[Mike_Young]

Thanks very much for that, Kalen -- fascinating and very clear 'snapshots' of the industry, and its history. 

The only thing you forgot to add was the 'pay-off stat':

2000-2020: Average of only 10 courses a year -- but every one of them has made it into GOLF's Top 100 list!

 

Peter,They all make Golf's Top 100 because they are the only thing there that could want to advertise...the interesting stat in all of this is the green fee/dues during these periods vs. capital cost and operations cost for the average golf course...

[Kalen Braley]

Hilarious Pete.

The paper i looked at didn't have any stats on post Y2k, but that sounds about right, except that math doesn't quite work... 

[Kalen Braley]

A couple more screen shots:

1878 to 1919



This chart shows the years and # of courses built.  Looks like 1960 to 1975 were the huge boom years, and then again in the mid 90s before the big downturn!

[Sven Nilsen]

Kalen:


Your 1920-1949 chart is a bit misleading.  I'd venture majority of the courses built during that time period were built during the 1920's, as we know what happened in the 1930's and 40's.


The average per year for the 1920's was probably well above the number noted for the larger time period.


Sven

[Ira Fishman]

JMEvensky:

Actually I am an oncology nurse (bone marrow transplant).  Been in that profession for 15 years now.  But... in a way you are right.  My original college degree back in the 80s was in fact architecture. 

Stupid of me to get a degree in REGULAR architecture -- should have gone to landscape architecture, seeing how I'd been reading/thinking about GCA since age 10.  But back then the idea of actually, really setting out on the road to become a professional golf architect was a non-starter.  Wouldn't have even considered it was something workable.

No disrespect to the architects here, but what you do as a nurse is pretty special and way more emotionally draining I would suspect.


Ira

[Ira Fishman]

I think of it more in terms of supplying a demand.


Guys like Geoffrey Cornish, Ed Ault, William & David Gordon et.al. built a slew of highly functional golf courses for the growing game and by and large each created many more golf courses than the Golden Age Masters we all revere.


I think Jim's bullet points above are spot on and economy and maintainability took precedence.


I wonder what things would look like today if demand was once again creating 300 new golf course opportunities per year?

During the ODG/Golden Age Era, what percentage of courses were Private versus Public? My guess is that wealthy folks could command the best land when there was no such thing as Suburbs. Post-WWII, the growth of Suburbs consumed the most attractive sites and the growth of the game required Public Courses with affordable greens fees. That does not justify mediocre architecture for private clubs, but might explain the proliferation of mediocre or less Public courses. After all, the new era of Bandon-like open to the Public courses really are open only to the same wealthy folks who founded the Golden Age courses. My comments limited to the US because I do not pretend to understand the UK or Australia or other dynamics.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:

Your 1920-1949 chart is a bit misleading.  I'd venture majority of the courses built during that time period were built during the 1920's, as we know what happened in the 1930's and 40's.

The average per year for the 1920's was probably well above the number noted for the larger time period.

Sven

Hey Sven,

If you look at the 2nd chart in post #27, you can get a better idea of when those courses were built in that time period.  As you guessed, most of them were built in the 1920s..with the big drop off for the GD in 29'

P.S.  I didn't put any of these charts together, they all come out of the research article link i posted in reply #9.  I should also add for the real researchers on this site its a fascinating piece with 16 pages of information and discussion with two pages of references. You can get a trial membership to view the entire article.

[Steve Burrows]

In the mid-1960s, during these so-called “Dark Ages,” Robert Trent Jones, Sr. received a commission to design and build Otter Creek Golf Club on the outskirts of Columbus, Indiana.  I don’t think that anyone who has been there would say that the course is anything outside of the criteria listed by the original poster. It is prototypical RTJ Sr.  However, those of you familiar with the history of Columbus will know that the work of RTJ, Sr. in this particular city fits into a much larger, and more significant, architectural narrative. Beginning in the 1950s,  J. Irwin Miller, the CEO of a local company, released grant funding to be used in the hiring of some of America’s - if not the world’s - best architects and artists (e.g. I.M. Pei, Eero Saarinen, Henry Moore, Dan Kiley, and others) to design a range of structures and spaces that would change the face of the city and turn Columbus into a destination for high design.
[/color][/size]
[/color]This discussion forum has a tendency to see the RTJ, Sr. style as somehow lacking in substance, but his inclusion in Columbus clearly shows that his work was considered to be absolutely cutting edge at the time. I think we often forget that. Modernist architecture itself is often viewed by some today with disdain, but this was no doubt a critical historical era in design. Ultimately, I wonder if it might serve us better if we can stop trying to understand Post-War II golf course design through a contemporary lens and instead begin to appreciate it for it’s importance in that age.[/size]

[Sven Nilsen]

Compare the earth moving capabilities in 1950 to those from 30 years prior.


They built courses the way they did because they could.

[Bernie Bell]

My observations don't match up with a lot of the comments.  They're based on playing 10 or more Ed Ault courses built in 50's and 60's in MD, VA and PA.  It's possible that my sample size is too small, Ed Ault is not representative of the era, and that I don't know what I'm looking at.  With that caveat, I think these comments are wide of the mark -
-       "Championship”.  Definitely not all aspiring to be “championship.”  Some (Northwest, Hobbits Glen) were built with tournament golf in mind but are not “brutal” or “penal.”  Most are not 6800-7100.  Most top out between 6600-6800 and probably see most play at 6200-6300.
-       “Penal.”  If anything, known as “playable” and “fun,” with challenge for the strong player while leaving routes for the less strong players.
-       “Cartball” – All eminently walkable.  Golf in 50s and 60s was promoted as a sport of vigor and health.  Carts were increasingly available, but seen as an aid to the infirm.
-       “Aerial.”  The ground game is possible even encouraged.  Greens not designed to either repel shots or collect them.  Usually possible to run up to at least part of green.
-       “Brutal” or “Bulldozed.”  Moving dirt seems as if it was the option of last resort.  I don’t think the courses I’m familiar with were stripped out, but rather routed over land pretty much as it was.  Seems that Ault did what he did without ripping up the whole farm and putting it back together.  Tie-ins highly natural – perhaps because they followed the lay of the land and did not have to reconstruct after the fact to simulate following the land? 
-       “Artificial” – If anything, the courses can be faulted for lacking in artifice.
-       “Lacking attention to detail.”  My sense is that they attended carefully to the details they cared about, which may not be the same details that some people care about now.
-       “Cookie cutter.”  Not sure what this means exactly, but there are no template holes and I discern no formulaic or mathematical routings, other than returning nines.  Very few back-and-forth fairways.  Maybe repetitive bunker placement? The courses are sometimes described as mundane, unimaginative, “failing to inspire,” perhaps as a result of conscious lack of ornamentation.  Does this quality affect the playing characteristics of the courses?
-       “Mediocre architecture for private clubs” – I don’t think Montgomery CC, on nice rolling land, needs to hang its head in the company of many of the private clubs in its neighborhood, and may be superior to some (not all) that rely on frill and presentation, enabled by exorbitant membership cost, to compensate for what they lack in architectural and playing characteristics.  Other privates (eg Bretton Woods) are constrained more by their land than the routing or design.
-       “Doak 1s and 2s.”  I’m not sure what they are in DS, but I’m not sure it matters.  They weren’t built to attract a global clientele, so whether people go out of their way to play them is irrelevant to their success, for the most part.
-       Driven by housing – in Ault’s case in this era, some were part of development projects, like Hobbits Glen and Reston, but most were not.  And in the Columbia and Reston developments, the focus was not on golf or a gated, wealthy community; they were (and are) communities planned to be diverse in race and wealth, with golf as one (non-mandatory) piece of strong shared recreational and other amenities.  

[Jeff Schley]

Not every course is worth saving.  As much as we never want to see a course close, it is a business and subject to supply/demand factors like any other business.  Survival of the fittest and in this case you have the golden age followed by quite a bit of hollow work that hasn't stood up to the test of time thus has slipped into mediocrity or subpar. How much shag carpeting is being sold anymore? Vinyl kitchen floors anyone? Avocado green appliances? Things change and not everything is timeless, such is golf course design as well for the market is limited.

[Bernie Bell]

Who's talking about saving (or subsidizing) anything?  Not me.  The Ault public courses in Montgomery County MD sustain themselves.  If the DC area privates falter, no one will clamor for a bail-out.  You're right it is market-driven, and times change.  So the Aults are chugging along, while the Maryland Doaks, Rosses, Flynns and Banks are largely NLE.  Maybe it's worth thinking about what characteristics -- simplicity?  value?  ease of maintenance? proximity to golfers? -- of these "dark age" courses have sustained them and continue to sustain them 50+ years on, instead of reflexively crapping on them.  If they're so bad, why do even the golf intellectuals (grudgingly) admit that they're fun?  Maybe these are the courses that should be updated if people don't like the finishes instead of chin-stroking over frilly bunkers at the latest Instagram darling that's thousands of miles away from everyday golfers.  I hope Pac Dunes (and Old Mac) are 500-year cathedrals of golf, but the future of US golf may not be in airplane rides, especially if oil hits $200/barrel and/or the new Red Guard completes the Cultural Revolution in the US, both oil and golf become even more doubleplusungood, and the value of the nation's retirement savings plummets.

[Kalen Braley]

Bernie,

The title of this thread is "Defining Dark Ages Architecture", not about what has or hasn't survived.

There are plenty of mediocre and crappy courses that will surely continue to be around, for the reasons you've stated and perhaps more.  But I put them more in the camp of fast food where the Taco Bells and McDonalds will survive because they are cheap, easy, and convenient. But I wouldn't be making the mistake of arguing they offer much quality if any at all.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"For a good many years, much of golf architecture in this country has suffered from a 'finality complex.'  That complex was that the zenith of GCA had been reached in Scotland and everything we did had to be an imitation of their courses . . . I think its high time we stopped imitating the old traditions in golf design and build courses that will satisfy our player demand, our pocketbooks, our maintenance machinery and our peculiar American climatic and topographical conditions."  Attributed to RB Harris in 1940s (in an earlier thread on this site).

Bernie,


Yes that is one of the articles that informed my opinion of the era.

[Jeff Schley]

Who's talking about saving (or subsidizing) anything?  Not me.  The Ault public courses in Montgomery County MD sustain themselves.  If the DC area privates falter, no one will clamor for a bail-out.  You're right it is market-driven, and times change.  So the Aults are chugging along, while the Maryland Doaks, Rosses, Flynns and Banks are largely NLE.  Maybe it's worth thinking about what characteristics -- simplicity?  value?  ease of maintenance? proximity to golfers? -- of these "dark age" courses have sustained them and continue to sustain them 50+ years on, instead of reflexively crapping on them.  If they're so bad, why do even the golf intellectuals (grudgingly) admit that they're fun?  Maybe these are the courses that should be updated if people don't like the finishes instead of chin-stroking over frilly bunkers at the latest Instagram darling that's thousands of miles away from everyday golfers.  I hope Pac Dunes (and Old Mac) are 500-year cathedrals of golf, but the future of US golf may not be in airplane rides, especially if oil hits $200/barrel and/or the new Red Guard completes the Cultural Revolution in the US, both oil and golf become even more doubleplusungood, and the value of the nation's retirement savings plummets.

Woah Bernie, the sky isn't falling is it?
While I maybe one of the few, if any, people on this board that would benefit from $200 for a barrell of black gold, I don't wish that day to come for it would mean disaster consequences on a variety of other industries / services. One of the last things I'll be thinking about will be Dark Age Architecture if that day does indeed come. BTW retirement savings did plummet in 2008/9 and IMO we haven't adequately put in place measures to ensure another one doesn't happen.  Bring back Glass Steagall by repealing the Gramm/Leach/Bliley act.  The Dodd/Frank act doesn't do enough, even with the Volcker Rule.

[Bernie Bell]

Kalen - Not to worry, I know what I'm doing, and I know what I think are the defining characteristics.  I've laid out what I think the misconceptions are (including yours on DS 1 and 2), based on my experience, which I freely admit is limited.  I think if there's a mistake here it is making broad gauge statements that these thousands of courses are all rubbish without explaining what your opinion is based on and what characteristics you think make them rubbish (or shag carpet or Taco Bell or whatever).  I say without embarrassment that I think these Ault dark age courses most definitely do offer quality - in no particular order - Montgomery CC, Chester River CC (new 9), Penn National (Founders), Bryce Resort, Hobbits Glen.  On my list to explore are Hunt Valley and Rookery North (f/k/a Shawnee).  If others who have played them think otherwise . . . . that is what discussion boards are for. 

[Derek_Duncan]

Jim


2. I never thought of dark age architecture in terms of saving money.

Sean,


The architects coming out of WW2 and into the 1950s (and there weren't many of them) almost all write about streamlining design and adjusting the golf features to the ease of maintenance and lowering maintenance costs. It's the driving factor.


One, labor costs were quite high for much of that timeframe alongside a great push to develop more courses to meet demand. And two, the new types of machinery on the market gave superintendents a speed and affordability luxury they didn't previously have.


I've come to view this era, particularly the 1950s and 1960s, as much the age of the superintendent as the age of the professional architect. And there was a long learning curve in how many of the newly available/improved technologies (machinery, drainage, irrigation, fertilizers and pesticides) were implemented.

[Kalen Braley]

Bernie,

I think the analysis I've presented so far is at least in the ballpark.  A few things to show some justification.

- A DS 3 is average, by definition, so if you look at a bell curve of all 16000 courses in the US, its gonna be shifted left where most courses will fall in the 1-4 range.  Given there were approx 8400 courses built between 1945 and 1980, distribution curve probabilities tell us the DS 1s and 2s will be well into the thousands...as well as thousands of 3s and 4s..

- I too have played most of my golf on local public courses (approx 90% of my rounds) and my own data shows similar as 80% of those played are 1-4 on the DS. These courses, out here in the West, represent about 100 data points.

P.S. While I did compare them to fast food, I never explicitly called them rubbish.  They certainly serve their purpose for the masses, just like Taco Bell.  And I will even say most of them are good values to most golfers, just like Taco Bell is to someone who just wants food.  But if we're talking about their specific characteristics otherwise, i don't think they're noteworthy.

[Jeff_Brauer]

   

Not trying to stir JB but I see this period as the period when there was a concerted effort to promote the "architect" as a professional rather than a design/build type and the written record shows such.  A concerted effort was made the convince the client that more and more plans were needed.  So many of the past guys were coming form golf but during this period many came form other walks and really didn't know much of golf the game.

Mike,


I agree with you, minus your usual cynicism.     As a member of ASGCA and ASLA, and agree the early record shows they both were concerned about elevating their status from tree planters or dirt diggers to professionals.  And to have their version of Wright in architecture, etc.  And it worked, and you and I benefit from that push today, so what's the beef? 



I believe golf course architecture should stand along with the other fine arts of architecture, landscape architecture, fine dining, theatre, etc. It is now considered important enough to warrant its own critics, lists, rankings, and even coffee table books and monthly magazines.  IMHO, it may be more important.  If you love literature, you can read voraciously, but never read Danielle Steel. Movie goers can avoid any genre they don’t like, simply by not buying tickets.  TV watchers can easily change channels. 



But, as a golfer, you can’t skip a hole.  Without architecture is there really any golf?



What I don't know is just what their image was after a hiatus of WWII.  Given the near total lack of work for a few years there, they certainly had the chance to invent the profession from scratch and they took it.  I also don't know for sure how much outside elements affected the move to the design bid method.  There had been years of govt. procurement of military hardware, and I suspect it filtered out to other entities.  We know Wadsworth and Packard split into build and design.  Were they leaders that influenced the golf industry or just following what seemed to be an imminent trends?  Either way, they were both very bright and it's hard for me to accept people decades later substituting current judgement for theirs.


And then, were the stack of plans required at that time or just foisted on clients for gca's to prove a point?  Maybe more before Wadsworth, who basically invented golf course contracting they were really necessary when road builders did earthmoving, farmers did the grassing, etc.  It probably was right for the times.  If times have changed back, so be it.  I trust the current collective wisdom in the industry is generally correct now, as well. 


That said, like in a lot of other fields, I see multiple trends and every way of working is seen as a good way to go depending on circumstances.  I think things are far less rigid and more accepting now than back then, when conformance was seen as a pretty good thing overall.  Yes, a generalization and I can see the exceptions people could bring up.  But, I've run out of typing time and you really don't need more detail.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bernie -
your post #34 was a very good one, and what you describe aligns with my experience of many modest courses from the 60s and 70s -- which is why I often put "dark ages" in quotes or reference the "so-called" dark ages.
But that said: I do think, and some of the quotes included in this thread by architects from that time seem to confirm, that the centre of focus did shift between the 20s and the 50s -- ie from a focus on design/quality to a focus on playability/availability.
I think my first post noted a main reason for this shift, and Sven's line about moving earth because they could is also relevant; but certainly it seems like a period when few architects were talking like they once did about the great golf holes from GB&I or about The Old Course as a model for greatness.
That in itself shouldn't qualify the times as the "dark ages" -- and I owe my ability to play golf quite frequently and fairly affordable to that very age, and the courses that were built then. But that doesn't mean that something didn't change quite significantly during those years, and I say the key change, from our perspective, was that financial metrics replaced artistic ones.

[Tim Gavrich]

Bernie,

The title of this thread is "Defining Dark Ages Architecture", not about what has or hasn't survived.

There are plenty of mediocre and crappy courses that will surely continue to be around, for the reasons you've stated and perhaps more.  But I put them more in the camp of fast food where the Taco Bells and McDonalds will survive because they are cheap, easy, and convenient. But I wouldn't be making the mistake of arguing they offer much quality if any at all.

In the Charleston, S.C. episode of Parts Unknown, the late Anthony Bourdain and Southern chef Sean Brock have basically the time of their lives eating at a Waffle House. There they are, in one of the most foodie-friendly cities in America, and they're rhapsodizing about the pecan waffles and other menu items that would be easy for foodies to dismiss as mundane and pedestrian and therefor not "offer[ing] much quality if any at all."


On an episode of David Chang's (another great American food mind) podcast, he and his guest Lolis Elie, who is a screenwriter and food critic, spent a good five minutes talking about how the best red beans and rice might be the version made by, of all places, Popeye's.


I love independent foodie-haven restaurants as much as anyone, but I think there is a sneaky-high amount of quality in the more widespread restaurant chains out there. There's a lot of not-great food, obviously, but while it's easy to dismiss it all wholesale, it's also inaccurate to do so.


The same thing is happening with regard to "Dark-Ages" GCA, which is understandable when the name for the entire era is a put-down. It makes it awfully easy to overlook what I think is plenty of sneaky-strong product.


I learned the game on a 1961 Geoffrey Cornish design that doesn't have the frills and trigger features that some Dark Age dismissers seem to require in order to truly appreciate a course. It doesn't have 80 acres of fairway or enormous greens, but it has a good mix of holes that give the whole bag a workout, as well as some interesting uphill and downhill shots.


Ol' Hop Meadow CC is but one example, but I've been impressed by several, shall we say, "Midcentury Modern" courses. I think the trouble partly comes from lack of separation, when evaluating a course, of that course's style (look/shaping/vibe) from its content (variety/strategy). I think if some of the haters would set aside their arbitrary objections to the look of a course and evaluate the content, it might, uh, brighten their view somewhat.

[Derek_Duncan]

Bernie -
your post #34 was a very good one, and what you describe aligns with my experience of many modest courses from the 60s and 70s -- which is why I often put "dark ages" in quotes or reference the "so-called" dark ages.
But that said: I do think, and some of the quotes included in this thread by architects from that time seem to confirm, that the centre of focus did shift between the 20s and the 50s -- ie from a focus on design/quality to a focus on playability/availability.
I think my first post noted a main reason for this shift, and Sven's line about moving earth because they could is also relevant; but certainly it seems like a period when few architects were talking like they once did about the great golf holes from GB&I or about The Old Course as a model for greatness.
That in itself shouldn't qualify the times as the "dark ages" -- and I owe my ability to play golf quite frequently and fairly affordable to that very age, and the courses that were built then. But that doesn't mean that something didn't change quite significantly during those years, and I say the key change, from our perspective, was that financial metrics replaced artistic ones.

Peter,


You are definitely correct that one of the major shifts beginning in the 1950s was not only in the style of design but also in the type of player that architects were designing for. And obviously these things are related.


There was incredible interest in golf coming out of the war. Many people -- perhaps millions -- were interested in playing but couldn't because there was a shortage of courses. Facilities regularly turned people away. Supply didn't catch up with demand until probably the middle 1960s. And most of these newcomers were not familiar, or not interested, in the man vs. course, golf-as-a-test-of-character aspect of the game (and architecture) that defined the best Golden Age courses. They viewed golf instead as a leisure activity, a way to relax and get outside. The attraction of the game shifted.


Certainly the desire to build a better, more modern golf course was a driving factor for post-War architects. In fact, they believed they were building superior courses to what was built in the 20s. From a purely technical perspective they were usually correct, and technical advancement, science and efficiency were the prevailing virtues of the day.


Many of the courses built at that time were simply functional and opened to meet demand, but that was true in the 1910s and 1920s as well. A small fraction of courses from any era are ever considered great. But the top courses of the "so-called Dark Ages" were considered some of the best in the world by contemporaries of that period. Like Jeff Brauer I have a hard time being critical of anyone for aligning with the tastes and demands of their time (as long as they're not harming anyone).

[Kalen Braley]

Tim,

I think that's excellent you've found some hidden gems and a few courses that buck the trend.  I've found a few myself over the years that were super fun to play, off the beaten path, and inexpensive.  They wouldn't get any play here on GCA.com, and that's perfectly fine.

But I think when we're trying to define an entire era that spans several decades, you have to look at ALL of the data points, the thousands and thousands of data points, and try to find the general trends.  The hidden gems are gonna be out there, but that doesn't tell the story, and if anything is mis-leading.

-----------------------------------
IN my opinion, and the following is just that...

To me the real objection I have to the dark ages, is it seems like they tried to corporatize golf in the name of "progress" and make it all about the bottom line instead of following with the artsy/whimsical/fun side to it (exceptions duly noted).

And then when the ball really got rolling in the 60s and the RFPs were flooding the market and pumping out 400+ courses per year it seems to have went full construction line, where it was all about how many courses can we make in the shortest amount of time, end product be damned...

[Bill Gayne]

I do recall Dick Nugent warning me on my first day that all the great courses had been built, and what we needed now were playable ones, sort of lowering the design bar, although obviously RTJ and Wilson didn't think the same way.  They just equated hard with good.

Wow, that's quite the pep talk.


When we were building Pacific Dunes, Mike Keiser came out to talk to our whole construction crew one day, by the 11th tee.  He wanted them all to know we were working on something special, and if we did a great job, it could last 500 years, like a cathedral.


I'm not sure where he got that, but it clearly wasn't from working with Dick Nugent on the Dunes Club!

It was a reference to Sir Christopher Wrenn’s parable The Three Bricklayers.

[Derek_Duncan]

Tim,


-----------------------------------
IN my opinion, and the following is just that...

To me the real objection I have to the dark ages, is it seems like they tried to corporatize golf in the name of "progress" and make it all about the bottom line instead of following with the artsy/whimsical/fun side to it (exceptions duly noted).

And then when the ball really got rolling in the 60s and the RFPs were flooding the market and pumping out 400+ courses per year it seems to have went full construction line, where it was all about how many courses can we make in the shortest amount of time, end product be damned...

Kalen,


One of the problems with this whole Dark Ages concept is, how do you talk about a 35-45+ year period (depending on when you believe the era began and ended) in any meaningful way? Especially considering that over 8,000-10,000 courses were built (nice job on the research).


I would actually cleave it further, into smaller sections. The period from 1945 to about 1965 has a lot in common -- it is the Ramp Up. This is when golf booms across all demographics, demand is extreme and good and sometimes great land remains available and fairly accessible. The courses of this era are typically what I would call "honest, with many built are on nice, core properties -- most are public, are good walks and not difficult to drive to.


The 1965-1980 period is the Scale Up. Industrialization begins with more courses added, often farther away from city centers. This is when housing developments and new suburban communities really begin to grow. As cities push out into more difficult land the courses and architecture is forced to bend to the demands and and constraints of outside, non-golf factors. Golf carts gain in popularity.


1980-1990/whenever is the One Up. The one-upsmanship that begins in the 70s takes on new meaning as the influence of Pete Dye and more readily available money encourages new designs to go big and test limits and blah blah blah. Golf cart paths gain in popularity. The dawning of the era of the signature hole.


I just find it pretty hard to compare what was happening to golf design in 1975 to what was happening in 1950. Too much happened -- in the world, in outlook, in technology and communication and culture -- to draw clean lines.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()