Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: David Stamm on October 08, 2010, 04:53:10 PM
-
I think Whitten had a Jerry Maguire moment and ate some bad pizza when writing this. Some goofy and downright unintelligent remarks.
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2010-11/whitten-course-critic-rant
-
David, I'm curious about what you see as truly innovative in modern golf design?
(I know I have a personal preference for courses that echo the past but with modern infrastructure, but is that truly innovative?)
Mr. Whitten does seem a bit dyspeptic in his essay!
-
David,
I just briefly scanned the article so can't really comment on the overall quality of his literary skills but I do get the point he was trying to make.
I feel that everyone already has predetermined what is good architecture; so to differ from that is to take on risk which nowadays archies can not afford to piss a client off.
Golf Arch is architecture not art, although of course there is art in architecture....(I just confused myself), golf is a game with a predetermined set of rules which limits what can and can not be done with a golf course. Much like a building there needs to be functionality as to where true art has no specific purposes and therefore is only limited to ones imagination.
I have heard Whitten make this point before but imo it makes little sense as it is not practical.
Think about the stuff that was truly trying to step outside the box of the last 20 years; is it not the stuff that is universally panned?
-
For his 40 odd years in the business he portrays a man that seems to have understood very little about the game.
Melvyn
-
I'm sorry Mr. Whiffen, but were a nation of stagnators. Just look at the sorry state of our national pasttime. The bats haven't improved. They haven't made multicover balls that go farther, and stadiums are not being built larger, just indoors. Perhaps we can move the golf professionals to playing on perfect surfaces indoors. That at least would be an innovation that you so desire.
Sorry, Mr. Whiffen, but I think you whiffed this one.
:P
-
For his 40 odd years in the business he portrays a man that seems to have understood very little about the game.
Melvyn
Would you mind elaborating, I am interested in your opiniion as to why.
-
I'm sorry Mr. Whiffen, but were a nation of stagnators. Just look at the sorry state of our national pasttime. The bats haven't improved. They haven't made multicover balls that go farther, and stadiums are not being built larger, just indoors. Perhaps we can move the golf professionals to playing on perfect surfaces indoors. That at least would be an innovation that you so desire.
Sorry, Mr. Whiffen, but I think you whiffed this one.
:P
Garland, are you saying it's bad that baseball hasn't juiced up the ball so that bigger stadia would be required? That would make a lot of expensive property obsolete in a hurry.
One of the things I love about baseball is that the 90' from base to base hasn't changed in 140 years, and neither has the 60'6" from the rubber to the plate. On a ground ball in the hole, the shortstop still has to make a perfect catch and throw to get the runner at first. This gives the game a consistent framework, something golf hasn't had and that GCA.com members complain about every day.
-
David, I'm curious about what you see as truly innovative in modern golf design?
(I know I have a personal preference for courses that echo the past but with modern infrastructure, but is that truly innovative?)
Mr. Whitten does seem a bit dyspeptic in his essay!
Bill, I'm not saying he isn't right per se about the innovation part, although his broad, sweeping statements are a bit amateurish for someone who has been covering this subject for so long. I just don't think he is correctly interpreting what "innovation" means. No two pieces of ground are alike, so to make the comments he made about the templates being antiquated is a little dumb when different interpretations of these holes can be done by all different types of architects on all different types of situations and yet, they all can look and play very differently. And he really thinks that there hasn't been any "new" greens in 150 years? What does he want? Clowns mouths with bubbles coming out? This isn't rocket science and there are only so many ways to skin a cat before you cross the line like Muirhead and start with the minature golf concepts.
-
I don't think it's as bad as others do on this thread. If nothing else it makes you think about which GCA's are actually trying to develop new hole strategies and new features.
Sometimes new ideas fail, but you have to give people credit for trying something new and pushing the envelope occationally.
-
Was anything innovative done at Erin Hills? Either you're part of the problem or part of the solution.
-
I'm sorry Mr. Whiffen, but were a nation of stagnators. Just look at the sorry state of our national pasttime. The bats haven't improved. They haven't made multicover balls that go farther, and stadiums are not being built larger, just indoors. Perhaps we can move the golf professionals to playing on perfect surfaces indoors. That at least would be an innovation that you so desire.
Sorry, Mr. Whiffen, but I think you whiffed this one.
:P
Garland, are you saying it's bad that baseball hasn't juiced up the ball so that bigger stadia would be required? That would make a lot of expensive property obsolete in a hurry.
One of the things I love about baseball is that the 90' from base to base hasn't changed in 140 years, and neither has the 60'6" from the rubber to the plate. On a ground ball in the hole, the shortstop still has to make a perfect catch and throw to get the runner at first. This gives the game a consistent framework, something golf hasn't had and that GCA.com members complain about every day.
No, I'm saying it's bad that Mr. Whiffen complained about the stagnation (lack of innovation) of golf when the movement has been away from stagnation. I'm also saying what's wrong with stagnation? Baseball stagnated a long time ago, then some one got innovative and started taking steroids. Hooray for innovation. NOT!
I am also saying that Mr. Whiffen says designers need to deal with the longer distances. Well duh! If the ball goes longer you have to build the courses longer and WIDER. That costs money duh! He thinks the great recession is the time to bring this up? Someone within reach of him should dope slap him several times! All I can do is :P from my keyboard.
Perhaps he should get down on his knees and pray for some natural disasters that will rearrange the landscape into something that is golfable, but yet innovative. Too bad, God isn't to innovative with his land. Our architects are suffering because of it.
-
Was anyhting innovative done at Erin Hills? Either you're part of the problem or part of the solution.
He said in the article that he was part of the problem.
-
Garland, have you been to a classic old stadiums like Fenway, Wrigley, and now deceased Tiger Stadium and Yakees stadium? Compare those stadiums to the new modern marvels like Coors Field, Safeco Field, and New Yankees Stadium and tell me there have been no innovations.
The new stadiums have the same charm and ambiance of the old classics but with better sight-lines, better food, better access, more comfortable seats, better traffic flow, better bathrooms, suites, and countless other improvements that makes going to the ballgame a real pleasure. There is a reason why a team that lost over 100 games can still draw over 2 million people.
Bats have improved greatly as well with the latest in graphite and aluminum bats. Sure, they are not used in the pros, but they get used by more people. The gloves have improved and shoes as well. Baseball has not stood still.
-
Baseball has not stood still.
But has it advanced?
For his 40 odd years in the business he portrays a man that seems to have understood very little about the game.
Melvyn
After reading the rant article, I think I agree with this 100%.
-
Dear Ron,
You haven't seen everything built of interest.
You've seen the highly marketable for your magazine.
Cheers
P.S.
I'd recheck your comment about Cypress Point.
I think it is wrong.
Cheers
-
I don't get what people who make these types of criticisms want. If I remember correctly Forest Richardson made similiar comments on a GCA thread recently. It seem like the same things constantly reveal themselves as things golfers want, regardless of the fad and/or fashion of the day.
St. Andrews Old Course, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Merion, Royal Melbourne have been regarded as among the very, very best golf courses in the world for as long as they have been tracking these things.
Yet, some cousres (like Black Diamond Ranch, Shadow Creek, Trump National) make a splash and for a time are regarded as the best in the world...but yet they fade over time.
Perhaps these time tested principles will stand the test of time for a reason and, therefore, we don't need innovation in design elements.
I'll buy that innovation is needed regarding types of grass, maintenance practices, business models (more nine hole courses as an example)...but in the design area? I don't know.
-
I guess golf journalists have run out of ideas too.
-
Was anything innovative done at Erin Hills? Either you're part of the problem or part of the solution.
exactly what I was thinking Pete....and its not llike they got it right the first time there
-
... better food, better access, more comfortable seats, better traffic flow, better bathrooms, suites, ...
Wow CC of the D for baseball. You don't have to like baseball, you can get by with comfortable seats, good food, and bathroom spas.
Sort of like you don't have to play golf at the CC of the D, while riding your cart and observing the waterfalls.
-
He seems to have missed the point of his own analogy. He is saying golf lacks innovation because it still uses the same basics such as greens and hole designs/strategies. So for music to have gone through and innovation under his terms it should no longer be made up of guitars, drums, piano's, violins or the voice to be classed as having innovation?
Likewise architecture should have abandoned concrete, steel, four walls and floors and ceilings. But neither architecture or music have abandoned these things. The have all been arranged to form different aesthetic styles but the basics are still there, as with golf. Just look at Old MacDonald, Tom Doak seems to have found I way to use many old basics to please the modern golfer with the modern balls and modern clubs.
-
How has the ASGCA promoted innovation in design?
I think they have promoted innovation in environmentalism.
-
I'm all for innovation--and there has been a lot--in grasses, irrigation, maintenance, drainage, green upkeep, etc., but the classic design is still the standard by which I judge courses. Classic beauty need not be thrown out for jarring, unpleasant innovation, just for the sake of innovation. I like old houses, but I'm all for modern plumbing, heating and air, etc.
-
A...This just in...plans to expand the alphabet and the the first ten arabic numberals have been put on hold.
B...How long did it take before some suck-up mentioned Doak...Way to go, young Ross.
C...This just in...roads to now have three directions: this way, the other way, and sideways.
D...I like Muirhead
E...Anyone named Ron is off-limits from criticism...we've had to endure allusions to the ridiculous McDonald's clown for years.
F...This just in...apostrophes to be eliminated (no one uses them correctly, anyway), to be followed by the semi-colon...;
-
A...This just in...plans to expand the alphabet and the the first ten arabic numberals have been put on hold.
B...How long did it take before some suck-up mentioned Doak...Way to go, young Ross.
C...This just in...roads to now have three directions: this way, the other way, and sideways.
D...I like Muirhead
E...Anyone named Ron is off-limits from criticism...we've had to endure allusions to the ridiculous McDonald's clown for years.
F...This just in...apostrophes to be eliminated (no one uses them correctly, anyway), to be followed by the semi-colon...;
What has caused today's curmudgeonly attitude, Sr Tricks? ;D
-
Strange. He's done this before - used an essay in a national/popular magazine to speak not to 2 million people but to 20. Or so it seems.
Peter
-
Hi, Bill...I won't deny that something has caused the curmudgeon to rear its ugly heads, like the hydra...probably a combination of a tough boys HS season, a divot of women who insist on misplacing every wireless phone we have on a daily basis and a new dietary regimen that leaves me hungry and lacking in sweets and greases.
I've never found the enthusiasm for definitive and exclusionary critiques in which others delight. As a result, those who lean toward 100% certainty often arouse my ire. I must be a humanist, as I find some measure of delight in nearly every experience, and that's fine satisfaction for me.
Given these disclaimers, it occurs to me that Whitten is not a moron; a magazine like GD would not have kept him employed were he to profess and practice idiocy and ignorance. Instead, it's that he gives criticism without offering solutions that doesn't sit well with esteemed members of this ambrosial forum. It seems to me that he is being bullied in absentia; he might deserve it at some point, but not today.
-
Tricks
not so much a suck up, just the most obvious example of a recent course with many template holes. Not sure what innovations he would like to have seen anyway. It is not like other sports change the basics of the way they are played. For the 2014 world cup maybe they could make the pitch round? And I do think the Ryder cup would have been better if course was routed like a street circuit with clubs able to hit from the asphalt.
Did he forget golf has been played on the moon, what more innovation can you hope for?
-
Was anything innovative done at Erin Hills? Either you're part of the problem or part of the solution.
Yes, and they had to change it to get rid of the 19th hole, et. al.
-
Tricks' reference to the paucity (that's for Tricks, the humanist) of examples is the key.
Why not make a stronger case, if you must make a case at all? Why not provide one or two sample alternatives to the fundamental templates of 20th century golf, which templates have grown moribund?
Say - a 320 yard Par 3 that MUST be played by the average golfer for Bogie (so as not to risk a much worse score), since the green is perched 60 feet up atop an active volcano?
-
Remember the words of Solomon. There is nothing new under the sun.
Given that gifted architects have been creating golf courses for well over a hundred years, I think that truly original ideas will be few and far between from here on out. There is no shame in that.
-
There may not be "original concepts or strategies" but there will be original implementation of those concepts. Originality is not dead. Ballyneal #7, OM#5, Kingsley#1 are all examples of unique holes that I played this year which utilize some proven concepts.
There are no new musical notes either, but there is original music.
Whitten's argument is hollow, shallow and remarkably dismissive of some great modern work. I don't get it.
Bart
-
There are no new musical notes either, but there is original music.
Oh yeah, Dr. Bradley...nice one!! I'm gonna have to steal that one!! :)
-
Mac:
No problem...it isn't an original thought. I stole it from someone else ;).
Bart
-
Garland, have you been to a classic old stadiums like Fenway, Wrigley, and now deceased Tiger Stadium and Yakees stadium? Compare those stadiums to the new modern marvels like Coors Field, Safeco Field, and New Yankees Stadium and tell me there have been no innovations.
The new stadiums have the same charm and ambiance of the old classics but with better sight-lines, better food, better access, more comfortable seats, better traffic flow, better bathrooms, suites, and countless other improvements that makes going to the ballgame a real pleasure. There is a reason why a team that lost over 100 games can still draw over 2 million people.
Bats have improved greatly as well with the latest in graphite and aluminum bats. Sure, they are not used in the pros, but they get used by more people. The gloves have improved and shoes as well. Baseball has not stood still.
To further elaborate on baseball stadium architecture and golf architecture.....
Lets consider baseball stadium architecture in t he 1960s and 70s.....Veterans stadium in philly, Three Rivers in pittsburgh, shea stadium, et. al. These stadiums not only were ugly, but did not provide a great game watching experience. The recent crop of stadiums from the 90s-00s are quite excellent all around. A place like PNC Park has all the charm, plus modern amenities, a ton of beer selections, etc. all without pricing the faimily out of range.
I think you can make a similar arguement about golf courses. Lots of really bad ideas in the 60s 70s and 80s, but it seems like the 90s and 00s have returned to what made the great old courses great. Look at bandon...nice hotel, cool clubhouse....but what makes it special is the golf courses, and those courses are steeped in classic fundamentals.
-
I think Whitten has it mostly wrong.
Innovation tends to come in pretty small increments.
Look at one of the biggest industrys in the US - the auto industry. Our current cars have new bells and whistles, but they're still pretty darn similar to those made 60 years ago. They still have 4 wheels and are made of metal and glass and rubber. Air bags, anti lock brakes, and navigation systems are pretty darn innovative, but again, these are small increments of innovation.
Recently,
* A guy named Pete Dye decided to build a golf course in a Florida Swamp. And he thought a grren surrounded by water would be cool.
* A guy in charge of a state's pension thought it would be neat to have a famous architect design a series of courses all over a state that was not known for golf. Wala - The Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail was born.
* Some guys decided to build courses and grow grass where it doesn't really grow; the Arizona dessert. A sleepy western town was transformed into a huge population area where many golf pros now call home.
* Some dude had the crazy ass idea of building a great course in a teeny town called Bandon, which is over 4 hours from a large population base. Oh, and despite their overwhelming popularity, golf carts are not allowed.
* In Michigan, A fellow named Mike Devries built a boomerang green on the par 3 9th hole. The hole is so innovative, that players will stand by the clubhouse and just stare at it in awe. And then groupof 8 or 9 of them will be so intrigued that they will try to hit the green from 3 or 4 different tee boxes.
People are coming-up with new ideas all the time. I can't wait for what's next.
-
Don't bother arguing that classic courses are ideal because the game hasn't changed. Nonsense. Nothing in golf is the same as it was in the 1920s -- not the clubs, the balls, the mowers, the turfgrass, the clubhouses or the fabric on our skin. Not the grip, the stance, the swing, the way we get yardages or transport our clubs. Nothing is the same, except our golf courses.
Save for the same five inches between the ears.
As Bart pointed out above, there are examples of innovation in some specific greens.
Also, What's the course in Omaha he refers to?
-
So for music to have gone through and innovation under his terms it should no longer be made up of guitars, drums, piano's, violins or the voice to be classed as having innovation?
Not to drag this too far off topic, but I'm in the music business. In many ways, I don't think it is evolving much either. I think popular music is regressing badly and has been for 20 years.
And I think technology has made music worse. Infinitely worse. The drum machine. The sequencer. The sampler. Pro-Tools. Auto-tune. Louder and louder mastering. Badly encoded digital listening formats. And the worst innovation of all: The music video.
These are the music world's equivalents to golf carts, Pro-V1s, watermelon-size driver heads and 530 yard par-fours.
-
He has some good points in the rant....
He says:
"With fewer than a dozen courses under construction in the United States, architects need to reinvent their product. They talk of designing risk and reward, but they're unwilling to risk new ideas because they don't see any reward. Would finding work in America be reward enough? If the past is the only thing you bring to the drawing table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. In Omaha, a prominent golf contractor built a money-making public course without any help from an architect. In California, Cypress Point, armed with a pile of old photos, restored its Mackenzie bunkers with no involvement by an architect."
Many many courses will eliminate the middleman....
-
What a grouchy bastard. The thing is, he goes on this rant while he also has an article entitled "Game Changers". In it he listed a bunch of courses described as "game changers" including many from the last two decades. Which is it Ron? Are there 20 game-changing courses from the last twenty years or are golf architects doing nothing game-changing?
-
If the economy does not get a lot better, Ron is right that the middleman is mostly gone. But so are new golf course design and construction - new golf courses overall - in that case.
On just about everything else, I think Ron is badly, sadly off the mark. Muirhead's ideas were tried. He designed and built innovative courses around the world. Which is his most popular, the one easily considered best of all he designed? Muirfield Village. A traditional parkland course. No geometric sand traps or shark-shaped greens.
GCA has seen plenty of "innovative" ideas. Golfers as a group don't like them so much. They have never caught on, commercially or in the rankings.
On the other hand, courses Ron complains about - Doak, e.g. - are roaring successes.
Instead of bemoaning lack of "innovation," I'd rather see what "innovative" ideas Ron has. Ironic that the course he helped design and build -- Erin Hills -- shows none of that "innovation" he says he craves. He did about as traditional a design as you imagine.
btw, couldn't Whitten's same argument be made in the 1920s? What is dramatically new and different in GCA since then, that brought on sea changes in golf courses? Seems like I read some of the oldtimers back then make the point that there's nothing really new in GCA, just how you put it together and interpret it on the land you have to work with. Though they were not complaining about that.
-
He has some good points in the rant....
He says:
"With fewer than a dozen courses under construction in the United States, architects need to reinvent their product. They talk of designing risk and reward, but they're unwilling to risk new ideas because they don't see any reward. Would finding work in America be reward enough? If the past is the only thing you bring to the drawing table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. In Omaha, a prominent golf contractor built a money-making public course without any help from an architect. In California, Cypress Point, armed with a pile of old photos, restored its Mackenzie bunkers with no involvement by an architect."
Many many courses will eliminate the middleman....
Mike
Not in the least personal about the matter, but is this a bad thing and if so, why?
Ciao
-
I haven't particularly read anything of Whittens before but a quick scan of the article suggested it was mean't to be provacative and judging by the reaction on here he succeeded. His basic premis that nothing innovative has happened in his time seems fairly sound to me but personally I'm not sure that is a bad thing for the game. It might be a bad thing for the golf business but that is a different matter. Whitten seems to be suggesting some new ideas/gimmick/innovation is needed to keep the GCA in employment. That sounds alarm bells for me.
For instance I'm not particularly keen on the Peter McEvoy idea of two pin placements on each hole with an easy one and a hard one and a scoring system for each. Not a great example but illustrative of the point that bugger about with the game at your peril.
Speaking from a Scottish perspective there are any number of golf clubs out there butchering there existing courses that I wish architects were more successful in making the connection with them, showing them what could be done rather than some greens convener unilaterally deciding it would be good to plant yet another stand of trees.
Niall
-
Builders build houses without real architects all the time. That's why the burbs are cluttered with crap McMansions.
-
If you don't think golf architects add value, I don't understand why you would spend time at this forum.
In a somewhat similar vein, if Whitten thinks the main value of a golf architect is to provide novelty,.... then I am rendered speechless.
Bob
-
He has some good points in the rant....
He says:
"With fewer than a dozen courses under construction in the United States, architects need to reinvent their product. They talk of designing risk and reward, but they're unwilling to risk new ideas because they don't see any reward. Would finding work in America be reward enough? If the past is the only thing you bring to the drawing table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. In Omaha, a prominent golf contractor built a money-making public course without any help from an architect. In California, Cypress Point, armed with a pile of old photos, restored its Mackenzie bunkers with no involvement by an architect."
Many many courses will eliminate the middleman....
Mike
Not in the least personal about the matter, but is this a bad thing and if so, why?
Ciao
Sean and Bob,
What seems to be a common thread amongst nationally recognized archites this thread sort of concentrates on? They all have their own crews AND plans are minimal.....IMHO the role of "architect" where one is sending in drawings and making site visits and checking off contractor billing is easily eliminated by "builders" who know enough about it to get the job done.....not all are going ot be nationally recognized or on great pieces of groiund but we are going that way....
Above McMansions are mentioned....most of those have a set of plans the builder can purchase in bulk...
-
I think he has a good point when it comes to restoration. Too many important old courses have been redesigned by architects in the name of restoration.
-
Hoenstly, I don't think he works very hard at finding innovation.
He's going where the buzz is and I can see why he's getting bored with that.
-
I think Ron is just casting about in boredom. He mentioned that he has been interested in GCA for 43 years. The inovation has come in smallish incriments, but once in a while innovation came along as mentioned above - growing turf in the desert, or on crushed lava, and building upon that. It takes innovation in construction, machinery, and an archie to conceive hole designs that work on such.
Ron can point to ball and impliment technology, but the rules and perameters of the game are the same. Hit it out onto interesting or strategic ground, find it and figure out how to get it to a green and into the hole. Arranging that is within enough constraint that without big changes in the method of play, not all that much novelty or innovation can be allowed.
People seek interesting arrangements of golf on interesting ground and that is their consumption of architecture. But, they aren't going to seek golf that is contrary to their basic understandings of how the game is played, and they continue to seem to enjoy the way the game is generally arranged on the field of play now. They don't seem to want oddities like a 7 iron off tee, followed by FW wood and long iron after that, or some other unconventional approach to playing the game they know as it is.
Eliminating the middle man doesn't seem to be anything new either. There have always been one-off or one-trick ponies that build their dream course from conception to working on constrcution, themselves.
-
Here is the deal...y'all want innovation and something new on a golf course...distance boosts areas...you heard it here first!!
For each given hole, but particularly on par 5's, have an area in the middle of the fairway, perhaps between 230 and 250 yards, where the is a hi-tech trampoline buried. It will have sensors on it and when a ball lands on the area...BOOM...the trampoline mechanism fires and propels the ball up in the air and at angle to give it a severe distance boost. This will make the game much more fun for the medium handicapped golfer.
Also, you can put these trampolines in the front of tee boxes to eliminate the loss of distance from topped tee shots.
You can put nets lining the fairways, as well, to eliminate lost balls and long searches for balls. Pull it, slice it...no worries...your ball will simply come to rest against the net...take a free drop and BINGO...you are off and running. Time per round should be significantly reduced and costs per round (due to elimination of lost balls) will be reduced and golfers will be more happy and for sure will flock to the course. Now, we've got to make up for the lost revenue from the golf ball producers (because we've got to keep not only the golf course fair, but we've also got to keep the competitive landscape for business competition level) we will give them the contract rights to make the netting.
I think these ideas are solid and will work...and will certainly add to the innovation side of things. :-*
-
Here is the deal...y'all want innovation and something new on a golf course...distance boosts areas...you heard it here first!!
For each given hole, but particularly on par 5's, have an area in the middle of the fairway, perhaps between 230 and 250 yards, where the is a hi-tech trampoline buried. It will have sensors on it and when a ball lands on the area...BOOM...the trampoline mechanism fires and propels the ball up in the air and at angle to give it a severe distance boost. This will make the game much more fun for the medium handicapped golfer.
Also, you can put these trampolines in the front of tee boxes to eliminate the loss of distance from topped tee shots.
You can put nets lining the fairways, as well, to eliminate lost balls and long searches for balls. Pull it, slice it...no worries...your ball will simply come to rest against the net...take a free drop and BINGO...you are off and running. Time per round should be significantly reduced and costs per round (due to elimination of lost balls) will be reduced and golfers will be more happy and for sure will flock to the course. Now, we've got to make up for the lost revenue from the golf ball producers (because we've got to keep not only the golf course fair, but we've also got to keep the competitive landscape for business competition level) we will give them the contract rights to make the netting.
I think these ideas are solid and will work...and will certainly add to the innovation side of things. :-*
Someone has been watching a little too much Caddyshack 2.
-
Seems like these notions of improving on nature are akin to the impetus that has disfigured most of the great classic era courses. Take Wakonda Club as an example. Somebody, who loves his golf course, gets the notion that it needs to be modernized. All he had to do was look at the beautiful drawing L&M gave to the club and perhaps re-establish some green space, build back up some bunkers. But NO. They hire a modern guy who goes in, spends a shit load of cash and wipes out any resemblance to the original architects marvelous work. Flattening bunkers and greens to leave what is not even a shadow of it's former self.
-
I think Whitten has it mostly wrong. ...
* In Michigan, A fellow named Mike Devries built a boomerang green on the par 3 9th hole. The hole is so innovative, that players will stand by the clubhouse and just stare at it in awe. And then groupof 8 or 9 of them will be so intrigued that they will try to hit the green from 3 or 4 different tee boxes.
People are coming-up with new ideas all the time. I can't wait for what's next.
I think Whitten has it somewhat right ... the game is fairly sclerotic ... who will be the one to take the leap?
I would like to see an entire course created along the same line as the ninth hole quoted above. Each round would be a very dynamic experience ... a hole could be a 350 yard straight away hole one day, and the same hole could be a 550 yard double degleg the next day.
-
I think Whitten has it mostly wrong. ...
* In Michigan, A fellow named Mike Devries built a boomerang green on the par 3 9th hole. The hole is so innovative, that players will stand by the clubhouse and just stare at it in awe. And then groupof 8 or 9 of them will be so intrigued that they will try to hit the green from 3 or 4 different tee boxes.
People are coming-up with new ideas all the time. I can't wait for what's next.
I think Whitten has it somewhat right ... the game is fairly sclerotic ... who will be the one to take the leap?
I would like to see an entire course created along the same line as the ninth hole quoted above. Each round would be a very dynamic experience ... a hole could be a 350 yard straight away hole one day, and the same hole could be a 550 yard double degleg the next day.
This has sort of been done before by George Thomas in the twenties with his "course within a course concept" at LACC North.
-
I think Mike Young has a decent point.
Of course, design-bid and design-build and in house construction have all been around forever. Design-bid was prevalent for many years but the trend now in golf is design-build or in house (owner or contractor). The design-build guys have done a better job of convincing the owner that they are the ones getting it done. Of course, that presumes that design isn't that important, that artistry isn't that important, etc.
And, for that low budget public course in Omaha (which almost certainly is a Landscapes Unlimited Design-Build-Own project) it probably isn't. If the $30 customers come out to play, having spent another $200-400K on a gca would not have provided any value. (I do think LU used a cheap, unknow gca for some of the work, but it was probably a limited services contract, btw)
Right now, some (not all) cities are still riding the 90's wave of trying to act more like private enterprize, and not using a low bid process but selecting on qualifications. And there are some advantages to that. At the same time, if the age of more regulation and watchdogging on at least Wall Street by the Feds filters down to lower levels, the design-bid-gca as watchdog process may again become a greater force.
The basics are still in place. If you are building a $7-10Mil public project, do you know you got the lowest possible price if you go design-build? How do you know if the funds are accounted for properly if the spender is also the reporter of spending?
I believe gca's have kind of shot themselves in the foot. For years, we offloaded many services we used to do - irrigation design, greens mix, full time on site reps, etc. in favor of other consultants and full time independent project managers (which some also reasonably favor to keep the reporting separate from the design) We have left control of the projects to others in the name of reducing liability and are now just responsible for the artwork, as it were. As per above, there are many projects where the cost of artwork is deemed too expensive, and we SHOULD be thinking in terms of reduced fees for reduced responsibility and as being part of a team rather than the leader of the team.
And, its hard to be too innovative if you aren't the leader of the pack on a team. Having a builder being the head guy automatically means that construction expediency, budget, etc. are the prime drivers over "pure design" whatever that is. Now, for the top end projects that think they need a signature, the architect led design build also works fine, because those projects have a budget, but if you choose the gca to lead, then design nearly automatically (perhaps within limits) leads the process. At the mid range, I have seen more resistance to architect led design-build. But where its accepted, its a factor of seemingly reducing design fees as part of the process.
Sorry to go a little OT on this one.
-
Garland, have you been to a classic old stadiums like Fenway, Wrigley, and now deceased Tiger Stadium and Yakees stadium? Compare those stadiums to the new modern marvels like Coors Field, Safeco Field, and New Yankees Stadium and tell me there have been no innovations.
The new stadiums have the same charm and ambiance of the old classics but with better sight-lines, NO BLIND HOLESbetter food, 19TH HOLE, better access, Highend Daily Fee - CCFAD, comfortable seats, CLUB CAR, better traffic flow, CART PATHS, better bathrooms, COMFORT STATIONS, suites, HOT BEVERAGE Cart GIRL and countless other improvements, FASTER GREENS, TIGHTER FAIRWAYS, MULTIPLE TEES, IRRIGATION, DRAINAGE, NO DESEASED TURF, ETC, that makes going to the ballgame a real pleasure. There is a reason why a team that lost o,er 100 games can still draw over 2 million people....HMMMM
-
If the economy does not get a lot better, Ron is right that the middleman is mostly gone.
This has little to do with golf, or golf course architecture, or the economy, this is merely the way of the world. As communications and information flow improve, more and more middlemen find themselves in the position of having little to offer.
Having said that, calling a golf course architect a middleman is not accurate in the least. You can build functional homes without an architect, and you could probably build a passable golf course without, but not likely anything that anyone on this site - or Mr. Whitten, for that matter - would seek out.
-
Many many courses will eliminate the middleman....
Mike
Not in the least personal about the matter, but is this a bad thing and if so, why?
Ciao
Sean, probably depends on the situation. There are occasions where an architect is collecting a high fee for doing little. This is particularly evident when they base their fee on a % of construction. In this case a considerable amount of the fee they collect could be based upon construction work that really does not involve them. As Jud said you can drive up and down the block of any American suburb and see the results of eliminating the "middleman". Not only really bad architecture but the landscaping is almost without exception horrific at every suburban home because the middleman was eliminated.
Kelly
I can see the results of architects as well. While I don't care for Whitten's tone, I get his message - too much bland work is produced and often in the name of this is what the punters want. I see that sosrt of attitude on here as well. The strength of an archie is his imagination and the experience to figure out ways to let his ideas come to fruition - sooo, archies should be driving the field. Instead, what I see a lot of is formulaic, lets try to please all golfers, take a poll type architecture. If that is what an archie wants to do then I just as soon cut him out.
I also raise the question merely to ask what sort of work is considered architecture and who qualifies as an archie? I think its an open ended situation where at least some guys are talented and more than capable of carrying out architectural work even if they don't consider themselves as such. In any case, the shop isn't anywhere near closed enough to talk about cutting out the middle man and it really meaning anything.
Ciao
-
I believe gca's have kind of shot themselves in the foot. For years, we offloaded many services we used to do - irrigation design, greens mix, full time on site reps, etc. in favor of other consultants and full time independent project managers (which some also reasonably favor to keep the reporting separate from the design) We have left control of the projects to others in the name of reducing liability and are now just responsible for the artwork, as it were. As per above, there are many projects where the cost of artwork is deemed too expensive, and we SHOULD be thinking in terms of reduced fees for reduced responsibility and as being part of a team rather than the leader of the team.
And, its hard to be too innovative if you aren't the leader of the pack on a team. Having a builder being the head guy automatically means that construction expediency, budget, etc. are the prime drivers over "pure design" whatever that is. Now, for the top end projects that think they need a signature, the architect led design build also works fine, because those projects have a budget, but if you choose the gca to lead, then design nearly automatically (perhaps within limits) leads the process. At the mid range, I have seen more resistance to architect led design-build. But where its accepted, its a factor of seemingly reducing design fees as part of the process.
Sorry to go a little OT on this one.
The world of buildings have the same range of issues.
-
Why hasn't anyone discussed the late Mike Strantz yet?
Did he push the envelope as an innovator or was he just a bit bored with the same old same old? ... and as a way to differentiate himself from the rest of the field.
-
I stopped paying attention to anything and everything this dude published after his article making the case that Gillette Ridge was a better golf course than Wintonbury Hills. I'm usually all for opinion, but a few comparisons are so clear cut that there really isn't room for disagreement. ;D
-
No one other than I.M. Pei could have ever come up with a glass pyramid for the Louvre.
No one lasts long if "the past is the only thing you bring to the drawing table" .
-
The last 20 years have been the most exciting in GCA since the Golden Age. To dismiss it as so much retro is a cop out.
-
Mike,
I don’t really like the premise of your posts that somehow drawing and plans are to be dismissed. I think drawing, sketching, etc. are an integral part of the design process that is ever bit as worthy as riding on a dozer. It is absolutely silly the comments on here that dismiss that part of the creative process. This DG in particular has a favor for certain architects who have drawn and sketched extensively. I think the problem with the “middleman” as you like to call some architects is their inflated sense of their monetary value to a project. You hear talk all the time about fees and it is astounding what some architects think they are worth and I can understand why some clubs cut them out eventually; it is insulting to every one else involved in the project. I think an architect who has a keen sense for integrating drawing within their design process will have a difficult time making a living and will be forced to participate in the construction process in some way in order to increase their value to the project and make a decent living. Still, that does not mean they are less valuable than the architect who solely designs from the seat of a dozer.
Diminishing the value of drawing is a ridiculous way to look at these issues. It is amazing how these difficult times have caused people in the business to act unethically on a grand scale and on how people here can be so backward in their thinking as to diminish such a valuable form of the design process.
Kelly,
Middleman was the term RW used..I just quoted it....I agree with you on the majority of your post....I did not say you needed no drawings....I think sketching is critical but I think for some there is an abundance of drawings that may never be of value all because the drawing is the main justification some architects have for billing the client....I never said one could design completely from the seat of a dozer....it's much better if one will just climb on top of the cab..much better view ;D ;D
-
So how does one explain the success of Old Mac then? If the golfing public is clamoring for something different, why are we trekking to the middle of nowhere Oregon and having so much fun playing a course with a bunch of tired ideas? Will Old Mac ultimately be considered innovative and/or a 'game changer' for getting us away from the soulless courses built during the boom times and back to the game's roots?
Is Ron taking the loss of his pet Dell and Biarritz holes at Erin Hills the wrong way?
-
Tell me again how many courses can Ron play in the US alone? I find the 600 of so in Scotland more than enough and boy are there some great little known courses among them.
Melvyn
-
Ron Whitten certainly seems to disagree with one of C.B. Macdonald's most important philosophical dictates on golf course architecture---eg "It would seem that in striving after "novelty and innovation," many builders of golf courses believe they are elevating the game. But what a sad contemplation!"
I would not necessarily disagree with Ron Whitten on his point about innovation in golf course architecture but of course the real question is what exactly can be done innovatively in the future with golf course architecture?
Golf and golf course architecture is certainly not particularly analogous to telephone technology or innovation in film or music which Whitten used as an example of something that has improved massively from novelty and innovation, and that therefore logically golf architecture should too!
Has Ron Whitten bothered to consider that golf and its architecture is a sport that inherently is supposed to mimic to some extent Nature itself and various component parts of Nature?
The same certainly cannot be said about telephones, films or music! ;)
-
Has Ron Whitten bothered to consider that golf and its architecture is a sport that inherently is supposed to mimic to some extent Nature itself and various component parts of Nature?
TePaul,
That is unknowable and a huge assumption! I know you think landscape architecture and golf architecture are completely different fields, but I think they are related. One famous LA, Sasaki, is famous for saying "the land is putty." In all of landscape design, its really the art of arranging the landscape for its intended human use.
Early efforts in gca were hampered by construction tech and money (starting in frugal Scotland, that was probably a given!) In truth, the history of gca is one of expanding the architecting of courses with new technology to get the "right" result. Even the minimalists will move a million yards of earth to get their look, according to TD.
Bunkers are the best example. Natural blowouts in Scotland, they migrated to everywhere. If its nature we were to emulate, few courses would have bunkers. If its the playing fields we are emulating, and those happened to have had sand bunkers, then that better explains why courses on any kind of soil get the bunker treatment, and bunkers that are highly abstract versions of the original sand blowouts in Scotland.
A highly philosophical question, to be sure.
-
Is Ron taking the loss of his pet Dell and Biarritz holes at Erin Hills the wrong way?
Jim:
I think this has a lot to do with the rant. Whitten I sense thought he was involved in something pretty unique at Erin Hills -- a truly minimalist work that could hold up to the best players in the world in US Open conditions/set-up. Erin Hills hasn't been radically altered, I'd suggest, but it has been changed in some significant ways, and although not wholly conventional, it's a more conventional course than originally built, or conceived. Whitten is well-known to be irked at some of these changes, notably the loss of the Dell hole, to the extent that (I read somewhere) he doesn't really want his name associated with the course anymore.
-
Following up on Jim's point about golfers trekking to Oregon to play Old MacDonald, they're undoubtedly doing so for the same reasons that baseball fans planned trips to Baltimore in the mid-90s to attend a game at Camden Yards. That ballpark and it's brethren, is the Polo Grounds with skyboxes, crab cakes and cupholders, in the same way that Old MacDonald is, say, North Berwick with a yardage book and a bag tag.
To quote James Earl Jones from Field of Dreams, which seems apropos - "The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But, baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and could be again." ;)
-
"I know you think landscape architecture and golf architecture are completely different fields, but I think they are related."
Jeffrey:
Unfortunately you seem to be getting a bit like Moriarty and MacWood on here-----ascribing thoughts and remarks to people they never said and do not think.
I never said that I don't think golf course architecture and landscape architecture are not related fields; of course they are and I most certainly am aware they have been for well over a century.
All I've ever said about landscape architecture's relationship to golf course architecture is that I do not believe that the LA "art principle" of "Emphasis" (to draw one's eye to the most important part) is a particularly good idea if it always means to draw the eye to the part of the presentation where one SHOULD hit the ball. I happen to believe that visual deception is a very large part of Nature and consequently should also be used in golf course architecture to some extent!
-
Early efforts in gca were hampered by construction tech and money (starting in frugal Scotland, that was probably a given!) In truth, the history of gca is one of expanding the architecting of courses with new technology to get the "right" result. Even the minimalists will move a million yards of earth to get their look, according to TD.
What does it say then that a majority of the best courses are from a time when the "architect" was hampered by construction tech and money where the "architecting" was at a minimum?
-
No one other than I.M. Pei could have ever come up with a glass pyramid for the Louvre.
"A scar on the face of Paris." - Jean Reno, Da Vinci Code
-
...
Has Ron Whitten bothered to consider that golf and its architecture is a sport that inherently is supposed to mimic to some extent Nature itself and various component parts of Nature?
...
What exactly did you think Melvyn's point was in his reply #3?
Is the reason you seem to be repelled by his posts that you are so much alike?
???
-
Garland
Wash your mouth out with soap, Tom P feels superior to me in every way, he looks down upon me - but that’s only because he is taller. If this is his way of supporting called friend then God Help us All, expect more Friendly Fire casualties in the future. :'(
One day Tom may actually read what he has written and remember that Merion is not the centre of the golfing universe, just another club and not that old a one either. Although reading comments from others its a rather good club and very good courses. Yet its seems to have been based upon ideas copied from other courses which I feel is fine but it’s no thoroughbred then. ;)
Melvyn
-
Garland
Wash your mouth out with soap, Tom P feels superior to me in every way, he looks down upon me - but that’s only because he is taller. If this is his way of supporting called friend then God Help us All, expect more Friendly Fire casualties in the future. :'(
...
Melvyn
Unfortunately, you came to late to the website to see the old Tom Paul, with the great sense of humor. He used to make me laugh a lot like you can.
-
I said on a different thread the other day, that I agree with a lot of what Ron said here. There were thousands of courses built in the last 20-year boom, and how many of them really strived to be something different? How many young architects have just memorized the best quotes from Mackenzie and Thomas, while never building a hole of their own as interesting as any of Thomas' sketches?
Then again, the most original course I built in Bandon is the one which is completely ignored, not only by the golf magazines but even by the owner.
-
I said on a different thread the other day, that I agree with a lot of what Ron said here. There were thousands of courses built in the last 20-year boom, and how many of them really strived to be something different? How many young architects have just memorized the best quotes from Mackenzie and Thomas, while never building a hole of their own as interesting as any of Thomas' sketches?
Then again, the most original course I built in Bandon is the one which is completely ignored, not only by the golf magazines but even by the owner.
Tom-Are you talking about Sheep Ranch? If so, why do you think it is ignored by everyone? (Not questioning whether or not it is ignored, but what reasons do you have for it being so)
-
Wasn't Mr. Whitten involved in the Architect's Club in NJ? Seems like it features "gussied-up reproductions, with strategies conjured up by Old Tom Morris or Old Macdonald, bunkers styled after Alister Mackenzie or George Thomas, and greens patterned on relics like the Redan, Biarritz and Eden." No?
The larger problem for me is the type of golf courses that are being exported to the developing world. A bad imitation of Mackenzie bunkering or a mediocre Eden hole would be a serious improvement to the vast majority of what has been built in the past 20 years.
-
I for one, think Ron Whitten has a point. Think about Tobacco Road and Tot Hill Farm and the innovation. Those courses maybe polarizing, but they present new challenges to the player. When I was still playing golf, I used to seek out courses that were different to complete my architectural experiences. That's one of the beauties of Scotland and Ireland and the quirky-ness over there.
I like alot of Pete Dyes work, certainly nnot all of it, but the River Course, Kiwaih and many others provided many days of great fun for me. For all the criticisn=m of Jim Engh, many of his holes were innovative and fun. The quarry at Giants Ridge, National Golf Links, and many others.
-
I stopped paying attention to anything and everything this dude published after his article making the case that Gillette Ridge was a better golf course than Wintonbury Hills. I'm usually all for opinion, but a few comparisons are so clear cut that there really isn't room for disagreement. ;D
Hahaha ... I'm glad a read through this entire thread, because I was about to post the same thing. It is rare that I would take issue with someone who prefers one course over another. It's such a subjective thing and there's lots of room for disagreement. But Gillette Ridge over Wintonbury? I don't even love Wintonbury but the two courses are in entirely different leagues.
The day he came out and recommended Gillette over Wintonbury was the day I stopped taking him seriously on anything.
-
No one other than I.M. Pei could have ever come up with a glass pyramid for the Louvre.
"A scar on the face of Paris." - Jean Reno, Da Vinci Code
David,
Perhaps, but an innovative idea.
Another example is in the Netherlands where housing is being built that can rise with floodwaters. Sounds perfect for New Orleans, yet no one is trying to adapt the technology into an affordable alternative.
Wonder why that is? No money in it, I guess, and that sentiment is probably shared in the world of GCA.
-
I read his self-described rant and I honestly don't think it's all that controversial. Maybe he's growing tired of the minimalism trend. All trends end, so maybe this one is getting a little long in the tooth in his opinion. He seems to be rebelling a little bit at the stale nature of the newer courses on the marketplace and I think many on this board would tend to agree that we're starting to see some repetition out there.
As for his outing of himself by alluding to Erin Hills, let me just say that the reworked golf course at Erin Hills is top-notch. Just great. I'm not sure exactly who stimulated all of the changes and it's not yet apparent whose architectural stamp is most responsible for the substantial tweaking, but I think they got it pretty much in shape for the Amateur next year. I sort of doubt that much major work will be done before the Open, but it will be fun to watch from the sidelines.