GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
An architect's porfolio - The Differences
Tim Gallant:
Following a few comments made on other threads I wanted to ask:
Looking at the courses attributed to some of the most prolific names in golf course architecture & design, what ONE or TWO features / elements of each course do you feel make it distinct and unique from the other courses in his or her respective portfolios?
I don't ask this to attempt to define who was more or less diverse in the courses that they built, but rather, I ask in an attempt to raise awareness for what we should be looking for when we go to a given course where the architect tried to do something different / unique in relation to the other courses they built.
For example, what one or two things did Colt do at Royal Portrush that was different from any other links course that he built? If there are no differences, then that's fine, but it would be good to build up an understanding for what we should be looking at / celebrating as it relates to diversity within a portfolio.
________
Responses so far:
General
- Look for original holes, holes that take advantage of something particular on the site
- How the architect has responded to the soil - is it different for different soil structures, or is it all the same?
- Observe if the principles of the course go against how the architect normally works: is it shorter when the architect usually builds longer courses? Is it more playable, when most courses he/she builds are demanding?
Colt
Royal Portrush
- Look for pacing of routing - two 'big' moments happen in the middle of each nine. Different for Colt?
- Watch how he emphasized cross-wind driving
- No gentle handshake at the first, which could be different from other Colt courses
Eden Course @ St Andrews
- More profound greens than at other Colt courses (Sean to elaborate)
AW Tillinghast
Somerset Hills
- Look for more contour on the greens in relation to other Tilly designs
- Look at Redan, which is the only Redan that he built
- Greens are not pushed up like at other courses he designed in the NY/NJ area
Raynor
- In general, look at how his later adaptations incorporate multiple templates within one hole
Shoreacres
- Study the tilt on the Redan green at #14; different from any other Redan that Raynor built
Creek Club
- Look at the double punchbowl at #5
Tom_Doak:
First and foremost, I look for original golf holes -- holes that take advantage of something particular on the site, or at least don't employ carbon copies of greens they've built many times elsewhere.
As opposed to, say, templates.
From that perspective it would be really instructive to get all the Seth Raynor fans together and have them try to explain what makes some of his courses more special than others. From all accounts he was trying to build the same holes in different places, and there is not one quote from him anywhere about trying to do something different on any of his courses. But we can agree that some courses are better than others ... so, is that all about some sites being better than others, or is it something he did?
Bunker styles come and go ... anybody can change if they want to, and if the client is okay with a different look.
When we move from sandy sites to clay, such as in St. Emilion, the look and style of the course are bound to change because of the ground. That's one Difference you should be able to find in any architect's work - whether they have responded to the soils in different ways. A counter-example would be the Ocean course at The National, which I'm about to re-do: the greens there are unnecessarily convoluted, and I would say it looks like a bunch of shapers who'd been working in Asia came in, and didn't realize all the things they didn't have to do on a sandy site.
The other major Difference would be for an architect to go against the grain of what he's done before: build a short course if he's known for long ones, or a long demanding course when he's known for playable ones. That's one reason Harbour Town was so surprising: Mr. Dye had been building longer and longer courses in the 1960's, until he decided he just couldn't. [That decision may have been prompted by inheriting a routing from George Cobb that didn't give him room for a long course, but it caused him to completely re-think what he'd been doing, instead of just shrugging and building a smaller version of the same thing.]
Tom_Doak:
As to your questions about Portrush:
I'd say one Difference is in the pacing of the routing. There are two big "moments," which fall in the middle of each nine, and the original finishing holes were some of the weakest on the course. That may owe partly to the chosen location for the clubhouse, but even so, it's an excellent solution to the problem.
The other is that there are far fewer bunkers at Dunluce than most Colt courses I'm aware of, and a little more sophisticated contour in the greens than on most links courses I've seen, whether they were built by Colt or someone else.
David Cronheim:
--- Quote from: Tom_Doak on July 02, 2018, 10:08:34 AM ---First and foremost, I look for original golf holes -- holes that take advantage of something particular on the site, or at least don't employ carbon copies of greens they've built many times elsewhere.
As opposed to, say, templates.
From that perspective it would be really instructive to get all the Seth Raynor fans together and have them try to explain what makes some of his courses more special than others. From all accounts he was trying to build the same holes in different places, and there is not one quote from him anywhere about trying to do something different on any of his courses. But we can agree that some courses are better than others ... so, is that all about some sites being better than others, or is it something he did?
Bunker styles come and go ... anybody can change if they want to, and if the client is okay with a different look.
When we move from sandy sites to clay, such as in St. Emilion, the look and style of the course are bound to change because of the ground. That's one Difference you should be able to find in any architect's work - whether they have responded to the soils in different ways. A counter-example would be the Ocean course at The National, which I'm about to re-do: the greens there are unnecessarily convoluted, and I would say it looks like a bunch of shapers who'd been working in Asia came in, and didn't realize all the things they didn't have to do on a sandy site.
The other major Difference would be for an architect to go against the grain of what he's done before: build a short course if he's known for long ones, or a long demanding course when he's known for playable ones. That's one reason Harbour Town was so surprising: Mr. Dye had been building longer and longer courses in the 1960's, until he decided he just couldn't. [That decision may have been prompted by inheriting a routing from George Cobb that didn't give him room for a long course, but it caused him to completely re-think what he'd been doing, instead of just shrugging and building a smaller version of the same thing.]
--- End quote ---
Tom,
My short answer to your question about Raynor would be that the skill he possessed that outshone his peers was as a surveyor and topographical engineer. The holes may have been the same (though Bahto would be rolling over in his grave to hear that...), but picking the "right" place for each hole was certainly a skill Raynor possessed. His skill in selecting the land for a particular hole is what stands out to me.
I think the templates work better when the land provides a novel quirk. For example, take the double-punchbowl the Creek (#5 I think?). I think that was a very clever way to handle a difficult part of the routing where the land fell away sharply. He took up the difference in the grade by pushing up the back to create the bowl then stepping the punchbowl down to further pick up the grade without having a steep green. That's a very smart engineering solution to a topographic problem, but it yields a unique and fun hole.
His better courses are full of such good routing decisions, except for him the routing also implied a selection of a template. The short and reverse redan at Sleepy Hollow, the Alps hole at Camargo, the Biarritz at Yale, the Eden at Fishers. All of those sites would've led to interesting holes, but I think his best courses are the one where he picked the right hole in the right spot. That's a key reason why Raynor's courses (in my opinion) far outshine Banks' - Banks often forced the hole on the land, whereas I think Raynor (especially at his best) found unique ways to use the land to ensure precisely that the holes weren't the "same."
What do you think?
Tim Gallant:
--- Quote from: David Cronheim on July 02, 2018, 10:38:10 AM ---
--- Quote from: Tom_Doak on July 02, 2018, 10:08:34 AM ---First and foremost, I look for original golf holes -- holes that take advantage of something particular on the site, or at least don't employ carbon copies of greens they've built many times elsewhere.
As opposed to, say, templates.
From that perspective it would be really instructive to get all the Seth Raynor fans together and have them try to explain what makes some of his courses more special than others. From all accounts he was trying to build the same holes in different places, and there is not one quote from him anywhere about trying to do something different on any of his courses. But we can agree that some courses are better than others ... so, is that all about some sites being better than others, or is it something he did?
Bunker styles come and go ... anybody can change if they want to, and if the client is okay with a different look.
When we move from sandy sites to clay, such as in St. Emilion, the look and style of the course are bound to change because of the ground. That's one Difference you should be able to find in any architect's work - whether they have responded to the soils in different ways. A counter-example would be the Ocean course at The National, which I'm about to re-do: the greens there are unnecessarily convoluted, and I would say it looks like a bunch of shapers who'd been working in Asia came in, and didn't realize all the things they didn't have to do on a sandy site.
The other major Difference would be for an architect to go against the grain of what he's done before: build a short course if he's known for long ones, or a long demanding course when he's known for playable ones. That's one reason Harbour Town was so surprising: Mr. Dye had been building longer and longer courses in the 1960's, until he decided he just couldn't. [That decision may have been prompted by inheriting a routing from George Cobb that didn't give him room for a long course, but it caused him to completely re-think what he'd been doing, instead of just shrugging and building a smaller version of the same thing.]
--- End quote ---
Tom,
My short answer to your question about Raynor would be that the skill he possessed that outshone his peers was as a surveyor and topographical engineer. The holes may have been the same (though Bahto would be rolling over in his grave to hear that...), but picking the "right" place for each hole was certainly a skill Raynor possessed. His skill in selecting the land for a particular hole is what stands out to me.
I think the templates work better when the land provides a novel quirk. For example, take the double-punchbowl the Creek (#5 I think?). I think that was a very clever way to handle a difficult part of the routing where the land fell away sharply. He took up the difference in the grade by pushing up the back to create the bowl then stepping the punchbowl down to further pick up the grade without having a steep green. That's a very smart engineering solution to a topographic problem, but it yields a unique and fun hole.
His better courses are full of such good routing decisions, except for him the routing also implied a selection of a template. The short and reverse redan at Sleepy Hollow, the Alps hole at Camargo, the Biarritz at Yale, the Eden at Fishers. All of those sites would've led to interesting holes, but I think his best courses are the one where he picked the right hole in the right spot. That's a key reason why Raynor's courses (in my opinion) far outshine Banks' - Banks often forced the hole on the land, whereas I think Raynor (especially at his best) found unique ways to use the land to ensure precisely that the holes weren't the "same."
What do you think?
--- End quote ---
David,
I like the idea of judging Raynor against his ability to route his templates across the property in ways that were unique rather than him actually employing diverse architectural ideas if that makes sense. I pretty much agree with your post, and see that you've answered Tom's question, but in my mind, his portfolio is still fairly one-dimensional. It's just that it's a GREAT one-dimension - ie. he was the best at applying templates on a variety of sites.
By this logic, Raynor might score down when someone is considering originality (like Tom), but might score higher when you consider how he seamlessly weaved his templates onto almost any property.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version