Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture

[John Mayhugh]

 In the July issue of Golf Digest, architecture editor has quite the rant about a lack of innovation in golf course architecture. I couldn't find the column online, but will share some excerpts:
 

• In the 53 years I’ve studied golf architecture, I’ve seen plenty of artistry, but almost no innovation.
• The problem is, every architect worships the past...and molds designs to those ancient templates.
• Nobody has an original thought
• Modern-day courses are gussied up reproductions
• If phone engineers thought like golf architects, our cell phones would still be attached to the wall.
• Don’t bother arguing that classic courses are ideal because the game hasn’t changed....Nothing is the same, except our golf courses.
• Architects embrace the past because it has been safe, marketable, and easy to produce.
• Instead of developing original golf holes to address 21^st-century technology, time constraints, and resource limitations, architects are preoccupied with decrying technology and clamoring for a rollback in ball distance. Sorry folks, that’s called progress.
• With no more than a dozen courses under construction in the US, architects need to reinvent their product.
• If the past is the only thing you bring to the table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. (Whitten then mentions examples of a public course built by a golf contractor w/o an architect and Cypress Point restoring bunkers on their own.)

 
 
This column seemed somewhat bizarre to me – almost as if the writer is angry about something. Perhaps potential impact to advertising revenue if there is some sort of distance regulation? For sure, his definition of “progress” is pretty divergent from mine. His lone innovative idea in the column is to suggest a smaller hole. What a legacy that – combined with his advocacy of “resistance to scoring” – would be!
 
I’m happy that I don’t provide any revenue to that magazine (I’m using my library’s subscription).
 

[John Kavanaugh]

The Dell hole he built at Erin Hills was innovative as hell. I loved it but sadly the golf world wasn’t ready.

[Tim Martin]

In the July issue of Golf Digest, architecture editor has quite the rant about a lack of innovation in golf course architecture. I couldn't find the column online, but will share some excerpts:
 

• In the 53 years I’ve studied golf architecture, I’ve seen plenty of artistry, but almost no innovation.
• The problem is, every architect worships the past...and molds designs to those ancient templates.
• Nobody has an original thought
• Modern-day courses are gussied up reproductions
• If phone engineers thought like golf architects, our cell phones would still be attached to the wall.
• Don’t bother arguing that classic courses are ideal because the game hasn’t changed....Nothing is the same, except our golf courses.
• Architects embrace the past because it has been safe, marketable, and easy to produce.
• Instead of developing original golf holes to address 21^st-century technology, time constraints, and resource limitations, architects are preoccupied with decrying technology and clamoring for a rollback in ball distance. Sorry folks, that’s called progress.
• With no more than a dozen courses under construction in the US, architects need to reinvent their product.
• If the past is the only thing you bring to the table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. (Whitten then mentions examples of a public course built by a golf contractor w/o an architect and Cypress Point restoring bunkers on their own.)

 
 
This column seemed somewhat bizarre to me – almost as if the writer is angry about something. Perhaps potential impact to advertising revenue if there is some sort of distance regulation? For sure, his definition of “progress” is pretty divergent from mine. His lone innovative idea in the column is to suggest a smaller hole. What a legacy that – combined with his advocacy of “resistance to scoring” – would be!
 
I’m happy that I don’t provide any revenue to that magazine (I’m using my library’s subscription).

I took note of the next to last bullet point which made reference to the fact that there are less than a dozen new courses under construction in the U.S. I don’t see this changing any time soon if ever. The second or new Golden Age is surely over.

[Jeff Schley]

Ron Witten's venting may have some merit, but many more are misplaced judgements fingering the wrong culprit.

• There are so few courses being built today because of oversupply in the market due to overbuilding during the 80s, 90s, 00s. Not the GCA fault that work for new builds are few and far between.
• Saying GCA's worship the past, maybe true although I would argue for good reason. If you invented the round wheel so we need to keep searching for different shaped wheels? The classic designers were very talented guys.
• Past GCA's were blessed with more access to prime land (think Long Island, California Coast, etc.) and with less environmental/building restrictions. How many coastal courses could even pass permitting nowadays?
• Being first at anything is the first movers advantage and copying is the highest form of flattery, I don't see anything wrong with stealing a template hole here or there. Witten makes it sound like there are 1000's Macdonald/Raynors out there (we could only wish).
• GCA's are limited by the land they build on, not every project can be Fazio bulldozing his way into the top 100. You are given land, make the best of it.
• I didn't read his article, but I'm sure he doesn't even address links golf, which IMO is pure golf. Why not advocate for finding more links land?  Of course those are found on the coast and permitting would be impossible.
• Golf doesn't need longer courses to accommodate for technology, the PGA Tour does, which is a big difference.
• The vast majority of golfers are municipal cheap 18 hole rounds and that is your demographic to address for increasing/decreasing rounds of golf. I would guess 90% of public golfers don't even know who the designer of their home course is or cares.
• Those architecture fans are very few and far between, we are a very small slice of the golfing population so what we care about is really our own. We work within our circle of influence, not circle of concern. We have our concerns and wants and except for some very reputable people on here with clout in the industry, we are perfectly happy to hold them, not expecting the titanic to turn because we want it to.

[John Kavanaugh]

No matter what he says there is a 95% chance Whitten is right and the posters on this site are wrong. He is a living legend in the field of modern architecture.


Whitten was a contributor here for a while. Can't imagine why he left.

[Peter Pallotta]

It's true - he's likely right. But about what? If he believes it's time for golf courses to be designed in terms of players and not principles, and that gca should now strive to accommodate itself to the golfer instead of inviting the golfer to accommodate himself to the architecture, then he's right: i.e. his analysis and his prescription go hand in hand. But then again, if he's right that'll be the end of golf course architecture as we know it -- i.e. as it was conceived and flowered in the first golden age. 

[Jeff Schley]

• Nobody has an original thought

 

This reminds me of someone who has a judgement, but not the knowledge to back it up.  Ask him why? Don't do hit and runs, back it up. Example: many of us love the "spread offense" in college football. This isn't new as basically it is the old option attack from either the eye/double wing/ wishbone but out of a pistol formation. The blocking scheme for the OL is the same. So when someone says you are being really innovative by running the spread offense, the base run plays are blocked exactly the same they were in the 60's and 70's. The true innovation there is adding the passing dimension of the run/pass option (RPO) by the QB who reads a defender and puts them in a conflict to commit. However you need a very smart and accurate QB to execute that.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,


Why don't you read the article?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I know Ron well, and of course, the intent of the column is to generate discussion that drives magazine sales or website clicks.


The other explanation is akin to hearing a surprising answer from a government official......they are likely retiring and no longer have to answer to constituents, news media, etc.  Nothing to lose so they tell the truth. In Ron's case, I am sure he was protecting his access to all gca's for more material for many years, and now really doesn't have to.


Many points are valid.  In architecture, copying Beaux Arts or Art Deco eras is considered a low creative period, doing something new is more creative, a la, Frank Lloyd Wright, etc.


I fondly recall not getting a job but acing the interview.  I went last, and said all gca's sounded pretty much alike, no?  Nods all around.  Then I launch into a presentation labeled "Designing for the Past? There is no future in it!"  The job had been wired for a local architect who actually played the course, and whose fee as a result was about 20% of what it should have been.  He got it, but the committee debated for a few days, and the park director used to seek me out until the day he retired.  Moral victory, I guess.


Besides, if form follows function is a thing (and most designers believe it is....) then there is no way 100 year old design principles meet future needs.  We face water quality and quantity issues, financial issues, liability issues, etc. not realized then.  We need to incorporate those.  Granted, the minimalism part of modern design does help address financial and sustainability issues, so there is value in that, and sometimes, old can be new again.

[John Emerson]

In the July issue of Golf Digest, architecture editor has quite the rant about a lack of innovation in golf course architecture. I couldn't find the column online, but will share some excerpts:
 

• In the 53 years I’ve studied golf architecture, I’ve seen plenty of artistry, but almost no innovation.
• The problem is, every architect worships the past...and molds designs to those ancient templates.
• Nobody has an original thought
• Modern-day courses are gussied up reproductions
• If phone engineers thought like golf architects, our cell phones would still be attached to the wall.
• Don’t bother arguing that classic courses are ideal because the game hasn’t changed....Nothing is the same, except our golf courses.
• Architects embrace the past because it has been safe, marketable, and easy to produce.
• Instead of developing original golf holes to address 21^st-century technology, time constraints, and resource limitations, architects are preoccupied with decrying technology and clamoring for a rollback in ball distance. Sorry folks, that’s called progress.
• With no more than a dozen courses under construction in the US, architects need to reinvent their product.
• If the past is the only thing you bring to the table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. (Whitten then mentions examples of a public course built by a golf contractor w/o an architect and Cypress Point restoring bunkers on their own.)

 
 
This column seemed somewhat bizarre to me – almost as if the writer is angry about something. Perhaps potential impact to advertising revenue if there is some sort of distance regulation? For sure, his definition of “progress” is pretty divergent from mine. His lone innovative idea in the column is to suggest a smaller hole. What a legacy that – combined with his advocacy of “resistance to scoring” – would be!
 
I’m happy that I don’t provide any revenue to that magazine (I’m using my library’s subscription).

But time IS an issue!  Rounds have gotten so slow and long that many people just do not have time or patience for golf in this faster paced society we live in.  This is directly proportionate to things like ball distance, course length, too much long grass (and trees), and 5 mile drives/walks to the next tee.


Many superintendents are so versed in construction and building golf course items that building a few bunkers is a simple task, especially if the money is there to have the right people, operators, and equipment in house.  I would trust some of them to this job before some of these by-the-night contractors I have seen.

[MCirba]

I have great respect for Ron Whitten and his role in advancing our understanding of the history and events concerning architecture, but did he ever admit he was wrong about Joe Burbeck, in light of a number of contemporaneous articles unearthed since that time detailing Tillinghast's design of all 4 courses (at that time) at Bethpage?

[Garland Bayley]

Easy to throw stones. But, having worked as a GCA, where are his answers? Insisting on a hole he called the Dell hole in his career as a GCA is an innovation? Or, merely a replication of past work? I guess the innovation was in the English language by trying to expand the definition of dell to also encompass valley. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,


When working in collaboration with another gca or Tour Pro, we used to get the schtick going:


"If you like it, I did it.  If you don't like it, he did it."


And cross pollinating with the Playability thread, here's an original thought.  You want difficult rough? Plant poison ivy.

[Tom_Doak]

The other explanation is akin to hearing a surprising answer from a government official......they are likely retiring and no longer have to answer to constituents, news media, etc.  Nothing to lose so they tell the truth. In Ron's case, I am sure he was protecting his access to all gca's for more material for many years, and now really doesn't have to.


Many points are valid.  In architecture, copying Beaux Arts or Art Deco eras is considered a low creative period, doing something new is more creative, a la, Frank Lloyd Wright, etc.

I should probably wait until I can read the article . . . it has not arrived here yet.  But as an architect AND a critic of architecture, while I agree with a few of the complaints listed above about modern design, I think it's embarrassing that a guy who has been the supposed leading critic of golf course architecture for 30+ years did not take more responsibility for trying to fix the problem.


I guess Ron would say that he has not been a critic but just the "architecture editor" for the nation's biggest golf publication . . . a position they never had, until he came along.  And GOLF DIGEST did not really put him in the position of an art critic or movie critic; a considerable part of his bandwidth was to write up the results of their Top 100 and Best New lists like they were the gospel, even though he had no input into the results, and there were several cases where he did not agree with the results at all.


Ron tried hard not to pick sides and to be friendly with every architect who came around, but you just can't be a critic if you avoid criticizing people's work -- whether because you're trying not to pick sides, or because it's too icky.  He had opinions, but a lot of times he kept them private.  Ran should think about that part, too, if he wants to have a real impact on golf architecture.




Also, I thought he would be better at math:  if there are 14,000 existing courses in the U.S. and only a dozen under construction, does it make more sense to tailor new courses to new equipment, or to regulate the equipment?

[Tom_Doak]

And cross pollinating with the Playability thread, here's an original thought.  You want difficult rough? Plant poison ivy.

Ernie Els called for "knee high rough" for tournaments just yesterday.  I'm not sure all the players would agree though.

[John Kavanaugh]

The internet sucks and it's going to be around a lot longer than the magazines. Most if not all artistic expression is a reflection of the past because it's the only thing social media understands. Thanks for reminding me why Whitten quit this site.

[Steve Lapper]

The other explanation is akin to hearing a surprising answer from a government official......they are likely retiring and no longer have to answer to constituents, news media, etc.  Nothing to lose so they tell the truth. In Ron's case, I am sure he was protecting his access to all gca's for more material for many years, and now really doesn't have to.


Many points are valid.  In architecture, copying Beaux Arts or Art Deco eras is considered a low creative period, doing something new is more creative, a la, Frank Lloyd Wright, etc.

I should probably wait until I can read the article . . . it has not arrived here yet.  But as an architect AND a critic of architecture, while I agree with a few of the complaints listed above about modern design, I think it's embarrassing that a guy who has been the supposed leading critic of golf course architecture for 30+ years did not take more responsibility for trying to fix the problem.


I guess Ron would say that he has not been a critic but just the "architecture editor" for the nation's biggest golf publication . . . a position they never had, until he came along.  And GOLF DIGEST did not really put him in the position of an art critic or movie critic; a considerable part of his bandwidth was to write up the results of their Top 100 and Best New lists like they were the gospel, even though he had no input into the results, and there were several cases where he did not agree with the results at all.

Ron tried hard not to pick sides and to be friendly with every architect who came around, but you just can't be a critic if you avoid criticizing people's work -- whether because you're trying not to pick sides, or because it's too icky.  He had opinions, but a lot of times he kept them private.  Ran should think about that part, too, if he wants to have a real impact on golf architecture.


Also, I thought he would be better at math:  if there are 14,000 existing courses in the U.S. and only a dozen under construction, does it make more sense to tailor new courses to new equipment, or to regulate the equipment?

Tom,


Correct me if I'm wrong, but by virtue of setting the quantitative parameters and categories didn't Ron Whitten exercise tremendous input into the GD ratings and results??


Finally, having read plenty of Ron Whitten's published work over the years, I always found him a hypocrite....no less than some of the others in his position...but a hypocrite nonetheless. He advocated for big, tough and difficult, then had the mendacity to complain about overwatering, over manicuring and excessively bright green maintenance.

[Jeff_Brauer]

If he is advocating for more gca creativity, he should NOT start proposing solutions.  That would amount to just prescribing a different set of design or aesthetic rules. 


Of course, you could argue that most of us in the gca profession did at least subconsciously design to his and other magazines ratings systems, so in a way, he is criticizing his own self, too.

[Kalen Braley]

Given he's co-designed what two courses, and one of em was a tribute course to the ODGs??

The irony appears to be beyond off the charts with a rant like that.

P.S.  I always confuse him with Rod Whitman, who actually did create a gem in Sagebrush with more than a handful of very unique holes!

[Kyle Casella]

"Instead of developing original golf holes to address 21st-century technology, time constraints, and resource limitations, architects are preoccupied with decrying technology and clamoring for a rollback in ball distance. Sorry folks, that’s called progress."Could one design a course that fits 21st century technology (driver, ball, green speeds) with limited resources (land) in a format that allows for time constraints? Feels like these are mutually exclusive goals.

[Carl Rogers]

At one of the Affordable Golf Seminars a few years back, Mr. Whitten gave talk about his unfortunate foray into golf course ownership.  At the time, it confirmed what I thought for a long time ...... Golf is a rough business.


What direction should golf design go?
- flexible length, multiple par options each day?
- more reversible courses?
- each 6 holes returning to the clubhouse?
- bunkerless?

[Ben Stephens]

I mostly agree with Ron.

Being from an architecture background there is so much pastiche in terms of buildings mainly houses (or Noddy Homes as I call them)  the problem is that clients or designers like what they see there is not many that think outside the box or encourage the designer to come up with new ideas.

This can also be an issue with capitalism where it is safety first from an design standpoint and profit driven approach rather than take risks with long term rather than short term benefits.

The likes of Pete Dye, Desmond Muirhead and Von Hagge in the early years were experimental in their designs some of them were looking out of the box and the longer their careers went on it got a bit stale unlike the architect James Stirling evolved his designs as time went on.

The 'minimalists' have to me reinvented the circle and reproduced or restored courses to be more like the golden age. The quality of the design is much better compared to the 1950-90s era which was more like aircraft strip courses with little strategy. However there has not been an innovative design which is a game changer like the early Pete Dye designs did for that particular 1960/70s era which most seemed to follow the RTJ trend. The new course designs for me feels repetitive in 2020 rather than a wider variety of different design styles.

The question I have to the GCAers - would you change your style for the purpose of doing something different to what you have done before?

     

[Tom_Doak]

The 'minimalists' have to me reinvented the circle and reproduced or restored courses to be more like the golden age. The quality of the design is much better compared to the 1950-90s era which was more like aircraft strip courses with little strategy. However there has not been an innovative design which is a game changer like the early Pete Dye designs did for that particular 1960/70s era which most seemed to follow the RTJ trend. The new course designs for me feels repetitive in 2020 rather than a wider variety of different design styles.

The question I have to the GCAers - would you change your style for the purpose of doing something different to what you have done before?

Ben:


If you wanted to, you could also say Mr. Dye was not being original for taking the railroad tie sleepers he saw at Prestwick and using them in various ways on his courses.


I guess to answer your question I would have to understand what you are calling my "style".  I've done courses with huge greens and with tiny ones.  I've built all different kinds of bunkers, from as many as 125 and as few as 18.  I've built courses where we moved 800,000 cubic yards vs. ones where we moved 8,000.  I've built a course that's super hard [Sebonack] and one that's super easy [The Mulligan].  I've even built a reversible course.


About the only things I haven't done are to build an 8,000 yard long course -- which I just don't think sends the right message into the world -- or to build one that feels entirely unnatural, though I might do just that if presented again with a flat and boring site.  The latter would go against my brand but I am not the least bit concerned with that.  I am more concerned with stretching the envelope, because I can, and because nobody else seems to want to.

[Garland Bayley]

If he is advocating for more gca creativity, he should NOT start proposing solutions.  That would amount to just prescribing a different set of design or aesthetic rules. 
...

This makes no sense to me. If he wants more creativity, and apparently cannot suggest some, it seems to me he is just farting into the wind.

How about a reversible course? (Tom Doak, Dan Hixson) Is that no creative enough? How about a par 72 course with tee extensions on each hole to allow it to be played as a par 90? (John Daly) Creative enough? How about a course with 18 holes each of distinct length where listing in order by hole length plots as a straight line (Tom Doak Olympic course proposal) Creative?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by virtue of setting the quantitative parameters and categories didn't Ron Whitten exercise tremendous input into the GD ratings and results??

GOLF DIGEST's definition of what is a great course was written by their publisher, Bill Davis, in the early 1970's. 


They never applied it to their rankings of the courses [or did any math at all] until 1985, which was either just before they hired Ron as architectural editor, or just after . . . but he did not decide what the categories were, and at most he was allowed to tinker with the controls a bit by trying to rewrite the definitions.  [For example, he wrote in "fairness" as a part of resistance to scoring.]


I think the biggest influence he had on the rankings was in writing up all of the Best New candidates for panelists to decide what they might go see.  You could tell when he was enthusiastic about a course or wasn't, and raters are always looking for cues from above.