Spirit of Freedom

I have provided you with one of my favourite quotes I know in regards to the spirit of the game:

“The concern of the architect should be positive and have solely to do with what a golfer should do. His mission is not that or a moralist, the principle word of whose vocabulary is DON”T. The golfer should not be made to feel that he must renounce, that the primary object for him is to conquer his faults. It is not for the architect to inform him he played badly. That is for the professional. No, the mission of the architect is that of a leader. By the development of his hazards he exhorts the golfer to do his best, enticing him at times ‘to shoot the bones for the whole works.’ Thus he instills the golfer a spirit of conquest by presenting him with definite objectives upon which he must concentrate. It is for the golfer to stamp his law upon the ground. It is no way the business of the architect to stamp his law upon the golfer. But thus it is in most cases. The penal school of golf spells death to that spirit of independence, life and freedom which we are all seeking, and which we should find in all places of our recreation.” – Max Behr

I will always prefer to play holes where I have clear alternatives. I’m not talking about a hole where I can try cutting a corner to gain a better angle in, but a hole where I can play it a multitude of ways in order to secure a score. Think of the 14th at St. Andrews as a prime example, the hole is full of optional routes and favors no particular type of player. You can choose so many different lines in order to suit your own ability and set up your preferred selection on the approach. Holes like this can be played so many ways that it would take 100’s of rounds of discovery to figure out what work best for you – and even that would depend on the wind and how you’re playing. Discovery and freedom are two aspects that I enjoy as a player, it why holes like this have caught my imagination as a designer.

The goal of the architect is to provide an interesting a playing experience as possible. There is nothing more interesting than having an optional way to play a shot or to play a hole. When a decision doesn’t make itself for you and you truly have to choose – these are the moments of freedom that captures the spirit of the game describe by Max Behr.

Why a Par 72?

Capilano's opening hole

I wrote yesterday about Rye Golf Club in England being a par 68. Rye is probably one of the most underrated courses in the world primarily because people have a tough time dealing with the unconventional par. Why has par become so important that most new courses are built to a par of 72 because it’s an assumed standard? I can only imagine how many layouts have been compromised or even ruined with an architect trying to find one or two extra par fives to ensure their course adds up to 72.

How many courses feature inferior holes because a course can’t let go of a number? People are still fairly tolerant of a par 71 but any mention of going to a par 70 makes them bristle because this is assumed to be inferior. It’s funny that most US Open venues are now played at par 70, because this is the only way to defend par. I have a club with a very short par five that in today’s game plays as a strong par four. The club is so concerned with maintaining the current par, that they are willing to entertain many costly changes just to maintain the par five. A change on the card would incur no extra cost. It makes my head spin some times.

There was a lot of criticism of Capilano’s recent decision to change the par on the first and tenth holes to four, which reflected the way they played. The members par remained as it always was. For perspective if you’re not familiar with the holes, I’m not long, but I had a nine iron into the first and a six iron into the tenth when I played there last time. The change in par reflected today’s game, and the change cost the club nothing, but there were a vocal group who felt this was a bad decision. Why, the course stayed exactly the same, only the number of strokes required was changed. One way to deal with technology isn’t it? You think historical clubs don’t do this – what if I told you that the Road hole at St. Andrew’s was once a par five. This has been going on for a long time and some of our greatest par and a half holes have come from this process.

Capilano's approach to the 10th green

So as I like to do – let’s take this a step further. Why can’t I design a par 69 or 68 right out of the gate? It would take less land and be faster to play. Since all par fives are either reachable, or become so long that they make horrible holes that eat large acreages of land, why not build far fewer. I know, I know - the answer is convention, and the risk is players will refuse to play a course that has a par in the 60’s. Truth is that this is too big a risk to take that chance.

Let’s look at another possibility, - what if the scorecard had no par listed anywhere and offered a final par only in the total? Would this bother you, or would it release you to simply play the hole as it comes? I still think one solution to fight technology is to lower par. At least we would stop rebuilding classic courses and stop increasing the acreage required for new courses. Makes you wonder, is a course as old as Rye the future rather than a break with convention.

10 Course I want to See and Why – Part 2

I’ve considered an awful lot of courses today and settled on my final five. While I could keep going with this list probably forever, I thought it better to stick to the initial question. It pained me not to select courses like Ballybunion or Fishers Island, which both capture my imagination and I will likely play them before any of my 10 courses on the list. I was stuck to five that offered something different or vital lessons in architecture that I still could use.












Rye Golf Links, Guy Campbell

My interest in Rye is two-fold. I want to see if the absence of a true three shot hole (the first is a par five at 485 yards) has any effect on what I think of the experience. I’m curious to see if I or my companions would realize. I doubt I will notice, and this may offer a huge impact on my feelings about an over-all par. The other side of Rye is the unbelievable variety and quality of golf holes. Rye’s holes are a text book on the variety of opportunities available to using a landform. The holes take on the dominat ridges by diagonally attacking them, playing off them, between them, over them, from top to top, or the devilish run along the very top of the ridgeline itself. All the possibilities are there!










Myopia Hunt, Herbert Leeds

I’ve always had an attraction to courses that represent a specific time in architectural evolution. This is one of the first, if not the firs, great American course. There is much to learn from the use of bunkering through to the importance of cant in a green. Severe and complicated greens can sometimes be a consistent but strong slope and there are some fine examples here. There is probably the finest collection of short holes in golf, so this for me is a must play since I could argue that this is one of the keys to greatness.













Woodhall Spa Golf Club, SV Hotchkins

If you have ever seen a set of photos that illustrate the bunkering and green sites at Woodhall Spa, then you know where I’m going with this one. The bunkering leans on the severe end of things being very tight and very deep, but this is also the element that sets this one apart. You can’t help but be impressed by the steepness and tightness of the faces right agains t the greens themselves. It begs to question how we do our bunkers and offers new insight into what is possible and to what effect it could create. The heather and gorse add texture and colour to the bunker edges to really make this course stand out. Not to mention that there happens to be a magnificent course also waiting to be enjoyed.











Winged Foot , AW Tillinghast

The only really famous course on my list, but selected for so many reasons that it became a must. There may be few better examples of how to make a course tough and demanding particularly at the greens. I have long been fascinated by the green sites and how Tillinghast created depth and demand by flaring up the sides of the greens. The bunkers flanking the greens are some of the most severe and beautiful in golf. But the most important reason because the course is spectacular despite being built over very average land.












Royal Worlington and Newmarket

Once again any course on an average site that manages to find every nuance available in the land and become a great course is of huge interest. The site is cramped, fairly mundane and yet the course has nine great holes (it is only a nine hole course). This may be one of the finest examples of assessing what features you have to use and getting the most out of each one by using on more than one hole to have a bigger impact. Finally these greens are as bold and interesting a set of green as you’ll find.

That’s my 10, no Augusta or Shinnecock Hills, but a very fine set of unique experiences that is every bit there equal.

10 Places I want to Play and Why - Part 1 of 2

First off there is no mention of Augusta National - yes I would play there in a heart beat - but I’m well beyond ever hoping that will happen. So my essential 10 courses are made up of courses I know I can get on and am very eager to see.

















1. Sand Hillls – Coore and Crenshaw

This is our generation’s landmark course. If it didn’t announce the latest movement in architecture, then it certainly put the exclamation point on the fact that this was the next great movement in golf architecture. The course is also a great example to architects about the importance of patience in trying to find the best routing. With so many options, and 100’s of excellent holes to choose from, the tough part was finding the best routing – and they did. It’s rare that a course has no dissenters and that is why this course is high on my list.

2. Royal Melbourne – Alister Mackenzie

The course was conceived on a massive scale, it makes perfect use of the topography, the green contouring is some of the finest the game has ever seen, it has one of the smartest short fours in the game, it may be the best bunkered course in the world, and it blends perfectly into the surrounding land. This course is very close to perfect. The main reason I personally want to visit the course is the bunkering technique, they are so beautiful, so well blended and so well detailed – they may be the best example of bunker construction in golf.















3. Prairie Dunes – Perry & Press Maxwell

There may be no course that blends better into its surroundings than this one. The course creates a very blurry line between the edge of the golf course and the beginning of the native grasslands that the course was developed in. No course embraces and respects the natural environment like this one – it is a great example in a more enlightened time of what’s right. To top if off the original nine has some of the best green contouring in golf and may have been the best nine holes course the world has ever seen.












4. Swinley Forrest – Harry Colt

The golf course is short and a par 68, but it may is probably the best course in the London Heathland area. The golf course is all about ambiance and excellence. This has one of the greatest collections of natural par threes in golf, something I have begun to think is one of the great secrets to routing. Colt may have concentrated on the threes, but the golf course offers an almost perfect progression from the opener to the closer without one falter along the way. Colt called it his least bad course – which to my ears may be perfect – despite the unconventional par.















5. Lawsonia Links - Langford and Moreau

There are two things that attract me to this golf course. The first is the similarities to the work of Raynor and MacDonald. The count features big bold greens and massive pushed up features that are so obviously created, yet the course manages to blend out into the surroundings. The second attraction is the massive scale of all the golf holes and the feature work. Working in a large scale is dangerous because it really exaggerates mistakes, but when it is done like Lawsonia it becomes an awesome experience that overwhelms the player. I have always admired San Francisco Golf Club, and this would be another lesson into the most elusive design idea.

The next 5 will come next week – tomorrow’s blog will be on something else

The Best in Canadian Golf – My Choices

I was surfing last Friday night when I ended up at the Score Reader’s Choice Awards and it got me thinking I should offer my best of Canadian Golf List. I hope this will spur some people on to go and explore some of these great courses and holes that they might not have otherwise seen. Score had a tendency to regionalize their choices and I will respect their system and do the same.














Best Course
Atlantic- Highland Golf Links
Quebec- Beaconsfield Golf & Country Club (this was a very tough choice between 4 different courses)
Ontario- St. George’s Golf & Country Club
Central- Jasper Park Lodge Golf Course
British Columbia- Capilano Golf & Country Club















Best Resort – Jasper Park Lodge Golf Course

Best Golf Destination – Saskatchewan (value and quality is unmatched in Canada)

Best Scenery – Furry Creek Golf Course
Best Service – Angus Glen (10 years without a drop in quality)

Best Condition – Dakota Dunes (on his budget, it was exceptional)















Best Value
Atlantic- Northumberland Links
Ontario- Allandale (Barrie)
Central- Dakota Dunes
(I couldn’t make a fair choice in other two regions)

Best Clubhouse – Capilano Golf & Country Club













Best Par 3
Atlantic- 4th at Northumberland Links
Quebec- 15th at Beaconsfield Golf & Country Club
Ontario- 15th at Catarqui Golf & Country Club
Central- 4th at Banff Springs Golf Course
British Columbia- 6th at Greywolf Golf Course
*One special one to seek out – 8th at Uplands














Best Par 4
Atlantic- 2nd at Highland Links
Quebec- 7th at Mount Bruno Golf Club
Ontario- 2nd at St. George’s Golf & Country Club
Central- 4th at Banff Springs Golf Course
British Columbia- 7th at Capilano Golf & Country Club
*Best short par four – 7th at Scarboro Golf & Country Club














Best Par 5
Atlantic- 15th at Highland Links
Quebec- 10th at Laval-sur-le-lac Golf & Country Club
Ontario- 14th at Summit Golf & Country Club
Central- 8th at Waskesiu Golf Course
British Columbia- 18th at Capilano Golf & Country Club

Best Practice facility – Coppinwood Golf Club

Best Halfway House – Highland Links













*Special Places to Seek Out
Atlantic- Green Gables
Quebec- Braeside Golf Club (turn of the century golf)
Ontario- Allandale (9 holes of Thompson as it was – just the sand is missing on few bunkers)
Central- Waskesiu (the best fairway contours next to highlands)
British Columbia- Victoria Golf Course (a series of holes on the Pacific Ocean)

*Best Local Rule – The Raven Rule at Mountain View Golf Course (Yukon) (essentially a stolen ball is replaced without penalty)

*personal additions

Some Writings that Shaped Me

Golf Architecture In America by George Thomas

This was the first golf course architecture book I ever read. I had to read a photocopy of the book because I had no idea of how to get one and the reprint had not yet come out. The basics of routing and design are found in this book. Through his courses he also teaches you about creating strategy and uses wonderful illustrations of many ideas which help make the concepts easier to follow. Nothing can match the photos that accompany the text and provide us with a window into another era. Still my sentimental favorite.

Some Essays on Golf Architecture by Colt and Allison

Rather than a manual on how to design a golf course, I would consider this more a series of lessons. The essays work well to allow Colt a little more freedom to explain some of the views on subjects on the periphery of golf architecture. The writing is excellent as anything he writes since he tends to clear and concise with his thoughts. Short and expensive, the book is still worth it.

Toronto Golf Club Field Notes

Within the notes is a one page explanation on how to build a bunker. Very short and very concise, but if you can’t figure out how to make great basic bunker forms from this, then accounting is your calling.

Anatomy of a Golf Course by Tom Doak

Even though by the time I had read this book I was already a practicing golf course architect, I still found that Tom’s thoughts were interesting enough to spur on my thoughts about convention versus less conventional holes. The book, while mostly an excellent step by step walk through what you have to think about to design a golf course, also contains many thought provoking moments about strategy. Slightly less technical that Thomas book, and clearly based on it, this may be the best starting point for anyone interested in golf architecture.

The Confidential Guide

For me personally, this book is a source of clever insights along with some very pointed criticism. The lessons on architecture are found in both. While criticism hurts people’s feelings, often some of the greatest lessons come from when someone explains what not work and why. In older versions the why is covered in much greater detail than the current ones. The real joy of the book is the 31 flavours where he offers many clever little insights into some really great architecture, occasionally on courses you didn’t know, from my perspective there needs to be more courses covered in the future reprint.

Golf Architecture by Alister MacKenzie

Conceptually this was the book that most shaped my perception of the game philosophically. His view that a course should challenge the player yet give them the room to play struck a cord. I also love the concept, which I somewhat borrowed for my personal philosophy, that a bunker is not meant to punish shots but to make the game interesting. There are great quotes throughout the book like, “a hazard placed in the exact position where a player would naturally go is frequently the most interesting situation, as then a special effort is needed to get over or avoid it.” This could arguably be the best book to understand all the facets of the game including the philosophy of golf architecture, while some of the nuts and bolts of the other great books are missing, his explaination on how the architecture influences and effects the player is essential reading.

The Spirit of St. Andrew’s by Alister Mackenzie

The explanation of the contours of the 16th green at St. Andrew’s and how they effect play all the way from the tee changed my perception of the value of great green contours. The Old Course is the foundation of architecture, and this is the best short course anyone could provide into the subtleties and intricacies of that magical ground.

Mike Strantz – Golf Club Atlas Interview

This is the one interview that I have turned to multiple times for inspiration. In the beginning I read his interview before seeking out Monterey Peninsula so I can understand how he thinks. I read the interview again after playing Tobacco Road an found what he had to say inspirational. I don’t want to design like Mike, but I appreciate the conviction he had for what he believed and I enjoyed that he had a well determined philosophy on what he was trying to do. Mike helped me clarify my own philosophy and to add to my palette of options.

Other Influences:

The Architectural Side of Golf by Wethered and Simpson
The Links by Robert Hunter
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
The Future of Golf in America by Geoff Shackelford
The Golf Course by Cornish and Whitten

There are a lot of articles by Walter Travis and A.W. Tillinghast not mentioned here from Golf Illustrated and American Golfer that also had an impact too.

Accreditation

This is the 16th at St. George's, I was stunned by my research, so which are not original bunkers?

One thing that we all want to know about the historic courses that is how much is original. This sounds really easy and too often we want to make easy simple pronouncements based upon what we see or what we find. We have a tendency to repeat the conclusions found in books or magazines and take them as fact. Occasionally we find ourselves repeating a legend, assuming it to be true, right up until somebody presents information to the contrary. The inaccuracies come from making an educated guess, without compiling all the information necessary to form an accurate conclusion.

Let’s look at all the possible sources of information first. The first is the routing plan; it provides us with a window into the architect’s intent - not what was built - but the intent before they began. Some architects tend to be very close, whereas many architects like Thompson tended to stray from the plan. When you can combine this with an early aerial we often begin to see a reasonably good picture of what was there. But to offer you perspective there were already 8 bunker changes between opening day and the 1939 aerial at St. George’s, so taking an aerial at full value is dangerous, particularly because of the influence of the depression. The plan in the clubhouse also has a series of bunkers that were never built between the 17th and 18th hole too. So be careful with plans and aerials.

Nothing beats a “full” set of opening day photographs like Cataraqui has. It makes it much easier to put everything together, with the only important limit being that it is from a single angle that often hides other details. If you can combine this with a good aerial then you usually have a pretty accurate picture on what was there. For Stanley Thompson courses, I can only think of five that have this much information readily available.

Burlington's 13th is a great example of a green with every last detail so perfect that it matches the other greens - yet it is an old rebuild. Nobody could deduce this one by sight or by aerial.

Once we move outside of this area everything begins to become an educated guess. The architect’s on site instructions or letters can often provide a wonderful window into intent, but they seem to be very rare. Membership remembrances have provided wonderful clues as well as writings by reporters from that era. The Canadian Golfer and Golf Illustrated occasional even have course profiles that give us an idea of what we are looking for. Note that I said, what we are looking for, not what was there. The problem often comes from either the accuracy of these or what they don’t tell you. For example all St. George’s greens were rebuilt (verified by the bill) , but the author never told us by whom, and how much actually changed at each green. So are they Thompson greens or not? I find this is a good last resort, although ever once in a while you find a member who is both sharp and old enough to provide stunning windows into the all the changes of the course. This is likely the most underutilized resource at clubs, and one that is literally dying as we speak.

Working drawings are rare, but provide excellent detailed direction, but don’t tell you the important on site adjustments that made the really creative architects special. There are architects that believe you should follow the working drawings exclusively when restoring, but that to me is not honoring the built form that the architect created. So that leaves the course itself. I would put my knowledge of Thompson’s architecture up against anyone, but even I know I can’t just look at a bunker or green and say that’s definitely Thompson. I can only make an “educated” guess. Yet many people make a visit to a course, look at the architecture, look at the few items of historic value and then make a pronouncement on what is there. Here’s the problem, there almost always wrong, and this is compounded when that person is from a society that celebrates a particular architect because they will be taken at their word. So if you are going to provide accreditation, you better make sure it’s accurate.

The best way I could describe this process is forensic research, where you try peel back as many layers as you can find looking for the “closest” answer you can get.

The "Final" Final Thoughts

First off, I want to thank Alison King, Dan Pino, Paul MacDonald, Dr. Stephen Norris, Stephen Ross, Jeff Calderwood, Nathalie Lavallée, Bob Weeks, Robert Thompson and James Cronk for there conversations, emails or comments on this subject. I also want to thank the many of you who posted comments or thoughts on this very subject. Even my 12 year old shared in this, though he wished Dad would find something else to talk about!

I know many of you are wondering why I went on such a tangent, and frankly so am I, but the subject is dear to me. As I said before I was a junior golfer who got lots of coaching, access and reduced green fees and look at what an impact it had on my life. I want to thank Graham Gunn and Dave Kempshed for teaching me and never once charging me for a lesson, because I was a junior. I was also a player in dozens of golf tournaments put on by volunteers where the course was donated and so were the prizes. I even ran junior events myself when I was in my twenties (the last time I was actively linked to a club). To every volunteer past, present and future I offer you my personal thanks.

I have two children who have already indicated clearly without their father’s prodding that they want to play. My youngest played his first 9 holes at 5 because there is a course called River Edge in Kitchener that encourages parents and children to play. Here is the link if your interested: http://www.riveredgegolf.com/ . My older boy and I were going to play and have the youngest walk with us, but the lady looked at me incredulously and said why he isn’t playing. I sheepishly said I figured he’s too young and you would be worried about him keeping up. She said, “He’ll keep up, it’s you I’m worried about!”

There are so many people who really care about the future of the game, and I mean really care. I just hope that we can all find that common ground that will “grow the game”

There are more articles on the blog all done over the same three week period. Each organization was allowed to comment or make a statement to allow them the opportunity to present their case or explain their own efforts. You will only need to go into january of 2007 to find the remainder.

Paul Daley’s Favourite Holes By Design

I’ve been ill almost all week now, so I thought I would take a light subject for a change of pace.

One of my favorite golf architecture books for relaxing before bed is Paul Daley’s Favourite Holes by Design. It doesn’t have the depth of insight that I love from Golf Architecture in America by Thomas or Mackenzie’s Spirit of St. Andrew’s, but there are lots of small moments to love. The book has such a simple premise, get 70 different golf course architects to write a one page review of a great hole and publish them all together in one book. I certainly wish I knew Paul Daley at the time because I would have loved to have participated in the book.


The Himilayan Golf Club's 6th from the tee over the river, and back across to the island green






Each architect has written in detail what they admire about the hole, whether it simply fits the eye, offers a unique set of playing options, or pushes the art to a new level. They have covered well known holes from Cypress Point to Augusta, but the best ones are from courses not known by more than the most ardent architecture junkie, like the Himilayan Golf Club by Ron Fream or Martin Ebert’s choice of the outstanding 5th at Royal Worlington and Newmarket (likely the finest nine hole course in the world). This is the area where the book becomes the most fun.

There are great personal moments, like Todd Eckinrode’s views on the 13th at Royal County Down, which are framed around his trip to play in the British Amateur. Robin Hinesman starts his with “Isn’t it great when something not only meets you expectations, but exceeds them. Especially when your expectations were so high to begin with.” He goes on to talk about the joy he found at the often maligned Cashen Course at Ballybunion. I know find myself wanting badly to see this course after reading his review. Some of the illustrations are spectacular and some of the writing is beautiful, but all of the reviews make you want to see the holes you have not yet played. Paul even included a photograph of each hole taken usually by David Scalletti so that people could see what makes the hole special too.

The 6th at Kingsbarns, Brian used Kyle's own sketch to illustrate the hole.

If your curious about which hole I would have picked then you better use this link to find out:
http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2006/06/18-holes-day-16-6th-at-creek.html

The back of Paul’s book finishes up with a list of each architects favourite 5 par 3s, 4’s and 5’s.
I have offered you my favourite hole and I will finish up with the 15 holes that I think are the best at each par. I stuck with only the holes I knew from personal experience, so I’m sure there are other more worthy holes I haven’t met…..yet!

3’s
16th at Cypress Point Club
11th Los Angelas Country Club
4th National Golf Links of America
10th Pine Valley Golf Club
8th Royal Troon Golf Club

4’s
10th Riviera Golf & Country Club
13th Pine Valley Golf Club
14th Royal Dornock Golf Club
13th Royal County Down
6th The Creek Club

5’s
8th Crystal Downs Golf Club
18th Pebble Beach Golf Links
15 at Highland Golf Links
14th at St. Andrew’ Old Course
13th at Cruden Bay Golf Club

I bring this up to any of you who have not heard of this book and I have provided a link to the publisher Paul Daley. He can be reached at : http://www.fullswinggolf.com.au/

Course closures outpace openings in 2006

"According to the National Golf Foundation, there was negative net growth in golf facilities in 2006 for the first time in 60 years, as the number of courses that closed (146 18-hole equivalents) was greater than the number of openings (119.5). In releasing the data, NGF said it was not an alarming occurrence, but a confluence of events – openings returning to more normal levels and weaker facilities being culled. "

We began a cycle of dropping participation just after the start of the new millennium. Of course, the IPSOS Reid study claims that we had a big increase last year. Now remember this poll was based on equal sampling in all the regions so that southern Ontario had the same impact as PEI. This makes the results tough to believe when a quarter of all play is from Ontario and a huge majority of that is from southern Ontario. Ask any course operator in southern Ontario, play is down.

"In the late 1980s, the number of openings was about 100 per year. There followed a wave of increased construction in the 1990s that peaked in 2000 with nearly 400 openings. Since then the wave has subsided to near historic levels. "

In southern Ontario the build out has easily followed this massive spike and it is quite clear that we are about to follow the same pattern of construction…or lack there of. The interesting thing is there may be a possibility of no new courses built in southern Ontario in a year or two!

"The culling of courses is not viewed as a negative by NGF. The organization expects overall course supply to stop expanding in the absence of increases in demand. It is primarily the weaker courses that are closing and, in many cases, owners who sell are profiting from long-term real estate appreciation. Finally, a better quality overall golf supply means a better quality experience for players."

I really have no problem with what they are saying about weaker facilities and bad business models being culled. In fact, many of Ontario’s most foolish projects will end up declaring bankruptcy. The Niagara region has a series of courses all built beyond the regions price point, and the casino traffic is not what they all anticipated. Anyone surprised by this – after Legends we all knew. The Muskoka’s feature a very short season, granted there is plenty of money (for now), but too many courses were built in isolated locations. Nobody wants to leave the family and the cottage for the day to play golf and these courses are excessively expensive to build. Finally Collingwood will be the next area to face the same. There building like mad to match the real estate boom, but the courses are already showing signs that the demand is not there – and yet more are coming.

"NGF recorded a 56 percent jump in the number of closures between 2005 and 2006, from 93.5 to 146. These 146 closures represent about 1 percent of the total supply of golf courses in the U.S. Closures were primarily public (97 percent). They were disproportionately short courses (executive and par-3) – 20 percent were short courses vs. 8 percent of total facilities. And, they were disproportionately stand-alone 9-holers, 46 percent vs. 28 percent of total facilities. Closures were predominately values courses; with nearly half having peak green fees under $25. Closures occurred in 39 of 50 states."

We’re always a little behind the curve up here, but this is coming. As a developer friend said to me a few years back, “Why would I build now, when I can buy them at 50 cents on the dollar in a few years?” Clublink will begin to acquire courses again but many will simply go to bankruptcy. I’m still trying to figure out who is going to fill Coppinwood, the new Greg Norman course and Gord Stollery’s course all being or been built east of Uxbridge for high end membership. The market won’t carry all of them.

The business model still remains the same, if you build a clever course at a reasonable cost, you will make money and be busy. If you build a massive project with every bell and whistle, you must charge a premium, and then everything must go perfectly for you to make money - including the economy, and that nobody can control.

Growing the Game Final Thoughts

I’m not usually in the habit of writing on the week-end, but I will today. I began this week by saying “I felt like Canadian Golf had finally made the first real step towards trying to develop players and the long term health of the game – something I believe should be a priority for all of us.” I was excited to write about an initiative that seemed proactive, but now I feel like I've waded into the middle of something that I want no part of.

Programs that Clearly Make a Difference

1. The Future Links Program
2. The Girls Club
3. The Take a Kid to the Course Week – I expect to receive information on this to post on Monday. Any attention I can give to a program is good.

Which is the Plan?

1. The Play Golf Summit – all the organizations coming together to produce the Play Golf Strategic Plan – is this still relevant or not? I’m still not sure what the plan is.

2. The Long Term Player Development Guide – brings most organizations to the table - but they didn’t include the Golf Course owners?

So how do I feel at the end of the week? Good that I can go find one of the excellent programs listed above to have my children learn a little more about the game. I now know more than I did about where to find the programs, who to contact and what I should expect. This whole exercise was excellent for that. I may even write about my oldest son’s experience if I can manage to put him in one.

I feel sad because I expect politics to hinder any cohesive plan from coming together. I give credit for the individual programs and the attempts to all come together, but there must be some pretty deep seated problems for what I have observed or heard from individuals this week. I’m not a reporter or member of the media - this is my personal blog. I just wrote about this because I’m the father of a golfer and a former junior program participant (thanks Graham Gunn – I still remember).

I don’t plan on following this up except for Monday’s report on golf course growth (or lack of) from National Golf Foundation. You’ll see where I have a personal interest in growing the game.
Does my agenda cloud this too, you tell me Monday?

Final - Final Thoughts: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/02/final-final-thoughts.html

Growing the Game – Day 5 – Pulling Together to Get it Done

In the movie A Beautiful Mind, Russel Crowe’s character is at the bar with all his other colleagues when they notice a beautiful blond. The group discussion leads to the comment of Adam Smith’s “the individual ambition serves the common good.” Nash turns and says “Adam Smith needs a revision. If we all go for the blonde, we block each other, and not a single one of us is goin’ to get her. So then we go for her friends, but they will all give us the cold shoulder because nobody likes to be second choice. But what if no one goes for the blonde? We don’t get in each other’s way, and we don’t insult the other girls. That’s the only way we win. That’s the only way we all get laid.” Adam Smith said, “the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what’s best for himself, right? That’s what he said, right? Incomplete. Incomplete! Because the best result would come from everyone in the group doing what’s best for himself and the group. “

Dr. Norris gave this example when I mentioned about the groups needing to come together first if this is going to work. All the parties that have a part in the future of the game need to decide whether they are going to work together and grow the game for the greater good, or maintain the dysfunctional status quo. This is why I have been bugging the RCGA and Score and other publications about putting on a summit on the state of the game – it is the best chance to begin the dialogue necessary to bring the parties back to the same table.

The next stage for the LPTD is getting people to take this road map and make the facilities, start the programs, and get everybody involved. If they don’t all come together and pull in the same direction then this is just a plan – a very good plan – but a plan all the same. The problem we currently have is the individual egos involved, some hurt feelings generated along the way – and two entities that don’t like to sit at the table together.

The key ending this nonsense – at least on this one crucial issue – is to begin a dialogue on the subject. We need to bring all the parties to the same table and begin communication facilitated by someone who will keep the focus only on the future of the game. Dr Norris is definitely the ideal choice. His technique of getting people to first understand what other people at the table would like help break down the barriers and open up a fruitful discussion on what is best for all involved.

Dr Norris said, “passion and feeling make change, otherwise you only get short term change.” Right now this guide has great momentum, but this can all stall without a commitment from the golf industry as a whole. The Swedish system works because it is a joint venture between the key bodies that run golf which removes all the fiefdoms and individual egos that ruin sport. The hard work starts now. While I don’t expect the two bickering associations to get along, isn’t this worth giving an honest effort for the betterment of the game.

What ultimately matters is them - and yes that's my son playing with his Dad at Disney

Final Thoughts: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/growing-game-final-thoughts.html

Growing the Game – Day 4 – Enter, Enjoy and Excel

Dr. Stephen Norris









They use the slogan Enter, Enjoy and Excel to talk about their Long term approach. The guide sets out to clearly empower the child and parent to expect a nurturing environment to begin their experience with the game. Once the player has established their interest in the game and then shown a little skill that can be encouraged, the guide helps establish where and how additional coaching or teaching can be added to improve the child’s ability and enjoyment of the game. It also deals with issues such as gender separation at key times, the variety in personal development schedules, and the need to make sure slow developers are not left behind like they are in hockey. Finally this helps explain the role of parents to help them know what to do and what not to do.

The next stage of our conversation was about not following the standard pattern we always have used and pointing blindly to the successes that it has achieved. Golf needs to get away from the problems of hockey, such as a majority of NHL players are born between January and March, due to the way the drafting system separates players out during puberty, so that a late child is always placed at a huge physical disadvantage. In hockey the biggest issue is there is almost no way back in once the player has been by-passed by the system. In golf, none of the latest crop of great players was a junior champion, which shows that the path of development is not as simple as you might think – or as hockey makes it out to be.

Think of how many players are discarded when they are not far enough along at key times. The Guide sets out a system where a player can find his or her game later in life and can still enter (later) into the elite development system through a system that allow reportage. Dr. Norris went on to say there were other areas where we needed to break the conventional thinking such as looking at less conventional ways to teach, run tournaments and train players.

He continues to explain that you need to hit 1000’s of shots to learn the motor skills to play well. Yet golf is about hitting as few shots as possible and making the least amount of swings. Players even stick to the shots there most confident with to score rather than get inventive of creative during a round. Doesn’t it make more sense to find a way to encourage kids to hit more shots, develop new skills and to make a more solid impact on the ball? He went on to say eighteen holes take too long and is not as productive as training. The reason kids don’t practice much is the adult version of practice is painfully dull. He felt an alternative is needed like a Big Break like skills course, the idea of short courses or technical training areas meant to stimulate and teach at the same time. His ideal facility would be a swing facility with a mixture of shots and a movable target system made to develop more skills.

As a kid I used to play overland golf at twilight. We also played our own version of the Big Break challenges for quarters when we were bored with playing too much. No wonder I had a great short game as a kid and don’t posses that skill as an adult. I mentioned to Dr. Norris that the new chipping facility I built for St. Catharines Golf & Country Club has a three hole short course for young kids built into it. We certainly may not be able to accomplish the big facilities, but small footprints can still me be made into very flexible teaching and practicing facilities used to the kids skills since they hit the ball shorter distances.

Pulling Together: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/growing-game-day-5-pulling-together-to.html

Growing the Game – Day 3 – The Long Term Player Development Guide

Canadian Golf has a clear focus on finding the next Mike Weir. What people have come to realize is while Canadian’s were buoyed by the success of Mike, the reality was the Canadian development programs were not getting the results that should be expected. By looking at the countries like Sweden, the RCGA and others have slowly realized that they needed to change in order to produce more talented players – and as an important offshoot of the process produce more golfers. They use Sweden as the example that they can achieve both goals with one program.

The Long Term Player Development Guide for Golf In Canada (LTPD) is set up to empower athletes, coaches and parents to understand not only how to help their kids learn and succeed at the game, but to keep them in the game regardless of their skill set. Canada according to IPSOS Reid (I still have questions about the findings – but let’s take them at face value for this) has the highest participation rate in golf at around 20%, which is outstanding, but begs the question of why aren’t we producing more elite players.

I sat down with Dr. Stephen Norris (picture tomorrow - I was in a rush this morning) to go over The LTPD Guide. While I was hoping for a quick 5 to 10 minutes, he gave me nearly 2 hours of his time. I honestly don’t think I can do justice to the program by trying to fully explain it, but I will give you some insights and some comments from Dr. Norris to at least get you interested enough to seek this document from the RCGA.

He started out by explaining to me that they had to build the right system that has the right benchmarks in order to grow the game. That this system will eventually generate better players, but it will take 15-20 years to see the benefits. He then went on to say that, “anyone we touch should look back at the program and say I had a great time and learned a lot.” I liked that approach, because I feared this would be only about producing elite athletes.

We began on the notion that it is easier to get them to the game, than it is to keep them in the game till they’re an adult. We continued on to discuss the limited access to play and the expensive cost faced in the metropolitan areas. We both agreed that it was much easier to get involved and stay involved in a rural setting, where costs and access are less challenging and community support is much stronger. The National Golf Course Owners Association was not invited, according to the NGCOA, to have any active role in any solution.





















Dr Norris was disappointed by this pointing out that golf was a facility based sport and that the United States closed more courses than opened this year for first time since World War Two. They need to understand that without growth, they place themselves at risk. We went on to discuss that the golf organizations are a fractured group with only the RCGA and CPGA actively working together. Even Provincial and National bodies don’t seem to be as close as I would have assumed.

Dr. Norris was surprised to find out that a city as big as Toronto does not have a Children’s only course or a project by the First Tee Program. I told him that I did know whether this was due to a lack of national leadership or local initiative, but I’m offering my services for free if someone will step to the plate.


















The conversation returned to the guide with a quick review of the factors that effect the development of players from physical complications like puberty through to mixed development timing on kids and even the need to separate groups by methods beyond age. The guide next provides a vision out on how to go forward by first identifying that golf is a family game, drawing from the Swedish model. It mentions that manufacturers and retailers must make the game initially affordable, which I might add they generally do by providing cost effective equipment packages now. Those juniors must have access to courses and that training facilities are made available. Enjoyment must be the initial focus. The role those schools and other non-traditional introductions have in introducing children to the game. The requirement for additional sources of funding or sponsorship to support grass roots programs like Future Links. Finally, identifying barriers must come down to open up the game to everyone.

Enter, Enjoy and Excel: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/growing-game-day-4-enter-enjoy-and.html

Growing the Game – Day 2 – The Influence of Sweden

The number one reason children stay with any game is because they have fun, and the main reason they leave is (of course) because it no longer is fun. While some kids mention exercise, developing skills, or the enjoyment of competition, the “fun factor” is still by far the main reason to draw kids in and keep them through to becoming adults.

The Model of Sweden

Sweden has presented the world with a fascinating model that many are trying to emulate due to its overwhelming success. The Swedish have brought many new players to the game by changing the way things are done. One of the keys to their success has been by promoting the game primarily as a family sport. What is most impressive in their participation numbers are the numbers of players under the age of 20, and even more impressive is the number of overall players who are women. The model I mentioned in the “Girls Club” is actually one adopted from Sweden where they first recognized the differences between how to encourage boys with competition and girls with friendships – the numbers speak for themselves.

The overall population of the county is 9,000,000 with golfers representing 600,000 or 15%. This is up from the around 8% in the 1980’s. The percentage of player under 20 is approximately 15%. The percentage of women’s play is 27%.
One of the great factors to the large percentage of junior golfers in the system is the club structures. There is a unique system to Sweden where juniors can be members at clubs, with the club having no obligations to accept them as members when they become adults. It creates a system where more juniors have access to more places to play.

Producing More Professionals

I don’t personally care whether Canada produces players who make it on the PGA tour, but I do care about increasing participation in golf. Many others believe the key to increased participation is finding and developing the next Mike Weir since role models and examples draw people to the game. Tiger Woods has had an undeniable effect on participation due to his dominance of not only golf but the focus of the sports media in general for the last 10 years.














So again returning to Sweden, why has a country with a much smaller population produced far more professional players? The first answer from the professionals themselves was that they began in an environment that had little initial pressure. The majority of clubs have developed programs based around participation first and assisting aspiring players on much later on. They also foster a system with well educated youth leaders who provide everything from coaching through to mentoring to help them progress.

As players developed the programs changed too. Rather than try place players into a standard program the Swedish believe in tailoring a program to suit the player. They also encourage players to mix their training and maintain activity beyond golf. Cross-training was important to skills development as it was to maintaining the interest in what they were doing. They also arranged special privileges at some clubs to make sure a very promising junior had the ability to practice and play more.

Interestingly competition pressure was discouraged until they were old enough to deal with it, although a young player that thrived under competition was allowed to compete right away. In other words they were flexible to the child’s needs. They also discovered that just playing was not the best way to develop skill, rather a larger emphasis was placed on getting the motor skills established by hitting more balls and learning to make a solid impact. The other very simple system was to not practice at each component of the game equally, but rather to encourage more practice on the weakest part of the game. Finally, they didn’t try to stay to one coach per player, but realized we all have strengths and weaknesses, and that multiple coaches with specific skills did a far better job than one single person.

The Long Term Player Development Guide: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/growing-game-day-3-long-term-player.html

Growing the Game – Day 1 – Future Links

Friday at the RCGA annual meeting

On Friday I was invited to come out to see the launch of the Long Term Player Development Guide for Golf in Canada by the Royal Canadian Golf Association (RCGA). Through a wonderfully funny mix up I ended up at the Future Link committee meeting (and will touch on this too) instead of going to the presentation. Through the help and insistence of Dan Pino and Alison King of the RCGA, I ended up instead with a one on one sit down with Dr. Stephen Norris. Dr. Norris is Canada’s leading expert on long term development of athletes – an fascinating man - I was very lucky to have this opportunity and I smartly recorded the whole thing. At the end of our conversation about the plan, I felt like Canadian Golf had finally made the first real step towards trying to develop players and the long term health of the game – something I believe should be a priority for all of us.

First the Future Links Program

The reason I want to talk about the Future Links program is because it is the RCGA’s current program aimed at growing the game. Their goal is to bring children to the game, make the game more accessible, make the game more affordable, help provide the foundation for teaching the game to kids and to provide competition for the developing players.

On their web site they state that “CN Future Links is Canada’s national junior golf development program designed to “Ensure The Future Of Golf”. Conducted by the Royal Canadian Golf Association (RCGA) in partnership with the Canadian Professional Golfers’ Association (CPGA) and Canada’s provincial golf associations, the program consists of multi-level instruction and rewards, clinics, camps, support materials and special programs to raise awareness of junior golf and address the issues of accessibility and affordability.”

I have personally watched one of these programs in full swing at Bell Bay Golf Course in Baddeck, Nova Scotia. Ted Stonehouse, the director of golf, and his staff have drawn upon the community and his suppliers help to pull together one of the best junior development programs I have ever seen. The kids get 6 weeks worth of lessons, a hat, golf balls, lunch each day, a free game of golf at the end, all for around $60. This is a program designed specifically to grow the game, but more importantly Ted and his staff teach the fundamentals and turn the game into fun. It is a program like this that produces long term golfers.

There is also an offshoot of this program that works in a very similar fashion called the “Girls Club” – with the obvious difference being that this is focused on bringing specifically girls to the game. Why is a second group doing almost the same thing you ask? Girls are more likely to register in a golf program that is for girls only, than a program that is open to both genders. Girls are more comfortable learning to play golf if there are other girls their own age and the competitive nature (common with boy’s junior golf) is removed. They want to make friends through golf.

At the committee meeting I attended I was able to learn some fun facts about the Future Links program. It depends on a volunteer system for its success and an individual, like Ted Stonehouse, is the key to a successful program. The CPGA and RCGA are working jointly, but surprisingly they are not “yet” working with provincial organizations – but indicate that is a goal. The National Golf Course Owners Association (NGCOA) was asked to become a partner and declined. They have set up there own “bring a child to the course week” instead, but we all know a one week program (poorly promoted I might add) is not the way to draw new players to the game. Too bad they declined (more to come on this later) because access to the courses is an essential component of growing the interest in kids.

The Future Links Committee runs 6 major Future Links Championships a year which player earn the right to play in through a series of 65 tournaments that offer qualifying points. CN is fond of this section of the program because this is where they receive some excellent local coverage for all the assistance they provide the program. The committee mentioned that they wanted to reduce some of the cost in running the championships and get a little more of there budget (between 700,000 and 800,000 a year) back into grass roots programs such as the clinics. In my opinion participation is far more important than developing future PGA Tour players so I was very pleased to hear this strategy for the long term.

The Influence of Sweden: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/growing-game-day-2-influence-of-sweden.html

The 10th at Pine Valley

A great photo by David Scaletti

“I think you might want to take an unplayable” was the caddy’s response to the tee shot sailing in the front bunker. “What are you talking about, I know where it is” was the response of the player. “You’ll wish you didn’t.” was the deadpan response of the caddy as we headed to the green.

The tee shot is downhill slightly, across a valley, to a natural rise about 140 yards away. Crump excavated around the rise to surround the green with deep bunkering and placed the fill on the green site to create an elevated plateau. When you look from the tee, all you see is the plateau green surrounded by sandy waste in every direction. From the tee you immediately have a nasty mixture of open sand and scrub, around the green is all groomed and open for the potential of recovery, finally there is one solitary formal bunker set in the front right.

The green is about 5,000 square feet and a reasonable size, the contours flow quickly towards the front, with an exceptional beautiful low bowl at the front right of the green - right behind the bunker.

The setting is itself beautiful with a backdrop of dark pines, a nice open view to the left and 18 tee, the yellows, gold and orange hues of the native sand, the accents of all the native plants from dark green to bright red adding a little extra texture and colour to the setting, the emerald green of the putting surface looks immaculate in contrast to the surrounds, the only one element that stands out is the blackness of the front bunker.

The front bunker is called “The Devil’s Asshole” for a reason. It is about 6 feet deep, very small and the bottom is akin to a cone shape. While the occasional person does make it out, most bury themselves in with each thrash of the club. Once a player is in this abyss, the have essentially lost the hole, if they are playing for score, then they should hit three from the tee.

My partner got to the bunker and looked down at his ball and said, “Your kidding me.” The caddy smiled and said “Care to give it a go anyway sir?” Three swings later, we were laughing and talking about how one very nasty little bunker makes this one of the most memorable holes in all of golf – may I never go in it.

7th at Pebble Beach

From the tee

There is a great storey about one of the old time players, during an extremely windy round at The Crosby, playing his putter off the tee and down the cart path and into the front bunker. He promptly got the ball up and down for a par. The 7th at Pebble Beach is that short. On a windless day, you get to the top of the hill, look down and immediately think now this is an easy shot – except normally there’s plenty of wind coming off the ocean. The wind at Pebble either howls across the green meaning you have to start the ball over the ocean, or blows straight into the tee meaning that a slight pull or push can easily find the ocean. The player has to stand on the tee and make an allowance for the wind.

Before you dismiss the hole as weak without the wind, let’s look at the hole itself. The shot is all of 107 yards downhill to a tiny 2,800 square foot green that is completely surrounded by bunkers. For most players this isn’t even a full swing, and therein lays a major complication for them, the hole is about feel and judgment. Today’s player prefers a full swing to a known distance on a level elevation, so it becomes about mechanics. This hole is about judging the relative distance, the effect of the wind and ideally hitting a short knock down shot.

















Even if I can’t buy into the hole being complicated, just take a look at what you see and where you are. The symmetry of the composition is magnificent particularly with the front bunkers and each feature is in perfect balance with the next one. Add to this one of the best view on the course with the ocean as a backdrop and you have one of the most beautiful holes in golf.

Playing famous courses is all about generating great memories, whether from the joy of the place, or hitting a memorable shot. The 7th at Pebble is a clear opportunity for any player to make a birdie on North America’s most famous course – the hole can single-handedly make someone’s round.

Next example: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/10th-at-pine-valley.html

5th at Baltray

Image is courtesy of Aiden Bradley, another ofhis fantastic images - what a green!


Baltray has one of the greatest short threes I have ever played. The key to the hole is the fact that you have to work the ball into the slope if you want to stick it on the green surface for a birdie putt. Anything else is thrown aside by the natural slope of the green and the surrounds of the land.

The tee shot is over a small valley to a green cut into the left side of a prominent knoll and gives no clues to what lies ahead. The golfer is further confused by the bunkers cut into the right hand side in front of the green almost suggesting to flirt with that side. The area in front of the green is kept short and plenty steep enough that the ball will find either the bunkers on the way by or the bottom of the bowl. It doesn’t matter which because the player is dead either way.

The green surface has not only a severe right to left fall, but is punctuated by a nice drop in the centre to speed up any ball that is thinking of stopping in the middle of the green. To leave it on the upper tier, you must hit a cut shot that stops dead. The problem is most don’t and once the ball begins retreating down the tier is it will have enough speed to cross the green and find the droop on the left, and this leads all the way off into a chipping area well below the green. You can get up and down from here, but don’t get aggressive because you may return to where you started from.


The tee shot is courtesy on a lousy photographer on a cloudy day (ha).





Did I mention you can’t miss long because the ball will roll off and away at the back and the recovery shot is downhill too? The worst spot is right of the green; Simpson in all his glory added a bunker above where there is no possible recovery from. The only miss possible is left which is where most balls hitting the green will eventually go once they begin running anyway. By the way it never matters where the pin is cut because the only goal off the tee is anywhere on the green. Once there, the next trick is to try and two putt, even from in close, because this little devil has an amazing amount of contour. Shear fun.

Next example: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/7th-at-pebble-beach.html

Stanley Thompson Redux - The Dilemma of Attribution

At GolfClubAtlas I began a thread on The Definative Thompson list as well as on here.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=27513;start=70#lastPost

My comments come from the realization of what I set out to do.

First off, there is a lot of really interesting pieces that have been linked, reported, or added through comments that definitely shed some light on his work. I’m grateful I started this thread for the gems that continue to appear. There are also some fascinating comments also on my blog where I posed the same question.

As the information began to come in I began to realize that this will demand a lot more time and energy to organize all the information than I have. It’s not collecting it, but beginning the important process of cross-referencing what has been presented. There is also a whole series of clubs with tentative connections to Thompson that have no references in old articles and magazines that would still require either research. That research would likely entail visits to review information to find out if the connection is conclusive. I certainly don’t have that time and I’m not really sure anyone else does either.

The other realization that came was I was quickly being placed in a position to make decisions on whether a club should be included or not. As I said to one of the other contributors on the phone, I don’t think I’m qualified to do this. So how fair would it be for me to include or not include a club until there is definitive proof. Since I can’t make the time to research this, the process would be flawed.

My original rally came from the number of mistakes on the current list and the inclusion of high profile courses where he only built a green or two. I think that it was important to say he worked at these courses, but it was more important for future architects to know what an original Stanley Thompson hole or course is.

The last thing that came up was what is the line between Thompson and not. The Summit debate is proof that this line is fairly subjective. Does he have to route at least nine holes? What if he didn’t route the course but rebuilt every feature? What if he did a major renovation to only the greens? What if he worked with someone else on the project? Most importantly, what if he built the course for another architect who made either one or two visits……or none?

I don’t know where to go from here, but I do have an interesting suggestion. I have a great deal of inside knowledge on particular Stanley Thompson courses. It seems like it would be more productive to post a full list as a base and invite people to post their conclusions through facts that they will also be required to provide. Then each of us interested in this process could leave comments under our name and slowly try to unravel the mystery of what is a Thompson course and what is not.

Food for thought.