Has the search for great golf destroyed good golf?

[Mike_Young]

I watched two ladies yesterday hitting drivers on the practice range.  None went further than 85 yards. 
So many of us rarely realize how difficult the average new golf course is for a person as they try to learn the game .  Growing up there were courses where guys could play while learning.  They consisted of a few shallow bunkers, flatter, single plane greens and shorter holes.  The constant search for more length, deeper bunkers, more bunkers, more difficult greens has stifled the learning experience and IMHO turns people away from the game.  We know how to design these courses and yet we also know the client doesn't want such and that the marketing machines would crumble such a course.  It does an architect's resume no good.  We can shorten all the tees we wish but people still can't play most of the new courses due to the increased difficulty of greens and bunkering and all in an effort to market the product.  I'm convinced it is the reason golf will never really work in China and other areas.  I don't know how we fix it....the initial couple of years as a golfer is tough and much too easy to become discouraged. 

[Ian Andrew]

Mike,

The answer is "a route around the trouble"

I've watched a old couple similar to "The Havercamp's" play for six holes one day ...
I was curious ... and I had finished my work ... they caught my attention because they were clearly having fun.

They don't play to our conventions.
They play around "everything" and don't care about reaching targets in intentional increments.

So I asked them what they like and don't like after nine.
"We just don't like forced carries dear ... everything else is fine."

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

The answer is "a route around the trouble"

I've watched a old couple similar to "The Havercamp's" play for six holes one day ...
I was curious ... and I had finished my work ... they caught my attention because they were clearly having fun.

They don't play to our conventions.
They play around "everything" and don't care about reaching targets in intentional increments.

So I asked them what they like and don't like after nine.
"We just don't like forced carries dear ... everything else is fine."

Tudo bem.....

[Dan Herrmann]

Best way to get a handle on this factor is to play an alternate shot event with a shorter hitter.  It's an epiphany.

[JBovay]

I think this is an important topic, Mike, and was just thinking about similar things yesterday. I know many threads contain similar thoughts, but here are mine:

My wife is a beginner who can carry her driver about 85-100 yards if she hits it very well, but half that distance on a normal shot. There are not too many courses we can both enjoy. We do often play alternate shot golf when we play, but that does not improve the enjoyment factor as much as would course designs that provided strategic elements for better players but little in the way of technical challenges for beginners. Courses with 4000-yard tee options, or even shorter, would help, and par 3 courses/pitch and putts with well-designed sets of greens should prove hugely beneficial if the game is going to continue to grow. I'd also strongly advocate any courses that can be played in less than an hour per nine.

My wife and I played Aetna Springs (Doak redesign) last year during a trip to Napa, and I remain impressed with the way the course balances strategy and playability for the complete beginner. Three holes have a small stream or burn crossing the fairway in the landing area, which forced me to weigh my options. Meanwhile, my wife could play the holes without being intimidated by water or gaping bunkers. The greens were plenty interesting, too. The 9 hole course is a great walk, less than 3100 yards from the tips, and does provide a set of beginner tees. I hope to post a photo tour, if we get the chance to visit again before leaving California. On our upcoming trip to Scotland, I expect Elie will provide a similar balance of being receptive to her game and interesting for me.

Further evidence of the gap between what's designed and what's playable for many: I've played several times behind groups that took about 15 minutes to reach the greens and 2 minutes to putt out. Seems to indicate that for many golfers, the tee-to-green challenge is just too much, while greens could be built with a little more interest and challenge.

JB

[Jud_T]

Mike,

The answer is "a route around the trouble"

Ian,

Apparently some GCAs, clients, low handicappers and greens committees never learned this rudimentary lesson.  This is Golf 101 yet profound.  I watched my dad bunt it around his club after taking up golf late in life.  All he cared about was not getting in a bunker or deep rough as he didn't have the clubhead speed to get out effectively.  And he wouldn't play any tee that had a carry over water.

[Jordan Standefer]

...and par 3 courses/pitch and putts with well-designed sets of greens should prove hugely beneficial if the game is going to continue to grow. I'd also strongly advocate any courses that can be played in less than an hour per nine.

I'm in a similar boat, JB.  My wife has taken an interest in the game and we are very lucky that there are three 9-hole courses very close to us.  They take us about 90 minutes to complete on average, which still leaves us the rest of the day to do other things.

One of the biggest factors that discourages new golfers is being intimidated by other golfers.  Having courses that aren't too penal and allow for beginners to enjoy the game are important going forward.  It's where I learned the game, as I'm sure many have.

I would hope that if courses continue to close, some cities decide to keep 6 or 9-hole loops where people can continue to learn the game in a fashion that encourages learning.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

There are 2 36 hole public courses here in PHX that have one short course:

Palm Valley GC:
http://www.palmvalleygolf.com/-course-overview

Bear Creek GC:
http://www.bearcreekaz.com/cub-course/course-information

Also available is Augusta Ranch GC:
http://www.augustaranchgolf.com/scorecard.html

These are the type of courses that beginners, children, seniors or any golfer desiring a different experience should play. I played the Lakes Course at Palm Valley once and scored a 69- not in my usual range of scores.   . It's a quality course and a good experience. The problem though with public golf in  most places that anyone with the money to play can play any course they want regardless of their ability. This leads to slow play and etiquette problems.

[Dave McCollum]

Pretty much off topic, but I need to vent some steam.

I have similar thoughts all the time.  Perhaps a different tune, but essentially the same bewilderment about golf and golf courses.  For me, it’s the game:  a few hours outdoors in the elements with your friends or family trying to play a difficult game halfway decently by your own standard of accomplishment.  So much better if it happens in a beautiful landscape.  However, I’m not certain that is essential.  I believe I can enjoy the game on just about any course and much that we debate about so passionately here doesn’t matter much in the overall scheme of things.

I’m in the business, own a course, and listen all the time to golfers’ complaints and comments.  Usually, my first question is “did you have fun?”  Isn’t that what it’s all about?  Sadly, the better the player or the longer the golfer has played, this essential question is far down the list of their concerns, even though most will affirm that they did. 

Last January I decided to get out of cold and indulge in my hobby of seeing a few new (to me) courses.  More or less the standard buddy road trip to somewhere warm playing lots of golf on decent to exceptional courses.   My companions weren’t architecture nerds, but were curious to see other courses and could tolerate my obsession to talk about what we had seen.  Maybe, along the way, we might pick up a few insights about golfers that would help us in the business.  The particular courses aren’t important.  Let’s just say they were all courses of interest to golf nuts like us on gca.com with a couple of random ones thrown in so we could keep playing golf every day.  I saw a dozen courses and played 14 rounds of golf.  Only one course I had played before. It was a fantastic trip highlighted by playing three architectural masterpieces.

 The thing that struck me most about these contrasting styles of golf—from opulent golf at exclusive private clubs to threadbare, no frills, lay-of-the-land tracks that host 60,000 rounds per year of public golf—is the infinite variety of the game and its playing fields.  Given the right attitude and enjoyable companions, one can have fun on just about any golf course.

I’ve been very fortunate to play a couple dozen great golf courses of the hundreds of courses I’ve played.  I appreciate good golf as much as the next fellow, but at the end of the day, the quality of the course and conditioning is much less important than time spent with friends enjoying the game.  Granted, a good part of my pleasure is derived from appreciating the architecture, however that happens on perfectly ordinary golf courses as well because, without some exposure to a quirky, overcrowded, urban muni, my perspective is diminished.

I guess I just like golf and, perhaps, something akin to the art of golf landscapes.  I grow weary of the snobbery of golf and its marketing.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike:

One of the most memorable golf experiences I ever had was at Little Met, a 9 hole course that is part of Cleveland's Metroparks system.

Little Met offers nothing a student of golf architecture would travel to see. It is not a good property. There are no good holes, greens or bunkers.

But spending some time there occasionally is insightful. One day I got fixed up with this guy who was a terrible golfer. To say he was a 36 HCP would be generous. He was much worse than that.

Yet, what impressed me most was that he seemed so happy to be there, so happy  to be playing.

So, I finally said to him "you seem to really love golf" and he gushed about how much he did.

Then, I said to him - trying not to be a golf architecture snob - " yeah, playing golf is great....especially playing good courses".

He quickly cut me off saying he "already played a good course and never wants to do that again".

I was stunned and asked why.

He replied that the good course he played had a hole where you had to hit 100 yards over water and he never wanted to do that again.

Would golf ever have become popular at St Andrews if TOC had such a hazard?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Had a German couple play behind me at Druid's Glen last year.... They walked straight from the 16th green to the 18th tee where we were already situated... Didn't even break stride.... They clearly knew there was no point in playing a par-3 (the 17th) that had a significant water carry from each and every tee.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I saw your title and thought immediately it was the best I've seen in a while; there's no doubt that few architects today are building modest courses, and that developing countries need modest golf instead of the high-end courses that they are importing.  That's all Golf Economics 101.

However, your first couple of sentences spoil your premise I think.  Playability for beginners IS important -- and many great courses are very playable for the beginner, as long as the architect has avoided forced carries.  Alice Dye insisted on this in Pete's work, and it carried down to pretty much everything Bill Coore and I build.  The wife of one of my clients played at Pacific Dunes years ago and beat her career best round by a dozen shots, because of the shorter tees and the roll in the fairways. 

The two golfers I've met who liked Sebonack the most are women members [one a 10-handicap and one a 30], who play it at a comfortable distance and have only one cross-bunker to play over, on the 18th hole.

I've never had a client who would let me build a course at 6200 yards, and never had a call about doing an executive course -- have you done any yourself?  I would be happy to collaborate with you on one.  The Children's Course at North Berwick is a great model for the sort of features that make a course interesting while keeping it simple.

[David_Elvins]

Does anyone know the factors that have created this?

-Have clients changed?  Less Munis being built?  More housing courses that have to market well but not necessarily play well?

-Is land now so expensive that clients feel they need to come up with a high green fee model to justify building a golf course?

-Do people just not understand what they want?
-

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

I saw your title and thought immediately it was the best I've seen in a while; there's no doubt that few architects today are building modest courses, and that developing countries need modest golf instead of the high-end courses that they are importing.  That's all Golf Economics 101.

However, your first couple of sentences spoil your premise I think.  Playability for beginners IS important -- and many great courses are very playable for the beginner, as long as the architect has avoided forced carries.  Alice Dye insisted on this in Pete's work, and it carried down to pretty much everything Bill Coore and I build.  The wife of one of my clients played at Pacific Dunes years ago and beat her career best round by a dozen shots, because of the shorter tees and the roll in the fairways.  

The two golfers I've met who liked Sebonack the most are women members [one a 10-handicap and one a 30], who play it at a comfortable distance and have only one cross-bunker to play over, on the 18th hole.

I've never had a client who would let me build a course at 6200 yards, and never had a call about doing an executive course -- have you done any yourself?  I would be happy to collaborate with you on one.  The Children's Course at North Berwick is a great model for the sort of features that make a course interesting while keeping it simple.

Tom,
As our friend Bob Crosby tells me: "Tom Doak has great writing skills.  You don't."  I did not mean to spoil it for you n the way I phrased the first couple of sentences.  I agree that most Golden Age work did fit for the beginner and is one reason that country clubs could be used for teaching the game over the years.  I even consider Pinehurst #2  to be playable for the beginner.  What I was trying to say was that much of the work developed today does not work since so often it is bunkered as eye candy and to increase difficulty.  
I built ( complete redesign) a par 70 course in 1992 at around 5800 off the back tees.  http://www.cityclubmarietta.com/coursephotos/   It has a conference center and does well....
Just this week a group has asked that I do some work on an alternative where they wish to do the same.  There could be a collaboration there ( read the very back page of April GD..)  

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - maybe we're all going about this technology issue all wrong. Instead of trying to fight ever-increasing distance, maybe we should be encouraging it instead. Then in 20 years or so, a beginner might play (and experience) a course built in 2010 in much the same way I did the 1960s municipal where I first played -- with no par 4s over 340 yards, and all the Par 3s playing as "Shorts", and not a single hazard  to carry. And, like that municipal of mine, a 2010 course built on the outskirts of town will likely by right in the middle of town after some twenty years of city growth/development. I'm joking a bit, but on the other hand I'm not, i.e. I'm not sure that what I've described isn't exactly what's happened time and time again over the 100 years of American golf.

Peter   

[Mike_Young]

Peter,
You may be much closer to right than you think...it is interesting to follow this "hackgolf" experiment that TMAG has going on.

As Tom says earlier so much of the old stuff allowed people to learn the game.  But once RE development became the reason for courses to be built instead of the need for golf things changed.  The developer was looking for bragging rights via difficulty.  AND one thing that had not happened much in golf before was aerial photography.  So many of our classics had a blah look from the air but over shape something and splash it with super white sand around greens and fairways and the aerial shots could really jump out...Ihope there is some truth to what you say and one would hope people play as Ian described earlier by "finding another route" but when you see a 40 year old lady 20 yards form an elevated green with a five foot deep bunker to pitch across and she just took up the game , well, you know it's a different perspective than the 40 year old lady from 1950...

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, You got this one assbackwards. It's the good courses that have hurt golf's participation, more than the great courses. Isn't great golf by definition enjoyable and challenging for all levels? The "challenge" seems to be at the heart of captivating life long golfers. The dictated architecture of the post war era, turned out to be a real downer on potential lifers, because it's challenges were limited in scope, without any comensurate enjoyment, through alternate routes, or, creative options. Throw in the irrigation proliferation, magnified by that pesky Georgia syndrome, and you have the perfect recipe for boring golf. And like it or not, that's what a "good" course usually provides upon repeated plays.  

[Mike_Young]

Mike, You got this one assbackwards. It's the good courses that have hurt golf's participation, more than the great courses. Isn't great golf by definition enjoyable and challenging for all levels? The "challenge" seems to be at the heart of captivating life long golfers. The dictated architecture of the post war era, turned out to be a real downer on potential lifers, because it's challenges were limited in scope, without any comensurate enjoyment, through alternate routes, or, creative options. Throw in the irrigation proliferation, magnified by that pesky Georgia syndrome, and you have the perfect recipe for boring golf. And like it or not, that's what a "good" course usually provides upon repeated plays.  

Adam,
"pesky Georgia syndrome"  I think I know what you mean...
No I don't have it wrong and neither do you.  Read my post again...it specifically says "search for great golf"  it did not say "great golf".  That's where I confused TD also.  So much crap has been built in the time frame you mention and it has been labeled as "great" and then it's gone in a year it just goes off the radar...
"Georgia syndrome"  just call it Augusta before I start calling every shaggy bunker the " hairy Nebraska syndrome"

[Tom_Doak]

Does anyone know the factors that have created this?

-Have clients changed?  Less Munis being built?  More housing courses that have to market well but not necessarily play well?

-Is land now so expensive that clients feel they need to come up with a high green fee model to justify building a golf course?

-Do people just not understand what they want?
-

David:

All of the above.

Clients have changed.  Many modern courses aren't built for golf, so much as they're built to attract attention.
Munis aren't built at all.  [In fact, a lot of the older ones were built as private clubs, but went bankrupt and were taken over by the city.]

Construction and development costs are too high, because everyone is told they need to build courses to "industry standards" -- USGA greens, wall to wall irrigation, immaculate bunkers, etc.  And of course a big clubhouse.  Land cost is also a factor, and so are permitting costs which have gotten out of control in some areas.

People understand what they want, but developers and architects and "the golf industry" aren't giving it to them.  What people want is an interesting golf course that doesn't cost much to play, and it's hard to develop those from scratch.  It's much easier to buy up somebody else's failed attempt.

However ... that book I've been reading celebrates the idea that there is nothing wrong with this.  All of the above is the nature of capitalism, and Nature, for that matter.  Lots of things fail, so that the strong survive.  Look at the restaurant industry ... the standard keeps going up, even though [or precisely BECAUSE] tons of people try to start restaurants and most of them fail.  In fact, the failures subsidize the consumer, giving him what he wants at less than the actual cost -- which often works even better in golf than in the restaurant business, because the big costs in golf are all borne by the first owner.

The problem with the golf business today (and sometimes this site) is the "woe is me" attitude toward the business today.  There are more people around the world enjoying the game than ever before.  The fact that's it's hard to make money developing a new course does not mean that nobody should try.  Thank God a few people realize this, and that more are starting to think about it.

[BCrosby]

"As our friend Bob Crosby tells me: "Tom Doak has great writing skills.  You don't."

Mike - You are mis-remembering our conversation. I think I said, "You got your bell rung a couple of times playing college football. Doak didn't have that problem." Though come to think of it, maybe getting your bell rung a time or two is a help in the golf architecture biz.

I agree with your point above. For the regular golf punter, we have made great golf the enemy of good golf.

As has been discussed here a number of times, it takes far more courage to under-design a course than to over-design it. So we get a lot of over-designed courses that result in the worst of all worlds. They intimidate new or weaker players and their financial models don't work.

Bob  

  

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, trust me when I say I knew you weren't assbackwards.

I was driving last week, past some ground that grabs my attention every time I pass. It's a vast expanse of rolling elevation changes. It must've been 3 or 4 days since a snow had blanketed the area. Most of it had melted, but, around these windy parts, the drifts build up in little hollows and take much much longer to melt. So here is this vast expanse, at least a couple of square miles of dormant brown rangeland sloping towards the North Platte river valley , dotted with varied white spots. They instantly made me think of Augusta's influence on a place like Pebble Beach. I wanted so much to stop, take a picture and post a topic titled, "Augusta bunkers in the sand hills". Regrettably, I did not stop.  Teets on a bull come to mind.

[Tom_Doak]

Or, what about the Golden Age of the 1950's and 1960's, when two guys completely dominated the business of design, and lots of boring golf courses were built for beginners?

Be careful what you wish for! 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - I did miss the "search" part of your thread title. Now that I think of it, I'm reminded of a thread I started years ago wondering what golf in America would look like today if CB Macdonald had for friends and associates not Wall Street financiers by city mayors and town councilmen. An interesting and yet totally pointless "what if" in one sense; but in another sense maybe not. Added to my previous post, maybe a primary (but not exclusive) focus of producing good golf is what best goes hand in had with municipal-golf-on-the-outskirts-of-town that eventually becomes the training ground and playground of the next generation. But I'm the first to admit: if I was in the business, I can't imagine not trying to aim for greatness every single time out, for a whole host of reasons.

Peter

[Frank Giordano]

Mike and Tom,

Thanks for your contributions to this very informative thread.  As I'm presently preparing a column for a Chinese golf magazine -- I'm detailing some of the chief causes of the current decline in the golf business here, as a cautionary tale for that developing country's burgeoning industry  -- may I use some of your words to buttress my arguments?  If you'd like me to omit your names, I can do that.  But the authority you bring to my discussion seems invaluable, whether or not I may quote you directly.  Perhaps some of my "advice," which will be based on your comments, will lead to that rare commission: the Holy Grail of a 5800-6200 yard course, for helping young Chinese kids and their parents  learn the game.

I won't do anything until I hear from both of you.  I can be reached off this website directly, at warcinc@nc.rr.com or 910-295-1847.

Thanks in advance for your considering this request.

[Mike Hendren]

Decent public golf is available for less than $30 five minutes from my house, yet I haven't played there since I moved nearby in the middle of last year.  I'd rather drive 2 hours each way to play Lookout Mountain in frigid conditions, or fly down to Streamsong to see the next big thing(s).   

The question for me is whether the search for great golf has destroyed my love of golf.  Unquestionably it has destroyed my game.

Arguably, the game needs another Bendelow before we need another Doak.

Great topic Mike.  This one deserves to go 14 pages.

Bogey