WEBVTT - Golf Architecture Mailbag: Rollback Possibilities, Pet Peeves, and Public Golf Problems 0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.520 I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset. 0:00:02.640 --> 0:00:04.920 When I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset. 0:00:05.040 --> 0:00:06.280 And when I find my ball in. 0:00:06.240 --> 0:00:09.520 A bride egg Frida egg, the gridded Frida egg, Frida egg, 0:00:09.600 --> 0:00:11.880 Frida egg, Frida egg, bride egg. 0:00:11.760 --> 0:00:14.120 Lie, I'm about ready to run off the golf course. 0:00:23.560 --> 0:00:37.120 And welcome to the Frida Egg Podcast. I'm Garrett Morrison, 0:00:37.400 --> 0:00:41.120 and today we're doing a golf architecture mail bag. We 0:00:41.200 --> 0:00:44.479 put out a call for questions on Twitter and you 0:00:44.560 --> 0:00:48.600 came through with some really interesting questions that Andy Johnson 0:00:48.600 --> 0:00:52.680 and I are going to answer right now. So Andy 0:00:52.720 --> 0:00:53.239 is here with me. 0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:56.800 How's it going, Garrett, I'm doing great. Just ready to 0:00:56.840 --> 0:01:00.360 talk golf architecture. That's a fun, fun thing to do 0:01:00.440 --> 0:01:01.320 every once in a while. 0:01:01.720 --> 0:01:04.880 All golf architecture in this pod. And we're going to 0:01:04.959 --> 0:01:07.399 dig into the questions in a minute. But first we 0:01:07.520 --> 0:01:10.640 have got a sponsor for this episode. This episode is 0:01:10.680 --> 0:01:14.080 in part brought to you by Fat Cork. So this 0:01:14.120 --> 0:01:16.720 is this is a provocative name here, What is this 0:01:16.760 --> 0:01:17.520 company all about? 0:01:17.680 --> 0:01:20.880 It's a new sponsor and I think people that are 0:01:20.920 --> 0:01:24.319 into golf architecture will appreciate this. This is the owner 0:01:24.360 --> 0:01:26.920 of Fat Cork is a golf nut. What they do 0:01:27.240 --> 0:01:31.240 is they do champagne delivery, so they deliver champagne to 0:01:31.280 --> 0:01:34.320 your door. And one of the neat things that I've 0:01:34.400 --> 0:01:38.039 learned with getting to know Brian at Fat Cork is 0:01:38.080 --> 0:01:41.800 that you know, the champagne industry is super complex. But 0:01:42.319 --> 0:01:45.320 the big thing is that they get their champagne direct 0:01:45.319 --> 0:01:48.880 from growers. So they go to the growers and they 0:01:48.920 --> 0:01:53.800 work exclusively with small growers of champagne and they get 0:01:53.800 --> 0:01:57.320 their bottles that are unique to them. So what a 0:01:57.320 --> 0:02:00.080 lot of people that grow champagne grapes do is they 0:02:00.120 --> 0:02:03.800 sell the majority of their grapes to a large scale producer, 0:02:04.200 --> 0:02:06.280 but they keep ten percent of their grapes and make 0:02:06.320 --> 0:02:10.640 their own, very unique, small bat bottles of champagne. That's 0:02:10.639 --> 0:02:14.720 what this champagne is. So with Valentine's Day on the horizon, 0:02:14.960 --> 0:02:20.720 this is a exceptional Valentine's Stay gift. We got a 0:02:21.720 --> 0:02:26.280 shipment of this right before the holidays, and I've never 0:02:26.320 --> 0:02:29.600 seen my wife and mother in law so happy with 0:02:29.680 --> 0:02:32.640 the champagne they were drinking. It is really delicious stuff. 0:02:32.760 --> 0:02:35.880 It's super unique. It's stuff that you cannot get in stores. 0:02:36.240 --> 0:02:40.160 So they have a couple things. You can buy individual bottles, 0:02:40.880 --> 0:02:43.000 which is a great way to test it out. They 0:02:43.080 --> 0:02:46.280 also have a club. They have three different tiers of 0:02:46.320 --> 0:02:49.640 the club. They ship quarterly, So there's the Weekender which 0:02:49.680 --> 0:02:53.040 is four bottles per shipment, the Frequent Fizzers, which is 0:02:53.120 --> 0:02:56.320 six bottles per shipment, and the Merrymakers, which is twelve 0:02:56.360 --> 0:02:59.160 bottles per shipment. Again, this is stuff you can't get 0:02:59.160 --> 0:03:03.720 in the store, very unique and very good champagne. If 0:03:03.760 --> 0:03:07.040 you use the promo code golf, you will get free shipping. 0:03:07.280 --> 0:03:09.480 And that might not sound like a great deal, but 0:03:09.520 --> 0:03:13.560 it's very expensive to ship Champagne, so this is a 0:03:14.040 --> 0:03:17.799 good deal. On top of that, they're humans. They will 0:03:17.800 --> 0:03:20.880 write handwritten gift notes if you want a gift note 0:03:21.000 --> 0:03:24.520 in your shipments, and really, you know, the club is 0:03:25.080 --> 0:03:28.720 a fantastic gift if you or your loved one like 0:03:28.880 --> 0:03:31.400 Champagne because they are going to be getting a shipment 0:03:31.480 --> 0:03:33.960 every quarter of really unique champagne. 0:03:34.600 --> 0:03:39.600 So that's fat cork. Check them out, really cool company. Okay, 0:03:39.840 --> 0:03:41.600 let's get into the podcast. Are you ready, Andy? 0:03:41.880 --> 0:03:42.280 Yeah? 0:03:42.480 --> 0:03:45.520 Okay, so we got a lot of questions here. We're 0:03:45.560 --> 0:03:48.040 not going to get to every single one of them, obviously, 0:03:48.440 --> 0:03:51.040 but I've kind of tried to organize them a little bit. 0:03:51.600 --> 0:03:54.680 The first category of questions I have is what I've 0:03:54.720 --> 0:03:58.600 called hot topics, so stuff that you know, people debate 0:03:58.720 --> 0:04:01.080 about in the golf world, Questions that kind of touch 0:04:01.120 --> 0:04:05.680 on those issues, right. So the first one from Chad Mum, 0:04:05.880 --> 0:04:08.920 who is currently has to be pretty busy right now 0:04:09.000 --> 0:04:13.000 getting ready for the premiere of Full Swing, the Netflix documentary. 0:04:13.440 --> 0:04:18.200 But Chad Mum asks this, if Slash Win the ball 0:04:18.240 --> 0:04:21.479 gets rolled back for Championship play, what will be the 0:04:21.520 --> 0:04:25.680 biggest change architecturally for new courses that want to host 0:04:25.920 --> 0:04:30.320 tour events slash majors. So any takes on this, Andy, 0:04:31.080 --> 0:04:33.600 do you think that a rollback would result in certain 0:04:34.279 --> 0:04:37.719 architectural changes in the courses that we see on TV 0:04:37.920 --> 0:04:38.760 in pro tournaments? 0:04:39.560 --> 0:04:40.479 I think yeah. 0:04:40.760 --> 0:04:44.680 I think the one big thing is flexibility, malleability. I 0:04:44.680 --> 0:04:49.279 think that will be important having a wide range of teas. 0:04:50.120 --> 0:04:50.640 Obviously. 0:04:50.680 --> 0:04:53.160 The one course that jumps to mind that I think 0:04:53.200 --> 0:04:55.839 about a lot is Augustin National and one of the 0:04:55.880 --> 0:04:59.560 reasons I think about that golf course in particular is 0:04:59.600 --> 0:05:02.280 that they have two sets to teas, and like they're 0:05:02.400 --> 0:05:05.320 very you know, we have two sets of teas. We 0:05:05.360 --> 0:05:08.240 have a back tee and a member's tea, right, and 0:05:09.200 --> 0:05:12.320 it looks really great because there aren't tea boxes all 0:05:12.360 --> 0:05:16.159 over the place. But at the same time, when distance changes, 0:05:16.320 --> 0:05:19.640 as we've seen, they've had to build out teas further 0:05:19.720 --> 0:05:23.480 and further back. But say we get a ten percent reduction, 0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:26.839 I think this is just hypothetical, which it doesn't seem 0:05:26.880 --> 0:05:28.280 like that's going to be the case. It seems like 0:05:28.320 --> 0:05:30.520 it's going to be kind of stop where we are. 0:05:30.839 --> 0:05:33.719 Maybe drivers are a little harder to hit and they go 0:05:33.839 --> 0:05:37.080 they're just you know, but if it got reduct or reduced, 0:05:37.360 --> 0:05:39.880 they would need to move teas up. Now my question 0:05:40.040 --> 0:05:43.240 is like, are you then just gonna eventually have to 0:05:43.279 --> 0:05:45.760 build them back out, because what we know is that 0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:49.400 players are going to keep getting longer, Swings are going 0:05:49.440 --> 0:05:53.040 to get faster, So whatever the regulations that are implemented 0:05:53.520 --> 0:05:56.440 are at that, when they get implemented, it'll probably be 0:05:56.480 --> 0:06:00.799 the shortest this era of golfers ever is, and then 0:06:00.960 --> 0:06:03.760 they will begin to get longer again. This is just 0:06:03.800 --> 0:06:07.360 the natural progression. So I think in terms of what 0:06:07.520 --> 0:06:10.000 new courses will need is that you want to build 0:06:10.040 --> 0:06:12.440 golf courses with that malleability. 0:06:12.880 --> 0:06:14.560 You want to be able to do you know. 0:06:14.640 --> 0:06:16.200 I think one of the things that we can take 0:06:16.240 --> 0:06:19.800 away from the Golden Age is that golf courses are 0:06:20.040 --> 0:06:24.400 going to get built around generally. You know, you're so 0:06:24.600 --> 0:06:28.360 you need to leave some space in case you need 0:06:28.400 --> 0:06:31.360 back to say the ball gets reduced ten percent, right, 0:06:31.960 --> 0:06:34.800 then these golf courses, the distance constraints are going to 0:06:34.839 --> 0:06:38.040 be different. The important thing, though, I think is that 0:06:38.200 --> 0:06:43.320 infrastructure is only going to increase for big time tournament golf, 0:06:43.760 --> 0:06:47.520 so you're never you're always going to need that same space. 0:06:47.680 --> 0:06:51.080 Like space requirements are going to be the same. It's 0:06:51.120 --> 0:06:53.720 not like all of a sudden the ball gets rolled back. 0:06:54.080 --> 0:06:56.320 Woo. We can host anywhere we want. 0:06:56.440 --> 0:06:58.679 No, yeah, we're going to Cyprus. Point. Yeah. 0:06:59.279 --> 0:07:03.240 Theynament golf needs more so than anything is space to 0:07:03.320 --> 0:07:07.039 put grand stands. I mean, I'll never forget talking to 0:07:07.480 --> 0:07:11.080 the tournament director at the PGA Championship at Kiwa and 0:07:11.120 --> 0:07:12.920 where I was just talking to him. I was like, man, 0:07:13.000 --> 0:07:15.280 this place is so cool for a Ryder Cup, Like, 0:07:15.520 --> 0:07:18.200 you know, you talk about the most historic Ryder Cup 0:07:18.440 --> 0:07:22.040 in the history of golf was there and it was 0:07:22.120 --> 0:07:23.960 an awesome Ryder Cup venue. 0:07:24.040 --> 0:07:26.520 It is an awesome writer. It was an awesome match 0:07:26.600 --> 0:07:27.400 play golf course. 0:07:27.800 --> 0:07:31.800 Like big swings, great shots, you know, get really rewarded. 0:07:31.840 --> 0:07:34.520 You can make birdies out there. But there's also disasters 0:07:34.520 --> 0:07:37.000 all over the place. And there's enough space. It's solidly 0:07:37.080 --> 0:07:41.160 golf national thing, right, but it's not big enough. It 0:07:41.200 --> 0:07:44.040 could host a major, but it doesn't have enough space 0:07:44.080 --> 0:07:44.920 for a Ryder Cup. 0:07:45.200 --> 0:07:48.280 Think about that, yes, absolutely, yeah, Well, I mean the 0:07:48.640 --> 0:07:52.160 requirements for a Ryder Cup are just outrageous and obviously 0:07:52.200 --> 0:07:55.000 have increased so much since the War on the shore. 0:07:55.160 --> 0:07:58.040 But we think that that's outrageous. But the Ryder Cup 0:07:58.280 --> 0:08:02.080 is probably the direct action that infrastructure needs are going 0:08:02.320 --> 0:08:06.080 to for a major championship, right, they might be on 0:08:06.160 --> 0:08:10.880 the on the you know what was ostentatious for this 0:08:11.040 --> 0:08:13.160 Rider Cup? Am I using that word right? 0:08:13.560 --> 0:08:15.280 Over you mean like overboard? 0:08:15.560 --> 0:08:15.960 Yeah? 0:08:16.040 --> 0:08:19.040 For this Ryder Cup is in fifteen years, is probably 0:08:19.040 --> 0:08:21.200 going to be a normal PGA set up. 0:08:21.360 --> 0:08:25.920 Gotcha, Okay? Infrastructure, Well, yeah, I mean this is a 0:08:25.920 --> 0:08:28.600 really good point about which venues are being selected for 0:08:28.760 --> 0:08:31.280 major championships. You can't just go to the best golf courses. 0:08:31.320 --> 0:08:32.800 You have to go to the golf courses that fit 0:08:32.840 --> 0:08:36.040 certain requirements. And furthermore, this is part of the reason 0:08:36.080 --> 0:08:39.679 why the USGA, for instance, is booking these venues so 0:08:39.720 --> 0:08:42.880 out far out in advance, because these courses need to 0:08:42.960 --> 0:08:45.880 know what they need to do in order to have 0:08:45.920 --> 0:08:49.400 the kind of infrastructure that's necessary to host a tournament 0:08:49.440 --> 0:08:52.280 like this. But getting back to the question, so ball 0:08:52.320 --> 0:08:56.120 gets rolled back for championship play, I would say if 0:08:56.160 --> 0:09:00.200 you see anything at courses architecturally that will happen because 0:09:00.240 --> 0:09:03.480 of this, it will mainly just be there won't be 0:09:03.800 --> 0:09:06.400 as much of a need to change in the future. 0:09:07.080 --> 0:09:10.720 We hope right that the pace of change is going 0:09:10.720 --> 0:09:13.640 to slow down a little bit and courses will be 0:09:13.880 --> 0:09:19.199 less required to continually length and continually move bunkers, continually 0:09:19.240 --> 0:09:24.200 make adjustments to accommodate the length of the game. That's 0:09:24.240 --> 0:09:26.360 the hope. I don't know if that's actually going to 0:09:26.400 --> 0:09:30.280 materialize as a result of the rollback that is likely 0:09:30.320 --> 0:09:33.880 to happen, which is likely to be pretty modest, is 0:09:34.080 --> 0:09:36.800 likely to be not quite as much as you or 0:09:36.880 --> 0:09:39.680 I would want it to be. But the hope would 0:09:39.720 --> 0:09:43.440 be that courses wouldn't have to spend so much money 0:09:43.480 --> 0:09:47.640 just finding new teeing areas, planting new trees and places 0:09:47.679 --> 0:09:51.400 to defend against the length that players are hitting the ball, 0:09:51.880 --> 0:09:54.640 moving bunkers, doing all this stuff that they've had to 0:09:54.679 --> 0:09:57.440 do over and over for the past couple of decades 0:09:57.520 --> 0:10:01.040 because distance has gotten so out of control. The hope 0:10:01.040 --> 0:10:04.000 would be just that that process would slow down a 0:10:04.000 --> 0:10:04.560 little bit. 0:10:04.679 --> 0:10:05.800 Right, Yeah. 0:10:05.880 --> 0:10:07.959 I think the other big hope is that on the 0:10:08.480 --> 0:10:11.280 forgiveness front. You know, there's been a lot of talk 0:10:11.320 --> 0:10:15.679 about about reducing the sweet spot in professional golf and 0:10:15.760 --> 0:10:19.280 just leading to a little bit more variability. And when 0:10:19.280 --> 0:10:21.520 I miss it off the toe, it doesn't go just 0:10:21.679 --> 0:10:24.520 five yards shorter. It might go twenty yards shorter. Like 0:10:24.760 --> 0:10:26.760 you know, if you play with older equipment, it does 0:10:27.160 --> 0:10:32.200 I think, yeah, I you know, the reality if you 0:10:32.400 --> 0:10:37.680 think about equipment and regulation in the past, is when 0:10:37.720 --> 0:10:42.000 regulation happens, what happens then is it gives the engineers 0:10:42.040 --> 0:10:43.760 something new to innovate around. 0:10:44.200 --> 0:10:46.600 So listen, like, there's going. 0:10:46.600 --> 0:10:49.200 To be a role if there's a rollback and it happens, 0:10:49.800 --> 0:10:53.360 it's just going to start the new innovation trend. 0:10:54.240 --> 0:10:56.800 Yeah, that's like, yeah, it's just been the reality. 0:10:57.000 --> 0:10:59.360 I mean, that's been the story from the beginning, right, 0:10:59.440 --> 0:11:01.680 That's that's happened over and over for the past one 0:11:02.400 --> 0:11:05.640 hundred years. That's not going to change. And so yeah, 0:11:05.720 --> 0:11:08.560 we'll see how much of an effect a rollback, whatever 0:11:08.720 --> 0:11:11.680 kind of rollback happens, is actually going to have on 0:11:11.720 --> 0:11:14.680 the game. Likelihood is it's not going to be as 0:11:15.400 --> 0:11:19.440 extremes as people think it might be. All right, next questions. 0:11:19.520 --> 0:11:25.040 This is from j J jat X jjat X, jjat X. Oh, 0:11:25.040 --> 0:11:27.240 there you go, jjat X, there you go. Okay, that 0:11:27.280 --> 0:11:30.560 makes sense. What will we look back on in the 0:11:30.600 --> 0:11:33.679 future and think was wrong with this era of golf 0:11:33.720 --> 0:11:36.839 course architecture. I think this is a really interesting question. 0:11:36.880 --> 0:11:39.360 I love this question. I have a couple of ideas. 0:11:39.800 --> 0:11:41.959 Curious as to what you think, Andy. 0:11:42.840 --> 0:11:43.160 This is. 0:11:44.280 --> 0:11:47.200 I'd hope this doesn't offend anyone. And this is not 0:11:47.280 --> 0:11:52.040 a shot across the bow at anyone. When I think 0:11:52.040 --> 0:11:56.000 about where golf is going in the next twenty to 0:11:56.080 --> 0:11:59.880 thirty years, and I think about golf architecture, new construction 0:12:00.800 --> 0:12:06.800 obviously constraints on resources that are at its highest ever. 0:12:07.000 --> 0:12:09.560 You know, water is becoming an issue more and more 0:12:09.559 --> 0:12:15.080 places than just California. Labor is an issue everywhere in 0:12:15.160 --> 0:12:19.800 terms especially labor in terms of golf course maintenance. So 0:12:21.080 --> 0:12:26.720 you know, at a time where the inputs of golf 0:12:27.000 --> 0:12:30.680 are being you know, looked at, you know that this 0:12:30.840 --> 0:12:32.720 is one of the things that golf when when you 0:12:32.760 --> 0:12:35.280 look at golf from a lenses, there's a lot of positives. Right, 0:12:35.320 --> 0:12:39.000 there's exercise, outdoor time, all these things. There's a lot 0:12:39.040 --> 0:12:43.240 that goes into a golf course, whether it's water, maintenance, 0:12:44.360 --> 0:12:49.319 inputs into the turf to grow grass, all these things. 0:12:49.440 --> 0:12:54.559 And I think about all that and I see renderings 0:12:54.840 --> 0:12:59.239 for new courses. I see new golf courses being built, 0:12:59.679 --> 0:13:04.000 and I think, okay, so we're trying to make golf 0:13:04.080 --> 0:13:09.560 more sustainable and make it a game that lasts what 0:13:09.720 --> 0:13:12.280 could be a time where it could be tough on 0:13:12.360 --> 0:13:15.840 golf given land use and different things. And you see 0:13:15.880 --> 0:13:18.040 some of the stuff that's getting built and you're wondering, 0:13:18.080 --> 0:13:19.760 what what's sustainable about that? 0:13:20.160 --> 0:13:24.040 Yeah, so what does the what does the maintenance crew 0:13:24.080 --> 0:13:26.640 look like? What does the maintenance budget look like? Yeah? 0:13:26.640 --> 0:13:28.280 I wonder that a lot time. And you see some 0:13:28.280 --> 0:13:29.359 of these ideas. 0:13:29.000 --> 0:13:30.440 What's the maintenance time look like? 0:13:30.679 --> 0:13:31.320 What? You know? 0:13:31.520 --> 0:13:34.160 And I do not mean to pick out anything. 0:13:34.520 --> 0:13:37.920 There was a recent podcast a friend of mine, Rob Collins, like, 0:13:37.960 --> 0:13:40.760 I look at his one of his greens at Landman, 0:13:40.920 --> 0:13:43.800 some of his greens at Landman, and I wonder, how 0:13:43.840 --> 0:13:46.200 long are you going to be able to maintain that? 0:13:46.520 --> 0:13:47.920 You know, could you. 0:13:48.320 --> 0:13:51.840 As a thirty thousand square foot green really practical in 0:13:52.040 --> 0:13:55.839 twenty years if we you know, And obviously there could 0:13:55.840 --> 0:13:58.560 be autonomous mowing, there could be all these advancements. But 0:13:58.600 --> 0:14:01.679 at the same time, like when I think about which 0:14:01.760 --> 0:14:05.480 direction golf course architecture needs to go, is like if 0:14:05.480 --> 0:14:07.120 I wanted to be on the cutting edge, and I 0:14:07.160 --> 0:14:10.520 was just talking about this with another architect, if I 0:14:10.760 --> 0:14:12.520 was personally going to be on the cutting edge of 0:14:12.559 --> 0:14:15.720 golf architecture, I would be lending. I would be aiming 0:14:15.760 --> 0:14:20.000 to build the most sustainable, lowest input great golf possible. 0:14:20.440 --> 0:14:26.120 And the renderings for Cabot or the Citrus. 0:14:25.720 --> 0:14:30.160 Farm one Cabot. 0:14:28.320 --> 0:14:31.520 Barons that doesn't look sustainable at all to me. That 0:14:31.560 --> 0:14:34.440 looks like a shitload of maintenance time. 0:14:35.000 --> 0:14:37.720 And it's just a rendering. It's just a rendering, right, 0:14:37.720 --> 0:14:39.520 we don't know what the final product is going to 0:14:39.600 --> 0:14:42.240 look like. But the rendering makes it look like there's 0:14:42.280 --> 0:14:45.760 a lot of really intricate bunkering. 0:14:46.200 --> 0:14:51.520 And part of what I wonder about is designed pushing 0:14:52.320 --> 0:14:56.760 what will take the best picture for social media and listen, 0:14:56.880 --> 0:14:59.720 like I take pictures. I know when I take a 0:14:59.760 --> 0:15:03.440 picure sure like of a certain feature, that it will 0:15:03.480 --> 0:15:06.640 pop on social media, right, And I think that golf 0:15:06.760 --> 0:15:09.680 architects know that also if I build this feature like this, 0:15:10.080 --> 0:15:12.560 it's going to photograph really well. And people are I 0:15:12.640 --> 0:15:16.760 mean photograp photography and golf courses have been intertwined forever, 0:15:17.240 --> 0:15:19.640 you know, like you go back to like, you know, 0:15:19.720 --> 0:15:23.280 photos are what sell people to go visit a golf course. 0:15:23.480 --> 0:15:26.720 So I guess, like my thing here is that golf 0:15:26.840 --> 0:15:34.120 architecture should be very very aware of sustainability and be 0:15:34.240 --> 0:15:37.720 building golf courses that are more sustainable. And I look 0:15:38.040 --> 0:15:40.160 at some of the new stuff that's getting built, and 0:15:40.240 --> 0:15:41.760 I think it's the complete opposite. 0:15:41.880 --> 0:15:43.040 I think that's a big mistake. 0:15:43.560 --> 0:15:46.880 Yeah, I'm on the same wavelength as you. My response 0:15:46.920 --> 0:15:49.720 to this question of what we might look back on 0:15:49.800 --> 0:15:53.640 in this era of golf course architecture and regret is 0:15:53.880 --> 0:15:59.400 building to what I would consider overly perfectionistic maintenance standards, right, 0:15:59.440 --> 0:16:01.560 And this is me be more of an agronomy take 0:16:01.640 --> 0:16:05.160 than an architecture take. But a lot of courses are 0:16:05.240 --> 0:16:09.600 kind of built to be maintained in a way that is, 0:16:09.680 --> 0:16:14.320 as you say, highly intensive, and also you know, just 0:16:15.000 --> 0:16:20.000 built in an expensive way that's maybe not necessary for 0:16:20.320 --> 0:16:23.120 good golf. So I'm thinking of these kind of fancy 0:16:23.200 --> 0:16:25.960 subsurface systems under greens that are going in all over 0:16:26.000 --> 0:16:30.960 the place, these new kinds of bunker linings, stuff like that. 0:16:31.360 --> 0:16:36.280 I just wonder about maximum economy and efficiency of maintenance 0:16:36.720 --> 0:16:40.400 and whether architects are really building to that or whether 0:16:40.440 --> 0:16:44.080 they're kind of giving in to this race to get 0:16:44.200 --> 0:16:49.200 more and more perfect turf, which golf really doesn't need 0:16:49.920 --> 0:16:54.280 and maybe isn't reasonable to expect golf to have going forward. 0:16:54.760 --> 0:16:56.600 In certain areas of the country. It's going to be 0:16:56.640 --> 0:17:01.000 awfully hard to have grass in like ten twenty years potentially, 0:17:01.560 --> 0:17:04.520 And so you know, we're we're building towards this ideal 0:17:04.720 --> 0:17:08.600 of the you know, perfectly smooth, green, velvety golf course 0:17:09.040 --> 0:17:11.840 that's just not going to be a reality in some places. 0:17:12.359 --> 0:17:15.160 And I would love to see a push away from 0:17:15.160 --> 0:17:19.000 that and toward more kind of rough and ready maintenance 0:17:19.400 --> 0:17:22.800 things that you know, a small crew can do on 0:17:22.880 --> 0:17:25.600 a low budget. It's possible to have that kind of golf. 0:17:26.160 --> 0:17:29.119 I don't think we're building to it right now, And 0:17:29.240 --> 0:17:32.600 we may look back in a few decades and say 0:17:33.119 --> 0:17:36.760 what we called minimalism in the first couple of decades 0:17:36.800 --> 0:17:41.080 of the twenty first century really was not minimalism in 0:17:41.119 --> 0:17:44.400 the most important sense of the word, which is minimal 0:17:44.440 --> 0:17:48.080 impact on the land and kind of minimal requirements for 0:17:48.200 --> 0:17:51.920 keeping the course up. You know, it's pretty ironic that 0:17:51.960 --> 0:17:54.040 the stuff that we've been building in this so called 0:17:54.080 --> 0:17:58.080 minimalist era, a lot of it truly is not minimalism 0:17:58.320 --> 0:18:00.720 in that sense of the term that I've just slaid out. 0:18:00.920 --> 0:18:02.560 And so I think that that's something that we may 0:18:02.760 --> 0:18:04.439 look back on and cringe. 0:18:05.480 --> 0:18:10.919 Yeah, I I mean, everybody likes to wax poetic about 0:18:10.960 --> 0:18:14.960 Scotland and how they want to build golf like Scotland 0:18:14.240 --> 0:18:18.919 and that so few projects that are doing that right Like, 0:18:19.040 --> 0:18:22.320 I absolutely I can think of one that like it 0:18:22.359 --> 0:18:27.199 has a very conscious effort towards like being sustainable, and 0:18:27.200 --> 0:18:31.800 this one being built in central slash Northern California, you 0:18:31.840 --> 0:18:36.320 know where, yeah, Brambles where it's extremely you know, the 0:18:36.359 --> 0:18:38.959 building a golf course there is, you know, just getting 0:18:39.080 --> 0:18:43.040 to build one there is, you know, is difficult, and 0:18:43.480 --> 0:18:47.400 you know, so I just think that's the thing that 0:18:47.440 --> 0:18:50.760 I that kind of keeps me up at night, is 0:18:51.000 --> 0:18:56.280 the idea of, you know, where where the world and 0:18:56.359 --> 0:19:00.240 the worldview on golf is going, and seemingly the lead 0:19:00.280 --> 0:19:02.960 opposite direction golf architecture is going. 0:19:03.960 --> 0:19:06.679 All right, let's go on to a new question. This 0:19:06.760 --> 0:19:08.960 one is one that I think you may sort of 0:19:09.320 --> 0:19:12.359 throw to me ultimately because I might have a little 0:19:12.359 --> 0:19:17.879 more context for it. But Amol Yazhnik asks thoughts on 0:19:18.160 --> 0:19:21.800 RTJ two in Golf Magazine, saying that architecture has gone 0:19:21.840 --> 0:19:26.879 too far in the direction of easy par hard bogie. 0:19:27.200 --> 0:19:30.320 Did you read this article? See this? Okay? 0:19:30.600 --> 0:19:33.480 It was just it was posted. 0:19:33.119 --> 0:19:35.960 Online like a few days ago. It was magazine only 0:19:36.119 --> 0:19:38.760 for you know, a couple of weeks, I think, And 0:19:38.960 --> 0:19:41.600 basically it was an interview with Robert tran Jones Junior 0:19:41.720 --> 0:19:45.159 in which he, uh, you know, lays out some criticisms 0:19:45.240 --> 0:19:49.600 of modern golf course architecture and defends the legacy of 0:19:49.640 --> 0:19:53.199 his father and his brother and uh, you know, just 0:19:53.400 --> 0:19:57.680 offers a different perspective on golf course architecture as it's 0:19:57.680 --> 0:20:00.520 currently practiced then we're used to seeing. So it was 0:20:00.560 --> 0:20:04.080 a pretty interesting article. I'm not sure that the article 0:20:04.119 --> 0:20:07.520 really explained what rt J two meant when he said 0:20:07.640 --> 0:20:10.240 we've gone in the direction of easy par hard bogie. 0:20:11.119 --> 0:20:15.159 I could certainly dig into that concept more, and you 0:20:15.160 --> 0:20:18.280 know say that, well, I find it pretty easy to 0:20:18.320 --> 0:20:21.679 make bogie's at like Pacific Dunes and stream Song black. 0:20:22.440 --> 0:20:24.320 But there are some courses that have been built in 0:20:24.359 --> 0:20:26.879 the modern era that you know, maybe have gone too 0:20:26.960 --> 0:20:30.560 far in the direction of user friendliness. That's a separate discussion, 0:20:30.640 --> 0:20:34.040 but I think that what rt J two is saying 0:20:34.080 --> 0:20:38.760 in this article generally is worth listening to. I've interviewed 0:20:38.840 --> 0:20:42.320 him before. Andy, You know that that that Bobby and 0:20:42.359 --> 0:20:43.200 I get along. 0:20:43.200 --> 0:20:47.879 Right, Yeah, both both big fans of the literary world. 0:20:50.560 --> 0:20:53.640 Were both both want to be poets, except I don't 0:20:53.640 --> 0:20:57.000 really write poetry and he's more he's he's actually a poet. 0:20:57.000 --> 0:21:00.840 But I find him to be a delightful, fascinating person. 0:21:00.880 --> 0:21:02.760 I really do. I have some criticisms of his golf 0:21:02.760 --> 0:21:06.520 course architecture, but you know, I really have fun talking 0:21:06.560 --> 0:21:10.840 to him and I think that he's definitely worth listening to. 0:21:10.960 --> 0:21:13.600 I wouldn't reject what he's saying out of hand. So 0:21:13.920 --> 0:21:16.480 a couple of things that he's right about. People do 0:21:16.520 --> 0:21:20.760 tend to oversimplify his father's legacy. That legacy is multifaceted, 0:21:21.200 --> 0:21:24.480 and RTJ did the kind of work that memberships and 0:21:24.520 --> 0:21:27.640 green committees at that time wanted him to do. Right, 0:21:27.720 --> 0:21:31.160 it would have been weird if he had done anything 0:21:31.280 --> 0:21:34.119 other than what he did at courses like Oakland Hills 0:21:34.200 --> 0:21:37.480 and Olympic Club. You know, he was being asked to 0:21:37.480 --> 0:21:39.840 build these championship courses, and he did it in a 0:21:39.840 --> 0:21:43.160 certain way. And you know, we can criticize that now, 0:21:43.200 --> 0:21:45.600 but in the context of its time, it made sense. 0:21:46.640 --> 0:21:49.639 RTJ two, I think is also right that certain aspects 0:21:49.720 --> 0:21:55.000 of the in vogue restoration slash renovation program are a 0:21:55.040 --> 0:22:00.480 little bit repetitive sometimes right, And I've heard him criticize Subairre. 0:22:01.000 --> 0:22:04.560 I echo those criticisms for sure. He also, I think 0:22:04.600 --> 0:22:09.240 deserves some credit for a varied and sometimes excellent body 0:22:09.240 --> 0:22:12.959 of work, sometimes excellent. I wouldn't say that everything that 0:22:13.040 --> 0:22:16.800 has come out of his firm has been truly excellent, Okay, 0:22:16.880 --> 0:22:19.399 but in the end, he kind of paints it with 0:22:19.480 --> 0:22:22.520 too broad of a brush. He goes after the tree 0:22:22.560 --> 0:22:26.919 removal issue, right, makes it an environmental issue, says that 0:22:26.960 --> 0:22:32.720 removing trees is an environmental disgrace. This is it's more 0:22:32.720 --> 0:22:35.879 complicated than that, right, I mean, sometimes removing trees is 0:22:35.920 --> 0:22:38.480 the best thing that you can do for a golf 0:22:38.520 --> 0:22:39.280 course habitat. 0:22:39.880 --> 0:22:44.080 Yeah, well, it makes it easier to grow grass, cheaper 0:22:44.119 --> 0:22:45.280 to grow grass. 0:22:45.320 --> 0:22:47.800 And if it's done right, it helps the trees that 0:22:47.880 --> 0:22:50.520 remain be healthy. Right, And a lot of cases trees 0:22:50.520 --> 0:22:53.199 aren't able to thrive because they're surrounded by other trees. 0:22:53.760 --> 0:22:57.120 And so each site needs to be treated differently this 0:22:57.160 --> 0:23:00.639