Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Peter Pallotta on May 15, 2017, 01:29:43 PM
-
Is it possible that the characteristic/defining work of today's leading architects (Kidd, Hanse, Doak, Coore, Devries) will in 50 years time be as criticized for being passé and misguided as that of the dark ages' leading architects is today?
Or, to put it differently: were the tendencies and/or foibles of the dark age architects simply ones of fashion and taste and prevailing socio-economic attitudes (and so subject, as today's work will be) to changing fashions and tastes and attitudes?
Or instead did those earlier architects actually tend to make fundamental/essential mistakes and miscalculations about how gca can best serve golfers in the long term -- mistakes/miscalculations that today's leading lights have learned from and are not repeating?
Peter
-
Pietro
It might help if you stated the tendencies, foibles, fundamental/essential mistakes and miscalculations of the ODGs.
Ciao
-
No doubt styles will change, theory reinvented, and some of the current ideas will be criticized. In some circles, architecture based on "retro" ideas is considered a dark age.......and copying the past, even with new twists might qualify.
Every era probably thinks they have it all figured out, but time proves otherwise in many cases. That said, every era tends to get ranked. Some drop, some stay constant or even elevate, depending on what comes next. Obviously the 20's is still highly regarded (at least the top) The 30's to 50's not so much, etc. The 80-90's probably gets high marks for the breadth of good architecture, even if the top might be somewhat below a few other eras, so it will also depend on what the criteria are (a al GD vs GW rankings)
Anyway, I think the post 2000 era will remain fairly highly ranked, but of course, there is a chance it may not. I figure the biggest critiques would be that courses were still too tough, and not as environmentally friendly as what will come later.
I
-
Sean - at least every couple of days, one and sometimes several of the 1500 posters here will stress how much he loves fun and strategic golf courses with plenty of choices off the tee and a variety recovery options via short grass, contoured greens and width instead of water, rough and fast flat greens. The latter type of design, to quote our esteemed founder, characterizes the dark ages: "1949-1985: the dark ages of course design when courses were based on length, lacked variety, and offered few options". In short, Ran seems to believe that those courses did not simply fall out of fashion (as today's might in 50 years), but that they were actually badly/poorly done.
Peter
PS - thanks for wrecking my attempt to ask a simple question and then disappear! :)
-
Peter, to simplify, from the 1940's through the 1970's, they built more U.S. Open type courses. From the 90s and beyond, they built more British Open type courses.
Which will hold favor as time passes? My money is on the British Open style.
-
Peter -
Jim says something like what I want to say. The new breed (are they still "new"?) has generally looked more to Golden Age courses for their inspiration than the post WWII generation did. For the same reasons that the standing of GA courses have held up, so will the neo-Golden Agers' courses, I'd guess.
Tastes will change no doubt. People will chase clever, new ideas from time to time. But the courses by Doak, C&C, Hanse and others over the last 20 years will endure and do just fine.
I think the more interesting question is whether in 50 or so years their courses are seen as standing shoulder to shoulder with those from the GA. I think they will.
Bob
-
The only real answer to Peter's question is, time will tell.
The other answer is that not all modern masterpieces are created equal. Some will hold their value better than others. And some of them will be gone in 50 years, due to circumstances that may or may not have anything to do with their design.
-
Peter, thanks for pulling my beard.
I don't want to believe in an objective good when it comes to golf course architecture, even though people who know a lot more about the subject than I do might just be able to identify some. I tend to believe that each individual person, regardless of era, has in mind an idea of improving and perfecting what a golf course should be (or sometimes just what THEIR golf course should be), and they create courses or make changes to courses based on those personal criteria. Eras in architecture can be identified just because there are certain periods when it just seems like lots of individuals held similar opinions, or used similar construction methods.
And so opinion could change. Let's face it, even today a lot of people really LIKE those dark ages courses. They believe that the hole should all be right there in front of you, they like penal architecture, etc. It could be in a possible future that the weight of public opinion will turn against rough-edged bunkers, naturalistic tie-ins between a course and the surrounding landscape, etc. Perhaps a highly-manufactured, clearly artificial aesthetic will take over (this could be prompted by a need to create course that ARE artificial, with fake grass, etc.)
If we look back to a particular era and make a value judgement that they completely missed the boat, etc., we're just indulging in the same (very nomal, very human) kind of hubris that led them to look at the "Golden Age" courses of an earlier era and decide that they knew better.
Whew! Pontification over.
-
I wonder if the question-attitude will be dependent on the future of equipment evolution and if the ball will be rolled back for the top 2000 in the world at some point?
If the tee ball for the average tour pro in 2 more generations travels over 325 yards, then its 8000 yard courses and 20 yard wide landing zones to defend par; if anyone is interested in defending par .... that is.
-
Anyway, I think the post 2000 era will remain fairly highly ranked, but of course, there is a chance it may not. I figure the biggest critiques would be that courses were still too tough, and not as environmentally friendly as what will come later. Brauer
I wonder if the question-attitude will be dependent on the future of equipment evolution and if the ball will be rolled back for the top 2000 in the world at some point? Rodgers
I agree with both these fellows. I think that in general, modern archies must respond to these factors, and it gets down to their ability to route and design interesting holes.
But, you asked about modern day course designers, specifically naming a few well known to this discussion forum. All of them have to deal with the same changing nature of the evolving game of better athletes in the competitive world of golf, and changing equipment for all golfers to offer distance and forgiveness in the striking of the ball. They all have to deal with quality of site and soil conditions upon which to design these generically identified 'characteristics' that many feel are a hallmark of the modern era that leans towards natural and not perfectly edged and shaped bunkers, rolling greens and FWs, etc.
But, some of the 'characteristics' are styling and trendiness of what we seem to be forming a consensus as to "the look" of these modern era architects you named. Yet, getting into the details, I think all of them would not agree that their work is in much of a generalized category to be lumped together as to their design style.
Quality doesn't become passe... The list you named are gererally high quality and knowledgeable archies, and whatever characteristics they design into their works, the test of time isn't dependent so much on the style as the quality.
Or, using your approach to taking multiple stabs at asking the question, maybe an alternative answer is: Quality never becomes passe... ;D ::) ;)
-
Sean - at least every couple of days, one and sometimes several of the 1500 posters here will stress how much he loves fun and strategic golf courses with plenty of choices off the tee and a variety recovery options via short grass, contoured greens and width instead of water, rough and fast flat greens. The latter type of design, to quote our esteemed founder, characterizes the dark ages: "1949-1985: the dark ages of course design when courses were based on length, lacked variety, and offered few options". In short, Ran seems to believe that those courses did not simply fall out of fashion (as today's might in 50 years), but that they were actually badly/poorly done.
Peter
PS - thanks for wrecking my attempt to ask a simple question and then disappear! :)
Pietro
Thanks...got it. To answer the question, yes, it is possible some of the in crowd courses will be maligned in 50 years. I think some will still stand in good name though. But I also think some courses from the dark ages will come to be seen in a better light as well...we can already see this happening now. In general, I think the in crowd will be favourably looked upon when they are dead. I know you rail about the similarity of design concepts, but that was also true 100 years ago and we all know how that in crowd is revered.
Ciao
-
I wonder if the question-attitude will be dependent on the future of equipment evolution and if the ball will be rolled back for the top 2000 in the world at some point?
If the tee ball for the average tour pro in 2 more generations travels over 325 yards, then its 8000 yard courses and 20 yard wide landing zones to defend par; if anyone is interested in defending par .... that is.
I think Top Golf and screen golf will be more influential.
-
Predictions ought to assume no major changes in balls or equipment.
But if we are going to speculate about changes, the most likely change I foresee is water restrictions. I can imagine a day in the not too distant future when courses will be allowed to use only a fraction of the water they use now. That will affect some courses more than others. I think classic GA courses will bear up well, followed by neo-GA courses.
That is one of the lessons Davis hoped would be taken from the US Open at PII. The browned-up course was not just an aesthetic preference. It was a test run for where many golf courses are headed, whether they like it or not.
Bob
-
Dave -
I hope to God you are wrong. Golf as a form of outdoor bowling is not a future I want to contemplate.
Bob
-
Pete,
Interesting topic. When I was a wee lad the modern industrial style was just going out of style. The sterile concrete buildings, little integrated landscaping, square and boxy in shape, simplistic lines, cold, very much minimalist in design and decor. At the time I thought these were the ugliest buildings I've ever seen. Structures kinda like this.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Style_(architecture)#/media/File:VillaSavoye.jpg)
A few decades later, that kinda stuff is starting to look cool to me eye.
Gotta think it could be the same with golf course architecture, even though I have a hard time imagining it now....
-
Not a fan myself, but there was a day when I couldn’t imagine a room full of people all poking at their phones.
-
I recall a thread a couple years back that posited how american style green/lush parkland courses were doing well in the UK and commanding hefty green fees. It was thought the reason was is because locals could play something that they couldn't find much over there. Perhaps its also why courses that look and play linksy are popular on this side of the pond as well....
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and we always seem to want what we don't have, regardless of its intrinsic properties....
-
We had a focus group of two on this question when we played Pine Needles today for the first time since last year's changes. Conclusions: the aesthetic interest of the new Golden Era probably will wear thin over time. The new bunkering at PN designed to look more natural worked in some places but not as well as the older bunkers in other places. However, on the question of strategic value, new Golden Age will beat 1950s to 90s hands down. Last week, my wife had played a well regarded updated penal layout. She must have mentioned a half dozen times today how great it is to play a course that offers options around the green. Btw, the converted greens at PN are fantastic--additional contours that are tough but fair and expanded choices for pin placements.
-
Change is the only constant
-
Not sure predictions should be based on tour pro length. Even top am length. At least, IMHO, courses will more and more be built as recreational courses. We will finally diversify, like general menu restaurants to specialty ones, and courses will be more tailored to their audiences, which won't be hitting it further.
And, by the don't of these courses being among the last of the "championship" courses, they may hold a special place, more than the typical ranking decline we have seen in the recent past.
-
Jeff,
Sorry you weren't mentioned by the OP. Guess your work will never fall "out of style". Devries...really?!?
-
Predictions ought to assume no major changes in balls or equipment. ...................
Example of my point, how can Merion be viewed in a contemporary context without consideration of the new equipment? And what the USGA did to it to make the course a US Open venue.
-
Peter,
Thoughtful topic as ever, I'll answer in the most obtuse qualified way I can, having lived with a bunch of architects and art majors during college. I'm imagining a gca history class being held, the prof flipping through slide after slide of course ground level and drone pics, pontificating on the design and building process displayed, addressing any number of style minutia points to be picked up (memorized) by the open vessel students, some in rapture over the grand exposure being placed upon their minds... others, well, just bored, required course with blowhard prof after all.
looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture)
history shows the stretching or evolution of ideas relied upon in all fields of architecture, building on things over time, reflecting new analyses of beauty and need (form & function) ostensibly to meet sponsors'/clients' interests and ultimately available budgets.
so, if "today's" courses are still there in 50 years, (look what happened to HighPointe... its now a hops farm) current smart thought would dictate that only the "sustainable" features or simply courses will remain, fashionable or not, perhaps neither the popular fuzzy bunker edges nor premium retail destination courses, though I'm betting on some of the latter.
So critics will be critics, raters raters, opinion gets molded as forces prevail on the marketplace, oh and where's the best place to play a round???
-
Thanks gents.
Steve - you raise a point that hadn't occurred to me, ie that almost all the golden age/classic American and GB&I courses that are still around today are private courses, blessed for decades with committed members who supported and were loyal to those courses through good times and bad. I wonder if today's public gems will suffer in years to come precisely because they are public, and so have only the ever fickle and cold hearted 'market place' as their means of support.
-
Prediction: Today's modern courses will hold up fairly well. Bandon. Streamsong. Ballyneal. Cabot. Sand Valley. The Nebraska courses. They have managed to exist outside the PGA tour tournament bubble.
-
I just want to know why Mike Devries is suddenly a King of Kings.
-
IMHO the good routings and strategic plans of today will hold up as well as the same of the GA. I think the common thread of so much of the crap built during the dark ages was the routing/strategic plan of the courses. So often they focused on housing and golf cars more than golf and it showed. Where I see this site having a kink is in renovation/restoration which is hyped simply because there is nothing else to talk about. We have guys across the country being hyped when all they have done is try to copy the style of some GA dude and find the right guy to put it on the ground. So if some guy on here is praising some classic bunker and green rework on a bad golf course to begin with, it might be duly criticized and reworked with the most up to date styling from now on.
There is still plenty of bad stuff out there built in the last 20 years. Whether or not much of the good stuff remains will be up to "highest and best use" and populations. OH and Top Golf..it will always be the batting cage of the game. I don't get it or see it being here for the long haul. The game as we know it will be fine....JMO
-
JK - Mike D is on the list because I met him once and I liked him. Also he built Kingsley, among other courses. But mostly because I met him once and liked him.
Peter
-
TopGolf is to golfers what lazertag was for wanna be Navy Seal douche bags. Take your cooch and show her your "game". Pitiful.
-
JK - Mike D is on the list because I met him once and I liked him. Also he built Kingsley, among other courses. But mostly because I met him once and liked him.
Peter
Peter, please don't tell me he got you on CD.
-
TopGolf is to golfers what lazertag was for wanna be Navy Seal douche bags. Take your cooch and show her your "game". Pitiful.
Ur drinking the good stuff tonight! Cheers
-
TopGolf is to golfers what lazertag was for wanna be Navy Seal douche bags. Take your cooch and show her your "game". Pitiful.
It's worse....
-
:)
No, JK, he didn't - seriously. If he had gotten me on CD I wouldn't have included his name, because then I'd feel like I was disrespecting him and the gesture by mentioning him only as a means of 'paying him back'
Peter
-
:)
No, JK, he didn't - seriously. If he had gotten me on CD I wouldn't have included his name, because then I'd feel like I was disrespecting him and the gesture by mentioning him only as a means of 'paying him back'
Peter
Thanks. He generously offered to get me on CD once. Anyone got a match, I have a bridge to burn.
-
In one of my favourite films, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, the lead character Cosmo Vitelli (played by Ben Gazzara) says: "You know the people who are happy? It's the people who are *comfortable*. That's right. And it's hard work being comfortable - you gotta work *overtime* for that. Me - I'm only comfortable when I'm angry, when I'm sad, when I'm playing the fool - when I'm being what other people want me to be instead of who I am. And that's hard work".
You, JK - I think you're most comfortable when you're burning bridges. So I'm here to say: thank you for the hard work!
Peter
-
A bridge not to be crossed only blocks a good view.
-
JK performs a community service here. :) :)
-
Is it possible that the characteristic/defining work of today's leading architects (Kidd, Hanse, Doak, Coore, Devries) will in 50 years time be as criticized for being passé and misguided as that of the dark ages' leading architects is today?
First off you have to consider how their designs might be characterised in the future and I suspect wide and open, frilly bunkers and heavily contoured greens. Of course many or all of those you list might argue against that characterisation but then they won't be about to argue the toss. A bit like MacKenzie and his MacKenzie greens.[/size]Or, to put it differently: were the tendencies and/or foibles of the dark age architects simply ones of fashion and taste and prevailing socio-economic attitudes (and so subject, as today's work will be) to changing fashions and tastes and attitudes?
In other words what are the drivers for change ? I suspect economy/irrigation issues and ease of maintenance will be top of the list. That might see a reduction in the mown areas and a move from the super wide fairways. Frilly edged bunkers will disappear quite quickly as well for similar reasons once the greenkeeper starts to get his own way. Or instead did those earlier architects actually tend to make fundamental/essential mistakes and miscalculations about how gca can best serve golfers in the long term -- mistakes/miscalculations that today's leading lights have learned from and are not repeating?
The biggest problem about judging an ODG's work is determining whether you are actually looking at his work or someone elses reworking of it. I suspect that the ODG's made plenty of mistakes but you don't know about most of them because clubs/owners have had a 100 years or so to iron out the wrinkles. I wonder whether the current crop of architects will benefit from the same ?
Peter[/size]
-
Peter, once again an interesting thread. Thanks.
I hate to answer with questions but can I please ask your opinion on the following -
what are the defining features of the handful of courses viewed through decades, as the premier courses in the world?
and
do the works of Doak C&C, Hanse, Clayton & co, deVries reflect these almost timeless characteristics?
Matthew
-
Peter,
It's a good, albeit nearly unanswerable, question. Let me add a twist...What happens to Bandon Dunes Resort (and the rest of his golf courses) when Mike Keiser passes on?
He has clearly identified a niche that works but at some point 10, 20, maybe 50 years after he is no longer making the calls that things will change. Those courses will follow someone else's vision.
My real question is, what happens if the current business model of destination golf, that's fueled the current Golden Age, begins to look non-viable?
Things will change. We're already seeing some of the courses from your short list closing.
Has good architecture ever outdone poor business environment/decisions?
-
Keiser's vision will likely be followed by son Michael's... hard to imagine that changes much of anything...
-
Steve, do you think, feel and act exactly as your father does/did?
I'm not suggesting the courses will fail...just that different priorities will prevail.
-
Matthew - I'm out of my league trying to answer your question - especially because I don't have a single/unified vision of those old great courses: when I think of Dr Mac in Australia I have one image, and when I think of Colt in the UK I have another, and when I think of them in America I have a third, and with CBM a forth and with Ross a fifth etc. But I think the top moderns have done very well in capturing a certain "spirit" of the golden age, and in building courses that "look" 100 years old even if the don't necessarily "play" like the originals did a 100 years ago. Sorry - I didn't answer your question. But also:
Jim - you put the question/issue very well. I was thinking of whether the sprit of this current age/gca would still be intact in 50 years, but of course even if it is it might not get a chance to flourish simply because the business/economics surely *will* change.
Peter
-
Each new generation seems to think it knows better than the previous generation.
Atb