News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Ryan Coles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2014, 08:10:48 PM »
Paul

What are your experiences of committees?

I don't see them as responsible for many/any of the new courses built. Conversely, pretty much every classic course was founded, managed and still exists on their watch.

Have your efforts been thwarted? Have you had positive influences? Or are your frustrations just based on FIGJAM-itis?

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2014, 08:48:26 PM »
Ryan,

I'm not sure I can say anything about committees which hasn't already been said. Like most around here, my regard for the average committee sits somewhere on the Mackenzie-Simpson-Harradine axis.  ;D
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 08:50:51 PM by Paul Gray »
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Ryan Coles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2014, 08:58:15 PM »
You don't think that you're generalising?

Your latest post is about the owners son, so it appears as if it's not a private/proprietary bias.

I am just curious of where and based on what experiences this low opinion comes from?

What exactly is this knowledge or experience that you've got that they, the media and the golfing public lack and how did you aquire it?

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2014, 12:45:14 AM »
Though there seems to be a significant numbers of duds built, it probably is comparable on a percentage basis to what was built in the US.  More bad courses were built in California than all the new courses built in the UK.  On the positive side, Chart Hills is worthy of being considered almost great, and certainly worthy of architectural merit.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #29 on: November 23, 2014, 03:53:55 AM »
Some interesting thoughts herein. Nice to hear in detail from those in the business as well.

'Good course' and 'bad course', maybe not easy to define, but I wonder if the proportion of 'good' and 'bad' from the 1990's onwards is much different to the proportion from the period before say 1935? Maybe the pre-1935 period seems better, hindsight, wonderful thing, because some of the 'bad' courses from that period no longer exist, or have been made more acceptable by modern maintenance techniques. Just a thought.

atb

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #30 on: November 23, 2014, 05:27:14 AM »
You don't think that you're generalising?

Your latest post is about the owners son, so it appears as if it's not a private/proprietary bias.

I am just curious of where and based on what experiences this low opinion comes from?

What exactly is this knowledge or experience that you've got that they, the media and the golfing public lack and how did you aquire it?

The point is all about little knowledge being a dangerous thing and, yes, I've yet to meet a committee that was well read on the subject of architecture or, heaven forbid, actually came from an architecture background. Examples; the history of the game is littered with them. Where do you suppose all the trees came from? Respecfully Ryan, I'd suggest you read up on it for a bit of insight. What's your architecture library like?

Read back through this thread and you'll see that Adrian makes reference to committees at his courses. It's just stansard I'm afraid. And personally, well, the current band at Hayling leave a lot to be desired. There are clear demonstrations of zero knowledge which the novice GCAer would immediately pick up on. And yes, I've addressed it with them to no avail, although I'm always keen to point out that they should now be given time.
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #31 on: November 23, 2014, 05:28:41 AM »
Some interesting thoughts herein. Nice to hear in detail from those in the business as well.

'Good course' and 'bad course', maybe not easy to define, but I wonder if the proportion of 'good' and 'bad' from the 1990's onwards is much different to the proportion from the period before say 1935? Maybe the pre-1935 period seems better, hindsight, wonderful thing, because some of the 'bad' courses from that period no longer exist, or have been made more acceptable by modern maintenance techniques. Just a thought.

atb


Despite everything I've said, I'm sure there's some truth in that.
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #32 on: November 23, 2014, 05:34:46 AM »
For sure there a lot of duds from the old days, but shouldn't courses be better now?  There is so much more knowledge about design, drainage, turf and maintenance that there aren't many excuses not to at least produce something passable...even if the land often isn't ideal.  There should be few modern duds, yet the hit rate is terrible...just a lot of uninspired, boring courses built that are dreadfully presented. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Turnberry, Isle of Harris, Benbecula, Askernish, Traigh, St Medan, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #33 on: November 23, 2014, 05:43:24 AM »
It didn't in the eyes of 95%.

I fear Adrian is quite right.

I played last week with a couple of new 'Associate Members' at Reddish Vale and their attitude was illuminating. Both very good single handicap players in their 40s they clearly cared little for many of the attributes which make the course so special to most members and discerning visitors. They didn't approve of blind shots, uneven stances or 'unfair' bounces and bemoaned the club's policies of tree clearance and cutting back dense rough. They saw penal rough and narrow tree-lined fairways as features to aspire to for a good challenging golf course.

The reason they cited for joining Reddish Vale was simply the quality of the greens and the great deal they got on their 'pay as you play' membership. Normally I would have been trying to sell them on the idea of an upgrade to full membership but in the case of these two I just didn't think it worth the effort.

I'm sure that next year they'll be off to an even better deal at a 7000 yard tree-lined penal monster - ideally with lots of water - which suits their game and mind-set.

They just didn't get it.

It's a pity, because they were really nice blokes.  I'm sure that they are representative of a large proportion of UK golfers; they would love a lot of the modern courses which we are disparaging about in threads like this.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 05:54:21 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #34 on: November 23, 2014, 05:56:43 AM »
For sure there a lot of duds from the old days, but shouldn't courses be better now?  There is so much more knowledge about design, drainage, turf and maintenance that there aren't many excuses not to at least produce something passable...even if the land often isn't ideal.  There should be few modern duds, yet the hit rate is terrible...just a lot of uninspired, boring courses built that are dreadfully presented. 

Ciao

RTJ got into the DNA.

I just know I'm going to get attacked for that so, all, I refer you to Ran's words on the homepage of this website.  ;)
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #35 on: November 23, 2014, 06:01:33 AM »
It didn't in the eyes of 95%.

......They just didn't get it.........


Duncan,

But no one has ever explained it so why would they. Bet they 'get it' in ten years time.

Yours sincerely,

The Optimist.  ;D
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #36 on: November 23, 2014, 06:04:13 AM »
95% of UK golfers don't have much experience with many types or courses...Adrian goes to great lengths to explain how golfers don't want to travel. Listening to them talk about preferences is akin to listening to a 14 year old talk about politics.  Their opinions matter because they pay green fees, but I don't have a lot of time for listening to them..heard it all before...an it is a main reason I don't have much interest in joining a play for profit club...the bottom line is the final decider regardless.  That said, at least at my club, the cry is overwhelmingly in favour of cutting rough.  I still haven't found anybody who enjoys looking for balls...this seems to become more apparent the more people realize that golf is primarily a social game...and that comes with age.  Its mostly a subset of the pretender good golfers who want to see bowling alley golf predominate...they haven't yet figured out they are going nowhere in the game because they just aren't good enough. If they have figured it out, they treat the weekly medal like its a tour event.  Its competitive nature gone awry...out of whack with reality.    

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Turnberry, Isle of Harris, Benbecula, Askernish, Traigh, St Medan, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #37 on: November 23, 2014, 06:13:55 AM »
Bet they 'get it' in ten years time.


You're probably right.

The older of these two guys (45ish) was complaining of already losing distance and muscle control compared to a decade ago. I bet that narrow tree-lined 460 yard par 4's won't be much fun to him in ten years time.

Sean is right. Golf thrives best when it is a fun social game. The competitive element adds frisson, and winning a quid from your mates is always a pleasure, but for most it is not the be all and end all.

Good architecture on non-championship courses should emphasise the fun factor. This is largely where things went wrong.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 06:18:09 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #38 on: November 23, 2014, 06:34:17 AM »
Sean,

That's exactly what I was saying earlier about people professing to like what they think they're supposed to like. I like the 14 year old analogy. The mid handicap wannabe player is sure to rebel when the seniors say they want the rough cut back. That's not what "players" should want, right? Wrong. Education, education, education.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 09:14:18 AM by Paul Gray »
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #39 on: November 23, 2014, 07:24:46 AM »
I would suggest that there is also the architecture-construction-maintenance aspect to consider.

For example, ride-on bunker raking machines don't seem to do much to develop, enhance or promote 'classic period' - 'golden age' architecture, quite the opposite perhaps.

atb
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 07:30:57 AM by Thomas Dai »

BCowan

Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #40 on: November 23, 2014, 09:45:07 AM »
It didn't in the eyes of 95%.

I fear Adrian is quite right.

I played last week with a couple of new 'Associate Members' at Reddish Vale and their attitude was illuminating. Both very good single handicap players in their 40s they clearly cared little for many of the attributes which make the course so special to most members and discerning visitors. They didn't approve of blind shots, uneven stances or 'unfair' bounces and bemoaned the club's policies of tree clearance and cutting back dense rough. They saw penal rough and narrow tree-lined fairways as features to aspire to for a good challenging golf course.

The reason they cited for joining Reddish Vale was simply the quality of the greens and the great deal they got on their 'pay as you play' membership. Normally I would have been trying to sell them on the idea of an upgrade to full membership but in the case of these two I just didn't think it worth the effort.

I'm sure that next year they'll be off to an even better deal at a 7000 yard tree-lined penal monster - ideally with lots of water - which suits their game and mind-set.

They just didn't get it.

It's a pity, because they were really nice blokes.  I'm sure that they are representative of a large proportion of UK golfers; they would love a lot of the modern courses which we are disparaging about in threads like this.


Duncan,

    I think you did the right thing.  Just let people go and play courses they prefer.  The positive is that there are courses with large ponds and deep rough, and tree lined fairways for people that like it.  As long as they don't influence your club, no worries.  Remember Donald Ross said having to hit a long iron was the hardest shot in golf.  Those courses have arch merits to those that enjoy it.  I think people want to tell people what to like too much.  Remember if those courses didn't exist, there would be more guys trying to change the course you are a member of to their liking. 

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2014, 10:11:22 AM »
It didn't in the eyes of 95%.

I fear Adrian is quite right.

I played last week with a couple of new 'Associate Members' at Reddish Vale and their attitude was illuminating. Both very good single handicap players in their 40s they clearly cared little for many of the attributes which make the course so special to most members and discerning visitors. They didn't approve of blind shots, uneven stances or 'unfair' bounces and bemoaned the club's policies of tree clearance and cutting back dense rough. They saw penal rough and narrow tree-lined fairways as features to aspire to for a good challenging golf course.

The reason they cited for joining Reddish Vale was simply the quality of the greens and the great deal they got on their 'pay as you play' membership. Normally I would have been trying to sell them on the idea of an upgrade to full membership but in the case of these two I just didn't think it worth the effort.

I'm sure that next year they'll be off to an even better deal at a 7000 yard tree-lined penal monster - ideally with lots of water - which suits their game and mind-set.

They just didn't get it.

It's a pity, because they were really nice blokes.  I'm sure that they are representative of a large proportion of UK golfers; they would love a lot of the modern courses which we are disparaging about in threads like this.


Duncan,

    I think you did the right thing.  Just let people go and play courses they prefer.  The positive is that there are courses with large ponds and deep rough, and tree lined fairways for people that like it.  As long as they don't influence your club, no worries.  Remember Donald Ross said having to hit a long iron was the hardest shot in golf.  Those courses have arch merits to those that enjoy it.  I think people want to tell people what to like too much.  Remember if those courses didn't exist, there would be more guys trying to change the course you are a member of to their liking. 

Ben,

If those courses didn't exist, they wouldn't be influencing peoples' opinions and therefore no one would be trying to alter Reddish Vale for the worse.
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

BCowan

Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2014, 10:14:15 AM »
It didn't in the eyes of 95%.

I fear Adrian is quite right.

I played last week with a couple of new 'Associate Members' at Reddish Vale and their attitude was illuminating. Both very good single handicap players in their 40s they clearly cared little for many of the attributes which make the course so special to most members and discerning visitors. They didn't approve of blind shots, uneven stances or 'unfair' bounces and bemoaned the club's policies of tree clearance and cutting back dense rough. They saw penal rough and narrow tree-lined fairways as features to aspire to for a good challenging golf course.

The reason they cited for joining Reddish Vale was simply the quality of the greens and the great deal they got on their 'pay as you play' membership. Normally I would have been trying to sell them on the idea of an upgrade to full membership but in the case of these two I just didn't think it worth the effort.

I'm sure that next year they'll be off to an even better deal at a 7000 yard tree-lined penal monster - ideally with lots of water - which suits their game and mind-set.

They just didn't get it.

It's a pity, because they were really nice blokes.  I'm sure that they are representative of a large proportion of UK golfers; they would love a lot of the modern courses which we are disparaging about in threads like this.


Duncan,

    I think you did the right thing.  Just let people go and play courses they prefer.  The positive is that there are courses with large ponds and deep rough, and tree lined fairways for people that like it.  As long as they don't influence your club, no worries.  Remember Donald Ross said having to hit a long iron was the hardest shot in golf.  Those courses have arch merits to those that enjoy it.  I think people want to tell people what to like too much.  Remember if those courses didn't exist, there would be more guys trying to change the course you are a member of to their liking.  

Ben,

If those courses didn't exist, they wouldn't be influencing peoples' opinions and therefore no one would be trying to alter Reddish Vale for the worse.

I don't agree with that either.  Reddish Vale has been cutting down trees, so I think your point is way off.  The people who like long courses possibly left and went to the new tracks.  I get you aren't big on free will?  
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 10:22:43 AM by BCowan »

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #43 on: November 23, 2014, 10:23:23 AM »
It didn't in the eyes of 95%.

I fear Adrian is quite right.

I played last week with a couple of new 'Associate Members' at Reddish Vale and their attitude was illuminating. Both very good single handicap players in their 40s they clearly cared little for many of the attributes which make the course so special to most members and discerning visitors. They didn't approve of blind shots, uneven stances or 'unfair' bounces and bemoaned the club's policies of tree clearance and cutting back dense rough. They saw penal rough and narrow tree-lined fairways as features to aspire to for a good challenging golf course.

The reason they cited for joining Reddish Vale was simply the quality of the greens and the great deal they got on their 'pay as you play' membership. Normally I would have been trying to sell them on the idea of an upgrade to full membership but in the case of these two I just didn't think it worth the effort.

I'm sure that next year they'll be off to an even better deal at a 7000 yard tree-lined penal monster - ideally with lots of water - which suits their game and mind-set.

They just didn't get it.

It's a pity, because they were really nice blokes.  I'm sure that they are representative of a large proportion of UK golfers; they would love a lot of the modern courses which we are disparaging about in threads like this.


  Remember if those courses didn't exist, there would be more guys trying to change the course you are a member of to their liking. 

Ben,
You nailed it.
Theye're called asshole traps-and the world needs them to keep the good places uncluttered.
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #44 on: November 23, 2014, 10:30:32 AM »
It didn't in the eyes of 95%.

I fear Adrian is quite right.

I played last week with a couple of new 'Associate Members' at Reddish Vale and their attitude was illuminating. Both very good single handicap players in their 40s they clearly cared little for many of the attributes which make the course so special to most members and discerning visitors. They didn't approve of blind shots, uneven stances or 'unfair' bounces and bemoaned the club's policies of tree clearance and cutting back dense rough. They saw penal rough and narrow tree-lined fairways as features to aspire to for a good challenging golf course.

The reason they cited for joining Reddish Vale was simply the quality of the greens and the great deal they got on their 'pay as you play' membership. Normally I would have been trying to sell them on the idea of an upgrade to full membership but in the case of these two I just didn't think it worth the effort.

I'm sure that next year they'll be off to an even better deal at a 7000 yard tree-lined penal monster - ideally with lots of water - which suits their game and mind-set.

They just didn't get it.

It's a pity, because they were really nice blokes.  I'm sure that they are representative of a large proportion of UK golfers; they would love a lot of the modern courses which we are disparaging about in threads like this.


Duncan,

    I think you did the right thing.  Just let people go and play courses they prefer.  The positive is that there are courses with large ponds and deep rough, and tree lined fairways for people that like it.  As long as they don't influence your club, no worries.  Remember Donald Ross said having to hit a long iron was the hardest shot in golf.  Those courses have arch merits to those that enjoy it.  I think people want to tell people what to like too much.  Remember if those courses didn't exist, there would be more guys trying to change the course you are a member of to their liking. 

Ben,

If those courses didn't exist, they wouldn't be influencing peoples' opinions and therefore no one would be trying to alter Reddish Vale for the worse.

I don't agree with that either.  Reddish Vale has been cutting down trees, so I think your point is way off.  The people who like long courses left and went to the newbies.  I get you aren't big on free will? 

I used to think the asshole traps as Jeff puts it were a blessing so understand your point but I've recently changed my mind.
 
I'm very big on freewill, although I don't believe in it in a psychological sense, i.e. the freewill vs determinism debate but we both know you're not familiar with that debate so we won't do it here.  ;D

The point, again, is that the guys Duncan was playing with didn't really have any choice because they were simply repeating what they had been taught to think. See what I wrote in agreement with Sean about people that are wannabe players adopting certain positions for the sake of appearances. So I'm in no way advocating that people should be told what to think, I'm promoting the exact opposite. Those guys are very welcome to play any kind of course they like and that's all good. I don't think however, purely from the perspective of the Reddish Vales of this world, that a steady diet of a contrary form of golf has had anything other than a negative effect. Reddish Vale, if I'm not mistaken, started to take trees out when a review was posted on this website. And I bet for most at Reddish Vale the apparently educated opinion from GCA was an eye opener, being in a world of contrary golf.  
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Marc Haring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #45 on: November 23, 2014, 11:11:39 AM »
I remember joining a Cumberwell members trip to Francais a few years ago and one of the courses to be played was raved about by many in the group. In fact I was informed that this will be the best course that I have ever played by miles.

The course was this monstrosity which was quite possibly the worst course that I had ever played. There was no strategy as nearly every hole seemed to consist hopping from one island to another. The greens made The Brabazon’s greens seem positively firm and to end it all we played the final couple of holes in horizontal sleet.




But in the clubhouse afterwards everyone both old and young was in agreement, the course was a complete masterpiece and I was the lone objector. It had a certain visual impact in a contrived sort of way, i’ll give them that but it beat everyone up. What’s a man supposed to do when faced with these philistines......
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 11:58:56 AM by Marc Haring »

Ryan Coles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #46 on: November 23, 2014, 11:45:01 AM »
You don't think that you're generalising?

Your latest post is about the owners son, so it appears as if it's not a private/proprietary bias.

I am just curious of where and based on what experiences this low opinion comes from?

What exactly is this knowledge or experience that you've got that they, the media and the golfing public lack and how did you aquire it?

The point is all about little knowledge being a dangerous thing and, yes, I've yet to meet a committee that was well read on the subject of architecture or, heaven forbid, actually came from an architecture background. Examples; the history of the game is littered with them. Where do you suppose all the trees came from? Respecfully Ryan, I'd suggest you read up on it for a bit of insight. What's your architecture library like?

Read back through this thread and you'll see that Adrian makes reference to committees at his courses. It's just stansard I'm afraid. And personally, well, the current band at Hayling leave a lot to be desired. There are clear demonstrations of zero knowledge which the novice GCAer would immediately pick up on. And yes, I've addressed it with them to no avail, although I'm always keen to point out that they should now be given time.


My library is limited. I'm low on theory, but gaining in practical. More importantly, I have the self awareness to know what I don't know and not to confuse opinions with facts,or assume that those with a different view need "educating".

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Indeed it is. And it appears to be an irony completely lost on you, presumably down the back of one of your bookcases.

Turning to your committee experiences, it is clear you have limited to no experience beyond what you read and as I stated originally you're generalising. In practice, I've found some are great, some are woeful, some clubs could not exist without their free services, some committees as a collective are poor, but they have one or two members who know their stuff. Some committees have butchered their courses. Some have moved sites, some have rallied and survived through two world wars, some are great custodians. Slating committees is just lazy and in many cases absent of fact or reason.

Pretty much every course you like and every set up you approve of was determined by a committee. Yet to you, all are idiots - FIGJAM.

Did it ever occur to you that many people on here also serve or have served on committees? They may even share your views on courses, they may even collect books, they may even be former Supers. With respect, don't be a fool and tar them all with the same brush.




Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #47 on: November 23, 2014, 11:48:12 AM »
Reddish Vale, if I'm not mistaken, started to take trees out when a review was posted on this website. And I bet for most at Reddish Vale the apparently educated opinion from GCA was an eye opener, being in a world of contrary golf.  

Not quite.

Our greens chairman, the Pro, and several other influential members had long campaigned to take out trees and return the course to something that Alister MacKenzie would recognise. The membership as a whole however, was resistant - particularly the older guys who had seen the trees grow in the 70s and 80s.

Ran's visit last year and subsequent 'Courses by Country' piece converted pretty well everybody to the cause. GCA was definitely the catalyst which has made change possible. The comments in the new Confidential Guide regarding the need for further tree removal to open up views have been circulated to members and have been well-received.

It's amazing how much more seriously people will take a visiting Yank than people they know telling them the same things.  ;)

« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 12:39:18 PM by Duncan Cheslett »

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #48 on: November 23, 2014, 12:20:34 PM »
There is no doubt that every golf course will have different reasons why some love it and some are not so keen. Playing any sport people allude to what the best players do, so the courses they play are seen as the best courses. The 90s vogue was to have lots of water and it was the winning formula. The paymasters decided Gary Player, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus were the best people to design golf courses. Copycat architects like me produced the best we could with the budgets we had. I am convinced I did right not wrong.

If you did a peoples poll on the Best courses in the UK, The Belfry and Celtic Manor would feature astronomically high. If you did a peoples poll of the best courses in Gloucestershire (there are 44 I think) Painswick would scrape in at about 30. Minch Old might be 25, Cleeve Hill might get in the 20. That is what it is. Painswick you can play for £8.

Long Ashton openly parade on their website how 50 years ago it was open heathland and that the club have planted so many thousand trees, there are 95 species and 35 of them are indigenous (words something like that). They think as custodians of the course that they have acted in the best interests over the last 50 years. It has 4 or 5 holes GCA people would really like, yet MANY people HATE Long Ashton for those very holes. These holes provoke thought, careful plotting and are over broken ground with aspects of blindness and slopes both gathering and repelling. You will not convince people that these types of holes are best.....blindness and cross bunkers went as being best practice a long time ago and narrow is definetely preferred in course set up to wide and always will be.

A lot of good players don't like the Old Course. For a lot of people fairness is important and whilst these are the contra view to what we like here it does not make them uneducated and its our duty to make them alter their wrong opinion.

There might be some middle ground but I don't see a big change coming. New golf courses in the UK are not going to be plentiful. The contraction in numbers will see a tightening in budgets as the fight for customers hardens. So I don't see an investment into the GCA way.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 12:23:57 PM by Adrian_Stiff »
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: UK courses built circa 1990 and onwards, How Did Architecture Get So Bad?
« Reply #49 on: November 23, 2014, 02:36:50 PM »
You don't think that you're generalising?

Your latest post is about the owners son, so it appears as if it's not a private/proprietary bias.

I am just curious of where and based on what experiences this low opinion comes from?

What exactly is this knowledge or experience that you've got that they, the media and the golfing public lack and how did you aquire it?

The point is all about little knowledge being a dangerous thing and, yes, I've yet to meet a committee that was well read on the subject of architecture or, heaven forbid, actually came from an architecture background. Examples; the history of the game is littered with them. Where do you suppose all the trees came from? Respecfully Ryan, I'd suggest you read up on it for a bit of insight. What's your architecture library like?

Read back through this thread and you'll see that Adrian makes reference to committees at his courses. It's just stansard I'm afraid. And personally, well, the current band at Hayling leave a lot to be desired. There are clear demonstrations of zero knowledge which the novice GCAer would immediately pick up on. And yes, I've addressed it with them to no avail, although I'm always keen to point out that they should now be given time.


My library is limited. I'm low on theory, but gaining in practical. More importantly, I have the self awareness to know what I don't know and not to confuse opinions with facts,or assume that those with a different view need "educating".

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Indeed it is. And it appears to be an irony completely lost on you, presumably down the back of one of your bookcases.

Turning to your committee experiences, it is clear you have limited to no experience beyond what you read and as I stated originally you're generalising. In practice, I've found some are great, some are woeful, some clubs could not exist without their free services, some committees as a collective are poor, but they have one or two members who know their stuff. Some committees have butchered their courses. Some have moved sites, some have rallied and survived through two world wars, some are great custodians. Slating committees is just lazy and in many cases absent of fact or reason.

Pretty much every course you likte and every set up you approve of was determined by a committee. Yet to you, all are idiots - FIGJAM.e and every set up you approve of was de

Did it ever occur to you that many people on here also serve or have served on committees? They may even share your views on courses, they may even collect books, they may even be former Supers. With respect, don't be a fool and tar them all with the same brush.



Ryan,

That is insulting bullshit.

I am fully aware that reading a few books does not make one an expert. I am equally aware that I have zero experience in the practicalities of designing a course, am no agronomist and wouldn't know where to begin. That said, I am quite capable of grasping the principles of design in a way that 99.9% of golfers simply don't. The fact that I'm part of such a small percentile of people says little about me however and everything about the sorry state of the understanding of the game. Despite your limited knowledge, I'll bet you already understand your home course better than anyone else you play the game with, certainly I'll bet that your eyes have been opened and you would now concede that any former confidence you might have had about your knowledge was misplaced. No one knows how little they know until they begin to know something. You'll no doubt enjoy a MacKenzie quote along those lines when you read his work soon.

Pretty much every course you like and every set up you approve of was determined by a committee. - Ryan Coles.

File that quote and revisit it in a while. You are utterly wrong. All the courses I like have either needed to get a professional architect in to restore the place to its former glory or still need to do so but haven't yet realise what a mess they, or rather their predecessors, have made of the place. In essence, designed by a great architect, ruined by committee, restored by a great architect. Look around the industry and tell me what work you see going on. It's exactly what I've just described.

Of course there are exceptions but, by and large, golf club committees are made up of people that have no knowledge in the subject of golf course architecture but assume that they do. Now that is utter arrogance. Frankly, your offering on the subject has read like yet another classic GCA day one post from someone that didn't know what he had stumbled in to. Again, I suggest you file this post and review it in six or twelve months time. The position you've taken is utterly naive and in time, since I suspect you're smart enough, you'll come to realise that.

And understand this, whilst you are absolutely correct to assert that everyone is entitled to an opinion, a basic understanding of perceived wisdom is, or should be, a prerequisite for involving yourself in the well being of a golf course. And yet it very rarely is.

I fail to see how we ever got to a point where it was condescending to point out that some people would benefit from a little education. We all need educating and we all, if we actually give a damn about the game, have a responsibility to pass on what we know and understand. If Harry Colt walked into this conversation right now, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to suggest that "everyone's entitled to an opinion but I think you're wrong." No, I'd shut up and listen because my opinion wouldn't be anywhere near as valid as his. He could educate me. And so it passes from one to another.
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back