News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Peter Pallotta

I've changed my mind on this. While I have always appreciated excellence in craft and beauty of presentation and purity of intention, I have tended to be quite understanding/accepting of average and less than stellar golf courses -- grateful for the opportunity to play any golf at all, and mindful that architects past and present have had to design/build under constraints and restrictions and circumstances that I'm not aware of,  including having average/mediocre sites at their disposal. But as I say, I now have changed my mind. After recently reading again and thinking about Seminole and Garden City, I have concluded that there is NO excuse for designing and building a run of the mill course in this modern age. Indeed, I am almost ready to conclude that there is no excuse today for designing anything but a STELLAR course.

Do you agree? If not, why not? If so, what explains the mediocre?

Peter
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 04:34:56 PM by PPallotta »

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2015, 04:40:34 PM »
What part does available budget play?
atb

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2015, 04:58:02 PM »
I have always wondered why no one talks about how great a carpenter Jesus was. Some people just can't build shit no matter how great a salesman they are. That will never change.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2015, 05:06:56 PM »
Peter,
It's not just 'no excuse', it's more like 'no way'.

Mediocre (Doak scale 2) -   "little or no architectural interest, but nothing really horrible".
Average (Doak scale 3) -    " about the level of the average golf course in the world'.

You'd probably have to spend your own money to build either one of those, no one is going to lend it to you.  
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2015, 05:07:28 PM »
PP,

I'd like to agree, but reality intercedes.  Sure if your primary goal is to build a good golf course then you will 1) find a good piece of land that is conducive to golf 2) hire someone capable of designing and building a good course and 3) you'll stay sufficiently out of their way, especially if you know just enough about the game to be dangerous.  However, courses are built for all sorts of reasons, land is chosen for all sorts of reasons, GCA's, construction companies and Supers are hired for all sorts of reasons, and owners/developers throw their 2 cents into the mix for all sorts of reasons, many of which are not necessarily in the best interests of providing the best playing field...
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 05:11:25 PM by Jud_T »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2015, 05:21:08 PM »
I think in principle you are right. I kinda think good shaping or bad shaping is not really about cost and green construction costs if you are going to build them just normally are not that variable to do well or bad though size may be a factor.

What you can factor is the hand you get dealt. Some courses that back onto factorys or airports can never be better than 4/10 so in that respect it may be the mediocre is the highest bar.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Jaeger Kovich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2015, 05:41:32 PM »
I think in principle you are right. I kinda think good shaping or bad shaping is not really about cost and green construction costs if you are going to build them just normally are not that variable to do well or bad though size may be a factor.


Absolutely.


Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2015, 06:13:00 PM »

What you can factor is the hand you get dealt. Some courses that back onto factorys or airports can never be better than 4/10 so in that respect it may be the mediocre is the highest bar.

Adrian,

so if Pine Valley is a 10/10 but if surrounded by factories and an airport it could not be better than a 4/10 means for you 60% of GCA merit is the surrounds not the course :o are you really sure :D

Jon

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2015, 06:16:11 PM »
The main cause of average/mediocre golf courses is a poor relationship between the designer and the client -- which often but not always is the result of a client who really doesn't care that much how the golf course turns out.  There are [or were, 10 years ago] a shocking percentage of clients who didn't care at all about the finished golf course, as long as they could market it with a big name and sell their lots and get out of there.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2015, 06:31:41 PM »
You can't build any project without selling it to someone.  Salesmen rarely make great builders. Their one saving grace is that they can often go on to sell its greatness.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2015, 06:32:06 PM »
Tom, don't you think your experience is a bit atypical?  You pretty much only deal with guys who want a great course or else your phone would not have rung in the first place.

I think the primary reasons for mediocre golf courses is Ben Franklin's fault:  a penny saved is a penny earned, is, the zero sum game.  Some architects and shapers and construction companies cost more than others.  Whatever the owner saves, he earns, and the customers pay the price.  I don't think it's any more complicated than that.  

Going the other way
I'd say there have been cases where a lot more money was spent than needed, which made the project worse-in both the short term because they did way too much,
as well as in the long run in sustainability.

"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Peter Pallotta

Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2015, 07:28:10 PM »
Right about now I'm not even sure you need an architect to build an above average course. With such exemplary courses as Garden City and Seminole proving that a great site isn't necessary, and with such courses also serving as clear-cut models for time-tested approaches, all you really need is a committed mimic, an impressionist, a copy-cat, or even better a thief -- ie someone who admires and understands the value of great work enough to follow/align with its 'reality' and 'mandate' rather than his own. In other words, someone who doesn't mind stealing (and who has enough sense to steal from the best).
Peter
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 07:45:19 PM by PPallotta »

BCowan

Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2015, 07:29:39 PM »
Tom, don't you think your experience is a bit atypical?  You pretty much only deal with guys who want a great course or else your phone would not have rung in the first place.

I think the primary reasons for mediocre golf courses is Ben Franklin's fault:  a penny saved is a penny earned, is, the zero sum game.  Some architects and shapers and construction companies cost more than others.  Whatever the owner saves, he earns, and the customers pay the price.  I don't think it's any more complicated than that.  

Going the other way
I'd say there have been cases where a lot more money was spent than needed, which made the project worse-in both the short term because they did way too much,
as well as in the long run in sustainability.



+1

and spending boat loads of money on large clubhouses instead of extra drainage tile post construction and tree removal. 

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2015, 08:18:24 PM »
Pietro

The main problem with your premise is we all differ on what is good (or better yet desirable)...and ideas change over time.  In a word, architecture relies a lot on fads.  For me, courses are boring, not bad.  Ever since I saw Huntercombe I thought the same as you, but it is very evident that many people don't care for Huntercombe and would instead choose to join Frilford Heath  :D Seriously, the value of centreline hazards and cool greens really hit home on the average land HUntercombe sits on. I realized the design could be just about anywhere and be interesting and thought provoking. 

Ciao
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 08:20:30 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2015, 08:39:02 PM »
Right about now I'm not even sure you need an architect to build an above average course. With such exemplary courses as Garden City and Seminole proving that a great site isn't necessary, and with such courses also serving as clear-cut models for time-tested approaches, all you really need is a committed mimic, an impressionist, a copy-cat, or even better a thief -- ie someone who admires and understands the value of great work enough to follow/align with its 'reality' and 'mandate' rather than his own. In other words, someone who doesn't mind stealing (and who has enough sense to steal from the best).
Peter
Your thoughts are why I have never really had an interest in restoration.... :)
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2015, 08:46:52 PM »
Pietro

The main problem with your premise is we all differ on what is good (or better yet desirable)...and ideas change over time.  In a word, architecture relies a lot on fads.  For me, courses are boring, not bad.  Ever since I saw Huntercombe I thought the same as you, but it is very evident that many people don't care for Huntercombe and would instead choose to join Frilford Heath  :D Seriously, the value of centreline hazards and cool greens really hit home on the average land HUntercombe sits on. I realized the design could be just about anywhere and be interesting and thought provoking. 

Ciao

I would have a hard time feeling any respect for a serious golfer who didn't appreciate the joys of Huntercombe.  Tree encroachment or no, that is one fantastic course.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2015, 08:52:22 PM »
Realism says if there are 16000 golf courses out there then there is an "average".  We all desire to build on the great sites and place the great routings but in many cases it just doesn't happen.  Is a Toyota Camry average?  Is the 75 dollar Footjoy shoe mediocre?  Is the E6 Bridgestone ball average....is a Schwinn bike a good bike?  .there are 480 million rounds for 16000 golf courses.....lots of those were built by one time builders or owners and serve a purpose...they needed no excuse...it was done on purpose... :)
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 11:16:55 PM by Mike_Young »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Randy Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2015, 10:14:29 PM »
The main cause of average/mediocre golf courses is a poor relationship between the designer and the client -- which often but not always is the result of a client who really doesn't care that much how the golf course turns out.  There are [or were, 10 years ago] a shocking percentage of clients who didn't care at all about the finished golf course, as long as they could market it with a big name and sell their lots and get out of there.
Amen...how many times I have been told...I repsect your opinion and your opinion will be valid when you build a golf course for yourself but for now I want this..right or wrong..so are you going to build it the way i want it or do i look for somebody else! If you have a lot of pride you walk away for the first and the second and maybe the third but eventually you give them what they want unless you have been so sucessful with your coming out foundation that you can pick and choose! Eight or ten factor have to come togehter to get something above average..budget is less important then people on here in general think!

Jay Mickle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2015, 10:17:03 PM »
To paraphrase an indignant New Jersey politician "Fifty percent of our schools are below average, we must do better"
@MickleStix on Instagram
MickleStix.com

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2015, 11:04:43 PM »
Realism says if there are 16000 golf courses out there then there is an "average".  We all desire to build on the great sites and place the great routings but in many cases it just doesn't happen.  Is a Toyota Camry average?  Is the 75 dollar Footjoy shoe mediocre?  Is the E6 Bridgestone ball average....is a Schwinn bike a good bike?  .there are 480 million golfers for 16000 golf courses.....lots of those were built by one time builders or owners and serve a purpose...they needed no excuse...it was done on purpose... :)


As is most often the case, I think Mike is spot on. My built in bias comes from seeing a lot of average/mediocre or worse golfers playing on a/m courses that they truly love.  Don't think there are 480 million golfers, rounds maybe, but he's still correct it's a big world, golf is a social activity, and many reasons why people enjoy it.  I'll give you this excuse: affordable fun recreation.  The most important, of course, is where you friends play.  PP, Seminole and GC are not accessible to the great mass of golfers.  No offense intended, but I'm not sure your philosophical change of mind is enlightened evolution.  I can understand it as an aesthetic choice--life is too short to play crappy courses, why bad golf when good could be had at the same price?, etc.  However, I ask this question:  If you had some mates you really loved playing with, guys who loved the game as much as you, is the venue really that important to enjoy the game?  Could you have as much fun playing Sheep Ranch as you do Cypress? 

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2015, 03:13:26 AM »

What you can factor is the hand you get dealt. Some courses that back onto factorys or airports can never be better than 4/10 so in that respect it may be the mediocre is the highest bar.

Adrian,

so if Pine Valley is a 10/10 but if surrounded by factories and an airport it could not be better than a 4/10 means for you 60% of GCA merit is the surrounds not the course :o are you really sure :D

Jon
Yes
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Ed Tilley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2015, 03:42:55 AM »

Ever since I saw Huntercombe I thought the same as you, but it is very evident that many people don't care for Huntercombe and would instead choose to join Frilford Heath  :D Seriously, the value of centreline hazards and cool greens really hit home on the average land HUntercombe sits on. I realized the design could be just about anywhere and be interesting and thought provoking. 

Ciao

Not a massive fan of Huntercombe - check
Just joined Frilford Heath - check

Whatever are you saying Sean?

There's a really good golf course at Huntercombe hidden somewhere in amongst that forest. That is my only problem with it - I like the course really. However, it is one of the sacred cows of GCA whereby everyone ignores the obvious and doesn't criticise it for the same thing that other courses get slated for on here. "Width is good" is the GCA mantra - except obviously at a certain course between Oxford and Henley.


Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2015, 04:58:07 AM »
There's a really good golf course at Huntercombe hidden somewhere in amongst that forest. That is my only problem with it - I like the course really. However, it is one of the sacred cows of GCA whereby everyone ignores the obvious and doesn't criticise it for the same thing that other courses get slated for on here. "Width is good" is the GCA mantra - except obviously at a certain course between Oxford and Henley.
I'll stick my hand up and agree with Ed on this. To paraphrase a line in a film - "I love the sound of chainsaws in the morning, sounds like.....victory".
atb

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2015, 03:27:39 PM »
Mike Y is spot on. By nature, most courses converge to average.  But, I will agree that there is no reason any more to build a poor course.  The 50th percentile is probably moving up as most architects try to outdo each other.

I am not sure I agree with TD on the client relationship. They may or not care about what kind of golf course they get, but as long as they don't insert themselves into the process too deeply (which would probably be more likely with a client who cared, and was arrogant enough to think he knew more than the gca, and had just hired him to "draw up his ideas" it shouldn't make much different.

I recall being hired by a management guy, former tour pro, mostly for fee, in my early days.  Halfway through shaping, he said he was buying a muni, but was getting a really, really good golf course.  In other words, those who don't care can be sandbagged into a better course than they envisioned.  And, I think most of us did that when possible, especially in the 90's when each new course had to be better than the last.

I have told the story before, but I spoke with one architect (not well liked here) whose prime design thought was to finish it in the three days he had allotted for the design.  Another (not well known here, except to one poster) said it was too much work to avoid a few bad holes.  A third kept making the same dull mistakes over and over.  All the ASGCA meetings in the world, playing the best courses when he could, somehow, he could never translate good design over into his work, for reasons I couldn't understand.

So, architects attitude - or talent, lets face facts, not everyone who hangs out a shingle is equally talented - is probably such that it could affect end product quality.  And, that talent might be partially deficient - either bad routing skills or no vision on feature designs.

For me, I do agree, and generally tried/try very hard to design a good golf course every time out. 
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jim Hoak

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: There is no excuse for building an average/mediocre golf course
« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2015, 08:48:56 PM »
I don't see how you can answer this question without referring to the business proposition for the course.  Is the point to sell lots?  If so, then maybe a gimmicky, but pretty course, appealing to all levels of handicaps is the answer.  Maybe quality doesn't/shouldn't matter unless you are like the developer at Bandon, Streamsong, Whistling Straits, and Cabot Links.  Then you are appealing to another segment of the golf market (the serious, somewhat proficient golfer), but does that mean that you are a better human being?  Golf is a business--and there are many different business plans.
I think that the great courses in the world were built with a different market in mind than many of the golf/housing communities of the past 30 years.  Obviously, those are higher quality courses, but is the modern developer wrong in seeking to serve a different market?
In the art world, not all art is good.  But Elvis on velvet sells too.
Maybe this is what Tom Doak is saying.