Speaker 1: One of the primary trends in golf architecture over the
Speaker 1: past couple of decades has been so called minimalism. In
Speaker 1: basic terms, minimalism means using as much of the natural
Speaker 1: landscape as possible in a golf course, and it means
Speaker 1: trying to create compelling golf while moving as little earth
Speaker 1: as you can. Recently, though, some architects have started to
Speaker 1: push back against this philosophy or just resist the categories
Speaker 1: of minimalism and maximalism altogether. Today, I'm talking to two
Speaker 1: such architects. Tim Jackson and David Khan are the principles
Speaker 1: of the firm Jackson Kahn Design. Some of Jackson Kahn's
Speaker 1: notable solo designs include the Other Course at Scottsdale National
Speaker 1: and the reimagined Dunes Course at Monterey Peninsula Country Club.
Speaker 1: Tim and David have an interesting perspective on recent and
Speaker 1: current trends in golf architecture, mainly because they're looking to
Speaker 1: move beyond them. I'm Garrett Morrison, and this is designing golf.
Speaker 1: So starting with you, Tim, what do you understand the
Speaker 1: term minimalism to mean as it's usually applied to golf architecture.
Speaker 2: You know, I think that minimalism in golf course architecture
Speaker 2: is used as a term that generally describes architects obviously
Speaker 2: who quote unquote work with the land, you know, don't
Speaker 2: move a lot of dirt. I think that, you know,
Speaker 2: maximalism is you know, somewhat a derogatory term.
Speaker 1: It does seem to be that way most of the time. Yeah,
Speaker 1: minimalism is the positive term and maximalism is.
Speaker 2: The negative, right And you know, and I think a
Speaker 2: lot of that's driven by, you know, to some extent,
Speaker 2: the you know, the golf that's been designed over the
Speaker 2: last twenty five or thirty years. And you know, if
Speaker 2: you have a great site, you know, anybody can be minimalist.
Speaker 2: You know, if you have a less than great site
Speaker 2: and you still have you know, expectations as far as
Speaker 2: great golf, there's less guys that can be quote unquote maximalists.
Speaker 2: I think and actually execute, you know, based upon those
Speaker 2: those definitions in terminology. But you know, we you know,
Speaker 2: we just we strive to to to maximize what we
Speaker 2: feel the potential is of any site, you know, regardless
Speaker 2: from the starting condition.
Speaker 1: And David, from from your perspective when you hear about this,
Speaker 1: this kind of dichotomy between minimalism and maximalism. Is it
Speaker 1: something that you feel like you want to resist? Is it?
Speaker 1: Is it something that that makes you feel like maybe
Speaker 1: these aren't the most useful terms in the world.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's counterproductive. Honestly, I think it's it's
Speaker 3: I know we're about to talk about it, so don't
Speaker 3: take this wrong way, But I really think it's a
Speaker 3: waste of time of a conversation, right, I mean, they're
Speaker 3: not they're not. They're not getting us any closer to
Speaker 3: really talking about the bones and the nuts of what
Speaker 3: is really, you know, considered great golf experiences. Right, it
Speaker 3: doesn't really matter in our opinion, if if the land
Speaker 3: was there and you just scratched it in or you
Speaker 3: had to create it from nothing because you started with
Speaker 3: a flat parking lot, what's that end result? Is it fun?
Speaker 3: Is it enjoyables or memorable? That's really what matters. And
Speaker 3: and both spectrums can get you there, both spectrums can
Speaker 3: make you fail also, right, I mean, ultimately it's on
Speaker 3: the it's on the shoulders of the architects to to
Speaker 3: make sure that it does result in something worthwhile and desirable. So,
Speaker 3: you know, I totally agree with Tim's definition. And and
Speaker 3: also it's you know, I think that there could sometimes
Speaker 3: be minimalism and maximalism design when you just talk about
Speaker 3: the actual golf features themselves or the lack thereof. And
Speaker 3: what I mean by that is kind of like the
Speaker 3: less is more mantra that you know, a lot of
Speaker 3: architecture professors preach, you know, just because you can doesn't
Speaker 3: mean you should kind of thing, and and that can
Speaker 3: that can also happen on a on a made for
Speaker 3: golf site, right, I mean a lot of time those
Speaker 3: are some of the most overly busy and bunkered experiences
Speaker 3: because while the land is is perfect for it, right,
Speaker 3: so you just have you feel like that need just
Speaker 3: just bunket bunker bunkers everywhere because it's a naturally sandy
Speaker 3: site with humps and hullocks and those are natural bunkers, right.
Speaker 3: And so you know, I could argue that that's maximalism
Speaker 3: in the a way it's it's just to me, it's
Speaker 3: just a it's just a circular conversation that really doesn't
Speaker 3: get us any any closer towards a you know, a
Speaker 3: better product at the end of the day. So I
Speaker 3: love debating and having the conversation. But I also don't
Speaker 3: you know, I don't feel like having that conversation moves
Speaker 3: us any closer to, you know, being better designers.
Speaker 1: So maybe they're not really terms that are on your
Speaker 1: mind when you're designing a golf course. They just kind
Speaker 1: of come maybe when you're talking about golf.
Speaker 3: Course are only when only when people bring it up
Speaker 3: to us quite honestly, yeah, right, I mean to us,
Speaker 3: we always look to me maximize the opportunity and potential
Speaker 3: of the site, whether it's scratching something in because it's
Speaker 3: already ideal for golf, or we've got to reinvent the
Speaker 3: wheel because there's nothing there to create something interesting from.
Speaker 3: So that's all we're focusing on, is really maximizing the
Speaker 3: experience and meeting the goals of the client.
Speaker 1: Well, part of this seems to be historical, I guess,
Speaker 1: and you both came up in the era when minimalism
Speaker 1: was becoming something that people discussed, and part of the
Speaker 1: original intention of talking about minimalism, as I understand it,
Speaker 1: is that it was opposed to a lot of what
Speaker 1: people thought was going on in golf architecture in the
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties. And nineties. There was a group of people
Speaker 1: in the mid nineties to late nineties or even a
Speaker 1: little bit before that, who were starting to say, let's
Speaker 1: pull back a little bit on building artificial features, and
Speaker 1: if we can avoid that artificiality, then let's do it.
Speaker 1: Let's make interesting golf, but let's build only as much
Speaker 1: as necessary to generate interesting golf. And I guess that
Speaker 1: stance had real meaning at a certain time. I wonder
Speaker 1: if that meaning has become diluted over time. Is this
Speaker 1: something tim that that you've noticed in during your time
Speaker 1: and in the profession, that that just kind of the
Speaker 1: the impact of that initial stance of minimalism has has
Speaker 1: decreased over time.
Speaker 2: You know, I think that the there's always areas in
Speaker 2: golf course architecture, and you can you know, starting back
Speaker 2: and you know, and mister McDonald brought over the template
Speaker 2: greens and you know, National Golf Links, and we were
Speaker 2: often running an American a little bit before that too.
Speaker 2: But that you know, there was a time and this
Speaker 2: is this is actually interesting conversation. I think there was
Speaker 2: a time when it was kind of one upsmanship. I
Speaker 2: think in golf course architecture and certainly many many courses
Speaker 2: that were designed and built in the nineteen eighties, you know,
Speaker 2: big earth moving projects, perhaps a lot of artificiality in
Speaker 2: the way that the courses were detailed and shaped.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: I think that that that the return to a more
Speaker 2: naturalistic type or style of design, you know, starting maybe
Speaker 2: late eighties, early nineties, with guys reacting to what had
Speaker 2: been occurring and saying, hey, let's go a different direction.
Speaker 2: I think that's that's that's true. You know, again, the
Speaker 2: flow of of design a lot of times, I think
Speaker 2: follows trends, and you know, and again the big names
Speaker 2: in the industries, when they achieve a certain stature, a
Speaker 2: lot of times it's really interesting. It's almost like, you know,
Speaker 2: to some extent, the media tries to claw them back.
Speaker 2: You know, it's like, well they're at the top of
Speaker 2: the heap now, so let's let's break them down and
Speaker 2: let's you know, lift these others up. And I think
Speaker 2: the media has a role to play actually in both aspects.
Speaker 2: You know, when when Golf Digests came out with the
Speaker 2: America's one hundred Toughest Golf Courses in nineteen sixty six
Speaker 2: or wherever it was, George Pepper's list there were a
Speaker 2: lot of guys that wanted to be on that list,
Speaker 2: a lot of developers because it helped them sell real estate.
Speaker 2: And so as a result, some of the golf that
Speaker 2: was built in the seventies going into the nineteen eighties
Speaker 2: or these very difficult you know, overshaped you know, big
Speaker 2: contour type of features which created some very difficult golf,
Speaker 2: but it got them on the list, right. And now
Speaker 2: you know, the media kind of did you know, they
Speaker 2: rejected that because that's what was popular to a large.
Speaker 4: Extent, but he also created it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know, so the quote unquote you know,
Speaker 2: return to minimalism and the architects. You know, I think
Speaker 2: there are architects who that that fits their style certainly.
Speaker 2: And and David and Iland we don't you know, to
Speaker 2: speak for Dave, but you know we don't we don't.
Speaker 4: We appreciate what they do. We enjoy what they do.
Speaker 2: You know, again, if we had a site that we
Speaker 2: could just scratch golf in, that we could find it
Speaker 2: as opposed to have to create it, we would love that.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: We haven't necessarily been presented with a lot of opportunities
Speaker 2: along those lines. We've we've been given sites both our
Speaker 2: time with Tom Fazio and as Jackson con design.
Speaker 4: Where we've had to create the golf.
Speaker 2: You know, we've had to kind of create the environment
Speaker 2: to some extent and put the golf in it. And
Speaker 2: we were we were fortunate that we were taught how
Speaker 2: to do that and do it, you know, to I think,
Speaker 2: you know a degree and a level when it all
Speaker 2: goes back together that you know, you can't tell where
Speaker 2: we cut twenty feet or where we filled seventy feet
Speaker 2: because it all looks like it's been there. You know.
Speaker 2: One of the greatest compliments we ever got. Scott Steell
Speaker 2: National Ran morrisse Att, who's a great guy, said, you
Speaker 2: guys will never get the credit that you deserve because
Speaker 2: people will think this was one of the best sites
Speaker 2: for golf that you know, you've ever had the opportunity
Speaker 2: to design on. And so much of that golf course,
Speaker 2: so much of that property had to be created because
Speaker 2: it was so flat. It had been graded for lot
Speaker 2: pads prior to us being given in the land to
Speaker 2: build golf on. So you know, the owner had high expectations.
Speaker 2: We knew how to execute it, and he had the
Speaker 2: resources to make it happen, and he's very happy with
Speaker 2: the result.
Speaker 1: At Scottsdale National, you took an approach that Tom Fazio,
Speaker 1: whom you both worked for at times in your career,
Speaker 1: that Tom Fazio occasionally took to his sites, which is
Speaker 1: that he would create structures that were so big that
Speaker 1: people could hardly believe that they weren't real. And at
Speaker 1: Scottsdale National there was a little bit of that going on,
Speaker 1: as I understand it, where you had a site that
Speaker 1: wasn't giving you much, but you were able to move
Speaker 1: so much earth that the artificiality of the environment is
Speaker 1: not immediately obvious. David, does that resonate with you as
Speaker 1: a description of that project.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. It was pretty much the number one overarching goal
Speaker 3: of everything that we do. It had to fit into
Speaker 3: that believability and natural end result. So as much as
Speaker 3: people may knock us for moving a lot of dirt
Speaker 3: and being quote unquote maximums, we still have that same
Speaker 3: goal that the minimalists have and to make it feel natural.
Speaker 3: But when you're starting with lot pads or a parking lot,
Speaker 3: natural is not a great you know, it was already unnatural.
Speaker 3: So we had to bring that back and you know,
Speaker 3: there were eighty acres of that property that were void
Speaker 3: of anything, and the remaining of the remaining you know,
Speaker 3: one hundred two hundred acres was ravished by a fire
Speaker 3: in the mid nineties, so even the Sonoran desert was hurting. So,
Speaker 3: you know, early on we knew that ownership and us
Speaker 3: wanted this project to be essentially a Sonoran desert restoration project,
Speaker 3: but not simply by just planting the right plants, but
Speaker 3: by creating a terrain that made it feel like really
Speaker 3: something special and that it had always been there. So
Speaker 3: it takes a lot of effort and thought to craft
Speaker 3: something to that scale where the human eye can't perceive
Speaker 3: what you didn't didn't do, and it's tim set. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's it really is a great, a great compliment for
Speaker 3: us to to hear when people just honestly can't believe
Speaker 3: what we did there. You know, it was it was
Speaker 3: a really fun project, and uh, you know, it's just
Speaker 3: it's just a different it's just different.
Speaker 4: It's just different.
Speaker 3: But we are always after naturalistic end results in everything
Speaker 3: we do. We love natural golf, we love natural sites.
Speaker 3: We just you know, hopefully one day we'll get to
Speaker 3: work on a little bit more that are that we
Speaker 3: don't have to move the world to make it. But
Speaker 3: that's our stance is when you have to move the dirt,
Speaker 3: make sure you move it as nature would move it.
Speaker 3: And sometimes it's got to be big.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we should know too, you know, it's not it's
Speaker 2: not just us like we We get to work with
Speaker 2: great teams of people on these projects, especially these large
Speaker 2: scale projects like Scotstone National. Pinnacle Design, who is a
Speaker 2: golf course specific landscape architecture firm based out of Palm Desert, California,
Speaker 2: are just amazing at what they do in restoring landscapes,
Speaker 2: and they do it across a wide spectrum of environments.
Speaker 2: So they were absolutely a huge part of why Scottsdale
Speaker 2: National was successful.
Speaker 4: The shapers that we get to work with.
Speaker 2: Scott Hoffman, who's a good friend of ours, was a
Speaker 2: huge part of Scottsdale National, and there's done some really
Speaker 2: incredible stuff on his own now, you know, after Scottsdale,
Speaker 2: and so you know, that's part of the fun for
Speaker 2: us is that it's you know, we get to work
Speaker 2: with some really talented people who make it make it successful.
Speaker 1: Ultimately, Tim, I'm going to frame this question to you
Speaker 1: in maybe a slightly odd way, but I want to
Speaker 1: put Scottsdale National within a trio of courses that were
Speaker 1: built from a desert environment that wasn't offering much in
Speaker 1: terms of good golfing terrain. One example of that is
Speaker 1: Shadow Creek, of course, that you both are quite familiar with,
Speaker 1: I assume from your Fazzio days. Shadow Creek was an
Speaker 1: entirely constructed environment. If you look at what that site
Speaker 1: was before, it was basically a blank canvas, and mister
Speaker 1: Fasio built built something very different from that site than
Speaker 1: what was there initially. Another example might be talking stick Corn.
Speaker 1: Crenshaw had a similarly featureless environment, but instead of building
Speaker 1: something really big, they went sort of smaller in scale.
Speaker 1: They moved plenty of dirt out there, but they also
Speaker 1: used things like a boundary fence that was pre existing
Speaker 1: and they incorporated that into their holes. And when you
Speaker 1: go to that course, it feels like it kind of
Speaker 1: sits naturally in the Sonoran Desert. Even though there's more
Speaker 1: contour there than there was obviously initially, it still feels
Speaker 1: like it belongs to that Sonoran Desert environment in a
Speaker 1: way that the Shadow Creek doesn't shadow Creek is kind
Speaker 1: of like an oasis. It is completely separate from its environment.
Speaker 1: So between those two polls, or between those two approaches
Speaker 1: to to kind of a featureless site, where would you
Speaker 1: put Scottsdale National? How how does that project fit into
Speaker 1: that dichotomy that I that I just set up there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think spot scots still National and kind of
Speaker 2: splits the gap quite.
Speaker 1: Honestly, that's kind of what I thought.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, I don't know, you know, I don't know
Speaker 2: how much dirt mister Kort, mister Crunshaw actually moved on
Speaker 2: the what was the North Course, as I recall.
Speaker 1: At Yes, yeah, the North it was initially called the
Speaker 1: North Course.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so if you look at the peripheries of the
Speaker 2: golf holes, and you look at the tie in points
Speaker 2: right there, there's not a lot of up or down
Speaker 2: when you get to the edges, and and that kind
Speaker 2: of can be an indicator unless it was all revegetated,
Speaker 2: and you know how much dirt was or wasn't moved.
Speaker 2: And I played it, and I've enjoyed it, and I
Speaker 2: think it's a very interesting golf course, and and and
Speaker 2: I think it's great. You know, Shadow Creek is Las Vegas,
Speaker 2: and Steve Winn is Las Vegas, and you know, I
Speaker 2: think that directed a lot of what Shadow Creek became.
Speaker 2: And Tom actually gives design credit to Steve win. It's
Speaker 2: a Tom Fazzio and Steve wind Is. You know, the
Speaker 2: stories that came out of the development and construction of
Speaker 2: Shadow Creek, both public and private, being within the within
Speaker 2: the firm, are legendary. I mean, it really was groundbreaking.
Speaker 2: And you know, Tom never gave Steve a design fee
Speaker 2: when they started the project because Tom didn't know if
Speaker 2: he could execute truly what Steve Winn wanted. You know,
Speaker 2: they built the first four holes and then they used
Speaker 2: a hydro sater with different color mulch and they basically
Speaker 2: painted out fairways, roughs, creeks, greens, and then they put
Speaker 2: all the trees that were supposed to be on the
Speaker 2: plan in their boxes out on the golf holes and
Speaker 2: mister winsid I loved it. Just quadrupled the number of trees, right,
Speaker 2: and and so you know, when when they built it,
Speaker 2: and as successful as it was, I think a light
Speaker 2: bulb went off in Tom's head, where if you have
Speaker 2: an owner who has the resources and the desires, there's
Speaker 2: really not a bad site for golf. It just takes
Speaker 2: time and money. And I know that sounds trite, and
Speaker 2: I know a lot of people would push back on
Speaker 2: that and say, well, les's not what golf should be.
Speaker 4: You know. It's when we David and I.
Speaker 2: One of the first projects that we did was a
Speaker 2: was our only restoration project to date, and it was
Speaker 2: sunny Lands in Ranch Mirage, California, which Dick Wilson in
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty five designed a state course for Walter Annenberg.
Speaker 1: Yeah, interesting course, really interesting course in that area which
Speaker 1: has a lot of architecture that might be a little
Speaker 1: bit forgettable. But sonny Lands is pretty interesting.
Speaker 2: Okay, it's a fascinating property. I mean it's you know,
Speaker 2: the property may be more fascinating than the golf. But
Speaker 2: we were very faithful to try to do what the
Speaker 2: client wanted and restore Dick Wilson's design In one of
Speaker 2: the golf course architect critics, well known came out to
Speaker 2: walk with us and it was interesting. All he didn't
Speaker 2: really want to talk about sonny Lands, and he had
Speaker 2: put a list together of the top you know, call
Speaker 2: it ten twenty nine hole courses in America and had
Speaker 2: sunny Lands rated very highly and never stepped foot on
Speaker 2: property and admitted he had never stepped foot on property.
Speaker 2: And as he was walking, he's like, a maybe I
Speaker 2: got this rated a little bit higher than I should have.
Speaker 2: But all he wanted to talk about was how he
Speaker 2: had influenced Tom Fazio and how he designed golf right.
Speaker 2: And you know, did Tom read this article? Did Tom
Speaker 2: read that article? And we really burst his bubble to
Speaker 2: say that Tom didn't give a rip what you thought.
Speaker 4: He really didn't.
Speaker 2: All he cared about was the clients and if the
Speaker 2: client was happy at the end of the day, you know.
Speaker 2: And this kind of ties back into to Shadow Creek.
Speaker 4: Tom.
Speaker 2: Tom knew that Steve Whin wanted something completely over the top.
Speaker 2: He wanted something essentially that hadn't been done, you know,
Speaker 2: to that to that extent, I think to date when
Speaker 2: they built Shadow Creek, and a lot of people like
Speaker 2: to tear Shadow Creek down and say it's more of
Speaker 2: an engineering feet than it is really a great golf course.
Speaker 2: I've never stepped foot off a Shadow Creek after playing
Speaker 2: golf and been disappointed. And you know, David and ourfortunately
Speaker 2: we get to play a lot of great golf courses.
Speaker 2: You know, it's vastly different. Are there some things out
Speaker 2: there that we look at or like from a detail standpoint,
Speaker 2: you know that might be a little dated today, this
Speaker 2: that or the other. Sure, but you know, but to
Speaker 2: round back into your initial question, I saw a long
Speaker 2: way again there. You know, Scottsdale National, the impetus of it,
Speaker 2: as far as the earth moving comes from Shadow Creek.
Speaker 2: The environment that went back in comes from the Sonoran
Speaker 2: Desert more similar to talking Stick. So I do think
Speaker 2: it splits the gap, and I think it's kind of
Speaker 2: the mesh between those two different styles, you know, but
Speaker 2: applied specific to Scottsdale National. What mister Parsons desires were.
Speaker 1: That's really interesting. It's you sort of use the Shadow
Speaker 1: Creek method of earth moving, but then tied it back in,
Speaker 1: which takes a lot of a lot of effort and
Speaker 1: art and trying to make something that is massively artificial
Speaker 1: to seem like it like it flows back into into
Speaker 1: the landscape. This episode is brought to you by Club Champion.
Speaker 1: We're very excited to partner with Club Champion again in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, and if you're looking to improve your
Speaker 1: game this year, Champion has a lot for you. First
Speaker 1: of all, first and foremost, they have the most highly
Speaker 1: trained fitters in the world. They attend an in house
Speaker 1: university and they receive continued education from manufacturers to stay
Speaker 1: up to date on all the latest innovations in the
Speaker 1: world of golf equipment. These are career fitters who fit
Speaker 1: all day, every day. They have no distractions from accessories
Speaker 1: or lessons or anything else. They're just there to fit
Speaker 1: you to golf clubs. Every Club Champion store has sixty
Speaker 1: five brands, which equates to nearly seventy thousand different head
Speaker 1: and shaft combinations. This means that you'll be able to
Speaker 1: find equipment for every type of golfer and every type
Speaker 1: of swing. It doesn't matter if you're tall, short, if
Speaker 1: you have a fast swing, if you have a slow swing,
Speaker 1: if you're a junior, a senior, a beginner, or a pro.
Speaker 1: You will be able to find equipment at Club Champion
Speaker 1: that will bring the best out of your game. And
Speaker 1: that's what the fitters are there to do for you.
Speaker 1: You know, one of the biggest advancements in recent golf
Speaker 1: has been in fitting clubs. It hasn't necessarily been all technology.
Speaker 1: The fitting processes have gotten so much better, and I
Speaker 1: think amateurs can really benefit from that. Professionals are certainly
Speaker 1: going to that well every single day that they are
Speaker 1: professional golfers, but I think amateurs could generally take better
Speaker 1: advantage of it. So Club Champion is offering a great
Speaker 1: deal for designing golf listeners. You can get a free
Speaker 1: driver or iron fitting with a club purchase using the
Speaker 1: code fried Egg. That's one word fried Egg at Club
Speaker 1: champion dot com slash Frida Egg. All right, let's get
Speaker 1: back to the episode. So David, I want to get
Speaker 1: into some nitty gritty here shaping a bunker. I think
Speaker 1: that somebody who's really devoted to minimalism might say that
Speaker 1: the goal of shaping a bunker is to make it
Speaker 1: seem like it was pre existing in the site, or
Speaker 1: like it ties in to the surrounding landscape. When you
Speaker 1: shape a bunker, when you look at the the you know,
Speaker 1: finish work that you do on a bunker edge, or
Speaker 1: you know, whatever else goes into creating the esthetics of
Speaker 1: a bunker. Is your main intention to blend it in
Speaker 1: with the surrounding terrain or is there something else that
Speaker 1: also influences you in creating that final product.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think there's more to it than just that,
Speaker 3: but absolutely that is one of the main goals is
Speaker 3: to make it sure, like, make it feel like it
Speaker 3: fits in and feels, you know, whatever we deem as
Speaker 3: natural to that site. You know. What we try hard
Speaker 3: not to do is just have a bunker that's just
Speaker 3: artificially popped up and ties down real quick and doesn't
Speaker 3: really relate to anything. So we always talk to the
Speaker 3: shapers about lines and flow and and it's super important
Speaker 3: and that goes from everything we're shaping bunkers included, especially
Speaker 3: like green side bunkers. If there's an eyebrow on it,
Speaker 3: making sure that eyebrow carries through into some feature on
Speaker 3: the green so it's bigger and and not just you know,
Speaker 3: just next to the green for next to the green sake.
Speaker 3: So obviously the math of where those bunkers go is
Speaker 3: is the first step, making sure it's it's where we
Speaker 3: want it, affecting the golfer the way we want it to.
Speaker 3: But after that, it is absolutely talking about how do
Speaker 3: we make this thing feel like it's always been here
Speaker 3: and it fits, you know, and it's it's It's not
Speaker 3: easy at times, sometimes it's it, it just falls into place,
Speaker 3: you know, a lot, a lot more clearly than others.
Speaker 3: But you know, there's also a challenge with multiple shapers
Speaker 3: on a project too, making sure that those those products
Speaker 3: are are coming out cohesively. And it feels like they all,
Speaker 3: you know, we're built by the same hands. A lot
Speaker 3: of times they're not, so that that's on us to
Speaker 3: make sure that, you know that those final products all
Speaker 3: kind of jive together. And yeah, so honestly everything we
Speaker 3: shape is with that naturalistic flow in mind.
Speaker 1: I've noticed this that the bunkering at your courses strikes
Speaker 1: me as being esthetically at least more similar to what
Speaker 1: Corn Crenshaw or Tom Doak might produce than what Tom
Speaker 1: Fazio was doing in the eighties and nineties, or what
Speaker 1: Jack Nicholas was doing in that same period, or what
Speaker 1: Tom Weiskoff was doing. There seemed to be some influences
Speaker 1: of the current trends in architecture on the way that
Speaker 1: your bunkers appear. Is that something tim that you've thought
Speaker 1: about consciously or is the process more organic than that,
Speaker 1: You're not necessarily thinking about stylistic influences.
Speaker 2: No, the process, I mean I hope it's more organic
Speaker 2: for us. You know, it's it's interesting people you know,
Speaker 2: define characteristics of designers and certainly bunkers can be part
Speaker 2: of that. And when we were with Tom, you know, Tom,
Speaker 2: Tom's a great guy. He gave us so much freedom
Speaker 2: once there was faith that we could execute a project
Speaker 2: and execute the goals of the project, and he allowed
Speaker 2: us to express what we saw from a design perspective.
Speaker 2: So you know, I know, you know, not to keep
Speaker 2: kind of coming back to Tom, but that's where we
Speaker 2: came from. If you look at the breath of Fassio
Speaker 2: courses and you look at them stylistically, I think they
Speaker 2: have the greatest amount of differentiation from any big name
Speaker 2: designer because he allowed the guys in the field the
Speaker 2: opportunity to do that. Conversely, you know there's architects who
Speaker 2: it's my way or the highway, big name guys that
Speaker 2: had a lot of projects going on and you know,
Speaker 2: thou shalt not deviate from the plan, right, And so
Speaker 2: you know, we we we like designing a lot of
Speaker 2: different bunker styles now and we've done you know, in
Speaker 2: in some of our current work, you know, the we've
Speaker 2: inherited some some Fazzio projects that we're now the consulting
Speaker 2: architects on and you know, the desert course at the
Speaker 2: Vintage Club in Indian Wells, California is diametrically opposed from
Speaker 2: a bunker style standpoint to Core Crenshaw and maybe some
Speaker 2: of the stuff that we're doing today and that was
Speaker 2: set before we got there. But you know, we have
Speaker 2: just as much fun taking the the that style of
Speaker 2: bunker and trying to either improve upon what's there or
Speaker 2: make it just as aesthetic as the type of bunkers
Speaker 2: that we have on other projects. You know, the bunkers
Speaker 2: when you stand on a tee, the bunkers are the
Speaker 2: contrasts that you see within that landscape many times or
Speaker 2: the most contrasts that you see. So the shape in
Speaker 2: the form that they take is very important. You know,
Speaker 2: your eye picks up every line. Dave's talking about lines.
Speaker 2: Your eye picks up every line when you're standing on
Speaker 2: the tee, whether you realize it or not. So we
Speaker 2: spend a lot of time on the bunkers, you know,
Speaker 2: regardless of what style we're trying to implement, and making
Speaker 2: sure that the flow oh is there that you know,
Speaker 2: strategically obviously we do the math, and that's that's super important.
Speaker 2: But you know, every golfer can appreciate beauty, not every
Speaker 2: golfer can appreciate strategy, and it's important to have both
Speaker 2: the form and the function. But yeah, you know, we
Speaker 2: spend a lot of time on bunker detail. Maybe too
Speaker 2: much time on bunker detail, I'm not sure, but it
Speaker 2: can add so much. You know, there's courses that are
Speaker 2: defined by the look and the style of their bunkering,
Speaker 2: and again, I think a big part of why that
Speaker 2: is is because of that contrast the shape and the movement.
Speaker 2: Get the math right from a strategy standpoint, but also
Speaker 2: make it as beautiful as it can be.
Speaker 1: There's something really interesting here that I'm not maybe I
Speaker 1: don't really have the vocabulary for, but I think there's
Speaker 1: something beyond just blending into the surrounding terrain and making
Speaker 1: it look natural that can make bunkers esthetically compelling. I'm
Speaker 1: thinking of Mike Strantz's bunkers. I'm thinking of Pete Dies bunkers.
Speaker 1: Sometimes those features not just bunkers, but also contours and
Speaker 1: green shapes and all sorts of golf features that those
Speaker 1: architects produced. They don't necessarily look natural, but they look cool.
Speaker 1: And that's and that's kind of the and that's that's
Speaker 1: such a sort of basic term, Oh wow, it looks cool.
Speaker 1: It's almost meaningless, it's not really that specific. But there's
Speaker 1: something about the work that those architects did that that
Speaker 1: goes beyond just feeling like it was already there. There's
Speaker 1: something kind of painterly about Mike Strants's bunkers, and there's
Speaker 1: there's something provocative and beyond naturalism about a lot of
Speaker 1: the stuff that Pete Died did in the field. And
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, Tim, you know, Mike Strands worked for
Speaker 1: Tom Fazio and the courses that he worked on have
Speaker 1: a kind of distinct flavor, just as the courses that
Speaker 1: you two worked on in Fasio's portfolio also have have
Speaker 1: something of your flavor in them, which which is really
Speaker 1: interesting to see. But David, when you think of Mike
Speaker 1: Strands's approach to building artificial features and Pete Dye's approach,
Speaker 1: is there is there something there that that goes just
Speaker 1: beyond we're trying to make it look like it's always
Speaker 1: been there, you know, beyond just blending it into the
Speaker 1: landscape that you aspire towards in your own work.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, and I know, you know, we try to
Speaker 3: push each other all the time on every project and
Speaker 3: sometimes it doesn't come to fruition based on you know,
Speaker 3: whatever the specifics of that project are, but we're always
Speaker 3: kind of looking for, you know, new ways to do
Speaker 3: things and new ways to not really shock people but
Speaker 3: catch their eye. Right, Like you said, going back here,
Speaker 3: it's cool comment. You know, I remember vividly numerous times
Speaker 3: at Auburn during landscape architecture program that the professors would say, essentially,
Speaker 3: don't ever do something because it's cool. That's not a reason.
Speaker 3: And now you know, fast forward twenty five years, Like
Speaker 3: I very much disagree. I think, you know, if you
Speaker 3: get all the other things right that lead up to that,
Speaker 3: doing it because it looks cool in our world at
Speaker 3: least is a damn good reason. Because at the end
Speaker 3: of the day, I mean, most everybody experience golf visually, right,
Speaker 3: and if you can stand on a tee and just
Speaker 3: be blown away by what you're looking at, to your point,
Speaker 3: whether it's artificial or real or you know, natural looking,
Speaker 3: it shouldn't matter. And I don't think it does matter,
Speaker 3: and especially you know, whatever weight you want to hold
Speaker 3: into the rankings. You know, I don't know this off
Speaker 3: the top of my head, but there's a lot of
Speaker 3: manufactured golf courses that are highly ranked and highly loved.
Speaker 3: You know, if Pete de fell into the naturalistic minimalist category,
Speaker 3: would never know Pete Die and same with Strants, And
Speaker 3: they're two of the best golf course architect artists to
Speaker 3: ever live, for sure, So I I admire them slightly
Speaker 3: more than you know, the others that that take the
Speaker 3: minimalistic approach, even though I absolutely love playing their courses.
Speaker 3: I mean, a lot of Core Crenshaw courses are my
Speaker 3: favorite I've ever played, so you know, nothing but respect.
Speaker 3: But in terms of kind of setting yourself apart as
Speaker 3: an artist, setting a client apart from what they possess
Speaker 3: by creating something that is just, you know, unmistakably only
Speaker 3: there is something really important I think to strive from,
Speaker 3: for for for all parties involved in a project. And
Speaker 3: I agree, I think that you know, while we love
Speaker 3: that natural look, it is absolutely okay to go bold
Speaker 3: and do something strikingly, strikingly not not natural, assuming it's
Speaker 3: still you know, it still has to fit right, it
Speaker 3: still has to feel right, and I can be executed
Speaker 3: in unlimited amount of ways honestly with with you know,
Speaker 3: the right creative brains.
Speaker 1: Well, picking up on that latter point, when you build
Speaker 1: something tim that is overtly artificial or that's not necessarily
Speaker 1: trying to blend or tie in in a in a
Speaker 1: low profile way, how do you avoid making it look
Speaker 1: cheesy or maybe more to the point, how do you
Speaker 1: communicate to your shapers how to make something look cool
Speaker 1: as opposed to silly.
Speaker 4: Great question, I'm not sure we have the answer, you.
Speaker 1: Know, it's got to just be I mean, yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't know if there is an answer to this question,
Speaker 1: but it's something I've thought about all the time because
Speaker 1: there there is a difference between Pete Dye and Mike
Speaker 1: Strant's artificiality and the artificiality that lesser architects achieved. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but there's something about their artistry that's that is cool
Speaker 1: and but that's hard to define, isn't it.
Speaker 4: I maybe not so.
Speaker 2: I we tend to fall into the strands category of
Speaker 2: trying I think more than the die category stylistically, when
Speaker 2: we do something bold as far as how we then
Speaker 2: try to, you know, somewhat naturalize what we've done.
Speaker 4: You know, Pete Die, I was.
Speaker 2: I went to Purdue and just cheer, dumb luck and
Speaker 2: timing got to be a part of the construction career
Speaker 2: on the camping course when I was there and Pete
Speaker 2: Die was building straits at the.
Speaker 4: Same time, and I didn't know that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it got to you know, be out there in
Speaker 2: the field when And I don't think people really appreciate
Speaker 2: every Die design as Pete analysis, not just not just Pete,
Speaker 2: you know, and Pete is Pete is to me one
Speaker 2: of the best designers in use of angles that that
Speaker 2: in his courses, you know, strategically really force you to
Speaker 2: make decisions. And I think, you know, there's so and
Speaker 2: he never drew a plan. I mean, it all just
Speaker 2: came out of his head standing out there in the field,
Speaker 2: you know, and we would you know, work on golf holes,
Speaker 2: you know, six seven, eight, nine times, you know, reshaping, reworking,
Speaker 2: doing whatever. But the end result was worth it, you know.
Speaker 2: I had the good fortune recently to play you know,
Speaker 2: PJA West Stadium course and in nineteen eighty five, eighty six,
Speaker 2: I think when he did that in laking To California.
Speaker 2: It's there's so many things out there that are just
Speaker 2: still so astounding. I mean to stand on sixteen Fairway
Speaker 2: and look at San Andreas and no Pete was standing
Speaker 2: somewhere close to there and just said, you know what,
Speaker 2: I got an idea, you know, let's let's do this.
Speaker 2: He and Strance, I think both had no fear. And
Speaker 2: I think that's the commonality between the two is that
Speaker 2: they were not afraid to do very big, bold things.
Speaker 2: How they applied their art was completely different. And you know,
Speaker 2: i'd like to think that, you know, David and I
Speaker 2: are not afraid, but our art definitely follows more of
Speaker 2: the Mike Strands lineage and the Pete Ie lineage.
Speaker 3: And I think you mentioned something about when Pete was
Speaker 3: was working on the course and he reshaped a whole,
Speaker 3: you know, eight or nine times. I think that's part
Speaker 3: of the two. Not as an artist, your eye knows
Speaker 3: when it's right. You may not be able to express why,
Speaker 3: but you just know, like the lines aren't working, the
Speaker 3: scales not work, and the perspective isn't working. It is
Speaker 3: something is not right, and so you just you know
Speaker 3: well enough to either start over or move things around,
Speaker 3: or try this or try that. And I think that's
Speaker 3: you know, that coupled with the artistic eye, get you somewhere.
Speaker 3: Whether you're trying something bold or trying to fit it
Speaker 3: in natural, it's the same technique. So not being scared
Speaker 3: to try something and not being scared to erase it
Speaker 3: and try again, you know, it's got still national. We
Speaker 3: struggled the hardest on number seventeen Green. Other course, what
Speaker 3: we built was nothing what we had on paper, and
Speaker 3: it actually came it evolved from a big earthwork in
Speaker 3: balance that came late in the game. The earth or
Speaker 3: contractor came to us to say, we had one hundred
Speaker 3: thousand extra yards that you know from rock expansion as
Speaker 3: they were digging, and there was nowhere on plan to
Speaker 3: put it. And and so we found a place that
Speaker 3: happened to be behind one green and left of seventeen Green,
Speaker 3: just spatially, and you know, through a lot of trial
Speaker 3: and error, it ended up making both of those holds better.
Speaker 3: But we completely rebuilt the seventeenth Green complex five different times,
Speaker 3: five different concepts, until that final one was like this,
Speaker 3: this just feels right. And we had arguments, you know,
Speaker 3: of version one, two, three, and four as they were
Speaker 3: as they were shaped in the dirt and just one
Speaker 3: of us or two of us or three of us,
Speaker 3: you know, would either agree or disagree, and it's like,
Speaker 3: all right, if we're not all in consensus, then we
Speaker 3: got to rebuild, we got to do it again. So
Speaker 3: you know, that's that's a that's a huge part is
Speaker 3: knowing knowing when to stop and knowing when you need
Speaker 3: to keep pushing forward to find to find what's right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that that does seem to be the difference than
Speaker 1: the handmade quality of really good looking golf features. It's
Speaker 1: hard to do that without having the architect to be
Speaker 1: heavily involved and without these revisions occurring. And you know,
Speaker 1: when people talk about why Pete Die's courses still look
Speaker 1: good they don't look dated, I think it's partly because
Speaker 1: they do still feel handmade and there's a specificity of
Speaker 1: vision there that is tough to produce if you're just
Speaker 1: having shapers come in or contractors come in and build
Speaker 1: something and you don't then go back and revise it.
Speaker 1: And so that extra personal touch seems to be really important,
Speaker 1: even if it's hard to define the point at which
Speaker 1: something begins to begins to look cool or to feel right.
Speaker 1: Feel right is the is the phrase that I that
Speaker 1: I hear you using quite a bit, Tim. I wonder,
Speaker 1: you know, when you look at Mike Strantz's courses and
Speaker 1: just for contacts for people who maybe don't know much
Speaker 1: about Mike Strants, Tobacco Road as a popular Mike Strants course.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of Mike Strands courses in North
Speaker 1: and South Carolina that remain very popular today. And unfortunately
Speaker 1: he died when he was too young and didn't end
Speaker 1: up perhaps having the massive influence on golf architecture. His
Speaker 1: influence is still very large, but you just wonder how
Speaker 1: much more could have been done if he had lived
Speaker 1: to a ripe old age. When you look at Mike
Speaker 1: Strantz's worked him, what inspires you about his stylistic approach
Speaker 1: or his his aesthetic approach.
Speaker 2: You know, specifically his ability to create beautiful looking golf
Speaker 2: holes and spaces and kind of in different ways to
Speaker 2: my first experience with Mike Strants. You know, David and
Speaker 2: I had the amazing good fortune to redesign the Dunes
Speaker 2: course at Mounty Peninsula Country Club. Yes, and you know
Speaker 2: when in the whole way that came about was extraordinarily organic.
Speaker 2: Just shere dumb luck and timing. But when we first
Speaker 2: experienced the Dunes course, which was I think a nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety five nineteen ninety six Reech Jones design for the club.
Speaker 2: We played the Dune's course and David and I walked
Speaker 2: or were driving back to the clubhouse and you passed
Speaker 2: the first tee on the short course, which Mike Strants
Speaker 2: had done I think in two thousand and three, and
Speaker 2: we was like full stop. Just we were just sitting
Speaker 2: there staring at the first hole and just the lines
Speaker 2: that he created, the movement that he created, the way
Speaker 2: the fair way moved with the bunkering, and the bunkering
Speaker 2: nestled into the spaces.
Speaker 4: It was, it's just it's gorgeous. It is. It is
Speaker 4: truly gorgeous.
Speaker 2: And and you know, so when we were, you know,
Speaker 2: again given the opportunity on the Dunes course, you know,
Speaker 2: they said they wanted something as good or better than
Speaker 2: the short course, and we were like, we don't know
Speaker 2: if we can do that, because it's it is so
Speaker 2: very very very good. And and and so you know,
Speaker 2: the restraint that that Mike utilized on the shore course
Speaker 2: and still created a tremendous amount of beauty you can't.
Speaker 2: You can't move a lot of dirt on the minor rapidan,
Speaker 2: soa one, it's there's a lot of rock. So it
Speaker 2: gets expensive into you know, coastal California. The agencies get
Speaker 2: very very nervous when they see, you know, anything that
Speaker 2: we would consider a small earthwork number kind of coming
Speaker 2: in front of him. And and so looking at what
Speaker 2: he did in in the Carolinas, and I've been fortunate
Speaker 2: to play a couple of his courses to Backer Road
Speaker 2: included the scale that he created, the movement that he created.
Speaker 2: There's no way that he could have done that at
Speaker 2: NPCC on the shore course. Yet he created just as
Speaker 2: beautiful and just as interesting a golf course, but enough
Speaker 2: in a in a far different fashion. And I think
Speaker 2: that's just true recognition of how amazing an artist that
Speaker 2: he was. He was an artist who happened to be
Speaker 2: a golf course architect, and and you know, he was
Speaker 2: able to apply his art in many different ways and
Speaker 2: still create tremendous amount of beauty and interesting golf.
Speaker 1: So I want to end with a topic that maybe
Speaker 1: is a little bit tired at this point, but maybe
Speaker 1: we can go somewhere new with it and that is
Speaker 1: the question of what's next in golf architecture. Often the
Speaker 1: kind of cliche answer to that right now would be
Speaker 1: that what's next is something after minimalism. People say, minimalism
Speaker 1: has been the primary trend in golf architecture for the
Speaker 1: past thirty years, and so clearly what must be next
Speaker 1: is some form of maximalism or some form of pushback
Speaker 1: against minimalism. So, David, when you think of the future
Speaker 1: of golf architecture, what do you think of. Is it
Speaker 1: something along these lines, absorbing different influences from the past
Speaker 1: to go in a different direction from minimalism or is
Speaker 1: that not a useful frame of reference for you?
Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean I think that eras of
Speaker 3: any art or architecture or fashion. You know, after a
Speaker 3: certain point, it just gets redundant, and people quite honestly
Speaker 3: just not get sick of it, but they're tired of it, like,
Speaker 3: all right, we get that that's great, but kind of
Speaker 3: need something fresh. It's hard to really obviously predict where
Speaker 3: that's going to go. I hope it goes down the
Speaker 3: road of just more variety of stuff and not and not.
Speaker 3: This is probably ignorant to say, because it probably won't happen,
Speaker 3: but I would hope that another trend doesn't just get
Speaker 3: started and we just hashed that out for the next
Speaker 3: two decades and now we're in the same boat, right.
Speaker 3: But history it probably going to prevail and that will happen.
Speaker 3: But you know, I think more more non traditional golf
Speaker 3: is definitely a wave that will be ridden for quite
Speaker 3: a while. And by that I mean any anything that's
Speaker 3: not a you know, quote unquote part seventy two to
Speaker 3: seventy two hundred yard championship course stylistically, that could be anything.
Speaker 3: But I think I think more non traditional golf properties
Speaker 3: are really cool, faster, shorter experiences or definitely a trend
Speaker 3: just with all of our attention spans and.
Speaker 1: And other.
Speaker 3: You know, just our time in life is getting chopped
Speaker 3: up more than it used to be decades ago. I
Speaker 3: think the artificial aspect, artificial turf aspect of golf could
Speaker 3: be somewhat of a trend in a way with with
Speaker 3: you know, given to the right teams of people, I
Speaker 3: think could be executed into some really really cool projects,
Speaker 3: one of which we're about to hopefully open up later
Speaker 3: this year. You know, it's I just I just hope
Speaker 3: that we as an industry maximize the variety of products
Speaker 3: that are being put out there, because too much of
Speaker 3: the same, even if it's a good thing, is just
Speaker 3: not It's not great for users. At the end of
Speaker 3: the day. We have a lot of golf out there,
Speaker 3: a lot of golf, and I think that's some of
Speaker 3: the knock that I personally put on the minimalistic approach,
Speaker 3: which I love. Like I said earlier, I absolutely love it.
Speaker 3: But it's like, Okay, we get that, we know that
Speaker 3: is great, we have enough of it. Let's let's try
Speaker 3: something else. Let's try to find that next thing that
Speaker 3: other people want to emulate, and then try to find
Speaker 3: something else. So, you know, I'm excited about the future.
Speaker 3: I'm excited about, you know, our future projects, and I'm
Speaker 3: excited to see what other architects do because I think
Speaker 3: the more the more varied stuff that comes out and
Speaker 3: has proven to be successful, I think owners out there
Speaker 3: will have more or will feel less risk in doing
Speaker 3: something that kind of bucks the trend. And I think
Speaker 3: that's kind of where where you know, the tipping points
Speaker 3: at right now, it seems like owners are getting a
Speaker 3: little bit more open to trying something different that may
Speaker 3: may not quote unquote kind of fit the mold.
Speaker 4: Tim anything to add to you know, I think that
Speaker 4: there are.
Speaker 2: Many different types and styles of golf course architecture that
Speaker 2: are ongoing even when a certain type of golf maybe predominates,
Speaker 2: and a lot of it is driven by what the
Speaker 2: media chooses to focus on and say, you know, and
Speaker 2: there's so many more options and outlets for golf media
Speaker 2: now than there ever have been.
Speaker 4: Right, but if if the media.
Speaker 2: You know, in certain aspects of the golf media, say hey,
Speaker 2: this is how golf should be designed, this is what
Speaker 2: we're going to focus on, that's what people perceive to
Speaker 2: be you know, that that trend or that style or
Speaker 2: that movement in golf. And I think there's always guys
Speaker 2: who are, you know, either working against that trend or
Speaker 2: doing something different, but they may not get the you know,
Speaker 2: the recognition or the you know, highlight of their work
Speaker 2: other than what the you know, the media gain.
Speaker 4: Chooses to focus on.
Speaker 2: And I think part of it comes down to that,
Speaker 2: you know, there's certain perceptions that you're more golf savvy
Speaker 2: if you believe minimalism is how golf should be designed
Speaker 2: versus any other way and you know, guys sitting around
Speaker 2: and trying to discern, you know, which template greenness is.
Speaker 2: Is it a you know, is it a double plateau?
Speaker 2: But you know which, what's the angle? And no, it's
Speaker 2: more of a burritz and and so there's and those
Speaker 2: are you know, great conversations, and people are interested in that.
Speaker 2: I don't I don't certainly take away from them wanting
Speaker 2: to have those conversations. But like Dave said, I just
Speaker 2: hope that, you know, you know, the variety in golf continues.
Speaker 2: The bigger the tent is, the more variety there will
Speaker 2: be and hopefully the more enjoyment for the end user.
Speaker 2: If we all had to play the same golf course
Speaker 2: day in and out, day in and out, time and
Speaker 2: time again, we get pretty sick of it, regardless of
Speaker 2: how good it is, I think ultimately, so I think
Speaker 2: that that's important.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, Tim and David, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for coming on the podcast. Really interesting discussion and hope
Speaker 1: to have you guys back on at some point in
Speaker 1: the future.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Grett.
Speaker 3: We'd love to Thanks Garrett.
Speaker 1: This episode of Designing Golf was produced by PJ Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you PJ. Speaking of PJ, he's going to be
Speaker 1: back on designing golf pretty soon. We're going to do
Speaker 1: a golf golf Architecture one oh one episode coming up here,
Speaker 1: so it'll be good to have Pja back on talking
Speaker 1: about some one oh one concepts in golf course design.
Speaker 1: Something new that you should keep an eye on from
Speaker 1: Friday Golf is that we have a new website, the
Speaker 1: Frida Egg dot com. We relaunched our website about a
Speaker 1: week and a half ago and we're really proud of it.
Speaker 1: It looks great and I think that you can explore
Speaker 1: our content at a more robust level now, especially the
Speaker 1: golf architecture section of our website is much more navigable,
Speaker 1: So go check that out the Frida Egg dot com
Speaker 1: if you haven't already, And to get the most out
Speaker 1: of our website, you should join Friday Golf Club. Yes,
Speaker 1: we did rename it from CLUBTFE to fridagg Golf Club.
Speaker 1: We thought that would make a little bit more sense,
Speaker 1: and we use the relaunch of the website as an
Speaker 1: opportunity to do that. But Friday Golf Club is one
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty dollars a year and you get a
Speaker 1: lot with it, especially the wonderful community that we're building
Speaker 1: within that website as well as at events that we're
Speaker 1: holding and everything like that. I think that's the best
Speaker 1: part of it. You just get to meet people who
Speaker 1: are avid golfers, who are really into the game, into
Speaker 1: the architecture, into the competitive golf side. So that's a
Speaker 1: lot of fun. Check out Friday Golf Club. All right,
Speaker 1: thank you for listening, and we'll be back again soon
Speaker 1: with another episode.