[Ted Sturges]

In almost every facet of life, technology brings about improvements.  We make better automobiles today than we 50 years ago.  Home appliances are better today. Health care delivery has improved with technology vastly in the last 100 years.  We build better roads and bridges today than we did 100 years ago.  

Why are we not better at building golf courses?  It is difficult to understand.  Did we run out of good land?  That notion seems unrealistic.  Why have we not improved at building golf courses?

The current Golf Magazine Top 100 courses in the world reveals the following...of those 100 courses, only 22 were built after 1980.  Only 14 were built after 2000.  If you take out the Doak and Coore and Crenshaw firms (who have collectively built 9 of the 14 built after 2000) you have only a handful of courses considered among the best in the world built since 2000.  It's a different topic, but have those two firms literally saved the golf course architectural community?  Why are there not more great courses being built today?  Why have the majority of the courses considered the best in the world been built a long time ago?

Why have we not improved?

[Peter Pallotta]

Ted:

I think it's because in golf course architecture/design you don't get better by adding anything (as you do with cars and appliances) but by taking away/leaving out extraneous ideas, features and what I call signifiers -- those design and playability 'signposts' that also highlight the hand/talent of man.  But in an increasingly competitive (and money driven) world and business, very few professionals can make themselves believe that doing less is the way to success both on the ground and in their bank accounts.

Peter

[Jud_T]

Because GCA is an art as much as an exercise in engineering, agronomy or computing power.  If we haven't improved it's because too much emphasis has been placed on the latter at the expense of the former.

[Jason Topp]

I work in a beautiful art deco building that has exquisite detail work in the lobby and a very cool, if a bit creepy look from the outside.  However, the building has severe limitations for running a business.  My floor has five people that work on it and it would be extraordinarily expensive to move walls to allow for more people to take advantage of the space.  From the perspective of observing and enjoying the building, modern buildings are far worse.  From the perspective of using the building to make money or having elevators that work or heating and air conditioning, newer construction is far superior.

I see playing a golf course as similar to observing and enjoying the experience of being in the building.  I see operating a golf course as a business or even a private club that survives as similar to running a business in the building. 

Even from the observing and playing perspective, one could argue that architecture has improved.  If one compares the raw scores for the 100th ranked courses on Golfweek's modern and classical list the numbers for the modern courses are higher. 

[Josh Tarble]

This is an interesting question...and I think the answer actually relates a lot to how we (at least in the US) look at food.  For the longest time it was trying to manipulate food, add to the food to improve upon nature, bigger more artificial.  I'm not sure if there was a single moment or if it was gradual but now, the best food is as fresh and natural as it can be.

That's how I look at golf courses.  For a while, it was all about moving as much earth as needed, "improving" on what mother nature created and finally people realized that the best features were found not created.  Now the actual designs are catching up to techniques, which have certainly improved.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Ted, I am not the premise holds true.  I just looked aat the currrent GD top 100 in the US and 42 were built 1980 and later.  That is a signifcant number.   I think in the last 20 years some astoningly good courses have been built.  Beyond the top 100 there is a group of courses if not top 100 quality are a just a step below.

[Tom_Doak]

For a while, it was all about moving as much earth as needed, "improving" on what mother nature created and finally people realized that the best features were found not created.  Now the actual designs are catching up to techniques, which have certainly improved.

Techniques have improved?  Which ones?  To me, the "improvements" of modern construction have put a lot of additional hurdles and barriers in the way of a designer trying to keep things simple.  Building a great green to USGA specs with Sub Air, or sand-capping a whole course, is just NOT as easy as building one out of native sand on-site ... and most of the highly-rated courses of the past 15 years are courses which skipped these modern improvements.

The other answer is that, in contrast to the old days, too many architects of the past 20 years were in it to maximize profits, rather than trying to be artists.

[Jud_T]

From the perspective of observing and enjoying the building, modern buildings are far worse. 

I disagree with this statement.  I do agree that most modern architecture is crap.  The best of it, however, will stand with the best of previous generations.  The same can be said for GCA.  

[Josh Tarble]

Tom,
I was more referring to things like irrigation systems, seeding and grow in, etc...perhaps things like bulldozers and heavy machinery have indeed made it just as easy to ruin good sites as they have helped the process.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
I was more referring to things like irrigation systems, seeding and grow in, etc...perhaps things like bulldozers and heavy machinery have indeed made it just as easy to ruin good sites as they have helped the process.

Josh:

$2 million irrigation systems do not make it easy to put the shaping back together, either.  Neither do cart paths.  Seeding and grow-in are about the only areas where I'll grant you a significant improvement in technique ... but, the older courses have had years and years to dial in the maturity of the playing surface, and that's a bigger advantage than the new technology.

[Lou_Duran]

Why are we not better at building golf courses?  It is difficult to understand.  Did we run out of good land?  That notion seems unrealistic.  Why have we not improved at building golf courses?

Why have we not improved?

Your premises/conclusions are mostly erroneous, IMO.  Though land near population centers is much more tightly regulated than during the Golden Era, and certainly much more expensive in real terms (as are the costs of construction and what must go into building a course today), there are a bunch of courses that merit considerably higher acclaim than we give them here.

In another thread, several posters were less than glowing about Texas golf.  I have played relatively widely for more than 40 years and offer no apologies for the state.  Our newest courses are our best, perhaps saying something about GE designs here, but I think it is mostly due to the quality of modern gca which perhaps doesn't quite tickle the fancy of the more mature, refined tastes of the Cognoscenti.

Having grown up in Ohio which has quite a few really good classics and any number of older daily-fee courses, I see the biggest impact of gca on the courses which the average golfer is able to play today.  I can take you to 10+ value-price courses in north Texas which put to shame much of what Ohio had to offer (and CA has available for that segment today).  IMO, we are blessed to play golf today.

Lastly, you may wish to consider that the lists may look totally different in 20, 30, 50 years.  Didn't Shinny and NGLA get added to the lists in the last 30 or so years?  Crystal Downs?  Maybe it takes the substantial passage of time for a course to reach its zenith.  Or perhaps the smart, discerning people need a bit more time to find greatness.

[Tim Taylor]

Just thinking out loud ...

Maybe most of the good land that isn't too remote was snatched up in the golden olden days?

What about environmental concerns? On older courses, I see things that would never fly in today's world - streams piped under fairways, filled-in wetlands, playable areas very close to stream banks, etc.

Tim

[Ben Sims]

Ted,

With respect, I'm going to dismiss the premise of the thread.  For two reasons.  1)  You have assumed that Golf Magazine--with its panel of luminaries and golf dignitaries--have truly ID'd the best 100 golf courses regardless of reputation or bias.  I believe this way of stratifying the best golf courses includes too many biases and is therefore, erroneous.  2) More importantly, the old golf courses that hang around in these lists aren't old golf courses.  Agronomic conditioning, soil structures, flora, etc., all change greatly over time.  These golf courses built long ago are in many ways just as modern as the ones built recently.  They are better sites, built in a time with less restrictive environmental concerns, with less emphasis on pleasing the masses.  AND they have updated and well-funded maintenance practices too boot! They are distinct and not generic.  They weren't built in housing complexes.  The list goes on.

Through the passage of time, mother nature has a way of maturing and tempering what man does to her.  I think this is what makes older golf courses so appealing.

[Ted Sturges]

Ted, I am not the premise holds true.  I just looked aat the currrent GD top 100 in the US and 42 were built 1980 and later.  That is a signifcant number.   I think in the last 20 years some astoningly good courses have been built.  Beyond the top 100 there is a group of courses if not top 100 quality are a just a step below.

Tommy,  First of all, I'm talking about the top 100 courses in the world...not top courses in the US...big difference.  I won't get into the debate about my view of the inferiority of the GD process and list, but please frame my question in the context of the top 100 courses in the world.

TS

[Ted Sturges]

From Tom Doak:
[/quote]
The other answer is that, in contrast to the old days, too many architects of the past 20 years were in it to maximize profits, rather than trying to be artists.
[/quote]

Tom-  Interesting answer.  I won't ask you to name names, but how would you describe what in fact they were doing to "maximize profits"?

TS

[Peter Pallotta]

Ted, Ben - Ben may have a good point, but I think the premise (and my post) certainly does apply to, for example, the "average English course" - the simplicity and enduring charm and playability of the so-called tier two courses that have served their functions admirably for 70 and 80 and 90 years without a great deal of money or time spent on changing or improving them. Those great old courses work so well because the architects of old did so little, not so much.

Peter

[Carl Rogers]

Does survivorship bias come into play here?  Meaning that there were a bunch of clunkers way back when that have gone by the way, thus you are left with mostly the best or far better than the average.

I am sure there are a few execptions ...

[Ted Sturges]

Ted,

With respect, I'm going to dismiss the premise of the thread.  For two reasons.  1)  You have assumed that Golf Magazine--with its panel of luminaries and golf dignitaries--have truly ID'd the best 100 golf courses regardless of reputation or bias.  I believe this way of stratifying the best golf courses includes too many biases and is therefore, erroneous.  2) More importantly, the old golf courses that hang around in these lists aren't old golf courses.  Agronomic conditioning, soil structures, flora, etc., all change greatly over time.  These golf courses built long ago are in many ways just as modern as the ones built recently.  They are better sites, built in a time with less restrictive environmental concerns, with less emphasis on pleasing the masses.  AND they have updated and well-funded maintenance practices too boot! They are distinct and not generic.  They weren't built in housing complexes.  The list goes on.

Through the passage of time, mother nature has a way of maturing and tempering what man does to her.  I think this is what makes older golf courses so appealing.

Interesting thoughts and well stated thesis.  I can't say that I disagree with you on relying on any public list for what we should consider the "best".  My own top 100 would be different from your list and would be different from the GM list...but I used that list because it is generally accepted as a list of the top courses in the world.  If you have a better list, please submit it here and we can break down the math accordingly.

Interesting take on the "updating" of courses over time.  I hadn't considered that in the way you present it.

TS

[Sean_A]

I think you lot are being too literal. It doesn't much matter if 40, 50 or 60% of the top courses are modern.  Considering how many modern courses there are, there is a strong suggestion that design hasn't improved.  Modern design may (and I stress may) match classic design, but I think anybody would be hard pressed to say it is better.  I don't much care about all the dopey reasons about poor sites, housing courses, profit making etc.  Despite these limitations, I think it is well within the powers of archies to consistently design courses which are at least the equal of classic courses.  There really isn't a good excuse as to why they can't.  Therefore, the answer to Ted's question must be something about the modern aesthetic and emphasis of design. 

I know from my PoV, carts are a big reason why courses today often come up short.  The concept of carts effects site selection, design decisions, walkability etc etc.  This is a question of design emphasis and I think it can be argued that often times the goal isn't to build the best course possible given the budgetary and other restraints.  This could simply be due to, despite the high profile of some archies, a question of archies not being in control of their field.  Once archies aren't calling the shots, architecture will generally suffer.   

Ciao     

[Greg Tallman]

Lack of restraint?

Time pressures... "get it 'to market'"

It's "just a business"

Formula driven society crept into the design game

[Bill_Yates]

I would argue that many of the old great courses were not "built," but sculpted, almost by hand, from the land.  Should that be a factor, then today's technology could be what is preventing the "construction" of great courses. 

Secondly, I believe that truly great courses have achieved that status over time. Perhaps courses being built today just need more time.

[Tim_Weiman]

Lou Duran,

I don't want to hijack this thread, but if Texas really bests Ohio when it comes to "value golf" I would be shocked......and pleased.

Now, all you have to do is make playing golf during the summer in Houston pleasant.... I am just asking for a miracle!

[Gib_Papazian]

Casablanca was largely unappreciated and only moderately successful when released.

AFI puts it Top Five of all time.

There is no way to predict the whim of fad and fashion 10 years from now, let alone 50.

NGLA is 100 years old . . . . . . nobody gave a shit about it between WW II and 1990.

Who the hell knows? Desmond Muirhead might end up being the Stanley Kubrick of golf design. Kubrick never won Best Picture or Best Director.

Oliver! won Best Picture in 1968 - 2001 was not even nominated.

Someday - maybe in 50 years - a famous architect will resurrect and restore Stone Harbor to international acclaim.

Write it down.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Gib - a charming hypothesis, boldly set forth, bolstered by a smattering of accurate and/or applicable facts and analogies, and with a pithy little "write it down" to end it off, with typical Papazian flourish.

Alas, I can't think of a single golden age course still in existence and still highly ranked that wasn't recognized and praised in its day -- immediately upon opening, and in NGLA's case even before it opened -- as being something special, something great. 

That the Dark Ages obscured/forgot that greatness, that the Oscars are primarily a popularity contest and commercial enterpise, and that Jeff Bridges for so long went un-recognized as the finest actor of his generation doesn't change the fact that the art and craft (i.e. routing) of gca has not 'improved' in over a hundred years.

I have speculated and hypothisized as to the reasons why -- less entertainingly but perhaps more cogently than did you.   

Thank you for your consideration.

Peter

[Jud_T]

PP- Gary Oldman barely needs his morning coffee to run circles around Jeff Bridges.  And I love me some Jeff Bridges, Duder.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()