[Sean_A]

Perhaps the change was different for each individual.  I know for me it was soon after starting to play golf again then quickly going to Scotland circa 1991.  It was about this time that Sand Hills opened...though it was really just a name in a magazine.  For me, the change in the US was most definitely Lakewood Shores Gailes around 1993.  Few were building courses like this in the US.  A few years later Shinny held the Open and it was clear to me then that there was definitely a shift in progress.  Harbor Town was an early blip and no sign of change..since it opened a good 20+ years prior.  Plus, I think of HT as a version of what was already going on and if anything, a sign of more constricted, tight golf to come, not expansive, free golf is really what we are talking about.  Anyway, the early 90s is when I would peg any true rumblings in terms of what was being built. Its about time for somebody to grow a pair and create a new shift.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Perhaps the change was different for each individual.  I know for me it was soon after starting to play golf again then quickly going to Scotland circa 1991.  It was about this time that Sand Hills opened...though it was really just a name in a magazine.  For me, the change in the US was most definitely Lakewood Shores Gailes around 1993.  Few were building courses like this in the US.  A few years later Shinny held the Open and it was clear to me then that there was definitely a shift in progress.  Harbor Town was an early blip and no sign of change..since it opened a good 20+ years prior.  Plus, I think of HT as a version of what was already going on and if anything, a sign of more constricted, tight golf to come, not expansive, free golf is really what we are talking about.  Anyway, the early 90s is when I would peg any true rumblings in terms of what was being built. Its about time for somebody to grow a pair and create a new shift.

Ciao

Sean,
Good points-though Sand Hills was 1995.


While the tide in design turned for the better around then, I honestly think the next renaissance needs to be in maintenance.
Yep, I said it. Too many cuts and varieties of grass, greens too fast, fairways and roughs too defined, 'chipping areas" too tight-too hand mowed(who decided hand mowing should start 50 yards short of every green? as bad as it has looked on new high end courses, now I see it on low budget 9 holers)-too much uniform "native" grass, too much irrigation-too much definition.
I just about puke every time I see a modern course and all its definition and grasslines on TV, but lately I want to puke when I see an overly defined classic Links course.
Roll back the maintenance, lower the costs-most importantly lower the EXPECTATIONS.
less tees (leave the shortest and the longest, mix and match to get desired playability/challenge) a 280 yard hole does not need 6 tees.

[Thomas Dai]

.... hand mowed who decided hand mowing should start 50 yards short of every green?

Seems like some approach areas are now mown at a height akin to what the greens were mown at when many golden age courses were built.
atb

[Sean_A]

Perhaps the change was different for each individual.  I know for me it was soon after starting to play golf again then quickly going to Scotland circa 1991.  It was about this time that Sand Hills opened...though it was really just a name in a magazine.  For me, the change in the US was most definitely Lakewood Shores Gailes around 1993.  Few were building courses like this in the US.  A few years later Shinny held the Open and it was clear to me then that there was definitely a shift in progress.  Harbor Town was an early blip and no sign of change..since it opened a good 20+ years prior.  Plus, I think of HT as a version of what was already going on and if anything, a sign of more constricted, tight golf to come, not expansive, free golf is really what we are talking about.  Anyway, the early 90s is when I would peg any true rumblings in terms of what was being built. Its about time for somebody to grow a pair and create a new shift.

Ciao

Sean,
Good points-though Sand Hills was 1995.


While the tide in design turned for the better around then, I honestly think the next renaissance needs to be in maintenance.
Yep, I said it. Too many cuts and varieties of grass, greens too fast, fairways and roughs too defined, 'chipping areas" too tight-too hand mowed(who decided hand mowing should start 50 yards short of every green? as bad as it has looked on new high end courses, now I see it on low budget 9 holers)-too much uniform "native" grass, too much irrigation-too much definition.
I just about puke every time I see a modern course and all its definition and grasslines on TV, but lately I want to puke when I see an overly defined classic Links course.
Roll back the maintenance, lower the costs-most importantly lower the EXPECTATIONS.
less tees (leave the shortest and the longest, mix and match to get desired playability/challenge) a 280 yard hole does not need 6 tees.

I would love to see less definition, fewer tees, shorter courses, less expectations, smaller footprint and more emphasis on drainage & firmness, but its pie in the sky stuff Jeff.  Pinehurst #2 is practically the blueprint for the above even if there are some compromises for championship play...yet many don't get it and don't want it. To me the big name courses are a lost cause because they mostly have big money behind them which brings big expectations.  I worry more about the small market courses trying to step into a larger market (mostly they are forced to because of downward pressure with reduced membership) by mimicing what they see on tv etc.  These clubs mostly can't afford to do so, yet their courses can get caught in a no man's land of lost identity in attempting the impossible.  Two of my most beloved courses have been dallying into the realm of "definition" with what I think are dire results...especially for Pennard.   


Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Perhaps the change was different for each individual.  I know for me it was soon after starting to play golf again then quickly going to Scotland circa 1991.  It was about this time that Sand Hills opened...though it was really just a name in a magazine.  For me, the change in the US was most definitely Lakewood Shores Gailes around 1993.  Few were building courses like this in the US.  A few years later Shinny held the Open and it was clear to me then that there was definitely a shift in progress.  Harbor Town was an early blip and no sign of change..since it opened a good 20+ years prior.  Plus, I think of HT as a version of what was already going on and if anything, a sign of more constricted, tight golf to come, not expansive, free golf is really what we are talking about.  Anyway, the early 90s is when I would peg any true rumblings in terms of what was being built. Its about time for somebody to grow a pair and create a new shift.

Ciao

 I worry more about the small market courses trying to step into a larger market (mostly they are forced to because of downward pressure with reduced membership) by mimicing what they see on tv etc.  These clubs mostly can't afford to do so, yet their courses can get caught in a no man's land of lost identity in attempting the impossible.  Two of my most beloved courses have been dallying into the realm of "definition" with what I think are dire results...especially for Pennard.   


Ciao

Bingo Sean


I can skip the fancy courses where the uneducated/keepupwiththeJoneses seem to rule the roost, but when the lower key courses follow suit , in a woefullyi misguided game of death spiral monkey see-monkey do-it's a really slippery slope.




Pennard?
say it ain't so!

[Ran Morrissett]

The bunker aesthetic changed when architects started once again building courses on land well suited for golf (i.e Sand Hills, Barnbougle, etc.) as opposed to inland, mostly clay based sites where courses were built to sell homes.

The 'pristine, manicured' look conveyed wealth and therefore helped sell homes but that look is a non-starter when you carve a bunker out of the face of a dune (think 4 at Barnbougle).

Happily, the courses built on better land dominated the rankings and replaced many of the clay-based, real estate courses. And thus, while it may be perceived that the natural look took off but really, it was courses built for golf on the best land that took off  IMO. Nonetheless, inland courses like Wykagyl greatly benefited from the new found 'natural' aesthetic.

[Tom_Doak]

The bunker aesthetic changed when architects started once again building courses on land well suited for golf (i.e Sand Hills, Barnbougle, etc.) as opposed to inland, mostly clay based sites where courses were built to sell homes.

It might have been before that.  The bunkers at High Pointe and at Barton Creek were nothing special, by design, but Bill and Ben started dabbling in more expressive shapes at Kapalua, on a heavy clay site.  For me, it was at Black Forest ... I actually took Gil Hanse on a ten-day field trip to SFGC, Pasatiempo, Cypress Point, The Valley Club, Riviera, and L.A.C.C., and we paced off how big those bunkers were and how long the capes were, so we could try to build something similar.


Of course, had we not done that, I'm sure some of the other posters on this thread would have done it, and called it necessitism or something. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


As it happens, yes, I pace off (figure exact measurements aren't necessary) the capes and bays of attractive bunkers (and unattractive ones), and for the same reason.  I am surprised when I hear architects who don't bother.  I found the key to the attractiveness of Mac's bunkers were a sight variation in lobe size, and slightly varying angles of the capes, not to mention height variations.  It makes a difference over the nearly ubiquitous dozer shaped boob and butt bunkers (ex wife's term).


I measured many of the same courses you mentioned, as well as Mac's in Australia.


BTW, while their are obviously many "for me, its....) moments, that just sort of confirms the point.  A lot of different and unconnected people in the industry were doing things and eventually, it all sort of morphed together in slow, constant change.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:


I'm not a total subscriber to the "great man" theory of history, but I do think there are leaders and followers.  Especially in golf architecture.


When I started working for Mr. Dye in 1981, there were zero other architects building holes with hundred-yard-long bunkers down the sides of their fairways.  By the time I quit, just five years later, it was the go-to style for Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus and Arthur Hills, as well as Mr. Dye.  All of that was certainly in imitation of his work, and not just inevitable.


You're right that it was inevitable for someone to go a different direction.  But it still took a few people to go out on a limb and do it, before others would pursue the same idea, which they might or might not have been thinking about all along. 


I remember quite well the people in the industry who told me how fescue fairways would never work, or how these flashy bunkers would wash out, or all of the other nay-saying that came along with sticking my neck out to try something different.  I guess I should have just told them it would all morph together as a part of slow, constant change.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Agree it took a few people to go out and do it. 


Also understand the nay saying.  For every great idea that catches on, there are probably 99 that are pure rubbish that have forgotten the lessons of the past, or are different just to be different.  I have seen landscape architects propose Elm trees, seemingly completely forgetting what happened decades ago.


One I was thinking about the other day was design inspirations other than form follows function, i.e., designing greens in the shape of a state, country, or continent just to be different.  That has been done a surprising number of times.  Glad it hasn't caught on big time.


On the other hand, Mike Keiser willing to go cartless is not widely adopted, but a great idea nevertheless, as is his resort concept.  A lot of destination resorts have failed, but success seems to be a visionary idea AND getting the details wrong.  Or, no one was going to fly across country to play a course similar to what they could play at home, so it had to be different, just to be different.


And the bunker washouts are a good example of my big world idea.  Architects did them, golfers liked them, but they presented a maintenance issue.  Someone also went out on a limb to start producing bunker liners in response, then, someone else produced them to be better (they thought anyway). Now, bunker liners are more or less standard and architects can design nearly any slope and depth they want.  Whether its a good idea on your local muni remains up for debate.


And there you go, I can't stop naming examples of great new ideas, bad new ideas, good ideas poorly executed, good ideas that lead to other good ideas, etc.  Yes, it took someone to go out on those limbs, but the entire process seems sort of random most of the time.

[MCirba]

Speaking of Myrtle Beach, I recall a guy named Brauer did a course down there back when called Wild Wing Avocet with a whole bunch of classically influenced design touches and template holes including a redan, Valley of Sin, Cape, and a drivable short par four past a minefield of random bunkers.   

[Ira Fishman]

I want to pick up on theme in thread about Sand versus Clay. What criteria do architects use to assess whether a clay site offers potential to build something interesting and great? The ODGs in US clearly built some wonderful courses on clay but I assume there were a greater number of cost effective site options near cities then.


Thanks,


Ira

[Anthony Gholz]

Ted:


Re Inverness.  I don't know when the latest Inverness redo started but I played in May of this year.  It was with the Michigan Seniors so it was a 5+ hour round, but I didn't mind.  I could stand waiting and watch the shapers on the adjacent fairway or green.  The Fazio holes are not being revised they are being eliminated completely.  Not even their corridors are being used.  Inverness is blessed with a lot of land so a couple of the eliminated by Fazio Ross holes are being re constructed verbatim on a different part of the property.  A couple Ross greens eliminated by Fazio are being rebuilt.


The only part of the project that wasn't yet started was a redo of some of the green side bunkers i.e. #18 which had very poor faces where balls would hang cup and took some of us old guys 3 shots to get out of the grass face after finding the ball.


I don't know, but as much of the new fairway areas were grassed in in May and the greens looked ready to be grassed I would expect they may be playing their new/old Ross course even as we speak.  Maybe someone out there can update the Inverness construction status.
Anthony

[SL_Solow]

Ran;  an interesting thesis but how does it explain the banal architecture in Florida?  The housing development component has been discussed and Florida is flat but your argument suggests that bunker shaping etc. would have made the turn I Florida or other sand based sites which had significant development before, during and after "the change".

[Jeff_Brauer]

Speaking of Myrtle Beach, I recall a guy named Brauer did a course down there back when called Wild Wing Avocet with a whole bunch of classically influenced design touches and template holes including a redan, Valley of Sin, Cape, and a drivable short par four past a minefield of random bunkers.   

You forgot the Bottle Hole......

[MCirba]

Jeff,


True dat.


If I had known what a Bottle Hole was back in 1993 or so I may have picked up on it

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()