Video: "Players as course architect has been horrible for golf"

Gary Williams, Charlie Rymer, Matt Ginella, and yours truly discuss when players create golf courses. Or sign their name to projects.

Go Charlie go:

Comments

[BDF]

Interesting conversation. I tend to agree with Charlie.

[Long Ball]

Charlie is spot on! From enjoyment by the average (and slightly better than average) golfer to sustainability and growth of the game, shorter, wider courses make the absolute most sense. If done well, they bring strategic decision making and execution into play and save time, costs and annoyance.

I never understood why the PGA pros were deemed to know more than the folks who studied architecture and played the game for the sport and fun of it?

[Convert]

Any architect delivers the product that he was paid to deliver, as always follow the money.

I guarantee that if any player/architect (that Charlie thinks is a problem) was offered big money to build a course for 18 handicappers, they would deliver. I also guarantee that if some billionaire offered Charlie $5M to build an 8000 beast, he would do his best to deliver. Follow the money people...

[KLG]

There's a golf course a couple of hours from where I sit that is (or was, the last time I saw it in person) very playable by the 20-handicapper, who can putt a little, from the members' tees and also hosts a Major Championship every year. Designed by an architect and a player IIRC ;-) But that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

[Jeff Tackleford]

Jack Nicklaus has done incredible damage to the game with difficult and unimaginative courses he designs. They are much too difficult for the average player, and far too boring for the good player.

What if every Nicklaus was replaced with a Coore & Crenshaw? I think we'd see a lot more people take up the game. At least we are starting to head back to the golden age where strategy, play-ability and options are emphasized instead of forced carries, tight fairways and boring greens.

[P Thomas]

1) complain about tour pros not being architects. They're just figureheads with true designers toiling under them in obscurity

2) Complain aboutt the courses "they" design, even though they can't design them

3) complain about costs "big name" guys courses cost
Ignore cost of redo at LACC, Winged Foot, Southern Hills etc

Goal posts are tough to find sometimes. :)

[Samad]

I think Nicklaus et al have been great...at building largely forgettable $300 one-and-done 'championship' courses.

[Tom Morris]

That applied to modern player/designers only - history prove that.

However, when applied to those Golfers/Designers from the 19th Century – the comment "PLAYERS AS COURSE ARCHITECT HAS BEEN HORRIBLE FOR GOLF" is just a load of rubbish, as it was thanks to those Golfer/Designers that we have today wonderful courses and what's more, many great Hole still being copied throughout the world.

[Melvyn's Inner Demons]

We definitely see this with Old Tom Morris' designs. Plenty of forced carries in his body of work. He preferred the aerial game which led to the American-style of golf.

[Tremendous Slouch]

Old Tom, Willie Park, James Braid, CB MacDonald, Bobby Jones, Ben Crenshaw, Mike Clayton, and former Pepperdine standout Geoff Shackelford.

I don't see the problem.

[ol Harv]

"Any architect delivers the product that he was paid to deliver, as always follow the money. "

Bingo! For the most part it really is that simple.

[FC]

Now, if you want waterfalls....

[Zokol]

One of the best discussions by the group I’ve heard on the GC.

Charlie Rymer is bang on. Most Tour player designers default to what has evolved into conventional design in the North American game. As Charlie mentioned these designs are high in difficulty and low in playability. These courses may be good for PGA Tour drama in competition, but its influence had a detrimental effect in real quality golf courses. This style of architecture force the player to play the ball in the air. PGA Tour stadium courses and designers have significantly contributed to this type of course design culture.

Then Ben Crenshaw (with Bill) comes into the game and they go in the opposite direction in design/build. They really introduced the minimalist movement with Sand Hills. Ben was so excited to showing pictures of the Sand Hill land in the late ‘80s before Sand Hills opened. Then came Bandon Dunes and the revolution was on…

This minimalist movement proved that with the right piece of land you can design/build a golf course for 1/3 of the price of a conventional course and with a far better end result of playable and inspiring golf. It brought back the ground game.

Most PGA Tour player designers have not adopted this type of culture that comes so naturally to Ben & Bill and the Coore & Crenshaw design cohorts.

[Chicago pt]

Will b so interesting to see the tournament at trinity forest, so different for a tour course

[Robert Thompson]

Nothing worse than snide dickheads making nasty remarks using a pseudonym. If you want to take a swipe at Geoff, go ahead. But at least have the cajones to do it using your real name.
Player/architects, have, by and large, been awful. But there has to be a reason for their popularity—they sold houses surrounding courses. After the houses were sold, developers are left with courses they don't want, that few actually enjoy.
There are players-- Ben Crenshaw, Tom Lehman (really), Tom Weiskopf, etc.—who have done good work.
But if you look at the good to great names from this generation of designers—Doak, Crenshaw, Hanse, Coore, and in Canada people like Carrick, Andrew, etc—you'll find they were never pro golfers.
Time will prove this out.

[Tremendous Slouch]

I actually was bring up Geoff's name out of love, but sure, go ahead and call me a snide dickhead, "Robert Thompson", if that is your REAL name!

[Tom Morris]

@Melvyn’s Inner Demons

Again you embarrass yourself with your lack of real knowledge of golf in the 19th Century.

You are indeed a big disappointment thanks to your inability to grasp the game not to mention golf course design – then alas, you are not alone.

One day I expect you will grow up and put away childish pranks – but that would require a degree of maturity.

[KLG]

Yeah, but what I really want to know is the history of Golf in the 17th Century! Maybe going back to the 16th, when Mary, Queen of Scots was playing the Game, no doubt in a costume that wouldn't scandalize Vicki Goetz-Ackerman. The Game certainly went to hell after escaping Musselburgh in the 18th Century, and anyone who plays anywhere else is only wasting time.

[ElChapin]

I wouldn't blame it all on the player architects. Ben Crenshaw was a player, but he also is a good architect. Even Nicklaus had a collaborated at first, but I do have to say that I avoid most Nicklaus Signature designs like avoiding the plague. Most of these assume you can hit a 250 yard drive when playing the white tees, which not all of us can. Having said that I don't think the Jones brothers are "players" yet they manage to screw up plenty of golf courses too. Torrey Pines South as an example is an awful course to play for a hacker.

[Tremendous Slouch]

Another question to ask is, why is anybody designing golf courses? How many more does the shrinking landscape need?

[Tom Morris]

@KLG

We have been able to trace our family tree way back to 1649 - with being associated with golf 1720 - As for the game going to hell after Musselburgh, don't quite agree with you on that point - can you give us some more details. The Musselburgh supporters have always been helpful with their players by standing on the ball of others and other unfriendly actions. Visitors always had a hard time at Musselburgh - come to think of it not much has changed!!

[ol Harv]

" Most Tour player designers default to what has evolved into conventional design in the North American game. As Charlie mentioned these designs are high in difficulty and low in playability. These courses may be good for PGA Tour drama in competition, but its influence had a detrimental effect in real quality golf courses. This style of architecture force the player to play the ball in the air. PGA Tour stadium courses and designers have significantly contributed to this type of course design culture. "

Z, I agree with what you say, but like Convert said, the designers are for the most part doing what the land owners or developers want. If we look at the golf courses C&C have done most of them seem to be golf course only projects with little or no homesites. Palmer, Player, Nicklaus, those names, along with bells and whistles and plenty of green grass and water and wild looking bunkers, sell homesites. Or they did at one time. The true test for me is have they learned their lesson from past mistakes? So few new projects make it hard to tell. But when it starts to roll again will we go back to ridiculous overkill like waterfalls and wall to wall greenery, or will they apply the less is more philosophy that C&C and a few others have transitioned to?

[Ted Ray's Pipe]

@ KLG - Loved the Vicki Goetze namecheck!

Bet she could design an eminently playable and fun course

[meefer]

Charlie nailed it: The long off line shot is penalized, not the short off line shot...playable for all.

(Which is not to say I don't mind the challenge of the long carry every once and awhile...often to my detriment)

[chico]

There are good golf architects and some who are not so good. That's the same in any profession. Some are golf pros-others are not. There are good pieces of land and not so good also. I agree with the poster who blamed the desire to build houses- championship courses built by superstars seemed to be the formula and nearly all those courses have been forgettable.

[Zokol]

ol Harv,
Absolutely, the default and shortsighted thinking of the typical developer – wanting a championship (difficult) golf course and the name behind the architect rather than the quality of the golf course is a major contributing factor to this issue.

What I really find interesting are the great list of design/builders that come out of the Pete Dye camp that follow Pete’s construction process but have completely opposite ideology is style, playability and design than Pete’s.

[metro18]

Alister MacKenzie as a player couldn't break 80.
Just a thought.

[KLG]

Of that I have no doubt, Ted! In a previous life I sometimes played late in the afternoons with Vicki and her teammates at the UGA Golf Course. Now, those were great playing lessons to anyone willing to pay attention!

[Easingwold]

@Chico- what do you think of St Mellion ? I've played a few of Jack's courses and I must say I wasn't a fan of it. He seemed to favour the fade to small targets. And what a hike ! Not the best piece of land to work with I guess.

[Ted Ray's Pipe]

@ KLG - Saw Vicki win the 89 Women's Amateur and contribute to winning Curtis Cup and World Amateur teams.

Recall her hitting fairway woods into the Pinehurst #2 greens and beating the much longer-hitting Brandi Burton.

Not a total non-sequitur - would think an accomplished woman golfer could bring some useful insights to a design effort.

[chico]

@ Ease- don't like St Mellion at all and the Gleneagles course of his is only a 6/10 but I've played Harbour Town, Sebonack and Muirfield Village and I would happily go back to any of those

[Madeline Morgan]

The list of great or very good players who turned out to also be great designers is a very short one indeed and should probably be limited to Tom Morris, Willie Park, James Braid, CB MacDonald, and Ben Crenshaw.

[SportsDoc]

My experiences are very limited, having played almost exclusively in North Dakota and Arizona.

Arnie built a public course in ND after the huge flood in 1997 destroyed Grand Forks only public course, King's Walk. Links style. Very average. In his defense the land they gave him has little character. Playable but not memorable, and he did donate his fee. On the West side of the state is The Links of ND. Designed along the North bank of Lake Sakajawea, it is a wonderful design, though the property has little to offer other than the golf. But, to me, the best course in the state. It was designed by Stephen Kay.

In Az, the courses in Flagstaff jump out at me. Forest Highlands Canyon course is a Weiskopf/Morish design that is absolutely visually spectacular, but you'd better be a near scratch golfer to actually enjoy your round. It is very demanding regardless of which tees you play. It was, rightfully so, the #1 course in Az for many years. And the views are worth the lost balls! But, I wouldn't play it every day, and only a Sherpa would try to walk it. The other course in Flagstaff that I've played is Pine Canyon. It was designed by Jay Morish alone. While not as visually stunning as FH, though it's close, it is imminently more playable if you choose the proper tees. It is a course I could play every day.

Now that I'm retired here in SE Phoenix, I have played The Raven and Seville often, both Gary Panks designs and both very enjoyable and fair to play. Both are very walkable. I know he designed one of the courses at Grayhawk too, though I've not played there.

So my experience playing courses designed by pros and those that are not might lean a bit towards the true architect, but not by much. To me the final result is heavily dependent on the land the architect has to work with, even more so than what they do with it, or who they are, though obviously some have a greater vision of what to do with a property than others.

[Tom Morris]

@Madeline Morgan

Yes may be a short list but they produced great courses - many of which have been copied by other designers - how many modern designers in the last 100 years can say that - remembering that the so called (second) Golden Age designers did more or less the same i.e. copied much from the 19th Century guys.

Have you noticed the quality of golf has diminished in tune with designs produced over the last 70-100 years? Perhaps that proves the very point of this topic with the exception of the 19th Century guys, who produced some rather wonderful courses and many a great Hole in the process.