Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jordan Wall on July 12, 2014, 09:46:39 AM
-
Yesterday I played my first Seth Raynor course, and something that really stood out to me about the design was the enormous fairways and the gigantic greens. The angles of play were magnificent and the generally fairways and greens were easy to hit in general unless you hit a poor shot.
But, even with the huge greens with great contour and these huge fairways with great angles of play, it really got me thinking about why courses today are designed as they are and whether or not that is truly bad for the game. Big greens and wide fairways are unanimously praised on here, and for good reason as architecturally speaking it creates a much greater thought process on the golf course and allows for more diversity in shots hit. However, with many courses over the years pinching their fairways and building, in general, smaller greens it seems as if this is looked down in and chastised in the GCA community.
Why is this the case?
When older architects, the golden-age boys we consider among the best there ever was, designed golf courses they did so when equipment made it much harder to hit the golf ball straight and control the ball. This made wide greens and huge fairways imperative from a playability standpoint.
However, as technology has evolved and golf has become more playable for everybody, is it not also imperative for golf design to evolve with it? Shouldn't fairways be narrower, shouldn't greens be tougher and faster and harder to hit? And, with wedges these days making it so easy to get the ball in the air stop it, isn't it also imperative to place more emphasis on the aerial game with today's architecture?
I would argue that angles of play can still be created with narrowish fairways, obviously not too narrow but more narrow than in the golden age when many fairways were enormous. I would also argue that it is imperative to provide more aerial routes to holes because that is how the game is played today. Not on every hole or even most, but at least some holes should provide purely aerial routes.
In general, I think the way GCA is viewed has a big tendency to be judged against older courses that set the precedent for golf architecture. But I think it is important to realize too that as golf is evolving, so is golf architecture, and as true fans of GCA we should not bat a blind eye to that when discussing and judging the way courses today are designed and built. In fact, I think ignoring the evolution of golf architecture and golf in general is downright irresponsible.
Golf courses just can't be designed the same ways today that they were a hundred years ago, because golf is different today than it was back then.
-
However, as technology has evolved and golf has become more playable for everybody, is it not also imperative for golf design to evolve with it?
[1] Shouldn't fairways be narrower, shouldn't greens be tougher and faster and harder to hit?
[2] And, with wedges these days making it so easy to get the ball in the air stop it, isn't it also imperative to place more emphasis on the aerial game with today's architecture?
Your second statement seems to me to contradict the preceding sentence. If the aerial game is easier for everyone today, and your goal is to make courses harder to keep pace with technology, why place more emphasis on the aerial game?
Also, the main reason you don't see more small greens in modern design is because the greens are so stressed out by modern maintenance standards that superintendents want more area so they can spread out the play. I've had a couple of superintendents tell me it's "impossible" to maintain a green under 6,000 square feet to today's standards ::) and I remember that Tom Fazio's construction specifications had a clause that no green under 6,000 square feet should be built, even if they drew it smaller than that, without direct verification from the architect.
-
Jordan, it is stil the "golf is a big world" theory, and you can find a venue that suits your tastes. You may have to travel somewhere to experience what one might call the old timey golf, with the wide fairways and large sectioned, contoured, or rolling greens. But whatever you want is out there. And, as a matter of golf evolution, in my view it evolves and regresses, and then evolves again, often on a trendy basis. Heck, when we look at golf as a game traveling around the world in popularity of play from recreational to competitive, it is only some 150 years old at best. That isn't really a 'evolutional' timeframe so much as a tide of trends. What do you think if in those terms? What would you call Mike Nuzzo's Wolf Point if not a throwback? Same with these darlings of GCA.com from Barnbougle and LF to Bandon Resorts, to Cabot, etc. Brian Silva's Black Creek, or Mike DeVries Kingsley. others too numerous to mention; They are modern, yet have many of the attributes you speak of as old timey.
Could it be that the evolution of golf course design in many cases is our idea of what is a penalty hazard feature on a golf course, and how they are constructed and presented?
-
Jordan,
I agree with a lot of your premise, but think there is one point missing when you consider the evolution of the game. The ball goes further today, meaning it also has the potential to go further off-line. So even though today's drivers may be easier to hit and provide more distance, they are still difficult to hit straight (IMO at least!) and so width is still a very important part of the game.
Additionally, I think the style of a course depends on the venue's purpose. Designing a course to host the US Open is far different than a course for a regular membership. Modern courses seem to have far more water in play and other severe hazards that more than make up for improved equipment when it comes to creating a challenge for the golfer.
-
Jordan - I think a primary driver to narrower fariways and smaller greens is the goal to save money. I don't think it's much more complicated than that.
Maintaining acres and acres of fairways costs a lot of money.
-
One thing I think it is important not to forget. As much as one designs for golf, it is still architecture, and scaling the golf course to its site/property/landscape is a very important architectural decision... There are so many variables, design elements, and problems to solve while building a golf course.
-
Jordan,
I have been observing people play golf for more than 50 years. I see no evidence that golfers today can hit the ball straight any more than they could 50 years ago.
-
I think Tim has it correct. IMO, Jordan is making inaccurate assumptions about why the old architects did what they did, and about how golfers played back then.
-
Get your hands on an old wooden headed driver and hit it down the range. What is so striking, particularly when considering the endless propaganda from manufacturers, is that it really isn't so difficult to hit. Shots poorly struck will travel far less distance than well struck efforts and ball flight will be significantly lower but, overall, you won't suddenly find banana shots aplenty. Add in the length of modern drivers and you have every reason to think that the modern player needs more width than ever.
The current thread offered by Robin Hisemann shows where proportional narrowness can be compelling (although even there more width would be a virtue), but generally speaking there is surely no more an argument for narrow fairways now than there ever has been. One of the biggest problems in the game is surely that Greens Committees now understand the importance of width less than ever before, precisely because of this false assumption that modern equipment makes players laser accurate and requires clubs to tighten the playing area.
-
From a lurker: (not in Philly!)
Architecture in build a complex exists but golf course architecture has been rendered like penal ‘Persona Non Grata‘ even the second Golden Age Designers work bears little resemblance to their original form.
I even question design and wonder what the intent is these days, well that is until you see courses like Askernish, then there is something to learn, but has lessons been learnt, have the newer so called Championship courses incorporated these ideas – Hell no, of course not because we seem unwilling to learn from past Masters – then why am I surprised as the Design Industry in golf still do not know how design or for that matter golf course design started and are still of the belief that staking a course AM and playing it PM was the norm in the 19th Century even when the local reports in journals and newspapers clearly state that it took between 6-12 weeks to create a golf course with of course the exceptions of Cruden Bay started in 1894 opened in 1899, Muirfield designed in November 1890 opened in May 1891 and the list goes on.
So the industry does not know its own history but it still believes it has all the answers, look at the Castle Course at St Andrews, sold to the world as a St Andrews course – sorry bollocks it an international course of very little importance in St Andrews GCA apart from its ability to make money – it’s a fake, its sold knowing its not a genuine St Andrews quality course, - this is the face of the modern game.
-
Yesterday I played my first Seth Raynor course, and something that really stood out to me about the design was the enormous fairways and the gigantic greens.
Cough it up, which one?
-
Unknown lurker
It wasn't all roses and whiskey back in the day. I reckon golf was far more difficult than today and I think there is a very good case to say golf is still too hard. I always point out Flynn courses as examples, but they are but samples. Flynn, Tilly etc designs are damn hard today, they must have been torture chambers back in the day. Although, I think a not so subtle shift in thinking happened between then and now; golfers comparing themselves to par. Now all golfers do it (very much mistakingly imo), back then I don't believe this was the case. Such is the importance of the number written on the card that these days people will swear blindly an unchanged hole is better as a par 5 rather than a par 4 etc.
Playing with two older gentleman thrashing hickories about at Cavendish (5700-5800 from the back tees!) on Friday was a serious eye opener. Neither could get on with their drivers so they were hitting what looked to be 5/7 wood hickories. Even at Cavendish, there were a few a places these guys couldn't make the carry with no place to lay-up. There were other instances of laying up 80-100 yards because they couldn't make the carry. Neither chap seemed teribly upset by it all. The one hard core fellow merely said thats the way golf is meant to be. It didn't look like a lot of fun to me, but then golf is different for everybody and the par number on the card was completely irrelevant for him. I have to admire that approach to the game. Now, I would like to see a decent player somewhat on form playing hickory spanners to get a better idea what its all about.
Ciao
-
From a lurker: (not in Philly!)
Architecture in build a complex exists but golf course architecture has been rendered like penal ‘Persona Non Grata‘ even the second Golden Age Designers work bears little resemblance to their original form.
I won't even try to figure out what that means. I'm sure that it's not from Jabberwocky...
1. I grew up golfing in the 1970s and we hit some wild-ass shots back then. Lots of sky balls, sliders and hooks;
2. I have friends who do the same with modern equipment, so they hit it farther off line since the ball now goes farther;
3. One reference for green size is the existence of enough areas in which to cut a hole. The fewer the alternatives, the more stressed those limited areas become;
Here are some questions for Jordan:
A. When you write "narrowish fairways," what comes after the fairway? Is there a first cut of rough? Is it penal? How about the second cut of rough?
B. When you type "narrowish fairways," what narrows them? Is it trees? Sand bunkers? Waster bunkers? Low, medium or high rough?
C. Can you explain your closing affirmation? I could hammer at its contradiction, but I'd like to hear you expound a bit before I do that. Keep in mind that this is a great debate, the finest mental exercise I know.
-
Jordan,
for me good GCA should offer an interesting golfing challenge to the golfer not a difficult golfing challenge.
Jon
-
Sean's post reminds me again of my early days as a 12 year old playing the game at Hayling. And, much in the same way as you still see kids these days enjoying the game, I certainly never found my lack of length to be a problem. Yesterday I played through a couple of old girls that couldn't have been hitting the ball more than 130 yards. Similarly, they were clearly enjoying themselves.
The point I'm stumbling towards is that length in itself isn't a hindrance to enjoyment, at least it isn't unless you approach the game with a purely 'pencil and card' mentality and therefore assume you have to be able to reach each and every green in regulation. Width, on the other hand, or lack of, stifles my enjoyment of the course these days far more than a lack of length ever did. And to paraphrase Jon, enjoyment is the reason for playing the game, not some masochistic desire to put oneself through the ringer.
-
Mr. Lurker updated his thoughts based on your comments:
Narrow fairways, short or long rough, bunkers, island greens seem today to be more a point of complaint rather than accepted as hazards, but the narrow fairways are in my book questionable as are island greens, both just playing to a limited group of perhaps more than competent players, but golf embraces all levels of skill, not just the proficient.
I repeat my previous comment that I have not encountered a really hard course that has stopped me in my tracks. Yes, penal and yes difficult, but that is when a golfer by the very nature of being a golfers selects the mode of have a go, hoping ones skills are adequate or seeks the more modest route to comply with ones mood and of course skill level - some will willingly sacrifice shots to acquire the ultimate goal of playing golf over a mentally challenging course.
Perhaps Sean from GCA.com has miss-understood the mental aspect of the game with his two Hickory golfers. Yes golf was harder but my point is that we still do not understand GCA today let alone from its concept and that is why we miss the quality courses of the mid to late 1800's and those for the first 30 years of the 20th Century - the designers then knew the need how to design utilising Natural & Man made designs to blend in with the equipment available - perhaps a silly but simple oversight much encountered today, yet apparently ignored in many cases in this forlorn drive to seek Championship Courses for money - oops sorry meant the many golfers who just manage to obtain a foothold on the game's handicap system - a semi pointless exercise but still the required boast today is 'we have a Championship course'. Lets get back to basics before we try to argue the merits of modern GCA - oops silly me, many are still rather ignorant of the early processes in GCA so are really unable to voice much about the original basics. Don't agree then think - many of the designs and Holes that pre date not just the 1900's but are closer to the 1850-7's, a few springs to mind, the Redan at North Berwick dating from 1860-70's or even the Alps or Sea Hedrig at Prestwick (much still in play) dating from the 1850's.
-
Mr Lurker
I merely offered an observation of the golfers using hickories on a course which hasn't been materially changed from the tail end of the hickory era. The game didn't look to be any more fun to me and luckily golf encompasses all sorts. I certainly have my design preferences which include work from all eras of golf, though I am particularly fond of 1890ish to 1930ish. For me at least, its more about the tolerance of clubs offering the opportunity in how they set up courses to allow most to get around in a reasonable manner.
Ciao
-
I would think the a lot of the width in the golden age would be more attributed to lost balls than crap equipment. Balls were VERY expensive, and people didn't like to lose them anymore than cutting/breaking them, as they already had to replace them... There are countless stories/quotes about the old guys going on about loosing balls.
ps. this lurker posting via someone else thing is kinda weird. I'm not a fan.
-
One example you can't shake is Pebble Beach. There are no huge greens there, and that's a windy site.
Jordan's conclusions appear to be how most better golfers perceive the game, and, the future of the game. The sport, is but a foreign concept to the modern day, technical analyst, looking for that one more yard.
Yes, The modern era's arbitrary mow line narrowness mindset, places a greater emphasis on accuracy, yet neglects far more important facets of the sport.
And besides, Who are these Angels that decide "narrowish"?
Let Freedom ring. A core principle once advocated by the Scots. Or so I'm told.
-
Jordan, agree with your basic premise, but in many ways, its both simpler and more complex than that. And, you left out any mention of construction technology on your theory, which I think played a bigger role than any deep thoughts. For example, FW in the GA were about 60 yards wide because that is how far the then new invention of fw centerline sprinklers could cover.
But, even considering your basic premise, I think the call here for return to Golden Age principles is based more on nostalgia and a sense of self righteousness than anything else. Specifically, this group tends to mass brand anyone involved in design/construction in the 50's as real idiots who knew nothing. In fact, I suspect they were designing as a logical and thoughtful reaction to all the factors that influence design as they saw them.
Perhaps the least rationale thing - then and now - done was to design courses because tour pros were hitting it"too far" and winning scores were "too low." Perhaps there was too much of a reaction to the aerial game, but then, over reaction to situations is a bit of human nature. And, that may not have even been on the mainstream courses (ie. low end muni) that were built for affordable golf. More rational stuff was more drainage, irrigation, better turf, easier maintenance, as tech allowed. Given the influx of golfers, and the slim margins of the golf biz, those sorts of things became the biggest drivers of most designs.
In the 1980's when those lessons of the great depression were fading, and American was less clubby buy generally more wealthy, the upscale public course was born. It's easy now to see we built too many and maybe too hard, but it made sense at the time.
So, I view the evolution of architecture as a very complex thing. I also surmise that in a few decades time, there will be those critics who compare current fads/trends/principles (and trust me, there are some of each in modern design) to beehive hairdos. One among them will be frilly edge bunker edges. It made sense with no or primitive irrigation, but will eventually be seen (on most sites) as unsustainable, or at least not worth the effort to maintain a certain look that the combo of man made and nature that a golf course is really wants to become.
As to wide fw, I believe those in the 40-80's saw them for what they were. Its not black and white, but grey as to the value of those, and the cost of those extra options so few really used wasn't worth the upkeep, and so they generally faded away as impractical. It turns out most were satisfied with the idea that a tee shot was a test of hitting the fw vs. the rough and the subtlety of hitting the left third, while it never really went away, diminished in value to golfers as a thing to strive for.
Were they wrong?
-
Jeff:
It would have been simpler if you'd just gone with something like this:
"It was easier to sell the public a dumbed down product so that's exactly what we did. Don't blame me for making money out of it."
-
Paul,
I'm sorry, but I call that kind of smug, sound bite answer typical of gca.com "know it all syndrome" and not representative at all of what I feel. Like I say, its easy to be pretty smug and smash those who were in charge of golf by your standards today, but I still believe they did what was right for them individually and collectively for golf.
Some more specific examples that architecture buffs don't consider on the width of the fw is the cost of width. From memory it cost at least twice as much to mow fw as rough. (obviously it varies) and in their mindsets, it wasn't worth it. Now gca.com, its easy to tell them they should have spend more of their money, but you have nothing invested in it.
Now, did the have mistakes? OF course, like every generation. Didn't recognize full size of trees they planted and/or forgot the "thin quick" part of the old saying "plant thick/thin quick" probably due to changing greens committees. But, when 75-90% of the courses in America were built for low budgets in cornfields, was planting trees later (in general) a mistake?
-
Jeff,
Of course mistakes were, are and always will be made. In Britain we had all sorts of trees planted for example long before the 80's and it was in no way attributable, in my opinion, to the penal mistakes being made more broadly. But the smugness you refer to, and I'll happily concede there is a certain amount of smugness attached, is, nonetheless, based on cold, hard facts.
Style was sold over substance and golf is paying for it today. The real cheap budget places, the farms with nine holes and one man and his dog operating them, were never the problem, quite the opposite. The problem lied, and still does, within a middle ground that was consumed by social climbing and demanded a gauche product which you were happy to serve up, making you part of the problem. The dark ages were just that and history should never be rewritten.
I don't begrudge you doing what you did. I have absolutely no personal axe to grind with you. Your actions simply allowed supply to meet demand and if you hadn't done it someone else would have. But please, don't try to intellectualise your own actions and don't try to misrepresent a sustainable golf model by suggesting it has anything to do with shaggy bunkers. Shaggy bunkers are (and perhaps your comments betray an inability to perceive the issue from a position of genuinely 'getting it') an eye candy trick which has nothing to do with minimalism.
-
I would suggest that maintenance practices also form a key aspect.
Once upon a time courses were mowed - eaten - by sheep etc, and when towed mowers first started to be used they weren't particularly good at cutting more than gradual slopes and seasonal ground conditions effected this. Less trees in yee olde times was often a function of animals eating them before they could grow and on common land, folk cutting them down for firewood and fencing and the like.
To me maintenance is a key component and one we perhaps take for granted. For example, we putt on some fabulously conditioned greens these days, but there are photos of the greens at TOC being cut by men with scythe's.
As new equipment is invented there is also certain "we must have it and use it" mentality. One could argue that sprinkler systems in certain parts of the globe fall into this category. Another would be ride-on bunker rakes, which could be seen as having contributed to the growth of large even vast sized bunkers.
atb
-
Thomas,
No doubt a large part of the design style in the 50's-60's was tuning design to the new machinery. Somewhere in the 80-90's Fazio wondered why they didn't tune maintenance equipment to design styles, and it seems (IMHO) to have signaled a shift in design.
Or put another way, with that being just one example, of the old fashioned "design triangle" of maintenance/playability/aesthetics the emphasis in the "go-go" 90's shifted from primary emphasis on maintenance to that of aesthetics. Playability concerns seem to have shifted from "the every day" to "some theoretical tournament that will never come to Tiddly Links, but we will design for it anyway". When money flows, everyone tends to raise standards and shoot for the top. And why not? If not then, when?
Nothing black and white, just shifts of emphasis.
Paul, of all the phrases thrown around, the phrase "gets it" seems to me to be one of the smuggest, self congratulatory ones out there, no? And is smug really based on facts, or a shift of opinions, which some smarty pants tend to believe so hard (and admittedly, not without some justification, but looking from, IMHO a too narrow prism) that they consider it fact?
I submit its the latter, especially when we consider that at any period those in charge felt exactly as strong as we currently do, whether RTJ designing tournament courses everywhere in the 50's, the middle ground of the 60-70's, the race to catch CCFAD up to privates in the 90's, or the minimalism of the 2000's - its just the top courses we discussed, and which set the trends, while the rest of the golf world still lived within its cost constraints.
In other words, for all we talk about it, what per cent of courses really followed, for example, the Augusta model of maintenance? What percent raised standards and got somewhat closer? What raised standards somewhat? What courses didn't even try? Given that 2/3 of all courses are public, and probably 2/3 of those are on a budget, my guesses would be 1%/33%/33%/33%.
However, just a guess. And, perhaps not relevant to your points. I understand that many here consider that minimalism (whatever it is) is the be all, end all of golf architecture and will be it's final word, whereas I believe that culture being what it is, there will be a post minimalism that will recognize the flaws inherent in it and seek to correct them, just as minimalism sought to provide a new style to look at (always in vogue) AND is quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles (perhaps for marketing purposes?) and less prone to acknowledge what is right (human nature in all of us)
-
I understand that many here consider that minimalism (whatever it is) is the be all, end all of golf architecture and will be it's final word, whereas I believe that culture being what it is, there will be a post minimalism that will recognize the flaws inherent in it and seek to correct them, just as minimalism sought to provide a new style to look at (always in vogue) AND is quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles (perhaps for marketing purposes?) and less prone to acknowledge what is right (human nature in all of us)
How, exactly, is a style or school of design "quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles and less prone to acknowledge what is right"? How does a style of design do any of those things? Or are you talking about particular practitioners of the style, and if so, why don't you quite hiding and just come out and say it -- Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are real braggarts! :)
P.S. What "flaws" are "inherent" in my style, vs. yours?
-
Jeff,
I grew up playing a classic course whilst all the new kids on the block were emerging. As a kid I was fed a constant message that these new courses were far better than where I played the game. Not knowing any better, I honestly thought I was missing something since I played all these new courses in junior events and simply didn't enjoy them. So, to be frank, I am certainly not being wise after the event.
And now, as a club member, I struggle with the remnants of that design style as I attempt to make the point to the current committee that the thing Tom Simpson put in place for them was actually better not put through the 80's mangle. Any smugness on my part is matched with a very real current time desire to put right the wrongs of an era where water fountains were deemed more important than cutting fairways.
What you apparently see as a fad I see as a return to the virtues of proper architecture. I don't suggest that fads within that won't occur, but I do suggest that the emergence of minimalism is more about a continual rebirth of correct design principles than just another paradigm which will itself be looked back upon as fundamentally bad. Bottom line, not too much from the 80's will stand the test of time in the same way the work of Colt, Mackenzie et all has and will continue to.
-
I don't know how to define minimalism and I don't know how to define the style sof the 80's and 90's. But I do see a few things that I think evolved from the early 1900's until now.
Most of the land used to build golf courses in the 80's and 90's could not have been used for a golf course in the golden Age.
Most of the golf courses built in the 80's and 90's were built for RE development and not with golf as the priority.
Golf cars allowed more change than earth moving equipment.
And last but not least the entire golf business screwed the game by creating an environment that could not build a course that could sustain itself in many instances. It wasn't that many of the basic courses we grew up on in the 50's and 60's were minimalism but they were build in a manner where they could make a profit or be affordable. Once the RE industry adopted golf and builders, archies, equipment compnaies, irrigation companies grabbed hold there was no ceiling.
As things continue to evolve it will be toward a product that allows the game to move forward. Many segments of the industry fight such constantly.
-
To me, the next evolution will be courses with significantly reduced irrigation needs.
-
I understand that many here consider that minimalism (whatever it is) is the be all, end all of golf architecture and will be it's final word, whereas I believe that culture being what it is, there will be a post minimalism that will recognize the flaws inherent in it and seek to correct them, just as minimalism sought to provide a new style to look at (always in vogue) AND is quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles (perhaps for marketing purposes?) and less prone to acknowledge what is right (human nature in all of us)
How, exactly, is a style or school of design "quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles and less prone to acknowledge what is right"? How does a style of design do any of those things? Or are you talking about particular practitioners of the style, and if so, why don't you quite hiding and just come out and say it -- Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are real braggarts! :)
P.S. What "flaws" are "inherent" in my style, vs. yours?
Tom,
Sorry about that, my post was poorly worded. Obviously, no style of design points out anything, at least verbally (hey, it might be visually obvious!) I still say that any sort of label is part marketing, and still say human nature is to see flaws more than see what is right. Just like there is more bad news on most news shows than good news.
As to particular styles, they all have strengths and things they favor one thing (or class of golfer) at the expense of something else in design, no?
Of course, the need for such a thing varies from course to course, and it is also quite possible that you have managed to get the very best possible blend of those factors possible on most if not all of your courses. To some degree, every designer believes they have done that! (and for the most part, we are wrong......because no one has that broad a perspective on golf and in most cases, we don't know what we don't know)
In some ways, a course can't be designed primarily for good players and average ones at the same time. Not sure that is a flaw of any design style, just sort of a fact - hard courses can't be made too easy, and easy ones can't be made too hard, for the most part.
It can't be designed (in many cases) to reduce grading and drain pipe, and to control drainage in less critical areas at the same time. It can't be wide and narrow, have big greens and small, flat greens and rolling, etc., for all the ways those things affect all golfers.
In some ways, I think the par 72, 7000 yard with multiple tees course trying to fit all games is part of our problem, but that is another thread.
Any particular design is always a compromise of factors, placing one above another.
Dan
I agree with that. My current column in Golf Course Industry examines that to a degree.
Mike,
I gather you don't think "third owner can make a profit" (common to many businesses....) is a sustainable business model? LOL< but it has been happening in many industries for many decades.
I do agree that eventually, with starts and stops, the golf product will change to allow the game to move forward in whatever new era comes. But then, it was doing that in the 1980's right. At the time, everyone (most of all me) was excited that the golfing public could get a near CC experience without the expense of joining a club. For most, even paying $100 ten times a year (or twenty) was a much better deal than a private club. It was a great thing. And, considering the times, $100 was affordable. (Not to mention there were many very good courses of near CC quality for under $50 or $75, too)
But, its easy to look back in these economic times and proclaim the last 25 years a failure, seeing only the bad, no? I understand that our generation lost sight of the "spend about 2/3 of earnings and save the rest for a rainy day" attitude of our parents. So, golf was part of a historically skewed period (to the good, at least financially) and golf was sure symptomatic of that problem, even if the CCFAD was actually representing a cost savings (albeit, luxury for less mentality) But, I am not sure too many saw the drop of middle class wages coming along like they did........even then, that third owner syndrome has allowed many courses to drop their fees to match the market, and perhaps get the debt more in line with what they can charge.
A messy process, no doubt, but the free market (which I know you believe in) has always been that way, going to extremes before righting itself.
-
I understand that many here consider that minimalism (whatever it is) is the be all, end all of golf architecture and will be it's final word, whereas I believe that culture being what it is, there will be a post minimalism that will recognize the flaws inherent in it and seek to correct them, just as minimalism sought to provide a new style to look at (always in vogue) AND is quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles (perhaps for marketing purposes?) and less prone to acknowledge what is right (human nature in all of us)
How, exactly, is a style or school of design "quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles and less prone to acknowledge what is right"? How does a style of design do any of those things? Or are you talking about particular practitioners of the style, and if so, why don't you quite hiding and just come out and say it -- Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are real braggarts! :)
P.S. What "flaws" are "inherent" in my style, vs. yours?
I think that Jeffs comments are very valid when applied to "followers" of minimalism. Practitioners may be a different matter but the message risks being undermined by the overzealous nature of some supporters.
-
I understand that many here consider that minimalism (whatever it is) is the be all, end all of golf architecture and will be it's final word, whereas I believe that culture being what it is, there will be a post minimalism that will recognize the flaws inherent in it and seek to correct them, just as minimalism sought to provide a new style to look at (always in vogue) AND is quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles (perhaps for marketing purposes?) and less prone to acknowledge what is right (human nature in all of us)
How, exactly, is a style or school of design "quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles and less prone to acknowledge what is right"? How does a style of design do any of those things? Or are you talking about particular practitioners of the style, and if so, why don't you quite hiding and just come out and say it -- Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are real braggarts! :)
P.S. What "flaws" are "inherent" in my style, vs. yours?
I think that Jeffs comments are very valid when applied to "followers" of minimalism. Practitioners may be a different matter but the message risks being undermined by the overzealous nature of some supporters.
Grant:
I objected to Jeff's post because he seemed to imply that the entire style was "flawed" in some vague way. He didn't seem to articulate what those flaws were in his response, only that all design is a compromise, therefore one style should not be considered better than others, etc.
There is no doubt that eventually people will get sick of any style of design and seek something different. Sometimes that's for the better, and sometimes not ... evolution only supplies the answer over the very long haul. But just vaguely denouncing the style as "flawed" or that there are "risks" [your word] is marketing, too, just of the negative variety.
There is also no doubt that minimalism means different things to different people; it's not as though anyone else signed on to my Manifesto of twenty years ago. If anyone believes it's the perfect solution or that any architect's work is above argument, they're sadly mistaken.
-
When I hear someone use the word "style" as a definition of design principle I am reminded of a number of architect's who've dicussed with me their view of Tilly's bunker "style." One "school" of thought is that his bunkers were primarily grass-faced while the other is that they were primarily sand-faced. Obviously the correct answer is that neither was Tilly's "style" rather, his deign principles allowed him to have a different LOOK to the finished bunker based on a combination of things. Primarily these concern two things. First, what he belieevd the land dictated it should look like. second, the preferred look that the club that hired him desired.
To me "style" or "look" has little to do with design philosophy. Using the example of bunkers, design principles and how they are built intertwine with things such as where to locate them in the fairways and by greens, how shot angles for the accomplished player and the lesser player may both be incorporated, the type of shot that the architect expects to be hit at whatever the bunker is guarding (driver to wedge), etc...
-
You forgot a third. Sometimes bunkers attributed a famous architect weren't actually built by that architect, but by someone else.
-
You forgot a third. Sometimes bunkers attributed a famous architect weren't actually built by that architect, but by someone else.
Actually, very few bunkers have been built by the architect who designed them.
-
TD,
Again, poorly worded, and in no way a broad based claim that minimalism is flawed. Just that every general design style gives something to get something. Hard perhaps to avoid black and white thinking on internet responses.
Another example - The TPC style accommodates a specific goal of spectators at the expense of naturalism.
Just goes with the territory......
Phil,
I have read your books, etc. on Tillie, and you know more than I, but based on what little I know, I have always suspected that Tillie's bunker style varied, in many cases, with construction crews having a pretty free hand and/or relative lack of site visits by Tillie when away from NYC. as suggested by DM and TD. Care to fill me in on what I don't know as briefly as possible?
-
You forgot a third. Sometimes bunkers attributed a famous architect weren't actually built by that architect, but by someone else.
Actually, very few bunkers have been built by the architect who designed them.
Yes, but I was referring to situations where the famous architect was not primarily responsible for the aesthetic stylings of the bunker.
-
You forgot a third. Sometimes bunkers attributed a famous architect weren't actually built by that architect, but by someone else.
Actually, very few bunkers have been built by the architect who designed them.
Yes, but I was referring to situations where the famous architect was not primarily responsible for the aesthetic stylings of the bunker.
I understand, and I think I know the example you're thinking of on the West Coast. But, to be fair, we'd have to question how many other architects really paid a lot of attention to bunker styling prior to recent times:
MacKenzie had a certain flair for bunkering, but left it to Morcom or Maxwell or somebody else to sort out the details.
Donald Ross, who knows? - we have a hard enough time sorting out whether he made one site visit during construction, so it's hard to imagine he spent a lot of time on bunker styling while he was there. His firm had a drawing showing cross sections of multiple styles, so clearly they had some leeway to go with the flow.
George Thomas had Billy Bell's help with bunkers, but we don't credit Riviera and LACC to Bell.
I still believe that where the bunkers are (or aren't) is more important than the edging.
-
I still believe that where the bunkers are (or aren't) is more important than the edging.
Bravo. Who doesn't love a beautiful bunker? But a fugly bunker in a spot where it defines the hole is infinitely more valuable than a gorgeous one that is out of play.
-
To me, its a great topic. The evolution of both bunker placement and shaping are worth exploring.
Placement issues would seem to include both placing them further and further down the fw, although keeping them in the championship LZ seems to be a constant for the most part. Reducing carry bunkers as balls started flying higher (but adding more on approach shots, which seems a bit odd, no?) is the other evolutionary trend in placement. Are there others I am not seeing off the top of my head?
As mentioned earlier, the effects of construction technology on architecture are interesting to me.
As to other golf course elements, it seems greens have been fairly well set in size and function, with some variations obviously, since about Muirfield in 1892. Or at least, they struck me as the first modern greens.
Tees evolved, like bunkers, from strictly functional to functional and in some cases artistic (Packard at Innisbrook about 1974, with other earlier examples)
I am not sure the whys and wherefores have been fully examined in book form in that context of "evolution." Whitten, Cornish/Graves, Doak, etc. all touch on it a bit.
-
David,
And yet there are also those occasions where said design architect does give sepcific details to the person who build the course, especially when he tells the club that he should be hired to oversee the construction of his design and then later when he visits again praises the work...
-
I understand, and I think I know the example you're thinking of on the West Coast. But, to be fair, we'd have to question how many other architects really paid a lot of attention to bunker styling prior to recent times:
MacKenzie had a certain flair for bunkering, but left it to Morcom or Maxwell or somebody else to sort out the details.
Donald Ross, who knows? - we have a hard enough time sorting out whether he made one site visit during construction, so it's hard to imagine he spent a lot of time on bunker styling while he was there. His firm had a drawing showing cross sections of multiple styles, so clearly they had some leeway to go with the flow.
George Thomas had Billy Bell's help with bunkers, but we don't credit Riviera and LACC to Bell.
I still believe that where the bunkers are (or aren't) is more important than the edging.
I agree that the location and functionality of the bunker are much more important than the aesthetic stylings. I also agree that some of these guys weren't paying all that much attention to bunker style, at least not at every one of their projects.
_____________________
Phil, if you want to continue to pretend that AWT deserves credit for Billy Bell's bunkers at SFGC, I am not going to argue with you, but we both know that is utter B.S.
-
David,
You are wrong. The "utter B.S." is that Bell redesigned the course in 1930... he didn't. Here is a case where the board minutes and other documents give details that are not in the public venue. Where they clearly state that Tilly redesigned the course and that Bell was hired to oversee the construction.
These documents had been missing for many years and were found by me several years ago during a research trip to the club. Since they came to light I'm the only person outside of the club who has been granted access to them. If you don't want to believe this you simply prove yourself the fool...
I have no intention of arguing with you either...
-
Phil,
I find myself wondering how many site visits Tillie made? Is there a plan for 1930 redo? I have no trouble giving credit to Tillie for placement of bunkers in 1930.
I guess the plan itself under Tillie's name, as well as a comparison of bunker placement at Riv and LACC vs. SFGC would show that while Bell built (and probably styled) the bunkers, the architect located them to his style, no?
Would be interesting to me to see the contract arrangement you saw. Lots of different detailed arrangements. Even in the 90's, LA redid itself, basically using Harbottle, but with Fazio as the nameplate. Or, as you say, Tillie did the job, but knew Bell could do the work, recommended him, and the rest is history. And, as with any firm, there is the main guy, who oversees a lot of projects, and the field guy who does one at a time, and has to have some influence. (Off topic, but filing old drawings this weekend, and I can still recall who drew which plan by their drafting style 25 years ago - whoever does the plan/construction does have some influence on the finished product)
If Tillie had seen those bunkers elsewhere, and gave his blessing to build in that style, then they are probably Tillie credited bunkers. I wouldn't argue with David about credit either, but I do understand he likes to understand the deeper backstory of how great courses get built.
-
Jeff,
I appreciate your question's and take no offense at them.
I also appreciate David's desire to "to understand the deeper backstory of how great courses get built..." as I also do. The difference between the two of us is that if he stated that he had seen confidential documents that stated a specific thing I would take him at his word as a point of honor.
Frankly speaking, why should I be doubted on this? That I was given unprecedented access by the club and that they would trust my findings to the extent that they would ask me to author a detailed club history should be more than enough proof that what I said is true.
Also, why should any club allow its private records to be made public simply because someone "likes to understand the deeper backstory of how great courses get built?"
The details of the 1930 project are private and part of the Board minutes and other documents of SFGC. I will not post them here or elsewhere. Either one wants to believe me or not. And to clarify another point, Tilly did more than "place the bunkers" in 1930. They were built in his style. There are numerous photographs of the course from 1925 taken the day the Tillinghast-designed course opened for play. If you looked at these photos you'd swear that Bell bult and "styled" those bunkers. He didn't. Tilly did. Roger Lapham wrote that he kept Tilly on site for a number of weeks in 1924 after he came out for the design for the specific purpose of overseeing the layout and construction of the green complexes. This included the bunkers. They are nearly identical in "style" to those built by Bell in 1930, and by OTHERS under Tilly's direction in 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 & 1938.
By the way, since we ask the question of Tilly, are there any Billy Bell design drawings of the 1930 project? What proof that Bell either designed the 1930 changes or was responsible for the "style" of them does anyone have to offer that is anything more than presumptive?
I am not really looking to discuss this any further. It was David who brought up the point and as I said earlier, I have no intention of arguing it with him.
-
Let's back up a minute, Phil.
First, I did NOT claim that "Bell redesigned the course in 1930." Bell built the bunkers. But your overreaction and defensiveness are duly noted.
Second, you suggest that, when it comes to your interpretation of the meaning of some mysterious, super-secret SFGC documents, I ought to take you at your "word, as a point of honor." Surely you ought to understand that this is not how critical analysis works, and for very good reason.
Third, you claim that Billy Bell's bunkers were built in AWT's "style." Thank you for providing a good example of why it is a bad idea to take you at your word regarding these issues.
-
While I truly do not wish to get entangled in the sharp back and forth of the preceding, I do have some confusion on the matter of club architecture and construction documents from long ago, still being guarded so closely and privately. We have seen this matter of debate over the contents of so-called "private club documents" muck up general and common understanding of the details of the historical record time and again when these debates break out where only an exclusive few have been "allowed" to examine them for accurate historical recording and study.
Perhaps not ever being a member of an historical or exclusive club of GCA significance causes me to simply not have the capacity to "get it". What possible motive would historically significant club committees have to be so guarded about so many of these seemingly mundane old construction contracts and even board minutes attended by long dead members? If you are a club official of one of these classic golf architecture clubs, wouldn't you want the historical record to be accurate and available to those that value the study of such? If there is something to be learned by future generations, why not share the details? Or sadly in my view, is the exclusivity privacy factor part of the desired culture of being a member and committee official of this genre of storied old club? Is it thought to enhance the cache of the exclusivity of the club?
-
RJ,
These are private corporate board minutes. It is the Club's choice to keep them private or not. SFGC has held to a long-standing belief that they will remain private. I completely understand and agree with them.
Answer this, at what point does giving access to private records begin and end? Remember too that on nearly every page where golf course architectural information is mentioned in Board minutes, so are many other private matters relating to things such as holding marriages to members personal problems to legal discussions possibly involving lawsuits. Should a club go about the effort and expense of redcting their private records simply so that a or some researchers interested in golf course architecture should have a peak? Why should they do this when they have made the pertinent information available to the public via other venues. In the case of SFGC via a club approved article in Tillinghast Illustrated from several years ago which one can read via the Tillinghast Association website. It is titled "A Brief Course Evolution History of San Francisco Golf Club."
-
Answer this, at what point does giving access to private records begin and end? Remember too that on nearly every page where golf course architectural information is mentioned in Board minutes, so are many other private matters relating to things such as holding marriages to members personal problems to legal discussions possibly involving lawsuits. Should a club go about the effort and expense of redcting their private records simply so that a or some researchers interested in golf course architecture should have a peak? Why should they do this when they have made the pertinent information available to the public via other venues. In the case of SFGC via a club approved article in Tillinghast Illustrated from several years ago which one can read via the Tillinghast Association website. It is titled "A Brief Course Evolution History of San Francisco Golf Club."
Phil, fair enough question. I'm answering it as I mentioned above from the point of view of a person who never was involved or member of a so-called 'exclusive private club', let alone one of great historical relevance to some subject so prone to attract a large number of subject specific historians of amateur and book writer interest. Yet, I'm not unfamiliar with how private corporation or organization board of director regular and special order business meetings are conducted, and how the regular minutes are recorded. (I have been a director and president of a couple organizations that were 'private' and had the right to be so, 'associated with' public services. Many of our deliberations were tangentially about our role in various subjects of public interest and sometimes controversy.
But, like most organizations that have regular board meetings, there is a recording secretary to take the notes of the minutes, and that entails primarily motions on orders of business, treasurer reports, and new and old business, and other matters for consideration and approval. In most cases, a discussion on matters may ensue that are of private, or personal privacy nature, not suitable :-\ as official minutes of the board. In all cases I am familiar with, the minutes of said meeting are available to members for review. (heck, we posted them in our magazines and on bulletin boards). Yes, personal or matters of potential embarrassment are omitted or redacted for names and other inappropriate publication. So, I can understand that during a board meeting, golf club board members may take up motions to approve so-and-so for a contract to design, and someone to construct new facilities, remodel, etc. Now, during discussion and deliberation, some director may observe that some contractor has a bad reputation for always showing up drunk, or is someone's kissing cousin, etc. I can't imagine such personal observations are noted in official minutes. Can you? If this is a matter of how things might be done on official club minutes and business documents, well I'd be stunned. But then as I said, I haven't had an insider experience of any exclusive private clubs. Maybe those minutes and business records are akin to gossip columns... :-\
Am I wrong, or naive? Why not have a current club secretary redact sensitive names and business matters days long ago, yet offer historians documentation of the club's key architectural and historical events? It isn't like the Camp David peace talks or something... it is GCA. ;D
-
RJ,
Simple answer, not worth it for either 1500 gca.com members, or the dozen or so who really take this seriously. I bet they modify the old Woody Hayes line about passing.....3 things can happen, and 2 of them are bad. Or some such.
-
RJ,
Thanks for the answer.
You stated, "Now, during discussion and deliberation, some director may observe that some contractor has a bad reputation for always showing up drunk, or is someone's kissing cousin, etc. I can't imagine such personal observations are noted in official minutes. Can you? If this is a matter of how things might be done on official club minutes and business documents, well I'd be stunned."
Before I started researching in club's board minutes I also would have been stunned. I no longer am. Let me give you an example of a board minutes note from an unnamed club in a very different part of the country than SFGC. In 1943, the notes atste that a board member "noticed that we have minorities working for us." He then put forth a motion to have the club fire all minorities and have as a policy to only employ caucasions. The vote passed unanimously. Today this club is filled with minority members who would probably be quite stunned to learn of this.
You also stated, "Am I wrong, or naive? Why not have a current club secretary redact sensitive names and business matters days long ago, yet offer historians documentation of the club's key architectural and historical events?"
In SFGC's case that is exactly what happened and the result is the Tillinghast Illustrated article on the evolution of SFGC.
-
Ah, I see, Phil. If only such historical embarrassments could be swept away with the use of redaction ink... I recokon such historical research and documentation must be done by the social, economic, political researchers and historians; not GCA Oriented ones.
Interesting, your example. Me thinks the particular board member making those comments some 72 years ogo, was probably already well known for those racist sentiments, quite apart from some golf club board minutes. Heck, they may have posted those very minutes on the club house bulletin board at the time as ashow of solidarity on the issue. :-* :-[
-
At so many of the blueblood clubs many here would be interested in, it's possible/likely that there are 3rd and 4th generation members who might be embarrassed or possibly compromised by comments of their great grand dads.
I can see the "best to let sleeping dogs lie" mentality. Not that I don't love it when a Phil Young or other researcher can come up with some real history of architecture. Even the Medinah history, which revealed the real estate venture that was to become the famous No. 3 course had a nice little cover story to hide lawsuits, etc. was interesting to know when it came out, but obviously some source of embarrassment to the club at the time.
It just seems to me that at this point in history, golf architecture history at a detailed level isn't important enough to most clubs to bother with going through their dusty old minutes. Of course, none of us here can understand that notion!