Modern Course Architecture & Pace of Play

[Sean2]

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1390280073' post='8499487']
[quote name='duffer987']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1390271481' post='8498629']
Which courses are you playing with a high slope rating where you see gentlemen struggle to find their golf balls, thus playing at a slower pace, compared to easier courses where players fly through?

[/quote]

Asked and answered Duffer. :-)
[/quote]

Oh! Really? Apologies, but I didn't actually see an answer to that question.

Thought it would be interesting to look at the scorecards, maybe break out the 'ol Google maps, and compare the courses.
[/quote]

A course with a slope of 124 is more difficult than a course with a slope of 113 (do you really need a google map to show you that or do you simply not understand slope?).

I never claimed players "fly through" the "easier courses". Quite the contrary. I admitted that sometimes harder courses have a better pace of play than easier courses.

What I DID say was that modern course architecture is ONE contributing factor to pace of play issue.

I don't quite understand you.

If you would bother to read what I said initially, and stop being so argumentative all the time (by the way, do you every contribute anything positive in a post, or are you always negative and argumentative in what you say?), you would see that most of your questions are inane and not pertinent to the topic at hand, i.e., if you would read what the person actually wrote you would see your questions (inquisitions), aren't really necessary. I've seen you do this with other people's threads as well.

Why not try contributing something positive for a change instead of playing the "grand inquisitor" all the time?

[duffer987]

Apologies again. It was a simple question, looking for a specific answer. A simple - 'no I do not have any' or 'this, this, and this course' - would have sufficed and I would not have asked again and the discussion may have had the chance to evolve.

Every other aspect of slow play has been beaten to death here over and over to the point you even acknowledge that by saying there are loads more to enumerate, but stick to the golf course itself in your OP. So it seemed that is where this discussion could lie, but instead with nothing specific or tangible to anchor the argument - namely the courses themselves - it just turns into another more general musing on slow play.

Yes I do understand that 124 should indicate a more difficult course than one at 113. As I've mentioned in a few threads, I like golf courses, the way others like equipment, and numbers do not tell the whole story. So it would have been interesting to me to look at them and see what about them could make for a slow round.
- Is it actually more visual intimidation than genuine difficulty of the routing?
- Similarly, are water hazards actually 'in play' and do they favor/punish a cut or draw more?
- Are forced carries the preserve of short par 3's, tee shots, risk/reward approaches?
- Can all these things be mitigated by selecting the 'correct tees' or is it a penal course full stop?
Amongst many questions that could be asked.

If I poked and prodded too much in this thread, my intent was not to aggravate, but try and move on the same old tired subjects to a place that has a glimmer of something new in it (or at least not retreaded for sometime) and concentrating on the title and original post was my attempt to do so.
There should be room to be argumentative in a collegial manner here - unless we want threads with 75 posts agreeing with the OP - and I will try and be more positive in doing so in the future!

[mshills]

OK Duffer987, I'll play.

Google The Coweta Club in Newnan, GA.

From back tees, 7,056 / 74.7 / 145
From blue tees, 6,580 / 72.5 / 141
From white tees, 6,202 / 70.5 / 129

I played this course often when I lived in Atlanta. I'm not going to reveal my comments on pace of play yet because it will poison the well. Have a think about it, check out Google Maps, then let's look at a very different layout in the same general vicinity.

[Sean2]

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1390291496' post='8499801']
Apologies again. It was a simple question, looking for a specific answer. A simple - 'no I do not have any' or 'this, this, and this course' - would have sufficed and I would not have asked again and the discussion may have had the chance to evolve.

Every other aspect of slow play has been beaten to death here over and over to the point you even acknowledge that by saying there are loads more to enumerate, but stick to the golf course itself in your OP. So it seemed that is where this discussion could lie, but instead with nothing specific or tangible to anchor the argument - namely the courses themselves - it just turns into another more general musing on slow play.

Yes I do understand that 124 should indicate a more difficult course than one at 113. As I've mentioned in a few threads, I like golf courses, the way others like equipment, and numbers do not tell the whole story. So it would have been interesting to me to look at them and see what about them could make for a slow round.
- Is it actually more visual intimidation than genuine difficulty of the routing?
- Similarly, are water hazards actually 'in play' and do they favor/punish a cut or draw more?
- Are forced carries the preserve of short par 3's, tee shots, risk/reward approaches?
- Can all these things be mitigated by selecting the 'correct tees' or is it a penal course full stop?
Amongst many questions that could be asked.

If I poked and prodded too much in this thread, my intent was not to aggravate, but try and move on the same old tired subjects to a place that has a glimmer of something new in it (or at least not retreaded for sometime) and concentrating on the title and original post was my attempt to do so.
There should be room to be argumentative in a collegial manner here - unless we want threads with 75 posts agreeing with the OP - and I will try and be more positive in doing so in the future!
[/quote]

My home course has water on every hole, very narrow fairways, and hardly any rough...basically you put your ball in the fairway or it is in a hazard, not to mention multiple forced carries. A couple of towns over is a local muni. The fairways are extremely wide...in many cases you can hit your ball two fairways over and still have a shot to the green. The slopes of these two course are radically different.

In addition, the greens on my home course are firm, relatively small, and in a few cases very narrow on your approach shots. A lot of balls are lost on this course. One day I needed to replenish my ball supply, and just on the left side of the first hole I found 86 golf balls (the ones I decided to keep). That day alone I found 250 total.

Both the USGA and PGA admit that course design is one of the elements that factor into slow play.

Nothing wrong with asking questions Duffer, but why not try answering some questions too? Doing some research as well? There are many factors that go into the pace of play equation. Course design is simply one of them, but it is rarely mentioned.

[mshills]

Note, for the record, this is not directed at Duffer.

Sean2, it's much easier to piss and moan about all the other 'idiots' on the course than it is to think about the other factors. Just off the top of my head I can think of the following that have at least as much to do with pace of play as player behavior:[list]
[*]Tee time spacing. 8 minutes? Less than 8 minutes?
[*]Does the course allow walking? If so, then you also need to consider
[/list]
- Average distance from green to next tee
- Cumulative elevation change over 18 holes[list]
[*]If the above question is "no," then is it cart path only? Brisk play is impossible if it is cart path only, full stop!
[*]Are there any driveable par 4s? Where are they in the course layout? If in the last couple holes they tend not to slow things down quite as much, at least that is my unscientific experience
[*]What happens if you miss the fairway? Is the ball wet? Thick rough? Monkey grass? Woods? Ravines? If there is a prayer of finding it, people are going to look for it, because of the next point
[*]Cost of today's golf ball. If more players did not spring for the $50 box of Pro Vs they might be less likely to hack through three foot high monkey grass or go on a wilderness hike in the woods to find their precious nut. Even if you do find it, how are you going to play it out of there, man?
[/list]
That's just what comes to mind immediately. There are definitely more factors, and they are all worth thinking about -- either to fuel good discussion board discussion or to actually identify those factors that could be addressed somehow versus ones that we're simply stuck with and cannot change.

[deadsolid...shank]

Interesting Sean. I agree with course design having a big impact on pace, but I kind of see it in a different direction.

It seems to me that "modern design" now means the big, open courses like Bandon, Prairie Club, etc. They are open and windswept with little rough and few trees. Very open into the greens. And to me anyway, few forced carries off the tees, if the correct tees are chosen. Not as many opportunities for those lost balls and plenty of room off the tee to be a bit wayward. Where I see the slowness come into play on these courses is on the greens. Big, even huge greens with severe undulations mean many more putts for each player. But it seems to me that these newer style courses should actually move a bit quicker tee to green. In theory anyway.

It doesn't seem like there are many of the tight, parkland style courses being built now. My caveat is I haven't played many of these, so all my speculation is based off what I've read, so it's also entirely possible I have no clue what I'm talking about and am completely off base.

[teejaywhy]

OK, a favorite topic of mine...

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1390260642' post='8497367']
Sean please define 'modern course architecture' and 'old course design'.
[/quote]

A book I can recommend is "The Golf Course" by Geoffry Cornish and Ron Whitten. Unfortunately out of print, check your library or watch for used copies. I picked it up on a sale table at Waldenbooks (remember Waldenbooks? A mall merchant long out of business) back in the 80's and it really sparked my interest in golf course design.

The history of golf architecture in America can be broken into several distinct periods of time.

Pre-Depression is sometimes called the "Golden Age" of golf design. Macdonald/Raynor, MacKenzie, Ross, etc etc...
Post-war: 50's-70's Robert Trent Jones, Dick Wilson...
Boom years: 80's-00's Nicklaus, Fazio, R Jones...
00's and on: New trends? throwback/minimalist designs... Doak, Coore & Crenshaw...

For me, "modern" architecture is what we saw evolve during the boom years but the trends began in the 50's with RTJ. What's confusing about the term "modern architecture" is the fact that some of the most modern architecture tends to be a nod to the values of the golden age, so some of what's new is "old."

A lot of our classic courses that withstand the test of time were introduced in the golden age. Courses were built on properties that were suited for golf. The lack of heavy earthmoving equipment meant the courses were closely tied to the landforms they occupied. Terribly expensive to clear trees so sites were typically open with gentle terrain. The focus became more strategic in nature and less of the basic penal styles of the earliest turn of the century courses.

Post-war saw a boom in golf and the advent of television brought us professional tournament golf. It seemed that RTJ took the elements of strategy and introduced his concept of "heroic" golf. Which for me reintroduced the penal elements. His courses were long and brawny with large greens and large bunkers. He popularized the use of water features that are butted up against the green that required the shot to carry the hazard. He is well known for reworking courses and became known as the "Open Doctor" for his remodels of tournament tracts to make them tougher for the pros.

This is where the trend started to "go wrong" in my opinion. An embrace of course design made difficult for the expert golfer.

During the boom period of the 90's and early 2000's. we saw a new trend emerge. Courses that were built as part of real estate developments. Now courses were being designed not for golf, but to sell lots or resort timeshares. The availability of sophisticated engineering and heavy earthmoving equipment meant courses could be built on property that would never have been envisioned as golf suitable previously. In fact, the land dedicated for golf in these developments was often what was leftover after all the homesites were plotted, leaving designers with some less than ideal land to work with. With the awkward routings and long distances between holes, cart golf became the normal.

The embrace of difficulty continued, with high slope ratings used as a marketing tool and many courses promoting their difficulty as some sort of badge of quality. Developers did not care about the actual quality of the golf, they wanted spectacular looking features that photograph well and can be used to sell memberships and homes. Lots of water hazards, dramatic bunkering, elevated tees with broad views and 18 "signature holes" were the primary goals.

This is what I think of when discussing "modern" course design.

We are starting to see a shift though, with the next generation of designers introducing more natural, minimalist designs, with walking in mind. Whether this trend continues and flourishes is really all on the developers though, the clients with the money. It also depends on the golf consumers seeking out and voting with the wallet. I think that the great majority of recreational golfers with modest skills just need to realize that this love of brutal, punishing golf is misguided. Golf can be challenging AND fun. 5 hour rounds and a dozen lost balls is not fun.

[BamafaninKY]

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1390315794' post='8500681']
OK, a favorite topic of mine...

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1390260642' post='8497367']
Sean please define 'modern course architecture' and 'old course design'.
[/quote]

A book I can recommend is "The Golf Course" by Geoffry Cornish and Ron Whitten. Unfortunately out of print, check your library or watch for used copies. I picked it up on a sale table at Waldenbooks (remember Waldenbooks? A mall merchant long out of business) back in the 80's and it really sparked my interest in golf course design.

The history of golf architecture in America can be broken into several distinct periods of time.

Pre-Depression is sometimes called the "Golden Age" of golf design. Macdonald/Raynor, MacKenzie, Ross, etc etc...
Post-war: 50's-70's Robert Trent Jones, Dick Wilson...
Boom years: 80's-00's Nicklaus, Fazio, R Jones...
00's and on: New trends? throwback/minimalist designs... Doak, Coore & Crenshaw...

For me, "modern" architecture is what we saw evolve during the boom years but the trends began in the 50's with RTJ. What's confusing about the term "modern architecture" is the fact that some of the most modern architecture tends to be a nod to the values of the golden age, so some of what's new is "old."

A lot of our classic courses that withstand the test of time were introduced in the golden age. Courses were built on properties that were suited for golf. The lack of heavy earthmoving equipment meant the courses were closely tied to the landforms they occupied. Terribly expensive to clear trees so sites were typically open with gentle terrain. The focus became more strategic in nature and less of the basic penal styles of the earliest turn of the century courses.

Post-war saw a boom in golf and the advent of television brought us professional tournament golf. It seemed that RTJ took the elements of strategy and introduced his concept of "heroic" golf. Which for me reintroduced the penal elements. His courses were long and brawny with large greens and large bunkers. He popularized the use of water features that are butted up against the green that required the shot to carry the hazard. He is well known for reworking courses and became known as the "Open Doctor" for his remodels of tournament tracts to make them tougher for the pros.

This is where the trend started to "go wrong" in my opinion. An embrace of course design made difficult for the expert golfer.

During the boom period of the 90's and early 2000's. we saw a new trend emerge. Courses that were built as part of real estate developments. Now courses were being designed not for golf, but to sell lots or resort timeshares. The availability of sophisticated engineering and heavy earthmoving equipment meant courses could be built on property that would never have been envisioned as golf suitable previously. In fact, the land dedicated for golf in these developments was often what was leftover after all the homesites were plotted, leaving designers with some less than ideal land to work with. With the awkward routings and long distances between holes, cart golf became the normal.

The embrace of difficulty continued, with high slope ratings used as a marketing tool and many courses promoting their difficulty as some sort of badge of quality. Developers did not care about the actual quality of the golf, they wanted spectacular looking features that photograph well and can be used to sell memberships and homes. Lots of water hazards, dramatic bunkering, elevated tees with broad views and 18 "signature holes" were the primary goals.

This is what I think of when discussing "modern" course design.

We are starting to see a shift though, with the next generation of designers introducing more natural, minimalist designs, with walking in mind. Whether this trend continues and flourishes is really all on the developers though, the clients with the money. It also depends on the golf consumers seeking out and voting with the wallet. I think that the great majority of recreational golfers with modest skills just need to realize that this love of brutal, punishing golf is misguided. Golf can be challenging AND fun. 5 hour rounds and a dozen lost balls is not fun.
[/quote]

Great post. Thanks for sharing those thoughts.

[teejaywhy]

So my lengthy post described what I consider modern architecture but did not address the question - does it affect pace of play?

Let's summarize the characteristics:
- Real estate routings with playing corridors surrounded by out of bounds
- Severe terrain with large areas of unplayable
- Overuse of water hazards
- Forced use of the aerial game
- high slope ratings
- Culture that embraces "hard is better"

Doesn't take a genius to realize that it most certainly contributes to longer rounds of golf.

[nbg352]

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1390320021' post='8501129']
So my lengthy post described what I consider modern architecture but did not address the question - does it affect pace of play?

Let's summarize the characteristics:
- Real estate routings with playing corridors surrounded by out of bounds
- Severe terrain with large areas of unplayable
- Overuse of water hazards
- Forced use of the aerial game
- high slope ratings
- Culture that embraces "hard is better"

Doesn't take a genius to realize that it most certainly contributes to longer rounds of golf.
[/quote]
You've hit the nail square on the head, teejay

[BamafaninKY]

I would add cell phones to the list of causes. Some of the dipsh!ts I play with spend as much time on the phone as they do playing golf.

[nbg352]

I agree that many of us have forgotten how to shut the world out when we have committed to a round of golf and just enjoy the game and our surroundings. cell phone use should be flat out banned on the golf course.

[BamafaninKY]

Anyone else noticed that when you take a call from your wife, the next shot is horrible? It never fails.

[The Pearl]

I recently watched a course tour of Royal County Down, the epitome of old, links style golf. That place looks like you could lose a dozen balls just on the front 9. I am just convinced there are people that move slow in all aspects of their life. Don't your playing partners play the same way they move in real life?

[PapaJohick]

My feeling on this is that these forced carries, and extra bunkers/waste areas, etc are obviously to toughen the course, but really to make it more pleasant to the eye. Look at all the pictures of beautiful courses that you really like, and you get a lot of water, undulations, crazy sand/waste bunkers, and all sorts of trouble. While these courses are really tough, people will play them (and replay them) for the beauty of it.
PLus, for some reason Am golfers (myself included at times) love to make this game harder on ourselves by wanting to play the really tough courses haha. Who wants to go out and say, "ok fellas lets go with the easiest test for us." It kind of goes back to the ego part of the avg. Male Golfer. Hitting above 90 on a hard course is no big deal, but if you break 90/80 on a course with a low rating, some may feel that it isn't as "cool" (not me though, My best round ever is an 84 on a very easy course and I was estatic and told everyone I knew haha).

Just a few thoughts

Edit: Lost all train of thought haha, but my point was that the makers try to get beauty and the way to do that is to have lost of trouble, which for the avg. golfer means losing a lot more balls/taking more strokes=usually equals longer rounds.

[mr_divots]

I think one big thing overlooked between newer courses and older ones is simply the parcel of land on which they sit.

Many, many courses I play are more traditional parkland style older courses, often municipals, and the land they sit on is great land and would fetch such a premium now. Compare that to some pacels they've built on in recent times, and its often the "cast-off" locations of former business sites, etc. For instance, one First Tee course by me that was built in recent times has tees that are like 2800 yards for the kids, but the WALK is about 7.5 miles because the land is so split up and fragmented. The walk from the clubhouse to the first tee is a half mile. That's insane! "C'mon kids, lets go [s]hike[/s], er, golf..."
There were a lot more great blank canvases with which to work back in the day.

[farmer]

Sean, you need to find a new place to play. Teejay, excellent post, mshills, also excellent post. My pet peeve is those huge potato chip greens, with the attendant mounding and bunkering that always seems to accompany them. I'm a reasonably competent 5-6 hdcp player, but of course it takes longer to play a 40 foot putt with a couple of mounds between my ball and the hole.

[duffer987]

@mshills - sure on a quick look that does look proper tough. I have far too exposed of a desk at work to look too much, I'll reply later
@teejaywhy - thanks for suggestion on Whitten. I've read and enjoyed Mackenzie and Doak's books, as well as Finnegan's on his travels in Ireland and Scotland and will look to add Whitten's book when I see it I like the break down of eras.
I see some post-war courses that have more 'heroic/penal' shots than those at modern courses, especially with the hole minimalist (I do ugh a bit every time that term is used in fairness ) conceit, but definitely those 80s to 00s courses are where a lot of the bulldozers and real estate silliness did their damage. Including damage to pace of play.

[mshills]

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1390328173' post='8502139']
@mshills - sure on a quick look that does look proper tough. I have far too exposed of a desk at work to look too much, I'll reply later
@teejaywhy - thanks for suggestion on Whitten. I've read and enjoyed Mackenzie and Doak's books, as well as Finnegan's on his travels in Ireland and Scotland and will look to add Whitten's book when I see it I like the break down of eras.
I see some post-war courses that have more 'heroic/penal' shots than those at modern courses, especially with the hole minimalist (I do ugh a bit every time that term is used in fairness ) conceit, but definitely [size=6][b]those 80s to 00s courses are where a lot of the bulldozers and real estate silliness did their damage. Including damage to pace of play.[/b][/size]
[/quote]

Winner!

That's the proper nightmare that happened to a lot of golfers here in the US. On many of these courses, your ability does not matter. The tees you select don't really matter. Whether you play with a Bluetooth in your ear, or lock your cell phone in your car while you play, or smash your phone into pieces before you play does not matter.

These courses cannot be played in a timely fashion. Even worse, the novelty wears off, and now the course is struggling for money. What does that mean? Two things: mandatory carts (if they didn't have them already) and hosting lots of corporate outings. It is not rocket surgery to figure out where pace of play fits in!

My #1 factor is the cart policy. If it is cart path only, that course cannot be played with any kind of decent pace or rhythm, at least not by me. I avoid cart path only like the plague!

[highergr0und]

Eh, my biggest beef with the modern courses is that they tend to design them to be expensive which drives more people to play at the munis and cheaper courses.

I'd go further and say it's nothing to do with the modern designer, but the modern golfer. For some reason, we tend to equate a tough course with being good, so of course designers will give us what we want. What seems to get lost is that the great designers created tough but fair courses. If you hit a good tee shot, you should be rewarded with a good look at the green, not presented with another very tough shot. I guess it's the modern golfer that wants tough shot after tough shot to prove their worth in some twisted way. Now that can work for a scratch golfer, but rarely works for someone trying to get there.

[highergr0und]

[quote name='mshills' timestamp='1390329130' post='8502265']

My #1 factor is the cart policy. If it is cart path only, that course cannot be played with any kind of decent pace or rhythm, at least not by me. I avoid cart path only like the plague!
[/quote]

Man, if I get to a course with a full parking lot and the "Path's Only" sign out I usually just get back in the car. I know I'd have to strangle someone that walks across the fairway with no clubs in hand to find their ball, then back to pick a club, then tops it 25 yards, walks back to cart, moves up, goes to ball with no club again, etc.

[backtees]

For almost 60 years (between about 1935 and 1995) the game of golf did not change that much. In those sixty years the golf ball only flew about 20 yards longer. But since 1995 the modern golf balls go about 60 yards further.

This affects every single part of golf. It affects the game and it affects its traditions. Since tour professionals hit their drives 300 yards and more courses are being lengthened every year to counteract the incredible length that pro golfers hit it from the tee.

On golf courses of up to 6500 yards people – in general – used to be able to play 18 holes in 3 and ½, maximum 4 hours. On coursed of up to 7500 yards it takes 4 and ½ hours.

Slow play or better “time-consuming play” is a curse of modern long golf courses and I think it really could be disastrous for the future of golf. In China, where the population is only just discovering golf, there’s no newer course shorter than 7400 yards…what nonsense for an emerging golf market and completely the wrong signs and signals.

But it would not be fair to blame the architects for slow play only. People play golf at their own pace. And this pace is also influenced by what people see on TV. How tour pros take their time and take their time and another look from the left side of the green and then another few looks after they addressed the ball already….. people feel that they have the right to do the same, of course, as the tour pros are considered as a norm.

If everybody would copy Snedeker there wouldn’t be a problem with slow play. But as a lot of people copy Furyk…..

[Sean2]

[quote name='mshills' timestamp='1390310989' post='8500269']
Note, for the record, this is not directed at Duffer.

Sean2, it's much easier to piss and moan about all the other 'idiots' on the course than it is to think about the other factors. Just off the top of my head I can think of the following that have at least as much to do with pace of play as player behavior:[list]
[*]Tee time spacing. 8 minutes? Less than 8 minutes?
[*]Does the course allow walking? If so, then you also need to consider
[/list]
- Average distance from green to next tee
- Cumulative elevation change over 18 holes[list]
[*]If the above question is "no," then is it cart path only? Brisk play is impossible if it is cart path only, full stop!
[*]Are there any driveable par 4s? Where are they in the course layout? If in the last couple holes they tend not to slow things down quite as much, at least that is my unscientific experience
[*]What happens if you miss the fairway? Is the ball wet? Thick rough? Monkey grass? Woods? Ravines? If there is a prayer of finding it, people are going to look for it, because of the next point
[*]Cost of today's golf ball. If more players did not spring for the $50 box of Pro Vs they might be less likely to hack through three foot high monkey grass or go on a wilderness hike in the woods to find their precious nut. Even if you do find it, how are you going to play it out of there, man?
[/list]
That's just what comes to mind immediately. There are definitely more factors, and they are all worth thinking about -- either to fuel good discussion board discussion or to actually identify those factors that could be addressed somehow versus ones that we're simply stuck with and cannot change.
[/quote]

There was a course they build in our area that received all kinds of accolades when it first opened: Golf Digest called it "one of the best new courses in America and it was also listed as a Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary. Initially it generated a lot of excitement and attracted lot of golfers. However, the number of rounds fell...drastically. People were losing too many golf balls (a dozen per round wasn't unusual). The course was virtually unplayable for the average golfer. So...they made changes to the course to make it more user friendly and the number of rounds went back up.

So yes, things can be done...and in future designs architects can make courses a bit more user friendly for the average golfer.

[Sean2]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1390312613' post='8500407']
Interesting Sean. I agree with course design having a big impact on pace, but I kind of see it in a different direction.

It seems to me that "modern design" now means the big, open courses like Bandon, Prairie Club, etc. They are open and windswept with little rough and few trees. Very open into the greens. And to me anyway, few forced carries off the tees, if the correct tees are chosen. Not as many opportunities for those lost balls and plenty of room off the tee to be a bit wayward. Where I see the slowness come into play on these courses is on the greens. Big, even huge greens with severe undulations mean many more putts for each player. But it seems to me that these newer style courses should actually move a bit quicker tee to green. In theory anyway.

It doesn't seem like there are many of the tight, parkland style courses being built now. My caveat is I haven't played many of these, so all my speculation is based off what I've read, so it's also entirely possible I have no clue what I'm talking about and am completely off base.
[/quote]

I haven't seen any of those Deadsolid, but they sound good. :-)

[Sean2]

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1390315794' post='8500681']
OK, a favorite topic of mine...

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1390260642' post='8497367']
Sean please define 'modern course architecture' and 'old course design'.
[/quote]

A book I can recommend is "The Golf Course" by Geoffry Cornish and Ron Whitten. Unfortunately out of print, check your library or watch for used copies. I picked it up on a sale table at Waldenbooks (remember Waldenbooks? A mall merchant long out of business) back in the 80's and it really sparked my interest in golf course design.

The history of golf architecture in America can be broken into several distinct periods of time.

Pre-Depression is sometimes called the "Golden Age" of golf design. Macdonald/Raynor, MacKenzie, Ross, etc etc...
Post-war: 50's-70's Robert Trent Jones, Dick Wilson...
Boom years: 80's-00's Nicklaus, Fazio, R Jones...
00's and on: New trends? throwback/minimalist designs... Doak, Coore & Crenshaw...

For me, "modern" architecture is what we saw evolve during the boom years but the trends began in the 50's with RTJ. What's confusing about the term "modern architecture" is the fact that some of the most modern architecture tends to be a nod to the values of the golden age, so some of what's new is "old."

A lot of our classic courses that withstand the test of time were introduced in the golden age. Courses were built on properties that were suited for golf. The lack of heavy earthmoving equipment meant the courses were closely tied to the landforms they occupied. Terribly expensive to clear trees so sites were typically open with gentle terrain. The focus became more strategic in nature and less of the basic penal styles of the earliest turn of the century courses.

Post-war saw a boom in golf and the advent of television brought us professional tournament golf. It seemed that RTJ took the elements of strategy and introduced his concept of "heroic" golf. Which for me reintroduced the penal elements. His courses were long and brawny with large greens and large bunkers. He popularized the use of water features that are butted up against the green that required the shot to carry the hazard. He is well known for reworking courses and became known as the "Open Doctor" for his remodels of tournament tracts to make them tougher for the pros.

This is where the trend started to "go wrong" in my opinion. An embrace of course design made difficult for the expert golfer.

During the boom period of the 90's and early 2000's. we saw a new trend emerge. Courses that were built as part of real estate developments. Now courses were being designed not for golf, but to sell lots or resort timeshares. The availability of sophisticated engineering and heavy earthmoving equipment meant courses could be built on property that would never have been envisioned as golf suitable previously. In fact, the land dedicated for golf in these developments was often what was leftover after all the homesites were plotted, leaving designers with some less than ideal land to work with. With the awkward routings and long distances between holes, cart golf became the normal.

The embrace of difficulty continued, with high slope ratings used as a marketing tool and many courses promoting their difficulty as some sort of badge of quality. Developers did not care about the actual quality of the golf, they wanted spectacular looking features that photograph well and can be used to sell memberships and homes. Lots of water hazards, dramatic bunkering, elevated tees with broad views and 18 "signature holes" were the primary goals.

This is what I think of when discussing "modern" course design.

We are starting to see a shift though, with the next generation of designers introducing more natural, minimalist designs, with walking in mind. Whether this trend continues and flourishes is really all on the developers though, the clients with the money. It also depends on the golf consumers seeking out and voting with the wallet. I think that the great majority of recreational golfers with modest skills just need to realize that this love of brutal, punishing golf is misguided. Golf can be challenging AND fun. 5 hour rounds and a dozen lost balls is not fun.
[/quote]

Nicely put, and that is what I had in mind. I see a lot of these type of course...the "badge of honor" you refer to.

I heard Pete Dye on TV once say about golf that: "Golf is supposed to be hard," with an almost malicious look in his eye. That seems to be his design philosophy too.

[Sean2]

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1390320021' post='8501129']
So my lengthy post described what I consider modern architecture but did not address the question - does it affect pace of play?

Let's summarize the characteristics:
- Real estate routings with playing corridors surrounded by out of bounds
- Severe terrain with large areas of unplayable
- Overuse of water hazards
- Forced use of the aerial game
- high slope ratings
- Culture that embraces "hard is better"

Doesn't take a genius to realize that it most certainly contributes to longer rounds of golf.
[/quote]

That's what I've been saying. :-) Not to mention seeing people struggling out there and it's not wonder some get frustrated and leave the game...I've known more then a few.

[Sean2]

[quote name='farmer' timestamp='1390327422' post='8502075']
Sean, you need to find a new place to play. Teejay, excellent post, mshills, also excellent post. My pet peeve is those huge potato chip greens, with the attendant mounding and bunkering that always seems to accompany them. I'm a reasonably competent 5-6 hdcp player, but of course it takes longer to play a 40 foot putt with a couple of mounds between my ball and the hole.
[/quote]

I like my home course just fine Farmer...and we have a great practice facility too. :-) Though I don't do it often, when I do go to a different course, the fairways seem a mile wide, the greens seem huge, and there aren't nearly as many hazards (and I'm not simply talking the older designs either).

[Sean2]

[quote name='highergr0und' timestamp='1390329522' post='8502323']
Eh, my biggest beef with the modern courses is that they tend to design them to be expensive which drives more people to play at the munis and cheaper courses.

I'd go further and say it's nothing to do with the modern designer, but the modern golfer. For some reason, we tend to equate a tough course with being good, so of course designers will give us what we want. What seems to get lost is that the great designers created tough but fair courses. If you hit a good tee shot, you should be rewarded with a good look at the green, not presented with another very tough shot. I guess it's the modern golfer that wants tough shot after tough shot to prove their worth in some twisted way. Now that can work for a scratch golfer, but rarely works for someone trying to get there.
[/quote]

I don't know, sometimes I think the developer says to the architect...I want the biggest, baddest course in the neighborhood!

[Sean2]

[quote name='backtees' timestamp='1390333533' post='8502803']
For almost 60 years (between about 1935 and 1995) the game of golf did not change that much. In those sixty years the golf ball only flew about 20 yards longer. But since 1995 the modern golf balls go about 60 yards further.

This affects every single part of golf. It affects the game and it affects its traditions. Since tour professionals hit their drives 300 yards and more courses are being lengthened every year to counteract the incredible length that pro golfers hit it from the tee.

On golf courses of up to 6500 yards people – in general – used to be able to play 18 holes in 3 and ½, maximum 4 hours. On coursed of up to 7500 yards it takes 4 and ½ hours.

Slow play or better “time-consuming play” is a curse of modern long golf courses and I think it really could be disastrous for the future of golf. In China, where the population is only just discovering golf, there’s no newer course shorter than 7400 yards…what nonsense for an emerging golf market and completely the wrong signs and signals.

But it would not be fair to blame the architects for slow play only. People play golf at their own pace. And this pace is also influenced by what people see on TV. How tour pros take their time and take their time and another look from the left side of the green and then another few looks after they addressed the ball already….. people feel that they have the right to do the same, of course, as the tour pros are considered as a norm.

If everybody would copy Snedeker there wouldn’t be a problem with slow play. But as a lot of people copy Furyk…..
[/quote]

Not totally blaming the architect...just one element of the pace of play issue. There are many others too...as I have stated...repeatedly. :-)

[duffer987]

[quote name='backtees' timestamp='1390333533' post='8502803']

Slow play or better “time-consuming play” is a curse of modern long golf courses and I think it really could be disastrous for the future of golf. In China, where the population is only just discovering golf, there’s no newer course shorter than 7400 yards…what nonsense for an emerging golf market and completely the wrong signs and signals.

But it would not be fair to blame the architects for slow play only. People play golf at their own pace. And this pace is also influenced by what people see on TV. How tour pros take their time and take their time and another look from the left side of the green and then another few looks after they addressed the ball already….. people feel that they have the right to do the same, of course, as the tour pros are considered as a norm.

If everybody would copy Snedeker there wouldn’t be a problem with slow play. But as a lot of people copy Furyk…..
[/quote]

No one here is, just looking specifically at this one aspect around the courses themselves, as I mentioned and others have as well, the other reasons have been beaten to death, buried, dug-up, re-animated, beaten to death again, buried, dug-up...

For instance. definitely do not copy Furyk's yank at Olympic a couple years back; however, had he not been at Olympic which is properly tough and had been an nearby Harding Park, which is tough, but not that bad, would he have completed the 18th hole quicker?

Yes, yes a tenuous attempt to tie that into the topic, haha.