Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: John Mayhugh on July 21, 2020, 12:43:43 PM
-
In the July issue of Golf Digest, architecture editor has quite the rant about a lack of innovation in golf course architecture. I couldn't find the column online, but will share some excerpts:
- In the 53 years I’ve studied golf architecture, I’ve seen plenty of artistry, but almost no innovation.
- The problem is, every architect worships the past...and molds designs to those ancient templates.
- Nobody has an original thought
- Modern-day courses are gussied up reproductions
- If phone engineers thought like golf architects, our cell phones would still be attached to the wall.
- Don’t bother arguing that classic courses are ideal because the game hasn’t changed....Nothing is the same, except our golf courses.
- Architects embrace the past because it has been safe, marketable, and easy to produce.
- Instead of developing original golf holes to address 21st-century technology, time constraints, and resource limitations, architects are preoccupied with decrying technology and clamoring for a rollback in ball distance. Sorry folks, that’s called progress.
- With no more than a dozen courses under construction in the US, architects need to reinvent their product.
- If the past is the only thing you bring to the table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. (Whitten then mentions examples of a public course built by a golf contractor w/o an architect and Cypress Point restoring bunkers on their own.)
This column seemed somewhat bizarre to me – almost as if the writer is angry about something. Perhaps potential impact to advertising revenue if there is some sort of distance regulation? For sure, his definition of “progress” is pretty divergent from mine. His lone innovative idea in the column is to suggest a smaller hole. What a legacy that – combined with his advocacy of “resistance to scoring” – would be!
I’m happy that I don’t provide any revenue to that magazine (I’m using my library’s subscription).
-
The Dell hole he built at Erin Hills was innovative as hell. I loved it but sadly the golf world wasn’t ready.
-
In the July issue of Golf Digest, architecture editor has quite the rant about a lack of innovation in golf course architecture. I couldn't find the column online, but will share some excerpts:
- In the 53 years I’ve studied golf architecture, I’ve seen plenty of artistry, but almost no innovation.
- The problem is, every architect worships the past...and molds designs to those ancient templates.
- Nobody has an original thought
- Modern-day courses are gussied up reproductions
- If phone engineers thought like golf architects, our cell phones would still be attached to the wall.
- Don’t bother arguing that classic courses are ideal because the game hasn’t changed....Nothing is the same, except our golf courses.
- Architects embrace the past because it has been safe, marketable, and easy to produce.
- Instead of developing original golf holes to address 21st-century technology, time constraints, and resource limitations, architects are preoccupied with decrying technology and clamoring for a rollback in ball distance. Sorry folks, that’s called progress.
- With no more than a dozen courses under construction in the US, architects need to reinvent their product.
- If the past is the only thing you bring to the table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. (Whitten then mentions examples of a public course built by a golf contractor w/o an architect and Cypress Point restoring bunkers on their own.)
This column seemed somewhat bizarre to me – almost as if the writer is angry about something. Perhaps potential impact to advertising revenue if there is some sort of distance regulation? For sure, his definition of “progress” is pretty divergent from mine. His lone innovative idea in the column is to suggest a smaller hole. What a legacy that – combined with his advocacy of “resistance to scoring” – would be!
I’m happy that I don’t provide any revenue to that magazine (I’m using my library’s subscription).
I took note of the next to last bullet point which made reference to the fact that there are less than a dozen new courses under construction in the U.S. I don’t see this changing any time soon if ever. The second or new Golden Age is surely over.
-
Ron Witten's venting may have some merit, but many more are misplaced judgements fingering the wrong culprit.
- There are so few courses being built today because of oversupply in the market due to overbuilding during the 80s, 90s, 00s. Not the GCA fault that work for new builds are few and far between.
- Saying GCA's worship the past, maybe true although I would argue for good reason. If you invented the round wheel so we need to keep searching for different shaped wheels? The classic designers were very talented guys.
- Past GCA's were blessed with more access to prime land (think Long Island, California Coast, etc.) and with less environmental/building restrictions. How many coastal courses could even pass permitting nowadays?
- Being first at anything is the first movers advantage and copying is the highest form of flattery, I don't see anything wrong with stealing a template hole here or there. Witten makes it sound like there are 1000's Macdonald/Raynors out there (we could only wish).
- GCA's are limited by the land they build on, not every project can be Fazio bulldozing his way into the top 100. You are given land, make the best of it.
- I didn't read his article, but I'm sure he doesn't even address links golf, which IMO is pure golf. Why not advocate for finding more links land? Of course those are found on the coast and permitting would be impossible.
- Golf doesn't need longer courses to accommodate for technology, the PGA Tour does, which is a big difference.
- The vast majority of golfers are municipal cheap 18 hole rounds and that is your demographic to address for increasing/decreasing rounds of golf. I would guess 90% of public golfers don't even know who the designer of their home course is or cares.
- Those architecture fans are very few and far between, we are a very small slice of the golfing population so what we care about is really our own. We work within our circle of influence, not circle of concern. We have our concerns and wants and except for some very reputable people on here with clout in the industry, we are perfectly happy to hold them, not expecting the titanic to turn because we want it to.
-
No matter what he says there is a 95% chance Whitten is right and the posters on this site are wrong. He is a living legend in the field of modern architecture.
Whitten was a contributor here for a while. Can't imagine why he left.
-
It's true - he's likely right. But about what? If he believes it's time for golf courses to be designed in terms of players and not principles, and that gca should now strive to accommodate itself to the golfer instead of inviting the golfer to accommodate himself to the architecture, then he's right: i.e. his analysis and his prescription go hand in hand. But then again, if he's right that'll be the end of golf course architecture as we know it -- i.e. as it was conceived and flowered in the first golden age.
-
- Nobody has an original thought
This reminds me of someone who has a judgement, but not the knowledge to back it up. Ask him why? Don't do hit and runs, back it up. Example: many of us love the "spread offense" in college football. This isn't new as basically it is the old option attack from either the eye/double wing/ wishbone but out of a pistol formation. The blocking scheme for the OL is the same. So when someone says you are being really innovative by running the spread offense, the base run plays are blocked exactly the same they were in the 60's and 70's. The true innovation there is adding the passing dimension of the run/pass option (RPO) by the QB who reads a defender and puts them in a conflict to commit. However you need a very smart and accurate QB to execute that.
-
Jeff,
Why don't you read the article?
-
I know Ron well, and of course, the intent of the column is to generate discussion that drives magazine sales or website clicks.
The other explanation is akin to hearing a surprising answer from a government official......they are likely retiring and no longer have to answer to constituents, news media, etc. Nothing to lose so they tell the truth. In Ron's case, I am sure he was protecting his access to all gca's for more material for many years, and now really doesn't have to.
Many points are valid. In architecture, copying Beaux Arts or Art Deco eras is considered a low creative period, doing something new is more creative, a la, Frank Lloyd Wright, etc.
I fondly recall not getting a job but acing the interview. I went last, and said all gca's sounded pretty much alike, no? Nods all around. Then I launch into a presentation labeled "Designing for the Past? There is no future in it!" The job had been wired for a local architect who actually played the course, and whose fee as a result was about 20% of what it should have been. He got it, but the committee debated for a few days, and the park director used to seek me out until the day he retired. Moral victory, I guess.
Besides, if form follows function is a thing (and most designers believe it is....) then there is no way 100 year old design principles meet future needs. We face water quality and quantity issues, financial issues, liability issues, etc. not realized then. We need to incorporate those. Granted, the minimalism part of modern design does help address financial and sustainability issues, so there is value in that, and sometimes, old can be new again.
-
In the July issue of Golf Digest, architecture editor has quite the rant about a lack of innovation in golf course architecture. I couldn't find the column online, but will share some excerpts:
- In the 53 years I’ve studied golf architecture, I’ve seen plenty of artistry, but almost no innovation.
- The problem is, every architect worships the past...and molds designs to those ancient templates.
- Nobody has an original thought
- Modern-day courses are gussied up reproductions
- If phone engineers thought like golf architects, our cell phones would still be attached to the wall.
- Don’t bother arguing that classic courses are ideal because the game hasn’t changed....Nothing is the same, except our golf courses.
- Architects embrace the past because it has been safe, marketable, and easy to produce.
- Instead of developing original golf holes to address 21st-century technology, time constraints, and resource limitations, architects are preoccupied with decrying technology and clamoring for a rollback in ball distance. Sorry folks, that’s called progress.
- With no more than a dozen courses under construction in the US, architects need to reinvent their product.
- If the past is the only thing you bring to the table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. (Whitten then mentions examples of a public course built by a golf contractor w/o an architect and Cypress Point restoring bunkers on their own.)
This column seemed somewhat bizarre to me – almost as if the writer is angry about something. Perhaps potential impact to advertising revenue if there is some sort of distance regulation? For sure, his definition of “progress” is pretty divergent from mine. His lone innovative idea in the column is to suggest a smaller hole. What a legacy that – combined with his advocacy of “resistance to scoring” – would be!
I’m happy that I don’t provide any revenue to that magazine (I’m using my library’s subscription).
But time IS an issue! Rounds have gotten so slow and long that many people just do not have time or patience for golf in this faster paced society we live in. This is directly proportionate to things like ball distance, course length, too much long grass (and trees), and 5 mile drives/walks to the next tee.
Many superintendents are so versed in construction and building golf course items that building a few bunkers is a simple task, especially if the money is there to have the right people, operators, and equipment in house. I would trust some of them to this job before some of these by-the-night contractors I have seen.
-
I have great respect for Ron Whitten and his role in advancing our understanding of the history and events concerning architecture, but did he ever admit he was wrong about Joe Burbeck, in light of a number of contemporaneous articles unearthed since that time detailing Tillinghast's design of all 4 courses (at that time) at Bethpage?
-
Easy to throw stones. But, having worked as a GCA, where are his answers? Insisting on a hole he called the Dell hole in his career as a GCA is an innovation? Or, merely a replication of past work? I guess the innovation was in the English language by trying to expand the definition of dell to also encompass valley. ::)
-
Garland,
When working in collaboration with another gca or Tour Pro, we used to get the schtick going:
"If you like it, I did it. If you don't like it, he did it." ;)
And cross pollinating with the Playability thread, here's an original thought. You want difficult rough? Plant poison ivy. ;)
-
The other explanation is akin to hearing a surprising answer from a government official......they are likely retiring and no longer have to answer to constituents, news media, etc. Nothing to lose so they tell the truth. In Ron's case, I am sure he was protecting his access to all gca's for more material for many years, and now really doesn't have to.
Many points are valid. In architecture, copying Beaux Arts or Art Deco eras is considered a low creative period, doing something new is more creative, a la, Frank Lloyd Wright, etc.
I should probably wait until I can read the article . . . it has not arrived here yet. But as an architect AND a critic of architecture, while I agree with a few of the complaints listed above about modern design, I think it's embarrassing that a guy who has been the supposed leading critic of golf course architecture for 30+ years did not take more responsibility for trying to fix the problem.
I guess Ron would say that he has not been a critic but just the "architecture editor" for the nation's biggest golf publication . . . a position they never had, until he came along. And GOLF DIGEST did not really put him in the position of an art critic or movie critic; a considerable part of his bandwidth was to write up the results of their Top 100 and Best New lists like they were the gospel, even though he had no input into the results, and there were several cases where he did not agree with the results at all.
Ron tried hard not to pick sides and to be friendly with every architect who came around, but you just can't be a critic if you avoid criticizing people's work -- whether because you're trying not to pick sides, or because it's too icky. He had opinions, but a lot of times he kept them private. Ran should think about that part, too, if he wants to have a real impact on golf architecture.
Also, I thought he would be better at math: if there are 14,000 existing courses in the U.S. and only a dozen under construction, does it make more sense to tailor new courses to new equipment, or to regulate the equipment?
-
And cross pollinating with the Playability thread, here's an original thought. You want difficult rough? Plant poison ivy. ;)
Ernie Els called for "knee high rough" for tournaments just yesterday. I'm not sure all the players would agree though.
-
The internet sucks and it's going to be around a lot longer than the magazines. Most if not all artistic expression is a reflection of the past because it's the only thing social media understands. Thanks for reminding me why Whitten quit this site.
-
The other explanation is akin to hearing a surprising answer from a government official......they are likely retiring and no longer have to answer to constituents, news media, etc. Nothing to lose so they tell the truth. In Ron's case, I am sure he was protecting his access to all gca's for more material for many years, and now really doesn't have to.
Many points are valid. In architecture, copying Beaux Arts or Art Deco eras is considered a low creative period, doing something new is more creative, a la, Frank Lloyd Wright, etc.
I should probably wait until I can read the article . . . it has not arrived here yet. But as an architect AND a critic of architecture, while I agree with a few of the complaints listed above about modern design, I think it's embarrassing that a guy who has been the supposed leading critic of golf course architecture for 30+ years did not take more responsibility for trying to fix the problem.
I guess Ron would say that he has not been a critic but just the "architecture editor" for the nation's biggest golf publication . . . a position they never had, until he came along. And GOLF DIGEST did not really put him in the position of an art critic or movie critic; a considerable part of his bandwidth was to write up the results of their Top 100 and Best New lists like they were the gospel, even though he had no input into the results, and there were several cases where he did not agree with the results at all.
Ron tried hard not to pick sides and to be friendly with every architect who came around, but you just can't be a critic if you avoid criticizing people's work -- whether because you're trying not to pick sides, or because it's too icky. He had opinions, but a lot of times he kept them private. Ran should think about that part, too, if he wants to have a real impact on golf architecture.
Also, I thought he would be better at math: if there are 14,000 existing courses in the U.S. and only a dozen under construction, does it make more sense to tailor new courses to new equipment, or to regulate the equipment?
Tom,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by virtue of setting the quantitative parameters and categories didn't Ron Whitten exercise tremendous input into the GD ratings and results??
Finally, having read plenty of Ron Whitten's published work over the years, I always found him a hypocrite....no less than some of the others in his position...but a hypocrite nonetheless. He advocated for big, tough and difficult, then had the mendacity to complain about overwatering, over manicuring and excessively bright green maintenance.
-
If he is advocating for more gca creativity, he should NOT start proposing solutions. That would amount to just prescribing a different set of design or aesthetic rules.
Of course, you could argue that most of us in the gca profession did at least subconsciously design to his and other magazines ratings systems, so in a way, he is criticizing his own self, too.
-
Given he's co-designed what two courses, and one of em was a tribute course to the ODGs??
The irony appears to be beyond off the charts with a rant like that.
P.S. I always confuse him with Rod Whitman, who actually did create a gem in Sagebrush with more than a handful of very unique holes!
-
"Instead of developing original golf holes to address 21st-century technology, time constraints, and resource limitations, architects are preoccupied with decrying technology and clamoring for a rollback in ball distance. Sorry folks, that’s called progress."Could one design a course that fits 21st century technology (driver, ball, green speeds) with limited resources (land) in a format that allows for time constraints? Feels like these are mutually exclusive goals.
-
At one of the Affordable Golf Seminars a few years back, Mr. Whitten gave talk about his unfortunate foray into golf course ownership. At the time, it confirmed what I thought for a long time ...... Golf is a rough business.
What direction should golf design go?
- flexible length, multiple par options each day?
- more reversible courses?
- each 6 holes returning to the clubhouse?
- bunkerless?
-
I mostly agree with Ron.
Being from an architecture background there is so much pastiche in terms of buildings mainly houses (or Noddy Homes as I call them) the problem is that clients or designers like what they see there is not many that think outside the box or encourage the designer to come up with new ideas.
This can also be an issue with capitalism where it is safety first from an design standpoint and profit driven approach rather than take risks with long term rather than short term benefits.
The likes of Pete Dye, Desmond Muirhead and Von Hagge in the early years were experimental in their designs some of them were looking out of the box and the longer their careers went on it got a bit stale unlike the architect James Stirling evolved his designs as time went on.
The 'minimalists' have to me reinvented the circle and reproduced or restored courses to be more like the golden age. The quality of the design is much better compared to the 1950-90s era which was more like aircraft strip courses with little strategy. However there has not been an innovative design which is a game changer like the early Pete Dye designs did for that particular 1960/70s era which most seemed to follow the RTJ trend. The new course designs for me feels repetitive in 2020 rather than a wider variety of different design styles.
The question I have to the GCAers - would you change your style for the purpose of doing something different to what you have done before?
-
The 'minimalists' have to me reinvented the circle and reproduced or restored courses to be more like the golden age. The quality of the design is much better compared to the 1950-90s era which was more like aircraft strip courses with little strategy. However there has not been an innovative design which is a game changer like the early Pete Dye designs did for that particular 1960/70s era which most seemed to follow the RTJ trend. The new course designs for me feels repetitive in 2020 rather than a wider variety of different design styles.
The question I have to the GCAers - would you change your style for the purpose of doing something different to what you have done before?
Ben:
If you wanted to, you could also say Mr. Dye was not being original for taking the railroad tie sleepers he saw at Prestwick and using them in various ways on his courses.
I guess to answer your question I would have to understand what you are calling my "style". I've done courses with huge greens and with tiny ones. I've built all different kinds of bunkers, from as many as 125 and as few as 18. I've built courses where we moved 800,000 cubic yards vs. ones where we moved 8,000. I've built a course that's super hard [Sebonack] and one that's super easy [The Mulligan]. I've even built a reversible course.
About the only things I haven't done are to build an 8,000 yard long course -- which I just don't think sends the right message into the world -- or to build one that feels entirely unnatural, though I might do just that if presented again with a flat and boring site. The latter would go against my brand but I am not the least bit concerned with that. I am more concerned with stretching the envelope, because I can, and because nobody else seems to want to.
-
If he is advocating for more gca creativity, he should NOT start proposing solutions. That would amount to just prescribing a different set of design or aesthetic rules.
...
This makes no sense to me. If he wants more creativity, and apparently cannot suggest some, it seems to me he is just farting into the wind.
How about a reversible course? (Tom Doak, Dan Hixson) Is that no creative enough? How about a par 72 course with tee extensions on each hole to allow it to be played as a par 90? (John Daly) Creative enough? How about a course with 18 holes each of distinct length where listing in order by hole length plots as a straight line (Tom Doak Olympic course proposal) Creative?
-
Tom,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by virtue of setting the quantitative parameters and categories didn't Ron Whitten exercise tremendous input into the GD ratings and results??
GOLF DIGEST's definition of what is a great course was written by their publisher, Bill Davis, in the early 1970's.
They never applied it to their rankings of the courses [or did any math at all] until 1985, which was either just before they hired Ron as architectural editor, or just after . . . but he did not decide what the categories were, and at most he was allowed to tinker with the controls a bit by trying to rewrite the definitions. [For example, he wrote in "fairness" as a part of resistance to scoring.]
I think the biggest influence he had on the rankings was in writing up all of the Best New candidates for panelists to decide what they might go see. You could tell when he was enthusiastic about a course or wasn't, and raters are always looking for cues from above.
-
Garland,
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you! :D There is value in both muck raking (see, every newspaper ever) and throwing down the gauntlet to others more qualified than yourself to carry it.
All the examples you give are gimmicks, not design paradigms.
I would say Pete Dye was a new design paradigm. Sure, he took lots of old elements, but by the time he was done with them, they really weren't old scot courses, nor did they look like RTJ, Fazio, etc. Heck, RTJ was a design paradigm until he got too busy.
Pete may have copied styles....mostly his own later on, LOL, but he never set out to create a course in the look of something older, and hence, created something new.
Ben,
Way to stereotype entire generations! I would say the post war courses were made by and for their times, all things considered, including introducing people to the game (hence, housing courses) using new fangled automatic irrigation to expand the turf panels, etc. Technology has always shaped design to a degree, and typically, early uses of same tend to morph into better versions later.
Not quite sure of your last sentence in your next to last paragraph? Are you saying the current minimalist (or whatever) trend is now on the verge of being tired and over done? I have heard some say that. And, that trend is 20 years old, so it really may be time for the "next big thing." But I could also argue that there is more design variety than ever across the board, with so many associates from so many different firms testing their wares. That said, probably the most experimentation goes on when the money is flowing, which certainly isn't the case now.
As always, just MHO.
-
The 'minimalists' have to me reinvented the circle and reproduced or restored courses to be more like the golden age. The quality of the design is much better compared to the 1950-90s era which was more like aircraft strip courses with little strategy. However there has not been an innovative design which is a game changer like the early Pete Dye designs did for that particular 1960/70s era which most seemed to follow the RTJ trend. The new course designs for me feels repetitive in 2020 rather than a wider variety of different design styles.
The question I have to the GCAers - would you change your style for the purpose of doing something different to what you have done before?
Ben:
If you wanted to, you could also say Mr. Dye was not being original for taking the railroad tie sleepers he saw at Prestwick and using them in various ways on his courses.
I guess to answer your question I would have to understand what you are calling my "style". I've done courses with huge greens and with tiny ones. I've built all different kinds of bunkers, from as many as 125 and as few as 18. I've built courses where we moved 800,000 cubic yards vs. ones where we moved 8,000. I've built a course that's super hard [Sebonack] and one that's super easy [The Mulligan]. I've even built a reversible course.
About the only things I haven't done are to build an 8,000 yard long course -- which I just don't think sends the right message into the world -- or to build one that feels entirely unnatural, though I might do just that if presented again with a flat and boring site. The latter would go against my brand but I am not the least bit concerned with that. I am more concerned with stretching the envelope, because I can, and because nobody else seems to want to.
Tom
Pete Dye did his courses his way and they are different to the Joneses, Rosses and he did have past and future references the island green wasn't a new invention however the way he did it in his own style with timber bulkheads and the spectator mounding around it was there a stadium course designed before this? the bendy straight lined fairways bordering the long and think bunkers plus small bunkers in places like a optical illusion.
Your style is quite similar across the spectrum of the courses you have done - I have played two of your courses St Andrews Beach and the Renaissance Club which both feel like a Doak course like Dye, Ross and Jones have done - I really liked SAB more than Renaissance. I have not seen one from you and your team that is really very contrasting in terms of style and design approach. Its ok to be in a comfort zone in terms of design and if it attracts clients then you are doing something right.
Ron is pointing out that there has not really been something out of the box in terms of golf course design pushing new boundaries and being innovative which I agree.
Architecture is much more different to GCA there are more contrasting styles and different approaches - for Americans someone like Frank Gehry (even though he is Canadian!) who is more like the Pete Dye of Architecture if it was the other way round he is more predictable and stale at the moment. Theres also Morphosis and even BIG from Denmark who are riding on a crest of a wave at the moment in the states. Eric Owen Moss is one crazy architect with amazing visions. There is no-one similar to these people/companies when it comes to GCA.
Cheers
Ben
-
In the July issue of Golf Digest, architecture editor has quite the rant about a lack of innovation in golf course architecture. I couldn't find the column online, but will share some excerpts:
- In the 53 years I’ve studied golf architecture, I’ve seen plenty of artistry, but almost no innovation.
- The problem is, every architect worships the past...and molds designs to those ancient templates.
- Nobody has an original thought
- Modern-day courses are gussied up reproductions
- If phone engineers thought like golf architects, our cell phones would still be attached to the wall.
- Don’t bother arguing that classic courses are ideal because the game hasn’t changed....Nothing is the same, except our golf courses.
- Architects embrace the past because it has been safe, marketable, and easy to produce.
- Instead of developing original golf holes to address 21st-century technology, time constraints, and resource limitations, architects are preoccupied with decrying technology and clamoring for a rollback in ball distance. Sorry folks, that’s called progress.
- With no more than a dozen courses under construction in the US, architects need to reinvent their product.
- If the past is the only thing you bring to the table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. (Whitten then mentions examples of a public course built by a golf contractor w/o an architect and Cypress Point restoring bunkers on their own.)
This column seemed somewhat bizarre to me – almost as if the writer is angry about something. Perhaps potential impact to advertising revenue if there is some sort of distance regulation? For sure, his definition of “progress” is pretty divergent from mine. His lone innovative idea in the column is to suggest a smaller hole. What a legacy that – combined with his advocacy of “resistance to scoring” – would be!
I’m happy that I don’t provide any revenue to that magazine (I’m using my library’s subscription).
John,
If your excerpts accurately reflect Whitten’s article, then I don’t mind saying he comes across very poorly. Funny you should use the word “angry”. It brings to mind Whitten’s tone when he reviewed Geoff Shackelford’s enjoyable little novel “The Good Doctor Returns”. It is time for him to retire.
-
Garland,
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you! :D There is value in both muck raking (see, every newspaper ever) and throwing down the gauntlet to others more qualified than yourself to carry it.
All the examples you give are gimmicks, not design paradigms.
I would say Pete Dye was a new design paradigm. Sure, he took lots of old elements, but by the time he was done with them, they really weren't old scot courses, nor did they look like RTJ, Fazio, etc. Heck, RTJ was a design paradigm until he got too busy.
Pete may have copied styles....mostly his own later on, LOL, but he never set out to create a course in the look of something older, and hence, created something new.
Ben,
Way to stereotype entire generations! I would say the post war courses were made by and for their times, all things considered, including introducing people to the game (hence, housing courses) using new fangled automatic irrigation to expand the turf panels, etc. Technology has always shaped design to a degree, and typically, early uses of same tend to morph into better versions later.
Not quite sure of your last sentence in your next to last paragraph? Are you saying the current minimalist (or whatever) trend is now on the verge of being tired and over done? I have heard some say that. And, that trend is 20 years old, so it really may be time for the "next big thing." But I could also argue that there is more design variety than ever across the board, with so many associates from so many different firms testing their wares. That said, probably the most experimentation goes on when the money is flowing, which certainly isn't the case now.
As always, just MHO.
Jeff,
There are different eras some may be longer than others. I am just saying people can get tired of repetition when it comes to design and at times will go with something different and new style. Blockbuster is a classic example of a company not adapting to the changes.
The next generation of golfers may be less interested in the natural look and may prefer a different possibly more 'computerised' approach who knows. They may prefer to play night golf - with the use of LED lighting. Will designers adapt to accommodate the taste and requirements of a younger generation?
Was golf course design influenced by fashion and architecture of the eras in the past and will they in the future?
Pete Dye changed the design style of American courses probably single handedly in the 1960s he probably has the biggest influence on a large number of present GCAers. Tom D has been a huge influence to many in the 21st century so far. What will be the next big thing?
The past is the past, the future is a mystery, today is a gift which is why its called present.
Will there be a golf course entirely created by a 3D printer in the near future?
Will Artificial Intelligence become the golf course designers of the future?
Lots of questions and the next big thing may just be around the corner who knows. Variety is the spice of life ;D
-
what about a 9 hole course, with 3 par 3s, 3 par 4s and 3 par 5s. On the second loop the par 4s become par 5s and vice versa.
Weiser (ID) had a 9 hole course with three 3 hole loops coming back to the clubhouse for hourly (?) refreshment replenishment.
-
I think Ron Whitten is likely confusing creativity with something that appeals to everyone.
-
Also.
A golf course is novel/creative to every newcomer to the game.
It's only we curmudgeons that have seen everything.
...except for maybe a score under 70. But that requires practice. Probably too much work.
Yeah, the architects are the ones getting lazy.
-
I wonder when was the last time Ron played with a new golfer and which course that was on?
-
Your style is quite similar across the spectrum of the courses you have done - I have played two of your courses St Andrews Beach and the Renaissance Club which both feel like a Doak course like Dye, Ross and Jones have done - I really liked SAB more than Renaissance. I have not seen one from you and your team that is really very contrasting in terms of style and design approach. Its ok to be in a comfort zone in terms of design and if it attracts clients then you are doing something right.
Cheers
Ben
I've built 40 courses, and you've seen two of them [which were built three years apart, both on sites close to the ocean but just removed], and you are disappointed that they did not contrast more?
Maybe you should go to my site [www.doakgolf.com] and have a look at more of the courses I've done. The ones by the ocean are the most highly ranked, but they are not the sum total of my work.
Regarding your comparisons to building architecture: years ago I had a (potential) client who was a huge Frank Lloyd Wright fan. When I told him that his site was too difficult and rocky to build something, he said that FLW said no site was impossible, to which I responded, yes, but FLW didn't have to maintain grass on 60 acres. The client went ahead and spent several million dollars to prove me wrong . . . but no one thinks the course is groundbreaking architecture. I was surprised to find that it's still there, I've not heard anything about it for twenty years!
-
Critics were surprised (and many were aghast) when the father of hot jazz, Louis Armstrong, listed the saccharine-sweet Guy Lombardo dance band as one of his favourites. He said: 'There's only two types of music, good and bad'. He understood in his bones what the critics for all their book learning somehow didn't, ie that the fundamental 'structures' of music applied across the whole spectrum of tastes -- the same way that theatre/film as diverse as a Shakespearean tragedy, a John Ford western and a (supposedly) outside the box Coen Brothers comedy all adhere to the same narrative patterns. What sets them apart from most tragedies and westerns and comedies is not that they are 'original' but that they are better.
-
As an amateur, I wade in carefully. But who really cares if something is new and different? I have not played TOC, but I have had the pleasure of playing NB and RD and Ballybunion and a few Golden Age courses in the US. I also have played at Bandon and Streamsong. Are those modern courses derivative? Maybe, but they are terrific courses so once again, where is the complaint? The difference between golf course architecture and art or even building architecture is that gca needs to serve the function of playing a game with prescribed rules and equipment. Art, Literature, and Music can expand boundaries that affect our view of life. I am not sure that gca can or should carry that quest.
Ira
-
The internet sucks and it's going to be around a lot longer than the magazines. Most if not all artistic expression is a reflection of the past because it's the only thing social media understands. Thanks for reminding me why Whitten quit this site.
First its Kim and Kanye and now this. It’s a lot for one day. Thanks internet. ::)
-
The casual observer may be one to say that the modern baseball stadium offers more variance than golf course architecture. On that note the powers that be see how the long ball saved baseball and don't mind to follow.
-
If Mike Strantz lived longer, what shape would this thread take?
Mr. Stephens,
I am an Architect myself.
I more than defend the work Gehry, Morphosis, BIG & Moss as exceptional talents working for the 1/1000 of 1 percent of clients who have a very open mind and able to sign multiple blank checks for a project.
But sadly, do those projects really touch the lives of enough people to really make a difference at a societal scale?
Which is the argument for making the most out of projects with modest to moderate budgets.
-
Garland,
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you! :D There is value in both muck raking (see, every newspaper ever) and throwing down the gauntlet to others more qualified than yourself to carry it.
All the examples you give are gimmicks, not design paradigms.
I would say Pete Dye was a new design paradigm. Sure, he took lots of old elements, but by the time he was done with them, they really weren't old scot courses, nor did they look like RTJ, Fazio, etc. Heck, RTJ was a design paradigm until he got too busy.
Pete may have copied styles....mostly his own later on, LOL, but he never set out to create a course in the look of something older, and hence, created something new.
Ben,
Way to stereotype entire generations! I would say the post war courses were made by and for their times, all things considered, including introducing people to the game (hence, housing courses) using new fangled automatic irrigation to expand the turf panels, etc. Technology has always shaped design to a degree, and typically, early uses of same tend to morph into better versions later.
Not quite sure of your last sentence in your next to last paragraph? Are you saying the current minimalist (or whatever) trend is now on the verge of being tired and over done? I have heard some say that. And, that trend is 20 years old, so it really may be time for the "next big thing." But I could also argue that there is more design variety than ever across the board, with so many associates from so many different firms testing their wares. That said, probably the most experimentation goes on when the money is flowing, which certainly isn't the case now.
As always, just MHO.
Jeff,
There are different eras some may be longer than others. I am just saying people can get tired of repetition when it comes to design and at times will go with something different and new style. Blockbuster is a classic example of a company not adapting to the changes.
The next generation of golfers may be less interested in the natural look and may prefer a different possibly more 'computerised' approach who knows. They may prefer to play night golf - with the use of LED lighting. Will designers adapt to accommodate the taste and requirements of a younger generation?
Was golf course design influenced by fashion and architecture of the eras in the past and will they in the future?
Pete Dye changed the design style of American courses probably single handedly in the 1960s he probably has the biggest influence on a large number of present GCAers. Tom D has been a huge influence to many in the 21st century so far. What will be the next big thing?
The past is the past, the future is a mystery, today is a gift which is why its called present.
Will there be a golf course entirely created by a 3D printer in the near future?
Will Artificial Intelligence become the golf course designers of the future?
Lots of questions and the next big thing may just be around the corner who knows. Variety is the spice of life ;D
Ben,
Lots of good questions.
I agree golf will have to adapt more than the next gen will adapt to golf. More casual, more inclusive, more tech, at least as far as I can tell right now. Given the sun avoidance mantra and global warming, playing golf at night might make sense, given the relatively lower power use of LED lighting. Form follows function, and businesses follow their customers.
For that matter, the graphics possible now mean that you could stay indoors at a high tech simulator and play without moving, feeling good about this new video game, LOL. Why play the crappy muni down the street when you can play, say, Pebble Beach indoors and cool in a very realistic fashion. No more 200 acres of irrigated turf, just about 10,000 SF of simulator in every big city, probably placed in long abandoned malls or offices.
Do we think its golf? No, but then, no one died and made us king, LOL.
As to AI, you can bet I am more likely to answer yes, and Tom Doak is more likely to answer no. But really, whether we like to admit it or not, there is more formula in golf design, all design, than most think. Maybe gca's will be like airline pilots - the plane flies itself and the pilot is there merely for emergency over rides, just like a gca would "tweak" the artistry if the computer just couldn't get it right. But, I do think AI can design and be creative. The Golden 5 to 8 ratio, for example is well known, and why could it not be plugged into computers, who might place that little bump in the green 5/8th of the way from front to back, or carry a ridge 5/8 across a green? Artistic GCA's do that sort of by feel.
Creativity is really just a mindset of trying literally millions of combinations until the best fit comes to you for your particular set of design needs. Who tries millions of combos better than a computer?
-
Jeff,
I think you may misunderstand gimmick and paradigm. Ron Whitten, bless his heart, may be looking for a paradigm shift, not more gimmicks. The current paradigm is 18 holes beginning at the clubhouse, and ending at the clubhouse, often also returning to the clubhouse after 9 holes, with a par generally around 71 or 72. Pars 3s are generally in an accepted range, par 4s are generally in a accepted range, and par 5s everything beyond the par 4 range. Almost all the courses that Ron sees little to no innovation in follow this paradigm. Pete Dye has his gimmicks. Sleepers. Vast numbers of bunkers. Excessive water. Draw fade/fade draw sequences. But, all simply stylistic gimmicks within the paradigm.
This paradigm is ingrained into the golf world so much that it appears to me that Ron should be complaining about the clients, not the architects. Forrest R. wanted to build a par 2. The client nixed it. Where are the par 6s? Tom D tells on this website things clients have nixed on him. Perhaps Pete Dye does get farther outside the paradigm than most by going ahead and doing things the client has forbidden.
However, A par 90 course is certainly a paradigm shift. Perhaps not one that many will follow. Certainly not many on this website that are so bored with golf that they generally don't like par 5s, or at least claim they don't find many to their liking. Perhaps these disciples of John Low should question his paradigm.
A course where a 36 hole tournament with a shotgun start can be played with just 18 greens (or 27 in the case of Silvies Valley) by simply turning around and going the other way after having played 18 is certainly a paradigm shift.
A course where the holes step equal amounts in length erases the typical boundaries between par 3s, par 4s, and par 5s. Once again outside the standard paradigm.
-
I'm also not sure if he ever played a Jim Engh course. While he re-uses his own templates quite a bit, when you're on a Engh course you really know it, its pretty unique stuff. Is #11 at Black Rock not out of the box for him?
-
... But, I do think AI can design and be creative. The Golden 5 to 8 ratio, for example is well known, and why could it not be plugged into computers, who might place that little bump in the green 5/8th of the way from front to back, or carry a ridge 5/8 across a green? Artistic GCA's do that sort of by feel.
Creativity is really just a mindset of trying literally millions of combinations until the best fit comes to you for your particular set of design needs. Who tries millions of combos better than a computer?
Creativity is the least capability of AI. AI will give you best fit, not most creative.
-
Garland,
I know the difference, but guess I am so brainwashed by golf culture, I didn't consider moving away from 18 holes, which would be a major paradigm shift after 500+ years. And, it might be forced upon us by water restrictions, etc.
Unstated in his piece and most assumptions here is that any design idea goes from a creative problem solved to a practical design standard to an overused and trite convention over the course of it's life, much like an aging comedian telling the same old tired jokes.
But, design is different than art, as the customer must use the final product, so many of those conventions have a reason for sticking around. Then, someone questions it, tries something different. If its like most things, maybe 10% of those new ideas are great, 80% are not much different, and 10% come out really badly. That is the beauty and curse of the free market. You couldn't achieve the variety we have now if people weren't free to design something new, hence my comment that Ron should not try to dictate what good design is, any more than he already has. Wait for it to happen, everyone passes judgement, and then we move on to the next thing or things. The entire evolution process does have its hits and misses.
Like my brother used to joke, there is a reason no one uses chocolate sauce on roast beef....no doubt it was tried somewhere and found sorely lacking.
-
... But, I do think AI can design and be creative. The Golden 5 to 8 ratio, for example is well known, and why could it not be plugged into computers, who might place that little bump in the green 5/8th of the way from front to back, or carry a ridge 5/8 across a green? Artistic GCA's do that sort of by feel.
Creativity is really just a mindset of trying literally millions of combinations until the best fit comes to you for your particular set of design needs. Who tries millions of combos better than a computer?
Creativity is the least capability of AI. AI will give you best fit, not most creative.
Just for the sake of argument, I would say that one reason for lack of human creativity is previous bias, and the tendency to fall into patterns, i.e., shower then shave every morning. It is possible that a computer, undaunted by human bias would give you the best fit, that the limits of the human mind might never stumble on. And, by being an idea humans wouldn't have likely thought of, it would seem creative to us. But, again, this is all just fun debate, I am not going to argue anything too strenuously here.
Creativity is, by one definition, the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination:
-
...
Like my brother used to joke, there is a reason no one uses chocolate sauce on roast beef....no doubt it was tried somewhere and found sorely lacking.
That's because they must have used milk chocolate or some other very sweet chocolate. Melt some 90% cocoa in a very robust dry red wine and pour it on your beef. Yum!
-
The 'minimalists' have to me reinvented the circle and reproduced or restored courses to be more like the golden age. The quality of the design is much better compared to the 1950-90s era which was more like aircraft strip courses with little strategy. However there has not been an innovative design which is a game changer like the early Pete Dye designs did for that particular 1960/70s era which most seemed to follow the RTJ trend. The new course designs for me feels repetitive in 2020 rather than a wider variety of different design styles.
The question I have to the GCAers - would you change your style for the purpose of doing something different to what you have done before?
Ben:
If you wanted to, you could also say Mr. Dye was not being original for taking the railroad tie sleepers he saw at Prestwick and using them in various ways on his courses.
I guess to answer your question I would have to understand what you are calling my "style". I've done courses with huge greens and with tiny ones. I've built all different kinds of bunkers, from as many as 125 and as few as 18. I've built courses where we moved 800,000 cubic yards vs. ones where we moved 8,000. I've built a course that's super hard [Sebonack] and one that's super easy [The Mulligan]. I've even built a reversible course.
About the only things I haven't done are to build an 8,000 yard long course -- which I just don't think sends the right message into the world -- or to build one that feels entirely unnatural, though I might do just that if presented again with a flat and boring site. The latter would go against my brand but I am not the least bit concerned with that. I am more concerned with stretching the envelope, because I can, and because nobody else seems to want to.
Tom
Pete Dye did his courses his way and they are different to the Joneses, Rosses and he did have past and future references the island green wasn't a new invention however the way he did it in his own style with timber bulkheads and the spectator mounding around it was there a stadium course designed before this? the bendy straight lined fairways bordering the long and think bunkers plus small bunkers in places like a optical illusion.
Your style is quite similar across the spectrum of the courses you have done - I have played two of your courses St Andrews Beach and the Renaissance Club which both feel like a Doak course like Dye, Ross and Jones have done - I really liked SAB more than Renaissance. I have not seen one from you and your team that is really very contrasting in terms of style and design approach. Its ok to be in a comfort zone in terms of design and if it attracts clients then you are doing something right.
Ron is pointing out that there has not really been something out of the box in terms of golf course design pushing new boundaries and being innovative which I agree.
Architecture is much more different to GCA there are more contrasting styles and different approaches - for Americans someone like Frank Gehry (even though he is Canadian!) who is more like the Pete Dye of Architecture if it was the other way round he is more predictable and stale at the moment. Theres also Morphosis and even BIG from Denmark who are riding on a crest of a wave at the moment in the states. Eric Owen Moss is one crazy architect with amazing visions. There is no-one similar to these people/companies when it comes to GCA.
Cheers
Ben
Ben,
With regard to your comments about St Andrews Beach and the Renaissance Club, did you mean to suggest a sample size of two is sufficient to judge an architect’s work?
FYI, I have seen far more of Tom’s work, but I don’t recall seeing a “Doak course”. You mentioned St Andrews Beach (which I love). What about Cape Kidnappers or Barnbougle? Are those “Doak courses”?
-
For that matter, the graphics possible now mean that you could stay indoors at a high tech simulator and play without moving, feeling good about this new video game, LOL. Why play the crappy muni down the street when you can play, say, Pebble Beach indoors and cool in a very realistic fashion. No more 200 acres of irrigated turf, just about 10,000 SF of simulator in every big city, probably placed in long abandoned malls or offices.
Do we think its golf? No, but then, no one died and made us king, LOL.
As to AI, you can bet I am more likely to answer yes, and Tom Doak is more likely to answer no. But really, whether we like to admit it or not, there is more formula in golf design, all design, than most think. Maybe gca's will be like airline pilots - the plane flies itself and the pilot is there merely for emergency over rides, just like a gca would "tweak" the artistry if the computer just couldn't get it right. But, I do think AI can design and be creative. The Golden 5 to 8 ratio, for example is well known, and why could it not be plugged into computers, who might place that little bump in the green 5/8th of the way from front to back, or carry a ridge 5/8 across a green? Artistic GCA's do that sort of by feel.
Creativity is really just a mindset of trying literally millions of combinations until the best fit comes to you for your particular set of design needs. Who tries millions of combos better than a computer?
Jeff:
Well, that's just the Infinite Monkey Theorem. [For those unfamiliar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem) ]
Sometimes I think half the posters on GCA are trying it out.
But randomly putting together ideas is not really design, is it? How will the AI know when to stop?
Your first part about simulator golf, though: unfortunately, I think that's the future for most "golf course designers" 50-100 years from now. Maybe Ben will be one of them. It answers all the questions about golf's use of natural resources, and it offers way more possibilities than traditional courses. [I have always wanted to build a course where you could play shots off walls of buildings, etc., but buildings are pretty expensive to build as props for a golf hole.] At least one former GCA participant now spends a lot of his spare time playing real and imagined courses on his simulator.
Having spent just enough time living in the UK, that prospect makes me deeply sad, because golf will then have been reduced from the natural and healthy pastime that it was to just another video game. I hope at least a few of my courses will survive the transition.
-
I'm also not sure if he ever played a Jim Engh course. While he re-uses his own templates quite a bit, when you're on a Engh course you really know it, its pretty unique stuff. Is #11 at Black Rock not out of the box for him?
Are you referring to Ron Whitten? He was one of Jim Engh's biggest champions, and loved how "out of the box" he was.
I don't think Jim's courses were as varied from one to the next as mine are, but maybe I just couldn't see past the look of them, as some people can't see past the fact that I don't build many flat greens.
-
For that matter, the graphics possible now mean that you could stay indoors at a high tech simulator and play without moving, feeling good about this new video game, LOL. Why play the crappy muni down the street when you can play, say, Pebble Beach indoors and cool in a very realistic fashion. No more 200 acres of irrigated turf, just about 10,000 SF of simulator in every big city, probably placed in long abandoned malls or offices.
Do we think its golf? No, but then, no one died and made us king, LOL.
As to AI, you can bet I am more likely to answer yes, and Tom Doak is more likely to answer no. But really, whether we like to admit it or not, there is more formula in golf design, all design, than most think. Maybe gca's will be like airline pilots - the plane flies itself and the pilot is there merely for emergency over rides, just like a gca would "tweak" the artistry if the computer just couldn't get it right. But, I do think AI can design and be creative. The Golden 5 to 8 ratio, for example is well known, and why could it not be plugged into computers, who might place that little bump in the green 5/8th of the way from front to back, or carry a ridge 5/8 across a green? Artistic GCA's do that sort of by feel.
Creativity is really just a mindset of trying literally millions of combinations until the best fit comes to you for your particular set of design needs. Who tries millions of combos better than a computer?
Jeff:
Well, that's just the Infinite Monkey Theorem. [For those unfamiliar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem) ]
Sometimes I think half the posters on GCA are trying it out.
But randomly putting together ideas is not really design, is it? How will the AI know when to stop?
Your first part about simulator golf, though: unfortunately, I think that's the future for most "golf course designers" 50-100 years from now. Maybe Ben will be one of them. It answers all the questions about golf's use of natural resources, and it offers way more possibilities than traditional courses. [I have always wanted to build a course where you could play shots off walls of buildings, etc., but buildings are pretty expensive to build as props for a golf hole.] At least one former GCA participant now spends a lot of his spare time playing real and imagined courses on his simulator.
Having spent just enough time living in the UK, that prospect makes me deeply sad, because golf will then have been reduced from the natural and healthy pastime that it was to just another video game. I hope at least a few of my courses will survive the transition.
Not really random, just constant narrowing of choice based on parameters fed into the memory bank. GCA's work the same way, no? You have a left to right sloping green site, and you start mentally thinking about all the left to right sites you have seen and how the greens there were designed. Maybe you flip a few right to left ones for good measure. Then you look at how steep the site is, and look for similar ideas, that, if tweaked slightly, might form the basis of your design.
Throw in your mental checklist of other types of holes ahead and behind this one to avoid repetitive greens, and whatever else you mentally consider. At some point, of the literally hundreds of thousands of greens on 20,000 courses worldwide, it has probably been done before. Plug in a few adaptation, saving trees not on the model green, adding cart paths or whatever, splitting one bunker into two, replacing sand with grass bunker, etc. etc. etc., and sooner or later, you arrive at what you feel is the best solution.
Of course, I am of the notion that ideas really don't come out of nowhere. They come out of our design, golf, or maybe even life experiences. If, as someone has suggested, I was designing a green the day after playing with some D players on a Jim Engh course, it might influence me towards more playability, just as seeing the boldness of his designs might influence me to make that green I was designing just a little easier, but visually more bold. That is the biggest problem with my idea, it would take a constant software upgrade to let the computer mimic the non static life of a golf course architect.
-
There is a difference between a playing field and technology. Any innovation in golf course architecture won't be better, it will just be different- like fashion.
And in fashion, what does innovation get you? Tight jeans and nose rings.
-
...
Creativity is, by one definition, the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination:[/font]
Ding, Ding, Ding, you just stated why AI won't be creative. It does not transcend, but rather follows.
-
Regarding your comparisons to building architecture: years ago I had a (potential) client who was a huge Frank Lloyd Wright fan. When I told him that his site was too difficult and rocky to build something, he said that FLW said no site was impossible, to which I responded, yes, but FLW didn't have to maintain grass on 60 acres. The client went ahead and spent several million dollars to prove me wrong . . . but no one thinks the course is groundbreaking architecture. I was surprised to find that it's still there, I've not heard anything about it for twenty years!
As total as his talent and influence have been, many of FLW's most noteworthy buildings are notoriously not built for the long haul, have structural deficiencies (Johnson Wax, Fallingwater), always went massively over budget and cost small principalities to maintain and refurbish. And the imposition of his conceptions in design and materials on unfriendly, difficult sites in LA (Ennis-Brown, Hollyhock) ends(ed) up threatening their very existence 50...100 years on.
By contrast, his simpler Prairie and Usonian houses have held up with greater endurance and critical acclaim and the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo was the only major structure to survive the 1915 (?) earhquake which leveled the city.
-
Not really random, just constant narrowing of choice based on parameters fed into the memory bank. GCA's work the same way, no? You have a left to right sloping green site, and you start mentally thinking about all the left to right sites you have seen and how the greens there were designed. Maybe you flip a few right to left ones for good measure. Then you look at how steep the site is, and look for similar ideas, that, if tweaked slightly, might form the basis of your design.
Throw in your mental checklist of other types of holes ahead and behind this one to avoid repetitive greens, and whatever else you mentally consider. At some point, of the literally hundreds of thousands of greens on 20,000 courses worldwide, it has probably been done before. Plug in a few adaptation, saving trees not on the model green, adding cart paths or whatever, splitting one bunker into two, replacing sand with grass bunker, etc. etc. etc., and sooner or later, you arrive at what you feel is the best solution.
Of course, I am of the notion that ideas really don't come out of nowhere. They come out of our design, golf, or maybe even life experiences. If, as someone has suggested, I was designing a green the day after playing with some D players on a Jim Engh course, it might influence me towards more playability, just as seeing the boldness of his designs might influence me to make that green I was designing just a little easier, but visually more bold. That is the biggest problem with my idea, it would take a constant software upgrade to let the computer mimic the non static life of a golf course architect.
I stopped doing most of that 20 years ago because I had seen so many things and had so many ideas in there that it was impossible to sift through them all. Now I just look for inspiration.
When I worked for Mr. Dye, he was so tired of trying to come up with new ideas for flat ground, that he would sometimes tell a shaper to just "go f*** up that green site" so that he would have something to work with. And then he would just take that and try to make it playable and interesting for golf.
So, one month I will be on site staring at a green site and trying to decide what to tell the shaper . . . but then I'll come back six weeks later and take whatever they did with my instructions [or lack of them] and go from there, and rarely think twice about what I'd told them to begin with. And yes, that might be influenced by the last course I played, or by something I saw 25 years ago, but usually I will go with whatever feels right to me as we work on it.
I'm sure that sounds crazy to some people but it has been producing pretty good results. In fact that is probably the most important thing I learned from Pete, to not over-think what I was building.
-
The premise listed in the opening post is without merit.
I have seen heaps of innovative architecture.
The problem is most of it just isnt well regarded.
-
Since we live in the time of conspiracy let me posit that Ran planted the article to jazz up gca.com
-
Ron is an old man, closer to retirement and death, than hiring and birth. This status gives equal parts urgency and frustration.
This is a back-handed compliment: I have not seen one from you and your team that is really very contrasting in terms of style and design approach. Its ok to be in a comfort zone in terms of design and if it attracts clients then you are doing something right. Your argument failed me at this juncture.
The entire missive, his 95 theses, reads more like a zen koan.
Is land available to do what he urges?
Amateurs imitate professionals. Playing spaces are made to equal professional ones as soon as possible. As long as pro golf plays over 18 holes, amateurs will want to do so, too.
Foot golf was innovative and outside the box. It went far... Frisbee golf, too.
You can't fool all of the people, all of the time.
-
What a rather strange position to take considering where, literally where, golf courses have been developed over the period in question and the variety that has resulted. Really rather bizarre.
atb
-
Your style is quite similar across the spectrum of the courses you have done - I have played two of your courses St Andrews Beach and the Renaissance Club which both feel like a Doak course like Dye, Ross and Jones have done - I really liked SAB more than Renaissance. I have not seen one from you and your team that is really very contrasting in terms of style and design approach. Its ok to be in a comfort zone in terms of design and if it attracts clients then you are doing something right.
Cheers
Ben
I've built 40 courses, and you've seen two of them [which were built three years apart, both on sites close to the ocean but just removed], and you are disappointed that they did not contrast more?
Maybe you should go to my site [www.doakgolf.com] and have a look at more of the courses I've done. The ones by the ocean are the most highly ranked, but they are not the sum total of my work.
Regarding your comparisons to building architecture: years ago I had a (potential) client who was a huge Frank Lloyd Wright fan. When I told him that his site was too difficult and rocky to build something, he said that FLW said no site was impossible, to which I responded, yes, but FLW didn't have to maintain grass on 60 acres. The client went ahead and spent several million dollars to prove me wrong . . . but no one thinks the course is groundbreaking architecture. I was surprised to find that it's still there, I've not heard anything about it for twenty years!
Tom,
I have seen plenty of pictures, aerials and write up of your courses. You have have been a designer that I have looked up to in the last 20 years thanks to Golf Club Atlas. And also from others who have played a number of your courses.
Like Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairie Houses (some of which was his best work like Robie House and Wingspread which I did research on whilst at University) to me your course design approach/style and shaping is similar however it is done on different sites and sizes which makes the courses contrasting for example Tara Iti has more sand than Pacific Dunes which has the cliff tops however the shaping/style looks similar. Wright had different sites, materials and texture/colours however the style/shape was similar when it came to Prairie Houses.
Your approach to golf course design is no bad thing if it brings in more work for you and your crew - long it may continue. The books are a great way for spreading the gospel. I love reading the Anatomy of Golf Course Architecture is one of your best books and probably one of the best plus a must read for up and coming GCAers.
I really hope St Patricks will be my third Doak course (Woodhall Spa is the nearest but it is not a 100% Doak course even though you have vastly improved it as a golf course IMO) Any chance that we can see Don Placek's sketch of St Pats layout? .
Going back to golf courses aren't other golf course architects copying your style and approach at the moment likewise many architects did with FLW. Isn't that a huge compliment to you and Gil?
Regarding design evolution and innovation - didn't Wright evolve his design approaches with the Guggenheim, Johnson Wax, Fallingwater and Talesin West? the same for Philip Johnson. Each building has a shelf life 30-50 years is common and needs repairs or updating to current trends/innovation same goes for golf courses.
Will another architect change one of your courses in 50 years time to meet the current trends and innovation? Lot of Ross major courses were modified by RTJ ironically its being reversed to a Ross style but tougher than RTJ did.
One wonders if you will be able to evolve trying out something different from that you have not done before in terms of design approach and innovation like Wright did to be ahead of their competitors? or is this too much of a risk for you?
SAS Golf Design turned down a job around 8 years ago because the site was really awkward however it was still possible to build a golf course however there were restrictions in the current design that we could not change/improve the course - so that it is fully understandable if you don't want to put your reputation on the line which we also felt the same.
Cheers
Ben
Re: Fallingwater cantilevers - I am currently working on a flood resilient house in England which has a large cantilever for the first floor however it is being constructed in a steel frame rather than concrete and uses Vierendaal trusses to support the cantilever. :o with concrete walls to prevent flood water coming in the ground floor and garden. It is unconventional compared with standard architecture/houses. I am been fortunate to be involved in this and its been great to be doing something different and more challenging.
-
Not really random, just constant narrowing of choice based on parameters fed into the memory bank. GCA's work the same way, no? You have a left to right sloping green site, and you start mentally thinking about all the left to right sites you have seen and how the greens there were designed. Maybe you flip a few right to left ones for good measure. Then you look at how steep the site is, and look for similar ideas, that, if tweaked slightly, might form the basis of your design.
Throw in your mental checklist of other types of holes ahead and behind this one to avoid repetitive greens, and whatever else you mentally consider. At some point, of the literally hundreds of thousands of greens on 20,000 courses worldwide, it has probably been done before. Plug in a few adaptation, saving trees not on the model green, adding cart paths or whatever, splitting one bunker into two, replacing sand with grass bunker, etc. etc. etc., and sooner or later, you arrive at what you feel is the best solution.
Of course, I am of the notion that ideas really don't come out of nowhere. They come out of our design, golf, or maybe even life experiences. If, as someone has suggested, I was designing a green the day after playing with some D players on a Jim Engh course, it might influence me towards more playability, just as seeing the boldness of his designs might influence me to make that green I was designing just a little easier, but visually more bold. That is the biggest problem with my idea, it would take a constant software upgrade to let the computer mimic the non static life of a golf course architect.
I stopped doing most of that 20 years ago because I had seen so many things and had so many ideas in there that it was impossible to sift through them all. Now I just look for inspiration.
When I worked for Mr. Dye, he was so tired of trying to come up with new ideas for flat ground, that he would sometimes tell a shaper to just "go f*** up that green site" so that he would have something to work with. And then he would just take that and try to make it playable and interesting for golf.
So, one month I will be on site staring at a green site and trying to decide what to tell the shaper . . . but then I'll come back six weeks later and take whatever they did with my instructions [or lack of them] and go from there, and rarely think twice about what I'd told them to begin with. And yes, that might be influenced by the last course I played, or by something I saw 25 years ago, but usually I will go with whatever feels right to me as we work on it.
I'm sure that sounds crazy to some people but it has been producing pretty good results. In fact that is probably the most important thing I learned from Pete, to not over-think what I was building.
Tom,
You should write a book about your time with Pete Dye, the stories that most have not heard and how much Mr Dye has influenced you and your work. It would be well worth the read IMO.
Cheers
Ben
-
Gentlemen,
Thank you for providing me with one of the best GCA threads in a fair while ...albeit initiated by a Whitten outburst!
As Mike Malone alluded to and it did cross my mind,
"Since we live in the time of conspiracy let me posit that Ran planted the article to jazz up G.C.A.
And Jeff B. your insights and arguments are great to read and digest but I was amused at your brother's analogy
"..there is a reason no one uses chocolate sauce on roast beef.... no doubt it was tried somewhere and found sorely lacking..".
Not so in Scotland where venison and chocolate sauce in red wine is a delicacy promoted by Ramsey and The Three Chimneys on Skye!!
Chuckling here, Colin
-
If Mike Strantz lived longer, what shape would this thread take?
Mr. Stephens,
I am an Architect myself.
I more than defend the work Gehry, Morphosis, BIG & Moss as exceptional talents working for the 1/1000 of 1 percent of clients who have a very open mind and able to sign multiple blank checks for a project.
But sadly, do those projects really touch the lives of enough people to really make a difference at a societal scale?
Which is the argument for making the most out of projects with modest to moderate budgets.
Dear Carl,
James Boon and myself have been an architect for nearly 20 years imagine the one to one discussions that we have had over the years :)
You are right about Mike Strantz what a missed opportunity as he had his best years ahead of him I wonder how much of the jobs Tom and Gil have had would have been a Strantz.
Gehry, Morphosis, BIG & Moss all had to start somewhere, like Tom Doak they preached their works very well in books and the internet to spread the Gospel. Zaha spent years promoting her works before actually building one and her reputation was quite fierce hardworking person which is probably why she died quite young. A family member of mine has been fortunate to meet Frank and Zaha through their line of work and I have a signed book by Frank which is basically a scribble.
My father says - a time and place - all these designers hit the spot bang on which opened new avenues for them to work on the top 1% of projects. However you can design a house in different styles using cheaper materials its all about making it look a million dollars.
Cheers
Ben
-
Regarding your comparisons to building architecture: years ago I had a (potential) client who was a huge Frank Lloyd Wright fan. When I told him that his site was too difficult and rocky to build something, he said that FLW said no site was impossible, to which I responded, yes, but FLW didn't have to maintain grass on 60 acres. The client went ahead and spent several million dollars to prove me wrong . . . but no one thinks the course is groundbreaking architecture. I was surprised to find that it's still there, I've not heard anything about it for twenty years!
As total as his talent and influence have been, many of FLW's most noteworthy buildings are notoriously not built for the long haul, have structural deficiencies (Johnson Wax, Fallingwater), always went massively over budget and cost small principalities to maintain and refurbish. And the imposition of his conceptions in design and materials on unfriendly, difficult sites in LA (Ennis-Brown, Hollyhock) ends(ed) up threatening their very existence 50...100 years on.
By contrast, his simpler Prairie and Usonian houses have held up with greater endurance and critical acclaim and the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo was the only major structure to survive the 1915 (?) earhquake which leveled the city.
The Prairie Houses were more straightforward build than Fallingwater. There is some reinforcing work being or has been done to the concrete cantilever at Fallingwater. It is the most iconic and well known FLW buildings alongside the Guggenheim, better known than Robie or Wingspread which is a favourite of mine. Legend says is that FLW drew up Fallingwater in one day as the client Herbert Johnson (i think) called over the phone to his office to say that he is coming to see the designs and FLW just had the idea with a click of a finger.
Another example is Sydney Opera House by the Danish Architect Jorn Utzon which was done without computers - it was astonishing at the time and way over budget however it has paid it all back by being one of the biggest icons in Australia that has attracted tourist all over the world just to see that building. I was privileged to meet Richard Le Plesteurier a Australian architect who worked with Utzon on the project and he said Utzon was a genius - a one off probably never to be seen again.
-
Thank you for providing me with one of the best GCA threads in a fair while ..
Agreed. This is the best actual architectural discussion for some time and benefitting from significant input from real golf course architects, please keep it going, gentlemen.
-
Didn't C & C just build a course with no bunkers?
Didn't Doak just build a course for the PGA Tour that only has 19 bunkers? (3 are small ones packed in tight in a low on a par 3)
In Frisco,TX Gil Hanse is building a course and I just saw a tweet from the Supt proclaiming one hole had 29,000 sq ft of bunkers. He built more bunker sq ft on one hole than C & C and Doak did on 2 18-hole golf courses!?!
Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....
Who says different stuff isn't getting built?
I keep reading these journalists like Whitten or Shack proclaim nothing new under the sun but it feels like maybe they need to get out and get some sun.
-
Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....
If it really takes 30 minutes to putt out on nine holes he should probably tone it down :D
-
Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....
If it really takes 30 minutes to putt out on nine holes he should probably tone it down :D
I thought the same and would love to see the proposed playing time of the regulation 9 holer come in at under 2 hours. No knock at all on the courses as I’m sure they are all fun to play.
-
One point on which I agree with Ron is the last one quoted in the OP:
- If the past is the only thing you bring to the table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. (Whitten then mentions examples of a public course built by a golf contractor w/o an architect and Cypress Point restoring bunkers on their own.)
Well, I kind of agree, anyway. A contractor can't really go *without* an architect . . . he may take on the role himself, or delegate it to a kid who is interested in that, but somebody's gotta decide where the holes go on a new course. It just doesn't have to be a guy who has design credits to his name already. Eric Iverson did that for a contractor years ago; Joel Weiman and Andrew Green did it for Macdonald and Sons.
But, the idea that clubs that need to rebuild their bunkers have to hire an architect to do a $2 million restoration? I can't believe that has survived as long as it has. When I started in this business, most superintendents would want to direct all that work themselves, to show their value to the club. During the boom, they wanted nothing to do with it, saying their job was the grass and someone else should be hired for all of that -- but we are not in a boom anymore, and their job security may not be as strong as it used to be. Mostly they just need a good shaper, and there are dozens of those guys around. Most are aspiring architects, but cutting out the middle man is pretty easy if that's what you want to do.
-
The analogy to building architecture is useful but has its limits. The vertical nature of buildings and the variety of materials enables more options to serve the same function. Just take one city: MOMA, the Guggenheim, and the Whitney all serve roughly the same function yet are very different in architectural style and form. Golf has limited verticality and limited variety of building materials. I suppose one can make the argument that RTJ was innovative because he emphasized verticality through forced carries, but just as there is some bad building architecture philosophy, minimizing the ground game is a bad golf architecture philosophy.
Ira
-
Didn't C & C just build a course with no bunkers?
Didn't Doak just build a course for the PGA Tour that only has 19 bunkers? (3 are small ones packed in tight in a low on a par 3)
In Frisco,TX Gil Hanse is building a course and I just saw a tweet from the Supt proclaiming one hole had 29,000 sq ft of bunkers. He built more bunker sq ft on one hole than C & C and Doak did on 2 18-hole golf courses!?!
Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....
Who says different stuff isn't getting built?
I keep reading these journalists like Whitten or Shack proclaim nothing new under the sun but it feels like maybe they need to get out and get some sun.
Don,
I think in parts Ron Whitten is referring to the design style of the golf courses in which a lot of new courses is becoming more monotonous - there is not one that stands out as different to the rest not how its layout is whether its a 18 hole, 9 hole, par 3 or putting green. Its something out of the box ie the next big thing that Ron is looking for
Gill Hanse golf course in Frisco sounds like it will look like a normal Gil Hanse course nothing really new but similar style with different shaping and quantities of material.
Coore and Crenshaw Sheep Ranch echoes their approach of shaping however they just simply removed the bunkers to be different however their design style has not really changed.
Have a look at what Mike Cocking is doing at Lonsdale he is doing something different to the norm that OCM have been doing for years. https://www.lonsdalegc.com.au/cms/ (https://www.lonsdalegc.com.au/cms/) - I am looking forward to seeing the finished version as it is a different design style which echoes the past and looking towards the future. Maybe Mike Clayton can chip in ....
Cheers
Ben
-
Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....
If it really takes 30 minutes to putt out on nine holes he should probably tone it down :D
A longer length putting course would be fun, though. Where you might have par 4's and 5's and take a few big whacks. On my visit to Sand Valley last year, we decided to play the last hole of our trip, the 18th on Sand Valley, with putters only. I won the hole with a 7 vs. my competitor's 8. I could've easily made some numbers much larger than 7 had I been using the whole bag.
-
Gill Hanse golf course in Frisco sounds like it will look like a normal Gil Hanse course nothing really new but similar style with different shaping and quantities of material.
Coore and Crenshaw Sheep Ranch echoes their approach of shaping however they just simply removed the bunkers to be different however their design style has not really changed.
And a Monet looks like a Monet. Doesn't make each individual painting any less spectacular.
-
Interesting discussion so far. I wish that GD would put up the column on their website, as there's plenty more to roll your eyes at than just what I posted.
Seems like all Whitten really wants is for someone to come up with an architectural innovation that counters equipment advances.
This way regular players can still play the same equipment (sort of) as professionals, and GD's advertisers will be happy. Bizarre that a person who acknowledges "time constraints and resource limitations" cannot grasp the problems that come from needing to add distance to thousands of golf courses.
At its essence, golf is an outdoor pursuit where you try to hole shots in as few attempts as possible. Equipment innovations have come in order to make a difficult game easier, but at some point continually adapting golf courses to remain difficult for the few highly skilled players makes no sense. If hitting the best shots is all that matters to some, simulators and Top Golf can fill that role.
-
Gill Hanse golf course in Frisco sounds like it will look like a normal Gil Hanse course nothing really new but similar style with different shaping and quantities of material.
Coore and Crenshaw Sheep Ranch echoes their approach of shaping however they just simply removed the bunkers to be different however their design style has not really changed.
And a Monet looks like a Monet. Doesn't make each individual painting any less spectacular.
How about Picasso? ;D
-
Didn't C & C just build a course with no bunkers?
Didn't Doak just build a course for the PGA Tour that only has 19 bunkers? (3 are small ones packed in tight in a low on a par 3)
In Frisco,TX Gil Hanse is building a course and I just saw a tweet from the Supt proclaiming one hole had 29,000 sq ft of bunkers. He built more bunker sq ft on one hole than C & C and Doak did on 2 18-hole golf courses!?!
Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....
Who says different stuff isn't getting built?
I keep reading these journalists like Whitten or Shack proclaim nothing new under the sun but it feels like maybe they need to get out and get some sun.
yes agreed!
yet this thread is littered with lots of I did's not we did's by the most well published golf course designer on this site
golf architecture is a lot like Landscape Architecture which is a lot less well known, yet FLW frequently incorporated landscape into his designs and developments, FLW was an organic architect
lots of good stuff here, yet when I'm reading a huge coffee table book documenting what "i" did, I'm left wanting more of what we, "golf" is/are doing or going to do. Bill Coore was all smiles all day on opening day at his bunkerless course, he is doing it. :)
how many courses in Myrtle Beach that are nothings but 18 holes for a cart ride?
cheers
-
how many courses in Myrtle Beach that are nothings but 18 holes for a cart ride?
The entire economy of Myrtle Beach golf was built on the premise of golf carts. In the old days your round of golf came with the hotel room . . . the only thing you paid the golf course for was the cart [and f&b]. So the cart path from the 9th green at The Legends went 100 yards up to the clubhouse and 100 yards back, even though the green and tee were 20 yards apart!
P.S. Had I written about what "golf" should do, you'd be criticizing me for trying to tell the whole world what to do. And the book was about routing by using case studies of my courses, not about this thread.
-
Cheers Ben,
I'd request two things from you, if I might. The first is, what/how? You and Ron Whitten are looking for an alternative, but neither of you is able to provide us with it.
Next, have a glance at this preview from the course you site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XfmxUoXgHA The architects themselves pitch what Ron Whitten would call, the same old templates. Can you elaborate on the different design style that you reference?
There is a course in western Michigan, called the South course at Arcadia Bluffs. It was built on flat land, by Dana Fry, et al. It seems to do precisely what is mentioned above. You feel like you are playing on a golden age course, as you recognize multiple features and optics. However, the manner of presentation ensures you that these are not template holes.
-
Couple of thoughts after morning coffee.....
First, maybe after a 100 years of intensive study and practice, gca has become a "mature" industry, not unlike Tide and Clorox, etc. Any refinements will be incremental, especially given the standardization by the USGA and others, like par, distance, handicap, etc., where others have vested interests in keeping things more or less the same.
And, design, by one definition is art that someone has to live in or make use of, i.e., has a function. The basic function of golf hasn't changed in centuries, the scorekeeping remains mostly the same, etc. etc. etc. How much can courses change if they are really, functional arrangement of the ground for the purpose of making it useful for golf?
Last, not to mention it is a business, and usually a struggling business at that. How many courses can afford 29K SF of sand bunker on one hole, when many have that over 18 holes? In my 43 years in the biz, I can usually predict which bunkers will be removed, and without driving up there to see it, figure after the award season, marketing photos, etc., much of that bunker will be removed, if it follows typical practice and/or the PGA in Texas doesn't turn out to be the financial bonanza they thought it would be. Time will tell, but I am sure at least one project manager questioned it already as excessive.
-
TD says above:
"As an architect AND a critic of architecture, while I agree with a few of the complaints listed above about modern design, I think it's embarrassing that a guy who has been the supposed leading critic of golf course architecture for 30+ years did not take more responsibility for trying to fix the problem."
I've often wondered about the direction of the causal arrow between criticism of golf architecture and golf architecture. Was it just coincidence that the Golden Age - the period in which most of the best courses were built - was also the period during which the best writing on golf architecture was published? Might it be the case that there is a connection between insightful criticism and the courses architects design? That maybe passionate, even opinionated commentary on gca is good for gca?
So lobbing hand grenades at the profession Whitten has commented on for five decades seems a bit odd. If things are as bad as he claims, didn't he have some responsibility to nudge things along? To put out early warnings? Did he need to stay so passive in the face of what he saw as a slow, ugly decline?
Many of us would have relished hearing his "private" opinions, if for no other reason than they were bound to be more interesting than his public ones.
As the single most important critic of gca over the last several decades, Whitten might have done more for the profession he covered. Models for how to do that are not hard to find. Think of John Low, Horace Hutchinson, MacK, Colt, Simpson, J H Taylor, Campbell, HH Hilton, Joshua Crane, Garden Smith and others before and during the Golden Age.
Some commentated and designed courses, others were only commentators. They had deeply divergent views about gca and battled almost constantly. But their strong opinions ultimately redounded to the benefit to the profession and the courses they built. They teed up and helped clarify issues. The Golden Age was not just about great golf courses. It was also a Golden Age of commentary about great golf courses. I don't think that was just an accident of history.
Criticism and artistic output feed off each other whether in literature, movies or golf architecture. They can often make each other better. In that regard I commend to Tom a book by A.O. Scott, 'Better Living Through Criticism.' Scott is the main movie critic for the NYT. His title is meant to be as ironic as it sounds, but what he says about the role of commentary on the arts has obvious parallels to commentary on golf architecture.
Bob
-
Tom
............
Your style is quite similar across the spectrum of the courses you have done - I have played two of your courses St Andrews Beach and the Renaissance Club which both feel like a Doak course like Dye, Ross and Jones have done - I really liked SAB more than Renaissance. I have not seen one from you and your team that is really very contrasting in terms of style and design approach. Its ok to be in a comfort zone in terms of design and if it attracts clients then you are doing something right.
,,.,..............
Cheers
Ben
Ben,
Having played:
Riverfront 250+/- rounds
Beechtree 3 rounds
Pacific Dunes 3 rounds
Old MacDonald 2 rounds
Heathland Legend 1 round
Streamsong Blue 1 round
I can easily state that Tom's courses are very anti-formula.
I regret that the Midwest Mashie was called off. I hope the course at Sand Valley comes back to life. I, also, can hardly wait to play at Stoatin Brae.
-
I have not yet read the article but Ron likes to stir things up and create interesting discussion. I know Ron and his intentions are good. On a different thread I proposed a Championship course with 10 par threes, four par fours and four par fives. It would save time, costs and expensive real estate, and still test ALL levels of golfers while helping to address the distance issue. Not sure if Ron would call this innovative or not but it hasn’t been done before.
-
Cheers Ben,
I'd request two things from you, if I might. The first is, what/how? You and Ron Whitten are looking for an alternative, but neither of you is able to provide us with it.
Next, have a glance at this preview from the course you site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XfmxUoXgHA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XfmxUoXgHA) The architects themselves pitch what Ron Whitten would call, the same old templates. Can you elaborate on the different design style that you reference?
There is a course in western Michigan, called the South course at Arcadia Bluffs. It was built on flat land, by Dana Fry, et al. It seems to do precisely what is mentioned above. You feel like you are playing on a golden age course, as you recognize multiple features and optics. However, the manner of presentation ensures you that these are not template holes.
Ronald,
I have heard of and see images of Arcadia Bluffs South Course by Fry/Straka isn't the design style based on Chicago GC?
In reply to your question there are possible alternatives and innovations such as
1. Fluid Dynamics (or biomorphics) - which is 3D design by using computer modelling and is used by companies like Formula 1 and Indycar Manufacturers. It could be constructed by a 3D printer and the computer modelling can work out the drainage to make it look more natural as Formula 1 cars use it for aerodynamics to make it faster. Could it eliminate the use of underground pipings?
2. Night golf - LED is becoming more prevalent and why golf courses are not utilising this. This could create something different and attract a new generation of golfers who like computer games etc? And allow golf clubs to open for longer hours possibly generating more revenue.
3. A new architectural style which looks the wow factor - a good example of architectural design progress is the Jencks Architectural Evolutionary Tree which shows how design has progressed throughout the 20th century and what past influences the architects have used please copy the link which will show you the Jencks diagram - https://streets.mn/2014/10/15/chart-of-the-day-charles-jencks-architectural-evolutionary-tree/#lightbox/0/ (https://streets.mn/2014/10/15/chart-of-the-day-charles-jencks-architectural-evolutionary-tree/#lightbox/0/) - I wonder is there a Golf Course Architecture equivalent of this?
4. Floating golf course
5. Golf Course Design influenced by biological structures and shapes.
6. Underground houses connected to ecological wet areas with a golf course above it
7. Vertical golf course in the middle of a built up city or Golf Course inside large biomes/domes a la Buckminster Fuller so that it can be played 24/7.
8. New type of grasses so that they are more robust and less maintenance or even synthetic or hybrid grasses
9. New forms of hazards using materials that are not the norm on golf courses like concrete, plastic which has been thrown out, corten steel or even graphene.
10. more efficient and natural irrigation systems
11. Construction of golf courses done by drones or robots with the designer/contractor working from home.
12. A golf course on the Moon or even Mars ;D
There are a lot of possibilities I could go on and on ....
Cheers
Ben
-
This has been a good thread and a constructive discussion.
I personally feel that golf course design has not progressed in a similar vein to Architecture and Product Design which have evolved much more in the last century or so with greater variation of design styles and use of technology and materials.
There have been movements in regards to construction approaches, maintenance, irrigation and types of grasses used however the style of design there are a few variations but not many of them compared with the other design sectors. I feel it needs to push on and be a bit more adventurous as the danger is that golf can be seen as stale and old fashioned rather than keep up with the trends.
The next generation will want things done faster, more complicated and at a certain price. Can golf course design keep up with this to make the game of golf sustainable for the remainder of the 21st century or go backwards reducing the number of people participating in golf?.
-
If innovation means $1000 / round, then I will resume my spot among the vulgar throng.
-
I just went through this thread. I wish I was smart enough to come up with what Jeff opined yesterday, perhaps modified with Ernie Els's comment - maybe the Toxicodendron radicans should be allowed to grow to knee height.
Garland,
And cross pollinating with the Playability thread, here's an original thought. You want difficult rough? Plant poison ivy. ;)
-
Bruce,
Or combine golf with a Jurassic Park theme park, and have dinosaurs chase you, LOL. But seriously, if other sports get converted to "extreme sports" to entice "da yutes of America" maybe golf will, too. But, then, it will be participants thinking out of the box, and again, design following.
-
Bruce,
Or combine golf with a Jurassic Park theme park, and have dinosaurs chase you, LOL. But seriously, if other sports get converted to "extreme sports" to entice "da yutes of America" maybe golf will, too. But, then, it will be participants thinking out of the box, and again, design following.
Jeff,
Isn't there a dinosaur at Coolum Resort golf course in Australia??
Cheers
Ben
-
If innovation means $1000 / round, then I will resume my spot among the vulgar throng.
Carl you are spot on here. Innovation in more than just golf course architecture, it is operating models and funding models that are needed. More sustainable non profit models and corporate sponsorship for courses is something I think is untapped.
Edit:format
-
Bruce,
Or combine golf with a Jurassic Park theme park, and have dinosaurs chase you, LOL. But seriously, if other sports get converted to "extreme sports" to entice "da yutes of America" maybe golf will, too. But, then, it will be participants thinking out of the box, and again, design following.
Jeff,
Isn't there a dinosaur at Coolum Resort golf course in Australia??
Cheers
Ben
Don't know. There was a golf course proposed in Dinosaur Valley near Kunming China, but those were fossils, so far, not brought back to life for the excitement of golfers.
-
It is a very good thread, but I hardly understand a word of it -- not Ron's original contention, nor Ben's support of it, nor even Tom and Jeff's 'rebuttals'.
It's as if either a) the terms 'outside the box' and 'originality' are being used much differently than I would use them, and/or b) few of the posters have ever created something themselves, which obviously isn't true. But I can't think of one creative person worthy of the name who has ever produced great work by trying/starting out to be 'original' -- in any art-craft, and certainly not in gca.
-
I'm also not sure if he ever played a Jim Engh course. While he re-uses his own templates quite a bit, when you're on a Engh course you really know it, its pretty unique stuff. Is #11 at Black Rock not out of the box for him?
Are you referring to Ron Whitten? He was one of Jim Engh's biggest champions, and loved how "out of the box" he was.
I don't think Jim's courses were as varied from one to the next as mine are, but maybe I just couldn't see past the look of them, as some people can't see past the fact that I don't build many flat greens.
Tom,
Yes I was referring to Ron.
While I also agree that you have a lot more variance between the ones you've done, Jim's courses in general are just very different compared to near everything else out there, even if there is a lot of similarity between his own.
P.S. I'm guessing Ron also really likes Tobacco Road. If that course isn't Out of the Box, I don't know what is...
-
...
And cross pollinating with the Playability thread, here's an original thought. You want difficult rough? Plant poison ivy. ;)
We have gorse and Himalayan blackberry in rough here in the Pacific northwest. Why would we need poison ivy?
-
How about a golf course with tee boxes that are purposely canted one way or another. Multiple tee boxes on the same hole with difference slopes. On purpose.
That idea might not be totally new, but I would certainly play it. Advertise it that way. Different. Challenging. New.
-
If innovation means $1000 / round, then I will resume my spot among the vulgar throng.
I was so disappointed when I re-read your comment and saw an "r" in the final word.
-
Cheers Ben, comments below
[Ronald,I have heard of and see images of Arcadia Bluffs South Course by Fry/Straka isn't the design style based on Chicago GC?Inspired by might be a better turn. The flatness of the site reminded F/S of the flat CGC site, and the style contrasts well with the original course. Whether the course you cited or ABSC, the inspiration came from the Golden Age and the Template holes.
In reply to your question there are possible alternatives and innovations such as1. Fluid Dynamics (or biomorphics) - which is 3D design by using computer modelling and is used by companies like Formula 1 and Indycar Manufacturers. It could be constructed by a 3D printer and the computer modelling can work out the drainage to make it look more natural as Formula 1 cars use it for aerodynamics to make it faster. Could it eliminate the use of underground pipings?
Can this be installed post-build, or must it be put in the ground pre-build?
2. Night golf - LED is becoming more prevalent and why golf courses are not utilising this. This could create something different and attract a new generation of golfers who like computer games etc? And allow golf clubs to open for longer hours possibly generating more revenue.
People sleep at night. They are meant to sleep during the dark hours. They call it the 3rd Shift for a reason; it's the top choice of a select(ed) few.
3. A new architectural style which looks the wow factor - a good example of architectural design progress is the Jencks Architectural Evolutionary Tree which shows how design has progressed throughout the 20th century and what past influences the architects have used please copy the link which will show you the Jencks diagram - https://streets.mn/2014/10/15/chart-of-the-day-charles-jencks-architectural-evolutionary-tree/#lightbox/0/ (https://streets.mn/2014/10/15/chart-of-the-day-charles-jencks-architectural-evolutionary-tree/#lightbox/0/) - I wonder is there a Golf Course Architecture equivalent of this?
I suspect you would have mid-20th century architects in the USA saying "screw those golden age guys" followed by Pete Dye saying "love golden age, but give me some acid first" followed by Mike Strantz "I don't need acid; it's in my dna" followed by Jim Engh "???" followed by the minimalists "love golden age."
4. Floating golf course
Why?
5. Golf Course Design influenced by biological structures and shapes.
Desmond Muirhead...shunned #ClashingRocks http://theaposition.com/johnstrawn/golf/personalities/213/channeling-desmond-muirhead (http://theaposition.com/johnstrawn/golf/personalities/213/channeling-desmond-muirhead)6. Underground houses connected to ecological wet areas with a golf course above it
What sustains the golf course and how do you get around the legalities?
7. Vertical golf course in the middle of a built up city or Golf Course inside large biomes/domes a la Buckminster Fuller so that it can be played 24/7.
Gravity might have something to add to this conversation.
8. New type of grasses so that they are more robust and less maintenance or even synthetic or hybrid grasses
Kentucky blue and Northern California Sensimilla? I know one guy working with this blend.
9. New forms of hazards using materials that are not the norm on golf courses like concrete, plastic which has been thrown out, corten steel or even graphene.
liability insurance required?
10. more efficient and natural irrigation systems
proceed...
11. Construction of golf courses done by drones or robots with the designer/contractor working from home.
lots of people out of work on this one.
12. A golf course on the Moon or even Mars
Now you're talking.
There are a lot of possibilities I could go on and on ....
I concur that these are outside the box. I can intimate that the majority of the golf world would label them as bat-shit crazy. Therein lies the rub.
CheersBen ][/color][/font]
[/color][/size][/font]
-
But I can't think of one creative person worthy of the name who has ever produced great work by trying/starting out to be 'original' -- in any art-craft, and certainly not in gca.
There is such a thing as an original concept -- Ben is apparently a big believer in that, although it is harder to impose a new concept on a game with as many givens as golf. [A golf course is not very much like a building.]
However, I can say that a lot of my most original golf holes are the result of things we came up with on site as we built them.
The very idea that golf course architecture is all about "golf ideas" and not about construction work is kind of wrong to me. I've been able to witness many great holes being created, by Pete Dye and by Bill Coore and by my crew, and the only one of them that plopped down from something on paper was the 5th hole at Long Cove -- I thought that was P.B.'s idea, but Pete had drawn it out like that months earlier.
-
I see the innovation of different eras yet I wonder if that really matters. We look back at the 1960s and see architecture designed for beauty first and interest/challenge second. We see Pete Dye come along where he demonstrates that you can create, and I mean create, a really interesting and challenging golf course which does not place beauty first. Then we come to the very important work of Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw in the creation of Sand Hills which opened up the eyes of the golf world that sometimes the land itself provides for a great golf course. I also feel that C&C brought out some other architectural achievements such as demonstrating how to build a drivable par 4 which is to be considered by most players and not just the very best and they also showed that a really good par 3 can be uphill and that a drop shot par 3 is really not what makes a good golf hole.
There has been much talk about Desmond Muirhead and I have to say that it might have been better if he stayed away from designing golf courses. My father-in-law lives on one of his courses and it was a disaster from the beginning. It took years of rebuilding, resurfacing and finally reconstructing before it became a course which is playable. The value of the homes in the community plummeted because potential buyers who played the course wanted nothing to do with it.
-
Aside from some Ben's wilder or simply exorbitantly expensive (and unnecessary) ideas, not all of them particularly innovative. Better grass blends and more efficient irrigation systems? Are people not already working on these things? Fun exercise though. A floating course sounds interesting, but I'm not sure we need something flatter than Illinois.
One thing I haven't seen (but may have missed) is the extent to which innovative ideas are stifled by owners? We tend to think of GCA as a form of art (which it is), but so is portrait painting. If you pay a very fine painter for a portrait, he may have some creative license, but at the end of the day, the client wants something that looks like the subject. Someone investing $X million in a golf course who needs to sell memberships or daily fee rounds may not be so willing to take chances. I think Tom has talked about this before with respect to green design.
-
Yes, I have heard both Pete Dye and Tom Fazio say that owners hire them to do their last course. No one wants to hear their gca (or airplane pilot) say, "Hey, I want to try something new!" :)
I saw Fleetwood Mac a few years ago, and they introduced the song Tusk as one they had a lot of trouble getting recorded. The suits (Record executives) always called for fresh new material, as long as it sounded substantially like the last album that sold millions.
And, these days, no project (new or remodel) seems to get done without a biz consultant telling the owner what the payback might be. Personally, I don't think most of them account for daylight hours, rain (and in many cases) flood days, etc. And, they figure it will be a course just about average new course or redo. If a market with 10 public courses plays 300,000 rounds, and you add an 11th, you might expect rounds to drop to 27,272 as it averages out. They count on the new course being attractive enough to get the 30K, figuring the low course on the list loses more play. But, I digress, and the biz plan is based on nothing too out of whack assumptions. Again, you would think something really different (which for a while, the CCFAD's were) would sell and sell at a higher price. But, just as so many object to anything other than par 72, 7K yards, or whatever has become standard, few are willing to go out on a limb. And, he who has the gold rules is the golden rule in the design biz.
My old mentor had the general idea that you had to do your last best course again, but might be able to introduce 2-3 new design concepts (not that his were anything radical) without anyone complaining too much. That sort of slow evolution thinking may be what frustrated Ron W a bit, but it is probably a more practical approach to design evolving.
-
"However, I can say that a lot of my most original golf holes are the result of things we came up with on site as we built them."
Tom - I think that explains my disconnect with this thread, i.e. by original here, I think you mean that those golf holes are neither ready made templates/concepts, nor are they imposed onto the site (from a drawing/paper plan) irregardless of the unique nature and features and soil & wind characteristics of the site itself. In other words: it's the response of talent and skill and the fundamental principles of the art-craft to a given situation and set of circumstances. And think that *is* an example of originality in gca, and that if you do it right the result is the best possible form/kind of originality. There is no other kind of meaningful & practical "originality' for an art-craft that serves to create the field of play for a game (as you note) with as many givens as golf.
I think a surprising number of posters here are missing the forest for the trees and looking too much at the surface of things, i.e. confusing differing tastes and styles and intentions with 'originality' or 'outside the box' thinking.
-
Peter,
I agree that, as you allude, applying the "fundamental principles of the art-craft to a given situation and set of circumstances" that can make a green a true original. That said, I am always amazed at the assumption on this site is that any drawn plan would "be imposed onto the site (from a drawing/paper plan) regardless of the unique nature and features and soil & wind characteristics of the site itself." I mean really, WTF? :D
Any plan would have the topo maps, tree locations, etc. And what was not marked on the aerial photo/topo should have been marked by the gca during design phase field walks. Of course, the wind rose so you know which way the wind is blowing, etc., soil knowledge also comes from either local soils maps or (better yet) soils tests made by a golf agronomist (although in the real old days, the gca did more of everything than now, where projects have many, many consultants)
And, any gca would probably have walked the site at least once, completed the routing, and then start thinking about said green or other feature. I think we are all subject to getting repetitive (although we all say we aren't, Tom included :) ) and have to fight falling into old patterns if we really want to do something new.
Which is why I like to look at things from different perspectives, sometimes on a cold winter day in my office. As I have always said, there are some things better figured out on plan, and some only reveal themselves in the field, but there is never any harm in figuring out something early on plan, and then being willing to massage it (and for a few holes on every course, it seems) change it completely. IMHO, if you are surprised at a tree or what not being out there, you didn't do enough work in the design phase. There is certainly no harm in looking at it from several perspectives, plan, field, etc.
But, even that is great design, perhaps, but in Ron Whitten's eyes, perhaps not innovative. As mentioned by some of those business oriented posts, there is perhaps a separate thread on whether the gca is really, really, paid to be innovative on any given project? I hate that idea, and I'm sure TD hates it, but it may very well be true in most cases, i.e., not all courses are on the roaring ocean and designed for tournaments, etc.
-
Ah yes Ben,
Dinosaurs on Australian courses.
One newspaper reported the demise of Palmers dinosaur at Coolum Golf Course, after it went up in flames leaving only a charred skeleton, as "Palmersaurus Wrecked....."
Not sadly missed!
Your list of innovative ideas seemed a bit of a stretch to me but then I am realising that I am such a traditionalist when it comes to my golf I can't get past the idea of a pleasant, quiet, natural, traditional eighteen holes. I guess I'm the dinosaur now!!
Cheers Colin
-
Jeff - no, I didn't mean to suggest that 'originality' precludes plans drawn in the office (after site visits and studying topo-maps etc.) My point is that originality -- or even 'innovation' -- doesn't lie where the critics and the theorists tend to thinks it does, and it never has.
-
Yes, I have heard both Pete Dye and Tom Fazio say that owners hire them to do their last course. No one wants to hear their gca (or airplane pilot) say, "Hey, I want to try something new!" :)
I saw Fleetwood Mac a few years ago, and they introduced the song Tusk as one they had a lot of trouble getting recorded. The suits (Record executives) always called for fresh new material, as long as it sounded substantially like the last album that sold millions.
My old mentor had the general idea that you had to do your last best course again, but might be able to introduce 2-3 new design concepts (not that his were anything radical) without anyone complaining too much. That sort of slow evolution thinking may be what frustrated Ron W a bit, but it is probably a more practical approach to design evolving.
I'm glad I had a different mentor! Pete Dye at 56 told me at 20 that if the client would not let you do your thing, you had to have the courage to walk away from the project. The client for the same project told me that he often worked with other designers who were more predictable and easier to deal with, but that it was a special site and he understood it required more flexibility to try and do something great instead of just good.
There are also some musicians who were ready to go their own way and argue about what the record company suggests . . . and they are usually the ones who have had great careers, instead of just hit songs. [I'm sure that some tried and failed, too, but at least they tried.]
Some of this is about Style vs. Philosophy. Through the course of building Sebonack, the only thing that Mr. Nicklaus said that bothered me was that the difference between us was more about the "look" of the course [what I would call the style] than the substance. Maybe that's how he saw it, but that was not what I saw. We had different philosophies of what golf courses are about.
-
There are also some musicians who were ready to go their own way
Nice.
How did Ron Whitten get the job in the first place? Did he have some knowledge of architecture?
-
There are also some musicians who were ready to go their own way
Nice.
How did Ron Whitten get the job in the first place? Did he have some knowledge of architecture?
He was a district attorney in Kansas, with a love of gca, not unlike most here. He started knocking on doors, worked with Geoff Cornish on "The Golf Course" published in 1981, and then was hired by GD.
-
Thanks JB
-
how many courses in Myrtle Beach that are nothings but 18 holes for a cart ride?
The entire economy of Myrtle Beach golf was built on the premise of golf carts. In the old days your round of golf came with the hotel room . . . the only thing you paid the golf course for was the cart [and f&b]. So the cart path from the 9th green at The Legends went 100 yards up to the clubhouse and 100 yards back, even though the green and tee were 20 yards apart!
P.S. Had I written about what "golf" should do, you'd be criticizing me for trying to tell the whole world what to do. And the book was about routing by using case studies of my courses, not about this thread.
yes agreed, Americana ruined golf with the cart revenue model, capitalism gone bad so to say, I heard Myrtle Beach was all about gentleman's clubs, have not been
as far as carts go, many pros still see an added value in providing a cart, WTF
P.P.S.
I sure you don't know what I'm thinking but carry on, as I understand what the book is about
cheers
-
Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....
If it really takes 30 minutes to putt out on nine holes he should probably tone it down :D
:D
There may be 4 players. They could be beginners. And they may even have beers. 90 putts could take 30 minutes.
Although the 7th is built more for skateboarders than putters - it is a huge half pipe about 100' long.
Peace
-
Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....
If it really takes 30 minutes to putt out on nine holes he should probably tone it down :D
I thought the same and would love to see the proposed playing time of the regulation 9 holer come in at under 2 hours. No knock at all on the courses as I’m sure they are all fun to play.
Howdy Tim.
The big course is 3,200 yards long. 2 short 4s, 2 one shot holes and a single very long par 5 - for an approximate par of 35. And it is an easy walk. Not many new courses like that. Peace
-
Cheers Ben, comments below
Cheers Ron, comments below in green - I reckon we would have good banter and chat at the 19th
[Ronald,I have heard of and see images of Arcadia Bluffs South Course by Fry/Straka isn't the design style based on Chicago GC?
Inspired by might be a better turn. The flatness of the site reminded F/S of the flat CGC site, and the style contrasts well with the original course. Whether the course you cited or ABSC, the inspiration came from the Golden Age and the Template holes.
Mike Cocking course at Lonsdale is inspired by template holes however with more squarish edges probably inspired by the shape of the early courses - its a hybrid of ideas put together into one - for current design trends it bucks it as it is seen as trying something different - the client must be either brave or Mike has put the ideas across very well.
In reply to your question there are possible alternatives and innovations such as1. Fluid Dynamics (or biomorphics) - which is 3D design by using computer modelling and is used by companies like Formula 1 and Indycar Manufacturers. It could be constructed by a 3D printer and the computer modelling can work out the drainage to make it look more natural as Formula 1 cars use it for aerodynamics to make it faster. Could it eliminate the use of underground pipings?
Can this be installed post-build, or must it be put in the ground pre-build?
There are ways of doing this i) large 3D printers on site working by each specific subsoil layer ii) in a factory using pallettes that can be installed ideally on a flat site or large floating slabs
2. Night golf - LED is becoming more prevalent and why golf courses are not utilising this. This could create something different and attract a new generation of golfers who like computer games etc? And allow golf clubs to open for longer hours possibly generating more revenue.
People sleep at night. They are meant to sleep during the dark hours. They call it the 3rd Shift for a reason; it's the top choice of a select(ed) few.
Understand where you are coming from - golf courses lose more money in winter due to shorter days, the majority of people working 9 to 5 and night golf can be a solution for this and also summers are getting hotter and night time is cooler to play. And it is something different which could attract a younger generation
3. A new architectural style which looks the wow factor - a good example of architectural design progress is the Jencks Architectural Evolutionary Tree which shows how design has progressed throughout the 20th century and what past influences the architects have used please copy the link which will show you the Jencks diagram - https://streets.mn/2014/10/15/chart-of-the-day-charles-jencks-architectural-evolutionary-tree/#lightbox/0/ (https://streets.mn/2014/10/15/chart-of-the-day-charles-jencks-architectural-evolutionary-tree/#lightbox/0/) - I wonder is there a Golf Course Architecture equivalent of this?
I suspect you would have mid-20th century architects in the USA saying "screw those golden age guys" followed by Pete Dye saying "love golden age, but give me some acid first" followed by Mike Strantz "I don't need acid; it's in my dna" followed by Jim Engh " ??? " followed by the minimalists "love golden age."
Designers often think - we can do better than this and experiment on new styles/ideas etc. I rather have a challenge than a too easy a brief.
4. Floating golf course
Why?
Its different and possibly unique. Sea level is rising and we could lose a number of links courses - the sand could be transported onto large floating pontoons or man made island. Japan for example has a shortage of land and it is a mountainous country that they have build airports in this way why not golf courses. Also it can be moved around to find the best weather conditions. It may be far fetching to most on here - it is just a theory which is possible but probably not practical from a commercial point of view at present.
5. Golf Course Design influenced by biological structures and shapes.
Desmond Muirhead...shunned #ClashingRocks http://theaposition.com/johnstrawn/golf/personalities/213/channeling-desmond-muirhead (http://theaposition.com/johnstrawn/golf/personalities/213/channeling-desmond-muirhead)
;D ;D He sounded like a character however you and I probably have different interpretion and visualisation for this ;)
6. Underground houses connected to ecological wet areas with a golf course above it
What sustains the golf course and how do you get around the legalities?
It could be created by inert fill with the Hobbit style houses built first and then golf course built above it - maybe too radical for most of us. The properties would face away from the golf course rather than look over it - isn't that safer?
7. Vertical golf course in the middle of a built up city or Golf Course inside large biomes/domes a la Buckminster Fuller so that it can be played 24/7.
Gravity might have something to add to this conversation.
The domes are very lightweight and strong aided by gravity - they could allow for all day golf in clean air. The Eden project in Cornwall UK is an example and these domes can be a lot bigger - it is down to the cost of materials which probably come down in future plus robots could build it.
I have seen an architect concept of a vertical golf course tower
8. New type of grasses so that they are more robust and less maintenance or even synthetic or hybrid grasses
Kentucky blue and Northern California Sensimilla? I know one guy working with this blend.
Well you probably know better than I do in this regard. There have been advancement in grass and turf technology over the last few decades.
9. New forms of hazards using materials that are not the norm on golf courses like concrete, plastic which has been thrown out, corten steel or even graphene.
liability insurance required?
Instead of timber as bulkheads - plastic like timber could be a fire risk hazard if a golf stubs its cigar or cigarette on it or throws it near it. Concrete/corten steel is longer lasting and gives a different look. You can shape concrete in many different forms.
10. more efficient and natural irrigation systems
proceed...
Technology improves by time so we will have wait and see ..........
11. Construction of golf courses done by drones or robots with the designer/contractor working from home.
lots of people out of work on this one.
Happening in construction and other areas like car manufacturing etc. Probably more cost effective and reliable :o
12. A golf course on the Moon or even Mars
Now you're talking.
its probably hundreds of years ahead of us if the human race is still surviving
There are a lot of possibilities I could go on and on ....
I concur that these are outside the box. I can intimate that the majority of the golf world would label them as bat-shit crazy. Therein lies the rub.
There is no harm having different visualisations of the future - people may say its crazy - go back 75 years people would say flying from UK to Australia in a day was impossible. However it was made possible with he invention of the jet engine. Anything is possible ;D
CheersBen ]
-
Tom
............
Your style is quite similar across the spectrum of the courses you have done - I have played two of your courses St Andrews Beach and the Renaissance Club which both feel like a Doak course like Dye, Ross and Jones have done - I really liked SAB more than Renaissance. I have not seen one from you and your team that is really very contrasting in terms of style and design approach. Its ok to be in a comfort zone in terms of design and if it attracts clients then you are doing something right.
,,.,..............
Cheers
Ben
Ben,
Having played:
Riverfront 250+/- rounds
Beechtree 3 rounds
Pacific Dunes 3 rounds
Old MacDonald 2 rounds
Heathland Legend 1 round
Streamsong Blue 1 round
I can easily state that Tom's courses are very anti-formula.
I regret that the Midwest Mashie was called off. I hope the course at Sand Valley comes back to life. I, also, can hardly wait to play at Stoatin Brae.
Carl
Can you clarify what you mean by anti-formula.
Cheers
Ben
-
For those that want to read the entire Whitten piece, here's a link.
Note that this piece was published nearly ten years ago, in September 2010. Golf Digest seems to have reprinted it verbatim (except for changing 43 years to 53 years), but there's no indication that it's a reprint. Talk about a lack of innovation!
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/whitten-course-critic-rant
Note that we also discussed this piece at the time.
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46137.0.html
-
8)
Sour grapes, sounds like an angry petulant child.
To embrace the land and build something that reflects a symbiosis with it is such a rare gift. To then add challenge and intrigue without breaking the charm of same requires artistry. You know it when you see it ! You feel it when you play it!
Now I'm all for quirk as I've gotten a little longer in the tooth and perhaps a tad ( 8) ) less opinionated but quirk doesn't always work as flow is quite ephemeral. Perhaps that's why it's easier to build without taking chances. But the really great ones do it and sometimes you have to visit time and time again to see the vision.
-
Well if this piece is ten years old, he did not predict the future well - there have been hundreds of architect-driven renovations and restorations since then.
But there has been a trend of new par-3 courses where the number of holes is irrelevant, maybe that's the innovation he was looking for?
-
Well, I thought I had heard it before, but figured it was in conversation, I had not recalled reading that article.
I wonder if the weblink, including "Critic Rant" was original or if GD added it for some sensationalism now? No matter. He doesn't sound angry or petulant to me, and he isn't that type of person. (Although his long ago interview on this site shows he can be, LOL, as it was a part rant, complete with occasional foul language) He sounds like he is trying to engage some thought among those of us (gca's) of whom he has always been our biggest fan. And, to get some clicks.....mostly, to get some clicks.
But, he missed a few future predictions, and nailed some. Of course, the desire to "save money" by eliminating the gca has always been there, and one of the big selling points of the new wave design build firms is reduction in design fees, or eliminating them (i.e., hide them in construction cost or wait until the dozers are going to design something, which is fine for the thousands of bunker re-dos) that have been done. Or using a gca for a master plan and let your super build it without any more help. Like I always say, it's the details that count, and if you put a construction firm or superintendent in charge, neither really thinks in terms of good design, they tend to think from their own parameters of construction and or maintenance ease.
Also, everything is designed, whether good, bad, or indifferent. Seems to me if it is to last 25 years until the next rebuild, it's worth making sure it's good design, which requires someone who makes design their top priority. But, it has become a harder sell.
-
Jeff - no, I didn't mean to suggest that 'originality' precludes plans drawn in the office (after site visits and studying topo-maps etc.) My point is that originality -- or even 'innovation' -- doesn't lie where the critics and the theorists tend to thinks it does, and it never has.
I like to philosophize about originality and innovation as much as the next guy. Maybe it's as simple as the old saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention?" Or the seemingly overly optimistic mantra that there are no (design) problems, just (design) opportunities. At least I have always felt that, no real data to back it up.
I once complained about being assigned the lower budget of the two courses being designed in my mentors office, implying or assuming the lower budget meant it would probably be the lesser project. Ken Killian looks at me and says, "How do you know it's a bad design before you even design it? Kind of self defeating, no?" That stuck with me. Obviously, you can't go into a project with the attitude that it won't end up great. (Although I have met a surprising number of architects who say "Well, every course has a few bad holes.")
And, Ron's take about eliminating the "middle man" often takes hold, as people don't really understand how important design is to their enjoyment of the game, course management, etc. I am on a superintendents group on FB and someone was lamenting dumb ass golfers and how they use their carts. My comment was that design can eliminate some of that, most just assume its not important to locate cart paths carefully, taking into account human nature. Golf design is about golfers, not "the land" although wise use of the land is obviously one way to please and accommodate them.
Lastly, one of the "problems" I have with the idea of waiting until you are in the field (but, I don't really believe anyone who gets excited about golf course design doesn't start imagining golf holes from the minute they start the design project) is that those lightning bolts of inspiration do not appear on schedule! What happens when its time to build a green or whatever, and you just happen to be uninspired? I have been inspired at many different points of the process but if I didn't really start to think about it until the dozers were running, I think I would be limiting my chances to be inspired. Always best to have at least some "hip pocket" ideas before construction starts.
Also, while those lightning bolts are one of the great moments in design when they happen, in reality, most design is a process of narrowing down options to the best one that compromises the least design criteria you (or Owner) have. A great first hole heading right into the sun? Maybe you don't build it as the first hole, or at all, etc. Design is always a series of compromises, which should, IMHO, be carefully made in most cases.
They teach you in design school that the "Master Builder" image that FLW and RTJ among others, touts is more marketing myth that true design process, which mostly follows the logical scientific process, with some twists. And, what is the old saying ? "Inspiration is 90% perspiration" or something like that.
So, yeah, plans can be (or just are) pretty important tool to the creative process, no matter what they tell you. As always, just MHO, but in this case, backed by thousands of years of design experience that failure to plan is planning to fail, to drag out one more old bromide.
-
For those that want to read the entire Whitten piece, here's a link.
Note that this piece was published nearly ten years ago, in September 2010. Golf Digest seems to have reprinted it verbatim (except for changing 43 years to 53 years), but there's no indication that it's a reprint. Talk about a lack of innovation!
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/whitten-course-critic-rant (https://www.golfdigest.com/story/whitten-course-critic-rant)
Note that we also discussed this piece at the time.
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46137.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46137.0.html)
Well, I'm pretty consistent in my answers over that 10 years......
-
JB -
thanks. Your line about "inspiration' and waiting for the 'lightning bolt' of great ideas reminded me of what I've heard or read from every single great jazz improviser -- i.e. not from amateurs like me or critics/theorizers, but from actual working professionals who mastered their crafts and made music most every single day, for an audience. They all say this: that while they all hope/wait for that those moments of pure inspiration and the lightning bolts of musical ideas, and live for those joyous moments, those moments actually happen only about 10% of the time, and when they least expect it. The other 90% of the time they rely on *technique* and *training* and do the best that they can -- which is why every single one of them practiced so much, i.e. to develop as much technique as they could so that, during the 90% of the time when their longing for inspiration and greatness went unfulfilled, they could still manage to make really really good music.
-
It is a very good thread, but I hardly understand a word of it -- not Ron's original contention, nor Ben's support of it, nor even Tom and Jeff's 'rebuttals'.
It's as if either a) the terms 'outside the box' and 'originality' are being used much differently than I would use them, and/or b) few of the posters have ever created something themselves, which obviously isn't true. But I can't think of one creative person worthy of the name who has ever produced great work by trying/starting out to be 'original' -- in any art-craft, and certainly not in gca.
This is interesting for me as a guy who doesn't buy the typical GCA mantra that plenty of original stuff has been built in my lifetime...and that is without the consideration of success. I would like to see more original stuff, but I am far more interested in better exploring concepts that have been around for yonks. On that score there is no question progress is being made. I think more can be achieved if the need to satisfy social media aesthetics is mitigated. But owners need to earn a crust...
Ciao
-
I went back to read Mr. Whitten’s interview here that Jeff Bauer mentioned above. It was done in 2000. It has some coincidentally ironic relevance for a couple of current threads. He does his own eclectic US modern 18 and repeats only Fazio. He picks High Pointe 13. And he labels number 14 at Waterwood National as this generation’s CPC 16.
Ira
-
Ira,
I suppose that is the problem of being in the public eye in the media age. You have to be totally consistent over decades or someone will dig exceptions out on the internet. And, you get held to what is probably an impossibly high standard that few of us meet. That said, I get your point.
But, as someone who has had to put out a column every month, (14 years in Golf Course Industry Magazine) I have some sympathy for Ron....... a few days or a week before every column is due, I started to panic about what to write about this month. And, occasionally decided to write something controversial just for the heck of it. Just like Mac said if there was no criticism of a new course, something was wrong. For an magazine author, if there are no laudatory or scathing emails after a column comes out, you must have been pretty boring. Or, the stock gca answer to an odd hole no one likes? "Well, which hole are you talking about? The goal of that hole was to spur discussion!"
-
Jeff,
I was not attempting to make any real point other than the same questions recur as they should over time.
Ira
-
Ira,
Understood. Let's give GD credit. They figure their demographic is smart enough that they have to wait to repeat every 10 years to keep people from noticing (and they almost did!) The typical newscast (and some politicians) figure their audience has forgotten what they told them a few days ago, in an effort to stir up today's outrage, LOL (not) :(
-
Let's give GD credit. They figure their demographic is smart enough that they have to wait to repeat every 10 years to keep people from noticing (and they almost did!)
Or they are just lazy. Why not indicate that it's from ten years ago, but the author thinks is still applicable? Surely that's more reasonable than trying to pass it off as something new.
Forgetting whether you agree with Whitten or not, it's a pretty pathetic editorial approach.
-
Ira,
Understood. Let's give GD credit. They figure their demographic is smart enough that they have to wait to repeat every 10 years to keep people from noticing (and they almost did!) The typical newscast (and some politicians) figure their audience has forgotten what they told them a few days ago, in an effort to stir up today's outrage, LOL (not) :(
I wrote an article back around 2000 for GOLF magazine on driving.
2 pages, multiple photos from a professional photographer(back when they actually use to do that)
Also back in the day when they paid instructors for content.
In it, I included a couple of drills I learned from Jim McLean and gave him due credit.
Exactly 10 years later they ran the identical text, with drawings of me(or my doppleganger) in the exact same positions and demonstrating the exact same drills,except they changed the title,never mentioned me, and didn't credit McLean.
I found out about it when I stumbled on an internet rant by McLean, using that article as the example.
needless to say they didn't pay me for the second run...
So yes they do regurgitate the same content after a period of time ;)
To be fair, they have been sold twice since then and are currently very well managed,and put out an excellent monthly Magazine- despite the current epic challenges of print media.
-
:P
My petulance comment came from the fact that Whitten wanted to be accepted as an architect in his own right. His lack of acceptance into the fold might have caused him to be a little miffed, hence his lash at the more accepted GCA's
-
Why not indicate that it's from ten years ago, but the author thinks is still applicable? Surely that's more reasonable than trying to pass it off as something new.
Forgetting whether you agree with Whitten or not, it's a pretty pathetic editorial approach.
Agreed. By journalism standards, not noting that an "opinion" article was written ten years ago is poor form, if they really did not. [the online version was dated; I still haven't received the print version]
For Jeff's instruction piece, though, it's a case of seller beware. I'd bet that the fine print in the little contract he signed gave all rights over to the magazine, so it's within their rights to reprint the thing every month if they want to. And with the demand for new content every day, it is not shocking that some of it is not so new!
-
:P
My petulance comment came from the fact that Whitten wanted to be accepted as an architect in his own right. His lack of acceptance into the fold might have caused him to be a little miffed, hence his lash at the more accepted GCA's
Archie,
Yeah, Whitten does come across as jealous. Not a good look.
-
Perhaps architects are treated differently than writers for borrowing from others and being repetitive. It is probably good form to have noted that the article was essentially a reprint, but for the vast majority of readers (probably including DG participants here but for our resident opposition fact-checkers), it is fresh material.
I don't know Ron Whitten personally or his motivations so I will take his arguments at face value. Golf is a game of tradition with certain rules and expectations which, IMO, severely limit stylistic and functional innovations. As the world is seemingly changing all of the time, the golf course serves as a respite. Architects known for pushing the envelope- Muirhead, Dye, Engh, Stranz to a lesser extent- have not received widely positive acclaim (Dye has been prolific, but as his moniker, the Marquis de Sod, suggests, his work is often polarizing).
Just as writers are paid to be interesting and controversy is often the key element in inducing readership/economic viability, golf architects are commissioned to build courses which are sufficiently interesting to achieve the objectives of the project. There are an inexhaustible number of combinations provided by the basic 10-20+ templates of golf holes built on highly varied sites with differing climate and weather conditions. I thought that Erin Hills offered great variety and met all my needs for uniqueness and innovation. I guess that if I wanted to be really surprised, I'd go to Top Golf and punch a program for a weird set-up. There is one within a few miles and have only been there once, on someone else's dime.
-
I cannot find the article (have looked thru GD's issue #7...sounds like July to me...from this year w Shane Lowery on then cover and it ain't there). Scanned thru most of the comments and I would suggest there have been at least 7 major innovations in golf over the past several decades. IMO some of those innovation are awful, some seem good, and some are to early to decide:
1. Frisbee Golf...certainly solves the cost question...but seems to have failed in getting much traction (perhaps because it does not have much appeal for 75 year old like myself with fragile bones)
2. Simulators...solves the problem of increased length demanding more real estate, and a lot of the cost question...but seems to fail in that part of the joy in golf is being outside in different conditions each day...and "feeling" the weather/climate
3. Original Sheep Ranch...where the winner of the prior hole picks the next green to play for...very interesting concept, but really limits golf course's player capacity...and that concept has now disappeared from its origin
4. Par 3 courses...IMO one of two real winners in this group...fun fun fun...and great practice ground
5. Superb practice ranges/facilities...think back to what they were like 100 years ago...there were none. Courses over 100 years old today that have practice ranges either purchased additional land or had a polo field. Want examples of fabulous clubs that do not have "adequate" practice facilities today? Winged Foot, NGLA, Riviera, and Quaker Ridge. This hugely increased the ""capacity" or number of players a club could keep active at one moment. And the new ranges offer so much...which I think mostly started w Hank Haney's teaching center in McKinney TX around 1991. Fabulous innovation.
6. Golf courses designed around real estate development...ignited a huge boom in golf course construction and is a major cause of the "dark ages" of golf architecture IMO. This might be the biggest bust of these 6!!
7. But the biggest innovation related to golf architecture and I guess Ron can't see it...and it has three huge parts all of which have brought new life into the game:
--building courses on great land...even if players have to travel to get there. I think part of the issue that caused golf arch to go mostly bad in the '50's thru 80's was that all of the decent land near cities was gobbled up by homes and other forms of development (not to mention the restricts related to environmental regs). What the likes of Dick Youngscap and Mike Keiser did to turn that issue into a huge opportunity is a fabulous innovation with remarkable success
--the entire architectural trust of the "old look" (for lake of a better term) used by the likes of Doak, Coore-Crenshaw, Hanse, etc etc etches an innovation even if it was based on bringing the architectural thoughts of 100 years earlier back into play again on new courses...bringing something that had almost been forgotten back into play IS AN INNOVATION
--the renovation/restoration "Industry" which had brought back to life so so many courses that had started to "go bad" (yes...they were going bad
The total of these three had resulted in the finest and largest collection off great courses existing at one time in the world
So, Ron Whitten, do the above not qualify as innovation (remember...innovation can be good or bad or in between)
-
Paul
The only two points of the above I would consider innovative are better renovations and better practice grounds...I consider simulators and Sheep Ranch practice.
Frisbee golf ain't golf. The other stuff was already around, just rediscovered.
The importance of proper renovation is an under current for the rise in gca.
Practice ground insanity goes hand in hand with the equipment boom. Sounds great on the surface, but....
Ciao
-
Golf courses designed around real estate development...ignited a huge boom in golf course construction and is a major cause of the "dark ages" of golf architecture IMO. This might be the biggest bust of these 6!!
[/size]
[/size]So making golf easier to play for millions after WWII was a bust? Not everyone would think so, not the least of which would be the many veterans who wanted to enjoy their hard won freedom to the max, with some of them wanting to golf. Not to mention, introducing golf to their kids, a few of whom went on to be golf course architects.
[/size]No innovation or change in golf is all good or all bad, it just prioritizes one thing over another for that particular situation.
-
Golf courses designed around real estate development...ignited a huge boom in golf course construction and is a major cause of the "dark ages" of golf architecture IMO. This might be the biggest bust of these 6!!
So making golf easier to play for millions after WWII was a bust? Not everyone would think so, not the least of which would be the many veterans who wanted to enjoy their hard won freedom to the max, with some of them wanting to golf. Not to mention, introducing golf to their kids, a few of whom went on to be golf course architects.
No innovation or change in golf is all good or all bad, it just prioritizes one thing over another for that particular situation.
I agree with Jeff here, while not producing Golden Age golf courses, it served a greater purpose in real estate and accessible recreation. I don't think all courses have to be great architecturally, I mean look at any 9 hole or executive course to take beginners or kids out to. They have a great time and serves it purpose.
-
- If the past is the only thing you bring to the table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. (Whitten then mentions examples of a public course built by a golf contractor w/o an architect and Cypress Point restoring bunkers on their own.)
Have seen this coming for a long time...thats why design/build is coming on strong....
-
Agree with responses by both Jeffs...but that does not change the proposition that real estate golf development was a major innovation nor recognized by Whitten
-
I'm also not sure if he ever played a Jim Engh course. While he re-uses his own templates quite a bit, when you're on a Engh course you really know it, its pretty unique stuff. Is #11 at Black Rock not out of the box for him?
I think he was a big fan of Engh...
-
I can see where RW is coming from....he was probably around enough bad GCAs and could not ay anything that he finally had to let it out.
Don't believe for a second that GD did not consider advertising dollars etc when rating some courses...GD had so much to do with increasing the cost of golf. The design aspects may not have changed that much but they had raters that rated as much on condition as anything and in the search for "best new" all types of new maintenance methods, chemicals, mowers and irrigation helped make the cost of golf unsustainable. The industry used the post war GCA's as their outlet to push equipment, irrigation and other innovations to unknowing end users...and this was good for the magazine for a long time...
RTJ helped bring about an arrogance in GCA from right after the war until the late 90's. There was an abundance of bad GCA's who were just not good.
If there had never been GD "best new" which replaced the "Top 50 or 100 or whatever", golf may have been more sustainable and viewed in a different manner...
The millennials of the day are looking for something different...I think it will always be 18 holes and all these other models sound good but not sure it will work. They are not into conditions like the present golfer...
The young architects, design build or whatever have a different outlook and while they may not bring new artistic innovation my bet is they will figure how to get a good product out there that can survive...
-
Mike,
Yes, a golf course that can make money with reasonable greens fees could be considered an innovation! Or, a unicorn.
-
If I may be so bold to comment:
This has been coming for a long, long time. He's been insulting people for years. That's Ron Whitten!
Ron was going to retire someday, and frankly speaking, his tone in the article whether it was yesterday or ten years ago, I have always viewed Ron as someone who is very bitter because the subject he helped revive became a runaway freight train he couldn't control--and like it or not, his co-written work (the Golf Course & Architects of Golf) has inspired many of us and has been a guide to who built what and where; definitions, etc. It was sort of a landmark effort of its time. However, the slope of evolution can be slippery and some times a bitter pill. While I'm grateful for his works and contributions, I can never once remember where he was encouraging to anyone in the history of this website to learn further and expand their knowledge. The only thing he's done is write reviews of courses and pay lip service for the sake of monthly content.
I can't forget nor let go of the fact that Ron did a pretty good job of pissing off the late, great Desmond Muirhead with an article that painted him a LSD-induced lunatic when he was anything but that! Some of you might have not liked Desmond's work, but he was trying to create and think outside of the box; innovate, all with inspiration from the very ingredients and lore of the Old Course of St. Andrews. Ron brutalized him for it. The hypocrisies are many, but we're all guilty of that at one time or other in our lives.
It's not fun getting older while having tons of wisdom to share, teach and further guide and hopefully inspire. Worse when you don't want to share at all! (Ron) Youth caught up and surpassed Ron and he is mad at the world for that! Its surpassing all of us one way or another. You just hope that what you have come to know and have leaned through experience gets transferred in a good way. With Ron, it hasn't. He comes off as a bitter old cuss who is seemingly mad at the very world he helped build. To paraphrase Robbie Coltrane's character in "From Hell", Ron has become that sad old man at the pub that no one wants to sit beside because he'll start talking about the girl that got away.
"The Girl" in this case is Golf Architecture and one thing Ron doesn't have respect for is the passion and love to really understand and inspire the very creativity he calls for. Ron insults today's architects, calling them obsessed with old age ideas, when in fact, everyone of the great architects of this day that I have been fortunate to come to know, they have respect because of what these great teachers of the game have taught them. The very principles that will hopefully guide the game for the next 500 years or more.
God help us!
-
Ron also wrote, "Restoration is the narrow minded substitute for imagination." They left that out. In this day of outrage media, I'm surprised they did. (BTW, raise your hand if you agree.....)
Tommy,
For accuracy, Ron did not write that Desmond was under the influence of LSD. And, Ron and Desmond made up, he did more articles on him, etc., so I think it can be time for Tommy to let it go....and the piece about the island green with island bunkers was part of his on again, off again series of humorous "architorture" columns, which skewered many of us at some point. Next to his Carnak bit, (with an unnamed gca to protect the guilty) it was him at his funniest.
Ron is not bitter or angry. And, having recently lost 50 lbs., is playing walking golf now. And, happy about it. And, still working at reviewing courses of all types, having done more to promote a wider variety of architects than anyone I have known, rather than focus on the top 3 to 5 hot architects. Yeah, gca criticism got away from him and grew beyond what he imagined, but he can go to his grave knowing he basically invented the profession and/or genre at least of gca critiques.
Short version, the assumptions you made in that last post are pretty far off base. But, I guess that is today's internet, and possibly, people feel criticizing the criticizer is fair play, and it probably is.
-
Jeff, FACT: That article bugged Desmond till the day he died. I’d listen to him for hours ramble on about it. He felt betrayed and misquoted. I understand your defense of Ron as he has always posted positively about your courses, but others have not had the same experience, so it would be foolish to try to say otherwise. The proof is that article. DESMOND’S OWN WORDS TO ME: They made me into a LSD-induced idiot!”
While I’m happy for Ron losing that 50lbs. Hopefully he can lose the bitterness he seemingly has for architecture; it’s fans and the people who continue to promote it.
-
Tommy,
Cheers and hope all is well. We haven't talked for quite some time.
Well, if Desmond stayed bitter to you, he was gracious to Ron face to face after the article, and not sure what that says about Desmond. Human, I guess. And again, just to clarify, the LSD reference was a statement from Desmond to you, not something Ron wrote in a mainstream magazine, which I am sure was against their standards. That is the possible misconception I wanted to clear up, now that defamation and other journalistic standards have gone down with the advent of the internet.
Yes, Ron and I have been friends, and he has said some nice things about my courses, more than some other critics. He has done that for many architects and I don't feel I get any particularly skewed treatment.
I have talked with him. I sense no bitterness whatsoever. And, you have always been known as one who will go somewhat over the top, sometimes even to attribute bad motives to people you don't agree with, which is usually a bad way to attribute various actions to people you barely know.
Anyway, that's all I know.
-
FWIW, not having really read much or anything by Ron Whitten before I thought the article was meant to be provocative and entertaining and I think it certainly succeeded in that judging by this thread. Maybe the interesting thing is whether some of the themes it raises are still relevant 10 years after.
Anyway, it didn't strike me as being written by a bitter man but then I don't know him or his back story.
Niall
-
Tommy-I’m normally not a big fan of mountain golf because of the inherent challenges with the terrain but Muirhead’s Haystack Golf Club in Vermont is a blast to play. He did a great job of integrating the holes and using the natural landforms to create compelling shots. Finally except for the uphill three minute trek from nine green to ten tee the course is very walkable. Hope all is well.
-
Doing good Tim! Hope all is well during these crazy times!
I’m not a fan of mountain golf either, let alone the side of a hill, but Desmond created Quail Ranch that unfortunately is no longer existing in Moreno Valley, about three miles off of the 60 freeway going towards Palm Springs, right before you go into Box Canyon. This golf course had some of the best greens in Southern California, and the strategies were what I think this group would find extremely entertaining!
Sadly, the place ran afoul of bad ownership; changed many of the holes as well as planted palm trees everywhere till it finally closed around the time of the market collapse in 2008. There were grand plans for this place; it was going to have a hotel & convention center and the view of the Perris Valley was quite beautiful with all of the putts breaking uncannily towards a breast of a mountain which many who played there labeled, “Mt. Tit!” You couldn’t miss it! You can still see the remnants of this former gem, and sadly, I visited there with Desmond once. He was quite infuriated—as he should have been—with what had happened there.
Jeff, All is good!
Here is Quail Ranch’s 5th hole which could play from 320 to 400 yards from varying tees, which Desmond started employing in a course within a course fashion!
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/Fv3bgp.jpg)
-
8) ;D
Tommy so nice to see you here and as always welcome!
I feel so bad that I missed out on meeting Desmond at Stone Harbor when the job was going down. As is my nature was nosing around a little bit when I saw all the machines looking like something out of the War of the Worlds! Would have loved to talk to him about what he was doing and how it all[size=78%] tied in![/size]
[/size]
By the way I'm crazy about Norse Mythology et al, Greeks , Romans all those dudes
Rave on TN
-
3. Original Sheep Ranch...where the winner of the prior hole picks the next green to play for...very interesting concept, but really limits golf course's player capacity...and that concept has now disappeared from its origin
4. Par 3 courses...IMO one of two real winners in this group...fun fun fun...and great practice ground
Paul:
The Sheep Ranch, like the par-3 courses, was designed purely with fun in mind. Both of them helped to break down the idea that you have to have a certain number of holes, which you can't even get to without also abandoning norms of par and yardage.
I think "fun" has been the biggest innovation in golf over the course of my career. MacKenzie talked of "pleasurable excitement" but he did not use the word "fun" -- I'm not sure if that was a generational thing or whether he was afraid of not being taken seriously. We talked about that while building High Pointe, and Gil Hanse and I used the word in the first brochure for Renaissance Golf Design, because nobody else was using that word to describe what they were doing.
Jim Engh, Mike Strantz, and David Kidd all have different styles, and different ideas of what's fun in golf, but that is what each of them has pursued, too. I can't think of any architects who were thinking that way in 1975, and I can't think of any that talked about it [other than MacKenzie] in 1925.
-
Thanks Archie!
Tom, As far as I’m concerned, in my experience, if it’s not FUN, if it doesn’t make you want to challenge yourself further, then it’s simply boring golf! I like holes that make me giggle. Holes that make me laugh. Golf holes I don’t ever want to stop trying to better aa a shot maker! The original Sheep Ranch was that!
-
Doing good Tim! Hope all is well during these crazy times!
I’m not a fan of mountain golf either, let alone the side of a hill, but Desmond created Quail Ranch that unfortunately is no longer existing in Moreno Valley, about three miles off of the 60 freeway going towards Palm Springs, right before you go into Box Canyon. This golf course had some of the best greens in Southern California, and the strategies were what I think this group would find extremely entertaining!
Sadly, the place ran afoul of bad ownership; changed many of the holes as well as planted palm trees everywhere till it finally closed around the time of the market collapse in 2008. There were grand plans for this place; it was going to have a hotel & convention center and the view of the Perris Valley was quite beautiful with all of the putts breaking uncannily towards a breast of a mountain which many who played there labeled, “Mt. Tit!” You couldn’t miss it! You can still see the remnants of this former gem, and sadly, I visited there with Desmond once. He was quite infuriated—as he should have been—with what had happened there.
Jeff, All is good!
Here is Quail Ranch’s 5th hole which could play from 320 to 400 yards from varying tees, which Desmond started employing in a course within a course fashion!
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/Fv3bgp.jpg)
Quail Ranch. Wow. Was just discussing that gem with a buddy who said if he won the lottery he'd bring it back. Would love to be a part of that!
Lots of great memories there. My first competitive round in the old Riverside County Am was played there. They also had a Thursday(?) skins game that was a blast. Learned to make a 4 foot putt on 18 to close out a match there after years of never being able to do so.
-
David, Wouldn’t that be awesome in the right hands!?!?
-
David, Wouldn’t that be awesome in the right hands!?!?
It absolutely would be. Such a treat to play. Greens were crazy. One of them (the short, uphill par 3 on the (northern?) border of the property was a bit much if the greens were even close to fast (above 10?). Saw many a player 4/5 putt there in the am over the years.
-
My God yes!!! Of the many times I played Quail Ranch, I three-putted #2 more times then I two-putted it and I had a four-putt there once as well! The greens were in the best shape of any course in Southern California in those early days of playing there. (IMHO)
-
My God yes!!! Of the many times I played Quail Ranch, I three-putted #2 more times then I two-putted it and I had a four-putt there once as well! The greens were in the best shape of any course in Southern California in those early days of playing there. (IMHO)
Sounds like we would be a good match! If tennis, it might be "endless love" or something similar...... :o
-
In the July issue of Golf Digest, architecture editor has quite the rant about a lack of innovation in golf course architecture. I couldn't find the column online, but will share some excerpts:
- The problem is, every architect worships the past...and molds designs to those ancient templates.
- Nobody has an original thought
[...]
Well, Mr. Whitten, we can fix this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_2TtjAApQw
You've got to watch this to the end or else you're too soft!
-
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.
Ciao
-
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.
Ciao
As someone said about Benny Goodman, his greatness lay in the fact that he could go uptown and he could go downtown, with equal facility. You too: the Yank and the Brit, the rater and the free thinker. Thanks: that was the most interesting posts I've read in a month. And it suggests that the top architects (and even the best of them can play only uptown) should hire the least architecturally sophisticated among us to handle the first part of the assignment, so that the random-making is truly random!
-
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.
Ciao
This is something that I have talked about a lot with my partner if we ever get a “poor” site with a decent budget.
In other words, you either go minimal or you do the opposite (so that you can then go minimal). It came about after watching so many average sites taking the middle ground and doing a bunch of muck shifting in between fairways in order to create ugly containment mounding / dunes / movement. Much more interesting to do the muck shifting before considering the playing corridors.
I’m sure it’s not a new idea but to follow that idea to its end (hiring someone to mess up the site before starting the GCA) has probably never been done before. It would be interesting to hear if there are any examples.
-
Ally
I'm not sure if it is exactly equivalent and indeed probably not, but when Mark Parsinen developed Kingsbarns he was keen to create a landscape over which the course was laid (or at least I think that was supposed to be the illusion) and I think he managed it quite well. That idea seemed to go out the window when it came to developing Castle Stuart.
Niall
-
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.
Ciao
This is something that I have talked about a lot with my partner if we ever get a “poor” site with a decent budget.
In other words, you either go minimal or you do the opposite (so that you can then go minimal). It came about after watching so many average sites taking the middle ground and doing a bunch of muck shifting in between fairways in order to create ugly containment mounding / dunes / movement. Much more interesting to do the muck shifting before considering the playing corridors.
I’m sure it’s not a new idea but to follow that idea to its end (hiring someone to mess up the site before starting the GCA) has probably never been done before. It would be interesting to hear if there are any examples.
Martin Ebert wrote in GCA a good number of years ago that one of his life's ambitions was to get a project on a site that was sandy but featureless. He planned to gather the best shapers he could find and take them to St Andrews to spend some time walking round the Old Course. He'd then take them to the site and say 'Go shape it according to what you just saw'. Then he would route golf holes across the newly created landscape.
-
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.
Ciao
Yes!
Is this not generally what happened at Streamsong in Florida?
Those courses have certainly been well received.
-
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.
Ciao
In part I guess. Most of the Streamsong site was mined forty year ago or more, so the effect of wind etc on the created landforms can't be underestimated.
Yes!
Is this not generally what happened at Streamsong in Florida?
Those courses have certainly been well received.
-
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.
Ciao
Since Ron Whitten's name is in the title of this thread, it's appropriate to point out that he's talked about this in the past, going back years if not decades. As an example he suggested a hypothetical of a piece of land on which to train a group of people to use heavy machinery, and stop them before they really know what they're going. That disrupted land is now your golf site.
For that matter, that's essentially what David Kidd did at the Castle Course--they took a bland piece of flattish land and started roughing it up with machinery and no real plan, then used those landforms as starting points for the design.
-
...
I’m sure it’s not a new idea but to follow that idea to its end (hiring someone to mess up the site before starting the GCA) has probably never been done before. It would be interesting to hear if there are any examples.
A long time ago John VDB reported on this site that he had either seen or experimented with fractal geometry generation of landscapes which could be a way to generate a golf course landscape.
-
Many a military site or ex-military site in GB&I, both coastal and inland, that would be perfect for putting back to akin its original ‘natural’ undeveloped state and then having a golf course laid out on it. Same with coastal holiday camps and caravan parks etc as well.
Atb
-
Military site or landfill perhaps. Although years ago, when I worked for Killian and Nugent, we did a grading plan for a landfill so that the contours could be shaped to a future golf course via proper dumping. Don't think that plan ever came to fruition.
While a "neat idea" to shape randomly to recreate some natural contours, much like you would find in many original designs, its not really the most efficient. For most owners, the cost of moving earth once is almost too much, much less moving it once randomly and then again to fit a golf course.
If starting with a featureless site, its more efficient to route the course, put the big hills where they might need to be (i.e., typically, elevating an area that has multiple tees, perhaps use landforms to separate holes, or build a gentle grade somewhere, uphill in one direction, downhill the next hole coming back, etc.
The trick for any shaping for a gca is to avoid what I call standard shaping to fit the features, i.e., its so easy to build landforms right around the green, tee, etc. They do look better if the angles, heights, etc. are at odd angles, rather than perfectly fit to the green. It seems to me, that thought process would be the essence of a good finished product, whether the contours happened to be at the appropriate angles if random, or not. I get the idea that each green might hit the site at different angles, but if routing occurred after than "random" earth creation occurred, wouldn't the gca just fall back on similar tendencies anyway?
-
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.
Ciao
Since Ron Whitten's name is in the title of this thread, it's appropriate to point out that he's talked about this in the past, going back years if not decades. As an example he suggested a hypothetical of a piece of land on which to train a group of people to use heavy machinery, and stop them before they really know what they're going. That disrupted land is now your golf site.
For that matter, that's essentially what David Kidd did at the Castle Course--they took a bland piece of flattish land and started roughing it up with machinery and no real plan, then used those landforms as starting points for the design.
Derek
Given the slope I'm not sure flat is the right term but it certainly was featureless. I suspect though that the shapers might dispute that there was no real intent in what they were doing before laying out the course. It also occurs to me that Kidd won the commission to design the Castle course in a design competition. I can't imagine he promised to randomly create features and then design from there. ;D
That said, I think you are an industry man so you might know better.
Niall
-
Many a military site or ex-military site in GB&I, both coastal and inland, that would be perfect for putting back to akin its original ‘natural’ undeveloped state and then having a golf course laid out on it. Same with coastal holiday camps and caravan parks etc as well.
Atb
That's what happened at Budersand on the island of Sylt in Germany. Sand dunes are totally protected in mainland Europe, you'd never get permission to build golf in them nowadays. Budersand used to be an airbase: when it closed it was redeveloped as golf and hotel -- they ripped up all the concrete, exposed the sand beneath, and shaped it.
-
I think Ron was onto something and I am sure others have thought about creating random landforms. That was Ron being ahead of the game before anyone else.
The key to any random design is how you "Discover" or "Shape" it to create the desired features. I figured out a long time ago at Pacific Dunes how to achieve randomness through the use of mechanical equipment. I hold it close to my vest, waiting for the next chance to use my discovery. I used it sporadically at Sebonack and at Old Mac, both with success.
I realized touring the Old Course at St Andrews that we shaped features using the hand of man in the U.S. From that light bulb moment at St Andrews, when I need the ace card pulled out I use this style to create random features.
The idea to move dirt by others and then create a routing is a novel idea but someone still has to account for 1/2 million Cu Yds or whatever quantity you plan to move to create your space in an efficient manner. When moving that dirt you must take into accountant, Drainage, Scale, and most importantly Views. Unless you are not worried about making a bathtub in the middle of the property or blocking out the all important surrounding property.
-
I think Ron was onto something and I am sure others have thought about creating random landforms. That was Ron being ahead of the game before anyone else.
The key to any random design is how you "Discover" or "Shape" it to create the desired features. I figured out a long time ago at Pacific Dunes how to achieve randomness through the use of mechanical equipment. I hold it close to my vest, waiting for the next chance to use my discovery. I used it sporadically at Sebonack and at Old Mac, both with success.
I realized touring the Old Course at St Andrews that we shaped features using the hand of man in the U.S. From that light bulb moment at St Andrews, when I need the ace card pulled out I use this style to create random features.
The idea to move dirt by others and then create a routing is a novel idea but someone still has to account for 1/2 million Cu Yds or whatever quantity you plan to move to create your space in an efficient manner. When moving that dirt you must take into accountant, Drainage, Scale, and most importantly Views. Unless you are not worried about making a bathtub in the middle of the property or blocking out the all important surrounding property
I don't mean shaped so much as the land being dynamited with many small charges. Then working over the random land forms. I thought of the idea after seeing WWI sites that were shelled. Setting aside the reason for their existence, the resulting land is awesome for golf with endless options for a creative archie. Seeing the land 100 years later really demonstrates how the features softened, making for excellent golf terrain.
Ciao
-
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.
Is this not generally what happened at Streamsong in Florida?
Those courses have certainly been well received.
I was going to point that out. As Adam mentioned, years of wind action certainly helped, too.
This is hardly a new thought in design circles, and certainly not among shapers, who have been thinking about it forever. Jim Urbina and I were discussing it twenty years ago; Jim even sent the one non-golfing shaper at The Rawls Course down a couple of the holes backwards, so whatever he was thinking about wouldn't be what the golfer was looking at. It was interesting, but no one has chosen it as our best work ever.
Mark Parsinen did speak of creating a landscape at Kingsbarns, but he had too many ideas of what he wanted to do, to let it be very random.
As a minimalist, I take the tack that every bit of the earth's surface has already been randomized, and just try to use that. The army of shapers would inevitably do too much.
But I do have a model in mind for a future flat site if I ever do another one. It is a landscape that no one has ever used for golf before, so it should lead to some fresh golf holes if I ever get the chance. Actually it would be a perfect theme for Las Vegas but I think that era has passed.
-
I cannot find the article (have looked thru GD's issue #7...sounds like July to me...from this year w Shane Lowery on then cover and it ain't there). Scanned thru most of the comments and I would suggest there have been at least 7 major innovations in golf over the past several decades. IMO some of those innovation are awful, some seem good, and some are to early to decide:
1. Frisbee Golf...certainly solves the cost question...but seems to have failed in getting much traction (perhaps because it does not have much appeal for 75 year old like myself with fragile bones)
2. Simulators...solves the problem of increased length demanding more real estate, and a lot of the cost question...but seems to fail in that part of the joy in golf is being outside in different conditions each day...and "feeling" the weather/climate
3. Original Sheep Ranch...where the winner of the prior hole picks the next green to play for...very interesting concept, but really limits golf course's player capacity...and that concept has now disappeared from its origin
4. Par 3 courses...IMO one of two real winners in this group...fun fun fun...and great practice ground
5. Superb practice ranges/facilities...think back to what they were like 100 years ago...there were none. Courses over 100 years old today that have practice ranges either purchased additional land or had a polo field. Want examples of fabulous clubs that do not have "adequate" practice facilities today? Winged Foot, NGLA, Riviera, and Quaker Ridge. This hugely increased the ""capacity" or number of players a club could keep active at one moment. And the new ranges offer so much...which I think mostly started w Hank Haney's teaching center in McKinney TX around 1991. Fabulous innovation.
6. Golf courses designed around real estate development...ignited a huge boom in golf course construction and is a major cause of the "dark ages" of golf architecture IMO. This might be the biggest bust of these 6!!
7. But the biggest innovation related to golf architecture and I guess Ron can't see it...and it has three huge parts all of which have brought new life into the game:
--building courses on great land...even if players have to travel to get there. I think part of the issue that caused golf arch to go mostly bad in the '50's thru 80's was that all of the decent land near cities was gobbled up by homes and other forms of development (not to mention the restricts related to environmental regs). What the likes of Dick Youngscap and Mike Keiser did to turn that issue into a huge opportunity is a fabulous innovation with remarkable success
--the entire architectural trust of the "old look" (for lake of a better term) used by the likes of Doak, Coore-Crenshaw, Hanse, etc etc etches an innovation even if it was based on bringing the architectural thoughts of 100 years earlier back into play again on new courses...bringing something that had almost been forgotten back into play IS AN INNOVATION
--the renovation/restoration "Industry" which had brought back to life so so many courses that had started to "go bad" (yes...they were going bad
The total of these three had resulted in the finest and largest collection off great courses existing at one time in the world
So, Ron Whitten, do the above not qualify as innovation (remember...innovation can be good or bad or in between)
this is gold
-
...
I’m sure it’s not a new idea but to follow that idea to its end (hiring someone to mess up the site before starting the GCA) has probably never been done before. It would be interesting to hear if there are any examples.
A long time ago John VDB reported on this site that he had either seen or experimented with fractal geometry generation of landscapes which could be a way to generate a golf course landscape.
Can you elaborate on this? I find fractal geometry and Fibonacci sequences and proportions to be very interesting. I did it myself this year converting an overgrown english garden into a Fibonacci inspired Japanese (I call it Japonacci) Zen garden that feels so balanced and natural that I and friends have a hard time leaving it. And of course I thought it could be cool if that's ever been done on a golf course. So I'm curious what some examples of Fractal geometry are in golf course design according to John VDB (who is he, BTW?).
-
John VDB is John Vander Borght a member of this site, the author of "The Balloon Ball" in the In My Opinion section of this site, a USGA rules official (having left a software engineering career), and owner of the most tenuous albatross you will ever hear of.
He made a two at his club, Pumkin Ridge, in a tournament where the hole was listed as a par 4, while he otherwise plays it as a par 5 every other day.
I searched for fractal on the site, but the search did not return the post I referred to.
-
Now that John VDG has been outed, perhaps he can shed some light on why the USGA has been so adamant about firm and fast conditions and whether clubs are largely following its lead. Other than the obvious, to conserve water resources especially in areas where this is a problem, are there other reasons from maintenance, architectural, and playability standpoints why this is better for golf?
-
... are there other reasons from maintenance, architectural, and playability standpoints why this is better for golf?
It allows old man Duran to hit the ball farther.
;D
-
... are there other reasons from maintenance, architectural, and playability standpoints why this is better for golf?
It allows old man Duran to hit the ball farther.
;D
As my wife said with a grin at Royal Dornoch after a driver off the deck with 70+ yards of roll gave her a 30-eagle putt, "I love a fast golf course."
-
I knew there is a good reason why I am a proponent of F & F. Unfortunately, among club golfers, women included, I think I am in a small minority.
Ron Whitten has been a strong, longtime advocate for cutting way down on water. His "conditioning" definition is mostly about how firm and fast the fairways play, and how firm and fast the greens are while still holding good shots.
Years ago I visited a Top 100 course in the Midwest where the maintenance workers donned custom made Tee shirts printed with "Think Firm and Fast" on the back. The course, unfortunately, played soft and according to one of the workers, the area had not received much rainfall for a couple of weeks. I asked the superintendent about the shirts and he noted that the club was trying to educate the membership and find a balance. I visited some time later and the course remained lush and soft, probably just the way the members liked it.
I think that if Ron was successful in his quest to firm up the playing grounds that this would create the opportunity to be more innovative on the architectural side. Perhaps architects would open up the entries more and create internal contouring that would sometimes encourage play to the peripheries of the green complexes, using the ground to feed the ball toward the hole. And maybe there would be more focus on what's behind the greens so there wouldn't be such a high premium repeatedly on keeping the ball short of the hole.
-
I think that if Ron was successful in his quest to firm up the playing grounds that this would create the opportunity to be more innovative on the architectural side. Perhaps architects would open up the entries more and create internal contouring that would sometimes encourage play to the peripheries of the green complexes, using the ground to feed the ball toward the hole. And maybe there would be more focus on what's behind the greens so there wouldn't be such a high premium repeatedly on keeping the ball short of the hole.
Some of us have been doing that for years, just in case a better approach to maintenance ever catches on.
-
I think that if Ron was successful in his quest to firm up the playing grounds that this would create the opportunity to be more innovative on the architectural side. Perhaps architects would open up the entries more and create internal contouring that would sometimes encourage play to the peripheries of the green complexes, using the ground to feed the ball toward the hole. And maybe there would be more focus on what's behind the greens so there wouldn't be such a high premium repeatedly on keeping the ball short of the hole.
I once spent a lot of time at a course that comes very close to that description. Of course Ron saw it and wrote some very nice things about it, so maybe we had something close to what he was looking for.