paragraph it says, "Yet, sadly, like The Old Course at St. Andrews, Royal County Down would never be re-created today." He goes on to explain that the reason RCD would never be built today is because of the blind shots.

I really struggle to understand why this is the case. Recently for my expository writing class I wrote a paper trying to make the claim that advancements in technology have been detrimental to the game of golf. My first two paragraphs were about how the modern ball eliminates shotmaking, and how equipment has made many courses obsolete, but in my final paragraph I tried to make the claim that advancements in course construction equipment have also been detrimental. My argument was that with the ability to create and destroy any features on a plot of land, the architect can no longer incorporate any unique natural, or man-made features into the golf courses they are building. Because architects could destroy the feature if they wanted to, and this feature may not always fit in with the status quo, golfers complain when these quirky features are incorporated into designs. Back in the days architects could not destroy these features because they did not have the technology to do so, and golfers could not complain about them.

This problem really irks me because I think that when features that are unique to a specific setting are destroyed courses tend to become similar. I quess my question is, why don't people seem to think that the average golfer could eventually be convinced that things like blind shots, and other quirky features actually add to the character of a golf course rather than detriment it.  

[Ally Mcintosh]

One thing that I have noticed about this site is that the phrase "A course like this could never be built today" is thrown around alot. For example I was just reading the Royal County Down course profile, and in the second paragraph it says, "Yet, sadly, like The Old Course at St. Andrews, Royal County Down would never be re-created today." He goes on to explain that the reason RCD would never be built today is because of the blind shots.

I really struggle to understand why this is the case.

It's not the case. That's just lazy analysis.

I understand where it comes from but it accepts defeat as a given which it resolutely is not.

[Frank Pont]

Tim,

You can still do whatever you think is best as an architect if you find a client who trusts your talent and gives you the room to do your thing.

And if that is the case then quirck can stil be created and be succesful.

The most popular hole at my ladt course Swinkelsche is a short par 4 with a blind shot into the green ( inspired by the 10th hole at De Pan).

[Adrian_Stiff]

I have built blind stuff purposely because I felt it would be more interesting, some of it gets some flack and some of it gets the thumbs up.  I had a 485 yard par 5 and at about 260 from the tee I had two bunkers one visible from the tee left and 1 that was invisible on the right, the gap between is 20 yards, I got real slated by someone for that. It is not easy to introduce new quirky stuff because the quirky stuff often comes out of a problem and with modern construction the problems are more easily solved or just not doable due to H & S.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

It's not that you can't build quirky features.  Generally speaking, though, as architects move up the food chain they become more concerned about upsetting the establishment, instead of trying to attract attention to their work, and their designs become more conservative.

Also, generally speaking, these are the architects getting the most work, and therefore the most ink, so it becomes a self-selecting thing.

There is certainly no reason to blow up good natural features because you've got a D-6.  But, it IS harder to build the sort of details into the greens and bunkers of a new course than the old guys did, if all you have is big equipment and you don't have the best shaper in the world to run the machine.

[jeffwarne]

Tim:

It's not that you can't build quirky features.  Generally speaking, though, as architects move up the food chain they become more concerned about upsetting the establishment, instead of trying to attract attention to their work, and their designs become more conservative.

Also, generally speaking, these are the architects getting the most work, and therefore the most ink, so it becomes a self-selecting thing.

There is certainly no reason to blow up good natural features because you've got a D-6.  But, it IS harder to build the sort of details into the greens and bunkers of a new course than the old guys did, if all you have is big equipment and you don't have the best shaper in the world to run the machine.

Tom,
Do you need "the best shapers in the world" to build odd/quirky features?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Do you need "the best shapers in the world" to build odd/quirky features?

No, many of the quirkiest features I've seen on golf courses were a complete accident.  But it helps to have really good shapers when you want to build those sorts of things on demand 

[Grant Saunders]

This problem really irks me because I think that when features that are unique to a specific setting are destroyed courses tend to become similar. I quess my question is, why don't people seem to think that the average golfer could eventually be convinced that things like blind shots, and other quirky features actually add to the character of a golf course rather than detriment it.  

I think that some people will accept quirk but it is a different story whether or not they actually want quirk.

[Tim Lewis]

What about the dell hole, biarritz green, and blind shots that they got rid of at Erin Hills because of the public opinion. Features like that seem interesting to me, but is it different because they wanted to attract a championship, or that it is public?  

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - my view is that not only have the conventions changed (blinds shots common then, but not now) but so too has our modern take on the unconventional, which I think is more un-accepting than ever before (for many reasons, including economic realties and the absurd and absurdly high expectations we have, historically speaking, about what passes for a good/economically successful life). I think that any working architect (and his/her clients) has a very good sense of what that line is, i.e. of what is acceptable to today's golfers in the realm of the unconventional; and I think they hew very close to that line, and never cross it. (If they did, they wouldn't be "working architects" for very long.)  To put it another way: I think courses have changed because people/golfers have changed -- though this reality doesn't have to mean that we can't go our own way; it just means that the price we pay for doing it our way and doing it right is higher than ever before.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Tim - my view is that not only have the conventions changed (blinds shots common then, but not now) but so too has our modern take on the unconventional, which I think is more un-accepting than ever before (for many reasons, including economic realties and the absurd and absurdly high expectations we have, historically speaking, about what passes for a good/economically successful life). I think that any working architect (and his/her clients) has a very good sense of what that line is, i.e. of what is acceptable to today's golfers in the realm of the unconventional; and I think they hew very close to that line, and never cross it. (If they did, they wouldn't be "working architects" for very long.)  To put it another way: I think courses have changed because people/golfers have changed -- though this reality doesn't have to mean that we can't go our own way; it just means that the price we pay for doing it our way and doing it right is higher than ever before.

Peter

Peter:

I agree with what you said, but the last line also emphasizes [though I don't think it was your intention to do so] that part of the change in people is about their attitudes toward money.  The more we pay to play the game, the less tolerance we have for something outlandish; and the more the architects make from designing courses, the less likely they are to put their future earnings on the line by building something controversial.  

On top of all that, our clients are spending heaps of money to build these courses, but I don't know which motivates them more:  is it the fear that their investment will fail, or the fear that their friends and customers will think they were silly to waste money on a quirky feature?

[Sean_A]

Tim - my view is that not only have the conventions changed (blinds shots common then, but not now) but so too has our modern take on the unconventional, which I think is more un-accepting than ever before (for many reasons, including economic realties and the absurd and absurdly high expectations we have, historically speaking, about what passes for a good/economically successful life). I think that any working architect (and his/her clients) has a very good sense of what that line is, i.e. of what is acceptable to today's golfers in the realm of the unconventional; and I think they hew very close to that line, and never cross it. (If they did, they wouldn't be "working architects" for very long.)  To put it another way: I think courses have changed because people/golfers have changed -- though this reality doesn't have to mean that we can't go our own way; it just means that the price we pay for doing it our way and doing it right is higher than ever before.

Peter

Peter:

I agree with what you said, but the last line also emphasizes [though I don't think it was your intention to do so] that part of the change in people is about their attitudes toward money.  The more we pay to play the game, the less tolerance we have for something outlandish; and the more the architects make from designing courses, the less likely they are to put their future earnings on the line by building something controversial.  

On top of all that, our clients are spending heaps of money to build these courses, but I don't know which motivates them more:  is it the fear that their investment will fail, or the fear that their friends and customers will think they were silly to waste money on a quirky feature?

Its odd that.  While I can understand the mother of invention being born of necessity, I do find it strange that more expensive courses often don't offer much in the way radical diversity.  I reckon its gotta be a good thing to have a few holes or at least features which are a bit out there.  I suspect part of the problem with archies getting loose is the maintenance regime.  Often times neat features, even if well placed, are overly fussy, thus losing some of their appeal (I fear one of the aesthetic issues with short grass everywhere - while often great looking - there is a sense of lawn bowls about it).  In truth, the lack of oddball creativity was one of my big beefs with Trump Aberdeen.  It doesn't seem credible that a wild site such as that didn't yield one truly off the charts hole adn that of course suggests that perhaps it was over-manufactured.  

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

The fairness doctrine, led by many top pro golfers, has played a big role in erasing quirk. 

[jeffwarne]

Tim - my view is that not only have the conventions changed (blinds shots common then, but not now) but so too has our modern take on the unconventional, which I think is more un-accepting than ever before (for many reasons, including economic realties and the absurd and absurdly high expectations we have, historically speaking, about what passes for a good/economically successful life). I think that any working architect (and his/her clients) has a very good sense of what that line is, i.e. of what is acceptable to today's golfers in the realm of the unconventional; and I think they hew very close to that line, and never cross it. (If they did, they wouldn't be "working architects" for very long.)  To put it another way: I think courses have changed because people/golfers have changed -- though this reality doesn't have to mean that we can't go our own way; it just means that the price we pay for doing it our way and doing it right is higher than ever before.

Peter

Peter:

I agree with what you said, but the last line also emphasizes [though I don't think it was your intention to do so] that part of the change in people is about their attitudes toward money.  The more we pay to play the game, the less tolerance we have for something outlandish; and the more the architects make from designing courses, the less likely they are to put their future earnings on the line by building something controversial.  

On top of all that, our clients are spending heaps of money to build these courses, but I don't know which motivates them more:  is it the fear that their investment will fail, or the fear that their friends and customers will think they were silly to waste money on a quirky feature?

Completly true.
and there is a perception that there are more simple minds (as far as golf is concerned) out there than not.
Anecdotally, I'd say people aren't given enough chances to accept quirk, which is, over time, often a matter of education, gradual acceptance, and ultimately being fully embraced and staunchly defended.

[Colin Macqueen]

Tim,
I sense that Jim's "fairness" doctrine in reply #12 is very much on the money.
From where I stand it seems that the game is firmly in the hands of the professional ranks. The money on offer is so large that elements of luck must be ironed out physically as well as metaphorically. Quirk and charm fall by the wayside.

I can also empathise with the notion that the lack of "oddball creativity" from time to time is a shame. I imagine that the sort of lads I play golf with would have a lot of fun playing these sort of holes. For sure the stories about the escapades and adventures undergone as they were played would be retold countlessly compared to tales relating to the more common and mundane holes planted nowadays.

So I think that the professionals find it hard to accept "odd/quirky features" but the run of the mill golfer would revel in that sort of character. I guess a good example is Cruden Bay, whose quotient of quirk is high, gets love and admiration from all sides other than, I suspect, the professional plying his trade!

Cheers Colin

[Colin Macqueen]

Tom D,

Would you yourself think it "……..silly to waste money on a quirky feature?" I suspect not but of course I don't know! How about in New Zealand on the hedge fund managers course!!

You also mentioned that "……many of the quirkiest features I've seen on golf courses were a complete accident." and that good shapers were certainly needed "…to build those sorts of things on demand".  If quirk can be erased by great bulldozers I guess it can also be created. If you had the brief would it be an even more difficult task for the architect to envisage, design and implement "quirk" on a number of holes compared to the normal trials and tribulations associated with the architecture of a golf hole?

Cheers Colin

[Ally Mcintosh]

It seems to me that all you need is an understanding client with not a lot of money to spend on a lively site. I can attest to that. This appears easier in GB&I than elsewhere. The public are quicker to embrace modern quirk than you might think. I do agree that there is a certain pro sect that search for fairness first but I think quotes like that in the original post are just a case of running scared.

I guess Tom is right though. As you go on, you become more conservative.

[Thomas Dai]

Colin mentions the high quirk level of Cruden Bay and I agree with him. I like the place very much.

However, whilst pondering the currently ongoing Cruden Bay changes thread, I looked at some maps and wondered, as I have a few times over the years, if in todays times, with access to big machines, folk would be able to resist 'creating' holes in the huge dunes that stretch from behind the existing 4th green, all along the left sides of the 5th, 6th and 7th holes at CB.

All the best

[Tim Martin]

Mackenzie fought tooth and nail to keep his 12th green at Sitwell Park but to no avail. When you look at the pictures it is certainly quirky and wild but looked like an awful lot of fun. Could it be that the detractors had no frame of reference for comparison purposes and shunned it for that reason or was it really too "bold"?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I think its really a deeper question than some of the responses here.  

I have always felt that as life gets generally easier that our recreation would naturally get easier, too.  Also, in 1500, they didn't know if the crops would come in and they couldn't predict the weather, as two examples.  Now that society can predict things in advance in so many other fields, its seems natural to me to want to want more predictable golf, too.  It is just part of societies expectations more than when golf started.

I do agree with the fairness doctrine, and agree it probably accelerated over time, as money on the PGA Tour got really big, and as TV spread whatever word the pros said about design. I understand the notion put forward by JN that the golf course shouldn't hurt the player....playing for millions of $$$.

But, we do have to recall that it has been a long slow trend, evidenced by most of the Golden Age writings, and probably before.  The whole golf world, including everyone in charge didn't simply lose their minds one day in the 1980's.  With  500+ years of golf architecture history, some features just got more popular than others, and as technology developed, and wealth grew, it was easier and easier to build what you thought was popular, so why not do it?

Just MHO, as always.

[Carl Rogers]

My observation is that the courses of the late Mike Strantz are popular ... lots of over the top quirk there ... huh??

Popular with whom perhaps might be the question??

Or popular because there is always a niche market for the different.

[Sean_A]

I think the problem of not accepting quirk has accellerated to the point of nonsense.  Take centreline features for instance.  Many people believe it is unfair to take away the middle of the fairway.  Yet, if it the question of width is posed to these same people a light bulb does switch on, if ever dimly.  I had this conversation with a very old friend many years ago.  He complained about a centreline bunker. I asked what if the fairway was narrowed so the bunker was now right or left of the fairway - would that be more fair?  He was puzzled, but eventually gave me a wry smile.  He still comes to GB&I every year for golf and I don't recall him talking about fairness anymore.  

We have had many conversations about blind shots and what they offer the golfer in terms of walkability, thrill and connecting the dots of holes.  I think he now realizes how much the cart, tv golf, false sense of fairness etc have influenced design principles.  While he still doesn't care for blind shots, my mate now understands their value in the scheme of a design.  Just as he has been able to convince me that harsh rough is a valuable feature here and there.  The bottom line is golfers don't like to feel uncomfortable for shots, but I think it is imperative for every course to present those uncomfortable moments for everybody and quirk helps achieve this goal.  

Ciao

[BHoover]

What boggles my mind is that quirky features, such as blind shots and cross bunkers in fairways, are seen as unfair in some way by many golfers. Yet at the same time, people don't think anything about a tree encroaching on the fairway or blocking out the approach to a green. And when the subject of removing said tree comes up, they dig in their heels and defend the tree as if the integrity of the course were at stake.

[Philippe Binette]

A couple of things that eliminates quirk:

medal play over match play... a quirky bounce or the ball going into a quirky severe spot, can ruin a round in medal play... and only one hole in match play.

building quirky features or keeping natural quirky features is playing on the edge, it's taking risk...
and to take that risk, you have to see every inch of it...
Tom Doak talked about needing a great shaper on site to build the quirky features. I think it's more about having a person on site that will be able and willing to evaluate whether the feature works or not... Sometimes, moving the feature 2 or 3 yards to the left or right, building the feature a foot higher or lower... would make all the difference in the world.
You can't do those things from a plan... and it also takes time. you might have to build the feature, demolish part of it, and fix it... It's time, it's money.. especially in a plan / contractor basis...

and finally... golfers complain... for some, it's a hard, cruel game and they have a hard time seeing the bright side of it
                  people complain... for some, it's a hard, cruel life, and they have a hard time seeing the bright side of it

[BCrosby]

TD says:

"The more we pay to play the game, the less tolerance we have for something outlandish; and the more the architects make from designing courses, the less likely they are to put their future earnings on the line by building something controversial."

Absolutely and something true in virtually all professions.

It may have been a blessing that Golden Age architects never became wealthy nor ever expected to become wealthy.

Bob