Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Marc Haring on November 22, 2014, 01:49:34 PM
-
I've pinched this question from Paul Gray on the best UK inland courses circa 1990 onwards.
I do think it is a valid question because the general consensus in the discussion was that there is a dearth of anything new that could be considered worthy of any architectural merit in the UK until very recently and yet, (courtesy of a huge list posted by Adrian Stiff) there have been many opportunities to come up with at least something of quality.
-
One simplistic reason is Britain needed cheap pay and play courses as there are plenty of member clubs where visitor golf isn't overly cheap. We didn't require courses with high architectural merit. Much of the good land away from the seaside is difficult to build on so many courses were built on poorly drained farmland. Those high end courses in the right areas have done well.
-
It didn't in the eyes of 95%.
95% of golfers will love Cumberwell Park.
95% of golfers think the game involves hitting it straight off the tee, this whole idea that everywhere needs width is just not what better golf is actually about if you play the game at the highest levels.
Architecture goes in cycles. In the modern boom 1990-2000 the courses concentrated on conditioning so USGA greens became the standard at better courses. 7000 yards and water was seen as good and many people liked that then and still do. Contoured greens are not everyones idea of fun to some it actually puts them off wanting to play if they keep three putting, for every 1 that loves the Orange nine or the Stranahan there will be 2 or at least more that dislike it.
People certainly in the UK love trees, most UK clubs that were open in the mid sixties have become tree lined because that is what they want.
The minor head on here think architecture got bad or have no interest in modern courses but it does not mean they are right or wrong. It is all about opinions what people like but when you sit in the commercial world things get a bit more factual, what is good by definition is how much they charge and how full they are.
That is not to say I don't like the courses we drool about on here because I do.
-
It didn't in the eyes of 95%.
95% of golfers will love Cumberwell Park.
95% of golfers think the game involves hitting it straight off the tee, this whole idea that everywhere needs width is just not what better golf is actually about if you play the game at the highest levels.
Architecture goes in cycles. In the modern boom 1990-2000 the courses concentrated on conditioning so USGA greens became the standard at better courses. 7000 yards and water was seen as good and many people liked that then and still do. Contoured greens are not everyone idea of fun to some it actually puts them off wanting to play if they keep three putting, for every 1 that loves the Orange nine or the Stranahan there will be 2 or at least more that dislike it.
People certainly in the UK love trees, most UK clubs that were open in the mid sixties have become tree lined because that is what they want.
The minor head on here think architecture got bad or have no interest in modern course but it does not mean they are right or wrong. It is all about opinions what people like but when you sit in the commercial world things get a bit more factual what is good by definition by how much they charge and how full they are.
That is not to say I don't like the courses we drool about on here because I do.
I'm sure you're right Adrain but people loved the old style traditional courses as well. That's why the modern golf boom became viable because all the traditional clubs were full.
The question here is why did we follow the American/Spanish style of GCA. I'm not so sure it was consumer led, more forced on the consumer by the owners and architects. And now we are starting to see courses that do embrace the type of design so loved on this site so presumably it is still done with the customer in mind. No one wants to invest in a project that will not be popular.
Personally speaking everyone that plays the Orange at Cumberwell absolutely loves it and some consider it their favourite. They maybe don't enjoy the exposed nature of the course but on a summers evening they will walk passed the others to get on it and I can state that statistically it was more popular than the Blue course when I was working there.
I know what you're saying though. Maybe the question should be who or what imposed this type of architecture upon us. Personally I think it is a combination of many factors such as colour TV, the drab 1970's UK depression, cheap package tours to Spain and Florida and Big Jack, the first superstar golfer who turned his hand to GCA and we all know what sort of courses he preferred.
-
I know you ran a test with everyone's favourites to be totally honest when it was just three loops I found it quite hard to choose (which I think is a good thing). I ask people and it is pretty mixed on those three. The Orange (my favourite) is more diverse, I know of a section that say " I am not going over there you chip the ball and it rolls off to the side"....these people are more 15-20 handicappers. At the Players Club we do 6 times the traffic on the Codrington than what we do on the Stranahan for visitor play. Some members like both, some will not go out there.
We put a lot more contour into the greens on the Blue course which was a decision made by all of us @ Cumberwell on the basis that the red and yellow were fairly easy so it was to stiffen it up a bit, that and the water is why that nine is tougher and if I recall the folk that liked the blue lesser were the older members. All makes perfect sense really.
I think the Orange needs another nine to make it a course of its own, which was the very original 1988 plan. Which was for an inland links, perhaps if we had built that one first things would have been different though maybe not the commercial success. I don't know the round split between four of what the balance of rounds is now I must give Chris a ring.
-
I was the stat man at the time so I don't think they keep the playing figures now.
As you know I love all the courses at Cumberwell and appreciate the built in subtlety to all. Actually I will happily play the Blue. I love the decisions I have to make on the first drive, 3rd tee shot (they need to cut down a willow that is now 30 feet high and means you have to get to the back end of the fairway so a very safe tee shot but tougher second option removed), 5th tee shot (how much do I cut off on the drive) 6th if the pin is forward (man you can use that tier to spin it back) 7th tee shot (tons of ways of playing it and looks gorgeous) 26th (nuff said) and the last (if they ever held a tour event that would be an all world par four).
-
Adrian
You hit the nail on the head with Cumberwell Orange...diversity. But I also think there is more architecture there which is more thought provoking. Holes like #3 and 4...there is nothing like that on the Blue...the Blue is far more straight forward...I think a sure sign of its time. I must have played 20 modern English courses which I couldn't architecturally differentiate from Cumberwell Blue...it does not stand out in any way. The odd thing is, the Orange isn't some masterpiece, its good golf in sensible nick, which will throw up surprises, without beating your brains in. I don't ask for anything more than for £20. It is incredible how many British moderns fail to deliver on these basic premises. Its even more surprising since there are plenty of role models about which if followed, would have resulted in a much better British golfing landscape. When someone mentions to me about seeing a circa 1980-2000 British golf course I am immediately skeptical...because my experiences aren't positive. I think a few reasons for my distaste of modern British golf revolve around inadequate archies building on inadequate land with inadequate attention paid to drainage and course maintenance. Its harsh, but I think a fair judgement. One only has to step on the 1st tee of these places to experience the disappointment.
Ciao
-
Yes; diversity Sean. I wonder, has there been any course constructed in that time frame that has not included an artificially constructed water hazard.....
Where did it all go so wrong with such a cultural heritage?
-
Firstly, Adrian needs to understand that this isn't an attack on Cumberwell Park. ;)
Right, people want what they think they are supposed to want, particularly when it's all they know. If narrow target golf was the only golf I knew, I'd play it because I'd still prefer it to tiddlywinks. That doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy 'proper golf' more (and I really don't give two hoots how arrogant or condescending that sounds) if only I was introduced to it.
Golf has always been tied in with social aspirations for the vast majority of people and white van man (see how topical I am ;)) was no different in the 90's. So enter a market where people with zero knowledge were literally queuing in cars overnight to get a tee time in the rain at 5am on a farm and you can knock out pretty much anything and, if it just looks a tiny bit like Augusta, just a tiny bit, you have yourself a goldmine. Taking the time to actually make a course good was just money wasted. No one was going to go all Golden Age and camp out on site for a week or two doing nothing but absorbing the landscape. Essentially, courses were crap because everyone and anyone was building them and they really didn't have to be any good. Former farms/bogs were able to turn a profit in a way that just wouldn't have been possible in a market which was over supplied.
And now we have an oversupplied market and less demand, which courses are closing? It's not the classics, is it now? Of course, quality won't be the only factor; as Adrian so correctly and consistently points out, many classic courses are run by people that would struggle with the proverbial piss up in a brewery whilst some dumps are smartly run or, more realistically, run less badly than the better courses, and manage to keep afloat DESPITE the shortcomings of the course. Jees, I used to work for one of Adrian's competitors and they fit that description perfectly. I can promise you that the average member is under no illusion about the quality of the courses available within the group but for every golfer that leaves and moves to a nicer club there's another unsuspecting victim being lined up on a cheap introductory deal. So success is essentially obtained by shining shit, plain and simple, whilst batting off as many criticisms as possible. There's always the promise of something new next year.......
-
Nice post Paul.
-
Paul - I know it's not an attack on Cumberwell Park. The reason I am using CP is Marc was the course manager there from about 94 till 2008??
I was at the interviews for the course managers job and I think MH was everyone's #1 choice, so I have seen Marc love CP in 1994 to join the site and 'get geeceeayed' he also told me about this site because he knew I loved Painswick. Marc was instrumental in the building of the 3rd nine the blue and the 4th nine the orange.
Marc wanted the Orange nine to be more like the courses we love on here and it was what I wanted too.
My point is just simply what we like on here is just similar opinions of what golf courses should look like and play like. It's not a factual thing we are right, the point I make is the very game is set up that fairways are narrowed for top golf because the game revolves around hitting it straight.
Golf clubs almost everywhere have embraced this and narrowed them and planted trees. It is not just the newer ones that are 'bad' in this regard. Maybe 90% of UK golfers love water, they love water in front of greens. I talk to them everyday, societies and we have had them from Birkdale, Saunton they love the water. They love island greens, striped up fairways. I sit in the committee meetings and listen to their proposals which are the absolute opposite direction of what I want to do.
Most GCA things I really like even if they are a minor opinion. Width is really against the principle of today's game so I am less convinced width by chainsaw is vote winner. That is not to say that some trees on courses should be removed.
Which course did you work at that was a competitor btw?
-
The way this thread is going on and the golfing media portrays it, you'd think loads of courses are closing every month. They simple aren't or haven't. Very few courses actually close in the UK. More's the pity, probably.
I do think there is a lot of condescension about uk golfers.(bless them, they know not what I know etc) reading a few books and playing a few decent courses doesn't make anyone some sort of genius. Most people will play A) where they can afford, B) where is near where they live, C) where their mates play, D) where they feel comfortable.
If I was a farmer in the 80's I'd have done exactly the same thing. In answer to the original question: Because farmland yields very little in the way of natural, quality golf. To be fair, quite a lot of crap was built throughout the decades. Not just 20 -25 years ago.
You by and large get what you pay for. Sneering at average or below average golf is akin, to shaking your head at at a 3 bed semi or a ford focus. It's how golf/life is for most people. Sure you'll see the odd enthusiast driving a rusty old Jag, but to suggest that this is what everyone should be aspiring to or its somehow an intellectual issue, is just not the case.
-
Adrian,
I'm led to believe, and my knowledge literally begins and ends with the Arble Tour, that your Orange course is pretty good and yet possibly not exactly revered by your members. I am not disputing what people currently like, simply why they like it. People, as I said before, like what they think they are supposed to like, and I'm afraid in that regard I do rather subscribe to the whole TV golf mentality thing. As I equally said before, golfers likes these things because, in part at least, they associate it with something quite classy, quite aspirational. It follows then that as soon as you begin to promote something different and promote it not simply as an alternative but as the classy alternative, people begin to change their perspectives. It's not easy because there's a whole big industry telling them the very opposite of what you and I might prefer and we remain a tiny minority. Watch five minutes of golf on Sky and the usual drivel will begin to spew out. Most people are conformists, plain and simple. Ewen et al aren't then about to start rocking the boat. I almost fell off my chair when I heard Gary Player, a man I don't usually have much time for, expressing the brilliance of wide open fairways in Australia recently. The average golfer just doesn't hear that usually so we can't be surprised that they profess to like what they like. As I said, I'd like that if I knew of nothing else. I'm not immune to advertising, nor is anyone else. And even knowing what I do, I'd still play bad golf if it was that or nothing at all. At the end of the day, my argument in all of this is not that the average golfer is having a bad time, simply that he or she could be having a better time. And I don't see why we, as people that apparently understand the options available, shouldn't be doing all we can to offer those options. That in itself isn't about forcing people to like what we like, it's simply about levelling the playing field so they can make an informed choice. And you can't make an informed choice if you're not sufficiently exposed to the choices.
I'm sure that lack of exposure to choices was as evident for you as it was for me when you had conversations with average golfers about Pinehurst. Again, if you've never been exposed to choice, why wouldn't you naturally assume that Pinehurst was all wrong. No one ever told you that was a choice so you just assume it must be wrong.
On a not completely unrelated note, and I've done this one before so apologies for those that have heard it, my time in a Pro Shop saw me work through a particularly dry summer. It was incredible just how many people came into the shop to tell me how they had just had the most enjoyable round of the year, only to finish with, Pavlov's Dogs style, "but it was a bit dry." It was literally an involuntary comment I heard time and time again. When I would explain, and I absolutely always would, that their enjoyment was a direct consequence of it being "a bit dry" you could see them trying to process the information and I thought "does not compute" might just pop out of a few mouth.
And since it's my cliche du jour, humble golf is usually good golf. Ergo, this has nothing to do with affordability or snobbery, not on my part anyway. Actually, the choices for ordinary golfers I referred to before are all about the very opposite of elitism. Those choices, in my little egalitarian world, should be choices for all. I've said it a million times but the worst courses, for me at least, are usually the middle bracket courses which are desperately trying to be something they're not, i.e. desperately trying to be Augusta and constraining themselves in the process.
-
Paul - Couple of things which partly blow a hole in your post and is the reason why I am trying to get the point over that these golfers prefer USGA greens and water to the GCA way;
Cumberwell Park is 36 holes and The Players Club is 36 holes. Both Clubs have those options of one course with a typical USA type course moulded into a UK landscape 7000 yards with water and another course built far more the way we like courses on here.
My visitor play is six times the play on the 7000 yarder with water versus the short and quirky Stranahan. I can charge more than twice for the 7000 yarder. Perhaps the Stranahan is just too short (5500), perhaps more will like it time, perhaps the greens are too severe (they are nowhere near as severe as some new ones I have seen) a big complaint is the green speed we can never go to 9, perhaps there are a series of lessons to learn. I have often stated on here that we have Painswick 30-40 minutes from Bristol, you get some Americans on here that will fly across to play it but we have many many good golfers (less than 10 handicap and been playing 30 years) that have never played it, some have and think its absolute shit and some like it unreservedly and some like parts of it. I book golf packages with accomodation and golf, I always try and get them to play Painswick but they don't want to, I have only ever booked a few groups in. That is the dilema.
We are not arguing though its deliberating!
-
This is the type of thread that always bring the goob factor out in GCA...
For most of us that have been designing and building during the 1990's era this kind of stuff is the basic insult....but most of us acknowledge that most of the gca goob factor are no different than the Porsche fanatics spouting that Toyotas are no good.....it's the same basic thing...even to the point that most of the Prosche fanatics have never driven the Porshce at full speed on a real race track and drive a Toyota to work everyday...
But food for thought: if we don't build some simple courses of where people can learn the game then Houston has a real problem...China will prove that out... ;D
-
Adrian,
I'm not sure what you think you've just written which is contrary to anything I've said. We aren't disagreeing about what currently sells. I've simply tried to explain why I think it sells.
I'm guessing that you're suggesting that the options you provide players with suggests they will always make those same decisions. My contention however is that they are making those decisions because of the overwhelming bias in the golfing media. Your effort to provide choice is admirable but it can hardly compete with everything else that people see, read and hear. You can't offer nine holes of more traditional golf and conclude that in itself is going to balance the scales, surely?
Not for the first time on this site you mention your dilemma and I get the impression that you feel almost guilty? You run a business, nothing wrong with that. Clearly you don't have the luxury of a Tom Simpson in that you're not independently wealthy and can't therefore purely pursue your art and disregard popularity. I'm not sure therefore that you have anything to feel guilty about. You try to pursued people and, who knows, if more people did the same you might be able to make a few changes to your, dare I say it, non GCA courses in years to come. The dilemma is profit vs a personal sense of credibility? It's no different to any music artiste questioning their own integrity when they sell a lot of units of a song they think is throw away pop. But I'm not sure you need question yourself, just keep chipping away and doing your bit for real options. And even then, obviously there are always going to be those that prefer their pop. But at least a lot of others will know that X Factor isn't the only show in town.
-
This is the type of thread that always bring the goob factor out in GCA...
For most of us that have been designing and building during the 1990's era this kind of stuff is the basic insult....but most of us acknowledge that most of the gca goob factor are no different than the Porsche fanatics spouting that Toyotas are no good.....it's the same basic thing...even to the point that most of the Prosche fanatics have never driven the Porshce at full speed on a real race track and drive a Toyota to work everyday...
But food for thought: if we don't build some simple courses of where people can learn the game then Houston has a real problem...China will prove that out... ;D
I couldn't disagree more. And where we disagree, for me, is where this whole argument gets misunderstood. We are on the same side making the same argument but the whole thing is misinterpreted and seen as some elite vs average Joe argument. Last time I checked, a Porsche wasn't too humble. Capiche?
-
This is the type of thread that always bring the goob factor out in GCA...
For most of us that have been designing and building during the 1990's era this kind of stuff is the basic insult....but most of us acknowledge that most of the gca goob factor are no different than the Porsche fanatics spouting that Toyotas are no good.....it's the same basic thing...even to the point that most of the Prosche fanatics have never driven the Porshce at full speed on a real race track and drive a Toyota to work everyday...
But food for thought: if we don't build some simple courses of where people can learn the game then Houston has a real problem...China will prove that out... ;D
Mike
You don't get it. I am looking for Toyotas. Instead a ton of Gremlins were built.
Ciao
-
This is the type of thread that always bring the goob factor out in GCA...
For most of us that have been designing and building during the 1990's era this kind of stuff is the basic insult....but most of us acknowledge that most of the gca goob factor are no different than the Porsche fanatics spouting that Toyotas are no good.....it's the same basic thing...even to the point that most of the Prosche fanatics have never driven the Porshce at full speed on a real race track and drive a Toyota to work everyday...
But food for thought: if we don't build some simple courses of where people can learn the game then Houston has a real problem...China will prove that out... ;D
Mike
You don't get it. I am looking for Toyotas. Instead a ton of Gremlins were built.
Ciao
What I said, only eloquent. ;D
-
This is the type of thread that always bring the goob factor out in GCA...
For most of us that have been designing and building during the 1990's era this kind of stuff is the basic insult....but most of us acknowledge that most of the gca goob factor are no different than the Porsche fanatics spouting that Toyotas are no good.....it's the same basic thing...even to the point that most of the Prosche fanatics have never driven the Porshce at full speed on a real race track and drive a Toyota to work everyday...
But food for thought: if we don't build some simple courses of where people can learn the game then Houston has a real problem...China will prove that out... ;D
I couldn't disagree more. And where we disagree, for me, is where this whole argument gets misunderstood. We are on the same side making the same argument but the whole thing is misinterpreted and seen as some elite vs average Joe argument. Last time I checked, a Porsche wasn't too humble. Capiche?
Paul,
I'm saying the Porsche isn't humble at all...this site mainly speaks of maybe 250 courses in the world which and so often considers all others not worthy....It's nothing prsonal it's just the way the site works....the barriers to entry in being a GCA critic are almost zero ..... I'm not seeing any elite vs. average Joe at all... I'm saying architecture did not get that bad...
-
This is the type of thread that always bring the goob factor out in GCA...
For most of us that have been designing and building during the 1990's era this kind of stuff is the basic insult....but most of us acknowledge that most of the gca goob factor are no different than the Porsche fanatics spouting that Toyotas are no good.....it's the same basic thing...even to the point that most of the Prosche fanatics have never driven the Porshce at full speed on a real race track and drive a Toyota to work everyday...
But food for thought: if we don't build some simple courses of where people can learn the game then Houston has a real problem...China will prove that out... ;D
Mike
You don't get it. I am looking for Toyotas. Instead a ton of Gremlins were built.
Ciao
They weren't Gremlins.
They were 15 passenger vans with housing in all the window seats :o :o ::) ::) ;D ;D
The problem is the solid Toyotas have to compete for business as the vans bring the who show down
-
This is the type of thread that always bring the goob factor out in GCA...
For most of us that have been designing and building during the 1990's era this kind of stuff is the basic insult....but most of us acknowledge that most of the gca goob factor are no different than the Porsche fanatics spouting that Toyotas are no good.....it's the same basic thing...even to the point that most of the Prosche fanatics have never driven the Porshce at full speed on a real race track and drive a Toyota to work everyday...
But food for thought: if we don't build some simple courses of where people can learn the game then Houston has a real problem...China will prove that out... ;D
Mike
You don't get it. I am looking for Toyotas. Instead a ton of Gremlins were built.
Ciao
What I said, only eloquent. ;D
Paul,
Ok with the Toyotas :) but
How many "Gremlins" do you think were built? :)
-
This is the type of thread that always bring the goob factor out in GCA...
For most of us that have been designing and building during the 1990's era this kind of stuff is the basic insult....but most of us acknowledge that most of the gca goob factor are no different than the Porsche fanatics spouting that Toyotas are no good.....it's the same basic thing...even to the point that most of the Prosche fanatics have never driven the Porshce at full speed on a real race track and drive a Toyota to work everyday...
But food for thought: if we don't build some simple courses of where people can learn the game then Houston has a real problem...China will prove that out... ;D
Mike
You don't get it. I am looking for Toyotas. Instead a ton of Gremlins were built.
Ciao
What I said, only eloquent. ;D
Paul,
Ok with the Toyotas :) but
How many "Gremlins" do you think were built? :)
In Britain, an awful lot.
But actually, just to reiterate what I was saying before, there's a real down to earth nine holer near me which was literally designed by the farmer that still owns the land to this day. An astute businessman, he built a course which he can actually afford to keep running on a small budget and I'll probably play nine holes there two or three times a year because, although far from good, it's really quite OK. One of its biggest advantages is that the farmer has never allowed a committee to form. Less is more.
I'm a little concerned now though because I have a horrible feeling that the son is going to try to 'improve it.' He's attending greenies' school and the wavy lines are beginning to emerge. Thus far the width hasn't gone but, well, we'll see.
-
Paul,
Can you do a photo tour of the 9 holer? I really like the last one you did. Also we shouldn't hate on 7000+ courses, one shouldn't judge any arch by course yardage.
-
Ben,
You liked the South Wilts tour? Jees, the photos were terrible so thanks for your kind words.
The nine holer isn't much to write home about but I'll happily post a tour of it. Not sure when I'll next play it but I'll happily do it.
I've also been threatening a tour of Hayling but reckon Arble could do it far more justice. I'll just end up bitching about the three 'missing fairways.' ;D
[edit - 'three and a bit missing fairways.' ;D]
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz33/marcharing/cache_2431861922_zpse6105426.jpg)
(http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz33/marcharing/cache_2431863061_zps29658c1e.jpg)
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......
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Adrian in your post you say "narrow is definitely preferred in course set up to wide and always will be".
You also say that many good golfers don't like the Old Course, which many associate with width.
The latter view is no surprise. Duncan's post about the two guys at Reddish Vale reminds us of the common mentality among good golfers that the longer and narrower and more penal a golf course, the better it is.
But you seem to be suggesting that most golfers - not just good ones - think this way. To some extent this chimes with my own experience - members' innate instinct is that tough is good and width is a retreat from toughness so it must be bad. i am inclined to put this down to ignorance - that they have not played that many courses that offer real width (since this is not the typical UK set up/mindset) So I like to think that if they played a few more courses - somewhere like Castle Stuart, or any Doak course - that they would see the joys of width.
I wonder if you agree - that ignorance is a factor (not ignorance of GCA theory, what people on this site prefer, but ignorance of the pleasures of playing a wider course) or do you just think the average golfer is hard-wired as you suggest to prefer narrow? I can see why better golfers think how they do, but it is harder to understand why the average player would think this way.
Philip
-
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. ;)
Up the revolution! ;)
Now how do I pay Ran to visit Hayling? ;D
-
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.
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. - Paul Gray
-------
Reading the above, can you not see where I'm coming from? The assumptions and arrogance are yours. Someone at least voted on the committee members - who appointed you above the 99.9%?
You ain't Harry Colt, Michelle Pfeiffer or Michael Caine. Your .1 of the golfing population claim is purely self appointed and as I alluded to before, such ridiculous grandiosity shows a cringeworthy lack of self awareness.
Anyway a few points to make on the debate itself, kept deliberately brief:
None of the courses in Adrian's list were built by committee.
Pretty much every great course we have, was. Who secured the land? Who appointed the architect? who set the brief? who approved the plan and who organised to pay for it? Who steered it through the years?
The great sand belt courses in Aus - all committee clubs.
7's, 8's, 9's in CG vast majority are committee clubs. The various hidden gems profiled on here by Sean and others, vast majority, committee clubs.
The great clean ups in the face of Mother Nature- Golspie etc, organised and carried out by committee and surrounding committees.
I didn't care for it, but you loved the set up at Pinehurst this year - The USGA championship committee.
Surely one of the .1% of the golfing population can do better than make sweeping generalisations?
-
Adrian in your post you say "narrow is definitely preferred in course set up to wide and always will be".
You also say that many good golfers don't like the Old Course, which many associate with width.
The latter view is no surprise. Duncan's post about the two guys at Reddish Vale reminds us of the common mentality among good golfers that the longer and narrower and more penal a golf course, the better it is.
But you seem to be suggesting that most golfers - not just good ones - think this way. To some extent this chimes with my own experience - members' innate instinct is that tough is good and width is a retreat from toughness so it must be bad. i am inclined to put this down to ignorance - that they have not played that many courses that offer real width (since this is not the typical UK set up/mindset) So I like to think that if they played a few more courses - somewhere like Castle Stuart, or any Doak course - that they would see the joys of width.
I wonder if you agree - that ignorance is a factor (not ignorance of GCA theory, what people on this site prefer, but ignorance of the pleasures of playing a wider course) or do you just think the average golfer is hard-wired as you suggest to prefer narrow? I can see why better golfers think how they do, but it is harder to understand why the average player would think this way.
Philip
Phillip
Small point: Doak in the UK is completely inaccessible. Castle Stuart was £175 last time I played.
Are there better examples of courses that provide the experience of great width?
-
Philip I still think narrow is what people associate with best practice because the game of golf demands accuracy from the tee. Our Open championship courses are 20 yard fairways, many golf course have narrowed to 30 yard as standard (partly because we don't gang mow anymore) and the economy of 5 gang units is kinda linked to what you can cut in 1 day.
I think some/really good golfers don't like TOC because they hit a 7 iron in from 165 yards perfectly and it hits a little nob and it shoots forward 40 feet, their approach should in their opinion given them a 10 foot birdie chance and its now a difficult two putt.
Marc Haring introduced me to Kesmac 9 gang units and their quality cut, which they use at Cumberwell and I have to say its always stayed with me and our current project ( a few miles from your home course is being designed around using 9 gang units ....so width). I see some of my courses where I no longer have any influence and they have narrowed the courses down so much they have reduced the fun, The Kendleshire is the one that springs most to mind.
Personally I like width for regular golf and recently advised a club that by narrowing the fairways that had reduced the total strategy of the course, they did not really understand. The masses side the other way. Are they ignorant? Probably NO the game is about hitting it straight, my reason for adding width is more for recreational fun but a lot of golfers talk about wanting a challenge and find the game enjoyable for making singulary good shots (long straight drives) (good second shots across a lake to the green) rather than this plotting our way safely around. I would probably say IF I was forced WE HAVE GOT IT WRONG AND THEY ARE RIGHT
-
There are a many golfing dilemma's - lush-'n'-green vrs brown-and firm-and-fast, tree lined vrs open plan, Pinnacles vrs ProV1's etc etc etc etc - and now another one is highlighted - the dilemma as to whether or not such and such a wonderful thing happened 'because' of the existance of a committee or that such and such a wonderful thing happened 'despite' the existance of a committee! :) :)
atb
-
Ryan,
0.01% only makes me (or you) one person in a thousand. Frankly, that's probably overly generous to the rest. We're frequently being told by the naysayers how this forum is but a tiny fraction of the golfing populous so I fail to see why you think me arrogant for effectively reiterating the point. And as for me apparent self appointment, what's your point? I just happen to have an interest in a certain subject and have therefore learnt a bit about it. There are innumerable different subjects in the world which I concede to being part of the 99.9% in. I imagine a car enthusiast knows more about the combustion engine than 99.9% of drivers. So what? As I said, the fact that I'm part of such a tiny group says little about me and everything about architectural knowledge. If you went back to the 1930's I dare say you'd find that average golfers on their then relatively new courses would at least have a grasp of the notion that a golf hole could be played in more than one way. And now? Unlikely.
What relevance does it have that some people that know very little elect some other people that know very little? Are you suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is voted in to office on the basis of being the nation's leading economist or the Health Secretary on the basis of being a leading clinical mind? You're just plucky incoherent arguments out of thin air which have little to no logical basis.
And regarding the design of great courses, you've embarrassed yourself. Architects were responsible for them. The fact that a group of wealthy men agreed to appoint an architect does not mean they designed it. Australian sandbelt courses designed by committee? You'd better get your facts right before the Mackenzie Society sue you for such slander regarding Royal Melbourne! Incredible statement. And you'd better tell Tom Doak that the work he believes to be his own is actually the work of a committee. Again, incredible.
I suggest you put yourself on the bench for a bit and do a bit of learning. You'll be amazed how much stronger it makes your arguments.
-
Personally I like width for regular golf and recently advised a club that by narrowing the fairways that had reduced the total strategy of the course, they did not really understand......
And I rest my case. You can't make a coherent choice about something until you understand it.
Education, education, education.
-
Come on Paul, you can do better than that.
Nowhere did I say the Committee designed them. The Committee didn't design the ones you detest either did they? It is their stewardship we're discussing.
Incredible, indeed.
-
Paul - They don't see the strategy as valid. The game has changed. When I played in the 70s and 80s I did not think of pitching on the green unless I had a 7 iron in my hand and the rest of the world pretty much played the game in the same way, so from 200 yards out sometimes with hard fairways and the wind behind it would be an 8 iron that went 150 in the air and rolled 50 yards. People aged 40 or more will remember.
That sort of golf involved strategy, miss on the wrong side and you got hell, sometimes you made sure you did not miss on a certain side.
The modern ball, the clubs, the quality of the fairways, the greens have taken a lot of that away and golf is much more aerial now as its more easily achievable.
Narrow fairways mean a loose tee shot into rough makes the 180 yard approach difficult. So i think in the main that is how the powers see they can protect par. I find it hard to argue this point. I don't think they are really wrong they see that as the new substitute.
The game is not going to return to bone hard greens and hickory and introducing strategy to the very elite is bang on impossible they can hit to a bloody sixpence so if you try and create strategic problems for them it will just be impossibly hard for any golfer about scratch handicap.
-
Ryan,
Ah, the stewardship, good. I did ask but I'll repeat it if you like: what is the work we're currently seeing at many good courses all about? If it's restoration work, just why is it required? All of trees that are coming down, who put them there?
But the argument isn't really about committees at all, it's about lack of knowledge. To give you an example, Camberley Heath, although I believe equally messed about with by committees, suffered greatly under Japanese ownership. The aforementioned owners decided, in their complete lack of wisdom, that all sorts of stupid would be a good idea. So the whole topic is just about the uneducated assuming themselves to be knowledgeable.
And I plead utterly guilty, utterly, utterly guilty, until are started learning a thing or two, to being exactly the same. Five years ago I would have confidently told you I could design a good golf course. I even have a few plans of some sites I'd played about with. Looking back, embarrassingly stupid. Ever seen the Simpson's episode where Homer is asked by his brother to design the car for the average man and the Homer Mobil is the outcome? That's the sort of thing we're talking about.
Now, let's play nice. :)
-
Philip
I could be wrong, but your take is mine as well. I have rarely heard golfers say a course is too wide. What I hear golfers say is that one is meant to hit the ball straight...which is not nearly the same thing as saying courses should be narrow. Much more often than not though, it is trees which constrict fairways and there is the rub...golfers tend to like trees and the constriction of play for this reason is something which golfers tend to accept. Bottom line, I don't think many golfers think how challenge can be presented unless it comes in the guise of trees, bunkers, rough or water. Very few golfers think that hazards (hazard in the broad sense of the term, not the rules definition) should in the main temp golfers rather than force golfers to play between or over. And most golfers certainly don't assign proper weight to the effectiveness of uneven ground or contoured greens as hazards. The concept of challenging is often very narrow until golfers gain experience with all sorts courses, but a huge percentage never do gain that experience. Of course, diversity is lost and for sure, the game is slower.
But you seem to be suggesting that most golfers - not just good ones - think this way. To some extent this chimes with my own experience - members' innate instinct is that tough is good and width is a retreat from toughness so it must be bad. i am inclined to put this down to ignorance - that they have not played that many courses that offer real width (since this is not the typical UK set up/mindset) So I like to think that if they played a few more courses
Ciao
-
Paul - They don't see the strategy as valid. The game has changed. When I played in the 70s and 80s I did not think of pitching on the green unless I had a 7 iron in my hand and the rest of the world pretty much played the game in the same way, so from 200 yards out sometimes with hard fairways and the wind behind it would be an 8 iron that went 150 in the air and rolled 50 yards. People aged 40 or more will remember.
That sort of golf involved strategy, miss on the wrong side and you got hell, sometimes you made sure you did not miss on a certain side.
The modern ball, the clubs, the quality of the fairways, the greens have taken a lot of that away and golf is much more aerial now as its more easily achievable.
Narrow fairways mean a loose tee shot into rough makes the 180 yard approach difficult. So i think in the main that is how the powers see they can protect par. I find it hard to argue this point. I don't think they are really wrong they see that as the new substitute.
The game is not going to return to bone hard greens and hickory and introducing strategy to the very elite is bang on impossible they can hit to a bloody sixpence so if you try and create strategic problems for them it will just be impossibly hard for any golfer about scratch handicap.
I'm getting tired hands so hope Mr. Arble will help me out!
My take on all that is different from yours. And yet again, if we have to do this whole 'protect par' thing, which I simply disagree with as a concept, I give you Pinehurst or any Open Championship played on firm and fast ground. And as for your assertion that such courses then become too difficult for club golfers, and whilst I'm not about to suggest that Carnoustie is playable from the back tees for the average club golfer, GCA golf (just bare with it as a phrase for now) is far more accessible than some 7,700 yard tight, lush and green affair. Conversely, when talking about those 7,700 yard courses and the world's best, time after time we see those courses ripped apart, save for U.S Open extremes. The fact that equipment has made straighter hitting easier, to me, only heightens the need to reintroduce strategy.
One isolated example which is entirely unscientific and proves nothing: This year, for the first time in twenty years, I took my dad for a round at Hayling. My dad plays the game maybe a dozen times a year. Maximum. Despite otherwise being a good sportsman, he has always been awful at golf. And yet he bumped his ball around the course and had lots of fun. That's the same course which hosted a satellite pro event the previous summer and saw less than a handful (I forget the exact number) of scores under par.
-
Adrian in your post you say "narrow is definitely preferred in course set up to wide and always will be".
You also say that many good golfers don't like the Old Course, which many associate with width.
The latter view is no surprise. Duncan's post about the two guys at Reddish Vale reminds us of the common mentality among good golfers that the longer and narrower and more penal a golf course, the better it is.
But you seem to be suggesting that most golfers - not just good ones - think this way. To some extent this chimes with my own experience - members' innate instinct is that tough is good and width is a retreat from toughness so it must be bad. i am inclined to put this down to ignorance - that they have not played that many courses that offer real width (since this is not the typical UK set up/mindset) So I like to think that if they played a few more courses - somewhere like Castle Stuart, or any Doak course - that they would see the joys of width.
I wonder if you agree - that ignorance is a factor (not ignorance of GCA theory, what people on this site prefer, but ignorance of the pleasures of playing a wider course) or do you just think the average golfer is hard-wired as you suggest to prefer narrow? I can see why better golfers think how they do, but it is harder to understand why the average player would think this way.
Philip
Bloody good post.
-
Paul I don't really understand your post and what you are getting it...if its firm and fast can equal hard and fun then YES i can agree.
Not all golf courses can be firm and fast. Some can be sometimes, some never. Some golf courses (perhaps the more recent ones on farmland) are suited to being designed the way many of them were and they were not so suited to the GCA way, though like all things more could have been incorporated that GCA would like.
-
Ryan,
Ah, the stewardship, good. I did ask but I'll repeat it if you like: what is the work we're currently seeing at many good courses all about? If it's restoration work, just why is it required? All of trees that are coming down, who put them there?
But the argument isn't really about committees at all, it's about lack of knowledge. To give you an example, Camberley Heath, although I believe equally messed about with by committees, suffered greatly under Japanese ownership. The aforementioned owners decided, in their complete lack of wisdom, that all sorts of stupid would be a good idea. So the whole topic is just about the uneducated assuming themselves to be knowledgeable.
And I plead utterly guilty, utterly, utterly guilty, until are started learning a thing or two, to being exactly the same. Five years ago I would have confidently told you I could design a good golf course. I even have a few plans of some sites I'd played about with. Looking back, embarrassingly stupid. Ever seen the Simpson's episode where Homer is asked by his brother to design the car for the average man and the Homer Mobil is the outcome? That's the sort of thing we're talking about.
Now, let's play nice. :)
Paul
For every place that needs restoring, there is somewhere that doesn't. For every restoration, some will be deemed good. Some will be seen as ruination. Some committees have done wonders, some have been appalling. As with architects, greenkeepers etc, committees produce a mixed set of results. Every example you give me, I'll give you one back. What a lousy job the Brora committee have made with the set up of their course eh? I think not.
Throwing generalisations around about committees whilst putting yourself up on a pedestal is somewhat foolish. That is as nice as I can put it.
To illustrate this, if you were elected to your committee tomorrow, you'd no longer be the educator .1%, but you'd become one of the clueless committee, would you not?
-
Philip
I could be wrong, but your take is mine as well. I have rarely heard golfers say a course is too wide. What I hear golfers say is that one is meant to hit the ball straight...which is not nearly the same thing as saying courses should be narrow.
Ciao
Sean - I hear a lot that say things like "you can hit it anywhere" which to me is saying its too wide. I also hear things like "it's tight" which is referring to narrow. Those would be terms golfers would use when conversing about golf courses. Each suggests a dumb/ big hitter will do well on one or a clever player/ straight hitter will do well on the other. Other terms like "tricked up" refer to very difficult pins on ledges and slopes that you could not get too. " firey" which means hard ground and it was a lottery with unfair bounces.
Three of those are GCA likes. One is a GCA unlike. All mean the exact opposite to the regular golfer.
-
Paul I don't really understand your post and what you are getting it...if its firm and fast can equal hard and fun then YES i can agree.
Not all golf courses can be firm and fast. Some can be sometimes, some never. Some golf courses (perhaps the more recent ones on farmland) are suited to being designed the way many of them were and they were not so suited to the GCA way, though like all things more could have been incorporated that GCA would like.
You may not have understood my post but, nonetheless, I think we've stumbled into an agreement!
And absolutely, some course will never be firm and fast but more could be done. To give a very simple example, so many of those mediocre farmyard courses could benefit from far more shorter grass. Ball misses green, ball runs away from green, golfer has various recovery options. Not to criticise it in any way but the Aberfoyle thread I bumped earlier is a good example of exactly that. But it's only through education that golfers will begin to see shorter grass as an option at all, let alone a viable one. And, yes, I know you're doing your bit. :)
-
Ryan,
No, I'd be the lone voice on a committee. Title does not dictate behaviour. I believe Duncan has just made it to the first rung of the ladder and obviously that doesn't mean he's suddenly become clueless. People tend to lack knowledge when they join a committee, not as a consequence of joining one. I don't seem to recall suggesting clubs had some compulsory lobotomy policy. Look, you want to disagree with the perceived wisdom of just about anyone of any note to comment on committees, you be my guest.
And yes, again, of course there are exceptions.
-
Paul - To me though, Aberfoyle is a bit like Painswick it is not going to be taken seriously as a good course by the masses.
And in many respects the way the 90s courses were built around the water features/ tree planting on the farmland I still think the way those courses have developed whilst not be the purists favourite they are still well loved by the modern golfer.
I think you are on the wrong track with education, I think what happens is market dictates what is good or bad by voting with their feet. It's no good to keep saying they are ignorant when Painswick is £8 and The London Club is £75. You take the same person to both and I know what the split is going to be.
I wonder if there is perhaps more middle ground as a route to get more architecture back into courses. I am sceptical that width could ever be a vote winner on a consistent basis, there may be possibilities of huge width with multiple option choices but more on an occasional perhaps one hole per course basis.
-
To return to the original question, it was so bad because, aside from all the other factors already covered, this particular era didn't end in 1985 and still hasn't ended yet.
1949-1985: The dark ages of course design and few courses are profiled from this period. The vast majority of the courses built during the Trent Jones era were based on length, contain little variety and offer few options. Pete Dye led the charge out of this bleak period of bland courses after his trip to Scotland in the 1960s. - Ran Morrissett
-
Adrian,
As I've said before though, I'm not convinced most people are making that choice with an open mind. Condescending as it may seem, I am quite sure that people are so indoctrinated by TV golf etc that they can't see beyond it. Market dictates trends but that market is dictates to by what is seen in the bigger world. That could be golf, fashion, politics, whatever.
As for a middle ground, I entirely agree in that I'd call that 'soft education' in it's own right. But what is that, Peter Dye II?
-
The best number to have on a committee is 1.
As soon as you have more you have varied opinions and it means sometimes things are being done as a committee you did not actually like. So whilst you could have two good uns, you might have three bad uns that decide on a vile water feature to celebrate the year 2000. Of course the 3 wise men thought it was brilliant.
BTW at The Players Club we don't have a committee for the purpose of deciding course matters. That is left up to the course manager. The committee decide what the dress format will be for the presentation night and administer the teams and competitions. They would like to have their way and decide what gets done on the course but they don't have the knowledge and the suggestions they make are often for most things are almost child-like and suggest things like getting a cask ale in that would sale 12 pints and waste 24 because of demand, or suggest that the kitchen is opened at 7.00 in the morning or 8.00 at night....this is probably typical of many clubs where an unqualified eye is added to the wizard team.
-
Adrian
I don't really agree with your assertion that golfers in general and more specifically good golfers prefer tight, narrow fairways. The good golfers really enjoy the Orange with some of the widest fairways in the country. They like the strategy it presents to them. I see that the Wilts Championship is at Cumberwell next year and they've chosen Blue, Orange!!!!!
To give another example Woburn's courses are all good, but the most recent Marquis is the only one with width and a majority of people will place that as #1 of the three.
I don't think that answers the initial question which was why was 80's 90's architecture so bad? I think when you touched on Nicklaus, Player, Palmer you were much nearer the answer.
-
The best number to have on a committee is 1.
As soon as you have more you have varied opinions and it means sometimes things are being done as a committee you did not actually like. So whilst you could have two good uns, you might have three bad uns that decide on a vile water feature to celebrate the year 2000. Of course the 3 wise men thought it was brilliant.
BTW at The Players Club we don't have a committee for the purpose of deciding course matters. That is left up to the course manager. The committee decide what the dress format will be for the presentation night and administer the teams and competitions. They would like to have their way and decide what gets done on the course but they don't have the knowledge and the suggestions they make are often for most things are almost child-like and suggest things like getting a cask ale in that would sale 12 pints and waste 24 because of demand, or suggest that the kitchen is opened at 7.00 in the morning or 8.00 at night....this is probably typical of many clubs where an unqualified eye is added to the wizard team.
Depends who the 1 is!
I think 'problem' of committees is a dwindling one at most Clubs. Members simply don't have the time or inclination to be heavily involved anymore. They really just want to play golf and be kept informed, in my experience.
As much as committees have a bad rep, there is also a great fear of the unknown when it comes to the proprietary club. The perception, wrongly I believe, is that they will be treated badly, won't get a game and get stuck behind a society, conveniently forgetting that members clubs are competing just as hard for the same income.
-
The best number to have on a committee is 1.
As soon as you have more you have varied opinions and it means sometimes things are being done as a committee you did not actually like. So whilst you could have two good uns, you might have three bad uns that decide on a vile water feature to celebrate the year 2000. Of course the 3 wise men thought it was brilliant.
BTW at The Players Club we don't have a committee for the purpose of deciding course matters. That is left up to the course manager. The committee decide what the dress format will be for the presentation night and administer the teams and competitions. They would like to have their way and decide what gets done on the course but they don't have the knowledge and the suggestions they make are often for most things are almost child-like and suggest things like getting a cask ale in that would sale 12 pints and waste 24 because of demand, or suggest that the kitchen is opened at 7.00 in the morning or 8.00 at night....this is probably typical of many clubs where an unqualified eye is added to the wizard team.
Exactly. Please explain this to Ryan.
As Harradine said: "A golf club board or green committee should have an odd number of members and three is too many."
Actually, one of the things I feel private clubs could take from the proprietary market is exactly this. Childlike suggestions, or "much like listening to 14 year olds discussing politics" (or words to that effect), is a good analogy. It seems so simple and yet can cause so much ill feeling when you suggest that an expert be used to do a job. If some member with no knowledge of the subject suggested he or she be left in charge of designer a new clubhouse the rest of the membership, quite rightly, would think him or her mad. But apply that same rationale to the course and apparently it's fine. ::)
-
My answer to the original question was: It was not bad. The anti brigade is a very small fraction. We are going over the same ground on this post. As an architect of anything you design what is required to be the best it could be given the budget, brief and conditions. If it does not work, if it breaks, if it does not fulfil the brief, if its unpopular its a failure. In respect of a golf course if the car park is full then in respect of designing a golf course it isNOT BAD perhaps it is a bit like having a number 1 song lots like and some hate, but really its a bit stupid to say Coldplay are crap when so many people like them.
The ones I have built have been very popular with the exception now of Erlestoke, which in fairness when it opened in 1992 was full up with members with 150 on a waiting list that people paid to be on. Thoulstone at the same time (a few miles away) went bust. Erlestoke later suffered because Cumberwell ate into its 20 minute circle. Erlestoke could have been a lot better but the budget was tiny.
Other new courses in our area have fitted the purpose of supplying a £10 or £15 a round market. Not great courses but they cant all be winners.
I think courses of the 90s will rise highly in the ratings eventually as the old guard die and are replaced by 50 year olds that used to play on the challenge tours etc. A lot of people feel a lot of old golf courses are redundant now purely on length. A lot of 6000 yarders dream of bulking it up to 6500.
-
Adrian,
And there in a nutshell is the debate and why it can't be resolved: It entirely depends on whether you are judging art or sales? It's the old McDonald's vs Michelin again. Hold on though, I entirely disagree about future rankings. I really don't think the trend is going any which way other than back to classic virtues. But time will tell.
-
Adrian,
And there in a nutshell is the debate and why it can't be resolved: It entirely depends on whether you are judging art or sales? It's the old McDonald's vs Michelin again. Hold on though, I entirely disagree about future rankings. I really don't think the trend is going any which way other than back to classic virtues. But time will tell.
You keep bringing this up but its not relevant. You want to judge something by YOUR RULES. You are not accepting the major opinion.
We can only disagree Paul because neither of us is going to convince each other. I don't think there is going to be a lot of future golf courses in the UK, but you can disagree. I think that modern technical advancements in the equipment will make a mockery of short golf courses, but you can disagree on that point if you wish. I see more and more people hitting it further, again you can disagree. I already hear people not wanting to play golf courses because they are too short and that includes some of ones that were up there 10-15 years ago, so I think that barrier is more likely to higher and sub 6500 will get poo-pooed and considered a minus by the next wave of golf rates 20 years from now.
How do you judge a piece of art? Is not the high price that artists work commands at auction a fair line of success? If so should a £75 green fee be a better course objectively than a £8 one. Objective ranking may not be possible but a minor subjective one (because you know better) over the major opinion.....Think about it your wrong yours is not definitive. It is just another opinion. What you really want to do (and me as well because I do actually like the same things as you) is change the way golf is played today.
-
To be fair to Adrian, what else is he meant to judge success on? He is an architect in business to build courses which make money...so success is money.
That said, I disagree that the courses of the 90s will see their day in terms of critical success. There can be no doubt that a great percentage of these courses are "fad" driven an not designed for critical longevity. For the most part, the modern courses which are displacing some classic courses on the lists are of the classic design mould, extremely beautiful and/or on turf which will support the highest class of golf. The lack of good turf, on course aesthetics and charm will always be a hinderance even for the modern courses which do have credibility as challenging courses. Of course, much of the time when moderns grab this spotlight it is because there is a dearth of suitable classics in the area...and if there are some reasonable candidates...and there is money to be had due to marketing as a host club, then many classics can ratchet up the difficulty of their courses...that ain't hard to do. The much bigger challenge is how to increase difficulty without sacrificing charm and playability.
Sorry Adrian, I think we have already seen the rankings largely pass over the 90s for the newer high profile courses built on more of a classic platform. There are probably about a dozen 90s courses in the top 100 and of those I would say about half are either very pretty an or on excellent turf. We are looking at maybe six courses from the 90s built inland on less than ideal turf which are top 100 and only Loch Lomond really challenges some of the very best courses in GB&I for a high spot. All the others are making up the numbers in the bottom half. Exactly which courses are going to rise to suden prominence?
Ciao
-
Adrian,
And there in a nutshell is the debate and why it can't be resolved: It entirely depends on whether you are judging art or sales? It's the old McDonald's vs Michelin again. Hold on though, I entirely disagree about future rankings. I really don't think the trend is going any which way other than back to classic virtues. But time will tell.
You keep bringing this up but its not relevant. You want to judge something by YOUR RULES. You are not accepting the major opinion.
We can only disagree Paul because neither of us is going to convince each other. I don't think there is going to be a lot of future golf courses in the UK, but you can disagree. I think that modern technical advancements in the equipment will make a mockery of short golf courses, but you can disagree on that point if you wish. I see more and more people hitting it further, again you can disagree. I already hear people not wanting to play golf courses because they are too short and that includes some of ones that were up there 10-15 years ago, so I think that barrier is more likely to higher and sub 6500 will get poo-pooed and considered a minus by the next wave of golf rates 20 years from now.
How do you judge a piece of art? Is not the high price that artists work commands at auction a fair line of success? If so should a £75 green fee be a better course objectively than a £8 one. Objective ranking may not be possible but a minor subjective one (because you know better) over the major opinion.....Think about it your wrong yours is not definitive. It is just another opinion. What you really want to do (and me as well because I do actually like the same things as you) is change the way golf is played today.
Well you're right to say that I'm judging things by my rules, just as everyone else is. The one thing I'm not judging them by is sales though. You can't judge art by sales. You confuse the two when you refer to high art prices and success in the same sentence. So you can judge your success as a businessman in sales but not your success as an artiste.
Of course length is an issue but I don't see extended RTJ courses or The Belfry suddenly dominating the rankings as a consequence. You may disagree but Sunningdale below Celtic Manor? Really? I don't see history being kind to the courses of the late 20th century but we can disagree about that. You may think Pinehurst was a flash in the pain but I think it was the start of a very significant change in attitudes which will filter its way down over the next 20+ years. And regarding architecturally outstanding shorter courses, The Swinley Forests if you like, I honestly think that a point will come when people realise that equipment has to be reigned in and I honestly think the current minimalist movement, still in its infancy to most of the golfing world by embracing places such as Swinley, will be the movement which ushers it in. We can't just keep using more land in a word with ever diminishing water reserves.
-
I already hear people not wanting to play golf courses because they are too short and that includes some of ones that were up there 10-15 years ago, so I think that barrier is more likely to higher and sub 6500 will get poo-pooed and considered a minus by the next wave of golf rates 20 years from now.
I can understand the possibility of this happening, but is it really realistic to think that average club golfers are going to consider 6500 yard courses 'too short'?
Sure, your Cat 1 golfers maybe, but average 45-70 year-old 9-18 handicappers who make up the bulk of the golfing fraternity and pay most of the bills? I don't hear many of these guys crying out for longer courses.
I enjoy playing a long 'championship' course occasionally. Would I want to play one twice a week? No way!
A well-designed 6000 yards on interesting ground is quite enough for me day to day. I suspect that most club golfers would concur.
Could part of the problem be that nearly all courses built in the last 25 years are proprietary clubs dependent to a large degree on attracting one-off fee-paying visitors, and have to play up the 'bling' factor to succeed at the detriment of being a 'good' course by our standards here?