USA vs British Clubs and Reliance on Golf Architects?

[Carl Johnson]

My thread title might not be the best, but I taking off from Richard Fisher's reply #24 on https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,73301.0.htm  Here's the heart of it, referring to clubs that turn to an architect for every little course change:

". . . we should perhaps remind ourselves colleagues that the proportion of (say) British golf clubs currently 'working with an architect' is absolutely tiny, certainly in the sense in which I think this thread is constructed. Professional colleagues may know better, but I would guess perhaps 5%, maybe 10% tops, and very largely in and around a generalised 'top 200'.? The US may well be the global outlier here, if an 'architect' is as prevalent as seems to be assumed?"

Discuss.  I'll come back with more later, but my initial reaction is that British clubs probably don't have as many activist green committees from whom the integrity of the course needs to be protected.  That's simplistic, I know, but just for a start.

[Adam Lawrence]

I think it’s just about money. Most British clubs would implode if told they had to spend a hundred grand on their golf course.

[Richard Fisher]

Complete agreement Adam. £50K would send many over the edge, if charging between £750 and £1000 per annum for c 50 weeks of golf.

[Simon Barrington]

My thread title might not be the best, but I taking Discuss.  I'll come back with more later, but my initial reaction is that British clubs probably don't have as many activist green committees from whom the integrity of the course needs to be protected.  That's simplistic, I know, but just for a start.

Sadly, that is far from the truth in some cases.

There has been a sea change in some courses due to newer members joining post a downturn pre-COVID (so moved from newer accessible modern courses/clubs that closed down) and post-COVID with increased demand from newer or returning golfers (many younger sportsmen discovered or re-discovered golf during this time as it was the first Sport to open up, and they realised they loved it!)

These new members have become emboldened and are very engaged in Club politics, but they have little to no knowledge of Golf Architecture nor heritage.
 
I know of some Clubs where they have loaded the Board and have an open "Modernising" agenda (whatever the hell that means) that has been steamrolled through, without appropriate scrutiny/protocols in some cases.

These clubs will remain nameless, but the result is commissioning of local Architects for expensive, some may say wasteful, and damaging work to some heritage courses.

Some Architects seem happy to go along with their requests as the money is there and they can get a open opportunity to stamp their mark.
There are commercial aspects/linkages to (EIGCA Partner) suppliers that encourage over-specification of solutions.
There is a lack of historical care and research too as these Architects simply have too many projects on their roster already, so speed is the  essence and damn the results. Some will damage their reputation and portfolio.

IMHO this period will go down to be as damaging as the tree-planting frenzies of the 1960s & 70s to UK courses.

Homogenised pastiche bunkering is the most visible aspect, but the relocation of bunkers and hazards without care (to adjust courses for the <5% of golfers who hit it >250yds) has severly damaged both strategy (for the majority of amateur players) and the aesthetics of courses. Bland unexciting predictable golf results...the long-term effects will be very interesting...

But at least in 10-15yrs there may be an opportunity for the next generation (of hopefully better informed) Architects to rectify this work for the "better"...Here's hoping...

[Chris Hughes]

My thread title might not be the best, but I taking off from Richard Fisher's reply #24 on https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,73301.0.htm  Here's the heart of it, referring to clubs that turn to an architect for every little course change:

Discuss.  I'll come back with more later, but my initial reaction is that British clubs probably don't have as many activist green committees from whom the integrity of the course needs to be protected.  That's simplistic, I know, but just for a start.

That really is problematic and an incredibly slippery slope, isn't it.

I think it’s just about money. Most British clubs would implode if told they had to spend a hundred grand on their golf course.

Heck one just spent almost $200K to get a few sheep and majestic Highland cows off of it!

My thread title might not be the best, but I taking Discuss.  I'll come back with more later, but my initial reaction is that British clubs probably don't have as many activist green committees from whom the integrity of the course needs to be protected.  That's simplistic, I know, but just for a start.

Sadly, that is far from the truth in some cases.

These new members have become emboldened and are very engaged in Club politics, but they have little to no knowledge of Golf Architecture nor heritage.
 
I know of some Clubs where they have loaded the Board and have an open "Modernising" agenda (whatever the hell that means) that has been steamrolled through, without appropriate scrutiny/protocols in some cases.

These clubs will remain nameless, but the result is commissioning of local Architects for expensive, some may say wasteful, and damaging work to some heritage courses.

Jeez I hate to hear this... 

[Thomas Dai]

One of the great scourges at some U.K. golf clubs has been the introduction of ‘Beautification’ committees usually comprising the likes of Miss Scarlett, Colonel Mustard, the Rev Green and Mr B Ollocks.
“Marigolds behind the 4th green would look so lovely” and all that kind of …….
Atb

[Simon Barrington]

One of the great scourges at some U.K. golf clubs has been the introduction of ‘Beautification’ committees usually comprising the likes of Miss Scarlett, Colonel Mustard, the Rev Green and Mr B Ollocks.
“Marigolds behind the 4th green would look so lovely” and all that kind of …….
Atb

Anyone who suggests such a thing should of course plant whatever they wish, not on the golf course where they play, but in their own garden!

I am afraid the old Berckman's Nursery influences the uninformed, and it is notable that its own "beautification" occured several years after the course was built too...hence a number of hole names changed over time...it's a beautiful and special place, but it is and should be unique and not mimicked.

[mike_beene]

Having an architect approve any change is a defense against a committee making changes.

[Simon Barrington]

Having an architect approve any change is a defense against a committee making changes.

As is the role of a consultant in so many fields, often the fields that committees may have made their careers.
They provide "air-cover" for personal or collective committee whims.
 
When the resulting work is so far away from the Architect's initial concept Audit/Masterplan for the project it reveals this.

Unfortunately memberships don't get to see the various iterations, so the committee's desire simply gets presented as the "Architect's plan". There are not enough informed members to fight against such inappropriate change, given the niche of passionate GCA nerd-dom we speak in is so very small.

A weak consultant allows themselves to be so directed, a good architect would; educate, influence towards thorough researched work, or step away.

[Simon Barrington]

Jeez I hate to hear this... 

Appreciate that, I would say of course this is in SOME instances.

But the social media feeds indicate it might be more prevalent, often in the less-lauded clubs/courses that are part of our deep and varied architectural heritage.
#stophomogenisinggems #keepthequirk #nomorepastichebunkers

[Niall C]

Excellent. So now I know employing an architect is bad; having that architect recommend some tried and trusted golf course contractor is equally bad; having new members who take an interest in the club is also bad; and as for modernisation in any form, that is forbidden. I don't think I've missed anything but if so I'm sure someone will let me know. 


Niall

[Michael Felton]

Of the two clubs I belong to in the UK, one has a consulting architect and the other used one for a course update. The first one hasn't done anything particularly big (yet). The second "updated" the bunkering and I and I think quite a lot of other members hated it. The one I specifically dislike is shown here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2632685,-0.4023185,298m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D


First thought on looking at this is all the bunkers are the same size and virtually the same shape, like some giant cookie cutter was used to make them. But the thing I found egregious was that string of four bunkers in the middle there. From the tee, those are basically in a straight line. They used to start on the left and move to the right as you went further from the tee. That meant if you couldn't clear them, you had to play to the right side and the further up you played, the narrower it got. Then if you could clear the first one you had a narrow slot to put the ball in and as you hit it further you got more space. All of that worked pretty well and so far as I can tell is how Colt put them in the ground originally and what he intended. Now there is no strategy at all. It's narrow on the left and it's narrow on the right, so you either lay up to the really short spot, thread the needle or bomb it a mile. I don't know what would possess an architect to make that change. Maybe I'm missing something. Here is a picture of the hole from the tee:





The other course, they put together a 30-odd page plan for the course. It did at least seem to be well thought out and some of the remit was not exactly trivial so I think they did a good job. I'm so soured on the process though that I'm basically against them changing anything.

[Simon Barrington]

Excellent. So now I know employing an architect is bad; having that architect recommend some tried and trusted golf course contractor is equally bad; having new members who take an interest in the club is also bad; and as for modernisation in any form, that is forbidden. I don't think I've missed anything but if so I'm sure someone will let me know. 
Niall

To be more positive 

Employing a good (sympathetic) architect is vital (as is a careful and informed selection process to find them).

Having that chosen architect recommend his trusted golf course contractor is good. But, "design & build" and/or working with the club's own course staff is often far cheaper and can lead to more care/ownership being taken, as the contractors are just so busy.

Having new members who take an interest in the club is of course welcome (as long as they seek to learn, appreciate and respect what attracted them in the first place, and not agitate for change merely for changes sake, especially if (excess) funds are burning a hole in their pocket)

"Modernisation" can be beneficial in some aspects, but highly deleterious in others.
So it must be very carefully considered, the burden of proof being higher for a course with known and unique architectural heritage.

Cheers

[Simon Barrington]

The one I specifically dislike is shown here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2632685,-0.4023185,298m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

...But the thing I found egregious was that string of four bunkers in the middle there. From the tee, those are basically in a straight line. They used to start on the left and move to the right as you went further from the tee. That meant if you couldn't clear them, you had to play to the right side and the further up you played, the narrower it got. Then if you could clear the first one you had a narrow slot to put the ball in and as you hit it further you got more space. All of that worked pretty well and so far as I can tell is how Colt put them in the ground originally and what he intended. Now there is no strategy at all. It's narrow on the left and it's narrow on the right, so you either lay up to the really short spot, thread the needle or bomb it a mile. I don't know what would possess an architect to make that change. Maybe I'm missing something...

Thanks Michael, this is a really very interesting example, on several levels

I don't know Effingham, having not played it yet, but I can see why the hole and line of four diagonal bunkers now jars.

I'll defer to Colt experts, but knowing how James Braid first detailed (in "Advanced Golf" 1908) how such diagonal hazards could be used on an ostensibly straight hole to create dog-leg strategy, it does seem odd to use this approach on what is already a dog-leg.

Might I sugest that these four bunkers may have been originally located exactly as they are now (I do know M&E do a thorough historic image search in their planning), but the original tee would have been right next the rear of previous green and therefore a straight (but shorter) hole would have gained strategically from these four hazards.

I see from the Club's website that the original c.1927 course was c. 5,931yds, but now is c.6,800yds.
So this might be a prime instance of where (probably c.1985 to chase SSS under CONGU) lengthening can harm strategy and design, the tees seemingly moved back and more importantly to the left creating a real (as opposed to previously false or created) dog-leg.

One of the key differences when you see renovations in the US versus UK currently is the wide variety of bunker shapes (but style kept consistent) used in the US.

All too often the question I get from the uninitiated in UK clubs is "what is a James Braid bunker?" an open naive desire for some consistent formulaic shape etc....similarly the proliferation of Colt-esque cookie-cutter bunkers all over the UK that all look identical (often by the same shapers) is certainly jarring (aka "revenge of the clones"?)...variety is the spice of life...that really applies in hazards.

[Brian Finn]

Is the proportion of US golf courses with consulting architects employed significantly higher than in the UK? 

It appears the US has nearly 17,000 golf courses, vs. ~2,200 in England and 600 in Scotland.  If the %age of clubs in those 2 countries that have engaged an architect totals is 5%-10% that is 140-280 courses.  the same %age in the US would be 850-1,700 courses. 

My guess is there are at least 150 in England & Scotland combined.  Are there more than 850 in the US?


Note: yes, I am aware the UK includes more than just England & Scotland - I just went for critical mass.

[Mark Pearce]

Excellent. So now I know employing an architect is bad; having that architect recommend some tried and trusted golf course contractor is equally bad; having new members who take an interest in the club is also bad; and as for modernisation in any form, that is forbidden. I don't think I've missed anything but if so I'm sure someone will let me know. 


Niall

You missed that flowers are evil.

[Simon Barrington]

You missed that flowers are evil.

LOL

Its not the poor flowers, it's the humans who want to plant them everywhere!

Wildflowers are definitely to be encouraged in their local habitats.

If the property was a Flower Nursery (as was Berckmans) there is, of course, relevance to having flowers out there...but that is not the case on the majority of courses.

Golf courses should sit in and be true to their unique local environment/ecology in as many aspects as possible.
That is what I was trying to say (somewhat grumpily) as was David.

Don't get me started on waterfalls!

[Michael Felton]

The one I specifically dislike is shown here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2632685,-0.4023185,298m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

...But the thing I found egregious was that string of four bunkers in the middle there. From the tee, those are basically in a straight line. They used to start on the left and move to the right as you went further from the tee. That meant if you couldn't clear them, you had to play to the right side and the further up you played, the narrower it got. Then if you could clear the first one you had a narrow slot to put the ball in and as you hit it further you got more space. All of that worked pretty well and so far as I can tell is how Colt put them in the ground originally and what he intended. Now there is no strategy at all. It's narrow on the left and it's narrow on the right, so you either lay up to the really short spot, thread the needle or bomb it a mile. I don't know what would possess an architect to make that change. Maybe I'm missing something...

Thanks Michael, this is a really very interesting example, on several levels

I don't know Effingham, having not played it yet, but I can see why the hole and line of four diagonal bunkers now jars.

I'll defer to Colt experts, but knowing how James Braid first detailed (in "Advanced Golf" 1908) how such diagonal hazards could be used on an ostensibly straight hole to create dog-leg strategy, it does seem odd to use this approach on what is already a dog-leg.

Might I sugest that these four bunkers may have been originally located exactly as they are now (I do know M&E do a thorough historic image search in their planning), but the original tee would have been right next the rear of previous green and therefore a straight (but shorter) hole would have gained strategically from these four hazards.

I see from the Club's website that the original c.1927 course was c. 5,931yds, but now is c.6,800yds.
So this might be a prime instance of where (probably c.1985 to chase SSS under CONGU) lengthening can harm strategy and design, the tees seemingly moved back and more importantly to the left creating a real (as opposed to previously false or created) dog-leg.

One of the key differences when you see renovations in the US versus UK currently is the wide variety of bunker shapes (but style kept consistent) used in the US.

All too often the question I get from the uninitiated in UK clubs is "what is a James Braid bunker?" an open naive desire for some consistent formulaic shape etc....similarly the proliferation of Colt-esque cookie-cutter bunkers all over the UK that all look identical (often by the same shapers) is certainly jarring (aka "revenge of the clones"?)...variety is the spice of life...that really applies in hazards.

The 6800 yards is a relatively recent adjustment. Since the mid-80s, it's been around 6450-6550. They added a handful of new tees (the black tees) that are only used very sparingly. Those bring it up to 6800, but almost any club comp would be played from the whites I think, still at about 6550.


If the 9th used to have a tee behind the 8th green, then they did a very good job of erasing it from existence. The back of 8 green is raised up to level the green off and then falls away fairly sharply before a natural slope down towards the 9th fairway. It's possible, but it would be news to me and it must have happened well over 40 years ago. I'm curious now though. 9 is one of the holes where they extended the tees to add a black tee. That tee is behind the regular tee and on the same line and from all the tees in play on that hole, those bunkers are a straight line, similar to the picture I included. That picture I think is likely from the black tee with the white, yellow and red on the foreground you can see.

[Carl Johnson]

You missed that flowers are evil.

Wildflowers are definitely to be encouraged in their local habitats. . . .

Golf courses should sit in and be true to their unique local environment/ecology in as many aspects as possible.
That is what I was trying to say (somewhat grumpily) as was David. . . .

Amen.  Sad that so few folks actually get that, or even understand what true local wildflowers are.

[Simon Barrington]

...
If the 9th used to have a tee behind the 8th green, then they did a very good job of erasing it from existence. The back of 8 green is raised up to level the green off and then falls away fairly sharply before a natural slope down towards the 9th fairway. It's possible, but it would be news to me and it must have happened well over 40 years ago. I'm curious now though. 9 is one of the holes where they extended the tees to add a black tee. That tee is behind the regular tee and on the same line and from all the tees in play on that hole, those bunkers are a straight line, similar to the picture I included. That picture I think is likely from the black tee with the white, yellow and red on the foreground you can see.

The plot thickens...it always does...another possibility (& perhaps more likely) is a tee to the rear RHS of the 8th green in what is now a copse of newish (sub 40yrs) trees...any evidence in there?
This could have been an even straighter hole c.320yds, with a short diagonal strategic carry across the 4 hazards...?

[Michael Felton]

...
If the 9th used to have a tee behind the 8th green, then they did a very good job of erasing it from existence. The back of 8 green is raised up to level the green off and then falls away fairly sharply before a natural slope down towards the 9th fairway. It's possible, but it would be news to me and it must have happened well over 40 years ago. I'm curious now though. 9 is one of the holes where they extended the tees to add a black tee. That tee is behind the regular tee and on the same line and from all the tees in play on that hole, those bunkers are a straight line, similar to the picture I included. That picture I think is likely from the black tee with the white, yellow and red on the foreground you can see.

The plot thickens...it always does...another possibility (& perhaps more likely) is a tee to the rear RHS of the 8th green in what is now a copse of newish (sub 40yrs) trees...any evidence in there?
This could have been an even straighter hole c.320yds, with a short diagonal strategic carry across the 4 hazards...?

Those trees have been there for at the very least 35 years. The ones further down the hole to the right after the bunkers were put in around or abouts 30-35 years ago. I remember them as saplings. I've been playing there since 1990 and the trees long right of the 8th green were not new then. Tempted to go digging around and see if I can find any historic aerials of it.

[Michael Felton]

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/archive/collections/aerial-photos/record/raf_cpe_uk_1982_rp_3228


You can see the angled bunkers here and the tee is to the left of the 8th green where it is today.

[Simon Barrington]

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/archive/collections/aerial-photos/record/raf_cpe_uk_1982_rp_3228
You can see the angled bunkers here and the tee is to the left of the 8th green where it is today.

So we know where we were in 1982, and (as ever) we see considerably less trees, and to refer back to your original point a far greater variety in the bunker shapes (even in just this small visible corner of the course).

It seems the course has suffered from the archetypal/fashionable changes over the years; tree planting, too fast greens (I noted from an old GCA post that they flattened the 5th green as speeds were too fast for the contour), and formulaic cookie-cutter bunkering. Despite that it still has a very good reputation, but perhaps we all imagine what our home club could be if looked after more conscientiously...(BTW the 13th you have posted about previously looks wonderful!)


Back to the 9th - There seems to be much more room to the left of the bunkers in 1982, adding to strategy (as skirting on the bunkers opens the approach angle. Angles did still matter then  )

Be interested in even older plans/photos as 1927-1982 is a very long period, I've not seen bunkering by Colt (but not an expert) that is so superfluous as each one from the current playing line effectively hides behind the other. Still feels to me that it might have been a tee in the small copse to the right at an earlier time...(I can't find old routing maps on here or elsewhere, do you have a Club Book or Archive?)

Cheers & thanks for the rabbit-hole.

[Michael Felton]

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/archive/collections/aerial-photos/record/raf_cpe_uk_1982_rp_3228
You can see the angled bunkers here and the tee is to the left of the 8th green where it is today.

So we know where we were in 1982, and (as ever) we see considerably less trees, and to refer back to your original point a far greater variety in the bunker shapes (even in just this small visible corner of the course).

It seems the course has suffered from the archetypal/fashionable changes over the years; tree planting, too fast greens (I noted from an old GCA post that they flattened the 5th green as speeds were too fast for the contour), and formulaic cookie-cutter bunkering. Despite that it still has a very good reputation, but perhaps we all imagine what our home club could be if looked after more conscientiously...(BTW the 13th you have posted about previously looks wonderful!)


Back to the 9th - There seems to be much more room to the left of the bunkers in 1982, adding to strategy (as skirting on the bunkers opens the approach angle. Angels did still matter then  )

Be interested in even older plans/photos as 1927-1982 is a very long period, I've not seen bunkering by Colt (but not an expert) that is so superfluous as each one from the current playing line effectively hides behind the other. Still feels to me that it might have been a tee in the small copse to the right at an earlier time...(I can't find old routing maps on here or elsewhere, do you have a Club Book or Archive?)

Cheers & thanks for the rabbit-hole.

The photo is from 1947. I am not sure why it has 1982 in the link, but the source shows the flight was April 1947.


The 5th green was tough even with green speeds in the 7-8 range. Slope was substantial. It still is, but they've made it more playable. It's already comfortably the hardest hole on the course and then the green was nigh on unplayable if you were above the hole. I remember talking to the pro about it in around 1992ish and he said it's not that bad as long as you don't mind hitting a 30 foot putt like it's 6 inches. I actually think it's more likely that the front of the green settled somewhat and made the slope more extreme over time. It was always wet down there. I'm not sure if that's a real thing that might happen though.


Tree planting definitely has been an issue.

[Simon Barrington]

...The photo is from 1947. I am not sure why it has 1982 in the link, but the source shows the flight was April 1947...

Michael you may have already found this but posting as it also fits the recent post on here re. Real Estate and Golf Courses.

https://elhg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/golfclubcreation.pdf

There is even a photo of the 9th Green and another showing four bunkers we are discussing c. 1928 on the tree-less site looking across the 10th, 9th & 1st Fairways towards Beech Avenue.

So they are Colt originals for sure, just the original tee to be found/confirmed (which may be on the current line, or not?)

Perhaps the Club History: "Effingham: A History of Our Golf Club" by Frank Harding OBE c1998 might have some earlier routing plans?

Also notable to me is that both James Braid & Henry Cotton took part in the official Opening

[Tags:]

Tags: