[Patrick_Mucci]

allowed architects to ignore the land and build what they want, rather than what the land would yield.......naturally.

Has it allowed the profession to become "dumbed down" ?

[Michael Moore]

Has it allowed the profession to become "dumbed down" ?

Absolutely not.

"Persons grouped around a fire or candle for warmth or light are less able to pursue independent thoughts, or even tasks, than people supplied with an electric light. In the same way, the educational patterns latent in automation are those of self-employment and artistic autonomy." - Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media

[Jeff_Brauer]

Absolutely not.  Most of us look for the same natural contours as the old guys.  Its just that instead of having 3-4 holes that don't fit perfectly and ending up as blah or maybe poorly drained holes, we massage them a bit to make them better.  Like the old joke about a dog licking his privates.....we do it because we can.

It takes similar amounts of talent to leave the land alone and correctly massage it when required, as well as the common sense to know the difference.

[Ian Andrew]

allowed architects to ignore the land and build what they want, rather than what the land would yield.......naturally.

Has it allowed the profession to become "dumbed down" ?

Pat,

Reflect on Lido for a little while .... would you argue that the building of Lido "dumbed down" the profession?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

I think Lido was at the other end of the spectrum.

Ie, building something from nothing, like Bayonne and Shadow Creek.

Jeff,

Taking it down to a more micro level, how many "flat" fairways do we see today, versus fairways with significant and subtle contours ?

Hasn't the D-6  eliminated the natural contouring in many, to most, modern courses ?

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm sure of this: that modern technology and budgets have led to the perfection of the art and craft of golf course architecture, and made possible, in the hands of a select few at least, the creation of perfect golf courses. The only thing we've given up is an understanding of and appreciation for the perfection of imperfection - the charm, the uniqueness, the natural aliveness of that which is imperfect.  I won't attempt a cost-benefit analysis.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Of course all the architects are going to object to the phrase "dumbed down".

However, in practice, modern machinery has reduced the variety of design from one course to the next.  If I want to see something cool and different, I am more likely to find it at Arrowtown [an old course on rugged land] than at Muirfield Village [a modern course on rugged land]. 

God doesn't worry what golfers will think of his design.

[Tim Lewis]

This is a question that I have spent a lot of time contemplating in the short time that I have been interested in golf architecture, and therefore I feel the need to voice my inexperienced opinions on the matter.

First off I feel that when on a decent property, a course should be as natural as possible. There are many reasons I believe this, but the main reason is because I feel when a course is built as naturally as possible it exudes a truly original experience. When an architect is creating features, he is usually using ideas that he has seen on other courses. When an architect bases his ideas of what he sees on the site alone, he can come up with ideas and use features that are completely original and specific to the property he is given to work with. I believe that many great golf courses are created when an architect approaches a site with a completely open mind. Thus, it is very difficult for a great golf course to be completely manmade, as the architect would have had these preconceived ideas in his mind when creating the features of the course. When given a great site, I believe that the nature of the property alone should provide inspiration for the architect.   

When architects did not have the modern shaping machinery and budgets that we have today, they were forced to approach a property with a completely open mind, and because of this many early courses located on great pieces of property have a charm, a character, and holes that are very site specific. Modern machinery enabled architects to create certain principles for what entailed bad and good golf. It makes me cringe when I look a Mackenzie's thirteen principles, because I know that having those principles in his mind when laying out a course limited the potential of the property he was working with.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A lurker asked me yo post the following:


I feel Pat has a good point, perhaps too much as a generalisation but still a fair and valid point.
 
For far too long now designs have been undertaken regrettably not for the glory of golf, however more so in trying to comply with commerce and for convenience sake.  More money has been thrown at sites just to achieve the desired effect, but agreed not all designers or architects are at fault.
 
Pat is right that “Modern machinery and Budgets have allowed architects to ignore the land and build what they want, rather than what the land would yield….. naturally.
 
And Yes I am afraid that it has allowed the profession (in some areas) to become “dumbed down” however that I place the blame fairly and squarely on all designers due to their invisible Code of Silence. You have witnessed poor designs and many refuse to comment (agreed not all but the vast majority) thus making a rod for other to use against your whole profession.
 
For far too long in the modern period crap has been served up as designs for golf courses, showing a little contempt for the golfer and also the game – this has been clearly displayed, yet the lack of any real reaction or even questioning the policy behind these design intents has given the impression that the profession does seem to care.
 
I am not linking all designers into to this, but yes Pat has a fair point and while those denying it so far may be indeed innocent of poor design, that does not apply to others within the profession.
 
I know you have seen poor designs exactly as Pat is driving at but I do not understand why for the good of design and golf you will not openly debate the subject or give your honest opinions.
 
“Absolutely not” does not cut it,  - looking at the industry over the last 30 years you honestly maintain your answer as “Absolutely not”.
 
Really, if GCA is in that good a condition?  It’s a fair question and surely deserves an honest answer.
 
Is it more important to protect the butchers or Golf?
 
 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat, flat fairways don't drain, never did, never will.  Should have never been there in the first place.  Ross and all knew it, when they could, they did something about it.  Some of his Florida courses still don't drain, and its a wonder Seminole does (at least according to Pete Dye, a member who knows something about it)

So, yes, we build 2-4% drain slopes in most fairways today, if they don't naturally possess it.  We also shape to control off site drainage that has proven over time to affect golf courses. 

I would love to know the coward you are posting for, Pat.  No, not really.  His opinion is worth very little.  Any trend in design over the last fifty years seemed right at the time, and then got so standard some folks started questioning it, and changed for the sake of doing something different.  We aren't dumbed down, and we aren't butchers.  We are simply responding to the needs of golf as it is played - and managed - now.  We probably have a lot more to consider than any of the old guys, and manage to figure it out.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

A rumpled fairway with cant doesn't have to be bulldozed flat.

Florida and other dead flat areas need amending for drainage, I wasn't disputing that.
 
I think there's a tendency to remove contouring and slopes from fairways.

Now I recognize the difficulty in mowing fairways with subtle contours and that there has to be more than ample consideration for being able to maintain that which you design and build.

But, it seems easier to make the land conform to design concepts rather than having design concepts conform to the land.

[Tom_Doak]

Some of these changes aren't even "design", they are just unnecessary work created by draftsmen trained to work toward gentle, even slopes.

Years ago I went out (unannounced) to have a look at a course under construction by another architect, whose name I won't share -- not one of the big guys, though.

The course was on a fairly hilly site and the best hole was routed through a beautiful little valley.  In the landing area, they had stripped off all the topsoil and put it aside so that the valley could be filled up by 1-2 feet, and then the topsoil could be re-spread.  Because of this relatively small design change -- which seemed meaningless to me -- two acres of ground was stripped and re-topsoiled afterward.

My thought was that no one would ever have made that change if they had been directing the work in the field.  But the contractor was just following the plans, so a single wavy line drawn on the grading plan led to massive disruption.  And a really good contractor might have pointed out this work was unnecessary, but this one was happy to get paid for all the extra work that had been specified.

[Thomas Dai]

Wonderful Ballyliffin comes to mind.

The Old Course where the fairways are of natural humps and bumps and hollows of all shapes and sizes, and the newer Glashedy Course, with flattened fairways and few awkward lies and stances. As a member said to me "The Old was made by God helped by a man with a lawn mower, the Glashedy was made by men with lots of big machines". Maybe sums it up nicely.

atb

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Doesn't the example you cited reinforce the need for the architect to be on site as often as is practical ?

[Randy Thompson]

Pat,
Without a doubt machinery and budgets have played there part. It also allowed many architects the ability to créate reconginzable styles as we have discussed here so often. But, I think things are changing and have been since the turn of the century. It not easy and frequent because you need special land that no longer exist near populated áreas but some have found the correct land but in remote locations. They also put together the correct formula in order to overcome the marketing diffiuclties of remote sites. In these cases Architects are in general working with the land instead of against it. My last project was an excellent piece of land and I constantly had in the back of my mind, there is no bulldozer! I look forward to the future with all the virgin,and high quality sites South America still has in comparrison to most other countries. However I am also realisic that we are living in a difficult golf development market and we will continue to do for some time and if I have to take a poor site and créate something from nothing, I will and with a big smile. 

[Mike_Young]

I just read your lurker's comments and IMHO he can shove it...

As TD has mentioned here before, some guys find the design in the land and some people place the design there.  Equipment has allowed people to place designs without necessarily knowing how to find the designs that exist on a piece of property.  Another way of putting it is that equipment has made land viable for a golf course where it would not have been in the past.  That is the biggest problem, not the architect hired to put it there.  It increased the cost of golf, it increased the number of courses and it screwed the game.  If there was anything that aided this more than equipment it was the evolving of 60 pages of plans and less on site work by architects. 

[Jason Thurman]

A lurker asked me yo post the following:


I feel Pat has a good point...

This is just brilliant.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Sorry I have been away.

Yes, bulldozers can remove rumples and flatten slopes.  They don't need to remove rumples although the biggest complaints I get about rumples are from supers, who, perhaps on behalf of their members, want to make sure the fairway cut is "even" which is harder to do at such low cuts.

The shorter cuts also make the ball roll out more, and if the desire is to keep shots that hit the fairway on the fariway (which 99% of golfers believe should happen, at least to them, but not necessarily their competitors.....) so many areas of cross slopes are removed to be "fair" so that a ball that hits 210 off the tee gets relatively the same treatment as one that lands 220 off the tee.

So, call it giving the customer what they want or whatever.  It is just a different set of criteria we feel we must respond to.  Has it been overdone to appease top level golfers in search of fairness?  Of that, I have little doubt.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()