Part III of our Feature Interview with Samuel Ingwersen, AIA, is now posted

[Ran Morrissett]

http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview-no-3-sam-ingwersen/

We wrap up our interviews with Sam Ingwersen, AIA in a third and final installment. As a reminder, Michael Hurdzan and Sam authored a book whose thesis is ‘The beauty of golf course landscape effect is corrupting the game.’

To understand how golf course architecture reached the bizarre point of alienating people from the game, we need to take a step back in time. The concept of beauty is not stagnant and tastes come and go. Since golf course architecture has its roots in the Victorian era, Sam takes us there. He writes,

The philosophical and aesthetic ideas that were getting a great deal of play in Victorian England particularly in the latter years of that era were a driving force that helped shape artists’ motivations in all the various arts which by the early 20th century included course designers' ideas of course landscape scenery. In addition to the aforementioned philosophical and aesthetic ideas were the influences of three major British cultural interests that would contribute to the ideas of beauty and variety of course landscapes. These were: 1) The world leading art of British landscape gardening, 2) the National Arts movement to improve the nation’s aesthetic tastes and 3) the beginning of the art of golf course architecture, first referred to as “linkscape gardening” and the scenic movement of 1890 started by Horace Hutchinson, author and golf’s most prominent course design theorist, to improve the scenery of golf courses.

Sam’s quotes from Hutchinson show just how prescient Hutchinson was. For example, “…as we become more scientific we may fall into a worse pit of becoming altogether undramatic … but unless that dramatic interest is kept before the eye of the linkscape gardener he may turn out a good, but deadly dull job.” How true are those words, penned over 100 years ago?! To me, they perfectly sum up one of the evils of the landscape effect: everything looks fine but it doesn’t draw one into the game.

One point that Sam makees in Part III is the role of criticism and its impact on the direction of architecture. Sam notes, ‘After the turn of the century Hutchinson was writing, extoling the virtues of pleasant scenery but lamenting the shortcomings of  “…linkscape (sic) gardeners who lacked an artistic eye in pursuing their new craft of links gardening.” The pursuit to improve scenery of the course gained remarkable support in the beginning decades of the 20^th century. The most notable English magazines and newspapers that covered the subject of course design, Country Life, The London Times and Golf Illustrated were the leaders. They employed the best writers, who in turn invited leading course designers to contribute articles on new design ideas. Hutchinson and Country Life provided forums within which they would commend the new work, courses and ideas of the guest contributors, supplying praise and criticism from time to time.'

With people like Hutchison, Walter Travis and Bernard Darwin providing insight, no wonder architecture flourished in the Golden Age. How hazards were presented and placed markedly improved. Inland courses like Sunningdale, Woking, and Walton Heath forever lifted the bar and still set the standard today.

The rub is finding the balance between the golf and aesthetics and of course, the pendulum of manipulating the land to add playing interest swung too far after WWII. Sam writes this chilling words, ‘For the next 100 years, … “The look” of scenery that Hutchinson declared as not golf, had become golf.’ Later, he adds, ‘The foregoing explains how the fatal beauty of landscape effect has innocently evolved to become a driving force in golf course design.’

Sam subscribes to the notion that Tom MacWood and Melyvn Morrow had also expressed, namely, courses from 1890s deserve more credit. As Sam writes, ‘Those early unadorned courses, absent of contrived landscape effect, were given short shrift as the movement to improve scenery of inland courses moved inexorably onward in pursuit of good taste.’ I very much like their point and as I posted last month, the more land gets overstimulated, the more I want to return to Westward Ho!

The timing of Sam’s Feature Interviews couldn’t be more opportune. Approaching the end of 2017, man has everything at his disposal, including coffers at many leading clubs that are buoyant from a strong economy. Will man try to ‘perfect’ the landscape and thus inadvertently ruin it?  Now is the time for clubs to be vigilant and not overthink or overwork their courses. Just foster an environment in which the player can readily connect with nature and all will be well - and that needn't cost a lot.

Best,

[John Kirk]

Once again, the interview with Mr. Ingwersen has failed to spark a conversation.  I took the time yesterday to read part III.  Though I found his academic approach to the subject a worthwhile read, I generally disagree with his (and your) conclusions about the state of the game.  Rather than the high minded theory that golf has stagnated for philosophical reasons, I submit the game's lack of recent growth is almost purely economic in nature, and at its best, golf has never been a more compelling game than it is today.  A few comments:

1.  Very interesting that Immanuel Kant is considered an inflection point in artistic individuality, and used to explain the golf architect's need to identify his work.  It is striking that a philosopher and high-minded thinker would have such influence on society.  Can you imagine a philosopher wielding so much influence today?  Unless we consider economists as nothing more than glorified philosophers.

2.  Once again, the reason golf is not "growing" is a matter of economics.  The problems are two-fold.  In America, median household income has stagnated, lagging the growth in gross domestic product by a significant margin.  Meanwhile, the cost of basic human needs (housing, food, education and health care) has increased considerably, and a growing number of people do not have the time and/or money to play golf.  If the U.S. and world wish to continue to pursue the economic philosophies of the past 40-50 years, this "problem" for golf will continue to get worse.

3.  Secondly, the world has an energy problem, whether or not anyone is willing to admit it.  It takes a lot of energy to build and maintain golf courses, plus energy to travel to and play them. Crude oil is not as easy to find and extract as it once was, and there is no satisfactory substitute.  The increased energy cost affects golf, and all other aspects of modern life.  Oil is a finite resource.  Golf will not grow, it will contract.  I tire of the "grow the game" bullshit.

4.  I thought it was a misplaced jab at Tom Doak to include him as an example of an architect who places beauty above the core principles of good golf.  I don't see where "making a hole as beautiful and interesting as possible" is an obvious conflict with the goal of good golf.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and for me, functionality is beauty.  Tom builds courses according to the Golden Age principle of minimalism, where a piece of land is modified minimally to create good golf.

Really, it's foolish to suggest that modern golf, as it played today on the best examples of good golf courses, is less enjoyable and intriguing.  The best new modern courses are phenomenal, fun to play and possessing great natural beauty.  The renovated classic courses, restored to original glory, but also updated for improved turf conditions, are better than ever.  Does anybody really think that golf was more fun when the greens stimped at 6 in 1950?  Yes, the game is probably harder than it was, but there currently exists a grand variety of courses for all ages and abilities.

5.  Finally, I agree with most of the comments about landscaping and green, irrigated rough.  Earlier this year, I made a post wishing that courses would feature drier rough, noting that flier lies are hard for everyone to control, while less difficult for the average player to advance the ball.  Once again, I see the problems here as economic, not artistic.  Salesman and marketers promote a golf course, and maybe a housing community, using ponds and other forms of artificial beauty, and selling these amenities as great, luxurious golf, when in reality these landscaping adornments detract from the game.  It's greed more than artistic individuality that sold this shit to an uneducated public who strives for the good life.   

That's enough.  Maybe this will prompt a discussion.   

[Ira Fishman]

The data at least for the US back John’s emphasis on economics versus the author’s thesis about the “landscape effect”.  According to the NGF, the number of golfers, core golfers, and junior golfers all grew substantially from 1985 to 2005, and all categories dropped meaningfully from 2005 to 2010. Given that the height of eye candy design began in the 1950s, it seems as if the “landscape effect” took over 50 years to suddenly kick in. Perhaps the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and the continued stagnation of middle class incomes is a better explanation as John suggests.


Ira

[Niall C]

John

Good on you for kicking off an conversation. I too read Part III but I must confess after reading Part's I & II I only skimmed over Part III. It seemed to me to be another collection of quotes without any real coherent reason or argument for using them beyond some general idea that wow has to an extent displaced strategic design in some modern courses. If that is indeed what he's suggesting then I don't think that's as novel an argument as Ran makes out.

After eulogising about the dark age courses I'd be interested to find out more about what he thinks these courses looked like. Pretty well all the pre-Golden Age courses he listed were substantially changed during the golden age so what he's looking at now isn't necessarily what would have been there back in the day.

Niall

[John Kirk]

  I read Ran's opening comments a second time.
 
 I don't disagree with the general objection to some landscape adornments.  Artificial ponds, for instance, are bad hazards, requiring the player to drop a new ball into play.  I can also see an argument for fewer bunkers.
 
 But I generally disagree that golf is losing players because it is too difficult and/or too expensive.  It seems to me there are a myriad of options for players, in terms of difficulty, and easier courses tend to be less expensive.
 
 Reviewing Part I of the interview, the opening paragraphs discuss the drop in participation (from 30 million golfers in 2002 to about 21 million in 2016), and propose possible explanations.  Ingwersen explains:
 
 The National Golf Foundation 2013 Report states: "Golf has been losing players than it is gaining.  The downward trend in participation is more alarming...two thirds of golfers weren't having any fun."
 
 I still play golf regularly, but I have less fun than I used to.  Here are three reasons why I might walk away from the game:
 
 1.  I've playing golf intensively for about 35 years.  I'll never be as good as I was ten years ago.  Learning something new would stimulate me physically and mentally more than a game I’ve played thousands of times.  Why should I spend my whole life dedicated to just one or two or three pursuits?
 
 2.  I have become hypersensitive about golf competition.  I am unable to sleep before routine club tournaments, sometimes even for weekly Thursday games.  My heart pounds during the first few shots of the day, and short putts are very discomforting.  I can still play pretty well under pressure; I know how to do it, but it's even more stressful than it used to be.  In general, anxiety is now a daily concern; staying calm requires discipline, productive exercise and a careful diet.
 
 3.  I don't fit in well with my peers at the local golf club.  I am a retired Democrat, while a significant majority of my peers (most are 50-60 years old, good players) are successful Republican businessmen.  I tend to play once a week with this group.  We play deliberate, competitive 4 1/2 hour rounds on Thursday afternoons.  I carried an index of about 4 this year; more than half of the regular group is better than I am.  It is an amicable group that has played together for years, a good group of guys.  Beneath the polite golf environment are fundamental differences in how we see the world.

 Are divisive politics a contributor to golf's decline?  Perhaps.  The older, right wing culture may be discouraging new players.  If you were 25-30 years old, especially a young Democrat or liberal, would you want to begin playing this expensive sport that takes years to develop a serviceable game? 
 
A better explanation for golf’s decline is the hypercompetitive nature of modern society.   A player’s performance is evaluated numerically at all times.  Playfulness is generally discouraged in golf.  As discussed in an earlier discussion, I believe golf has poor “sports flow” pretty much no matter how you play it, because of the static, self-initiating nature of the game.  However, to achieve a greater state of flow, I think it would be best to sacrifice a bit of scoring potential for a faster paced game which discourages anything more than 10-15 seconds for the next player’s shot.  Make people work to keep up, and pay attention to the game’s flow.
 
Of course, many people like a highly competitive, carefully played game for a few bucks.  It’s OK, but I think right now I’d prefer a 3 hour foursome game.  At our home course, I can do that, if I’m willing to get up very early and play with the “jackrabbits”.
 
I realize this is only tangentially related to the topic at hand.  My primary reaction to Mr. Ingwersen’s interview is anger and frustration, though it is not directed towards him.  His hypothesis is sensible and defensible, though I repeat that the primary issue is economic.  It’s too late to correct the problem of landscape dependent, maintenance intensive, dumbass cartball golf courses through housing developments.  Yet another example of greed trumping long range planning for recreation’s sake.  Every day brings another story of some asshole maximizing profitability at the expense of a civilized, polite society. 
 
With this said, the best modern courses are fantastic.  Golf architecture has identified the mistakes of the past, and a second great wave of golf courses has been built. Minimalism and strategic design are back in vogue.  The problems have been identified, though it’s too late to fix the mistakes of the past, now that golf is harder to afford.

[Sean_A]

With this said, the best modern courses are fantastic.  Golf architecture has identified the mistakes of the past, and a second great wave of golf courses has been built. Minimalism and strategic design are back in vogue.  The problems have been identified, though it’s too late to fix the mistakes of the past, now that golf is harder to afford.

Very fine John.  What I find frustrating about this second wave of great courses is the cost involved in playing.  It seems to me this is following the same pattern as the first wave of great courses in the US...if you can't shell out $200 a game minimum don't bother.  I guess public access for a decent percentage of the new breed is the biggest difference, but the costs are still very high regardless.  Golf is not doing well in shrugging off the image of the game being for people of means.  I know that is unfair in reality, but at the image driving media level it is absolutely the case.  As you say, how to recruit a 25 year old to spend money and ask them to hang out will crusties who often don't share the same values. 


Ciao   

[Niall C]

Well said both of you. Maybe another way of saying it is golf generally doesn't provide the value for money it used to. It's become more expensive eg. subs, green fees, etc. while at the same time its become harder to play the game they way it used to be. In other words golf is slower. I don't mean rounds take longer although that is a consequence of golf being slower. What I mean is that there is more hanging around and general fannying about than there used to be and that detracts from the experience.

So while costs go up, the quality of experience goes down and hence poorer value for money.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

What I find frustrating about this second wave of great courses is the cost involved in playing.  It seems to me this is following the same pattern as the first wave of great courses in the US...if you can't shell out $200 a game minimum don't bother.  I guess public access for a decent percentage of the new breed is the biggest difference, but the costs are still very high regardless.  Golf is not doing well in shrugging off the image of the game being for people of means.  I know that is unfair in reality, but at the image driving media level it is absolutely the case.  As you say, how to recruit a 25 year old to spend money and ask them to hang out will crusties who often don't share the same values. 
 

Sean:


I agree with you that it's frustrating to see good courses charging so much to play.  But that doesn't have very much to do with the cost of construction, or with "landscape effect" ; it has to do with the price people will pay.  The only courses that charge $200 are the ones where there are enough well-off people willing to pay that much.  So the real problem is the increasingly uneven distribution of wealth in society, which is magnified in a sport like golf that has always catered to the elite.

[Sean_A]

What I find frustrating about this second wave of great courses is the cost involved in playing.  It seems to me this is following the same pattern as the first wave of great courses in the US...if you can't shell out $200 a game minimum don't bother.  I guess public access for a decent percentage of the new breed is the biggest difference, but the costs are still very high regardless.  Golf is not doing well in shrugging off the image of the game being for people of means.  I know that is unfair in reality, but at the image driving media level it is absolutely the case.  As you say, how to recruit a 25 year old to spend money and ask them to hang out will crusties who often don't share the same values. 
 

Sean:


I agree with you that it's frustrating to see good courses charging so much to play.  But that doesn't have very much to do with the cost of construction, or with "landscape effect" ; it has to do with the price people will pay.  The only courses that charge $200 are the ones where there are enough well-off people willing to pay that much.  So the real problem is the increasingly uneven distribution of wealth in society, which is magnified in a sport like golf that has always catered to the elite.

Tom

For the most part I agree....not that it makes any difference to the punter    So long as any wave of golf is fueled by exclusion of price or preference, golf will continue to have a bad rep.  I have been around long enough to start thinking that perhaps the rep is justified. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes -- and it's the reason I think that, on a site like gca.com, the question of exactly *what* enough well-off people are willing to pay for is an important one, or at the very least a question well worth discussing. 

This is especially so because the golf industry isn't much different than most others: it's a copycat industry, an industry of sequels and flavours of the month.

And without getting into specifics, I assume it's clear to most here what particular style and setting and ethos and type of locales and size of site has proven itself (at least in the short and medium term) to be precisely what enough well-off people *are* willing to pay for -- and thus is currently the one that everyone else desperately wants to copy.

Given this trend, I wish more people seemed to agree that asking about and questioning -- if not out-right critiquing -- today's dominant approach to golf course development was of some value.

I once started a thread entitled "we're living in conservative times" -- and despite my best efforts to explain otherwise, even those very few posters who didn't hate the thread were sure I meant that in the political context.

I didn't. I meant it in *this* context. That is, when a powerful and dominant trend (let's call it the majority) seemingly becomes so sacrosanct that even minor criticism from an outsider (the minority) is quickly dismissed out of hand, then we're indeed living in "conservative" times.

I'm not a great communicator. (I can't manage to 'stay on point' as they say.) But judging from the general level of disinterest in this subject, I'm either a worse communicator than I thought (unable to effectively share even what's seems to me most obvious), and/or the subject itself -- even by posters on a site like gca.com -- is deemed to be far, far less important than I realize.

Peter