Architecture chat!

[Lark]

A good number of those courses are as close or closer to the main population center as Southhampton (Shinnecock, National Golf Links, Sebonack) is to New York City. Or St. Andrews from Edinburgh. Or Pebble Beach from San Francisco.

[James the Hogan Fan]

No it's the Tapiola Golf Club in Espoo, Finland.

A decent links-style course in southern Finland. I recommend it highly.

[smashdn]

 

 

"One of my thoughts about architecture is that it is mostly lost on players of my skill level, because my abilities reduce golf to a game of not hitting it in the sand or water, and otherwise hoping to keep the ball on the planet.

Take the 18th at Pebble Beach for example. I can't really get there in two no matter how the drive comes off. I would aim my drive at the fairway trees at 260 out and hope. If I hook it at all I'm in the water, if I slice it at all I'm in the sand. Or I can lay back off the tee and contend with a tree, the ocean, and sand on the second, after contending with ocean on the tee shot anyway. Happy choice."

 

Sounds like you disproved the point you were attempting to make. It is still a strategic choice, just a choice made within the confines of your game. Dustin Johnson's choices are different within the confines of his game.

[CMCSGolf]

Interesting point. I actually think architecture matters more for the 18 handicap than the scratch. For the scratch player, they can hit almost any shot and generate enough height and spin that angles are rarely critical to hitting a green (with normal set ups). For someone who hits it low and with little spin, the angles become much more important. Yes, you generally have less ability to get to the spot that gives you the correct angle, but it matters more.

This is why decade and the other data driven strategy approaches in golf are so conservative in terms of the lines they take. It's because a good player can still hit the green from the wrong angle with a 7 iron. I think if you really want to see the value of architecture, watch a 90 year old lady play who can't hit it above her head. Those are the types of players where the tradeoffs good courses present become very obvious. Every player faces those tradeoffs, but it's not as stark the better you get.

[Noles]

My son plays a lot of junior tournaments and one thing that I have found very consistent is that newer courses demand a lot more attention and extra shots during practice rounds than classic older courses do. There is a lot more figuring out what clubs to hit off of tees and what lines to take and greens are especially harder to figure out. Greens on older courses are more predictable and tend to match the surrounding terrain. Newer courses have more tiers, knobs and the surrounding terrain is basically meaningless. There is a lot more to take in on the newer courses.

[klebs01]

How do you define older and newer? I find the exact opposite to be true. Pre-WW2 courses tend to use a lot more deception and have a lot more complex green sites. I find newer (dark ages WW2-~2000 courses to be mostly paint by numbers. Then strategy came back into play with post 2000 courses. I guess the trend really starts in 1995 with sand hills, or even further back with Dye courses, but the majority of courses built until 2000 still lacked much real strategy and are mostly hit it here hit it there.

[CMCSGolf]

Interesting perspective. I have the exact opposite opinion of new vs old courses. New courses have more tiers, but I've found them easier to putt because they are designed with high green speeds in mind. Older courses often have more slope on the entirety of the green because no one considered it might roll at 11 one day. Erin Hills is a good example of a modern course that is tricky and takes a lot of thinking around the greens, but in general, the modern housing development courses or much more straight forwards (not easier because of additional hazards and OB, but simpler to attack)

[Schley]

Lark.... Sand Valley, Bandon Dunes, Ballyneal, King Island & Tasmania, Tara Iti, Sand Hills are the no where near popluation centers at all. They are great and I have played them all except for Tara Iti/Sand Hills. However, let's at least agree these are in the middle of nowhere.

Long Island is one of the most populated places in the Eastern US during the summer, which is there season.

[Noles]

I certainly don't know the year of every course we play. Maybe it is more of a style thing but when it comes to green complexes, the Flynn, Ross Tillinghaust etc. courses are just easier to read from a distance and have that "feeder" quality to them. My son isn't hitting it great right now, but his short game is really really good. Last week he played 2 different 1 day tournaments. The first was on older course, not sure of the architect but its a classic design. He played the course blind. He missed 7 greens and got up and down 6 times. The only one that he failed to convert was a chip that he hit a little thin and put it 5 feet past the hole and had a slippery down hiller for par. The second course was an Arthur Hills design opened in 1994. He was able to play it the day before. He only hit 5 greens (it was really windy) but was right around most of them. He was 3/13 getting up and down. I don't think he chipped and pitched it that poorly, but the greens are just so busy with so many things to take into account that it becomes harder to get the ball close to the hole. So instead of a bung of tap-ins to 5 footers, you end up with a bunch of 6-10 footers on greens you aren't familiar with, that have no rhyme or reason to the way they break.

[Lark]

Sand Valley is 2-1/2 hours from Milwaukee and 2 hours from Green Bay. Not that much different than Southampton from NYC during normal summer traffic. Kiawah, Streamsong, Erin Hills, Kingsbarns were also mentioned, and all within those timeframes or closer to a main city. And the Dominican and Mexican resort courses mentioned are vacation spots that aren't hard to get to at all.

The point is, there have been plenty of great properties for golf used to build courses in modern times, both in remote locations and near cities. Some more terrific modern courses on great properties that aren't wildly remote- Sebonack, Friar's Head, Muirfield Village, Kapalua, Manele, Trump Aberdeen. The world is not lacking in great properties to build golf courses

[klebs01]

Interesting stats, but that seems to be a somewhat unique take. My experience has been the exact opposite. Not to say there aren’t easy old courses too, but the good old courses seem to be a lot tougher.

[Schley]

Lark..... what is between GB / Milwaukee and Sand Valley???? Yeah nothing.

What is between NYC the largest Metro area in the USA and LI, which is a part of the NY metro area? Yeah probably a couple million people. I don't know see what there is to discuss in this point, most of the top modern courses aren't located near population bases for obvious reasons I mentioned previously (or so I thought). You can't build an ocean side course in today's world of regulations for environmental and public use laws. You have to go to King Island, Tasmania, NZ for that nowadays. Even in Scotland outside Royal Dornoch where Mike Keiser has been trying to be the Embo course for quite a few years and recently gave up on the ocean. It is sparsely populated and couldn't get permitting from the local authorities.

The prime links land is there, but allowable land to be used for a golf course (public or private) is almost impossible due to zoning restrictions, public use laws, park zoning, or environmental restrictions. Not including if it will be a viable business model. Ballyneal has changed hands a couple times since opening as has Dismal River. King Island and Tasmania courses are hurting big time during covid due to needing flights to get there. It isn't a bulletproof model, and I'm glad that the restrictions are there as these laws and restrictions are there for a reason in various countries.

I would argue even if we don't have any new courses built in the next 10-20 years (which there will be few IMO) there will still be courses closing for supply demand issues as well as any economic impacts. The S/D model is reality and equilibrium of S/D will tell us what is the correct level as the strong will survive and the weak won't. Restorations will be the norm for the foreseeable future, which isn't a bad thing as many need maintenance of various types. As much as we want to say the modern courses are great and we need more etc., without new construction and further contraction the new ones will feel it first and the older classics will only further separate themselves for their history and pedigree.

[Schley]

The cutoff point is typically 1960 forward for modern. The Pete Dye era really as that is when his career started.

[smashdn]

Regarding old v new greens. Really, really old and they were rolly polly built on grade for the most part or had rocks or other debris buried to build them up. Next you have the greens that really only have one or at most two breaks to them (your dark age greens?). I find these actually harder to read and putt than the new-style greens with multiple tiers and sections. The slopes are large enough and obvious enough you can very easily read the direction of break, the question becomes then how much break and speed do you play? Those old flat greens sometimes for me it is hard to tell which way they break and I have a really hard time putting over ten foot and just putting it straight at it.

There is a Ray Floyd course nearby here that has those distinct section greens. They are large greens so your average guy doesn't have to much trouble getting on the putting surface but getting it close to the hole requires being in the right quadrant and using the slopes nearby the hole to funnel your ball. There is something to be said for that style of green. It is very playable for a wide range of abilities, provides a small enough target to keep the low caps' interest, and rewards (a bit) being in a certain location in the fairway and finally, spreads the wear out on the greens. Downside is you can't get them as firm or fast because the interior slopes are pretty severe.

[klebs01]

I would disagree with this categorization of golf eras for a few reasons. Have to at least have pre-1900, Golden age, post ww2-1985 (though I would say until 2000 as lesser known architects kept on with the dark ages themes, though there were some developments), and 2000-current. Dye was a bit of an outlier in his time, bringing back strategic courses. It’s incredible how many stars of today worked for him.

[krb]

I disagree to an extent. An 18 handicapper is trying to make par or bogey. A scratch is trying to make birdie. Architecture matters just as much to both; the scratch player is not going to be satisfied by just being on the green. He wants to be on the green with makable birdie putt. If the scratch player misses his spot off the tee, he must take on more risk to hit his spot on the green.

It’s the job of the architect to force players of all levels execute shots with a level of precision commiserate with their goals to achieve them.

[aiyyer]

Any thoughts on Mike Stranz? Just played Royal New Kent and loved it as much as Tobacco Road

 

[Schley]

klebs01,

You can disagree, but it isn't my opinion it is commonly accepted by rating magazines as the cutoff point. Check out any of them. Here are just a few. Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses (1960 to Present) Rankings | GolfCourseGurusI like the dividing line for discussion sake and even on GCA where I also post, it is a commonly accepted cutoff year. By and large not much was happening after WWII until the building boom of the 80's. Pete Dye and RTJ and the Fazios.

[Lark]

There were lots of courses being built in the 1950s and 1960s. The post-WWII boom in suburban development being a main factor. If you look at the style of courses, pre-WWII and post-WWII would be a better cutoff for classic and modern. I’m not sure why the magazines pick 1960 but that seems arbitrary.

[Schley]

Lark, we are talking courses with notable arthictecture. There is a reason the 50-late 70's is considered a Dark Age. There are very few notable courses built during this period.

There are various reasons for this, some of which we have already mentioned. As opposed to discussed classifying dates for architecture, which adds little to any discussion on the topic, can we please move on from this? It is clouding up a topic which is much more than dates.

[575M]

Last played Royal New Kent 15 +/- years ago along with Stone House. Both located outside Williamsburg, VA. I believe they may have been my 1st exposure to Stranz and must say enjoyed both courses tremendously. Several of the holes were visually daunting which added an excitement to the shots needing to be played. I have also played Caledonia and True Blue in Myrtle Beach and enjoyed those as well. Did not find them to be as visually intimidating as Royal New Kent or Stone House. I have not had the opportunity to play Tobacco Road but it is a course I'd like to get to once the pandemic is gone. I most definitely recommend playing his courses if and when the opportunity presents itself.

[klebs01]

I think there is value to understanding the larger forces operating within the GCA world through time and how those factors influence design. Like all historical analysis, the dates aren’t set in stone and the boundaries are blurred, but the general groupings are useful.

For example, I’m really interested in trying to play a local Victorian course, built pre-1900 with cops bunkers square greens etc. it’s short but it seems very interesting and correct for the era. my view of that would be different than if it was built in 1980. I would judge it similarly in some ways but understand the limitations of earth moving equipment. See how they felt with drainage when they couldn’t just lay miles of drain tiles.

[CMCSGolf]

I think that's reasonable. Unfortunately, not many courses succeed in challenging all types of players in a relatively equal way. I'm aware that's a tough ask, but a lot of courses play easier for better players because of where the hazards are placed. Then you add in their additional skill and strategy is not that important for the scratch player.

Geoff Ogilvy has said many times that what makes Augusta so great is that the risk/challenges mainly come in if you're trying to make birdie. If a tour player played the 13th with the goal to make 5, they would do it 100% of the time. However, when they try to make 3 or 4, that brings 6 and 7 into the picture. On very good courses like that, I think your point is 100% true. On the average course, I think you see angles being more important the worse the player is.

[smashdn]

Dick Wilson was a "big name" acrchie during the dark ages. His courses by and large are almost all re-done now. I don't think it was because he was a bad architect, but rather the accepted architecture of the time period was dull and potentially just bad. Runway tee boxes, straight fairways, round green, bunker left, bunker right. Not much admirable architecture but serviceable for golf. Lots of those Ellis Maples and Bob Cupp proteges are the same way. They built golf courses that are provide serviceable golf.
Courses that fit within their time period is an interesting topic. What got me thinking about this more was a renovation video I saw on Meadowbrook Golf Club in southern Michigan. There is very little there that "looks natural" or is minimalist but yet it is minimal given the original course design and style. It is very geometric but interesting none-the-less. I looked at it and thought that it was a course that you absolutely could play everyday and not grow tired of it. Andy Staples did the reno.
Tobacco Road doesn't really fit the land, especially number ten and 13 but it doesn't look unatural either. Ostentatious but not out of place if that makes sense. Lots of visual appeal and intimidation but a remarkably playable course.
There are some late 60's courses I have played that are dull as dishwater and some that are quite engaging at the green site. They mostly all seem to have dullish fairways though and predictable use of water as fronting or cape style features. Rather formulaic.
Langford & Moreau made some good courses in that dark age time.

Regarding what @CMCSGolf has said with respect to Augusta, the MacKenzie sand belt courses appear to me to be created in the same vein. Cypress Point as well. In his writings he points out his goal to provide a relatively safe place for a high handicapper to tack it to but at the risk of piling up strokes, while the scratch golfer is free to take on the risk and reap his due reward when he executes, but face high numbers if he does not.

[Chanceman]

The trouble with an 18 handicapper is that the ball can go to a wide range of outcomes, take it from me. If I am say 150 out, I might land on the green. even close to the pin, but I might also be in a nearby bunker, stranded in the rough or simply short of the green with a bump and run to come. The poor old architect had no idea I would do any of this so he can hardly design with me in mind.

[CMCSGolf]

I understand that, but I still think the 18 handicap needs to think about it more because if you do end up with the appropriate angle, you can hit the shot, otherwise you can't. For the scratch player, the angle doesn't matter as much because he can hit the shot from any spot due to more skill. It certainly is tougher for the 18 handicap to get to the right spot because they hit it anywhere, but getting to the correct side of the fairway might make a bigger difference for the high handicapper.

For example, I can imagine a hole where one side of the fairway is preferable vs the other. From the good side, an 18 handicap can hold the green and from the other he can't. The scratch would certainly prefer the correct side, but they might have the skill to hold the green even from the wrong side. Because of their higher skill level, the difference in potential outcomes is smaller, which I think makes architecture more important for lesser players.

[Chanceman]

Yes that is exactly the Par 4 15th at my club. The green is peanut shaped and on an angle. From one side you can run it along the green, but from the other you have to stop it or you go over and down a steep slope. But the thing is my second shot is always short, so I am playing a bump and run or a little hybrid which I can do in my sleep whereas the scratch man is playing his second from 150 out and has no room for error. I have to be spot on but really the hole is designed for the second shot in ie the one going for par/birdie.

[Lark]

There are a number of notable courses that were built during the 1950s to 1970s period. Spyglass, Valderrama, Mauna Kea, Cog Hill, Royal Montreal, Harbour Town, Teeth of the Dog, Crooked Stick, Muirfield Village, Shoal Creek, Butler National, Hazeltine,

[WarEagleGolf]

I love these threads. Not as educated about it, and I tend to play private, one course all the time then splurge on trips and play everything in the area.

Dye is my fave - our course here had 4 holes, set up like 18 at sawgrass, but it each direction. One he places a raised bunker in the side of a hill on the left, right at where you'd hit if you were longer off the tee. Dog leg right. Huge waste bunker down right side 90 yds long 20ft deep to water. Pin tucked on the right, a peninsula sloping towards water with yes...railroad ties.

Another dog leg left, since fee trees on the course - another bunker, but not waste, a true one, with a 15 ft high hill surrounding it. Take on more water or hit a draw, it's 125 in and a great hole. Hit that bunker - bad juju. Bailout is dead. He forces you to hit the shot or take a long iron off the tee and hit it again to a tight pin on the water.

Rees Jones has some good stuff. The one I played alot was very Augusta esque, but on the coast.

The tiered greens, big slopes to get creative off of. Carry's over wetlands and trees you have to either be willing to hit over or around. Quick doglegs, meaning the hole goes out, then a sharp turn, you rarely can see the flag until you hit the turn.

Arthur hills I played one, and felt like I was in a cookie cutter golf neighborhood.

Fazio has always made beautiful courses, most were nice - but felt kind of meh. Very country club or tourist type courses. Lots of bunkering but never in spots I found too exciting.

Here and there I've seen some other architects but been heavily intrigued by Strantz lately, eyeing the course in Charleston for a final place to play, and haven't even seen it yet.

What I know is I like a course that's visually intimidating, and requires me to work the ball both ways. Locate the "tricks" to play the speed slots and slopes, etc. Angles in...really think rather than goof off.

Home course is weiskopf. It seems so easy, wide fairways, large greens, not alot of places to lose balls...and yet, haven't seen too many people go too low. When the pros play it they light it up, but they would do that anywhere. Penal rough, greens that range from subtle to extreme. Lots of places to put sneaky pins, and some tough bunkering. Alot of double bunkers, so a small bunker with another one right behind or wrapping around, and most are not round - oblong and curves and the like. Not sure if that's his signature or not, but challenging. Made for tour play - long. Defense is wind and length not much else.

[smashdn]

@WarEagleGolf
"Here and there I've seen some other architects but been heavily intrigued by Strantz lately, eyeing the course in Charleston for a final place to play, and haven't even seen it yet.
What I know is I like a course that's visually intimidating, and requires me to work the ball both ways. Locate the "tricks" to play the speed slots and slopes, etc. Angles in...really think rather than goof off."

This is only my take on Tobacco RD but have read several times over that it holds true to Strantz's other courses just perhaps not to the degree that it does at TR. I've heard Tot Hill Farm is similarly quirky but in a way that fits the site it is built upon.
TR is definitely eye-candy laden. And if you let that stuff affect your decision making it will make you pay. But there is almost always a way around the trouble and where there is not the trouble is not as bad as it actually looks. And conquering the trouble is not always the best play nor results in a commensurate reward for taking it on and succeeding. I like that actually. A bunker is not necessarily protecting the line of charm but is a ploy to make you think that is the way to play.
#1 at TR is a good example that looks downright impossible and it gets you flustered and irritated right out of the gate. But if you just hit driver right down the middle you will be surprised at where you end up and how easy that hole can be, if you hit your shots. There are some holes where it pays to be aggressive, #12 (I think that is correct). Then on 13 I can't fathom a way to get on that green in two that isn't by luck. 18 is very intimidating but also very forgiving, if you clear that bank with your drive.