Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: kclarke on February 20, 2003, 05:52:14 PM
-
"vs" isn't right but my question after looking at the Friar's Head review is could Doak build this course? And also, having played Pacific Dunes last year and thoroughly, thoroughly thinking it was one of the best ever, could Coore have built it?
The two men seem to build courses that are similarly fun, natural and great. What are their design differences? Is there one in particular difference in how they go about their designs?
-
Kclarke,
They're both great architects, and have produced great courses, why the need to pose a hypothetical competition that has no definitive answer ?
The same question could be posed of MacDonald, Ross, Tillinghast, etc.,etc., with their courses, but what does the exercise accomplish ?
-
Why?
-
Pat Mucci ad Redanman,
I am not sure that the innitial question isnt worthy of more respect than you have given it.
Coore and Doak are often mentioned on this site in a way that suggests that their names are often almost interchangeable. They, and their courses have much in common, especially when compared to other modern, high profile architects. Considering this, a brief examination of their differences -what seperates them as designers -seems like a worthy exercise.
-
Pat Mucci,
The reason is to start a thread and see where it goes, no? You do that all the time. You can start by addressing how the two differ in addressing the wind. Then compare how much emphasis is put on putting versus driving. Etc., etc. What the heck difference does it make when this website supports such a wide variety of questions, as you yourself know. How many threads are there that compare the classic to the modern architects? Comparisons, comparisons everywhere.
Good thread kclarke.
-
Thanks to both of them for bringing sensibility and creativity to their craft. I'm glad that they are different and hope that each continues to create great places for golf. And, there are a BUNCH of others who's work is great and different...
-
KClarke;
Honestly, for me that's sort of a hard question to answer. Both of them but including Hanse & Co and maybe DeVries and possibly Echenrode and kelly Moran, Rod Whitman, looks like Tony Ristola, seem to be way out in the forefront in creating really natural architecture in every way, if you know what I mean.
All their features (particularly the bunkering), all their architectural "lines" seem to be so far out in front of everyone else today in doing architecture that looks like some of the greatest of the Golden Age in its overall naturalness and strategic design.
Most all of them seem to be building some really wonderful greens too--in shape, dimension, internal contours, playabilities etc that are not in the slightest man-made contrived looking--that fit right into the pre-construction landscape etc!
Obviously, this group's courses probably need more time in play to prove themselves but honestly the look of most all of them are neck and neck with the best of the "Golden Age", if not even surpassing them, if you ask me.
The thought through natural and strategic detail in courses like Pacific Dunes, I hear Lubbock, looks like Stonewall 2, Friar's Head, Hidden Creek, Easthampton, Cusgowilla, Rustic Canyon, Applebrook, Inniscrone, Tallgrass, U of Alabama, French Creek, Barona, looks like Tony Ristola's course in Germany and some of the others I've only heard about seems really impressive.
One of the differences possibly between Doak and Coore, is it seems like C&C have done a course or two as semi tributes to another style, era or look like Hidden Creek is basically a tribute to the Heathland style.
I'm not sure Tom Doak has done anything like that. Not that it's important to do, I just don't know that he's ever done that--seems like Doak's courses are just site unique. But who knows; I've always heard the 3rd green at Stonewall1 is a pretty good copy of Crystal Downs #1 green. It has to be--both greens are very similar.
There really is some terrific architecture coming from this group recently, and now look what Doak has going in New Zealand. And the Coore and Crenshaw company seem to be pretty high on the possiblities of the course under construction in Plymouth Mass. The good news there is almost all their guys are up there working as it's the only course they're working on right now. Gil Hanse will be starting soon in Mass too.
-
Guest,
Then go ahead and provide your response to a hypothetical question.
As to the second part of the question, do they have design differences ?
-
One of the interesting similarities of Doak and Coore and Crenshaw is they may be going very light on shaping the "mid-bodies" of their holes, particularly the sides of the mid-bodies with very few exceptions. That to me was one of the real hallmarks of some of the best of the golden Age architeture and obviously that took a lot of time analyzing for possibilities of what the land was giving your--instead of just automatically changing the mid-bodies as some modern architects tend to do.
Certainly back then they didn't have the ability to do that as much as these days but on good topography using natural landform hole mid-bodies gave those courses such an overall natural look--obviously because it was! Some of the best work today seems to be following that minimalist precept of the past.
-
Patrick, I wish I could answer. That would mean that I have had the chance to play their courses. But alas, I have not. I still think that posts asking questions without definitive answers are fair game here. I bet you have even asked a few yourself. And so I don't think we should discourage this post. I just can't provide the non-definitive answers myself for lack of playing time. :'(
-
Guest,
Because of the limited number of courses produced, it may be too small of a sampling from which to draw definitive conclusions regarding both architects. Making the process of comparison, difficult if not impossible.
-
I find it interesting that there seems to be a slight cross pollination between some of the constructor associates. I chalk that up to the supporting cast, those that really do the work in the dirt so to speak, know that both these organizations are the best. We can't ignore that Coore and Doak have a common mentor organization either. Nor that other up and commers mentioned above have also been associated with this lineage. When we examine the great artists of the Rennaisance (the real one in the 15th-16th century, not the GCA firm ;) ) we see the same sort of mentoring, cross pollination of supporting artists that helped the masters do the frescoes and manage the stone. Funny how excellence sort of gravitates in proximate circles...
-
Patrick,
If I had two toothpicks in my hand, I would have enough toothpicks to make a comparison. Two of anything will allow comparisons. They may not meet your definition of "definitive" but who cares? Would you like us to hold your feet to the fire and demand that every question you ask allow for a "definitive" answer? If so, then you had better only ask questions that can be answered with objective verification. Why don't you get off of kclarke's back? Do you have to be a dark cloud here? If you don't like the questions, stop looking in on this thread. There are some here who are just trying to enjoy a little discussion.
-
Guest,
Kclarke asked for their design differences, that's calls for a definitive evaluation.
He didn't ask about the differences in two golf courses or two toothpicks, he asked for the global differences in their designs, and I don't know if enough courses have been built to establish what their design philosophies are, let alone the differences in the two.
Like you, I haven't played golf courses designed by both, and I suspect that few have, because of their rarity, thus making the process of comparison limited to a fortunate few. This too may prevent an accurate assessment.
There is strength in numbers.
Does playing one course allow one to determine the architects design concepts or theories ?
-
Patrick,
Just let those who have something to say say what they can. What harm is there in that? If you need to be negative, then so be it. You do what you have to do to feel better. This website is about studying golf architecture. There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, in the study of art that is all-inclusively definitive. There are always going to be questions about what forces pushed what features in what direction. But there is also no reason why someone can't point to tendencies in the designs of golf architects. If you have nothing to add in the way of experience, just sit back and read what others think.
Let the fortunate few say their piece.
I am done wasting space on this thread trying to get you to back off of someone asking a genuine question. If you need to rain on someone's parade, have at it. You won't be helping this website by undermining genuine interest in golf architecture. On the other hand, someone who adds even one building block to the overall knowledge here is helping anyone with an open mind who will read it.
-
Mr. Paul -
Please fill me in on the Coore/Crenshaw project in Plymouth. As you are probably aware, that town has positively exploded with golf courses over the past few years, with Mark Mumgeam, Rees Jones, and Brian Silva getting into the game. All of this on top of the Plymouth CC by Ross! I have only played the Atlantic CC by Mungeam, and I was very impressed. Please respond.
-
Guest,
This may be my last post on this thread as well.
.... But there is also no reason why someone can't point to tendencies in the designs of golf architects......
My point was that it is difficult if not impossible to determine tendencies with such a small sampling of courses as the basis of an anaylysis.
But, let the free flow of the assessment of the design differences begin.
-
Michael Moore:
I couldn't tell you at this point. They did work on it unusually long into this bitter winter as they may be on a bit of a tight construction schedule. They seem to think it's got some real good possibilities. I understand it might be on a rather unusual old estate. I might be all wrong but this one might be very treed. Hope to get up there in the spring.
-
In an effort to stimulate discussion I would say, from reading this board and nothing else, that Doak requires the player to hit a certain shot more often than Coore does. True or False?
-
Tom Paul,
Doak certainly did a tribute course. The Heathland course at Legends in Myrtle Beach, one of his earliest designs, was a tribute to Scottish courses (not British Heathland courses, oddly enough), with no trees, burns, large greens, etc. Probably is still the most dirt he's moved, including Red Raider, though I could be wrong. Both were dead flat properties. For Heathland, they removed all the piney trees that littered the site. At Red Raider, the site was treeless, and they ADDED trees.
Michael Moore,
The Plymouth, MA course C&C are working on is called Old Sandwich.
-
You know now that I think about it (although I don't really buy into this theory that much) but filtering through the courses I've seen (which aren't that many) Doak seems to create slightly more of a fading type approach shot in his architecture and C&C slightly more of a drawing type approach shot architecture.
If I'm not mistaken I think I remember Tom Doak saying he is a fader and certainly Ben Crenshaw used the draw a lot.
Scott:
Did not know that about Doak's course in Myrtle Beach. Wrong again--not surprising at all--Pat Mucci is clearly starting to rub off on me.
-
The two men seem to build courses that are similarly fun, natural and great. What are their design differences? Is there one in particular difference in how they go about their designs?
I'm with Guest. If these questions aren't proper here, I can't imagine what might be.
And they are NOT hypothetical questions!
I wish I were qualified to address them. Let's hear from those who are.
Tom Doak: How would YOU answer them?
-
;)
TE Paul, Not to heap on you but, the front nine at Doak's Highpointe course in Acme MI, just east of Traverse City is certainly a tribute to links golf.. with some fadings needed to be sure, but some very intersting draw holes as well. The back nine there is links-easy over and across hill and dale and hill side and valley of beautifaul N. Mich terrain.
-
SteveL:
Highpointe is one I have played but that was before I thought a thing about architecture. A tribute to links golf in on the hillsides of inland Mich, you say? I must say I didn't get that impression. The only hole that struck me as like something I knew was that back nine par 3 (#13, 14?). I thought for a moment I was at Pine Valley. But I could be wrong--as I say Pat Mucci is starting to get to me. And as for fading holes and drawing holes--that's not something I'm very reliable on either. Other golfers tell me I try to hit draws into clearly fading holes and vice versa, so what can I say?
-
I see C&C winning by a submission after about 7 or 8 rivetting minutes. For one thing, they are a tag team and poor Tom has to fend for himself. For another, "Gentle Ben" has so much street cred with the GCA crowd that even usually even handed commentators like Ran will not be cognizant of his treachery. And, just when you thought all was well, Vince MacMahon might throw something into the script at the last moment--surely not the Duelling Doyens......!!!!!!!!
In my limited comparative experience, C&C's courses are "better" that D's, but we are very early on in this "game"......
-
Rich:
If you say C&C are better than Doak than this is all very good stuff for golf architecture. Then this is a competition that's being played out on a very high level indeed. Not to mention, however, that although your opinion is uniquely your own and that's hunky dory you don't seem to have that certain perspicuity that it takes to fully appreciate Pacific Dunes. No matter because;
"golf and it's architecture is a great big game and there's room in it for everyone."
Look out, here comes Hanse with what looks like another homerun. More good stuff for the future of architecture. An even larger group of them really do seem to be vying with each other in quality, interest and difference and turning things in a great new direction!
-
Tommy
So what is Gil's latest blockbuster? Possibly Gulph Mills redux?
I think that Pacific Dunes is an excellent golf course but slightly less excellent than, say Applebrook and Kinsgbarns and (I assume, only having walked it) Friar's Head.
I very much agree with you that your opinion is only your own and I very much encourage you to continue to defend it, regardless of its merits. I also very much agree with you that the competition that currently exists between D and C&C and all the other great and possibly great archtitects that you and others mention is very very good for the game.
All hte best
Rich
-
redanman,
I am not sure that the initial question isn't worthy of more respect than you have given it.
Take Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills, Friar's Head sites.
Take Doak, Coore, Hanse & co? How many others?
Who would have done better? Does it matter? I think it is a matter of personal taste. Period. So shoot me.
-
There seems to be a consensus about C&C, Doak and Hanse. The question is, is there another architect who is even close to as good as they are, to whom one could entrust sites like FH and PD?
-
I've only played Sand Hills, Notre Dame and Lost Dunes, but based on what I’ve seen on this site and elsewhere, I'd say they have more in common than they have differences. Both have obviously been influenced by the old guys and aren't afraid to borrow – a Bairritz-like hole or a Redan or a modified Redan. They both seem to understand the advantages of width. They both appear to have a gift for aesthetics, melding their features with existing features, and creating man-made features that are difficult to distinguish from Nature. Both seem to put a lot of effort into interesting green complexes.
Some of the differences: although you will find stylistic variety from course to course, depending on variables like site and which associates are heading the project, I’d characterize C&C bunkers as tending to be Simpson-like and Doak’s as more MacKenzie-like or perhaps Colt-Maxwell-MacKenzie like. It also appears C&C utilize diagonal hazards more often. Where as Doak seems to push the envelope a little more, especially with green contours.
-
I would have to say I think how we approach a project is pretty much the same, but that our finished products are different. I don't know that there is any way to quantify "how," since every site and every client is different. Hell, I probably would design some of my old courses differently if I had them to do over again, so you can't even compare me to me!
At Sand Hills and at Kapalua, I walked away thinking (maybe "hoping" would be more accurate) that I would have made the same decisions that Bill and Ben made. Since then, while there's not a single one of their courses I haven't admired, there's also not one where I thought I would have done the same thing they had done. This includes Friar's Head ... certainly we could have built something there, but I don't think we'd have done the same thing.
And I'm glad we are not building the same things ... or both copying Seth Raynor's style. Vive la difference!
I think in the most general sense, our styles are similar because as Tom Paul pointed out, we are less likely than practically any other architects today to move earth in the fairways. But certainly we've both done courses where we had to, and did, and as I get better at it I'm not afraid to do things when the mood strikes. Pacific Dunes has 3-4 places like that which no one seems to have noticed.
I think Bill's green designs are a little more restrained than my own. I remember taking him around Lost Dunes during construction and his eyes were wide ... that was after we'd walked Notre Dame in the morning and I'd been impressed by how subdued it was. But, in Oregon and in New Zealand, I've been more restrained.
Certainly we are both also big believers in surrounding ourselves with talented people and letting them help ... we both learned that from Pete Dye. So it's never been just me vs. Bill. In New Zealand right now it's me and Bruce and Eric and both Brians and Chris Hunt and Dan Proctor, and I will say that Bill and Ben themselves couldn't touch that team ... but they wouldn't try to go it alone, either.
I hope they do take the job to do the third course in Bandon, because I'd love to see what they can do there ... although, if the roles were reversed, I'm not sure I would want to take the inland property and compare the result to Bandon and Pacific Dunes. In any case, it looks as though we will be designing courses side by side on a project a couple of years out [sorry, I can't divulge any specifics at this time], and we are all looking forward to looking over each other's shoulders while we work.
-
Tom,
How about divulging one little secret about the future project. Private or Public?
-
One of each.
Sorry, that's all you'll get for a while. The permitting of this project could be contentious because it's a sensitive site, so the client wants it to stay out of the limelight as much as possible until he has the all-clear.
-
Thanks.
-
I won't comment on the style, never having played a course by either team. One difference that I see, correct or not, is TD perhaps more willing to take on a broader range of sites than C&C might.
Look at his project in Lubbock. Moving milllions of cubic feet of earth, creating 20+ feet of elevation change, having to go to the outlying countryside for inspiration, etc.. I wonder if C&C would do this??
I think that so far C&C tend to be like C.B. and TD more like the Dr..,if comparison is necessary.
-
Mr. Doak,
I'm intrigued as to why you would think that the inland course at Bandon will fail to live up to what the first two are.
Let me rephrase that, you did not say that it would not live up, but that you might not be inclined to take that job, if you were C & C.
Is not the inland property at Bandon akin to Pine Valley? Similar to Jupiter Hills or a Spyglass? Have you seen the property they are proposing to build the course on? What can you tell us about it?
I personally think it will make a fantastic addition.
-
Tom Doak --
Thanks very much for your reply.
-
As I was reading down the thread and before I saw Tom Doak's response, I was thinking, "Gee, to respond would take quite some while." Then I see Tom's response and it has to be one of his longest posts - not Tom Paulian but lengthy nonetheless.
I doubt that either architect has greater respect for natural, existing landforms than the other. Of course, comparing how they choose to incorporate such features into the routing would be a very taxing undertaking mentally.
And to be fair, someone would have to have seen all their respective best works to conduct that excercise.
Maybe my brother could do it as he has seen Apache Stronghold all the way to FH but I don't know anyone else who has ???
Ultimately, bearing in mind both teams (it's certainly not Doak vs. Coore) build highly walkable courses, I wonder if it boils down to who builds the best holes? Ala that architect's report card thread I started 5-6 months ago, does it come down to short par threes, medium one shotters, long one shotters, short par fours, medium par fours, etc. etc. etc.
If so, where would that leave you? C&C have never built a hole better than the natural 13th at High Pointe. Renaissance has never created a hole better than 13 at Friar's Head.
As you go through the par categories, the one difference that I see is in the three shotters. I could be biased based on recently focusing time on the FH course profile but in general, C&C EXCEL with three shotters. And in a close match of one and two shotters, that could tip the balance in their favor - at least for the time being. When the OZ and NZ courses open for Renaissance, the scales could tip back, who knows?
What matters the most is that both teams continue to get choice properties as we all win in that case.
Cheers,
-
Ran,
As I indicated early in this thread, both are great architects, but, in fairness to Tom Doak, Bill Coore has a collaborative co-partner. I understand the team concept both firms employ, but Bill Coore, as talented as he is, has another well known name that shares the marquee and contributes to his efforts.
What parts are Bill Coores, and what parts are Ben Crenshaw's and what parts are the result of the synergy between the two. It's got to be difficult to isolate and identify exactly what is Bill's sole work since he's so entwined with Ben.
Is this exercise fair to everyone ?
-
Suprised that Mr. Mucci hasn't played the bias card here. Can't we add Rees to the mix?
-
Guest,
Since you brought it up, I'll let you do the honors.