Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Forrest Richardson on February 28, 2023, 02:22:37 PM
-
As someone who spends time trying to understand and sort through popular culture — trying to keep up with my actor daughter! — I often see and hear things that many in my world may not "get to" see or hear. One such example is the JAX hit song, Victoria's Secret...the chorus goes like this:
I know Victoria's secret
And, girl, you wouldn't believe
She's an old man who lives in Ohio
Making money off of girls like me
Cashin' in on body issues
Sellin' skin and bones with big boobs
I know Victoria's secret:
She was made up by a dude (Dude)
Victoria was made up by a dude (Dude)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFKnuJB_WkM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFKnuJB_WkM)
I've heard this creative song several times now. It's a brilliant commentary on the BS aimed at young women for the past 20+ years. And, not just from Victoria's Secret, but from many fashion, make-up, retailers and popular culture messengers. They have, quite masterfully, with the help of media and entertainment — created a fantasy world where "the only good look is the Victoria's Secret look..." JAX (Jackie Miskanic) presents a series of lines that has (equally masterfully) taken aim at big media and the critics and people who make things happen. She exposes that Victoria's Secret is really nothing more than a brand and look "made up by a dude..." ... "...an old man who lives in Ohio..."
It got me thinking. Has golf design got its own "Victoria's Secret" syndrome? Has the crinkle edged, old-style, wide fairways, less trees, it-can-only-can-be-one look-or style-to-be-good genre been force fed to us. Are there only just "so many brands" that are cool in golf design? And, is this because the writers and critics of golf courses have, themselves, been brought up to only respect a certain look and style? If the course has not been created by _____, ______, ______ or ______, is it "not cool" and should be avoided at all cost? Well, that's what JAX is admitting — that young women have, for years, been fed the line that there is only one good and attractive look...and it begins with the Victoria's Secret and all the look a-likes. I'm sure you know the brands. Such and such are "cool", but anything else is certainly not.
Have we entered this stage in golf design? Are we hearing from the current crop of writers, critics, media and reviewers that "there is really only one good direction..." — and if you are not headed that way, well, you're ugly and not viable? I fear we are to some degree. But, I'm looking forward to opinions. Of all the arts and endeavors, it seems golf design should a place for a much more 'open' and wide array of styles and genres.
-
Forrest,
I fell in love with golf architecture when I was about 3-4 years. When I was 10 years old I bought my first book on golf courses: Dan Jenkin’s “Sports Illustrated’s Best 18 Holes in America”.
It was then that I realized if golf architecture was the art form I loved, I would have to travel to see the best it has to offer. Travel takes time and money, not to mention some connections or just the people skills to gain access.
Put another way, most people don’t get to see and play every course they would like to. Most people can’t. Thus, they pick and choose, both specific courses and architects whose work they would like to see. IMO, there is nothing wrong with that and being selective doesn’t mean a course that doesn’t make one’s bucket list must be “avoided at all costs”. To the contrary, it just reflects one’s preferences and travel budget.
-
I think the issue for me is that a golf course built in a particular area should follow the topography, flora and fauna of that area. It would be silly, for example, for someone to try and make a links-style course out of MacKenzie's Northwood course by the Russian River, which is bounded by and sits in an area of huge redwood trees. I would note that the trees are sufficiently penal that the course has no water hazards nor much in the way of bunkering. It also note David Owen's comment in his book that a lot of golf strategy on American courses has been defined by trees, which I agree with.
On the other hand, it would have been silly for you to try and preserve the eucalyptus trees at Baylands, which were not native to the area and were probably planted on the propery as windbreaks back when it was probably ranch/farmland.
-
There is no doubt that there is a narrowing view of “good architecture” brought about by a fawning media at the moment.
I’ve danced around this topic on various threads, never committing fully, firstly because I do think the architecture is good (although I worry about the pretenders) and secondly because there is a wider world that I may not necessarily be so tuned in to.
-
Jeez, Forrest, that is quite an analogy even by your standards. A few thoughts in response that may or may not address what you had in mind.
* In every form of human activity, there are leaders and there are followers, and human nature is for the followers to attach themselves to the most successful leaders. Not always, but perfect competition is a myth created by economists. Oligopoly at best, verging on monopoly, is a more common state once a market (whether in goods, ideas or anything else) has existed for long enough.
* There is no doubt that most of the very best work the last twenty years has been done by those who adhere to a Coore/Doak formula, derived ultimately from Dye, whatever that might be. I don't think the frilly bunker aesthetic is at the core of that formula, and there are plenty of people who come from a different lineage who have done great work, Kyle Phillips being an obvious example.
* One of the key developments of the last twenty years or so is that a number of people in the industry have got a lot better at shaping that kind of golf course. Take Whistling Straits (I wrote about this in my editor's letter in GCA after Herb Kohler died). Now it is widely known that Kohler asked Pete Dye to build him a course that looked like Ballybunion. It is uncontroversial that WS doesn't play like Ballybunion: even with the scale of the construction operation, there simply wasn't enough sand brought to site to create a course like that. But the truth is that it doesn't look much like Ballybunion either. In the years since the course was built, the industry has simply got a lot better at building realistic looking sand dune environments; Kingsbarns is an obvious example but it's far from the only one. The standard of shaping has improved massively in the eighteen years we have been producing GCA, partly but not entirely because of the amount of shaping talent coming out of the Coore/Doak family tree.
* There are still a lot of architects (especially on this side of the Atlantic) whose family tree and outlook is broadly speaking Jones-derived. But they are mostly not getting the prime jobs that attract most attention.
I will add more as I think on the subject.
-
Forrest-I think this site to a large degree operates in a bubble and the Victoria Secret analogy may generally apply to that population and many of it’s readers. I believe there is a greater population of golfers that don’t know or care that it’s not cool to play Nicklaus, Jones, Fazio and Palmer courses. They actually seek them out because they find them enjoyable to play as blasphemous as that may sound to the usual suspects. :)
-
Forrest-I think this site to a large degree operates in a bubble and the Victoria Secret analogy may generally apply to that population and many of it’s readers. I believe there is a greater population of golfers that don’t know or care that it’s not cool to play Nicklaus, Jones, Fazio and Palmer courses. They actually seek them out because they find them enjoyable to play as blasphemous as that may sound to the usual suspects. :)
I think this is probably right. Also, for those of us that are basically public course players, we don't have the same choices. Although I enjoy playing Forrest's Baylands, some issues in the design that were out of his control, IMHO (holes mostly playing straight upwind or downwind, requirements to plant native bunchgrass that have limited the opportunity to play recovery shots) in some ways make the playing of the new course more difficult and slightly less enjoyable than the old course, even though the course is in much better condition that it used to be.
-
As someone who is body shamed by most who I hold dear, are you Doakshaming?
-
I believe there is a greater population of golfers that don’t know or care that it’s not cool to play Nicklaus, Jones, Fazio and Palmer courses. They actually seek them out because they find them enjoyable to play as blasphemous as that may sound to the usual suspects. :)
LOL! Quote of the day so far and an accurate statement at that. ;D
-
Do we really have to decide between tighty whities and frilly pink panties again?
I have a playing partner who LOATHES links golf. Yes, he’s a bleddy eedjit, but no amount of persuasion - gentle or otherwise - from me has ever, or will ever, make him move his position on it.
He just likes green grass, tidy fairways, neat greens, well-tended bunkers and so on.
The world is a great big carousel of colour and we need to appreciate that there’s a spectrum of opinion out there - educated, uneducated or otherwise.
It’s only golf.
F.
-
Hi, my name is Sven, and I've always had fun on Jim Engh courses.
-
The only way the analogy can really work is if there's some non-golfer behind the curtain telling us what to play (or at least a purported non-golfer ;) ).
-
One of the finest men that ever walked this site hired Art Hills. I still remember the day he told me. RIP
-
Do we really have to decide between tighty whities and frilly pink panties again?
I have a playing partner who LOATHES links golf. Yes, he’s a bleddy eedjit, but no amount of persuasion - gentle or otherwise - from me has ever, or will ever, make him move his position on it.
He just likes green grass, tidy fairways, neat greens, well-tended bunkers and so on.
The world is a great big carousel of colour and we need to appreciate that there’s a spectrum of opinion out there - educated, uneducated or otherwise.
It’s only golf.
F.
I concur. To add, I have listened to these arguments of woke architecture taking over the world many, many times. In truth, it is false. To worry about the state of the art based on a 25 year snap shot of low course production, which, btw, has seen lots of other stuff happening, is short sighted. In any case, why judge architecture on this window rather than see the big picture? Once we step back it is easy to see woke architecture makes up an incredibly small percentage of courses regardless of social media influence. I think people are stuck in their social media bubble and eventually start to believe the bullshit.
Ciao
-
Do we really have to decide between tighty whities and frilly pink panties again?
I have a playing partner who LOATHES links golf. Yes, he’s a bleddy eedjit, but no amount of persuasion - gentle or otherwise - from me has ever, or will ever, make him move his position on it.
He just likes green grass, tidy fairways, neat greens, well-tended bunkers and so on.
The world is a great big carousel of colour and we need to appreciate that there’s a spectrum of opinion out there - educated, uneducated or otherwise.
It’s only golf.
F.
I think people are stuck in their social media bubble and eventually start to believe the bullshit.
Ciao
Spot on as the social media phenomenon has some measure of influence on virtually everything. It sucks those in that are susceptible.
-
In all seriousness, I'm wondering the exact opposite of Forrest: my hunch would be that there was less variety in golf course construction, design principles, and aesthetics in the 1980s compared to today. I'm not in the industry, but from a consumer point of view, I see a wide spectrum presently that includes the offerings at Big Cedar Lodge and Bandon Dunes (notwithstanding one architectural duo overlap). Plenty of newly opening courses diverge as to whether they appear situated to its natural environment or superimposed onto it. Evan Schiller posts about the same number of pictures from Cal Club and the (to me) eyesore stairway tee boxes of Union League National's 5th hole.
To name but a few, future builds of King/Collins, Jackson/Kahn, Brian Schneider, Kyle Franz, and Angela Moser will add more diverse examples to what consumers and critics will consider the most popular, strategic, attractive, and "best" in contemporary design. I see arguments on that topic increasing over the coming years, not consolidating.
-
Ally — I think "fawning media" is aptly described. That's what I'm getting at. There are 250± active golf designers in the world and if you took the time to survey the media on who they cover, like and "push", you'll probably get a list of about 20. Considering what we do is both art and science — and business — I think that limits broader thinking. Not to mention it creates a "trend". The young designer who may otherwise be stirred to create something outside the box, is instead led along to do what "so-and-so" does. Why? Because "so-and-so" is one of those on the short list...who does a certain thing with a certain look...and gets attention.
Adam — Thank you for acknowledging I have standards! :)
Jeff Segol — Good points. Re: Baylands, thank you for playing. I must defend "our baby" there...Holes 1, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 play north/south. No. 12 and 15 are par-3s, so into or downwind is not as big deal. The other 12 holes are all at 45-degrees to north/south or 90-degrees, direct cross-winds. Did you only play 1, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15? :)
John K — No. No shamming.
Micheal C — There may have been less variety in the construction and variety back then (1980s+), but I believe the media was hyped to cover all sorts of design and trends. They did not unilaterally agree on one or a few. The golf media in the 1980s was excited about golf courses across the board. The writers and publishers had many more names on their minds — it was a celebration of all sorts of designs...not just a few looks and feels.
-
Forest, I have been thinking for quite a while that ragged-edged bunkers have become the rage. Very few times do we see gleaming white-edged bunkers in a new design. Many courses that used to have them have changed their bunker design. In the last ten years, I have played some 40 new designs and a similar number of renovations. Most have that raggedy-edged bunker look. I like it, but that look is becoming too commonplace.
I remember playing Creighton Farms outside DC the year it opened. It is a Jack Nicklaus design built around the same time he did Sebonack. So when I saw the bunkering, I thought to myself that TD must have influenced him on bunker design. It was far different than the bunkering he had done previously.
-
This is a very interesting and enlightening discussion from the standpoint the topic is extremely multi-faceted. I'm blown away by the number of golfers my age and older (I'm 57, BTW) that couldn't name a Tom Doak, Coore-Crenshaw or Gil Hanse course if their life depended on it, but will go on and on about how great a particular Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Fazio or RTJ design is. Theese same individuals don't pay much attention or even care about golf course archicture, but they're attracted to recognizable names they grew up with and know what they like and you can't tell them anything different. Fine. There's a place for you at the golf course buffet.
On the flip side, those younger than me in their 30's and 40's not only know who Doak, Coore - Crenshaw, Gil Hanse, McKlay-Kidd and other contemporary architects are, they're often viewed as rock stars thanks to the influence social media has had in cultivating their personas. The NLU's, Random Golf Films (AEL), Good - Goods and Fried Egg's of the world have played a huge role in shining a spotlight on these individuals and helping them become "brands." Sites like GCA and the traditional golf media outlets have also contributed to this, but social media has had a far greater impact among the younger demographic. These archies are seen as cool and have become celebrties to varying degrees. Not so the aforementioned group. Those 40 and younger could care less about anything Jack Nicklaus designed save, perhaps, Muirfield and that's only because they see it on TV every year.
It'll be interesting to see who the next wave of architects is that follows in the footstepts of today's heralded group and what it portends for the golf course design industry and golf as a whole.
-
Tommy — I may have unfairly used "ragged edge bunkers" as there is nothing at all wrong with them. It's just that many in the media seem to feel there is only one "good" look. We've done work that qualifies as ragged edged...and so did my mentor, Jack Snyder as long ago as Oakmont where he was the super. Yet it came to mind when I wrote the thread premise. I do feel that there is a media bias at play in the world of golf design — and many writers make no bones about it. That, perhaps, is the part that is bothersome. It's become obvious to many of us. And, by the way, a lot of us who have noticed this DO get attention in the media, so it is not a sour grapes attitude. There are a lot of golf architects who simply look at the landscape of golf media who see very clearly that there is a inkling to jump on the same trend wagon...in very similar fashion to what JAX eloquently writes in her Victoria's Secret lyrics. I personally don't think it's very healthy to the art of golf design. Nor do I look back and think — as much as I slowed down to glance — that Victoria's Secret was necessarily the best "look" to be imparting to our youth.
-
Just a hunch, but I think developers see a course they like and hire someone to replicate it for them. They know a handful of names and call them until someone says okay I'll build you whatever you want.
-
BTW, I always liked Fredricks of Hollywood. His crotchless panties are the rough edged bunkers of underwear.
-
We have indeed entered a throwback era architecturally that requires a certain topography to render its aesthetics and strategy. But the requisite type of land and soil is far away and so we see more remote course complexes that are miles away and require a private plane to a small airport. Doak and Coore/Crenshaw seemingly limit much of their work to those terrains that meet their concept of what golf should be about. That is their right. But most golfers can’t make it to these remote destinations. They want to play where they live, which often doesn’t enjoy ideal old age golf topography. This begs the question: are architects who limit their work to the best palettes better than those who work with the land that they are given? Architects in other fields would appreciate the debate. Their work is reflective and incorporates the surrounds that they are given.
-
Put another way, would today’s revered architects accept a commission to work on the nursery land now known as Augusta National, with all its hills and valleys and not the desired sand base? No frilly, rugged bunkers.
-
I believe there is a greater population of golfers that don’t know or care that it’s not cool to play Nicklaus, Jones, Fazio and Palmer courses. They actually seek them out because they find them enjoyable to play as blasphemous as that may sound to the usual suspects. :)
LOL! Quote of the day so far and an accurate statement at that. ;D
In my circle there's a hell of a lot bigger chance that they'll play courses by those guys simply because they've heard of them.
Except for Crenshaw, the favorites around here will usually draw a blank stare if you drop a name.
-
I recently encountered a tight tree-lined tee shot on a miserable golf course and found myself energized by the challenge of putting the tee ball in play. I used to play such holes all of the time. I would not want a steady diet of such holes but it was a reminder to not be too dogmatic about this stuff.
-
It’s funny to me how there is so much perceived bias and yet there is such trouble identifying exactly what are the elements that make up the approved style.
A good part of it is simply about working on beautiful land without encumbrance from housing developments. On the rare occasions I’ve done something with housing attached, it’s usually lost in the shuffle. And building courses on sand allows for sexier features, certainly - but that is hardly a new phenomenon, it’s just one that people forgot about between 1940 and 2000.
It’s the nature of journalism that in many fields, a “big three” attract most of the attention. journalists don’t like to look like they are playing favorites, and three is the minimum where it doesn’t look like you’re shilling for a friend, even if you are. For a long time it was Nicklaus-Dye-Fazio in design, just like Nicklaus-Palmer-Player in golf.
One thing I don’t think you realize is just how much time we have spent over the years talking to golf writers etc. and getting to know them, which leads to more publicity. That’s one reason Nicklaus and other pros have such a leg up when they get into the business - it took me twenty or thirty years of doing interviews to get even a fraction of that kind of name recognition. But there comes a tipping point, where it goes from the writer thinking they’re doing you a favor, to thinking you’re doing them one.
-
The way things feel like the 1980s is we’ve replaced signature holes as the marketing ploy with photogenic bunkers that play a lot easier than they look. Plus this has filtered full force into the course restoration/renovations space unlike signature holes.
That was my first reaction to the thread title.
-
A good part of it is simply about working on beautiful land without encumbrance from housing developments. On the rare occasions I’ve done something with housing attached, it’s usually lost in the shuffle. And building courses on sand allows for sexier features, certainly - but that is hardly a new phenomenon, it’s just one that people forgot about between 1940 and 2000.
The fact that most of the acclaimed courses of the last 20+ years have been built in non-urban environments is no coincidence. The amount of space given to the architect allows them to play with the biggest asset in their toolkit - scale. My former boss - now head of Google Creative Studios - told me that people only react emotionally to things that are very big or very small. He attempted to prove this to me one day by commissioning stick-on logotype for our ad agency's name that was at most 48pt type.. This seemed ridiculously out of scale for the 8ft glass door entrance of our 5 story commercial brownstone on Dupont Circle in DC. Over the next few weeks, however, we observed a lot of people noticing SOMETHING SMALL had changed on the building and coming closer to the door to read the name and try to figure out what was going behind the glass doors.
The same applies in reverse.. giant bunkers, acres of closely mown grass surrounding the greens, raggedy bunkers of varying sizes... all designed to reframe the notion of a neatly presented golf course and give the golfer more to think about. Streamsong is a good example of this, with much of the desired scale provided by the mining company pushing sand around for a couple of decades before abandoning the location 25 years ago.
-
Jeff Segol — Good points. Re: Baylands, thank you for playing. I must defend "our baby" there...Holes 1, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 play north/south. No. 12 and 15 are par-3s, so into or downwind is not as big deal. The other 12 holes are all at 45-degrees to north/south or 90-degrees, direct cross-winds. Did you only play 1, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15? [/size]
No Forrest, I always play all 18 of your holes. :D To be specific, the holes I miss from the Bell course are 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. They were a cross-wind short par 4, short par 3 into the wind, par 5 into the wind, par 4 cross wind and a longer par 3 that was a cross wind. As you know, those holes were lost to both the flood control project, and to the Council's insistence on the land for theoretical future soccer fields. What we have now are two fairly long par 4s into the wind, and a par three into the wind on a shot to a basically island green. It's just a more difficult start to the back when the wind blows. Like I said, the course is fine, it's just more difficult than before, which has changed the nature of tournament play there, and who is in our membership. We're still friends. I'll be playing in the next tournament there on the 11th. Looking forward to it as usual.[/color]
-
We have indeed entered a throwback era architecturally that requires a certain topography to render its aesthetics and strategy. But the requisite type of land and soil is far away and so we see more remote course complexes that are miles away and require a private plane to a small airport. Doak and Coore/Crenshaw seemingly limit much of their work to those terrains that meet their concept of what golf should be about. That is their right. But most golfers can’t make it to these remote destinations. They want to play where they live, which often doesn’t enjoy ideal old age golf topography. This begs the question: are architects who limit their work to the best palettes better than those who work with the land that they are given? Architects in other fields would appreciate the debate. Their work is reflective and incorporates the surrounds that they are given.
That's the point I was trying to make, and I'll also add to it the issues surrounding how the design of a course impacts the cost of maintaining it, which at least somewhat relates to the cost to play it. All the handwringing that was occurring pre-pandemic about the cost of golf, the time it takes to play, the loss of players, etc., has been substantially muted by the pandemic-based boom that the game experienced. If we have another signficant recession (I hope not) and start getting course closures again, maintenance costs could again be an issue.
-
I would respectfully disagree with the claim that I only choose sites that are suited to my style. My style is the result of the places I’ve worked, and that includes such atypical sites as Stone Eagle, CommonGround, and St Emilion.
However, certainly I try to choose the most interesting projects and best sites I’m offered. Who wouldn’t? That’s also key to being able to retain talented associates instead of them all going their own way.
In the end, the only goal is to build great courses. I’m not trying to prove that I’m a better designer than anyone else; I just want to leave behind as many cool golf courses as I can.
-
IMHO, the tide turned when architects began doing less numbers of projects. and made bold choices to say no more often to shite sites and unholy developers.
Building golf for golf's sake rather than to provide yet another amenity in a valley to sell homesites.
It took patience and discipline to follow such a path. rather than just jumping at every job presented by yet another developer with zero interest beyond selling homes.
I was told repeatedly in the 80's and 90's that all the best sites were gone...lol.
-
I would respectfully disagree with the claim that I only choose sites that are suited to my style. My style is the result of the places I’ve worked, and that includes such atypical sites as Stone Eagle, CommonGround, and St Emilion.
However, certainly I try to choose the most interesting projects and best sites I’m offered. Who wouldn’t? That’s also key to being able to retain talented associates instead of them all going their own way.
In the end, the only goal is to build great courses. I’m not trying to prove that I’m a better designer than anyone else; I just want to leave behind as many cool golf courses as I can.
So true. I have played 20 of your designs. All very different sites. All very good courses. That should be the test of competency. Turn all different kinds sites into very interesting and fun courses. In my book, you have hit that bar.
-
IMHO, the tide turned when architects began doing less numbers of projects. and made bold choices to say no more often to shite sites and unholy developers.
Building golf for golf's sake rather than to provide yet another amenity in a valley to sell homesites.
It took patience and discipline to follow such a path. rather than just jumping at every job presented by yet another developer with zero interest beyond selling homes.
I was told repeatedly in the 80's and 90's that all the best sites were gone...lol.
I don’t really understand this point, Jeff? Sure, architects like Tom chose to not build the wrong type of courses. But the developers of those housing courses didn’t just say “Ah, Tom Doak said no so I’m not going to build it”. It has nothing to do with the architects why there are less of those courses being built now.
-
IMHO, the tide turned when architects began doing less numbers of projects. and made bold choices to say no more often to shite sites and unholy developers.
Building golf for golf's sake rather than to provide yet another amenity in a valley to sell homesites.
It took patience and discipline to follow such a path. rather than just jumping at every job presented by yet another developer with zero interest beyond selling homes.
I was told repeatedly in the 80's and 90's that all the best sites were gone...lol.
I don’t really understand this point, Jeff? Sure, architects like Tom chose to not build the wrong type of courses. But the developers of those housing courses didn’t just say “Ah, Tom Doak said no so I’m not going to build it”. It has nothing to do with the architects why there are less of those courses being built now.
Well, I haven't been called to look at that many development courses, but I've been surprised how often I've looked at a project and passed, and the project never happened.
And Jeff is right, that the conventional wisdom when I started in the business was "all the good sites are gone". LOL.
-
I would respectfully disagree with the claim that I only choose sites that are suited to my style. My style is the result of the places I’ve worked, and that includes such atypical sites as Stone Eagle, CommonGround, and St Emilion.
However, certainly I try to choose the most interesting projects and best sites I’m offered. Who wouldn’t? That’s also key to being able to retain talented associates instead of them all going their own way.
In the end, the only goal is to build great courses. I’m not trying to prove that I’m a better designer than anyone else; I just want to leave behind as many cool golf courses as I can.
And if I were you, with your talent and passion, I’d do the same and have the same objectives. In retrospect, my point in asking whether today’s great “classical” architects would choose a nursery in Augusta was another way to note how great MacKenzie was that he could design Cypress Point Club and Augusta National. Quite very different looks. I’m not a historian in these matters, but it seems he had to have both the courage and the confidence to work on such different properties.
-
I would respectfully disagree with the claim that I only choose sites that are suited to my style. My style is the result of the places I’ve worked, and that includes such atypical sites as Stone Eagle, CommonGround, and St Emilion.
However, certainly I try to choose the most interesting projects and best sites I’m offered. Who wouldn’t? That’s also key to being able to retain talented associates instead of them all going their own way.
In the end, the only goal is to build great courses. I’m not trying to prove that I’m a better designer than anyone else; I just want to leave behind as many cool golf courses as I can.
And if I were you, with your talent and passion, I’d do the same and have the same objectives. In retrospect, my point in asking whether today’s great “classical” architects would choose a nursery in Augusta was another way to note how great MacKenzie was that he could design Cypress Point Club and Augusta National. Quite very different looks. I’m not a historian in these matters, but it seems he had to have both the courage and the confidence to work on such different properties.
The pull of Bobby Jones must have been hard to ignore.
Ciao
-
Styles come and go, but I see it more along the lines of home architecture. At any given time, there are lots of different types of homes being built, but a particular style starts to stand out and be associated with the era. Take this list (not mine)
- TUDOR STYLE (1920's) ...
- CRAFTSMAN-BUNGALOW (1930's) ...
- RANCH (1940's) ...
- MIDCENTURY MODERN (1950's) ...
- SPLIT-LEVEL HOMES (1960's) ...
- CONTEMPORARY STYLE (1970's)
- NEO COLONIAL (1980's)
- McMANSION (1990's)
Whether it's houses or pleats on pants, eventually the style changes, and what was popular is no longer popular. Eventually it comes back around and becomes popular again. Midcentury Modern homes are all the rage now, but you couldn't sell them at any price 20 years ago. I live in a neighborhood of classic colonial homes built in the 70's (which was itself recycling colonial homes from earlier), but that style is not popular now and people are going out of their way to hide that fact. A guy in our neighborhood just painted half of his house black to make it look different!
Golf is no different. Golden age courses fell out of favor, then were back in favor. Frilly edge bunkers have been popular for the last 20 yearsbut eventually people will try something new. I'm guessing at some point all of the courses built in the 50's and 60's will become popular and RTJ will be appreciated on this site. Clubs will tear out their frilly edged bunkers and put in big round disks. Then those will get ripped out and replaced with 1990 era Fazio bunkers. Then frilly edged bunkers will be back. Trees will be planted. Then cut down. Runway tees will be cool again. The cycle rolls on.
-
Golden age courses fell out of favor, then were back in favor.
Were they really ever out of favor, though? Seems to me (at least here in Ohio) beloved Golden Age golf courses have always been popular. They may have fallen in the eyes of course raters over the years, but they've always been popular even if they've received less-than-successful makeovers.
-
Styles come and go, but I see it more along the lines of home architecture. At any given time, there are lots of different types of homes being built, but a particular style starts to stand out and be associated with the era. Take this list (not mine)
- TUDOR STYLE (1920's) ...
- CRAFTSMAN-BUNGALOW (1930's) ...
- RANCH (1940's) ...
- MIDCENTURY MODERN (1950's) ...
- SPLIT-LEVEL HOMES (1960's) ...
- CONTEMPORARY STYLE (1970's)
- NEO COLONIAL (1980's)
- McMANSION (1990's)
Whether it's houses or pleats on pants, eventually the style changes, and what was popular is no longer popular. Eventually it comes back around and becomes popular again. Midcentury Modern homes are all the rage now, but you couldn't sell them at any price 20 years ago. I live in a neighborhood of classic colonial homes built in the 70's (which was itself recycling colonial homes from earlier), but that style is not popular now and people are going out of their way to hide that fact. A guy in our neighborhood just painted half of his house black to make it look different!
Golf is no different. Golden age courses fell out of favor, then were back in favor. Frilly edge bunkers have been popular for the last 20 yearsbut eventually people will try something new. I'm guessing at some point all of the courses built in the 50's and 60's will become popular and RTJ will be appreciated on this site. Clubs will tear out their frilly edged bunkers and put in big round disks. Then those will get ripped out and replaced with 1990 era Fazio bunkers. Then frilly edged bunkers will be back. Trees will be planted. Then cut down. Runway tees will be cool again. The cycle rolls on.
It’s an interesting analogy between home architecture and golf course architecture. Of the home styles listed in your example I have always been enamored of the 1920’s Tudor. They carry a level of detail and charm not found in the other examples referenced and emulate the english manor homes of the 17th and 18th centuries. The Golden Age of golf architecture had its heyday in the 1920’s as well with a level of detail and charm not seen since until this new Golden Age of roughly the last twenty years. The current golf architects practicing the style have a leg up with construction and design practices not unlike a modern day home builder would have when constructing a Tudor style home. I don’t think the new Golden Age courses will fall out of favor as those of the original period did but in time the current design practices most likely will.
-
I would respectfully disagree with the claim that I only choose sites that are suited to my style. My style is the result of the places I’ve worked, and that includes such atypical sites as Stone Eagle, CommonGround, and St Emilion.
However, certainly I try to choose the most interesting projects and best sites I’m offered. Who wouldn’t? That’s also key to being able to retain talented associates instead of them all going their own way.
In the end, the only goal is to build great courses. I’m not trying to prove that I’m a better designer than anyone else; I just want to leave behind as many cool golf courses as I can.
And if I were you, with your talent and passion, I’d do the same and have the same objectives. In retrospect, my point in asking whether today’s great “classical” architects would choose a nursery in Augusta was another way to note how great MacKenzie was that he could design Cypress Point Club and Augusta National. Quite very different looks. I’m not a historian in these matters, but it seems he had to have both the courage and the confidence to work on such different properties.
The pull of Bobby Jones must have been hard to ignore.
Ciao
Good point
-
IMHO, the tide turned when architects began doing less numbers of projects. and made bold choices to say no more often to shite sites and unholy developers.
Building golf for golf's sake rather than to provide yet another amenity in a valley to sell homesites.
It took patience and discipline to follow such a path. rather than just jumping at every job presented by yet another developer with zero interest beyond selling homes.
I was told repeatedly in the 80's and 90's that all the best sites were gone...lol.
I don’t really understand this point, Jeff? Sure, architects like Tom chose to not build the wrong type of courses. But the developers of those housing courses didn’t just say “Ah, Tom Doak said no so I’m not going to build it”. It has nothing to do with the architects why there are less of those courses being built now.
Well, I haven't been called to look at that many development courses, but I've been surprised how often I've looked at a project and passed, and the project never happened.
And Jeff is right, that the conventional wisdom when I started in the business was "all the good sites are gone". LOL.
Weren’t most of the good sites within a reasonable distance of where people live gone or soon to be gone or unaffordable, in part explaining destination golf in remote locations? When I played LACC recently, my host said that only the land comprising NY’s Central Park was more expensive than that on which his club’s 36 holes reside.
-
Forrest,
I re-read your original thread post. It strikes me that I have always and will always prefer the girl next door look, and maybe women in jeans, since that is what they typically wore when I was in HS and college. No amount of glossy ads will tell me what to like in a woman! How does that translate to golf? There may be an equivalent to gca in that some women and some courses just try too hard to attract attention, which makes us suspicious of what we are seeing...........
I tend to agree that the media just fixates on what story will sell magazines, clicks, whatever. RTJ was big because his style was different, Pete Dye was big because his style was different, some pros got big because they were already big, and a few names got big for designing big budget courses that were more friendly to play......perhaps the only ones to get recognition for a real design issue.....
I agree with TD. Thanks to all the previous eras, golf got big. The economy was doing well, and some guys who fell in love with golf for whatever reason (but the courses themselves were a big part, I'm sure had the resources to up the ante to great sites not many had thought about. Architecturally, the bar has been set by the quality of sites (and the "experience" of a golf buddy trip far exceeding what they play every day.)
I also agree that some young architect is out there trying to create "the next big thing" and that this current style will eventually be looked at similarly to any other era, with the best remaining the best, and the rest dropping in rankings to something different, just because pop culture likes things to be different......ya know, maybe a course designed with no angles and typical shot dispersions being the big strategic element. ;)
As always, just my take.
-
Tom,
I'm curious if you would have passed on a LACC, Riviera, Pebble, etc back in the day knowing it would be surrounded by housing?
Or for that matter if you passed on Wine Valley (as originally it was to include a housing development, thou still not yet thankfully)
-
Tom,
I'm curious if you would have passed on a LACC, Riviera, Pebble, etc back in the day knowing it would be surrounded by housing?
Those are nothing like modern housing courses, I don't think you're talking apples to apples in this case.
-
Tom,
I'm curious if you would have passed on a LACC, Riviera, Pebble, etc back in the day knowing it would be surrounded by housing?
Those are nothing like modern housing courses, I don't think you're talking apples to apples in this case.
But the end aesthetic is the same none-the-less, and I think that's always been the primary beef.
Did the ODGs talk about that much in thier writings? I suspect its more a modern day concern than it was back then.
-
Tom,
I'm curious if you would have passed on a LACC, Riviera, Pebble, etc back in the day knowing it would be surrounded by housing?
Those are nothing like modern housing courses, I don't think you're talking apples to apples in this case.
But the end aesthetic is the same none-the-less, and I think that's always been the primary beef.
Did the ODGs talk about that much in thier writings? I suspect its more a modern day concern than it was back then.
Just seeing houses from the golf course isn't the primary beef here I don't think. It's houses around the perimeter of a property vs. houses surrounding both sides of most (or all) of the highly-fragmented holes. Not to mention the fact that in the newer examples the course often gets short shrift on the quality of the land.
I'd be curious what any of the ODGs had to say about housing on the course too.
-
Just seeing houses from the golf course isn't the primary beef here I don't think. It's houses around the perimeter of a property vs. houses surrounding both sides of most (or all) of the highly-fragmented holes. Not to mention the fact that in the newer examples the course often gets short shrift on the quality of the land.
Agree, Charlie. I don't have issue with houses that surround the permieter of a property at all. However, I hate playing residential courses where the majority of holes are flanked by houses on one or both sides. It's why I purposely avoid playing most Art Hills courses. LOL!
I also agree that the course gets the short end of the stick land-wise in such situations, as often the designer doesn't get the best parcels or sections of land on the property to work with. The golf course effectively becomes an afterthought with the developer hoping the architect can pull a rabbit out of the hat and make magic happen with the hand their dealt.
-
IMHO, the tide turned when architects began doing less numbers of projects. and made bold choices to say no more often to shite sites and unholy developers.
Building golf for golf's sake rather than to provide yet another amenity in a valley to sell homesites.
It took patience and discipline to follow such a path. rather than just jumping at every job presented by yet another developer with zero interest beyond selling homes.
I was told repeatedly in the 80's and 90's that all the best sites were gone...lol.
I don’t really understand this point, Jeff? Sure, architects like Tom chose to not build the wrong type of courses. But the developers of those housing courses didn’t just say “Ah, Tom Doak said no so I’m not going to build it”. It has nothing to do with the architects why there are less of those courses being built now.
Well, I haven't been called to look at that many development courses, but I've been surprised how often I've looked at a project and passed, and the project never happened.
And Jeff is right, that the conventional wisdom when I started in the business was "all the good sites are gone". LOL.
Weren’t most of the good sites within a reasonable distance of where people live gone or soon to be gone or unaffordable, in part explaining destination golf in remote locations? When I played LACC recently, my host said that only the land comprising NY’s Central Park was more expensive than that on which his club’s 36 holes reside.
Absolutely no question about it. Regardless of the risk, it isn't by chance that isolated sandy sites were chosen for what would become a Renaissance.
Ciao
-
Tom,
I'm curious if you would have passed on a LACC, Riviera, Pebble, etc back in the day knowing it would be surrounded by housing?
Those are nothing like modern housing courses, I don't think you're talking apples to apples in this case.
But the end aesthetic is the same none-the-less, and I think that's always been the primary beef.
Did the ODGs talk about that much in thier writings? I suspect its more a modern day concern than it was back then.
Nope. Mimicking nature was an aesthetic movement. The ODGs didn't try their best to mimic nature because it was easy and cheap to do.
Ciao
-
And if I were you, with your talent and passion, I’d do the same and have the same objectives. In retrospect, my point in asking whether today’s great “classical” architects would choose a nursery in Augusta was another way to note how great MacKenzie was that he could design Cypress Point Club and Augusta National. Quite very different looks. I’m not a historian in these matters, but it seems he had to have both the courage and the confidence to work on such different properties.
If there’s an architect who would have passed on working with the property for Augusta National, they’ve got no imagination. On top of which, the client was Bobby Jones!
I’ve done at least ten projects on more difficult soils. It’s certainly not as easy to build a course that attracts attention, and they are more difficult as construction projects, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t worth doing. It just depends what else is on offer at the time.
-
Tom,
I'm curious if you would have passed on a LACC, Riviera, Pebble, etc back in the day knowing it would be surrounded by housing?
Or for that matter if you passed on Wine Valley (as originally it was to include a housing development, thou still not yet thankfully)
Kalen:
I have built a few courses with housing attached: Quail Crossing, Riverfront, Tumble Creek, Rock Creek. I was signed up to do several more in 2008 when bank financing fell apart. The main reason I didn’t do more of them was that my name wasn’t worth anything for marketing housing sales until that market dried up.
The one thing I will say no to is where it’s clear that the land planner dictates where the golf course is built. (You would be surprised how often this is compromised, even by big name designers - in fact it’s more likely for signature designers who after all are selling their brand.) For me the routing is the fundamental part of the design and if the client won’t let me route holes where I see them, I’ll just pass.
Our new course at Te Arai Links also has some very expensive ocean-facing lots and they did force some compromises in the design, but I knew the golf was equally important to the client and trusted he would give me enough leeway to build something outstanding. That is 500x more important to me than whether the soils allow for frilly edged bunkers.
-
And if I were you, with your talent and passion, I’d do the same and have the same objectives. In retrospect, my point in asking whether today’s great “classical” architects would choose a nursery in Augusta was another way to note how great MacKenzie was that he could design Cypress Point Club and Augusta National. Quite very different looks. I’m not a historian in these matters, but it seems he had to have both the courage and the confidence to work on such different properties.
[/
If there’s an architect who would have passed on working with the property for Augusta National, they’ve got no imagination. On top of which, the client was Bobby Jones!
I’ve done at least ten projects on more difficult soils. It’s certainly not as easy to build a course that attracts attention, and they are more difficult as construction projects, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t worth doing. It just depends what else is on offer at the time.
This is quite an important point. Us amateurs who post, let alone the lurkers, tend to forget that the professional architects and shapers need to earn a living.
Ira
-
A few points in response to Forrest's original post, which asks some very fair questions.
1. I wasn't old enough in the 1980s (or alive earlier) to fairly comment on golf architecture media then, but I remember it well in the 90s and 2000s. I still have tons of promotional brochures and magazines from that time period in a box in my office. When I look at those, it doesn't feel totally fair to me to imply that it's brand new trend for the current media to be pushing just "one style or else" when all those pamphlets contain the same interchangeable buzzwords with each other, and the courses largely look the same as each other in the pictures. It felt like rinse-and-repeat promotion, even more than today (which has some preferences but preferences that run counter to previous decades preferences. Should they just be continuing on praising that same type of work as before? That provides even less diversity of opinion when viewed in a decades-long context).
2. The "feeling" of what media currently promotes (regardless of what that means to you) and the newer courses they highlight is still highly disproportionate to the reality of golf architecture as a whole. Even if two hundred wide-fairwayed, frilly-edge bunkered, browned-out courses were to open in the next year, there would still be 10,000 other courses out there that are badly designed, boring, wasteful, or missed opportunities. A part of the reason some of recent media may feel repetitive in what they promote is that it is still on the whole rare for most golfers to have ready access to that type of golf.
3. These implied media outlets promote everything from the most scruffy munis to highly polished new work or renovation work. They cover new designs, ancient links courses, the Golden Age (which is the most diverse period of golf design itself), and even the more creative stuff from the so-called Dark Ages. It's not entirely fair to pigeon-hole their coverage into one sub-niche. On top of that, more golfers than ever before have some semblance of what golf architecture even is. Isn't that a good thing?
4. As one of the "young designers," I don't naturally aim to copy others styles or ideals. I like what I like, and I also want to be as original as I can be. I don't want to ever get creatively "bored" or stuck to routines or patterns, instead trying to think of ways to make some new feature unique (if you are being honest with yourself, this is very hard to achieve at this stage of golf design). I also can't let that creative desire get me in trouble and try to impose something that doesn't feel right to a particular site. The most important thing still for every site is to respond to its features, its physical context, and its regional typologies. Sometimes that may visually or strategically overlap with more famous designers before me. But making an effort to avoid that point isn't as important as adhering to the one preceding it.
5. The Victoria's Secret analogy may be a bit dated. Has anyone seen their mailing ads and such lately? I wonder too if the inference of "what the current design trend happens to be" is also a bit dated, especially with the newest stuff coming out and what is currently under construction. The cosmetics of design have been trending differently for a few years now, and I even wrote about that on my own site (https://www.hochsteindesign.com/blog/2019/3/7/the-state-of-bunkers) 4 years ago while indirectly stating a desire to do something creatively different.
-
CharlieNot trying a gotcha but he ODG incorporated housing: Hope Valley and Pinehurst Ross, Merion, Winged Foot etc. so I don't see that as a litmus test. Housing styles are an inadequate comparisons fundamentally. The architect mostly relied on established engineering principles that he controlled and introduced a venner and orginaization adhering to those. The golf designer has to respond to and adapt to the many less consistent elements like drainage, soils, topography, etc of a golf design into an overall stylistic solution. Much more complex.
Forrest's questions is about selling the "product" and to whom. To reviewers so they can tout the product; to owners who expect revenue, or ultimately to the golf consumer? I postulate 99% of the public doesn't care and hasn't heard of any of the names which apply to this discussion Reputation buillding is hard work as Tom reveals. Tastes differ but I think most of us agree that golf design is overwhelmingly organic and that philsophy emerged as the leading train of thought. Not because it is sexy but "right" for the discipline fundamentally. Forms a basis from whcih to depart such as Sven's Jim Engh kink.
Owners decide who designs based on many many criteria that usually apply to their unique requirements so a designer must have many arrows in their quivers to address those. I really never rated a brassier I saw on Victoria's Secret based on the number of snaps incorporated until I actually encounterd that problem.
I ramble ultimately to arrive at the feeling that fundamental principles eventually appear ina design disciplne and departing from those is a risk but one that sometimes pays off. Otherwise, knowlegdeable people seek those who best articulate and execute based on the best information available in the public domain.
Pax
Wardo
-
Talking of housing courses....remember there is a huge difference in a "core" golf course with housing around the perimeter and a course where houses lined each hole on both sides...
As for Victoria's Secret and frilly bunkers...I'm not sure that has ever been the issue...I honestly think there was a dark ages of golf architecture from the mid 1940's until around 1990 ( I consider Stanley Thompson the last of the ODG's) and I'm not sure there was much there to emulate. I got in the golf business around 1980 and called on the offices of a lot of architects. It was a different vibe than these young guys have today. I feel confident it will evolve in a good way.
-
Well, it has been fun to read through the comments. Let me expound a bit. When Victoria's Secret "got big" it created a wave of sorts. Media — fashion writers, etc. — began a common drum beat. I'm not saying that Victoria's Secret was THE only style and look, but it spawned a movement where fashion seemed to "take off" from that platform, and girls and young women (analogy: golf consumers) began subscribing to the notion of being thin, tall, sexy...whatever...was essential. But, it wasn't "for everyone", and it cast doubt among some consumers (girls and young women) whether they "were cool"..."were in-style"..."were in touch"..."were good enough"...etc.
When the media, Hollywood, fashion critics and the like began pushing a narrative...people listen. Some art shines through, but the mainstream tags along. Not everyone, but many. I'd even say the majority.
What I see in some golf circles, is a tendency to laud only certain types of golf courses. It may be getting better, but the "Roladex" of a lot of writers and golf media is not nearly as robust as their predecessors. Many have no clue how many are out there practicing the art of golf design around the world (300±) and only a handful even try to keep up with 20% of that total. Now, I'm not saying that ALL golf architects deserve to be known or lauded — but it surprises me how "restrictive" the golf media can be. Inside Baseball had it audience, but it never got very far in terms of attracting the majority of baseball fans...The Atlas = Inside Baseball. But...are we seeing "Inside Baseball" now being "written" in golf's major publications, broadcasts and podcasts?
-
That’s fine Forrest, but the song you referenced by way of analogy mentioned the “old guy in Ohio” i.e. not a user of the product. For the analogy to hold, some behind-the-scenes non-golfer would need to be manipulating us into liking something. I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. There may be groupthink going on, but it’s all on us, pretty organic.
-
What I see in some golf circles, is a tendency to laud only certain types of golf courses. It may be getting better, but the "Roladex" of a lot of writers and golf media is not nearly as robust as their predecessors. Many have no clue how many are out there practicing the art of golf design around the world (300±) and only a handful even try to keep up with 20% of that total. Now, I'm not saying that ALL golf architects deserve to be known or lauded — but it surprises me how "restrictive" the golf media can be. Inside Baseball had it audience, but it never got very far in terms of attracting the majority of baseball fans...The Atlas = Inside Baseball. But...are we seeing "Inside Baseball" now being "written" in golf's major publications, broadcasts and podcasts?
FR,I see what you are saying but it really doesn't matter. Often your best restaurants are local and don't get any recognition outside of a small radius. That's fine. They do well. Think about it this way. there is the game of golf and there is the business of golf. In the game of golf there is no doubting who the best players or swings are because they win. They have to be written about. Golf writers, media and golf architects only require a business card. Some put product out and others practice self anointing. But one can only self anoint for so long before they become exposed. Only a few set themselves for the top properties and clients. I can be happy having that local restaurant... Would you not agree that most media are fed what they are supposed to like? And the same goes for much of this site( I DIDN'T SAY ALL)..and I'm not saying they are told to like bad stuff...but this site doesn't search for what else is out there...they don't care...for example, I have a new 18 hole muni under construction right now..it got about 10 hits on here a month or so ago..but that didn't change one thing about the project..but if you are savvy you can take the new media and hype a potential future project and it's logoed merchandise much more than some actual projects...but it doesn't really matter..only value the opinions you that matter to you...JMO
-
Mike — Golf architects need much more than a business card. You must be watching Rockford File reruns :)
Charlie — What makes you believe the “main stream golf media” is a user of the game? Do you suppose these people could be just like that old dude in Ohio?
-
What I see in some golf circles, is a tendency to laud only certain types of golf courses. It may be getting better, but the "Roladex" of a lot of writers and golf media is not nearly as robust as their predecessors. Many have no clue how many are out there practicing the art of golf design around the world (300±) and only a handful even try to keep up with 20% of that total. Now, I'm not saying that ALL golf architects deserve to be known or lauded — but it surprises me how "restrictive" the golf media can be. Inside Baseball had it audience, but it never got very far in terms of attracting the majority of baseball fans...The Atlas = Inside Baseball. But...are we seeing "Inside Baseball" now being "written" in golf's major publications, broadcasts and podcasts?
Forest, legacy or traditional media, regardless of industry these days, is paying much closer attention to what's happening in social media and are trying to capitalize on it in order to stay relevant. They're keenly aware of the trends taking shape and what the hot topics of the day are and are producing content accordingly to avoid appearing outdated. Part of this entails promoting the celeb architects featured on many social media channels, as well as this forum and the courses they've designed/built. While Tom Doak may not be as physically appealing to the eye as say Stephanie Seymour when she was prominently featured in Victoria's Secret catalog (no offense, TD. LOL!), he's entertaining to listen to and watch all the same. It takes personalities such as his and others to bring the golf architecure world closer to the everyman golfer who feels intimidated by this side of the business due to their lack of knowlege and understanding. In short, it makes golf architects appear more accessible and "normal", for lack of a better word, and dispells a lot of precconceived notioins regarding those behind the courses we enjoy and play.
I encourage all architects here to take up the mantle and promote yourselves by whatever ethical means possible to get your name out there and expand your oportunities, as you are the product. While the work you've done speaks volumes to your abilities and talent, your potential customers and fans want to feel connected to you and feel as though they have a shared investment in your success even if they're not benefiting from it financially.
I would never in my wildest dreasm imagine a golf course architect would have 5,000 followers on Instagram, let alone 27,000, but to TD's credit he's done a phenomenal job promoting and selling himself to attract that size of an audience. If his work didn't equal the hype it would all be for naught, but his track record speaks otherwise. Just keep him off the catwalk in lingerie and angels wings and we'll be good. ;D ;D
-
Charlie — What makes you believe the “main stream golf media” is a user of the game? Do you suppose these people could be just like that old dude in Ohio?
I don’t think so. I mean, Golf Magazine is the most mainstream of golf media, and it’s architectural content has been overseen by Ran. I don’t think there’s any question that he’s a golfer. Maybe we’ve drunk the kool aid, but it’s definitely golfers who have given it to us.
-
Mike — Golf architects need much more than a business card. You must be watching Rockford File reruns :)
Forrest,Think about it now. They really don't even need a business card. Anyone can call themselves a golf writer or a golf architect. I'm not saying they are any good or that they have even done anything but they can call themselves such where they cannot call themselves an orthopedic surgeon. Happens all the time...
-
Charlie — I’ve always had respect for Ran, and he’s always been accessible and available when I’ve reached out to him. But, he answers to others — or, so I guess. In his new position I’ve never received a proactive call or note inquiring about new sites or assignments. Now, that may be a style or it could be just a mater of having only so many hours in a day. It begs the question — where and how does GM find out what’s happening? Social media? OK, that’s fair, that’s one source. But with just 300 active ‘artists’ in the world of golf design, it seems to me there is room for better investigation and reporting. Again, Ran has done so much to bring awareness to golf architecture, so my question here isn’t aimed in his direction as much as it is a broader question on whether there remains “room to improve” when it comes to appreciating design in golf. Maybe there truly is an old dude in Ohio calling the shots? :D
-
That’s fair enough Forrest, there is certainly room for improvement in that sense.
-
Charlie — I’ve always had respect for Ran, and he’s always been accessible and available when I’ve reached out to him. But, he answers to others — or, so I guess. In his new position I’ve never received a proactive call or note inquiring about new sites or assignments. Now, that may be a style or it could be just a mater of having only so many hours in a day. It begs the question — where and how does GM find out what’s happening? Social media? OK, that’s fair, that’s one source. But with just 300 active ‘artists’ in the world of golf design, it seems to me there is room for better investigation and reporting.
Forrest:
Don't be silly. You are assuming that the magazines would actually SPEND MONEY to cover architecture. They seldom have. Their only interest in rating courses is to MAKE MONEY.
GOLF DIGEST did pay Ron Whitten's salary and travel budget for a bunch of years, but they still didn't cover the field very well. When my first course at Stonewall opened in 1993, I was hoping that a GOLF DIGEST ranking would boost my career, but the course didn't make their "Best New" list because, Ron confided, not a single panelist of theirs had gone to play it! That was one impetus for them starting to "assign" panelists to cover new courses, which lasted for a few years anyway.
Traditional media has fallen apart. They've stopped paying golf writers; back in the day every newspaper had a golf writer, now 98% of them just use the AP wire story about the weekly PGA Tour event, and all of the local coverage is lost. They are only going to cover what is easy to cover. And even non-traditional media is going to spend most of its time covering the people that everyone already knows about, because they want to boost viewership and search metrics, and having on a [relatively] "famous" guest boosts those things. If you think it's bad now, just wait ten years . . . I have a feeling it will be all Sweetens Cove level hype, all the time.
-
Golf like art changes with the times. What is in style now, as much as I believe we reside in perhaps the best era of golf design and restoration will fade. Look no further than the last 30 years of top 100 lists.
Golf IMHO is at its best when we embrace diversity. One of the many reasons I love King-Collins and Mike Strantz work is that it may not be for everyone. The naturalist/minimalist movement that is popular opens up opportunities for maximalist work that has awe inspiring features.
Some courses should be lined with trees, others should not. Some need tree management because that is what was intended by the architect and others not.
I say it too often: golf courses for me, are living, breathing, works of art. Some are Picassos, some are Rembrandts and others were painted by 2nd graders (too harsh). And yet all of them can create joy for the golfers who play them.
-
I just want to leave behind as many cool golf courses as I can.
This is the most surprising comment I’ve read on this site in fifteen years.
-
I would never in my wildest dreasm imagine a golf course architect would have 5,000 followers on Instagram, let alone 27,000, but to TD's credit he's done a phenomenal job promoting and selling himself to attract that size of an audience. ;D ;D
You and me both. I don't really do anything to promote myself on Instagram -- I don't follow others, I don't really promote my own projects apart from showing where I'm working, and I rarely comment on anything apart from questions based on my posts. Plus, I've found that half of my travels are things I can't post about, because the project(s) haven't been announced yet!
So I guess there are more than 27,000 people who have an interest in golf courses or golf course design, and Instagram is a good vehicle for bringing them together.
-
Someone earlier in this thread bought up the cost of land for 36-hole LACC right in Beverley Hills, CA. Factoring in the location and the size of the parcel, 350 acres could take roughly 350 1/2 acre properties with roads, service areas etc. Selling those 350 lots at a modest $2m on average would mean the land under LACC is worth at a minimum $700 million.
While this might be an extreme example of land value, it's hard to see how a significant golf course could be built within the accepted boundaries of any major Western city going forward... Boston Golf Club in Hingham is as close as anyone has built a championship-level course here in New England in the last 40 years and even that would be uneconomical for anyone expecting a return on their investment these days.
Only reclaimed land unsuitable for housing or commercial development would be a possibility.. e.g. Bayonne Golf Club, Trump Ferry Point...
-
Deleted.
-
Traditional media has fallen apart. They've stopped paying golf writers; back in the day every newspaper had a golf writer, now 98% of them just use the AP wire story about the weekly PGA Tour event, and all of the local coverage is lost. They are only going to cover what is easy to cover. And even non-traditional media is going to spend most of its time covering the people that everyone already knows about, because they want to boost viewership and search metrics, and having on a [relatively] "famous" guest boosts those things. If you think it's bad now, just wait ten years . . . I have a feeling it will be all Sweetens Cove level hype, all the time.
Touche, Tom! To your point regarding major market newspapers having staff writers that covered golf, I fondly recall Jack Berry's writings for the Detroit News up until he retired in 1993 and Vartan Kupelian's after him. By the time Vartan retired in 2009 the digital age age had taken over and both the Detroit News and Free Press had merged. They no longer had the financial resources to pay a dedicated golf beat writer and used A.P. wire stories to fill the void left behind. We were blessed in the metro Detroit market to have two stalwarts covering the sport when I was growing up. That's forever lost.
-
Touche, Tom! To your point regarding major market newspapers having staff writers that covered golf, I fondly recall Jack Berry's writings for the Detroit News up until he retired in 1993 and Vartan Kupelian's after him. By the time Vartan retired in 2009 the digital age age had taken over and both the Detroit News and Free Press had merged. They no longer had the financial resources to pay a dedicated golf beat writer and used A.P. wire stories to fill the void left behind. We were blessed in the metro Detroit market to have two stalwarts covering the sport when I was growing up. That's forever lost.
Exactly. Those guys generated a ton of free publicity to the golf courses up north, so the developers could spend their marketing money in other ways. And there were lots of others who did the same in other markets -- George Sweda in Cleveland, Gary D'Amato in Milwaukee, Phil Richards in Indy, etc.
-
I recall the day that I heard our local golf writer for the Arizona Republic had been let go. I found out later that he left Estancia off the Top 10 in AZ List — the publisher promptly firing him, and from there relying mostly on Gannett national writers. BTW, he left it off because he could never get access!