HKG: A lot of the newer courses grabbing the headlines tend to be throwbacks; courses like Bandon Dunes [in Oregon] that are minimalist in nature, that look much older than they actually are. Would those kind of courses work in China?
MH: Elements could work, but generally they won’t translate well in China. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it is unlikely those kind of courses would work well in the China market. The same applies to Americans going over to play golf in Ireland and Scotland. A lot of them hate links golf. Those kind of minimalist courses come around because the sites are so special. It’s all determined by the site. I have a new course that we’re doing down in Hainan that is right by the coast. It’s a great site and the course will have links-like characteristics, but it won’t be a true links. But generally nowadays, we only get extreme sites to work with. The art is to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
HKG: What makes a perfect site?
MH: Any time you have a lot of natural elements to work with—rocks, ocean, lakes, rolling land, vegetation, mountains in the distance...if you have four of five of those elements you can create dramatic holes that don’t cost the owner an arm and a leg. They’re what we call “creamer” or “perfect” sites. Otherwise you have to shift a great deal of dirt to manufacture those elements, which costs a great deal of money. China, because of its size and diverse landscape and topography, still has some great sites to offer golf designers.
HKG: What’s your take on player- designers?
MH: Some of these guys are bringing something to the table—at least those who take it seriously. Nicklaus is one. 95% are just lending their name to a course and getting big “design” fees to do so—it’s a marketing deal. It never ceases to amaze me that the golfing public is impressed solely by a “name”. That’s frivolous. The key, no matter whose name is on it, is if people want to come back and play it. It really doesn’t matter who designed it.
HKG: But haven’t these “name” designers, with their hefty design fees, helped raise fees across the board for all designers?
MH: It works both ways. Fees might have increased somewhat, but if a player-designer is getting paid a lot of money and all he does is show up to the grand opening of the course without having visited the course before, then the client isn’t getting much value. That damages the business we’re in. And this is most definitely a business, no matter which way you look at it.
HKG: Do you have to be a good golfer to be a good designer?
MH: Not necessarily, although a definite appreciation and understanding of the game is required—knowledge of its history, it’s evolution, a keen understanding of why it’s so important to people—is very important. Jack Nicklaus, when he started, was seeing design from a different perspective. He wasn’t thinking about the ten handicapper or the recreational golfer. Likewise, I had to learn more about what the pros are thinking—the lines they take off the tee, for instance. The biggest thing nowadays is that you have to understand that golf is a competitive business. Overlooking that golf is a business is missing the point entirely. Even if the owner of a development has a course just so he can sell the real estate that surrounds it, the golf course has to be a business on itself and earn revenue in the long run, long after all the properties are sold off. Understanding this is an essential key to being successful as a golf designer in China today.
HKG: You told me a few years ago that designing a course is easy; it’s the construction part that’s the difficult bit. Does this still ring true and is this more of a factor in China?
MH: Yes, it’s still very much the case here. The golf contracting industry in China is pitiful. We’re not building courses any better than ten years ago. The reason is that the contractor’s desire for quality is not there. It’s all about the money and it’s even more cut-throat than before. Getting a lot of contracting deals doesn’t make you any better. Contractors don’t have the mentality that if you build two courses to the very best of your ability that will work well for you in the long term. They just want to get as many deals secured as soon as possible, regardless of the quality of work they put in to the projects. It’s widespread across the industry and we have to do something about it. In the US, which isn’t always perfect, I should add, but you can design a course and they’ll be four of five reputable companies bidding to construct it. You know that they will ensure the quality is there. Here in China, it’s just about trying to make as much profit as possible. There has to be quality consciousness. If all us of designers banded together and refused to work with these kinds of companies then hopefully after a time it wouldn’t happen any more. This economic slowdown we’re in could actually help. The cream will rise to the top and the rest will flounder.
HKG: Every new course measures at least 7,400 yards. Why are courses so long?
MH: 7,600 yards, you mean! It’s ridiculous. The ball is the biggest thing. We have to re- evaluate it. Length is still something you need in design—but it’s a waste of land and I hate to see it. I really hope the monitoring and specifications governing the golf ball changes. Augusta National and the Masters Championship could have done something about it—and they nearly did. They could have said, “We’ll only accept one type of ball for our tournament.” They’re not governed by the rules of the PGA Tour; they could have done what they liked. They could have helped turn the dynamics of the golf ball back. But the biggest issue for me is safety, which explains why courses today require 20-25% more land. A 15-handicapper can swing as fast as Tiger Woods—the launch speed of a golf ball today is dangerous and we need more room as a result. Golf designers’ liability insurance in the States is huge. If someone gets hit we don’t want to get sued, which is a very real issue in the States. Over here, where the chance of being sued is probably much less, I just don’t want people to get hurt.
HKG: Now, golf cart tracks, which is a subject I feel pretty strongly about. If you can’t hide them, can’t they be painted green or something? A necessary evil they might be, but they really spoil the visual appeal of courses.
MH: It’s the worst thing the Americans ever did for golf—introducing golf carts. The system they have in Japan is great. You know the electric caddie carts which move down a hidden rail by the side of the fairway? Unfortunately, they’re really expensive. Some courses need carts, because of their topography, but you can’t appreciate a golf course if you ride a cart. It’s a menace to the system. You have to walk. We, as designers, try and figure out how to hide them. I’d love to see a couple of courses in China try and not use them. Maybe allow the older guys to use them, but let everyone else walk; the caddies can carry the bags. Golf is, after all, a great walk unspoiled.
Hollinger is a member of the American Society of Golf Course Architects. Log onto www.jmpgolf.com for more information.
