Who thinks...

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

One thing I've learned here (from Rich Goodale and Forrest Richardson, primarily) is that change is the only constant.

All courses, even those new bright, shining stars you mentioned, will change over time.  

The question is, will the change be for the better, or for the worse?  

Will playing strategies and cool features be preserved through foresighted maintenance or possibly benign neglect or will they be lost through any number of means?

Ask yourself this question.  If The Old Course is the untouchable epitome of timelessness and pure golf, then why was the Road Hole bunker softened?  

Do you recall the R&A's answer?  

"To make it fairer".

At Pine Valley, efforts have been underway for the past few years to "clean up" the native waste sand areas, and formalize bunkering, often with presumably aesthetically pleasing white sand and zen garden manicuring.  The narrow coffin of doom to the left of the green on #10 has been widened, of course to prevent a situation where someone might have to play out sideways.    

Do we not think that same kind of thinking might influence things at a Sand Hills, or Pacific Dunes, or Friar's Head ten or thirty years from now?  

I think we're naive to believe that any course is untouchable from modern influences and collectivst thinking.

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

I'd agree that golf courses are not static.

And perhaps the changes will be for the worse.

But if that's the case, why were they built as they are now, at this time?  Wouldn't they just have been built this way to begin with, succumbing to all these forces at work?  Why would they be SO different from the golf world they are set to be changed to?

You're dealing with one of the world's most confirmed believers in the glass being half-full, if you haven't figured this out already.  

Thus I prefer to believe that when change occurs at these courses, it will be for natural reasons.  And more courses like them will get built... what you call the retro-trend will always have its place in the golf world.... it is just too damn depressing to believe otherwise.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

How can you be an optimist when the sun will burn itself out in a couple million years, and we'll all be dead here in the next fifty or so years, anyway??  

Will Sand Hills be improved by solar scarring, as 10,000 degree temps rip across its surface??

Sorry, bud...I'm an optimist too, otherwise I wouldn't get up in the morning.  

I guess I just try not to let my optimistic personal belief system cloud my subjective judgement of realistic events. I'm not suggesting that you do, but simply that reasonable men can come to differing conclusions.  

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

I'm just glad you're willing to give me "reasonable" - plenty of other people don't!  

Different ways of approaching this most definitely - and to me, neither is right, neither is wrong.  I sure am learning to be more alarmed, from Geoff's book, the words of you and others here, other sources.  But there also just does remain so much good for me to see, well... it's not hard to focus on that, as life does remain short.

Of course this could all change most definitely.  Geoff's book does present alarming stats and other evidence.  And heck, I was moved enough by all this to start a thread on the Classic Course Ball, which I shall continue to evangelize for because I see it as so doable...

As for all the rest, well...  we'll see how it goes.  For now it does remain a big beautiful golf world with room for one and all, as I see it anyway.  But I certainly have nothing against those who are more alarmed and wish to stop this "progress" before things are ruined.  You are the true crusaders, and I remain glad we have you.

TH

[Jim_Kennedy]

TomP,
Municipalities were almost the only source of supply at the genesis of public golf in this country. Access was free at many city-run courses, others charged what could only be construed as break-even rates. Providing free golf was akin to providing other city maintained recreational areas that were also free, such as ball fields, tennis courts, nature trails, etc.. I would imagine that many of the courses built were fairly simple affairs but they provided the "bunny slope" and brought golf into the mainstream.
 
There is probably more need today for product geared to those who are starting the game than there is a need for product at the other extreme. Keeping them simple but interesting and easy to navigate won't put them into direct market competition with other types, it will increase the player pool, most of whom will hopefully learn to love golf and "graduate" to more complex courses.  

[Lynn_Shackelford]

T. Paul----I thought much about your post today.  I believe in the free market place I am concerned that the more I think about today's golf architecture, the more I am scared to think that the free market place is working.  Like Television, when they get something people like, then they kill it by having another dozen shows just like it.  Somebody builds a Shadow Creek, and then it becomes a gunfight to out do one another.  So it is inevitable that we will have some bad golf architecture, because these little fads pop-up.  Chocolate drops, water features, waste bunkers, double greens.  We are getting what we deserve.  I better start thinking about moving to England!

[Doug Siebert]

Here's the bunny hill:

http://www.airportnationalpublicgolf.com/

[ForkaB]

Lynne S

Come on over here!

As you say, the golf will be better, and:

1.  There are no troublesome trees in the middle of the fairway, as at Barona
2.  You could play for either side in the GCA Ryder Cup
3.  You could probably snaffle a place on the UK 2004/2008 Olympic basketball teams.  They play hoops at about the level that we played "soccer" c. 1970.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TomP,
I think that we already have a very wide spectrum of course types and architectural styles and that we should continue to refine the old models while looking for the new.
I also think that this diversity has been a positive factor in recent years because it has helped golf to remain relatively stable despite the horrendous weather of the past few years, the slowed economy of the past two years and finally, the events and aftermath of 9/11.

     

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I don't think there is anything wrong with architects designing whatever the heck they want to, as long as those courses make some kind of economic sense.  But when you build an EXPENSIVE, outlandish course that the market ultimately disses, then you haven't done the game any favors.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that we need to build a lot of "bunny slope" courses.  Seems like there are already a lot of those around ... courses built 40 years ago where the debt is already paid off.  Is there really demand for more of them?  Or is there just more demand for inexpensive golf, and too many people trying to fill it with expensive new architecture?

Frankly, I'm not sure that "bunny slope" courses really do much to promote the growth of the game.  Dull designs might encourage more people to quit.

[THuckaby2]

TD:

I think you're missing what the "bunny slope" concept means.  These are not to be dull designs, far from it - what they should be are interesting designs that emphasize strategy and success rather than penalty.  That is, give the beginner plateaus to reach rather than hurdles to overcome (if that makes any sense).  They will be shortish by nature - like the bunny slope - but not just flat and boring... Very few, if any, forced carries.  Rewards for finding proper angles... but not severe penalties for missing them.

Good lord, I swear I mean this as no offense, but the more I think about this the more this describes Rustic Canyon, at about 1/2 the distance, anyway...

In any case, that's what we need.  Shortish courses with the qualities of Rustic Canyon - where beginners can be inspired, reach new plateaus and learn to love the game... and us grizzled veterans also won't mind accompanying them along the way.

TH

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

That's a great concept, but can anyone make money at it?  Can you think of a few examples of a short and interesting course which people in the U.S.A. are lining up to play?

The problem with new courses is that they cost so much to build, because everyone's standards are too damned high.  Yes, architects are part of that, but far from the only guilty parties.

The only affordable courses are the older ones.

[Keith Durrant]

How much does a course cost to build?

Obviously there are more than a few variables, but if someone would care to explain the ranges and general costs?

[ian]

Tom,

Tom Doak summed it up best with "as long as it makes some economic success" there is room for all

Lynn,

Yes there is a bigger and better than the neighbour mentality until someone changes the playing field with something radicaly different. Whether its Dye's reaction to Jones and Wilson. Or the economic genius of Rustic Canyon versus Lost canyons.

I personally think from Ted Robinson to Tom Doak is important. I may avoid one architect and travel to play the other. That's called freedom of choice, and I'm glad to have all that choice. I may love Monet and dislike Picasso, but I think its great people have access to both. How am I to know whether one is better than the other, I have only my own opinion to rely on; and I could not have that opinion without playing both. Love the rainy day anology.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

That's the ticket! There're too many, in my opinion, and particularly on here who seem to think if "they" like some type and style that's the way it should all be and if "they" don't like some other types and styles there shouldn't be any of it! Despite what I like or don't like that attitude doesn't seem to be very reasonable to me! As you say, freedom of choice is what it's all about and if there's both a wide spectrum of types and styles of architecture and freedom of choice that's what I'd call the "Big World" theory of golf architecture!

[THuckaby2]

Tom Doak:

Well as for making money on it - that's why we have guys like you!  I'm sure it can be figured out.  

There are short and interesting courses I've played in the SoCal area, each of which isn't the PERFECT example of the bunny slope idea, but each of which at least exhibits part of it. They've existed for a long time, so they must at least not be losing money... There are a few here in NorCal as well.

But I am far from expert on the finances of all this, so I don't know the viability of new ones built today.  I just do know this:  if you built a half-size version of Rustic Canyon anywhere near the greater Bay Area, I'd sure as shit want to play it and I betcha I could get hundreds of others to join me - all the members of the various associate clubs I belong to!  Put it somewhere in reach of a population center, and it would attract beginners big-time... OK, maybe the land here is too expensive and it would never work - I don't know.  I just do believe it would be very popular.

TH

ps - I too love Ian's take on this.  Well said, Dad!

[gookin]

Clearly there is room for many different styles of architecture.  In some ways it is like art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder or in golf's case those who pay greens fees or dues. The problem comes when different styles get mixed up on the same course. If you have a well done course the owners need to commit to preserving the style of the architect.

[Tom_Doak]

If you were all truly advocates of the "big world" then I think you would discuss a much wider variety of architects here, and would do more to encourage the chance for young apprentices to have their own crack at the big world.

One of the more discouraging facts of the golf design business is that it's so hard for new faces to succeed, while so many architects who have long ago lost any passion for the business are still cranking them out.

However, the flip side is that the people who FINANCE golf courses would generally rather hire a known quantity instead of an unknown.  They don't care as much about a different design as they do about being sure the course is built on budget, and an unknown architect is a risk in that regard.  Cool design ideas are great, but only if you can get them built on a schedule!

[Doug Siebert]

Tom,

Is it because those financing the courses are worried about the risk of being completed on schedule or does it have more to do with the lack of risk inherent in having a new course with a name like Nicklaus' on it?

From what I see of the "average well travelled golfer" (as opposed to a Joe Sixpack average golfer) there are a lot who tend to brag about bagging names more than anything else.  The first level is courses that are known by their name, the second level is courses that are known by the designer's name, the bottom level are courses that are known by where they are located ("just outside Beverly Hills" or "right on the Pacific Ocean")

It is unfortunately quite rare to hear these people talking about courses because they found them interesting, challenging or otherwise enlightening.  If a name can't be attached to the course, it is just filler because they couldn't get a tee time on a "name" that day.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think GolfClubAtlas will have officially arrived when we begin to have thoughtful discussions of the newest public course outside of Denver designed by Dick Phelps Jr., or the new residential courses outside Phoenix by Gary Panks, or the new muni outside Allentown by Rick Jacobson, as we do about why Seth Raynor didn't design a Principals nose complex on some of his courses.  

We all love the historic courses, but the discussion of golf courses should be dynamic and ultimately, timely.  

We can only affect the present and the future.  

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak said:

"If you were all truly advocates of the "big world" then I think you would discuss a much wider variety of architects here, and would do more to encourage the chance for young apprentices to have their own crack at the big world."

I'm not too certain many understand what the "Big World" theory of golf architecture is. To me it's a few things.

1. That different types and styles of golf architecture are both healthy for the art and also serve the widely varying interests of golfers better and consequently serve golf itself better.
2. That those varying types and styles should always be kept distinct from one another in both maintenance and their architectural preservation.
3. That there should be far more of a "live and let live" attitude about golf architecture, particularly on this website---although in fairness to Golfclubatlas.com it was created to highlight what is generally called "classic/strategic" architectural principles and philosophy.

But it would be interesting to see this website discuss calmly and intelligently with others why they love the types and styles in golf architeture that most of us seem to hate. If we ever got to that point we could truthfully be proud of ourselves!

[A_Clay_Man]

For those in Chicago area and are familiar with Glen Club west, OH, I mean Willow Hill. A little nine holer owned and operated by the Nugents. Built on an old garbage dump, there isn't a tree on the property. The super there should be affectionately known as Super Dave, because Dave is the MAN, when it comes to quality turf. This wind swept nine is supposedly a pretty decent golfing experience, save for, NO trees and no flowers or any real animal or plant life.

An old girlfriend, whos sister, I turned on to golf, will never ever go back there, because there's no flora and fauna. Thats her excuse, And I'd defend to the death her right to have it.

To me, that is in a nutshell, the BWT. Similar to climax of the film "Altered States"

The final truth is that there is no final truth.

[TEPaul]

"The final truth is that there is no final truth."

Adam;

You gotta be carefully saying things like that on this website. I might happily and readily buy into a statement like that but we can't forget we have some serious word, phrase and concept legal and mincing minds on here who'll take serious exception to that statement.

They'll invariably argue you can't say something like "The final truth is there is no final truth" because how could you not have final truth when you said in the beginning of the sentence "The final truth is..."?

It'll take 5 pages of argument over what's meant by "IS" followed by 5 pages that REAL "final truth" cannot be predicated on lack of "final truth". And if that argument isn't getting far enough perhaps we'll have to look at it all the other way around!  

[frank_D]

1) all kinds of types and styles of golf courses and golf architecture is a good thing
2) how narrow or how wide do you think the spectrum of difference should get

brother TEPaul

1) as to type or style - the major shift i would experiment with would be the number of holes played as standard - i think twelve holes per round to be the optimum

2) again relating to the difference would be either two par threes and fives or three par threes and fives - leaving either eight or six par four holes per round

the paradigm shifts would include continuous differences as a) shorter time to complete the round b ) less costly to maintain the course  c ) same revenue generated by greens fees and one time difference as d ) current eighteen hole courses could sell off the excess property six holes

i have found based on unscientific and admittedly bias data that the most impact on most players who limit their frequency is based on the time it takes to complete a round

therefore my experiment would test the question - if the standard course configuration is changed what would happen ?

if you look at architecture as art and compare to paintings a renaissance took place ie when boticelli of florence used the same materials paints but risked being labeled a heretic by challenging puritanical religious standards of the time however the results significantly catapulted the status of his patron medici

i don't see any architects doing anything different from one another in this regard - even as an experiment

[Matt_Ward]

Why does McDonald's sell countless hamburgers and all other barf related food (should I call it that?)? Simple. There's a market for it and it sells.

I believe we can certainly aspire to raise the bar of architectural quality but the masses are in golf for a host of reasons -- the architecture aspect is really not as high as it is wont to be for those on this site.

Tom Doak:

You laments are noted but the mentality of going with a "proven name" dominates a host of industries. Just look at the National Football League regarding coaches. Many of the same names are simply recycled back into the loop when new positons open. The "risk" in going with a lesser "name" is something few organizations will do.

I salute the folks who hired you on your earlier projects -- they also benefited from a lesser fee   -- but the norm is for people to go with the safe name even when those designs can become predictable and dull.

I have been more than happy to discuss the nature of a number of unique public courses designed by those who are operating below the bright hot spot light -- Black Mesa by Baxter Spann is good example -- the work by Rick Phelps on Devil's Thumb in Delta, CO -- the exciting creation of Purgatory GC by Ron Kern just outside of Indy is another. There are also other talented people I am likely leaving out who just need that one opportunity to demonstrate their sheer talent.

The problem is that the focus on GCA is to regurgitate the same tired points about the courses that reside in the highest of positions in American golf. Unfortunately, many of the people who post would do themselves a big favor and go out play the courses that are indeed popping up throughout the country.