Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

GolfWRX Interview: Jeff Brauer, first director of outreach for ASGCA

Published

on

The term “outreach” has the general American lexicon with verve over the past decade. Nearly every organization has appointed a person or team to spread not only its mission, but also its availability for assistance and support. The American Society of Golf Course Architects interviewed candidates for a new position, the director of outreach, in 2021.

Jeff Brauer was named to the position, and it is no surprise to this interviewer. I’ve had the fortune to engage with Mr. Brauer on the Golf Club Atlas discussion group for over a decade, and his availability and enthusiasm fit the position perfectly. Mr. Brauer was kind to answer my nine questions, and I’m happy to present them to you.

Ron Montesano: Introduce yourself and give us some background into how you got involved in golf, and what your involvement was until 2022.

Jeff Brauer: My next door neighbors were members at Medinah, in suburban Chicago where I grew up. My first round was on Medinah No. 2 at age 12, but we soon played no. 1 and 3.  I went home after that first round and told my parents I was going to be a Golf Course Architect. (They told me to do something “where I would use my brain” )

In 1970, when I was 15, my Dad saw a blurb in the Tribune business section about the ASGCA moving its HQ to Chicago. He brought home a large envelope of ASGCA and National Golf Foundation articles and booklets on golf design. I noticed from the ASGCA membership list that Killian and Nugent were in the next suburb and arranged to visit their office. They told me to take drafting in high school, work for landscapers or on a golf maintenance crew, and then to take landscape architecture in college, with side classes of aerial photography, turf management, business, soils, and surveying, which I did.

When I came out of University of Illinois, they felt obligated to hire me, since I had followed their advice, despite a low workload. I apprenticed there for seven years until, including the last year with Ken Killian, after they broke up. I was always going to go on my own, and walked into Ken’s office on my 29th birthday, wanting to start before I was 30. I wanted to move south. I went to the local library to look at phone books, and Dallas was the only major city without a yellow page listing for Golf Course Architects, so Dallas it was. I moved without a single client in the wings and not really knowing anyone in Texas. What could possibly go wrong?

Not long after I moved, Jim Colbert called me to help him in the renovation of a Dick Wilson design in Vegas, which I had started under Killian. Other early jobs included a nine hole expansion in La., when the selection committee was headed by man who had also just started his own business and was sympathetic to “the new guy.”  On the same day, I signed a renovation near Dallas and I went from virtually nothing to a real business in a hurry. A year later, Larry Nelson’s agent, who was in Dallas, called with some questions about design, and I ended up teaming with him on several projects, including my first 18 hole design, Brookstone Golf and Country Club NW of Atlanta.

Ron Montesano: You are the new and first director of outreach for the American Society of Golf Course Architects. What are the origin, role and purpose of the ASCGA?

Jeff Brauer: The basic mission of ASGCA is the same as when it was founded 75 years ago.  Mainly, we help our members design good golf courses for a variety of clients and needs.  Our mission has expanded as the world gets more complicated, with increasing technical, economic, community and environmental requirements found in modern golf courses.

We try to help members create better designs by fostering professionalism and fellowship among golf course architects, knowledge sharing, and continuing education that allows members to increase their skills and understanding of modern issues.

My new position is about engaging and connecting people in the profession and related fields, including both member and non-member golf course architects, builders, owner groups, suppliers, allied associations, and other consultants, making sure we personally stay in touch, especially on issues that affect us all.   We believe there are initiatives and projects out there where we are better working together.

Perhaps even more than other professional societies, given the uniqueness, diversity of backgrounds (a trend which appears to be accelerating) and small size of the field, ASGCA is in the best position to create education offerings targeted specifically to modern issues in golf course design.  ASGCA members have always shown willingness to share knowledge, and we will continue to foster that knowledge sharing at all our get together.

Ron Montesano: What do you anticipate will be your first duties as director of outreach?

Jeff Brauer: My first tasks will be to reach out – it’s in the job title – with a focus on finding out ways in which ASGCA can be better for the constituencies I listed above.  In just my early calls, I have heard several “new to me” ideas to create more tangible value from ASGCA for those within the golf course design and building profession in general.

Of course, phase 2 will be implementing the best ideas we get.  My calls will help me develop programs, but initially, I envision that new value will be created via more education for golf course architects, using both in person and web-based technology for learning and open discussion on important topics.  I think the profession needs more than we can provide at our two annual meetings, and COVID showed us how useful Zoom and Webinars can be. I believe we will be expanding those types of learning events, but also organize more architecture oriented on course events.

Ron Montesano: If you could go back in history and choose three international architects, who were not able to join the ASGCA, who would they be and why?

Jeff Brauer: We’ve always required our members be a part of a North American based organization, even if living abroad.  I suspect the European Institute of Golf Course Architects is similar and would want to lay claim to most of their own for memberships for guys like Colt, MacKenzie, etc.

As a post WWII organization, it was impossible for most of the Golden Age greats to be included, and I think all of them would have brought some interesting discussion.  ASGCA is about passing on knowledge between architects and from generation to generation, and we can only speculate what knowledge may have fallen through the cracks due to the 15 year lull or stoppage of active golf design from 1930-1945.

Ron Montesano: What elements (five at most) are misunderstood or missed by the majority of golfers, amateur and professional?

Jeff Brauer: Golf course architecture is about taking the great strategic, playability and artistic ideas many of us think we have and getting them efficiently built to make the course functional.  Otherwise, you are just playing in the sand box.

Few golfers consider how much drainage, air, soil, safety concerns, and golfer circulation, just to name a few affects design.   And, that a professional golf course architect weaves all of those into every design.  The best ones make it look easy, but it usually isn’t.

Ron Montesano: As an architect, you have been involved in many courses. Which was the most satisfying, and for which reasons?

Jeff Brauer: In general, the best projects have both great sites and a great working relationship between the Owner or Owner’s Representative and the Golf Course Architect.  I was fortunate to have had those combinations on several occasions.  As to the most satisfying projects I ever had, I go back to the four courses I did in northern Minnesota.  In addition to great owners and sites, they were all an opportunity to get out of 100-degree Texas summer heat and go where it was much cooler.  I put in a lot more field time than normal, just for the weather and scenery, and I think it showed in the final products.  I think of myself as an honorary Minnesotan.

Ron Montesano: Which do you consider to be the most important project in the USA, past, present, or future, for the permanence of golf in this country?

Jeff Brauer: There were several watermark courses that contributed to golf as we know it today in the US.  Certainly, early great courses like Myopia Hunt set a bar.  But the early public courses like Van Cortlandt Park had to be almost equally influential.  The first courses of any type, like residential, mountain, desert, and quarry courses, etc. also expanded the game and made it more permanent.

As to the future, it will probably be the course that maintain great design interest while using less water and resources.

Ron Montesano: How is your golf game these days? Which are your strengths and weaknesses?

Next question, please. (editor’s note: LOL and an oldie but goodie, ROFLcopter)

Ron Montesano: Which question haven’t we asked, that we should have? Ask it and answer it, please.

Jeff Brauer: I have been asked by my fellow architects why I am so excited about this position and how difficult it was to give up design.   As with most things in life, timing plays a part.  At the time this position was created, I was comparing my career to Broadway plays and wondered what the best script for the final act of a golf course architecture career might be.  After 44 years of being in the profession, I am excited to spend years 45-50 helping set it up for a better future.

Ronald Montesano writes for GolfWRX.com from western New York. He dabbles in coaching golf and teaching Spanish, in addition to scribbling columns on all aspects of golf, from apparel to architecture, from equipment to travel. Follow Ronald on Twitter at @buffalogolfer.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

Published

on

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!

Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.

Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.

One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?

Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.

Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.

Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”

For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…

Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…

That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.

Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.

@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic

Continue Reading

Podcasts

Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Published

on

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Published

on

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by BBC SPORT (@bbcsport)

“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”

Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.

That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.

As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.

I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.

One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.

The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.

If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.

Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.

As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.

It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.

David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.

In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:

“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”

Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”

Eventually, though, something shifts.

We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.

Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.

Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.

Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.

So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.

I see someone evolving.

He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.

It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending