Golf design and construction has been transformed in the 30 years since Sand Hills (pictured) opened in the remote reaches of Nebraska.
The way that courses built today look is worlds apart from the aesthetic that was prevalent only a couple of decades ago. The success of Sand Hills, and the courses that came after it – especially the behemoth Bandon Dunes development in Oregon – has meant that a wide open, somewhat linksy look, ideally with firm turf, and bunkers that are supposed to resemble natural sand scars now dominates golf development.
Inevitably, there is work of a varying standard. Some sites are not as good as others; some construction crews are not as good as others; and, yes, some architects are not as good as others. But what has emerged in recent years is something different. Before the turn of the millennium, golf architecture was a minority interest. Online publishing was still in its infancy: YouTube, for example, was launched in February 2005. Social media barely existed. The first podcast had not yet aired. It was a different world.
Fast forward 25 years, and the media market is completely different. There is a huge variety of golf design content available on any number of different platforms and the subject is, if not mainstream in golfing circles, certainly not the closed book it was back then.
This is a wonderful thing for everyone involved in the golf architecture business. It was always the case that, when a great new course debuted, it would only be seen in the flesh, let alone played, by a tiny fraction of the golfing community. Now, that tiny fraction is massively outnumbered by those who have seen photographs of it. Numbers drive perception. Do they also drive trends in design and construction?
A lot of architects and commentators say they do. Of late, there has appeared a (small but significant) number of courses where the design work seems to have as its goal appearing good in photographs as much as it does being good to play. Flashy features – mostly bunkers – abound, because these show up well in online imagery. “Frankly, I am tired of the golf feature arms race. So much is driven by the size of the image on the iPhone,” says veteran architect Ron Forse. “I have to confess to having become a bit desensitised to it, as it so prevalent now,” echoes Robin Hiseman of European Golf Design. So is this real? If so, how has it come to pass, and what, if anything, should be the industry’s response?
Bill Coore, along with his partner Ben Crenshaw, is, in essence, the godfather of today’s golf design scene. As anyone who knows him will assert, Coore is the last person in the world to go over the top with anything. Is the problem people trying to ape a Coore & Crenshaw look? Coore says he thinks not, at least not consciously. “I have never thought the newer courses were deliberately trying to mimic our courses, but styles of bunkering and courses often reflect the trends that are in favour and receiving attention at any given time,” he says. “I do think restraint in design is one of the most difficult disciplines to adhere to, especially for young designers who – for understandable business reasons – are trying to bring attention to their work. When you’re young and talented, you want to display your artistic talents and given the uncertainty of future projects, there’s a strong temptation to add too many elements or overcook your designs, especially if it’s one of your first. Knowing what to leave in and what to take out is a skill that seems to come more with experience than raw talent; or as Ben and I have said through the years to our associates, ‘Know when to quit!’ I often joke with our guys that ‘one or two beers are really good, but five, six or more is a really bad idea!’
“In a lot of newer designs, there seems to be an overabundance of bunkers, sandscapes and visual elements extending horizontally far, far outside the lines of play. I think it was Alister MacKenzie who said visual design elements more than 30 yards off the intended line of play are not just superfluous but distracting.”
But then, as Canadian architect Jeff Mingay points out, visual drama has always been a feature of some of the world’s best courses, and who is to say where drama becomes overkill? “I definitely think there is a tendency to overbunker courses for visual drama,” he says. “But visual drama has long been a key characteristic of many of the best courses, such Pine Valley, Cypress Point or Royal Melbourne.”
Mingay points out that Pinehurst No. 2, in many ways one of the most visually restrained of all great courses, could be said to have embraced a very dramatic look with the restoration led by… Coore & Crenshaw – a project which was hailed as a triumph by pretty much the entire industry. “Pinehurst doesn’t have overshaped artificial bunkers, but those sandy, scrubby areas present quite a bit of visual drama,” he says. “The difference is very hard to explain, but I think it comes down to shaping a little ‘softer’. With a number of today’s courses, in my view you can really see the human influence on the bunker shapes, depths and edges. The best work is softer, so even when the courses have a lot of exposed sand, it appears to be more natural. It is massively difficult to define – perhaps we have to be like Potter Stewart and pornography and say, ‘I know it when I see it’.”
Jay Blasi says: “I think social media focuses way too much on bunker shaping. Building great bunkers is an important art but there are far more important elements to great golf design, most notably routing, strategy and sustainability. Given our social media world and limited attention spans it is easy to see a picture of a beautifully crafted bunker or sandscape and immediately conclude that the course must be good. It is far harder to assess a routing or understand the strategic elements of a course from a photo or short video.
“It is understandable if young designers and shapers go bold when they get an opportunity. They have waited for their chance and so they try to incorporate all their ideas right away. The secret sauce lies in harnessing the talents of skilled shapers while crafting a course that will stand the test of time. Often that boils down to editing, restraint and being subtle – something Tom Doak has discussed at length.
“As a designer, I wish routing would be a far greater focus than bunkers. On my current project at Poppy Ridge, we were able to reduce the walk by 2,000 yards and 475 feet of elevation change by completely rerouting the course. The layout went from unwalkable to a really compelling and fun walk. But that can’t be seen in a picture. What can be seen in drone photos are bunkers and cart paths. Because we will do over 50,000 rounds, we chose to limit the bunkering, and we needed full length paths. So, while we focused on what is really important in terms of routing, strategy and sustainability, the reality is that the course would photograph from a drone better and may receive far greater attention if we had more bunkers, less paths and a terrible routing. That is unfortunate.”
“Overdoing things is easy. Restraint can be difficult,” says Australian architect Mike Cocking of Ogilvy, Cocking and Mead (OCM). “And I do think building bunkers has become a bit of an architect’s crutch. If in doubt just fill it with bunkers as opposed to creating great landforms and contour. We were a little worried about that with the East course at the new Fall Line club in Georgia – although it is really fun with good holes it isn’t as flashy as some other new courses because it’s meant to be authentically heathland. I think social media will prefer the other course there because of the flashiness of its Sandbelt-inspired bunkering and all the exposed sand.”
“I think it depends what your own motivation is,” continues Cocking. “We like classical architecture so are very conscious of not building things that might look busy, and that have a very authentic sense of place.”
Ron Forse echoes the theme of referring back to classic models. “Like green speeds, people are doing things because they can,” he says. “Everyone’s trying to outdo each other. And some of the elegant simplicity of architects like Colt and Flynn is getting lost in all the cacophony. How much of this stuff is really going to be around in 10 years? I think there’s a lot of pressure to keep up with the Joneses in this business. The result is a lot of trendiness. Classic architects were happy getting the best from the land and giving golfers a pleasant experience.”
This article first appeared in the January 2025 issue of Golf Course Architecture. For a printed subscription or free digital edition, please visit our subscriptions page.