Few names, if any, have captured such widespread, devoted and instantaneous recognition in the world of golf as the name of Arnold Palmer. This colorful and productive athlete earned and maintains today the prominence of being the “King” of golf.

His brilliant career in tournament golf- which includes the winning of virtually every major golf tournament in the United States and around the world – has given him the opportunity to create and expand a vast golf business enterprise. While many of the business enterprises he has become involved in centering on golf are well known, his talent and dimension in the area of design and the construction of outstanding golf courses is among the leaders of the profession today.

With the expertise of Ed Seay, golf course architect and director of design of Palmer Course Design Company, the Palmer-Seay touch has left its mark on courses located throughout the world. Seay, who is a past president of the American Society of Golf Course Architects, had the distinction, before joining Palmer in 1971, of designing many well-known courses. The most prominent of these is Sawgrass in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida which was the site of the Tournament of Players Championship from 1977 to 1981, as well as some 75 other courses and residential developments in the United States.

The Palmer Course Design Company has been involved in over 100 golf course projects covering 21 states, as well as internationally in Japan, Thailand, Mexico, Canada, China, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand and Taiwan.

A unique achievement was the awarding of the remodeling contracts to the Palmer-Seay team for both the United States Open Championship at Cherry Hills in Denver and the PGA Championship at the Oakmont Country Club in Oakmont, Pennsylvania in 1978.

In separate sessions, Southern LINKS publisher Mark Brown and editor Brett Borton both had the opportunity to chat with Palmer about his endeavors in golf course architecture and his thoughts on the future of course design.

In relation to the three classical styles of architecture – strategic, penal and heroic - how would you describe your philosophy of course design?

Well, I suppose more strategic. We don’t try to design golf courses that are unplayable or extremely difficult. However, we do try to build a golf course that we can set up to play as difficult as anyone would want to play it. In other words, we want the family to be able to go out and enjoy the golf course but, at the same time, we want to be able to set up the golf course to be a challenge to the best players in the world.

Of the golf courses you’ve designed, which are your favorites and why?

We’ve designed some golf courses which I feel are just outstanding. We’ve done quite a few great ones in the South, but Broadmoor (in Colorado) is a very fine golf course. It was built on the side of a mountain, though, so that has to be take into consideration.

Semiahmoo in that state of Washington is one of the most naturally beautiful golf courses I’ve ever seen. It’s one that is just truly outstanding. And I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Isleworth (Orlando), and Wildcat Run (Fort Myers area)... Adios Golf Club in Deerfuild Beach, Fla., and the Plantation at Ponte Vedra . I could go on and on because I think these are all very classic golf courses; ones that, as years go by, will be recognized as truly great golf courses.

The one thing we have to keep in our minds and take into consideration is, number one, the modern techniques used in building a golf course, and two, the shaping of golf equipment and what that is going to do to the older golf courses as well as the ones we are building today.

If I were to say what I think should happen, I think the style of golf courses should remain the same. The old golf courses that we know – Oakmont, Winged Foot, Merion, Medinah, Los Angeles, Riviera, Olympic Club – are great golf courses. I don’t think we should get into a position where we have to change the golf courses radically in the ‘90s or on into the next century.

Generally, I think that a key to all this is the modification or restriction of certain types of equipment that would outmode all golf courses. That would, of course, change the whole style of the game. Specifically, we should look at the golf ball itself, and how we are going to manufacture golf balls to keep them in line with the golf courses that are being built, those that have been built, and those which will be built in the future.

I think that can be carried too far. As a matter of fact, when you get to that stage of golf, you can chase more people away from the game than you bring to it, and I don’t think that’s good. For veteran golfers or lower handicappers, that’s fine. They might enjoy that kind of golf course, but the higher handicappers and the beginners can’t really enjoy playing a golf course like that. They want to play a course that challenges them, but they want to be able to find their golf ball and finish. We’re getting a lot of golf courses with the penal type of design, but I think the architects that are designing them are letting up a little and going to a more subtle style.

Yes. For example, when Harbour Town was first built, you almost had to walk single file down the fairways. Through the years the golf course has been modified tremendously, and as a result, it has become a better golf course.

Does the master planning of golf courses around real estate developments enhance or inhibit the character of the course?

The ideal situation, I suppose, would be a golf course where there was very little development around it or one in which the development isn’t too close to it.

If there’s development on a golf course, that’s fine. Certainly, you have to have that to support golf to a great degree. On the other hand, the further away you can get the development from the actual playing of the golf course is also a very important factor, one that can really determine the final outcome of the course that you’re trying to build.

I don’t, but I know that the National Golf Foundation is working on a solution. They’re saying that between now and the year 2000 we’re going to need another 5,000 golf courses and 60 percent of those should be public golf courses.

There are people working on ideas that may give a little relief to public golf course construction. We’re all looking for ways to reduce the cost, but the price of land, the cost of construction and the cost of maintaining golf courses is generally rising, and that makes it difficult.

On the other hand, the average American is living a much more affluent life today. He has much more leisure time, so the number of golfers and the number of golf courses is increasing quite rapidly.

Eventually they’re going to have to do that. When, I don’t know. It’s certainly a very good point you’ve made with the developments and the out-of-bounds coming closer and closer to play. There was a time when out-of-bounds was just loss of distance. More recently, it became distance and a stroke. I think we’ll have to modify that somehow in the future.

No. I think the stadium idea will cool off as time goes on. As the years go on we will see a much different concept in stadium golf. I suspect that someday someone will build a golf course that will be totally under lights, and spectator will sit in the bleachers and be able to watch a full 18-hole tournament from their seats. You won’t even have to walk. I expect that will happen. I put it in a time letter that won’t be opened for 100 years. I think we’ll see that.

We have discussed golf courses that he has built and some of those that I have built, but I’m not going to give away any ideas or opinions about what Jack builds. Jack has built a lot of very fine golf courses, and I would be nothing but complimentary about the work that he has done. On the other hand, we do not have the some ideas on how a golf course should be built.

It’s kind of like our golf games. We’ve gone down different roads with our games and we’ve both enjoyed a certain amount of success with what we’ve done. I think we’ll just leave it like that in the future.