[Jim Franklin]

I have played both and did not walk away from OS thinking HC. I walked away thinking that was a damn hard course and a lot of fun. Like Mike said, I thought C&C tried some new things at OS and I enjoyed it immensely.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jimmy,

Thanks for spelling out some differences you see between OS and HC and I'm really glad that it came out so well.   My only challenge was with your term "unique", and I think others here saw the similarities, as well.  I hope to see for myself some day.

John/Mike/Matt,

Don't you guys find it a bit odd that when pictures were recently posted of the Fazio course at Pronghorn, a good deal of the ensuing discussion implied that somehow Fazio was now ripping off the C&C style?  

Do people forget that Tom Fazio built World Woods Pine Barrens, Galloway National, and the Short Course at Pine Valley before C&C built Sand Hills???  

Why is it ok for people to criticize what they see as derivative in Fazio's bunkering on the Pronghorn thread, but it is somehow outside the GCA pale to mention anything but glowing adulation here anytime a C&C course is mentioned.

How is saying that a course they built in Boston looks remarkably similar to a course they built in NJ something to take issue with?   If three of the first people on the scene to a thread see the same thing, perhaps it's true?  

I'm sure from all accounts that OS is a very fine course, and it looks like great fun, as I mentioned in my first thread.   But, can't we have a balanced discussion about architectural details here, or do we have to anoint each new course as the next Second Coming?  

John,

I know you say that you don't mind if C&C repeat themselves in each city, but what if there were similar geological formations to Sand Hills in Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Iowa, North Dakota, etc., and C&C went and built very similar courses in each of them?   Same kind of theme, same kind of look, same kind of playability?   Yes, in some sense that would be great for all of those cities, but at what point would you think they might reach some level of diminishing returns?  At what point might they be rightfully accused of "mailing it in", or becoming rote and formulaic?  

Mike,

You list a number of different pineland styles that C&C could have emulated, but I guess what I'm asking is why they need to emulate a style at all?  

I think "the look" that Tom Fazio popularized is growing a bit tired, frankly.   If Rees is now going for it, that should tell you all you need to know about how fresh and interesting and adventurous it is.    

[Mike_Cirba]

I've never seen anything even remotely like OS.  It is unique.  Every hole is so different from the other and is different from every other hole I have ever played.  I never had the feeling of deja vu anywhere on the course.

Every green was unique, I have never seen greens like that anywhere else in the world. All 18 were unique unto themselves.

They got every iota of golf architecture possible out of the property.

William Jerome,

Thank you for your fine, insightful, thought-provoking post.   I have learned simply that I am completely wrong, once again.  

Jim Franklin,

Can you elaborate on what new things C&C did at OS that you haven't seen from them before?   As I said, the course does look fun and if it is also different I'm eager to hear.

Thanks!

[mike_malone]

Mike Cirba,

   Something makes me think that William Jerome Theodore Vostinak is pulling our legs. BTW , I really am Michael Dennis Patrick.

[Mike_Cirba]

mayday,

Either that or Mr. Vostinak has recently been fully assimilated into the GCA C&C Borg Collective.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

I think "the look" that Tom Fazio popularized is growing a bit tired, frankly.   If Rees is now going for it, that should tell you all you need to know about how fresh and interesting and adventurous it is.    

I actually think that Rees was the first to have 'the look" at Atlantic way before C&C, just with round bunkers and mounds that are not favored here.

You list a number of different pineland styles that C&C could have emulated, but I guess what I'm asking is why they need to emulate a style at all?  

First off my comments are not about C&C, it is about 'the look", which C&C have aruguably perfected and now you make the point may be going back to the well once too often. "The look" is out there today in varying degrees.

What incentive is there to try something new (see Stone Harbor, Deer Run and Shoregate), when you raters barely reward the modern architects creativity?

Here is the Top 10 by Golfweek

1. (1) Sand Hills Golf Club (p) 9.41 - unique for sure but more for the land and place.

2. (2) Pacific Dunes (r) 9.23 - inspired from Scotland right?

3. (3) Friar's Head (p) 8.72 - has been mentioned by others as the modern Cypress

4. (4) Whistling Straits (Straits) (r) 8.49 - completely manufactured, inspired by Scotland

5. (6) Pete Dye Golf Club (p) 8.27 - don't know it, but seems unique, also bankrupt so uniqueness may have other problems.

6. ( Muirfield Village Golf Club (p) 8.19 - inspired by Augusta right?

7. (7) The Golf Club (p) 8.17 - have no idea on this one

8. (9) Shadow Creek Golf Club (r) - supposed to be North Carolina course in the desert

9. (5) Bandon Dunes (r) 8.02 - I have not been, but this seems more unique from a distance than Pacific, but still inspired by Macrihanish as per the book.

10. (11) Kinloch Golf Club (p) 8.00 - personally reminds me of Westchester/Bethpage courses with a modern twist. However, I would say this is pretty unique.

Mike,

Par 70-72, 6500-7500 yards are the basic principals for the modern architect. 15,000 courses in the US, probably double that worldwide. How much is unique at this point?

There is a reason that Mike K is building Old Macdonald!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Perhaps I'm missing your point, or is it that John Kavanaugh is correct and that architects should just offer "standard template product" and merchandise under McDonalds-type franchises?  

Perhaps that freeze-dried, transportable course (re: hare-brained scheme) I thought up isn't so far-fetched after all?  

After all, if it works in NYC, it's gonna make it anywhere!  

Seriously, Mike, I'd really like to be surprised to learn who an architect is when I visit a course.  It's difficult, I'm sure, not to lean on one's best prior work and that's why their are so few artists and so many craftsmen.  I always thought of C&C as the former, so perhaps I'm holding them to a higher standard?  

[Nick Church]

For me, if an architect has a "template" style that more naturally fits the setting / environment / locale, then it is more than acceptable (and appreciated at least by me).

I do not grow tired of looking at Coore & Crenshaw (or Doak, "neo-classicist" / minimalist) courses.  They suit my aesthetic.  Often, their projects are not forced into housing developments (a common pet-peeve here) so that's a large part of the appeal.  The courses meet my "get-away" requirement.

The qualifier for me is that the architect's "style" is a more natural look.

As a change of pace, I enjoy some 1980's era pot-bunker, railroad tie, sharp edge, Dye-knock-offs.  (For me, the general dilineation is Pete not PB).  However, this "look" becomes forced and repetitive very quickly.  This type of "design by template" at least appears to this eye to work against the terrain.

Somehow, the Coore & Crenshaw style seems to fit whether it's New Mexico, Nebraska, or New England.  I'd love to see what their work would look like in Kentucky or Tennessee.

[Mike_Sweeney]

It's difficult, I'm sure, not to lean on one's best prior work and that's why their are so few artists and so many craftsmen.  I always thought of C&C as the former, so perhaps I'm holding them to a higher standard?  

Mike,

Can you list a few modern courses that you would consider artistic?

[PThomas]

disclaimer: I played HC, but not OS

OS seems scruffier looking with lots of native grass...I thouhgt HC is more Pinheurst-like...

pictures look great, thanks for posting

[cary lichtenstein]

It's difficult, I'm sure, not to lean on one's best prior work and that's why their are so few artists and so many craftsmen.  I always thought of C&C as the former, so perhaps I'm holding them to a higher standard?  

 I'd look at Mike Strantz's body of work for artistic achievement, Royal New Kent, Tobacco Road, Tot Hill Farm to name 3
Mike,

Can you list a few modern courses that you would consider artistic?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Mike,

Interesting you mention Hampton Hills. That is a property with some potential: rolling, sandy, featuring an attractive pine forest. The course just isn't very good. I think the problem stems from a suspect routing.

[Dan_Callahan]

Is it safe to say that bunker style and fairway width are the primary items contributing to the "look" of a course?

Many modern U.S. courses have plenty of width, modeled on Scottish layouts.

Few (I think) new courses go for the cavernous, stacked sod-wall pot bunkers. Why is that? I love that look but don't see it much in the U.S. I think Doak's Heathland had it. Also true at Bandon Dunes?

Otherwise, the blow-out bunker of C&C, Bradley, etc., is everywhere. I must admit to being a bid fan of that style as well, but I'd love to see more truly penal pot bunkers.

[Mike_Sweeney]

It's difficult, I'm sure, not to lean on one's best prior work and that's why their are so few artists and so many craftsmen.  I always thought of C&C as the former, so perhaps I'm holding them to a higher standard?  

 I'd look at Mike Strantz's body of work for artistic achievement, Royal New Kent, Tobacco Road, Tot Hill Farm to name 3
Mike,

Can you list a few modern courses that you would consider artistic?

Agreed, but Strantz moved a bunch of dirt, so the question is can you be artistic and minimalistic?

[Garland Bayley]

The photo above is a view from the tee of a mid length par three that was one of my favorites.  The photo below is a view looking back towards the tee on the same hole which shows the unique approach area that lays in wait if you overshoot the green. This occurs a lot at Old Sandwich.  The area in shade is about where the green stops and the rear approach begins.

Is this hole a reverse Redan?

[Paul_Turner]

I agree that variety is the spice and Old Sandwich (what a crappy, mouldy, name) does resemble Hidden Creek.  But still, the course looks fantastic.

No doubt the dead guys had many courses that looked similar, but 80+ years of evolution/rebuild etc adds variety

[Tim Copeland]

What is the maintenance budget??

What

ha

ha ha ha
hat

is the

budget.........

[Mike_Cirba]

I agree that variety is the spice and Old Sandwich (what a crappy, mouldy, name) does resemble Hidden Creek.  But still, the course looks fantastic.

Paul,

I agree completely on both counts.   I would reiterate that my only challenge to this thread was the use of the term "unique", even if just unique to the C&C portfolio.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Can you list a few modern courses that you would consider artistic?

Mike,

There are many modern courses that I'd consider artistic, and in fact a number of them probably aren't as good a golf course as Old Sandwich, necessarily.   However, within constraints of budget, setting, and even housing considerations, I've seen where clever, creative, and daring architects have strived to create something different, non-formulaic, and even provocative, even if just stretching their own talents and ideas of what a golf course should be.

Since it's a course many of us here have played, I'll throw Lederach into the discussion.   While not blessed with much in the way of a great site, and with housing considerations and a limited budget, it offers one unusual, thought-provoking hole after another.  It also has feature shaping quite different than any style I've seen from Kelly Moran prior, including bunkers (both grass and sand) that are quite different in stylistic quality than anything I've seen.   The fact that there are so few of them, and the fact that they're so well placed only adds to the interest.  

The greens offer more internal contour than any other modern course I've seen, in a mind-bending variety of forms.

On the other hand, I'm quite sure that OS is an overall better golf course, all things considered.

And, to answer your other question, yes, I think it's quite possible to be both minimalistic and artistic.   The true artist knows instinctively that the only thing more important than what you put in is what you leave out.  

[John Kirk]

This is the unique short par 4 fifth hole measuring 336 yds.  The green is the flattish area far left.  Native blueberry bushes are pictured down in the canyon and work there ways through the native areas all over the course.  A unique feature at OS.  The view above is from the teeing area and the view below is from the left rough near the approach.

Once again, Josh, thanks so much for posting these photos.  We are so lucky to have such industrious members.

Is anyone else reminded of the tee shot on #16 at Pasatiempo here?

I don't think it has been specifically mentioned how great that light green fescue grass looks.  Fescue is a superior playing surface.

Tim Copeland, no one has answered your question, but my understanding is the people at Old Sandwich could afford a big budget if necessary.  However, fescue grass requires little water or nutrition.  Dan Lucas is one of our resident fescue experts.

[bakerg]

John might be right about the above hole resembling Pasatiempo.  I haven't played Pasa yet so I don't know.  However, the first thing that popped into my head when I saw this picture was the 6th hole at Friar's Head.  Anyone else see any similarities?

[Jimmy Muratt]

Gary,

The pictures of the 5th at OS do resemble the look of the 6th at Friar's Head but that hole is a much longer par 4.  The 5th at OS is really a great risk/reward short par 4.  The picture from the tee shows some of the wild undulations in the fairway.  The conservative play is about a 220 yard shot just to the right of the fairway bunkers.  If, however, you miss a little right or long, you will have blind approach from a tricky stance.  Those who use the big stick want to aim around the middle of the fairway bunkers, the angled fairway will kick the ball down toward the green if the shot is played properly.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

And, to answer your other question, yes, I think it's quite possible to be both minimalistic and artistic.   The true artist knows instinctively that the only thing more important than what you put in is what you leave out.  

Mike,

One example please, and remember before you say Sand Hills, C&C import the talent to do their bunkering, which to me is the sign of a good craftsman. I would also say finding holes is more craft than art.

I would agree with the Kelly @ Lederach and Strantz courses by Cary, but I would not say that Lederach is minimalistic. Thus, we are up to 4 modern courses out many thousand, and still no minimalism.

Tom Doak is not lacking in ego, but I don't remember him ever claming any artistic ability.

I am not sure about Fazio. His courses are pretty, but I could see someone making the argument that they are paint by numbers. However those Pronghorn pictures and World Woods Pine Barrens tell me that he or someone on his staff is a real artist.

I also believe that Desmond was a real artist, but the restrictions of "what is golf" did not allow him to become popular in the mainstream.

Now my focus in this discussion has been on the visual of the holes, and how they present to the golfer's eye. Greens could be an entirerly different discussion.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I would disagree with your first two points defining artistic minimalism.   I don't think utilizing great bunker shapers (artists in their own right at what they do) negates an architect from being an artist.  After all, he's responsible for the final product, and it has to meet his eye visually and functionally or it's get blown up and started again.   He's the conductor of the orchestra, unless you want to say that an artist should be able to do the whole thing, planning through construction and grow in singlehandedly?  

Also, I think the idea of "finding holes" is really an integral, fundamental part of where the art form lies and is distinguished.  Similar to the sculptor who sees "David" in a block of stone, a big part of the artistic process is the vision to see something that others are missing, in this case from simply looking across raw, undisturbed land.  The artist not only sees the individual holes, but their linkages, and their interrelationships, as well as their similarities and contrasts, in presenting a thematic, cohesive whole.

I think that's artistically more difficult to do with a minimalist approach.   The let's build whatever we want and move enough dirt to do it can certainly lend itself to great artistry, but the incredible exercise in discipline and restraint to only move what you absolutely have to in an effort to uncover and properly display what's already there is to me quite fascinating.  

I'll start with Rustic Canyon.   I'm not sure if you've played it, or its midwest cousin, Wild Horse, but those are two courses where the architects certainly allow their natural, raw settings to shine through artistically.  

I'm sure Tom Doak would likely admit that there's as much art as science employed at "finding holes" on his courses, as well.  

All,

As a sidebar, based on the pictures of Old Sandwich, would you call it a minimalistic course?  Why or why not?

[Jordan Wall]

Josh and others,

 Would OS be in C&C's top-5 best courses they ave designed?

Greats pictures, btw.

Jordan

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()