Tuesday, 19 November 2013

Minimalism and Impressionism


Sunrise - 1873 - Monet

The foundations or Minimalism were laid in the early 1960’s with the earliest work of Pete Dye. It’s well understood that he was trying to draw attention by creating something polar opposite to founder of Modernism Robert Trent Jones. While Pete moved on to different ideas a short decade later, a small group of architects took note at the early work with interest and the movement survived in thought.

In the 19th century art was dominated in France by the Royal Academies of Art which not only ran schools of instruction, but held an annual exhibition where the latest art could be seem and hopefully create critical notice for the painter. These institutions through their power and influence essentially established institutions public taste and official patronage. People bought and supported the artists that they made popular.

Interestingly in the 1970’s and 1980’s Golf Magazines made certain architects celebrities and created a scenario where you needed to hire one of the celebrity architects to keep up with the Jones’s.

In the middle to late 1800’s an important artistic movement was emerging, but the critics who ran the Salon generally ignored the work declaring it incomplete or poorly executed. They felt that most works were illustrative rather than finished pictures. The standard for the day was a very regimented and realistic composition based largely around themes of military and religion. The critics of the day simply excluded the Impressionist pieces, or if they allowed it they would place it well up the walls to limit the accessibility for the public.

Sand Hills - canvas by Josh Smith

In the early 1990’s the Minimalist Movement was still largely ignored until Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw’s were commissioned to create Sand Hills. Not only was the work spectacular, but their philosophy and approach caught many people’s attention including critics. The incorporating of nature, the minimal earthmoving and the idea of giving players greater opportunity for self-expression all hit a cord with a new generation of architects wanting to express themselves differently than the popular architects of the day. They had their example and this became the game changer for golf design, but society remained focused on Pete Dye, Jack Nicklaus and Stadium Golf.

The Impressionists, including Monet, Degas, Pissarro and Sisley, eventually decided to organize a group called the Anonymous Society of Painters, Sculptors, Printmakers, etc. They organized their own exhibition in Paris to showcase their works without the same limitations and politics found in the Salon. Change did not come overnight, but a few critics like Edmond Duranty described the collective works as a revolution in painting.

 In 1999 Mike Keiser started Bandon Dunes which would be the tipping point with the work at Pacific Dunes ushering in a new era of design.

The Impressionists paintings stood out from their contemporaries for their use of bright colors instead of sombre tones. They dared to use colour to create light and shade rather than the established technique of applying white and black. Even the darkened finish of heavy lacquer was often not used leaving the brash and exuberant hues and colours on full display. New paints had brought in a richer colour palette which were not only embraced but featured in works. But the real change was the subject matter. They revelled in modern Paris life capturing the excitement in the air of a city in flux. The painters captured life around Paris in all its moods and intrigue.

Modern Architecture evolved into a game played against an architect who controlled not only every aspect but also demanded the course be played as they had set out, whereas Minimalism gave the player the freedom to choose their own path and create their own experience through self-expression.

By 1886 the Impressionist movement had exploded out to include new forms of exploration and new techniques. More artists pushed the boundaries and the Impressionist movement blossomed.

The critics and public have clearly embraced Minimalism to a point where the leading Minimalists are now the darlings of the press. Their peers and their protégée’s have also ascended to gain key commissions and gain recognition. What’s interesting is a new group of younger architects have redefined the roll of an architect and are pushing the definition of Golf Course Architect. The Golden Age grew out from people like Colt to include Mackenzie, Tillinghast and Thomas. But it also provided room for more eccentric artists like Raynor, Thompson and Strong.

With the emergence of the internet and the slow death of magazines and newspapers, careers can now come from almost anywhere.
 
The Impressionists no longer need the Salon!

 

Thursday, 14 November 2013

NEW Advice for Future Golf Architects


Highlands Links Crew
For years I’ve suggested a combination of practical experience and a degree in Landscape Architecture as a pretty solid combination which would provide you with an opportunity to join a design firm. Well guess what, design firms are a thing of the past and are likely never to return. This is the era of independent contractors where the vast majority of future architects are building or renovating the courses. To succeed in the current climate, you must be able to build what you design.
Some like me have enough of a legacy to practice the old fashioned way, but the truth is we are a dying breed. I’m lucky to have a very specialized niche and have been around long enough to be on most radar screens for my style of work. I’m not sure if someone like me will exist twenty years from now.

The Firms are Essentially Dead in a Generation


So how do you become an architect now?

The future is Design/Build. Therefore any University of College education is no longer a necessity to break into this business. If you want my advice on how to break into the design field, I would say go work in construction. It won’t cost you anything and if you’re good, the experience will pay you as you go.

If you want to be a designer then you better become a really terrific shaper. I believe the future designers will mostly start on bulldozers. There is a romantic notion that all shapers are creative genius which you can draw from. It’s also far easier to survive building what you design while you wait a decade or more for enough of a turn in the economy to get your opportunity because you have two ways of getting paid!

17th at TPC - done in the field ....


There’s more to it than that. You need to be able to generate business because it doesn’t come to you. You need to be comfortable speaking to large groups. You need to know how to run a business because many great golf designers went bankrupt. I can go on, but all of that is the second part of the initial question.

So how do you start?

Don’t go to school … go work in golf construction.

Saturday, 19 October 2013

The Misguided Quest for Perfection


Mike Weir playing the lower route on the 12th before opening day


I attended and played in an event this fall at Laval-sur-le-lac. I spent time talking about various holes on the Blue Course with the players and a few of the members that were at the club that day. I found the most surprising aspect of the conversations was how popular the 12th hole was. Many members called it the club’s signature hole (not a fan of the term) and the guys playing in the event talked about how much they liked playing that particular hole.

I’ll be honest I was surprised.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, this was the hole that I personally struggled with the most during construction. I loved our concept of a short hole where you needed an aggressive drive to open up options and visibility. But the limitations of fill in the area created by the extensive rock shortened up the landing area making the upper section harder to reach off the tee when into the wind. I tinkered with this landing and green for about a month, but was never able to get exactly what I wanted.

In the end I just stopped tinkering, accepted that I would never be one hundred percent happy and internally brooded over the thought that perhaps another design might have been better.

That’s a window into what it’s like to be me.

The hole was designed with two clear options. I’ve played it a couple of times and I always take what I thought would be the ideal/upper route. My playing companions all seem to like the alternate/lower route. I know this stems from the carry from the Blue Tee being is a little too long and an additional Blue Tee will eventually solve this and make the option easier to attain. But that issue didn’t bother my playing companions because they loved the freedom to not follow any of my intended plays.

One of the great aspects of having all the bunkers inside the fairways and short grass running between the bunkers is players can go wherever they like. And they do!
I finally came to the conclusion that it was the freedom to select any route they wanted and the options to play any style of shot that they have embraced. While I see imperfection related to the fact they have trouble attaining what I thought was the ideal route, they see a completely different hole than I do.

The hole is not perfect, but it sure is still really interesting to play.

The lesson of the 12th is that the freedom to choose is far more interesting to players than a clearly defined route of play. They have found a myriad of ways to play included my intentional routes and some of their own. And that is fun … even if its not exactly what was originally “planned” or perfect.

Wednesday, 9 October 2013

Are Your Bunkers Too Perfect?



I wrote an article for Green Master Magazine this month.

It begins:

"I was speaking about the Future trends in Golf Architecture at a USGA seminar in Boston this winter when I shared the following thought, “Bunkers have essentially lost their strategic value,” The sucking in of breath was audible, but I meant what I said.

I have spent the better part of the last two decades coming up with ways to keep bunkers playing consistently, avoiding contamination and getting the ball to the bottom of bunker for playability. While this may receive a resounding thumb up from golfers, I’m starting to wonder if I’m doing the right thing."

Here is the rest of the article:

http://issuu.com/greenmaster/docs/cgsa_gm_v48.5_v3/18



Monday, 16 September 2013

Routing - Where to Begin?


I’m thinking about touching on Routing this week. I’ll start with this piece and then see if I have the same inspiration after. It's a subject that I've generally avoided till recently in my writing.
Walter Travis Routings: CC of Scranton
Strange use of land held together by great greens
 
If I gave you a topographic map – would you start at the first tee or the 18th green?

I’ve been out with a number of architects either looking at a potential routing or discussing how a routing was arrived upon. One of the most interesting aspects for me is from what end they start a routing.
I find the vast majority look for starting points and work outwards. Many begin the process by locating the natural “holes” and then look for the holes between. These architects generally see holes in the direction that they will be created and played. This approach sees the progression of holes as a series of shots along the landscape leading eventually back to the clubhouse and the 18th green. This would be the most common approach used.

The strength of this approach is it makes for a great driving course, promotes clearly visible holes and usually manages to incorporate the most impressive natural holes on the property. The weakness of this approach is the strong desire to utilize all the best natural holes locks you into a routing choices where the holes between become a series of connector holes that take you from one great location to the next. Unless there are natural features along the way, they always feel like an interruption in the journey. The worst are par threes with no natural features or holes with nothing around the green to distinguish the location.
In my opinion the greatest courses are more than the sum of their parts.




Walter Travis Routings: Spring Brook
Good use of natural terrain as part of the architecture

The alternative is the older approach that was used when architects did not and could not move earth. The architect walked the land in search of green sites and connected each great green site to the next. It led to some awkward holes where players were forced to play up and over large features in the land to find the next site. But the great routings like Royal County Down teach us that blind tee shots can quickly be forgiven for great natural holes after. Royal Melbourne teaches us that a few blind shots that unlock a series of truly compelling holes is well worth the sacrifice for a great whole.
In a discussion with the designer of one of my favourite courses I found the overriding aspect he brought up again and again was the importance of where the holes ended. Not where they began. When he talked about all the other possibilities for the site, the emphasis was always on where the holes needed to conclude to work. He was very specific about what holes had to cross the least interesting areas of the site to reach natural conclusions to avoid a connector hole. He was constantly thinking about back drops, views and natural green locations when establishing the routing.

Walter Travis Routings: Lookout Point
The routing stands out over the architecture


If you answered from the 18th green back, you actually had a better chance of creating great routing. The end is far more important than the beginning of a holes.
 I’ll continue this conversation over the week and explain some additional ideas to further this premise.

Tuesday, 3 September 2013

Alternative Routing Approaches

Winged Foot - and excellent use of a tough property
Go onto any architects web site and you’ll get to read about how they use or utilize the natural contours of the property. Every architect seems to have their own version of this “philosophy” but very few accomplish that end. You see I believe very few architects actually allow “the land” to create holes. I think the vast majority of architects find the holes “they want” in the land and make that work in their routing.

Does this sound like I’m splitting hairs to you? My belief is the gulf between the two approaches is enormous and so are the results.

I’m going to break down the architects into three approaches:

Augusta's routing - makes excellent use of this undulating property
 
 
The Spectacular

There is nothing wrong with identifying the most exciting holes on the property and trying to find a way to incorporate them into a design. But when the architect concedes a series of awkward holes to accommodate that end, they are more interested in the photo than they are in the playing experience. These architects are drawn most too dramatic tee shots and all world holes than a complete composition. They also tend to over-shape, over-bunker and essentially overdo everything they touch. It’s art, or at least their version of it, rather than sport.

The Comfortable

These architects wish they could have 18 holes running up or down a valley. In fact many of them will find as many valleys as they can before moving enough dirt to make the rest feel like they play through valleys. They tend to look for natural fours and natural fives over par threes. The work is pretty solid, but generally too safe to ever achieve greatness. They like visible, well defined and easily understood holes.

The 13th at Highlands Links - a masterpiece of unusual choices
 
 
The Eccentric

They are drawn to natural green sites because they feel holes must have a destination. They look for features like undulating ground, opposite cants or eccentric knolls to incorporate into their holes for interesting shots or opportunities to work the ball. They look for features that will affect the ball on the ground because that makes for the best playing experiences. They understand that a razorback landing, play over a hill or some other eccentric shot will often unlock a better set of holes through its incorporation. And besides a little mystery in the round is sporting right? They use a little less bunkering in defence and a lot more short grass in their approach to the game. The best of the group understand the holes that embrace and incorporate the most eccentric piece of land are where the great holes are found if you’re daring enough to try.

 

Minimalism has been ill defined as an aesthetic. The top two categories describe the Modern Approach to Golf Design through routing. The bottom one describes the Minimalist’s approach to routing. It also describes the best of The Golden Age. It’s easy to see why so few great courses were built by the Modern School of Design.

Tuesday, 30 July 2013

No More Glen Abbey

courtesy of Canadian Golfer
 
Yesterday evening I listened to Bill Paul talk on the Fan 590 and mention that Glen Abbey was a great host and remains part of their long term plans. I threw up in my mouth at the thought. I watched the event and found it extremely dull to watch. The architecture plays no real role in the outcome since the players are essentially blasting away all day. It felt just like a typical tour event.
When the RCGA sold Glen Abbey to Clublink it agreed to host the Canadian Open there five more times over 20 years. That commitment is now finished and it’s time that Golf Canada says good bye to that venue. I get that all the infrastructure is in place and the planning is already 90% done. But just because it’s easy to set up and works well for Golf Canada is not the reason to have the event there.
Many years ago a few key people in the golf industry were canvased about how to bring up the stature of the Canadian Open. The overriding belief was the event needed to get away from the Angus Glens and Glen Abbeys and be played on our very best courses. At that time the suggestion was a regular rotation of five courses with an occasional outlier for excitement.
The rotation would be: St. George’s and Hamilton in Toronto, Royal Montreal and an alternative course in Montreal and Shaughnessy in Vancouver. The suggested outlier was originally going to be Banff Springs (done to address the lack of an event in Calgary), but that died during negotiations. Everyone was on board until the limits on visitors to the town that week would not be adjusted for the event. It no longer worked and the idea was shelved.
The recent issue that has cropped up is Royal Montreal, Hamilton and St. George’s are willing hosts, but would prefer a seven year cycle to reduce the inconvenience to the members. Shaughnessy on the other hand seems willing and may pick up some of the slack. Let them. Don’t find another high end public track or a new private course in the middle of nowhere, stick to the plan of the best historical courses in the major cities where that legacy can be used to attract the players and sponsors.
The Canadian Open has a great history before Glen Abbey. In 1969 the event was considered for a World Cup with the other four majors. But creating a permanent home at Glen Abbey slowly eroded the event from a National Championship down to a typical tour event. Everyone overlooked that great venues in great cities attract great players. It’s time to move on past the “conveniences” of Glen Abbey and play at only the best venues. Our national championship deserves it.

Sunday, 21 July 2013

Pete Dye - Golf's Most Influential Architect?

Trent Jones - Founder of the Modern School of Architecture

A great question was posted on Golf Club Atlas in the discussion group a few weeks back. It asked the question, “Is Pete Dye the most influential architect since World War Two?


When in 1951 Ben Hogan said, "I'm glad I was finally able to bring this course—this monster—to its knees." A star was born – Robert Trent Jones.

Herbert Warren Wind’s timely profile in The New Yorker that focused on Trent Jones and his changes to Oakland Hills made the architect a household name. His career took off and since there were no influential holdovers left from the Golden Age, the new generation of architects embraced the architectural philosophy of Robert Trent Jones and in mass began practicing the Modern School of Design.

Modernism has absolutely dominated golf design world wide from the end of World War Two to the present day.

Pete Dye was one of those architects who followed in the style of Jones, but a trip to Scotland and the desire to set himself apart from Trent Jones took him in the opposite direction. He intentionally built shorter courses based around the links of Scotland trying to differentiate himself from Trent. He also drew upon the courses of Raynor, Langford and Ross for additional influence. The work may have initially stood out because of the contrast, but have survived the test of time because the underlying ideas were outstanding.
 
Pete Dye-courtesy of Links Magazine
Course like The Golf Club and the original Crooked Stick were effectively the first Minimalist courses built. While Minimalism would not become a significant movement for at least 25 years, the origins lie with Pete. Many future Minimalists, like myself, point to this work as an influence on our design philosophies.

Interestingly the person who seems least interested in that work is Pete, who when given the chance renovates to his current philosophy and style.

People began to pay attention to Pete right away. Harbourtown was full of imaginative holes, looked and played unlike anything else built in that era. Short holes, timber walls, wild greens and long grasses all captured our imagination. The golf course look amazing on television and its success would lead to the commission to build the TPC at Sawgrass.

TPC Sawgrass - The Course that Changed Golf
At TPC Sawgrass, Pete was being asked to build a course from essentially a swamp. This meant the entire project would have to be created from scratch. He delivered a brilliant test of angles, courage and patience built largely on the same principals that he had used before, but ratcheted up the difficulty to test the mettle of the players. They didn’t talk about the risk and rewards scenarios, the aggressive use of diagonal bunkering, the marvelous greens or grand theater that Pete and Alice had created. They bitched about the intentional blindness on the shot four, the difficulty playing from Pete’s severe chocolate drops, the narrow margin for error because of the timber walls and the fact that the 17th was completely unfair. They hated the place. We loved the fact they hated the place and turned this into a significant television event. Pete was featured in the television coverage, discussed in magazines, players complained about his work during the event and eventually he was tossed in the lake by Jerry Pate. Like Trent Jones at Oakland Hills, only decades later - a star was born. Soon Pete Dye was on American Express commercials saying “Do you know who I am?” And most golfers answered, of course, your Pete Dye!
Whistling Straights - Courtesy of Golf Digest

The commissions came fast and furious with many of them being intended for golf tournaments. Pete’s view on architecture had changed at TPC and now he was going bigger, bolder, harder and more shaped. Each project spiraled up the results culminating in Whistling Straights where nobody knew how many bunkers there were. I have to admit along the way, he completely lost me. I’ve spent the better part of a decade trying to reconcile with the fact that I like his early work, but detest most of his work after TPC Sawgrass. I recognize that he’s brilliant, but don’t care for the combination of over-shaping, difficulty and length that I find define the latter half of his work. The restraint in his early work is impressive; the lack of it later in his career is oppressive.

What was more amazing was how many other architects rushed to design like Pete. The amount of work with railroad ties and other typical Dye features skyrocketed as everyone tried to catch his star by copying his work. It's too bad that most didn't understand all the best aspects like the diagonals and instead embraced his worst ideas like the Island Green.
Doak, Crenshaw and Coore - Tomorrow's Influence
One of the more interesting aspects of Pete is who worked for him and their impact. As Pete became successful he began to attract some of the brightest young minds in architecture. When you look at the people who worked for Pete you see the names of Bill Coore, Tom Doak, along a whole host of others. When you extend that out to others who worked for them and you include names like Gil Hanse. That’s pretty much the leaders of the Minimalist Movement in Architecture. When you speak with anyone who worked with Pete, they quote many of his architectural ideas and you can hear the influence he was on each of their careers. The extension of his architectural tree is quite enormous among the leading active architects of today.

The leadership on tomorrow may actually be rooted in Coore, Doak and to a slightly lesser degree Gil Hanse. They are the leaders today. They are Minimalists and so are most of the young architects of tomorrow. They may eventually be the most influential people in the future, but that’s making a massive assumption that Minimalism will have as long and dominant run as modernism, but in a shorter attention span generation I’m not fully convinced that Movements can last near as long.
 
Golf's Most Influential Architect after WWII
Therefore this comes down to Dye or Trent Jones. Pete’s a better architect and has a better architectural tree. I give Jones the first two decades, but I give Pete the next three. Jones has little or no influence on new architects coming into the business and Pete clearly still attracts their attention. So there is no contest, Pete is indeed the most influential architect since World War Two. 



Monday, 8 July 2013

Oakmont … How Good is it?

 
18th green, 15th tee, 14th green, 12th tee
Last week I played Oakmont. This is one of the last great courses I had not seen yet.

Oakmont is one of that few select courses that receives consideration when the discussion comes up on what is “the” very best course in the world. After an hour of deliberation over that question, I can say it’s certainly worthy of being considered, but for me personally it’s not in that elite company of three courses. What I can say is it sits comfortably with the next set of five courses which includes The National Golf Links, Cypress Point, Royal Melbourne Royal County Down and The Old Course.

It’s that good!

One aspect that came up in deliberation over how good was Oakmont was a discussion about the elements of my Top 3. According to my travelling companion, one common link between them was a mean streak.

The three that I feel are worthy of being selected as the best course in the world are Shinnecock Hills, Pine Valley and Merion. While I agree that Shinnecock Hills is tough as nails, there is also abundant room, you can find and play a ball out of the tall fescue and there are lots of ground options. While Pine Valley penalizes the miss like no other, there is tremendous width off the tee and lots of easier alternatives to play around some of the trouble if you want to try make a lot of bogies. I would argue that Merion is only “mean” when set up like it was for the Open. When I first played the course over a decade ago, it was actually fun with a lot more width and low rough. It is the version that placed it in my personal Top 10 and there is this is what they plan to re-establish after the Open. So while I can understand the argument about difficulty, I don’t necessarily agree.

Famous Church Pews on 3rd and 4th holes


This brings me back to Oakmont.

I found the course wider than I expected, the rough shorter than I anticipated, but the greens are still very tough to negotiate even at a lesser speed. While very exacting, I found Oakmont … possible. And that is why I liked it a lot.

Interestingly, I found a close miss to be the worst result since it always found the heart of the deep and extensive bunkering. Often a bigger miss was OK since it avoided the bunkering. The rough was short enough to make recovery pretty simple and the long grass was well set back from play to not become a problem. Only the ditches confound play with their long grasses and close proximity to play. I drove it very well, which meant I saw lots of fairway bunkers on the slight pull or push.

So coming back to the original question, what came up short?
Par 3 13th - with 12th on the left of the picture 

For me it was the threes. The 13th is a gem with a great green and awesome setting. The 16th was almost as good adding length and a running option. My issue was with the front nine threes. I loved the setting of the 6th, but don’t see “possible” in that green with such a massive cross-fall and no room for anything but a cut into the slope hit sky high. The 8th is just a big monstrous par three over flat land. Both are fine holes but compare this to Pine Valleys 3rd (cool redan green), 5th (ultimate long three / insurmountable hole), 10th (Devil’s Asshole and very short three) and the 14th (the island green site on a drop shot three) and they fall slightly short.

What came up strong?

Oakmont may have the best combination of short fours and par four and halves in the world. The constant change of pace is so impressive and offers a remarkable lesson in pacing a round of golf to vary the rhythm of the game. I felt equal measures of opportunity followed by lessons in perseverance. Every single one is an outstanding architectural lesson with the downhill fours being particularly noteworthy. Oakmont may have the best set of fours in the game. That is an argument that I’m willing to make!

I also thought the fives were very strong. The combination of interesting architectural elements and risk made for three very interesting holes to play. They do a great job of eating up some areas of less undulation while delivering really excellent golf.
 


I went to Oakmont with high expectations and even higher anxiety. The architecture exceeded my expectations, there was far more than “just” a tough golf course sitting on that property. More importantly there was an awesome collection of interesting holes that met the landscape at wildly varied angles providing a myriad of stances and complications to overcome. While the bunkering and greens receive the credit for difficulty, it is the land and routing choices that actually deliver the blow.

I respect the course for the tough test that it is. I admire the course far more for the brilliant use of land. It is simply an outstanding piece of architecture.

 

 

Monday, 17 June 2013

No Holds Barred with Ian Andrew

9th hole from the fairway at Laval
I'm featured in this months Canadian Golf Magazine in a piece called No Hold Barred with Ian Andrew. The feature is a question and answer interview that talks about projects from Highlands Links to Laval-sur-le-lac. The interview touches briefly on how I started and finishes with my favourite.

Here is the written version: Canadian Golf Magazine

Here is video version of the interview: See the Video of the Interview on YouTube



I apologize for not writing much recently, but I've been very busy and will eventually share what's been going on.


Wednesday, 5 June 2013

Greens Rebuilding – is it a trend?

16th Green rebuild at Knollwood in New York
Tomorrow night there is a vote for a green rebuilding project at a Toronto area course. This is one of my “my” favourite courses in the country. Unfortunately for the club they have seen a combination of shade, tight soil and an evolution to a very weak stand of Poa force their hand. This is not a decision made to gain speed or raise conditioning to an extreme level. They have seen consistent winter damage and summer wilt for the past five years. This is a decision based upon having healthy greens year in and year out.

Interestingly, this may not be the last green rebuilding program I will be involved in around Toronto. I’m currently talking to a second club about the potential for the year after. I’m also slowly rebuilding all the greens at Pinegrove in Montreal one green at a time (They have 19 holes). I’ve always rebuilt greens most years, but the idea of all 18 at once is fairly new to my business.

But this is becoming a more common approach to problem greens. Donalda will rebuild their greens next year, Angus Glen will rebuild them this year, Deer Ridge rebuilt their greens last year and Mississagua rebuilt theirs the year before that.

I believe this is necessary when the agronomics are clearly a problem. I always thought this would be a rare decision for a club because of the cost and disruption, but I’m finding memberships are more willing to entertain this idea in recent times. I’m not willing to call this a trend yet, but it’s becoming a common discussion point.

I am hopeful for a positive vote tomorrow. It has nothing to do with workload or a desire to make changes to a golf course. In this case it comes down to the course needing to do something to change the cycle they are in. They need healthy greens.

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

Ian Andrew on Canadian Golf Magazine Podcast

Last night I was part of a Podcast with Frank Mastroianni of Canadian Golfer Magazine. I've included a link below:

Week 7: Colonial, Senior/BMW PGA and Ian Andrew on Laval

Play

Show Notes:

"In episode seven we discuss the The Crowne Plaza Invitational, BMW PGA Championship, Pure Silk LPGA, Senior PGA Championship, our picks for The Memorial, ShopRite LPGA Classic and we interview Ian Andrew on golf course architecture and the new Blue Course at Laval-sur-le-Lac."