Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Steve_Roths on January 19, 2023, 04:37:31 PM
-
https://beyondthecontour.com/first-look-cabot-citrus-farms/
I saw the above storyline and I think they did a great job with the before and after.
Here is my question. Is it me or is too much exposed sand a bit much on these course. I had the same thought when I played Sand Valley the C&C course in WI. The pictures on the new holes at Cabot Citrus are WOW, but it just seems too much.
Kind of the less is more or leaving them wanting for more.
Am I wrong here?
-
I've never been there. But personally, I'm into it. Why make it look more like a "normal" golf course? I'd say go for something crazy.
-
Yes Steve, there can be.
From those photos, I prefer the aesthetic of the before to the after.
-
https://beyondthecontour.com/first-look-cabot-citrus-farms/ (https://beyondthecontour.com/first-look-cabot-citrus-farms/)
I saw the above storyline and I think they did a great job with the before and after.
Here is my question. Is it me or is too much exposed sand a bit much on these course. I had the same thought when I played Sand Valley the C&C course in WI. The pictures on the new holes at Cabot Citrus are WOW, but it just seems too much.
Kind of the less is more or leaving them wanting for more.
Am I wrong here?
Steve,
It looks to me like the architect was trying too hard. Not good.
-
Thanks for sharing my link :)
I'll get in on the discussion, and pose a question: if Tom Fazio's inspiration for Pine Barrens was Pine Valley, is it not right for Kyle Franz to try and go "all out" to give it that look, or at least draw inspirations from that golf course, when reconstructing the golf course?
PB is completely on sand, and other than the new 3rd (which is a crazy transformation), it is all unearthing maintained grass and exposing the sandy landscape.
I'll reserve judgment for when I see it in person, but Franz is clearly operating in a way to try and capture Fazio's original intent with PV from the renderings, IMO
-
It'd be nice to get clarification if those are actual "after" pics or just renderings as pointed out in the article. If the latter those are pretty damn realistic looking...
P.S. I like the other holes, but that 1st one does look a bit over the top....
-
I saw those photo's and recognize a few of those holes. Is the routing the same?
-
It'd be nice to get clarification if those are actual "after" pics or just renderings as pointed out in the article. If the latter those are pretty damn realistic looking...
It's computer generated. Watch the golfers walking, for example. The course renovation isn't done yet.
-
Of course there could be too much sand. Pine Valley isn't for everyone.
The question is whether they can balance the design with the target audience, or, whether there is enough audience who appreciates the design to make it work.
I'm not going to make any judgment on that based on a computer rendering.
-
Appreciate the ‘photos’ are rendered but curious to know what happens to features like these opened-up sandy ones in this part of the World when tornados and big wind/rain storms occur? Not just this particular course but similar opened-up sandy features on others in the area too.
Atb
-
I feel like there has been some criticism in the last year or two of the sandy-scrape "look," causing some of the new courses to run together in our minds. A first-world problem to be sure, as it requires one to visit streamsong, ohoopee, tara iti, sand valley, ballyneal, southern pines, etc. to get a sense of this...maybe it's just an idea based on all the great phots we get to see if one follows the right social media channels, etc.
Personally, I don't subscribe to this idea. I have not been to all the places above, but aspire to at some point. They all have nuances worth appreciating. The industry went through 4 decades of building overwatered, tree-lined parkland golf, and if most of the new projects attempt to get back to the game's roots with sandy scrapes and the broken-ground aesthetic, then more power to them!
I compare it to links golf...we love all links courses, but from 10,000' they all appear to be rumpled, duney courses next to the sea. Zooming in, they all have a special character that makes we want to get back to links golf ASAP.
-
I love the concept. My guess is the finished product will resemble the work Kyle Franz has done in the Pinehurst region, which has all turned out pretty well.
-
Understanding the fact that they are CGI, to what extent would the appearance of excess sand be just a result of clearing out brush, trees, and undergrowth and revealing sand that was already there?
-
From a playability perspective, if they can be kept relatively firm then it should be OK. If they’re soft that could be a problem. most people won’t want to spend their day trudging through thick sand looking for half-buried balls that they’d be lucky to escape back onto grass!
-
I feel like there has been some criticism in the last year or two of the sandy-scrape "look," causing some of the new courses to run together in our minds. A first-world problem to be sure, as it requires one to visit streamsong, ohoopee, tara iti, sand valley, ballyneal, southern pines, etc. to get a sense of this...maybe it's just an idea based on all the great phots we get to see if one follows the right social media channels, etc.
Personally, I don't subscribe to this idea. I have not been to all the places above, but aspire to at some point. They all have nuances worth appreciating. The industry went through 4 decades of building overwatered, tree-lined parkland golf, and if most of the new projects attempt to get back to the game's roots with sandy scrapes and the broken-ground aesthetic, then more power to them!
I compare it to links golf...we love all links courses, but from 10,000' they all appear to be rumpled, duney courses next to the sea. Zooming in, they all have a special character that makes we want to get back to links golf ASAP.
Brad,
You make some good points but a couple of small counters to consider:
1. Grass does not shout “feature” at you in the same way some of these sand scrapes do. There is a little bit of aesthetic overkill going on with some designs presently.
2. That aesthetic overkill is happening when the entire site is effectively being constructed, even if in a “naturalist” fashion.
-
I played there when it opened - Pine Barrens was really fun - lot more open.
I'm quite certain the original intent for Pine Barrens was Pine Valley "and Pinehurst" together.
Subtle never fills the tee sheet as well as dramatic will. It's a resort. I get the intentions.
They have to change the mindset from maybe I'll play "if I'm close by" to I'll drive 3-4 hours to play.
-
I'd be curious for those who know...how often do renderings closely resemble what's put in the ground?
Anyone have examples from other projects they'd like to share where "here's what we envisioned, and this was the final result"?
-
Of course there could be too much sand. Pine Valley isn't for everyone.
The question is whether they can balance the design with the target audience, or, whether there is enough audience who appreciates the design to make it work.
I'm not going to make any judgment on that based on a computer rendering.
Tom,
I always thought Pine Valley was more about forced carries than sand with angles sometimes being critical, e.g., #6 or 16.
-
I'd be curious for those who know...how often do renderings closely resemble what's put in the ground?
Anyone have examples from other projects they'd like to share where "here's what we envisioned, and this was the final result"?
I didn't cherry pick the best before and after, I just picked a favourite original hole (from a rebuild) and posted it.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkyKTBomUKafi-TTEiL2smzIKMbjvujeV-QIfdropvMOquYjcg1P102qSC88YtzGziBEB_uljQ0HBeUXmxSM3lbsZeVBieZepjARLhZ49r6xdQTIB-dqj8qPd4TrJ_3znlBj-wryhs2cenG7hWfajxOgjS5SzmVcLKEp6xC_kE2Owax7plrQy3MWvs/w640-h426/3rd-done.jpg)
Laval-sur-le-lac 3rd Hole - the image and close to opening
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjrmB3hwi78y-f5hARVF3rUEC0xVzoNHd6C-qr3BtEjjl2xlPCtLeA5apW4AutgKcyWMaYwzZlCZAlgcDAEKc_U3yqJH-D-6SPdPzCSaPmStWWrA91dRX0o56dMudlMb3oky3uGGvoCa5z2Sms1pUO_bTKZly0wZnvdq44yzkpxyW68YNhLTWdHRUt/w640-h426/IMG_1782.JPG)
I'm a better at imagery than that now. That's an older software and higher resolution photo helps too.
I did all 18 - they knew what the rebuild would achieve. The vote passed.
-
Of course there could be too much sand. Pine Valley isn't for everyone.
The question is whether they can balance the design with the target audience, or, whether there is enough audience who appreciates the design to make it work.
I'm not going to make any judgment on that based on a computer rendering.
How does Mr. Tom Doak make so much sense with so few words?
-
Thanks for sharing that Ian,
If I were a member, I'd certainly be happy with the 'before and after' result there. Does this type of arrangement also typically come with a contractual clause that a new rendering be provided if you're unable to build that for whatever impediment you might face?
After all it could certainly be understood that one would want to see what they're buying before they drop 7-8 figures on something right? ;D
-
Does this type of arrangement also typically come with a contractual clause that a new rendering be provided if you're unable to build that for whatever impediment you might face?
Never been asked for that. No use for the images once you build it.
What's a contract? Just kidding. Not many in this business.
-
Does this type of arrangement also typically come with a contractual clause that a new rendering be provided if you're unable to build that for whatever impediment you might face?
Never been asked for that. No use for the images once you build it.
What's a contract? Just kidding. Not many in this business.
Ha ha,
Well what I actually meant was what if a hole fundamentally changes after you present the images to the club for whatever reason, permitting, the hole corridor doesn't work, lawsuit, property line change, etc...and now you're forced to build something other than what you showed them.
P.S. I'm sure TD is rolling his eyes at all this stuff! ;D
-
At what point does the desired aesthetic compromise playability? I think Kyle Franz got it right with his work in Southern Pines but there has to be a tipping point. I’ll reserve judgement until the project is completed as offered by a couple of other posters.
-
Sand as eye candy appeals to a quirky crowd.
Count me in! Better than the overly sodded/arboreal look.
-
I am curious if the site is naturally sandy or is that sand trucked in?
-
Sensational!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
At what point does the desired aesthetic compromise playability? I think Kyle Franz got it right with his work in Southern Pines but there has to be a tipping point. I’ll reserve judgement until the project is completed as offered by a couple of other posters.
The answer is a matter of opinion / up to the observer.
Personally, I think the sand aesthetic has become overused and I am moving back in the other direction with my projects now. There’s much less open sand at Te Arai North than at Tara Iti; much less at Sedge Valley than Sand Valley; and I’m betting there’s much less on my new FL project than at all the others down the street. But, you know me, I’m a contrarian. If I can lure everyone else away from it, maybe I will go back to it when I’m 64.
-
https://beyondthecontour.com/first-look-cabot-citrus-farms/ (https://beyondthecontour.com/first-look-cabot-citrus-farms/)
I saw the above storyline and I think they did a great job with the before and after.
Here is my question. Is it me or is too much exposed sand a bit much on these course. I had the same thought when I played Sand Valley the C&C course in WI. The pictures on the new holes at Cabot Citrus are WOW, but it just seems too much.
Kind of the less is more or leaving them wanting for more.
Am I wrong here?
Hello Steve, yes I think there can be. I wrote as much about Sand Valley. Though I love the resort and conditions, I'm with you in that some places on the Coore & Crenshaw course had too much sand. People gave up trying to rake anything or bother to retrieve their balls in certain spots.
Perhaps that is less about aesthetics and more about functionality, but anything can be overdone and sand is no exception.
-
Way too much make-up!
-
I tend to take the broad view in this matter. There are relatively very few of these mega sandy courses around so why not? I generally don't like the idea, but it can be done well as Pinehurst 2 demonstrates. It's far better than mega bunkering. As demonstrated by Lytham, that is a style I dislike in the extreme. Even if done well such as at Muirfield, I don't like it. My two big issues with a lot of sand is it becomes very difficult to offer a true variety of recovery shots and hole designs tend to lean too far toward the penal end of the spectrum unless there is mega fairway width...which also can be problematic.
Ciao
-
At what point does the desired aesthetic compromise playability? I think Kyle Franz got it right with his work in Southern Pines but there has to be a tipping point. I’ll reserve judgement until the project is completed as offered by a couple of other posters.
The answer is a matter of opinion / up to the observer.
Personally, I think the sand aesthetic has become overused and I am moving back in the other direction with my projects now. There’s much less open sand at Te Arai North than at Tara Iti; much less at Sedge Valley than Sand Valley; and I’m betting there’s much less on my new FL project than at all the others down the street. But, you know me, I’m a contrarian. If I can lure everyone else away from it, maybe I will go back to it when I’m 64.
Thank you.
What happens with every trend is that the followers amp up the idea with lipstick until the whole thing feels loud and ugly and far removed from the beauty of the beginning.
Please keep on pioneering. Please remember quiet rather than loud.
-
To follow on from my previous posts, I think the overly sanded style looks very manufactured, even when done well.
Firstly, because it is.
Secondly, because the landscapes it is trying to represent do not look like that.
If you subscribe to the theory that the origins of golf architecture was trying to mimic what was found on the links, then many of these courses are missing the mark. Which is a shame. Because the shaping is usually excellent
Links land - contrary to what some people believe - is not full of huge swathes of sand. Sure, there are blow-outs and open areas but they are usually transient. A dunescape (desert excepted) succeeds to grass and other vegetation by its very nature.
I appreciate what Tom did at Tara Iti where the decision to clear all the trees opened up the sand in the sub-soil. But that approach shouldn’t be the default for everyone if a natural looking landscape is the aim.
We all love those golden age (and before) photos of open sands scars with folks playing through and over them. But those photos were a moment in time. And usually just the one or two dramatic spots on a course, not representative of the whole place.
All that said, I am quite GB&I focused. I have seen some of the sites elsewhere in the world with plenty of exposed sand. None of them look like the finished golf courses though.
-
At what point does the desired aesthetic compromise playability? I think Kyle Franz got it right with his work in Southern Pines but there has to be a tipping point. I’ll reserve judgement until the project is completed as offered by a couple of other posters.
The answer is a matter of opinion / up to the observer.
Personally, I think the sand aesthetic has become overused and I am moving back in the other direction with my projects now. There’s much less open sand at Te Arai North than at Tara Iti; much less at Sedge Valley than Sand Valley; and I’m betting there’s much less on my new FL project than at all the others down the street. But, you know me, I’m a contrarian. If I can lure everyone else away from it, maybe I will go back to it when I’m 64.
Thank you.
What happens with every trend is that the followers amp up the idea with lipstick until the whole thing feels loud and ugly and far removed from the beauty of the beginning.
Please keep on pioneering. Please remember quiet rather than loud.
Ally
Pioneering?? - are you kidding me for me Tom Doak is not a pioneer in regards to any form of new golf course design type - he has taken us back to an golden age style thats not new - more like the equivalent of Postmodernism in Architectural Styles. However he does it very well learning from the best on his travels when he was younger - would I want to play his new courses week in week out - probably not all the time.
Even the courses are of high standard I feel that Doak's designs can be too forgiving at times off the tee and the greens shaping both bit over the top at times based on my experience of playing Doak courses - St Andrews Beach and Renaissance (even though they brought the rough in for Renaissance Cup in 2014 it still felt wide)
Pioneers of Golf Course Designs in their time producing new type of golf course design type then
OTM/Willie Park Jr (late 19th C/early 20th C)
Harry Colt/Alister Mackenzie/CBM (1920s to 1940s)
Robert Trent Jones (1950s to 1960s)
Pete Dye (1970s-1990s)
Mike Strantz (1990s-early 2000s) one wonder if Strantz lived longer how much of the work of Doak/Hanse and C+C he would have got
Robin Hiseman is the nearest to Strantz and his JCB course is certainly different to the norm in UK/Europe
Would I put Doak, Hanse and C+C in that breadth - probably not in terms of pioneering design works - maybe yes in terms of the quality of golf course designs they have produced they are in the top bracket for many.
We haven't really had a real pioneering change in the 21st century in terms of golf course design in the 21st century - its more like going back/through the 'second Golden Age' with 'Minimalism' and 'Naturalism' monikers used often with better maintenance and grass technology.
Desmond Muirhead he tried to take it forward but too far with some crazy ideas he almost stood above the parapet of pioneering ideas.
Going back to the images - the sand looks OTT to me too much for the eye hope it is more restrained in the end than what was produced in the CGI images.
Cheers
Ben
-
To follow on from my previous posts, I think the overly sanded style looks very manufactured, even when done well.
Firstly, because it is.
Secondly, because the landscapes it is trying to represent do not look like that.
If you subscribe to the theory that the origins of golf architecture was trying to mimic what was found on the links, then many of these courses are missing the mark. Which is a shame. Because the shaping is usually excellent
Links land - contrary to what some people believe - is not full of huge swathes of sand. Sure, there are blow-outs and open areas but they are usually transient. A dunescape (desert excepted) succeeds to grass and other vegetation by its very nature.
We all love those golden age (and before) photos of open sands scars with folks playing through and over them. But those photos were a moment in time. And usually just the one or two dramatic spots on a course, not representative of the whole place.
Thanks Ally.
Would you opine the quest for "dramatic spots" has maybe too directed the overall design of modern courses, be they original or renovations?
-
Many things come to mind, and I concur with Tom Doak's original post.
And my comments are not about a course simply being rendered on a computer.
Exposed sand is a moving target. Bermuda grass loves water and heat(about 10 months of heat in Brooksville) and WILL creep, and evolve, so the starting product will not be the finished product, and few will even realize how fast this will happen unless retaining the original amount of exposed sand is a full time project, which it never is, and is futile anyway.
The original World Woods had far more exposed sand at opening than it did at closing-grass grows, and as budgets shrink it gets even more pronounced.
Second, walking around in exposed sand is really hot when it's above 80 degrees and the reflection magnifies the glare and sun intensity. Not my favorite feeling when walking through broken ground from tee to fairway and/or chasing another wayward tee shot.
Florida weathr/heat IMHO is not the ideal environment for an excess of such a treatment given the heat most months, especially when walking.
I also agree with Ally about constructing an entire site(not just greens fways and tees) becoming(a bit too much of) a thing, even on sandy soil.
and water does move faster across unvegetated open land, especially when it's not pure sand.
-
I think your better served with a little restraint
I prefer a few more visual breaks being used to emphasize the next impressive architectural high note.
Too much, simply undermines the best work, by blurring and blending it together.
The sum becomes less than the parts.
(https://www.pinehurst.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/No2_Hole_7_2.jpg)
-
Pioneering?? - are you kidding me for me Tom Doak is not a pioneer in regards to any form of new golf course design type - he has taken us back to an golden age style thats not new - more like the equivalent of Postmodernism in Architectural Styles.
Ben
Perhaps what is pioneering about Tom's work is that he bucked the prevailing trend of the time and now he is looking at doing that again. Is he the first to adopt a certain style ? Maybe not but he's perhaps one of the first to adopt a certain style when everyone else is doing something different.
Niall
-
I am curious if the site is naturally sandy or is that sand trucked in?
No sand is being trucked in. In fact, no aggregates at all.
-
This thread has several weird elements.
1. Some of the most astute architects/superintendents/avid players are commenting based on computer renderings about a course that is at least a year from opening.
2. It has led to characterizations about architects who are not even involved in the project. I never have seen C&C or Doak claim that their work is pioneering.
3. Bunker styles defining architecture strikes me as confusing the cat and the milk. Great routing and well placed hazards is what matters. The look of the hazards is way down the list.
Ira
-
This thread has several weird elements.
1. Some of the most astute architects/superintendents/avid players are commenting based on computer renderings about a course that is at least a year from opening.
2. It has led to characterizations about architects who are not even involved in the project. I never have seen C&C or Doak claim that their work is pioneering.
3. Bunker styles defining architecture strikes me as confusing the cat and the milk. Great routing and well placed hazards is what matters. The look of the hazards is way down the list.
Ira
Ira,
I think your first two points are fair.
But I'm not sure about #3. If Fazio modified the bunkers at TOC, and kept them in their exact place and approx, size, but replaced them with his signature sugar bowls with stark white sand, would that not materially affect the course? I wish I had some Photoshop skills, would be interesting to see! ;)
-
1. Some of the most astute architects/superintendents/avid players are commenting based on computer renderings about a course that is at least a year from opening.
2. It has led to characterizations about architects who are not even involved in the project. I never have seen C&C or Doak claim that their work is pioneering.
3. Bunker styles defining architecture strikes me as confusing the cat and the milk. Great routing and well placed hazards is what matters. The look of the hazards is way down the list.
Thank you for this.
-
#16 at Mammoth Dunes? I thought that was the better design at the resort, in part due to less sand (in area and depth).
I think your better served with a little restraint
I prefer a few more visual breaks being used to emphasize the next impressive architectural high note.
Too much, simply undermines the best work, by blurring and blending it together.
The sum becomes less than the parts.
(https://www.pinehurst.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/No2_Hole_7_2.jpg)
-
Ira, Kalen, Erik,
The thread is entitled “Can there be too much sand?”. The posts seem very much on point in that context. The render of the course in the opening post is surely used as the entry point to a larger discussion.
I am the one who used the word “pioneering” for Tom Doak. I’ve no idea if Tom considers himself a pioneer but Ben is way off the mark if he doesn’t consider him one. I could list all the ways that he is but I wouldn’t want to offend the three of you for taking the thread down a weird direction.
-
Ira, Kalen, Erik,
The thread is entitled “Can there be too much sand?”. The posts seem very much on point in that context. The render of the course in the opening post is surely used as the entry point to a larger discussion.
I am the one who used the word “pioneering” for Tom Doak. I’ve no idea if Tom considers himself a pioneer but Ben is way off the mark if he doesn’t consider him one. I could list all the ways that he is but I wouldn’t want to offend the three of you for taking the thread down a weird direction.
Ally,
I guess you are a 'Doakite' ;D ;D - guess we have to agree to disagree on 'pioneering'. You may see that in the Loop - wasn't the TOC an reversible 18 and Tom Simpson preached reversible courses and never got the opportunity to do one? this is a long way before the Loop came into existence. Didn't Frank Pont do a reversible 9 hole course just before.
Mr Doak for me as a designer is not 'pioneering' in terms of golf course design history he is in the crowd alongside Hanse and C+C who have intensively researched their predecessors mostly in the golden age of golf and have interpreted similar approaches design wise as Mackenzie, Thomas, Colt, Simpson and so on very well of high quality in this day and age.
Will they as a group stand out in 50 years time be seen as pioneering - probably not if you give someone a picture of 3 holes they have produced they will look similar hard to see who stands out unlike comparing Trent Jones, Nicklaus and Dye which looks more obvious (for me Dye would easily stand out).
I don't see it pioneering as they as a 'Second Golden Age' group are all producing very similar design approaches influenced by the top designers of the past with sensational pieces of land that is a 'given' for them plus have used similar shapers across the board - could they create a golf course on a blank canvas/dull land that requires real imagination with lots of fill or shaping - thats questionable. For me like OCM, Kyle Philips, Fry/Straka, Robin Hiseman and Brian Scheidner recently have had to create something with basically nothing to something thats more unique for me that is closer to using the word 'pioneering'.
I would like to challenge Tom to do something different maybe at Cabot Highlands which looks a dull piece of land with great views (Thad Layton of Palmer Design produced a intriguing design which is now been shelved in favour for a design by Tom and Clyde) to produce a course that is more out of the box using a different style or approach that he hasn't used in the past and then if he pulls it off that may be 'pioneering' plus makes me jump out of my seat that the Renaissance failed to do so for me.
Desmond Muirhead crazy gold course designs made my jaw drop to the floor likewise Will Alsop for Architecture - it looks wrong but its different and fun! They stood out and still do as they are no longer with us.
Cheers
Ben
-
Pioneering?? - are you kidding me for me Tom Doak is not a pioneer in regards to any form of new golf course design type - he has taken us back to an golden age style thats not new - more like the equivalent of Postmodernism in Architectural Styles.
Ben
Perhaps what is pioneering about Tom's work is that he bucked the prevailing trend of the time and now he is looking at doing that again. Is he the first to adopt a certain style ? Maybe not but he's perhaps one of the first to adopt a certain style when everyone else is doing something different.
Niall
Niall,
To me Tom is using the best design style/approach models originally created by pioneers of the Golden Age of Golf Course Design and interpreting that in his own way which he does very well alongside Hanse and C+C. Does he have his own style that stands out - I am afraid I can't see that.
For example Strantz was different at the time to the others (imagine if he was alive how many more of his courses there could have been and whether he change his style over time - we are the ones that miss out) or Robin's JCB is different to what has been seen in the UK with a blank canvas.
St Patricks looks similar to many links courses and the land was already there. This is creativity in a different way by seeing 'it' on the available ground in front of them routing and placing the greens where they are for me thats 'skill' not 'pioneering' which is a different kettle - if you understand what i mean.
Interesting that Ira pointed out that C+C and Doak haven't claimed that their work is 'pioneering' ;D
Cheers
Ben
-
Ben,
I think we better take this conversation elsewhere - ideally offline - before this thread does actually get derailed.
Suffice to say I disagree with huge swathes of your responses above.
-
To quibble over "pioneer" is beside the point.
That said I would consider Doak a pioneer in revitalising classic architecture, but with his own twist on it. Renaissance is an accurate name for his company.
I might also consider Doak a pioneer in the variety of projects he has taken on, especially when considering their international locations.
I don't think Doak's ideas and work of perfecting the blending of nature and man made should be underplayed.
Perhaps not pioneering, but Doak's influence on modern architecture is unmistakable. In terms of original design and consulting work, he may well have been engaged with more top courses than anybody practicing today Then there is the written work and people he has worked with. Doak's fingerprints are all over the boom of outstanding architecture the past three decades.
I can understand if folks don't enjoy or like Doak's work. What I don't understand is downplaying his impact on architecture the past 30 years.
Ciao
-
I agree with many on this thread that the sandy blowout look is getting overdone and that it'd be nice to see architects pull back from it on sites where they could have used it. I think that the Loop does this very well; Doak et al could have done something Sand Valleyesque there but they restrained themselves and it's a refreshing change of pace from other recent designs.
I have a bigger problem with the renderings of Pine Barrens: that in going with the sandy blowout look throughout the course, they're eliminating one of what I thought was the biggest strengths of Fazio's design, the mix of subtle and dramatic. More than anything, I was impressed about the flow of the design of the original course. It started with a hole of middling visual interest, followed by two holes that were visually quite tame (some beautiful, simple short grass work around the 2nd green), then cranked up the visual drama and design complexity with the multi-route 4th and 5th. Then it was back to simpler and more subtle with the 6th and 7th. I especially liked the simple fall-away green on the par 3 7th.
It continued this way throughout; 9-13 simpler (not the right 12th green), 14-16 dramatic, finish somewhere in between.
Fazio seems to have fallen out of favor with many in the influencer crowd these days and I just don't understand it. Perhaps they spent too much money to build some of those courses and there was a bit too much shaping sometimes where there could have been less. But his courses always looked very good and most of the ones that I've played had several holes with real interest.
And I thought that Pine Barrens was the best of the bunch because of how it flowed. So most of all what bothers me here is that they're taking a course that was excellent and exemplary of one of the most important architects of the past 50 years and turning it into something else. I disagree with making these changes on substantive grounds for the reasons above but I disagree with them even more because they're eliminating one of the most important works of arguably the best architect in the pre-renaissance period. Hopefully they've got good photographs of the original because in a few decades when we decide that Fazio et al from the 80s actually did some really interesting stuff and we've lost a lot of our best examples of it, we can restore Pine Barrens to the original design. That's what they should be doing now.
-
Ira, Kalen, Erik,
The thread is entitled “Can there be too much sand?”. The posts seem very much on point in that context. The render of the course in the opening post is surely used as the entry point to a larger discussion.
I am the one who used the word “pioneering” for Tom Doak. I’ve no idea if Tom considers himself a pioneer but Ben is way off the mark if he doesn’t consider him one. I could list all the ways that he is but I wouldn’t want to offend the three of you for taking the thread down a weird direction.
Ally,
Tom Simpson preached reversible courses and never got the opportunity to do one? this is a long way before the Loop came into existence.
So.... a Philadelphia city boy in 1730's who preached "going west" but never actually leaves the city is the pioneer, and Daniel Boone, who actually does go west.. ISN'T the pioneer? because someone else preached it first?
With that logic many amateurs on this board are "pioneers" with big ideas they never act upon.
Building bad golf courses that stand out in their mermaid fin idiocy isn't "pioneering", speaking out and then building great ones against the tide of 1980's faddish mediocrity IS pioneering-even if many of the concepts came from previous eras in golf history.
-
To quibble over "pioneer" is beside the point.
That said I would consider Doak a pioneer in revitalising classic architecture, but with his own twist on it. Renaissance is an accurate name for his company.
I might also consider Doak a pioneer in the variety of projects he has taken on, especially when considering their international locations.
I don't think Doak's ideas and work of perfecting the blending of nature and man made should be underplayed.
Perhaps not pioneering, but Doak's influence on modern architecture is unmistakable. In terms of original design and consulting work, he may well have been engaged with more top courses than anybody practicing today Then there is the written work and people he has worked with. Doak's fingerprints are all over the boom of outstanding architecture the past three decades.
I can understand if folks don't enjoy or like Doak's work. What I don't understand is downplaying his impact on architecture the past 30 years.
Ciao
This is spot on.
And as a twist, Doak was a modern pioneer in golf course architecture criticism.
Ira
-
Does anyone have insight into the plans for the Rolling Oaks property? The Rhebb & Johns website indicates that their involvement has been tabled. Will that be the land that Nuzzo Design uses for the new 9-holer?
-
Ben,
I think we better take this conversation elsewhere - ideally offline - before this thread does actually get derailed.
Suffice to say I disagree with huge swathes of your responses above.
Hi Ally,
Agree - I am happy to hear and discuss with your our views offline even Boony and I don't always agree whether it is to do with Architecture or Golf Course Design we respect each others views - however there different ways of interpreting the word 'pioneering'
Cheers
Ben
-
To quibble over "pioneer" is beside the point.
That said I would consider Doak a pioneer in revitalising classic architecture, but with his own twist on it. Renaissance is an accurate name for his company.
I might also consider Doak a pioneer in the variety of projects he has taken on, especially when considering their international locations.
I don't think Doak's ideas and work of perfecting the blending of nature and man made should be underplayed.
Perhaps not pioneering, but Doak's influence on modern architecture is unmistakable. In terms of original design and consulting work, he may well have been engaged with more top courses than anybody practicing today Then there is the written work and people he has worked with. Doak's fingerprints are all over the boom of outstanding architecture the past three decades.
I can understand if folks don't enjoy or like Doak's work. What I don't understand is downplaying his impact on architecture the past 30 years.
Ciao
This is spot on.
And as a twist, Doak was a modern pioneer in golf course architecture criticism.
Ira
Sean
You have pretty much hit the nail on the spot on your first paragraph.
Regarding second paragraph - not sure if Doak is a pioneer in regards to International locations didn't CBM and Wille Park jr leave our shores to the 'new world', Mackenzie to Australia and Alison to Japan these guys are the original 'pioneers' spreading the 'gospel' of good GCA.
Doak, Hanse and C+C are revitalising that notion in the 21st century with some incredible sites in front of them as i pointed out to Niall it is a 'skill' to be able to create courses when the landforms are already there which I don't see as 'pioneering'
Third paragraph - for sure his influence globally as a golf course Architect already is there to see and looks like the footprint will be increasing in the near future I wish him all the best.
My interpretation of pioneering is more to do with originality - of something that has not been done before or seen before. For example away from GCA the James Webb Space Telescope is a new pioneering design idea thats not been done before - the images are astonishing I have to say an incredible acheivement.
Cheers
Ben
-
Ira, Kalen, Erik,
The thread is entitled “Can there be too much sand?”. The posts seem very much on point in that context. The render of the course in the opening post is surely used as the entry point to a larger discussion.
I am the one who used the word “pioneering” for Tom Doak. I’ve no idea if Tom considers himself a pioneer but Ben is way off the mark if he doesn’t consider him one. I could list all the ways that he is but I wouldn’t want to offend the three of you for taking the thread down a weird direction.
Ally,
Tom Simpson preached reversible courses and never got the opportunity to do one? this is a long way before the Loop came into existence.
So.... a Philadelphia city boy in 1730's who preached "going west" but never actually leaves the city is the pioneer, and Daniel Boone, who actually does go west.. ISN'T the pioneer? because someone else preached it first?
With that logic many amateurs on this board are "pioneers" with big ideas they never act upon.
Building bad golf courses that stand out in their mermaid fin idiocy isn't "pioneering", speaking out and then building great ones against the tide of 1980's faddish mediocrity IS pioneering-even if many of the concepts came from previous eras in golf history.
Jeff
Not sure where you are coming from my interpretation example would be Frank Whittle the guy who invented the Jet Engine thats originality/pioneering acheivement he did not patent the design and since then companies have improved on it better and better - thats how i would describe Tom Doak's work if you get the gist of it.
Mercedes F1 team reverse engineered a CPAP breathing device (invented by another) during the highest point of Covid crisis and improved much more effectively and made it cheaper to product - that is sort of what Tom Doak is doing in another way of trying to explain it in an different context.
He has improved golf course design as we know it know thanks to the use of technology - modern diggers, measuring and levels devices, accurate contour drawings plus much shorter time to travel to more sites than the pioneering Golden Age predecessors who came up with the imagination and originality which Doak has upped the ante in that regard.
Cheers
Ben
-
It might encourage players to move to the correct tee, and it might get more groups to think about match play as their format of the day.
-
He has improved golf course design as we know it know thanks to the use of technology - modern diggers, measuring and levels devices, accurate contour drawings plus much shorter time to travel to more sites than the pioneering Golden Age predecessors who came up with the imagination and originality which Doak has upped the ante in that regard.
Cheers
Ben
Whilst I said I’d take this offline, I will say I agree with some (but not all) of Sean’s analysis. The international / variety aspect ain’t relevant.
I will also say that if people actually think that TD & Renaissance are just rehashing the Golden Age, they are far off the mark. It is a very new take on design of that era.
Finally, perhaps the most pioneering element is the control & type of the detail in the build.
Doak & Coore - for better or worse - have influenced golf design so much in the past 25 years that we have never had a narrower take on what defines good architecture.
-
Ira, Kalen, Erik,
The thread is entitled “Can there be too much sand?”. The posts seem very much on point in that context. The render of the course in the opening post is surely used as the entry point to a larger discussion.
I am the one who used the word “pioneering” for Tom Doak. I’ve no idea if Tom considers himself a pioneer but Ben is way off the mark if he doesn’t consider him one. I could list all the ways that he is but I wouldn’t want to offend the three of you for taking the thread down a weird direction.
Ally,
I guess you are a 'Doakite' ;D ;D - guess we have to agree to disagree on 'pioneering'. You may see that in the Loop - wasn't the TOC an reversible 18 and Tom Simpson preached reversible courses and never got the opportunity to do one? this is a long way before the Loop came into existence. Didn't Frank Pont do a reversible 9 hole course just before.
Mr Doak for me as a designer is not 'pioneering' in terms of golf course design history he is in the crowd alongside Hanse and C+C who have intensively researched their predecessors mostly in the golden age of golf and have interpreted similar approaches design wise as Mackenzie, Thomas, Colt, Simpson and so on very well of high quality in this day and age.
Will they as a group stand out in 50 years time be seen as pioneering - probably not if you give someone a picture of 3 holes they have produced they will look similar hard to see who stands out unlike comparing Trent Jones, Nicklaus and Dye which looks more obvious (for me Dye would easily stand out).
I don't see it pioneering as they as a 'Second Golden Age' group are all producing very similar design approaches influenced by the top designers of the past with sensational pieces of land that is a 'given' for them plus have used similar shapers across the board - could they create a golf course on a blank canvas/dull land that requires real imagination with lots of fill or shaping - thats questionable. For me like OCM, Kyle Philips, Fry/Straka, Robin Hiseman and Brian Scheidner recently have had to create something with basically nothing to something thats more unique for me that is closer to using the word 'pioneering'.
I would like to challenge Tom to do something different maybe at Cabot Highlands which looks a dull piece of land with great views (Thad Layton of Palmer Design produced a intriguing design which is now been shelved in favour for a design by Tom and Clyde) to produce a course that is more out of the box using a different style or approach that he hasn't used in the past and then if he pulls it off that may be 'pioneering' plus makes me jump out of my seat that the Renaissance failed to do so for me.
Desmond Muirhead crazy gold course designs made my jaw drop to the floor likewise Will Alsop for Architecture - it looks wrong but its different and fun! They stood out and still do as they are no longer with us.
Cheers
Ben
Ben,
I have known Tom Doak for a long time and don’t recall him ever using the word “pioneering” to describe his work.
Tom is well known for having strong views about golf course design, but basically his focus is always doing what he thinks is best for site he has to work with.
-
It might encourage players to move to the correct tee, and it might get more groups to think about match play as their format of the day.
Jim
With that sentence you've just convinced me there can indeed be too much sand.
Niall
-
Ben
I see the points you are making in terms of defining pioneering but not sure it is entirely worthwhile arguing the point. Whether he was the first to do something isn't necessarily that important but what I think is is that he's a recognised leading GCA who is influential, and therefore if he does something then others are going to sit up and take notice.
For instance, someone posted a link to a podcast recently where Tom made comment on the increasing width of holes on new designs and suggesting that things were getting extreme and maybe time to start pulling the fairway lines in a bit.
Personally I've been thinking and saying that for a while. That in no way makes me a pioneer to reference Jeff's analogy about going out west, and neither does it make me influential since no one takes much if any notice of what I say, however if Tom is saying it, and not only says it but incorporates it into his designs then that will have an impact.
Whether that gets tagged pioneering or just influential doesn't really matter IMO.
Niall
-
I still don't understand why they made major changes to Pine Barrens in the first place. It was a very good golf course.
They should have done a restoration instead of a renovation that made significant alterations to some of the holes.
-
Ben
I see the points you are making in terms of defining pioneering but not sure it is entirely worthwhile arguing the point. Whether he was the first to do something isn't necessarily that important but what I think is is that he's a recognised leading GCA who is influential, and therefore if he does something then others are going to sit up and take notice.
For instance, someone posted a link to a podcast recently where Tom made comment on the increasing width of holes on new designs and suggesting that things were getting extreme and maybe time to start pulling the fairway lines in a bit.
Personally I've been thinking and saying that for a while. That in no way makes me a pioneer to reference Jeff's analogy about going out west, and neither does it make me influential since no one takes much if any notice of what I say, however if Tom is saying it, and not only says it but incorporates it into his designs then that will have an impact.
Whether that gets tagged pioneering or just influential doesn't really matter IMO.
Niall
Perhaps, not to quibble too much, the developers (Keiser et al) should at least be in the running for the word pioneer. That is to take nothing away from the architects...it's clearly not a zero-sum game as the thriving of both entities has benefitted us all.
-
He has improved golf course design as we know it know thanks to the use of technology - modern diggers, measuring and levels devices, accurate contour drawings plus much shorter time to travel to more sites than the pioneering Golden Age predecessors who came up with the imagination and originality which Doak has upped the ante in that regard.
Cheers
Ben
Whilst I said I’d take this offline, I will say I agree with some (but not all) of Sean’s analysis. The international / variety aspect ain’t relevant.
I will also say that if people actually think that TD & Renaissance are just rehashing the Golden Age, they are far off the mark. It is a very new take on design of that era.
Finally, perhaps the most pioneering element is the control & type of the detail in the build.
Doak & Coore - for better or worse - have influenced golf design so much in the past 25 years that we have never had a narrower take on what defines good architecture.
I think Doak is unusual for his foreign designs with OZ, NZ, Scotland, Ireland, France and Mexico. All highly respected and considered among the best in the world.
Ciao
-
Can there be too much
sand discussion on the meaning of pioneer? ;)
-
Doak & Coore - for better or worse - have influenced golf design so much in the past 25 years that we have never had a narrower take on what defines good architecture.
Wanted to flag this as one of the more fascinating and provocative sentences I've read on this website in quite some time. I need a good long think on this one; very interesting take here, Ally!
-
He has improved golf course design as we know it know thanks to the use of technology - modern diggers, measuring and levels devices, accurate contour drawings plus much shorter time to travel to more sites than the pioneering Golden Age predecessors who came up with the imagination and originality which Doak has upped the ante in that regard.
Cheers
Ben
Whilst I said I’d take this offline, I will say I agree with some (but not all) of Sean’s analysis. The international / variety aspect ain’t relevant.
I will also say that if people actually think that TD & Renaissance are just rehashing the Golden Age, they are far off the mark. It is a very new take on design of that era.
Finally, perhaps the most pioneering element is the control & type of the detail in the build.
Doak & Coore - for better or worse - have influenced golf design so much in the past 25 years that we have never had a narrower take on what defines good architecture.
Ally,
TD and Renaissance get amazing sites and the details were already there before they work on it - its a 'skill' to create a golf course and possibly elevate the use of the site with a few tweaks there and there. They don't tend to rip up a lot of things but use what is there.
Most golf course architects do not get that opportunity to work on great sites like TD does. You have had that opportunity at Carne. Does an amazing site make it easier for the architect to visualise holes rather than a site that is flat like a blank canvas.
Cheers
Ben
-
He has improved golf course design as we know it know thanks to the use of technology - modern diggers, measuring and levels devices, accurate contour drawings plus much shorter time to travel to more sites than the pioneering Golden Age predecessors who came up with the imagination and originality which Doak has upped the ante in that regard.
Cheers
Ben
Whilst I said I’d take this offline, I will say I agree with some (but not all) of Sean’s analysis. The international / variety aspect ain’t relevant.
I will also say that if people actually think that TD & Renaissance are just rehashing the Golden Age, they are far off the mark. It is a very new take on design of that era.
Finally, perhaps the most pioneering element is the control & type of the detail in the build.
Doak & Coore - for better or worse - have influenced golf design so much in the past 25 years that we have never had a narrower take on what defines good architecture.
I think Doak is unusual for his foreign designs with OZ, NZ, Scotland, Ireland, France and Mexico. All highly respected and considered among the best in the world.
Ciao
Sean,
Its mostly down to the site what was there. TD has been rather fortunate to work on incredible sites that allows him to visualise and create holes of what is there in a skilful way like C+C as well especially in Cabot St Lucia. Has he worked often on blank and boring sites which in some respects needs more creativity to make the site feel 'alive'.
Most golf course architects work on bland sites, work within means and have to use more imagination to create something out of blandness. JCB was a bland site prior to Robin's work there and its unrecognisable now to what it was before. I think the nearest one for TD at the moment is the 2nd course at Cabot Highlands (Castle Stuart) can he and Clyde create something that makes it feel 'alive' I am interested to see it come to fruition and whether they come up with something different to what they normally have done over the years.
Cheers
Ben
-
Ben
I see the points you are making in terms of defining pioneering but not sure it is entirely worthwhile arguing the point. Whether he was the first to do something isn't necessarily that important but what I think is is that he's a recognised leading GCA who is influential, and therefore if he does something then others are going to sit up and take notice.
For instance, someone posted a link to a podcast recently where Tom made comment on the increasing width of holes on new designs and suggesting that things were getting extreme and maybe time to start pulling the fairway lines in a bit.
Personally I've been thinking and saying that for a while. That in no way makes me a pioneer to reference Jeff's analogy about going out west, and neither does it make me influential since no one takes much if any notice of what I say, however if Tom is saying it, and not only says it but incorporates it into his designs then that will have an impact.
Whether that gets tagged pioneering or just influential doesn't really matter IMO.
Niall
Perhaps, not to quibble too much, the developers (Keiser et al) should at least be in the running for the word pioneer. That is to take nothing away from the architects...it's clearly not a zero-sum game as the thriving of both entities has benefitted us all.
Didn't Tufts do it at Pinehurst earlier? just saying. Keiser has added more resorts that focuses more on the golfer and the golfing experience.
-
Harris Kalinka I have to say are one of the best in the business they have innovated and improved CGI's using what is available. The rest will start catching them up as the tools available are becoming easier to use.
-
He has improved golf course design as we know it know thanks to the use of technology - modern diggers, measuring and levels devices, accurate contour drawings plus much shorter time to travel to more sites than the pioneering Golden Age predecessors who came up with the imagination and originality which Doak has upped the ante in that regard.
Cheers
Ben
Whilst I said I’d take this offline, I will say I agree with some (but not all) of Sean’s analysis. The international / variety aspect ain’t relevant.
I will also say that if people actually think that TD & Renaissance are just rehashing the Golden Age, they are far off the mark. It is a very new take on design of that era.
Finally, perhaps the most pioneering element is the control & type of the detail in the build.
Doak & Coore - for better or worse - have influenced golf design so much in the past 25 years that we have never had a narrower take on what defines good architecture.
I think Doak is unusual for his foreign designs with OZ, NZ, Scotland, Ireland, France and Mexico. All highly respected and considered among the best in the world.
Ciao
Sean,
Its mostly down to the site what was there. TD has been rather fortunate to work on incredible sites that allows him to visualise and create holes of what is there in a skilful way like C+C as well especially in Cabot St Lucia. Has he worked often on blank and boring sites which in some respects needs more creativity to make the site feel 'alive'.
Most golf course architects work on bland sites, work within means and have to use more imagination to create something out of blandness. JCB was a bland site prior to Robin's work there and its unrecognisable now to what it was before. I think the nearest one for TD at the moment is the 2nd course at Cabot Highlands (Castle Stuart) can he and Clyde create something that makes it feel 'alive' I am interested to see it come to fruition and whether they come up with something different to what they normally have done over the years.
Cheers
Ben
Ben, you seem to assume that the Renaissance crew will not be as creative on bland sites. You are basing this on only seeing their work on good sites.
I don’t think you should be basing your question on “bland” rather than soil type. We know that they can be incredibly creative on a bland but sandy site. Think of the constructed from nothing project in China that never opened. There is also an element of sand at Cabot Highlands, which along with some existing features and water views will I’m sure give us an excellent course.
On the other side of the coin, he’s built what looks like a really lovely course on clay at St.Emilion. Why not look at the other projects where he has worked on clay? I doubt you’ll find any of the finished products lacking in creativity.
What about courses like Common Ground or his major renovations like Memorial.
And when you are talking about lack of creativity, then you clearly haven’t seen The Loop.
In other words, I think you are projecting your perception.
(EDIT - If you want to know the areas where I’ve no idea whether Tom would excel from the pack, it wouldn’t be to do with creativity. I think that is without question. I don’t know whether Tom’s routing skills on very tight sites are better than everyone else… or whether he understands the technical aspects of design, engineering and drainage on a poor site better than others. Those are areas that most architects have to deal with on all projects, even if the final product doesn’t get the glamorous column inches. Those are the areas where other architects probably don’t get enough credit.)
-
He has improved golf course design as we know it know thanks to the use of technology - modern diggers, measuring and levels devices, accurate contour drawings plus much shorter time to travel to more sites than the pioneering Golden Age predecessors who came up with the imagination and originality which Doak has upped the ante in that regard.
Cheers
Ben
Whilst I said I’d take this offline, I will say I agree with some (but not all) of Sean’s analysis. The international / variety aspect ain’t relevant.
I will also say that if people actually think that TD & Renaissance are just rehashing the Golden Age, they are far off the mark. It is a very new take on design of that era.
Finally, perhaps the most pioneering element is the control & type of the detail in the build.
Doak & Coore - for better or worse - have influenced golf design so much in the past 25 years that we have never had a narrower take on what defines good architecture.
I think Doak is unusual for his foreign designs with OZ, NZ, Scotland, Ireland, France and Mexico. All highly respected and considered among the best in the world.
Ciao
Sean,
Its mostly down to the site what was there. TD has been rather fortunate to work on incredible sites that allows him to visualise and create holes of what is there in a skilful way like C+C as well especially in Cabot St Lucia. Has he worked often on blank and boring sites which in some respects needs more creativity to make the site feel 'alive'.
Most golf course architects work on bland sites, work within means and have to use more imagination to create something out of blandness. JCB was a bland site prior to Robin's work there and its unrecognisable now to what it was before. I think the nearest one for TD at the moment is the 2nd course at Cabot Highlands (Castle Stuart) can he and Clyde create something that makes it feel 'alive' I am interested to see it come to fruition and whether they come up with something different to what they normally have done over the years.
Cheers
Ben
Doak has worked on a wide variety of soils and terrain, in a wide variety of climates and created a wide variety of course styles. I am not sure what you expect? Is it that Doak should turn down sandy, waterfront projects to prove himself on Midlands clay?
Ciao
-
He has improved golf course design as we know it know thanks to the use of technology - modern diggers, measuring and levels devices, accurate contour drawings plus much shorter time to travel to more sites than the pioneering Golden Age predecessors who came up with the imagination and originality which Doak has upped the ante in that regard.
Cheers
Ben
Whilst I said I’d take this offline, I will say I agree with some (but not all) of Sean’s analysis. The international / variety aspect ain’t relevant.
I will also say that if people actually think that TD & Renaissance are just rehashing the Golden Age, they are far off the mark. It is a very new take on design of that era.
Finally, perhaps the most pioneering element is the control & type of the detail in the build.
Doak & Coore - for better or worse - have influenced golf design so much in the past 25 years that we have never had a narrower take on what defines good architecture.
I think Doak is unusual for his foreign designs with OZ, NZ, Scotland, Ireland, France and Mexico. All highly respected and considered among the best in the world.
Ciao
Sean,
Its mostly down to the site what was there. TD has been rather fortunate to work on incredible sites that allows him to visualise and create holes of what is there in a skilful way like C+C as well especially in Cabot St Lucia. Has he worked often on blank and boring sites which in some respects needs more creativity to make the site feel 'alive'.
Most golf course architects work on bland sites, work within means and have to use more imagination to create something out of blandness. JCB was a bland site prior to Robin's work there and its unrecognisable now to what it was before. I think the nearest one for TD at the moment is the 2nd course at Cabot Highlands (Castle Stuart) can he and Clyde create something that makes it feel 'alive' I am interested to see it come to fruition and whether they come up with something different to what they normally have done over the years.
Cheers
Ben
Doak has worked on a wide variety of soils and terrain, in a wide variety of climates and created a wide variety of course styles. I am not sure what you expect? Is it that Doak should turn down sandy, waterfront projects to prove himself on Midlands clay?
Ciao
He has been one of the fortunate few in this regard - good going for him its all about being in the right time and place.
Sometimes his influence and style in terms of reality doesn't work on other sites - some clients expect their courses to be like what Doak, C+C and Hanse have produced recently and we have to have a magic wand to do so.
Midlands clay - this is where other Architects/Golf Clubs have to think differently and making clubs realise/be aware the potential costs and pitfalls can be hard work at times.
For example bunker sand is an absolute fortune in the UK these days and one project we are looking at converting all sand bunkers into grassy hollows. This is where the 'real' GCA work is IMO.
-
Ben,
It seems as if you have shifted from challenging whether C&C and Doak are “pioneering” to now asserting that they merely are the beneficiaries of good sites. Although I have enjoyed most of their courses that I have played, I am hardly “in the tank” for either C&C or Doak. So I want to point out two examples where I think your assertion misfires:
Friar’s Head consists of half wonderful dunes land, but the other half was a dull potato field. The routing C&C produced to weave the two halves together is brilliant. Plus the green complexes on the potato field holes transform dull into fun and challenging. Yes,it is 50% a great site, but 100% a terrific course.
Pacific Dunes is a beautiful site because of the ocean and the portions with dunes. However, the routing to maximize the site is not a simple proposition, particularly for the holes away from the ocean. But perhaps more to the point, Doak was far from famous when he produced Pac Dunes. It took vision and guts to design a layout for a resort course with a back nine consisting of four Par 3s (including back to back), three Par 5s, and only two Par 4s.
Other architects might have done as good work with such sites, but they would have to awfully darn good and bold.
Ira
-
Ben,
It seems as if you have shifted from challenging whether C&C and Doak are “pioneering” to now asserting that they merely are the beneficiaries of good sites. Although I have enjoyed most of their courses that I have played, I am hardly “in the tank” for either C&C or Doak. So I want to point out two examples where I think your assertion misfires:
Friar’s Head consists of half wonderful dunes land, but the other half was a dull potato field. The routing C&C produced to weave the two halves together is brilliant. Plus the green complexes on the potato field holes transform dull into fun and challenging. Yes,it is 50% a great site, but 100% a terrific course.
Pacific Dunes is a beautiful site because of the ocean and the portions with dunes. However, the routing to maximize the site is not a simple proposition, particularly for the holes away from the ocean. But perhaps more to the point, Doak was far from famous when he produced Pac Dunes. It took vision and guts to design a layout for a resort course with a back nine consisting of four Par 3s (including back to back), three Par 5s, and only two Par 4s.
Other architects might have done as good work with such sites, but they would have to awfully darn good and bold.
Ira
Hi Ira,
You have a valid point in some ways - however Friars is 50 percent dunes land which is part of the site and it already had the views like Pacific Dunes which does help in terms of routing and creating golf courses.
I am pointing out a dull flat piece of land with not great views possibly in middle of nowhere - JCB is in a part industrial area the golf course is by the JCB factory Robin has managed to design a course that you don't even see the factory at all or in the inner city which is a different kettle compared to what Doak and C+C have done.
I personally don't think the latest great triumvirate of GCA in the early 21st century are 'pioneering' they have 'elevated' GCA which is the difference because their skill levels are high to able to visualise and create these courses such as Friars and Pacific.
Cheers
Ben
-
He has improved golf course design as we know it know thanks to the use of technology - modern diggers, measuring and levels devices, accurate contour drawings plus much shorter time to travel to more sites than the pioneering Golden Age predecessors who came up with the imagination and originality which Doak has upped the ante in that regard.
Cheers
Ben
Whilst I said I’d take this offline, I will say I agree with some (but not all) of Sean’s analysis. The international / variety aspect ain’t relevant.
I will also say that if people actually think that TD & Renaissance are just rehashing the Golden Age, they are far off the mark. It is a very new take on design of that era.
Finally, perhaps the most pioneering element is the control & type of the detail in the build.
Doak & Coore - for better or worse - have influenced golf design so much in the past 25 years that we have never had a narrower take on what defines good architecture.
I think Doak is unusual for his foreign designs with OZ, NZ, Scotland, Ireland, France and Mexico. All highly respected and considered among the best in the world.
Ciao
Sean,
Its mostly down to the site what was there. TD has been rather fortunate to work on incredible sites that allows him to visualise and create holes of what is there in a skilful way like C+C as well especially in Cabot St Lucia. Has he worked often on blank and boring sites which in some respects needs more creativity to make the site feel 'alive'.
Most golf course architects work on bland sites, work within means and have to use more imagination to create something out of blandness. JCB was a bland site prior to Robin's work there and its unrecognisable now to what it was before. I think the nearest one for TD at the moment is the 2nd course at Cabot Highlands (Castle Stuart) can he and Clyde create something that makes it feel 'alive' I am interested to see it come to fruition and whether they come up with something different to what they normally have done over the years.
Cheers
Ben
Ben, you seem to assume that the Renaissance crew will not be as creative on bland sites. You are basing this on only seeing their work on good sites.
I don’t think you should be basing your question on “bland” rather than soil type. We know that they can be incredibly creative on a bland but sandy site. Think of the constructed from nothing project in China that never opened. There is also an element of sand at Cabot Highlands, which along with some existing features and water views will I’m sure give us an excellent course.
On the other side of the coin, he’s built what looks like a really lovely course on clay at St.Emilion. Why not look at the other projects where he has worked on clay? I doubt you’ll find any of the finished products lacking in creativity.
What about courses like Common Ground or his major renovations like Memorial.
And when you are talking about lack of creativity, then you clearly haven’t seen The Loop.
In other words, I think you are projecting your perception.
(EDIT - If you want to know the areas where I’ve no idea whether Tom would excel from the pack, it wouldn’t be to do with creativity. I think that is without question. I don’t know whether Tom’s routing skills on very tight sites are better than everyone else… or whether he understands the technical aspects of design, engineering and drainage on a poor site better than others. Those are areas that most architects have to deal with on all projects, even if the final product doesn’t get the glamorous column inches. Those are the areas where other architects probably don’t get enough credit.)
Commonground and Memorial are 'meh' nothing special its ok but doesn't get bums off seats like Dye did with Sawgrass originally an alligator swamp or compared with Doak courses which are ranked higher or on better sites. There could have been budget constraints and limitations on what they could do with them.
St Emilion does look nice and restrained however its not flat the landscaping was there before! ;D Sometimes 'less is more'
Kye Goalby/Zac Blair are creating an interesting course at Tree Farm whose routing was Doak's utilising the existing land forms and Brian Scheidner/Blake Conant have done what looks interesting work at Old Barnwell and Llanerch recently both look flatter - Are they free from 'Renaissance' to express themselves more who knows. Rob Collins has done what looks spectacular upgrade of the course at Sweetens Cove.
Norman Foster has done buildings that are incredible and others which are 'meh' same for Frank Lloyd Wright.
Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses.
Cheers
Ben
-
Hi Ira,
You have a valid point in some ways - however Friars is 50 percent dunes land which is part of the site and it already had the views like Pacific Dunes which does help in terms of routing and creating golf courses.
I am pointing out a dull flat piece of land with not great views possibly in middle of nowhere - JCB is in a part industrial area the golf course is by the JCB factory Robin has managed to design a course that you don't even see the factory at all or in the inner city which is a different kettle compared to what Doak and C+C have done.
I personally don't think the latest great triumvirate of GCA in the early 21st century are 'pioneering' they have 'elevated' GCA which is the difference because their skill levels are high to able to visualise and create these courses such as Friars and Pacific.
Cheers
Ben
What about Trinity Forest?
-
After the first several posts, I was very excited for this conversation. After dozens of posts arguing the definition of the word 'pioneer'... well, anyway.
I believe you CAN have too much of any one kind of hazard. Water, rough, gorse, trees, sand, etc. Of all of those mentioned, I'd rather have too much sand than any other.
If the sandy areas were all water, players would be dropping all day.
If it was all tall fescue, they'd be searching all day.
If it were all trees, they'd be chipping out all day.
At least sand affords the opportunity to play a myriad of shots, and take on a lot a risk, a little risk, and everything in between.
As for aesthetics, it all looks better than my cubicle.
-
Hi Ira,
You have a valid point in some ways - however Friars is 50 percent dunes land which is part of the site and it already had the views like Pacific Dunes which does help in terms of routing and creating golf courses.
I am pointing out a dull flat piece of land with not great views possibly in middle of nowhere - JCB is in a part industrial area the golf course is by the JCB factory Robin has managed to design a course that you don't even see the factory at all or in the inner city which is a different kettle compared to what Doak and C+C have done.
I personally don't think the latest great triumvirate of GCA in the early 21st century are 'pioneering' they have 'elevated' GCA which is the difference because their skill levels are high to able to visualise and create these courses such as Friars and Pacific.
Cheers
Ben
What about Trinity Forest?
Good point Max - it seems to have gone off radar now and wasn't popular with the pros can't please everyone though.
-
He has improved golf course design as we know it know thanks to the use of technology - modern diggers, measuring and levels devices, accurate contour drawings plus much shorter time to travel to more sites than the pioneering Golden Age predecessors who came up with the imagination and originality which Doak has upped the ante in that regard.
Cheers
Ben
Whilst I said I’d take this offline, I will say I agree with some (but not all) of Sean’s analysis. The international / variety aspect ain’t relevant.
I will also say that if people actually think that TD & Renaissance are just rehashing the Golden Age, they are far off the mark. It is a very new take on design of that era.
Finally, perhaps the most pioneering element is the control & type of the detail in the build.
Doak & Coore - for better or worse - have influenced golf design so much in the past 25 years that we have never had a narrower take on what defines good architecture.
I think Doak is unusual for his foreign designs with OZ, NZ, Scotland, Ireland, France and Mexico. All highly respected and considered among the best in the world.
Ciao
Sean,
Its mostly down to the site what was there. TD has been rather fortunate to work on incredible sites that allows him to visualise and create holes of what is there in a skilful way like C+C as well especially in Cabot St Lucia. Has he worked often on blank and boring sites which in some respects needs more creativity to make the site feel 'alive'.
Most golf course architects work on bland sites, work within means and have to use more imagination to create something out of blandness. JCB was a bland site prior to Robin's work there and its unrecognisable now to what it was before. I think the nearest one for TD at the moment is the 2nd course at Cabot Highlands (Castle Stuart) can he and Clyde create something that makes it feel 'alive' I am interested to see it come to fruition and whether they come up with something different to what they normally have done over the years.
Cheers
Ben
I think Doak has worked on a few less than appealing sites. Wasn't the Texas Tech course made from nothing? I can't quite get my head around your reluctance about Doak. But hey...
Ciao
-
He has improved golf course design as we know it know thanks to the use of technology - modern diggers, measuring and levels devices, accurate contour drawings plus much shorter time to travel to more sites than the pioneering Golden Age predecessors who came up with the imagination and originality which Doak has upped the ante in that regard.
Cheers
Ben
Whilst I said I’d take this offline, I will say I agree with some (but not all) of Sean’s analysis. The international / variety aspect ain’t relevant.
I will also say that if people actually think that TD & Renaissance are just rehashing the Golden Age, they are far off the mark. It is a very new take on design of that era.
Finally, perhaps the most pioneering element is the control & type of the detail in the build.
Doak & Coore - for better or worse - have influenced golf design so much in the past 25 years that we have never had a narrower take on what defines good architecture.
I think Doak is unusual for his foreign designs with OZ, NZ, Scotland, Ireland, France and Mexico. All highly respected and considered among the best in the world.
Ciao
Sean,
Its mostly down to the site what was there. TD has been rather fortunate to work on incredible sites that allows him to visualise and create holes of what is there in a skilful way like C+C as well especially in Cabot St Lucia. Has he worked often on blank and boring sites which in some respects needs more creativity to make the site feel 'alive'.
Most golf course architects work on bland sites, work within means and have to use more imagination to create something out of blandness. JCB was a bland site prior to Robin's work there and its unrecognisable now to what it was before. I think the nearest one for TD at the moment is the 2nd course at Cabot Highlands (Castle Stuart) can he and Clyde create something that makes it feel 'alive' I am interested to see it come to fruition and whether they come up with something different to what they normally have done over the years.
Cheers
Ben
Doak has worked on a wide variety of soils and terrain, in a wide variety of climates and created a wide variety of course styles. I am not sure what you expect? Is it that Doak should turn down sandy, waterfront projects to prove himself on Midlands clay?
Ciao
He has been one of the fortunate few in this regard - good going for him its all about being in the right time and place.
Sometimes his influence and style in terms of reality doesn't work on other sites - some clients expect their courses to be like what Doak, C+C and Hanse have produced recently and we have to have a magic wand to do so.
Midlands clay - this is where other Architects/Golf Clubs have to think differently and making clubs realise/be aware the potential costs and pitfalls can be hard work at times.
For example bunker sand is an absolute fortune in the UK these days and one project we are looking at converting all sand bunkers into grassy hollows. This is where the 'real' GCA work is IMO.
Doak has more than one style in his toolbox. Again, your opinions on this matter are a bit baffling to me.
Ciao
-
I am looking forward to "Pinehurst #10".
-
Ben,
It seems as if you have shifted from challenging whether C&C and Doak are “pioneering” to now asserting that they merely are the beneficiaries of good sites. Although I have enjoyed most of their courses that I have played, I am hardly “in the tank” for either C&C or Doak. So I want to point out two examples where I think your assertion misfires:
Friar’s Head consists of half wonderful dunes land, but the other half was a dull potato field. The routing C&C produced to weave the two halves together is brilliant. Plus the green complexes on the potato field holes transform dull into fun and challenging. Yes,it is 50% a great site, but 100% a terrific course.
Pacific Dunes is a beautiful site because of the ocean and the portions with dunes. However, the routing to maximize the site is not a simple proposition, particularly for the holes away from the ocean. But perhaps more to the point, Doak was far from famous when he produced Pac Dunes. It took vision and guts to design a layout for a resort course with a back nine consisting of four Par 3s (including back to back), three Par 5s, and only two Par 4s.
Other architects might have done as good work with such sites, but they would have to awfully darn good and bold.
Ira
Hi Ira,
You have a valid point in some ways - however Friars is 50 percent dunes land which is part of the site and it already had the views like Pacific Dunes which does help in terms of routing and creating golf courses.
I am pointing out a dull flat piece of land with not great views possibly in middle of nowhere - JCB is in a part industrial area the golf course is by the JCB factory Robin has managed to design a course that you don't even see the factory at all or in the inner city which is a different kettle compared to what Doak and C+C have done.
I personally don't think the latest great triumvirate of GCA in the early 21st century are 'pioneering' they have 'elevated' GCA which is the difference because their skill levels are high to able to visualise and create these courses such as Friars and Pacific.
Cheers
Ben
Ben,
I have not played JCB nor any of Mr. Dye’s dead flat courses so I am open to being wrong about the ability to transform such a site without moving a ton of earth. However, I grew up outside of Chicago within spitting distance of two courses on sites that define “dead flat” designed by Golden Age architects. Ross almost certainly is my favorite architect, but Evanston is truly meh or less to use your term (admittedly we used to sneak on there so I never saw the entire course), and I played a Langford (Bryn Mawr) nearby more than a hundred times which also is far from inspiring. My point is that you set a bar that even the best of the best could not meet if the bar is designing a world class course. The only (almost dead flat, not links) course that I think is truly exceptional is Woking.
Ira
-
Sean,
I haven’t actually seen the Texas Tech course but I have been to Lubbock. Trust me it ain’t Philadelphia.
-
After the first several posts, I was very excited for this conversation. After dozens of posts arguing the definition of the word 'pioneer'... well, anyway.
I believe you CAN have too much of any one kind of hazard. Water, rough, gorse, trees, sand, etc. Of all of those mentioned, I'd rather have too much sand than any other.
If the sandy areas were all water, players would be dropping all day.
If it was all tall fescue, they'd be searching all day.
If it were all trees, they'd be chipping out all day.
At least sand affords the opportunity to play a myriad of shots, and take on a lot a risk, a little risk, and everything in between.
As for aesthetics, it all looks better than my cubicle.
Ryan - I too wish Ben would stop replying and tempting others (including me) to keep going.
Despite all I said on being thoroughly fed up with the overuse of sand as primarily an aesthetic, I do think your very last sentence is the most important reminder of all.
-
After the first several posts, I was very excited for this conversation. After dozens of posts arguing the definition of the word 'pioneer'... well, anyway.
I believe you CAN have too much of any one kind of hazard. Water, rough, gorse, trees, sand, etc. Of all of those mentioned, I'd rather have too much sand than any other.
If the sandy areas were all water, players would be dropping all day.
If it was all tall fescue, they'd be searching all day.
If it were all trees, they'd be chipping out all day.
At least sand affords the opportunity to play a myriad of shots, and take on a lot a risk, a little risk, and everything in between.
As for aesthetics, it all looks better than my cubicle.
Ryan - I too wish Ben would stop replying and tempting others (including me) to keep going.
Despite all I said on being thoroughly fed up with the overuse of sand as primarily an aesthetic, I do think your very last sentence is the most important reminder of all.
Ally and Sean - I have PM you both not to interfere with this thread.
I do feel the images show that the sand and multiple fairways look OTT.
-
I would like to challenge Tom to do something different maybe at Cabot Highlands which looks a dull piece of land with great views (Thad Layton of Palmer Design produced a intriguing design which is now been shelved in favour for a design by Tom and Clyde) to produce a course that is more out of the box using a different style or approach that he hasn't used in the past and then if he pulls it off that may be 'pioneering' plus makes me jump out of my seat that the Renaissance failed to do so for me.
The hubris in this post. Wow.
Unless I misread something, you've seen just two courses that Doak designed and from that have concluded that his successes are due to great sites and that he would likely fail if given a poor one. And then you "challenge" him to do something to impress you. If he hasn't replied, it's probably because he's still laughing.
-
I would like to challenge Tom to do something different maybe at Cabot Highlands which looks a dull piece of land with great views (Thad Layton of Palmer Design produced a intriguing design which is now been shelved in favour for a design by Tom and Clyde) to produce a course that is more out of the box using a different style or approach that he hasn't used in the past and then if he pulls it off that may be 'pioneering' plus makes me jump out of my seat that the Renaissance failed to do so for me.
The hubris in this post. Wow.
Unless I misread something, you've seen just two courses that Doak designed and from that have concluded that his successes are due to great sites and that he would likely fail if given a poor one. And then you "challenge" him to do something to impress you. If he hasn't replied, it's probably because he's still laughing.
John
In my defence I never used the word 'fail' the courses on dull piece of land were 'meh' - its difficult to create a golf course out of a poor piece of land which most golf course Architects work on.
TD has worked on lots of sites that are far better than many golf course Architects have worked on or will ever work on. Pete Dye was very good at creating something out of bland sites however his later works became a bit over the top he never got the opportunity to work on a natural site as much as TD, C+C or Hanse whether he would be better than them I doubt it. Every designer has their strength and weaknesses nobody is perfect.
Sometimes if you work for a long time on the same design approach it starts to become rather stale I have seen this with Architects with Buildings as well as golf courses. TD has had a business model that has worked well for him over the last 20 or so years however it can't be forever. Sometimes you have to evolve your design ideas to keep ahead in the game lots of people here don't really understand that. Architects are always trying to find new ideas and think outside the box.
All I'm challenging TD is to do something different that he has not done before because the opportunity is there at Cabot Highlands to do so as it is pretty much more like a blank canvas with great views and on site land resources (sand!). I would encourage him to do so instead of using a safe approach based on what Renaissance has done before and recently which the majority of clients would prefer - the client BCD is the right one as he seems to like taking on risks with designs as see on Cabot Citrus Farms.
Not seen a course by TD with his version of a collection of the template holes and large railway sleepered walls, squarish greens, small greens i could go on. You never know John TD and Clyde may surprise us.
Don't you see other architects work (buildings and golf course architecture) and how they have evolved over time?
Cheers
Ben
-
Ben:
My problem with your harping in this thread is that it seems like you think I should do something that YOU would like, instead of doing something someone else [like, say, my clients] would like. Whatever I do with the rest of my career, it will be because I think it's fun, not because you do.
Here's a summary of my last few projects, from my own perspective:
At The Loop we built an 18-hole fully reversible course. That was pretty new, for me anyway. Have you seen a better attempt?
At The National in Australia we took the least favorite course of the members, changed the routing, and made it their favorite. 95% of the earthmoving was to erase the work done by the first designers!
At Memorial Park we took a heavy clay site, built a course with 17 non-frilly bunkers, and kept the Tour players in check on a municipal golf course that does 62,000 rounds per year. I actually got a couple of prominent Tour players to admit that hitting fairways matters there! If you think it doesn't look cool that's fine, because the assignment was not about what it looked like.
At St. Patrick's we took a great site and built one of the best courses in the world. Anything less would have been a failure. That's not as easy as it looks, by the way; Ally took a long look at that job, too, but I don't hear him saying he'd have done better.
At Lido we re-created a course that's been gone for 80 years. Has anyone else done that?
At Sedge Valley we are trying to build a world-class course with a par of 68. I'm not sure that has ever been done before, honestly -- when Rye and Swinley Forest and Wannamoissett were built, they were thought of as "bogey 74". It is a deliberate attempt to try and reverse the direction toward ever-bigger and ever more wasteful courses.
I have no interest in building square greens. How in God's name do you consider that creative? It would be more in keeping with very old-school courses to not be able to discern any shape or edge to the green.
I'd love to build a course with very small greens, but I can't get a superintendent to agree. They think anything under 5000 sf will cause them trouble. I keep trying.
I would love to do a course with lots of railway sleepers, but every client thinks that's crazy talk. It is too heavily identified with Mr. Dye, in America at least.
I think I'm going to do one or two projects in 2024 [in America] with artificial-turf revetted bunkers and try to make them as good as Muirfield's and St. Andrews's bunkers . . . I'm going to have to find a really good intern to tackle this.
We still aren't sure what we are going to do at Cabot Highlands, style-wise. We've discussed the possibility of building zero bunkers, or a few blowouts but zero formalized / green side bunkers . . . we could make it challenging enough without them, but then most people here wouldn't know what to talk about. [Much like your problem with Memorial Park.]
What you should take away from this summary is that we try to do something different on EVERY project we do, without looking desperate in the process. And for the most part, it has been pretty successful, despite your protestations.
-
Tom,
Only two questions:
Railway sleepers?
How many people have already applied for the artificial turf revetted bunker internship?
Ira
-
Railway sleepers?
I love some of the things Mr. Dye did with railroad ties back in the 1960's. The little step up on the approach to the 10th at The Golf Club is only a foot and a half, but with sleepers you are thinking about it. The vertical ties on the 13th at The Golf Club and the 17th at Harbour Town are wild. The small green at the 13th at Harbour Town with the bulkheaded bunker in front is awesome . . . even though Mrs. Dye would have chewed me out if I'd built the same thing twenty years later, and the one at Harbour Town was her idea!
How many people have already applied for the artificial turf revetted bunker internship?
I haven't checked my email yet, but this is the first I've said anything about it, because I wasn't sure either of the clients would go for it. In the past month, they've both signed off on the idea. Applications can be sent to doakgolf@aol.com, but be advised, it will be difficult physical labor in two very warm climates!
-
Well, my invitation to The Golf Club got lost in the mail. But Number 8 at Kilspindie is pretty cool even if it just plank fencing along the water.
Please post us whether the internship applications are successful.
Ira
-
Ben:
My problem with your harping in this thread is that it seems like you think I should do something that YOU would like, instead of doing something someone else [like, say, my clients] would like. Whatever I do with the rest of my career, it will be because I think it's fun, not because you do.
Umm its not something that I would like you to do - a lots of designers are too much in their comfort zone at times they don't like to be challenged thats the difference - From experience I do learn more from criticism than praise.
Here's a summary of my last few projects, from my own perspective:
At The Loop we built an 18-hole fully reversible course. That was pretty new, for me anyway. Have you seen a better attempt?
The word used was 'pioneering' I questioned the use of it. Isn't St Andrews is the original reversible course (despite not using the reverse option that much) and didn't Tom Simpson came up with a design but didnt build it. Im sure the Loop is pretty good judging from other people especially your no 1 fan Ally in the DG ;D . Frank Pont has done a 9 hole reversible course in Holland as well it would be interesting to look at that one as well.
At The National in Australia we took the least favorite course of the members, changed the routing, and made it their favorite. 95% of the earthmoving was to erase the work done by the first designers!
Sometimes it is easier where there is an existing course and how to make it better. A blank canvas is more difficult from experience. One of my projects is similar by having to change the routing as the infrastructure of the key elements are changing which has a knock on effect on the course leading to this required change. Its different to the National as you were improving the whole course.
At Memorial Park we took a heavy clay site, built a course with 17 non-frilly bunkers, and kept the Tour players in check on a municipal golf course that does 62,000 rounds per year. I actually got a couple of prominent Tour players to admit that hitting fairways matters there! If you think it doesn't look cool that's fine, because the assignment was not about what it looked like.
My initial point to GCAers not directly at you is if you have a heavy clay site is gonna be difficult to get high up in the rankings compared with other courses with fantastic sites as you probably know better than most. I am sure you have done your best with the site at Memorial Park.
What GCA doesn't get is that there is a lot of very good golf course Architects that most of their work is on a bad site as you know well. Most of your work has been on very good sites lately which you are pretty fortunate to do so. Of course some of us Architects can be envious of you however you have made it very successful for you and your business it can also be being in the right time and place which has happened often for you lately. It is a strength of yours to elevate a great site into a very good golf course.
At St. Patrick's we took a great site and built one of the best courses in the world. Anything less would have been a failure. That's not as easy as it looks, by the way; Ally took a long look at that job, too, but I don't hear him saying he'd have done better.
It is very difficult to create the best courses out of a great site which you have done well (still surprised that there is 3 par threes in a similar compass point its what it is ;D ;D ;D not trying to repeat myself every golf course architect has their strength and weaknesses nobody is perfect plus flat, dull sites with no views is incredibly difficult to get a course high up in the rankings compared with a course on a great site. To me Dye was the master of getting as much out of flat sites.
At Lido we re-created a course that's been gone for 80 years. Has anyone else done that?
Thats definitely a first or 'pioneering' in a GCA sense more thanks to Peter Flory who I feel should get more credit for making this happen (years and years of research, training and development of particular skills out of his own pocket) and the people who created/improved computers/software to make this possible plus the Keisers for providing a site and you/Renaissance who helped out with the construction side not the design side which was originally a CBM design.
I remember a GCA discussion a few years ago that you didn't like the possible use of computers and robots to create courses/shaping using GPS and you are more of hands on Golf Course Architect - it will happen more in future I was surprised that you got involved with Lido when you had quite anti 'computers' stance back then ;D
At Sedge Valley we are trying to build a world-class course with a par of 68. I'm not sure that has ever been done before, honestly -- when Rye and Swinley Forest and Wannamoissett were built, they were thought of as "bogey 74". It is a deliberate attempt to try and reverse the direction toward ever-bigger and ever more wasteful courses.
You have a great site at Sedge Valley to make this possible its your choice to make it a par 68 which is more or less out of the norm in the US not the UK there are plenty of par 68s and 69s here. The whole thing started off by Ally referring you as 'pioneering' which I disputed with Ally for saying this which has blown out of proportion a bit ;D . Is this pioneering golf course design - I don't think so. I'm glad the client is allowing you to do this and look forward to seeing this come to fruition.
I have no interest in building square greens. How in God's name do you consider that creative? It would be more in keeping with very old-school courses to not be able to discern any shape or edge to the green.
Thats your prerogative/design approach. I was 'throwing' things at you as it is difficult to read others peoples mind what they are thinking from a design perspective. Lots of famous courses didnt they start off with square 'ish' greens which was softened up later. In reverse most Architectural buildings are square the late Zaha Hadid one said 'there are 359 other degrees why only use one?' if you get the gist of it
I'd love to build a course with very small greens, but I can't get a superintendent to agree. They think anything under 5000 sf will cause them trouble. I keep trying.
One project I am working on in the UK the average size of the greens has to be 450sqm just under 5000sq.ft on average down to construction costs the size is more or less the UK norm. It is different in the USA where the greens have to be big with the exception of a few courses like Myopia. Isn't Cabot Highlands in Scotland thats different surely you could do this - if the head greenkeeper (UK speak) doesn't like it could it be two greens on one hole. Small greens is more acceptable in the UK than in the States. Sometimes its more what's around the greens like run off areas that are puttable etc.
I would love to do a course with lots of railway sleepers, but every client thinks that's crazy talk. It is too heavily identified with Mr. Dye, in America at least.
Do it! do it your way/version. Other places have railway sleepers like Prestwick Brancaster and RND (not Dye courses and influenced him to produce his version) it really made the golf course. Hope BCD allows for this at Cabot Highlands ;D
I think I'm going to do one or two projects in 2024 [in America] with artificial-turf revetted bunkers and try to make them as good as Muirfield's and St. Andrews's bunkers . . . I'm going to have to find a really good intern to tackle this.
I would definitely recommend Llewellyn Matthews from Ecobunker he is the the top expert at building this. Llewellyn is a Walker Cup player plays off plus 3 or 4 Im sure his boss who I know would let him go on a sabbatical to work for you. Llewellyn is a great guy. DM if you need his boss email address and I will pass it on to you.
We still aren't sure what we are going to do at Cabot Highlands, style-wise. We've discussed the possibility of building zero bunkers, or a few blowouts but zero formalized / green side bunkers . . . we could make it challenging enough without them, but then most people here wouldn't know what to talk about. [Much like your problem with Memorial Park.]
Sand is very expensive in the UK I have been looking at creating bunkers with mostly grass surfaces and a small proportion of it being sand possibly closer to the green or fairway. It would speed up play and the smaller the bunker is the easier/quicker to rake it. Im sure you have plenty of sand to play with at Cabot Highlands and not overdo it like Cabot Barrens :o
I don't have a problem with Memorial Park in the context compared with the great golf courses in the world and GCA's high standards it is 'meh' ;D - flat clay site in a built up area. In contrast it is better than most courses played on the PGA Tour its a pity they don't play the Houston Open the week before the Masters it would have given it greater exposure.
What you should take away from this summary is that we try to do something different on EVERY project we do, without looking desperate in the process. And for the most part, it has been pretty successful, despite your protestations.
Its not a protestation is more of challenging your perception golf course design wise I am forever trying to find new design ideas - I am sure you do try something different at each project however from my perspective your design style/appearance hasn't changed that dramatically over the years I totally understand that and most clients see it as a safe option.
Would definitely encourage you to do railway sleepers, small green(s) and grassy bunkers or hollows at Cabot Highlands it could make it stand out more than the archetypal Doak course ;D BCD if you ever look at this - let Tom do this!
I for one is looking at new design ideas for courses or facilities for disabled golfers making it more accessible for them to play without losing the challenge of playing the holes - this does need out of the box thinking in that respect.
Tom
To finish off with - thank you for your long response and being quite open about it appreciate the time you have put into it with a few eyeopeners. Wish you and Clyde all the best with Cabot Highlands I for one hope it will be different to the norm and get bums off seats! Always happy to have a discussion with you anytime on GCA or in private ;)
Cheers
Ben
-
Ben - you need to stop. Every time you throw out an insinuation or an inflammatory comment, someone needs to defend themselves. It’s a bad spiral.
Whether you like it or not, Tom has led the way for a huge amount of others who now are in the business of designing and building golf courses. Your main gripe is that his golf courses look the same. If there is an overarching consistency in style, it comes about primarily by him executing his design touchstones throughout all his projects (e.g. width, hidden transitions, micro-undulations, greens that tie to fairways and surrounds seamlessly, options): You do not change what you believe in just to make a photograph look different. If you actually listened to what he said above or visited more of his projects, a lot of the differences / nuances become clear.
Does that mean he’s infallible or that other takes aren’t as good? Of course not.
But you’ve gone way beyond that in your commentary.
-
Ben - you need to stop. Every time you throw out an insinuation or an inflammatory comment, someone needs to defend themselves. It’s a bad spiral.
Whether you like it or not, Tom has led the way for a huge amount of others who now are in the business of designing and building golf courses. Your main gripe is that his golf courses look the same. If there is an overarching consistency in style, it comes about primarily by him executing his design touchstones throughout all his projects (e.g. width, hidden transitions, micro-undulations, greens that tie to fairways and surrounds seamlessly, options): You do not change what you believe in just to make a photograph look different. If you actually listened to what he said above or visited more of his projects, a lot of the differences / nuances become clear.
Does that mean he’s infallible or that other takes aren’t as good? Of course not.
But you’ve gone way beyond that in your commentary.
Ally
Insinuation or Inflammatory comment?? come on Ally I don't think so!! we are all entitled to our views whether you like it or not - for example Tom said he doesn't like square greens thats his view have we heard that before and I quite like square greens - its difference of opinions - should we do every golf course the way that TD does it??. I am sure you have had some praise and criticism of your work at Carne from others would TD like it all what you have done - who knows.
Nobody is perfect - don't get me wrong Tom is one of the greatest modern golf course architects in the 21st century and he is not perfect but at the top shelf of Golf Course Architects ever for sure.
There were other influences in the past - why are you referring to Tom has led the way for huge amount the business of designing and building golf courses?? - he didn't lead it he was influenced by past golf course architects!! to me thats a rather contradictory and misleading statement that you have really made.
Other golf course architects were or are probably better businessmen than TD but a poorer designer. Tom does really pick his projects nowadays rather than accept all of them and make as much money as he would like to. Thats more quality than quantity minded a bit like Peter Zumthor in Architecture circles
For me Tom has increased exposure of what good golf course design is to the layman - for example the Anatomy of Golf Course Architecture is a great guide for non golf course architects. I am currently reading Golf Architecture in America by George Thomas written in 1929 which is some ways one of the predecessors to Toms book
I watched a documentary in the 1990s about the evolution of golf course design from late 19th century to 1990s - Tom wasn't in it how can you say he has led the way for a huge amount of others?? it was already there! are there as much golf courses being built now compared with the past - no. What about CBM, Donald Ross in America Colt, Braid in the UK and Alison in Japan and Mackenzie in Oceania they started all of this off and where would TD be without those guys?
You brought up the 'pioneering' comment for TD which I thought was disrespecting the forefathers of GCA. Others have chipped in saying that TD hasn't ever said that he is 'pioneering' you did!. The Loop is unique in this regard as an 18 hole reversible course was is the 'pioneer' referring to your original comment - not in my view.
I have visited two of his courses and played one that has been renovated there are bits that I like and others that I don't - surely others see that? There are versions of Dye and other architects courses that I like and don't like and so on the same for Buildings that Boony and I do discuss about. There is no such things as the perfect golf course or building.
Have I been influenced by TD works - yes I have in parts and other architects in other parts. Don't you think TD can do a different style of course I think he can if you have worked with Pete Dye in the past TD knowledge of railway sleepers probably far exceed most current Golf Course Architects its a shame he has not really implemented this in his works yet. I for one hope he does get that opportunity to show his version at Cabot Highlands or so.
-
At the risk of repeating myself, Ben's "commentary" is just a summary of what he thinks I should do. It has exactly as much relevance for me as what everyone else on this board thinks I should do, which is very little.
The two ways to influence me are
1) hire me to do a project and tell me what you want - though if it's something I don't find interesting, I won't take the job
2) come work for me and build something cool that I will get a lot of the credit for ;)
3) build something great yourself and make us all want to imitate what you've done
The PIONEERS who founded America didn't all have their own original idea. Ideas are cheap; they only become meaningful when you prove them in the field. A pioneer is someone willing to put in the work to back up their idea, to do it better than others and raise everyone else's expectations of what's possible. That's what I think we accomplished with The Loop, to cite one example.[size=78%] [/size]
Golf course design is all a matter of opinion. But your opinion matters more to me when you've said something original, instead of offering "meh" critiques of work that didn't float your boat.
-
At the risk of repeating myself, Ben's "commentary" is just a summary of what he thinks I should do. It has exactly as much relevance for me as what everyone else on this board thinks I should do, which is very little.
The two ways to influence me are
1) hire me to do a project and tell me what you want - though if it's something I don't find interesting, I won't take the job
2) come work for me and build something cool that I will get a lot of the credit for ;)
3) build something great yourself and make us all want to imitate what you've done
The PIONEERS who founded America didn't all have their own original idea. Ideas are cheap; they only become meaningful when you prove them in the field. A pioneer is someone willing to put in the work to back up their idea, to do it better than others and raise everyone else's expectations of what's possible. That's what I think we accomplished with The Loop, to cite one example.[size=78%] [/size]
Golf course design is all a matter of opinion. But your opinion matters more to me when you've said something original, instead of offering "meh" critiques of work that didn't float your boat.
Tom
Have I really written 'Tom I think you should do this or that' at least once?? your interpretation of what I supposedly said is rather contradictory - I am putting my opinion forward on this supposedly 'open' forum if some people see it as inflammatory thats their view - I don't think I have. I have used the wording 'Do it' as part of encouraging you to do so like the Nike motto 'Just Do It'
The main issue is that Ally brought up the word 'pioneering' for you which I disagreed with. For me the Loop is not the first ever 18 hole reversible course the first is 'pioneering'. The Loop for sure is unique in its own way (not pioneering thats my opinion others may see it as pioneering thats their view) that there is very few others compare with it - didnt Dan Hixson do a 18 hole reversible course as well. You have your view that is it 'pioneering' I just have a different view.
Looks like to me you are in some ways afraid of using railway sleepers I thought clients are supposed to 'trust' your design ability, views and how things should be done in the design of a particular course rather than them being scared of it??
'meh' to some is 'pretty average' in England however can be interpreted as 'uninspiring' and 'unexceptional' the there are lots of different ways of interpreting the English Language.
Lots of people on here and in life are afraid to put forward their opinions.
Ill buy myself a magnum of Champagne if you ever ranked one of my courses as 0 on the Doak Scale ;D
Ally - maybe Cabot Highlands site should be the next Amateur Armchair Contest if there will be one ;D
-
Most people are smart enough, or polite enough to state their opinion once or twice and then to let it go. Beating a dead horse is annoying....and it's being a douche bag.
-
Craig
Even if you think the abuse justified, do you think appropriate to abuse someone on a discussion board like GCA ?
Niall
-
Like Tom, I still don't understand what it is Ben is looking for.
And not that Tom needs me to chime in, but the list of top shelf/1st rate work on a variety of sites and ownership models is lengthy.
Mountain golf - Rock Creek
Desert and mountain golf - Stone Eagle
Mountain Meadow golf - Tumble Creek
Muni golf - Common Ground and Memorial
Flat nothing sites - Rawls and the Lido re-do
Restorations - Pasatiempo
Extreme sites - Cape Kidnappers
Parkland - Beechtree
Collaborations with Pros - Jack and Koepka
High End Public Access - Streamsong, Pac Dunes
High end Privates - Countless examples.
I'm genuinely confused as to what it is Tom needs to prove? I guess he hasn't done Jungle golf or a course with sand greens.
-
Niall, No it is not appropriate...That is why I told (politely) Ben to stop abusing TD.
-
...Not seen a course by TD with his version of a collection of the template holes and large railway sleepered walls...
Cheers
Ben
Old Mac has Sleepers and templates.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8332/8134631760_bcf86b3c7c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/doQ7BJ)
Old Mac #6 - Long - par 5 - Hell Bunker (https://flic.kr/p/doQ7BJ)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8043/8134606682_e67bdcabea_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/doPZam)
Old Mac #16 - Alps -bunker behind Alps (https://flic.kr/p/doPZam)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8191/8134607324_a008bb6447_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/doPZmq)
Old Mac #16 - Alps] (https://flic.kr/p/doPZmq)
-
Man, Old Mac always looks good to me.
Ciao
-
Man, Old Mac always looks good to me.
Ciao
Me too.
-
Man, Old Mac always looks good to me.
Ciao
Me too.
Me too. What’s the reason it doesn’t quite reach a full love-in for a lot of people?
-
Man, Old Mac always looks good to me.
Ciao
Me too.
Me too. What’s the reason it doesn’t quite reach a full love-in for a lot of people?
Two guesses why it doen't get more love: (i) Some people don't like the huge greens, (ii) most likely, there's so much high quality competition on site Old Mac gets downgraded in the minds of some visitors.
It is ranked #77 on Golf Mag's best US courses. That reflects a lot of love
-
Stewart,
Many thanks. I had forgotten about the Railway Sleepers at Old Mac.
As to the course, my sense is that people either love it for the scale and CBM homage or are put off by the size of the greens. My wife is in the second category, and I did not find it so compelling that I was okay with skipping Old Mac on our second visit in order to play Pac Dunes twice. But there are some holes that are world class that I hope to see again.
Ira
-
Me too. What’s the reason it doesn’t quite reach a full love-in for a lot of people?
The simple answer is that it's right next to Pacific Dunes, but has a lot less ocean frontage. Indirectly, it's also got to compete with all of my other courses. It might not make my top ten!
Some good players don't like how big and open it is. They get frustrated that other people aren't making worse than bogey, while they are struggling to make birdies, or even par on some of the longer holes.
The greens are really too big and too wild, and nobody likes to three-putt. Most people think that's on me, but in fact everyone else involved in the design kept insisting on making them bigger and wilder.
-
has anyone else played costa palmas? Pine Valley, Tara Iti, mammoth dunes, etc... didn't feel like too much sand but this may have been the first time I ever said "too much sand"
-
Me too. What’s the reason it doesn’t quite reach a full love-in for a lot of people?
The simple answer is that it's right next to Pacific Dunes, but has a lot less ocean frontage. Indirectly, it's also got to compete with all of my other courses. It might not make my top ten!
Some good players don't like how big and open it is. They get frustrated that other people aren't making worse than bogey, while they are struggling to make birdies, or even par on some of the longer holes.
The greens are really too big and too wild, and nobody likes to three-putt. Most people think that's on me, but in fact everyone else involved in the design kept insisting on making them bigger and wilder.
Thanks Tom. Huge, wild greens doesn't sound great, but I would need to see them to know. I guess my issue would be if there are tons of these at the expense of variety. Even TOC has a decent amount of variety for double greens.
Ciao
-
...Not seen a course by TD with his version of a collection of the template holes and large railway sleepered walls...
Cheers
Ben
Old Mac has Sleepers and templates.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8332/8134631760_bcf86b3c7c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/doQ7BJ)
Old Mac #6 - Long - par 5 - Hell Bunker (https://flic.kr/p/doQ7BJ)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8043/8134606682_e67bdcabea_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/doPZam)
Old Mac #16 - Alps -bunker behind Alps (https://flic.kr/p/doPZam)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8191/8134607324_a008bb6447_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/doPZmq)
Old Mac #16 - Alps] (https://flic.kr/p/doPZmq)
I guess I was wrong in this respect thank you Stewart for bringing this up - regarding templates (curved not squared) and railway sleepers. These photos are not seen very often and should been seen more. Is this the only course apart from Lido?
Still this is a more natural look using sleepers as seen at other Doak works - Brancaster has sleepered bunkers and walls which are much sharper and more defined which I prefer just saying.
-
Me too. What’s the reason it doesn’t quite reach a full love-in for a lot of people?
The simple answer is that it's right next to Pacific Dunes, but has a lot less ocean frontage. Indirectly, it's also got to compete with all of my other courses. It might not make my top ten!
Some good players don't like how big and open it is. They get frustrated that other people aren't making worse than bogey, while they are struggling to make birdies, or even par on some of the longer holes.
The greens are really too big and too wild, and nobody likes to three-putt. Most people think that's on me, but in fact everyone else involved in the design kept insisting on making them bigger and wilder.
Tom,
Have you ever received comments about the large difference in length between the front and back? I thought the front was a thrill ride, but I was really running out of gas during the last four holes (and I think 18 is a great hole)? I am not a strong player, but I was playing from the correct tees.
Thanks.
Ira
-
Man, Old Mac always looks good to me.
Sean,
I think you would really enjoy it. The biggest criticism that I've heard of it has been from people who don't think the "templates" are close enough to what Raynor and CBM built. For me, that's actually a strength of the course. Doak and team used the ideal hole concept very well - the holes at OM utilize great design principles, but they aren't replicas. It works really well IMO - just don't get caught up in why the Redan doesn't look just like one somewhere else. There is a lot of variety in greens and I don't think they are over the top large. I would love to get back out there and play it again, but haven't.
Ben,
Seems the only satisfactory answer to your situation is for you to come up with a bunch of money, hire Doak to build a course around your expectations, then go in after him and fix all of the places where he failed to suit you. Other than that, you're not going to be happy.
-
The greens are really too big and too wild, and nobody likes to three-putt.
Who am I to disagree with you about a course you built, but I will. While the Old Mac greens are big and wild, I don't think they're too big or too wild. I really like playing Old Mac and the greens are part of the fun. I seem to recall you saying something to the effect that if there was water or sand on the surrounds of the greens rather than extra green width, the punishment for an approach landing in the same place would in general be a lot worse than a three putt. I don't mind having a very long first putt following a less than good approach instead of having to drop next to water or hitting out of a bunker. The odds for most players of two putting from across a huge green are at least as good as an up and down from a bunker, and making par is more likely than if the shot had been lost in a greenside pond or burn. Variety is the spice of life (and golf). Isn't that why you like to create courses that are different rather than follow a formula? To me the "big, wild" greens are one of the strengths of Old Mac
-
No disrespect intended, seriously, but I thought Old Mac was an oddity in that the sum seemed less than the individual parts.
I generally loved the first 8 holes and the "originals", eg 7 and 15, were favorites. The back 9 was very so-so for me.
I didn't mind the huge greens but thought some of the runoff slopes were too steep, or asymmetrically penal (relative to other aspects of the build).
All that said, in the context of what DB has to offer as a resort, Old Mac is a wonderful piece of that puzzle.
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8332/8134631760_bcf86b3c7c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/doQ7BJ)
Not dissimilar to the 4th at Westward Ho!/RND. Splendid stuff.
Atb
-
Isn’t there a story, maybe a tall tale, maybe not, that in answer to a players comment that there was too much sand in the bunkers at a links course the owner/designed asked if the player would like them to remove all 200 feet of it?
Atb
-
Niall, No it is not appropriate...That is why I told (politely) Ben to stop abusing TD.
The word I would use is 'challenging' - no one on this site is brave enough to do so - your interpretation of abusing (which is a strong and dangerous wording to use) is rather baffling I have to say ???
Have you ever worked in the Architecture and Design world - if not you then lack understanding of how we do things or words we use.
I know TD tries to take the piss out of me on this site however he is pretty bad at it I would say ;D however he has his supporters (which I have now christened Doakites)
-
Like Tom, I still don't understand what it is Ben is looking for.
And not that Tom needs me to chime in, but the list of top shelf/1st rate work on a variety of sites and ownership models is lengthy.
Mountain golf - Rock Creek
Desert and mountain golf - Stone Eagle
Mountain Meadow golf - Tumble Creek
Muni golf - Common Ground and Memorial
Flat nothing sites - Rawls and the Lido re-do
Restorations - Pasatiempo
Extreme sites - Cape Kidnappers
Parkland - Beechtree
Collaborations with Pros - Jack and Koepka
High End Public Access - Streamsong, Pac Dunes
High end Privates - Countless examples.
I'm genuinely confused as to what it is Tom needs to prove? I guess he hasn't done Jungle golf or a course with sand greens.
Kalen
TD uses a very similar look aesthetic and design wise from his early courses to his latest ones - soft, natural, curves similar shaping irrelevant of what site it is thats what I am looking at from a fellow designers perspective which you probably don't understand. I have seen building architects use similar material and style on different building sites rather than experiment and do something different.
Sometimes to be ahead of the game you have to evolve - Frank Lloyd Wright is an example his early buildings are different to the one in his later years. If you are comfortable in what you do there is an element of risk that if you will end up being left behind others who over takes you I think thats the risk TD has. 10-20 years time could be a different clientele who are more like the computer game generation they will probably want some thing different.
Cheers
Ben
-
.
-
Man, Old Mac always looks good to me.
Sean,
I think you would really enjoy it. The biggest criticism that I've heard of it has been from people who don't think the "templates" are close enough to what Raynor and CBM built. For me, that's actually a strength of the course. Doak and team used the ideal hole concept very well - the holes at OM utilize great design principles, but they aren't replicas. It works really well IMO - just don't get caught up in why the Redan doesn't look just like one somewhere else. There is a lot of variety in greens and I don't think they are over the top large. I would love to get back out there and play it again, but haven't.
Ben,
Seems the only satisfactory answer to your situation is for you to come up with a bunch of money, hire Doak to build a course around your expectations, then go in after him and fix all of the places where he failed to suit you. Other than that, you're not going to be happy.
John
If I had the money I would never hire an 'established and older' golf course architect - I would give the opportunity to an unknown if the talent and ability is there to produce something different and out of the norm probably a design competition where one design is likely to stand above the others.
TD has been there and done it he is now in what most designers interprets as the 'comfort zone'. He is doing very well at present the question is will he or his disciples in the future by continuing this trend? thats an unknown.
I get why a lot of you out there are frustrated at me or defending TD that ok a lot of people don't like to be 'challenged'. The funny thing is most of you are not seeing where I am coming from - there are other Architects now upping their game will TD be left behind like Blockbuster did because they didn't evolve? you never know everything has a shelf life. What he is producing then and now from my designers viewpoint is becoming more and more repetitive the longer it goes if you don't see it thats ok if you like what he is producing thats fine. Its also similar to what Norman Foster is producing in Architecture when he produces a new design or project you see it is a typical Foster not something different to what they have done before.
There is no such thing as the perfect golf course and we all have different tastes and do things differently. Some people prefer on cloud to nikes its like that in the golf world outside of GCA circles. I have been in the fortunate position to meet other Golf Course Architects face to face and what their interpretation a golf course should be.
Cheers
Ben
-
Kalen
TD uses a very similar look aesthetic and design wise from his early courses to his latest ones - soft, natural, curves similar shaping irrelevant of what site it is thats what I am looking at from a fellow designers perspective which you probably don't understand. I have seen building architects use similar material and style on different building sites rather than experiment and do something different.
Sometimes to be ahead of the game you have to evolve - Frank Lloyd Wright is an example his early buildings are different to the one in his later years. If you are comfortable in what you do there is an element of risk that if you will end up being left behind others who over takes you I think thats the risk TD has. 10-20 years time could be a different clientele who are more like the computer game generation they will probably want some thing different.
Cheers
Ben
Ben,
Do you actually have a good sense of how Doak's style has changed (or not) across his career? I mean, did you see High Pointe or Black Forest, then Pacific Dunes or Cape Kidnappers, then Old MacDonald, Tara Iti, or the Loop?
I certainly haven't seen most of what he's done, but I have seen a half dozen of his courses and from different periods in his career. And to suggest that there's little variation in the style--and not even across his career but in courses from the same period--is not well-justified.
Take High Pointe and Black Forest. Anyone would have been hard pressed to tell that these were designed by the same guy. High Pointe, save for a few greens was quite minimal. The bunker shaping was fairly simple. Black Forest was the opposite of this--wild greens, flashy bunkers. Maybe a bit too much at times given the hilliness of the site, but whatever its faults, you wouldn't say that it's similarity to High Pointe was one.
And neither looked like Old MacDonald or the Loop, which also don't look like each other. Old MacDonald has big, heavily undulating greens. The Loop's greens are smaller and most have less interior contour, with a lot of the difficulty coming from the slopes around the greens. Old MacDonald and Black Forest both had very undulating greens, but they weren't too similar to each other; the former were larger and more free-form while the latter were smaller with some steep slopes.
As for all of the curves being soft and natural, what are you looking for here? Square-shaped mounds? I know square-shaped greens came up earlier, but I fail to see how a lawn mower running in a line, then stopping and turning to change direction vs. one that runs continuously in a curve makes for something either substantively different or interesting. That Doak et al's shaping seems soft and naturalistic seems to me to be a major virtue--wherever they work, they do a good job blending the shaping into its surroundings. And you really downplay the difference in degree across his courses. Some, like the Loop are much more subtle with a lot of small contours. Others--again Old MacDonald--have big, bold ones. Hell, even the Loop has a lot variation within in big vs. small contours.
And I see one of Doak's courses that I mentioned at the beginning, Pacific Dunes, as being quite different in style from the others. It has the least-busy greens of all of Doak's courses that I've seen (huge contrast to Old MacDonald). The emphasis here is on playing angles. Most of the greens are narrow and deep, so it's critical to be in a certain spot in the fairway so that you're not playing into the green from a shallow angle. It's a good thing too because with the challenge that this imposes on iron play and the windiness of the place, heavily contoured greens would be too much.
Whether any of this makes him a pioneer, I don't know and don't really care. But if you want to argue that this is a lack of stylistic variety, well I think that's pretty much wrong.
-
https://beyondthecontour.com/first-look-cabot-citrus-farms/ (https://beyondthecontour.com/first-look-cabot-citrus-farms/)
I saw the above storyline and I think they did a great job with the before and after.
Here is my question. Is it me or is too much exposed sand a bit much on these course. I had the same thought when I played Sand Valley the C&C course in WI. The pictures on the new holes at Cabot Citrus are WOW, but it just seems too much.
Kind of the less is more or leaving them wanting for more.
Am I wrong here?
There’s no wrong answer, only preferences. As a big fan of Sand Valley, I remind that it is literally on a prehistoric, geological desert of sand, so the options were to build a course with a lot of sand around it, or try and grass over all of the sand. Architectural preferences.
-
Kalen
TD uses a very similar look aesthetic and design wise from his early courses to his latest ones - soft, natural, curves similar shaping irrelevant of what site it is thats what I am looking at from a fellow designers perspective which you probably don't understand. I have seen building architects use similar material and style on different building sites rather than experiment and do something different.
Sometimes to be ahead of the game you have to evolve - Frank Lloyd Wright is an example his early buildings are different to the one in his later years. If you are comfortable in what you do there is an element of risk that if you will end up being left behind others who over takes you I think thats the risk TD has. 10-20 years time could be a different clientele who are more like the computer game generation they will probably want some thing different.
Cheers
Ben
Ben,
Do you actually have a good sense of how Doak's style has changed (or not) across his career? I mean, did you see High Pointe or Black Forest, then Pacific Dunes or Cape Kidnappers, then Old MacDonald, Tara Iti, or the Loop?
I certainly haven't seen most of what he's done, but I have seen a half dozen of his courses and from different periods in his career. And to suggest that there's little variation in the style--and not even across his career but in courses from the same period--is not well-justified.
Take High Pointe and Black Forest. Anyone would have been hard pressed to tell that these were designed by the same guy. High Pointe, save for a few greens was quite minimal. The bunker shaping was fairly simple. Black Forest was the opposite of this--wild greens, flashy bunkers. Maybe a bit too much at times given the hilliness of the site, but whatever its faults, you wouldn't say that it's similarity to High Pointe was one.
And neither looked like Old MacDonald or the Loop, which also don't look like each other. Old MacDonald has big, heavily undulating greens. The Loop's greens are smaller and most have less interior contour, with a lot of the difficulty coming from the slopes around the greens. Old MacDonald and Black Forest both had very undulating greens, but they weren't too similar to each other; the former were larger and more free-form while the latter were smaller with some steep slopes.
As for all of the curves being soft and natural, what are you looking for here? Square-shaped mounds? I know square-shaped greens came up earlier, but I fail to see how a lawn mower running in a line, then stopping and turning to change direction vs. one that runs continuously in a curve makes for something either substantively different or interesting. That Doak et al's shaping seems soft and naturalistic seems to me to be a major virtue--wherever they work, they do a good job blending the shaping into its surroundings. And you really downplay the difference in degree across his courses. Some, like the Loop are much more subtle with a lot of small contours. Others--again Old MacDonald--have big, bold ones. Hell, even the Loop has a lot variation within in big vs. small contours.
And I see one of Doak's courses that I mentioned at the beginning, Pacific Dunes, as being quite different in style from the others. It has the least-busy greens of all of Doak's courses that I've seen (huge contrast to Old MacDonald). The emphasis here is on playing angles. Most of the greens are narrow and deep, so it's critical to be in a certain spot in the fairway so that you're not playing into the green from a shallow angle. It's a good thing too because with the challenge that this imposes on iron play and the windiness of the place, heavily contoured greens would be too much.
Whether any of this makes him a pioneer, I don't know and don't really care. But if you want to argue that this is a lack of stylistic variety, well I think that's pretty much wrong.
Brett,
I appreciate your response and your views.
You have your view I have mine - should everyone think the same?. You may think I am wrong thats your opinion isn't what this Discussion Group is for? TD work is to me is becoming more and more repetitive (thats my opinion whether its right or wrong) irrelevant of the size of the greens, location, landforms that existed before and so on etc.
Some people think TD has done different things golf course design wise thats their view mine is different. Colt, Braid, Simpson and even M+E have certain design traits (for example the sand wastes becoming common ::) ) that continue over time or see in many of their designs. Architects have this as well - very few have made me go wow I didn't think of that or thats a beautiful detail - you may think my standards are too high - we all think differently.
Every site is unique it does make the course or holes look different from the bigger picture thats why I can see why people think 'oh wow thats different he hasn't done that before' or thats 'pioneering' however for me its the details - naturalistic, smooth, curves, soft touch, minimalistic - a number of TD trademarks which are visible to me but not to others on this site whether they are simple or OTT with no complicated detailed drawings which is their approach and rely on great shapers which some are used repetitively that certain approach/details seen on multiple courses not just one.
I just see things differently - it may baffle (or frustrate ;D ) most of you - its what it is. My view is that C+C are in a similar mould to TD - I would say Hanse has more variety out of the Big Three.
If I had the choice of visiting a new Doak course (knowing what he and his shapers are more likely to do) or an unknown who looks like their work is different to others - I would go to the unknown its what I am. I know its more likely that most of you would rather go to a new Doak course than an unknown who has done something different. It's the same for me in Architecture as well as Boony would testify.
Regarding sand in this thread - some think its OTT and others think its awesome. Some prefer Trump and others prefer Biden, Republican or Democratic/Conservartive or Labour in UK. Variety is the spice of life, everyone has different views and I do know I am in a very small minority on this site ;D which others may think my views are warped.
Cheers
Ben
-
Niall, No it is not appropriate...That is why I told (politely) Ben to stop abusing TD.
Craig
The abuse I was referring to was you basically calling Ben a douche bag. As far as I recall Ben has never abused Tom in that manner although a lot of folk, including Tom I suspect, think his comments are way off the mark. Being persistent with a point of view that most would challenge and continuing to defend your corner when challenged probably betrays a stubborn streak. Ben certainly has that, but I don't see him being abusive in the way you have been.
Niall
-
If I had the money I would never hire an 'established and older' golf course architect - I would give the opportunity to an unknown if the talent and ability is there to produce something different and out of the norm probably a design competition where one design is likely to stand above the others.
TD has been there and done it he is now in what most designers interprets as the 'comfort zone'. He is doing very well at present the question is will he or his disciples in the future by continuing this trend? thats an unknown.
Ben
As a 57 year old who is currently trying to change job your comments resonate with me. Let me assure you the penchant for youth isn't restricted to the field of GCA. It's very disheartening going for jobs knowing that even though you've got more than the requisite knowledge and experience that you're highly unlikely to be considered due to your age profile.
Of course I'm not a high-flyer in my field of work the way Tom is in his. So if Tom is continuing to attract prime commissions due to his superlative track record then good on him. He wouldn't still be getting considered if he wasn't coming up with the goods every time.
As for doing something different, I've probably seen the same 2 Doak courses you have and stylistically I think most folk would struggle to see an obvious resemblance between the two, particularly non-GCA types.
Niall
-
The greens are really too big and too wild, and nobody likes to three-putt.
Who am I to disagree with you about a course you built, but I will. While the Old Mac greens are big and wild, I don't think they're too big or too wild. I really like playing Old Mac and the greens are part of the fun. I seem to recall you saying something to the effect that if there was water or sand on the surrounds of the greens rather than extra green width, the punishment for an approach landing in the same place would in general be a lot worse than a three putt. I don't mind having a very long first putt following a less than good approach instead of having to drop next to water or hitting out of a bunker. The odds for most players of two putting from across a huge green are at least as good as an up and down from a bunker, and making par is more likely than if the shot had been lost in a greenside pond or burn. Variety is the spice of life (and golf). Isn't that why you like to create courses that are different rather than follow a formula? To me the "big, wild" greens are one of the strengths of Old Mac
Stewart:
Don’t misunderstand- I like the course, even though I don’t like to three-putt either. But I understood from the beginning those features would be a turn-off to some/many golfers. Luckily Bandon attracts plenty of the kinds of golfers who like that sort of thing, so we had the luxury of not worrying about the people who don’t.
-
Brett,
I appreciate your response and your views.
You have your view I have mine - should everyone think the same?. You may think I am wrong thats your opinion isn't what this Discussion Group is for? TD work is to me is becoming more and more repetitive (thats my opinion whether its right or wrong) irrelevant of the size of the greens, location, landforms that existed before and so on etc.
Some people think TD has done different things golf course design wise thats their view mine is different. Colt, Braid, Simpson and even M+E have certain design traits (for example the sand wastes becoming common ::) ) that continue over time or see in many of their designs. Architects have this as well - very few have made me go wow I didn't think of that or thats a beautiful detail - you may think my standards are too high - we all think differently.
Every site is unique it does make the course or holes look different from the bigger picture thats why I can see why people think 'oh wow thats different he hasn't done that before' or thats 'pioneering' however for me its the details - naturalistic, smooth, curves, soft touch, minimalistic - a number of TD trademarks which are visible to me but not to others on this site whether they are simple or OTT with no complicated detailed drawings which is their approach and rely on great shapers which some are used repetitively that certain approach/details seen on multiple courses not just one.
I just see things differently - it may baffle (or frustrate ;D ) most of you - its what it is. My view is that C+C are in a similar mould to TD - I would say Hanse has more variety out of the Big Three.
If I had the choice of visiting a new Doak course (knowing what he and his shapers are more likely to do) or an unknown who looks like their work is different to others - I would go to the unknown its what I am. I know its more likely that most of you would rather go to a new Doak course than an unknown who has done something different. It's the same for me in Architecture as well as Boony would testify.
Regarding sand in this thread - some think its OTT and others think its awesome. Some prefer Trump and others prefer Biden, Republican or Democratic/Conservartive or Labour in UK. Variety is the spice of life, everyone has different views and I do know I am in a very small minority on this site ;D which others may think my views are warped.
Cheers
Ben
Ben,
I certainly appreciate your tone and civility. It's a lot better than several others on this site and certainly in the broader world of discussion forums. So thanks for that. And I agree that variety is the spice of life...which is part of the reason why I've been banging on about restoring Pine Barrens in the other thread.
I think that a problem with a lot of your posts here is that people are giving some pretty extensive responses to your arguments and you're kind of just shrugging them off and saying 'eh, we have a difference of opinion.' I agree with you that we have differences of opinion and probably most people here understand and respect that people will have differences of opinion and that ultimately there's no right answer in something like this.
But when someone makes an extensive argument against your points, you either have to argue back in detail or concede defeat in walk away. I wrote a few hundred words on why I think your point about Doak's work being repetitive is wrong. Instead of trying to rebut it, you just repeat that his work is repetitive. I can't respect this as a difference of opinion at this point because I've provided what I think is pretty good evidence against that. So you either need to (1) admit that I'm right and that your claim is wrong, (2) dispute my evidence, and/or (3) present some new evidence to support your argument.
I also addressed the point about naturalistic shaping, but not in as much detail. Here I admit it's a real matter of personal preference. But I still wonder what you want Doak to do. Do you want him to start shaping courses like Pete Dye? Or Jim Engh? Or Mike Strantz? I would argue that we have plenty enough examples of Dye's work, at least from the 80s and 90s. Doing something like that would be repetitive. I'd argue against copying Engh for a variety of reasons that I won't get into. Maybe he should do a maximalist style like Strantz? One could argue, as I have, that some of Strantz's courses could have really benefitted from some editing. Do you think that any of these guys' work was repetitive?
Ultimately a big part of the variety comes the fact that there are different guys working in this area. I don't think that Doak's work is repetitive but even if it were, he's just one guy out of dozens who have been operating over the last 100 years. And he's done far fewer courses than most of the big names over the past 100 years. Given the number of Tom Fazio, Pete Dye, Arthur Hills, etc. courses that we have, I think we could still use a few more Doak and Coore/Crenshaw courses.
-
I get why a lot of you out there are frustrated at me or defending TD that ok a lot of people don't like to be 'challenged'. The funny thing is most of you are not seeing where I am coming from - there are other Architects now upping their game will TD be left behind like Blockbuster did because they didn't evolve? you never know everything has a shelf life. What he is producing then and now from my designers viewpoint is becoming more and more repetitive the longer it goes if you don't see it thats ok if you like what he is producing thats fine. Its also similar to what Norman Foster is producing in Architecture when he produces a new design or project you see it is a typical Foster not something different to what they have done before.
There is no such thing as the perfect golf course and we all have different tastes and do things differently. Some people prefer on cloud to nikes its like that in the golf world outside of GCA circles. I have been in the fortunate position to meet other Golf Course Architects face to face and what their interpretation a golf course should be.
Ben,
I highlighted your Blockbuster analogy, but can't bring myself to comment on it while still being nice.
Your position about Doak's work is bizarre to me. Granted, I'm not an architect of any sort - just a golf consumer. I make my judgements about courses by playing them and evaluating my experiences. I've no interest in "defending" Tom - I'm just trying to defend rational discussion.
I've played around 17 Doak courses - either new builds or major renovations. You posted earlier that you've played two of them (SAB & RC). Yet from that very small sample size (and nothing built in the past 15 years!) you have decided that his style is repetitive and he needs to evolve to remain relevant. Presumably you've decided this by looking at pictures posted on GCA and other sites?
Maybe someone can assess building architecture by looking at photos - I don't think that works nearly the same in golf. Pictures might inspire or discourage a visit, but that's where it ends.
As long as people continue to play golf in roughly the same manner it's played today, I think Doak's work will remain relevant. He builds courses that fit the land and environment that they are built on. His courses require thoughtful play but don't demand particular methods or shots. Skill gets rewarded, but courses are playable by anyone. The courses generally look great in photos, but the real greatness is the way they provide an intriguing playing surface well suited to where they are built.
-
Brett,
I appreciate your response and your views.
You have your view I have mine - should everyone think the same?. You may think I am wrong thats your opinion isn't what this Discussion Group is for? TD work is to me is becoming more and more repetitive (thats my opinion whether its right or wrong) irrelevant of the size of the greens, location, landforms that existed before and so on etc.
Some people think TD has done different things golf course design wise thats their view mine is different. Colt, Braid, Simpson and even M+E have certain design traits (for example the sand wastes becoming common ::) ) that continue over time or see in many of their designs. Architects have this as well - very few have made me go wow I didn't think of that or thats a beautiful detail - you may think my standards are too high - we all think differently.
Every site is unique it does make the course or holes look different from the bigger picture thats why I can see why people think 'oh wow thats different he hasn't done that before' or thats 'pioneering' however for me its the details - naturalistic, smooth, curves, soft touch, minimalistic - a number of TD trademarks which are visible to me but not to others on this site whether they are simple or OTT with no complicated detailed drawings which is their approach and rely on great shapers which some are used repetitively that certain approach/details seen on multiple courses not just one.
I just see things differently - it may baffle (or frustrate ;D ) most of you - its what it is. My view is that C+C are in a similar mould to TD - I would say Hanse has more variety out of the Big Three.
If I had the choice of visiting a new Doak course (knowing what he and his shapers are more likely to do) or an unknown who looks like their work is different to others - I would go to the unknown its what I am. I know its more likely that most of you would rather go to a new Doak course than an unknown who has done something different. It's the same for me in Architecture as well as Boony would testify.
Regarding sand in this thread - some think its OTT and others think its awesome. Some prefer Trump and others prefer Biden, Republican or Democratic/Conservartive or Labour in UK. Variety is the spice of life, everyone has different views and I do know I am in a very small minority on this site ;D which others may think my views are warped.
Cheers
Ben
Ben,
I certainly appreciate your tone and civility. It's a lot better than several others on this site and certainly in the broader world of discussion forums. So thanks for that. And I agree that variety is the spice of life...which is part of the reason why I've been banging on about restoring Pine Barrens in the other thread.
I think that a problem with a lot of your posts here is that people are giving some pretty extensive responses to your arguments and you're kind of just shrugging them off and saying 'eh, we have a difference of opinion.' I agree with you that we have differences of opinion and probably most people here understand and respect that people will have differences of opinion and that ultimately there's no right answer in something like this.
But when someone makes an extensive argument against your points, you either have to argue back in detail or concede defeat in walk away. I wrote a few hundred words on why I think your point about Doak's work being repetitive is wrong. Instead of trying to rebut it, you just repeat that his work is repetitive. I can't respect this as a difference of opinion at this point because I've provided what I think is pretty good evidence against that. So you either need to (1) admit that I'm right and that your claim is wrong, (2) dispute my evidence, and/or (3) present some new evidence to support your argument.
I also addressed the point about naturalistic shaping, but not in as much detail. Here I admit it's a real matter of personal preference. But I still wonder what you want Doak to do. Do you want him to start shaping courses like Pete Dye? Or Jim Engh? Or Mike Strantz? I would argue that we have plenty enough examples of Dye's work, at least from the 80s and 90s. Doing something like that would be repetitive. I'd argue against copying Engh for a variety of reasons that I won't get into. Maybe he should do a maximalist style like Strantz? One could argue, as I have, that some of Strantz's courses could have really benefitted from some editing. Do you think that any of these guys' work was repetitive?
Ultimately a big part of the variety comes the fact that there are different guys working in this area. I don't think that Doak's work is repetitive but even if it were, he's just one guy out of dozens who have been operating over the last 100 years. And he's done far fewer courses than most of the big names over the past 100 years. Given the number of Tom Fazio, Pete Dye, Arthur Hills, etc. courses that we have, I think we could still use a few more Doak and Coore/Crenshaw courses.
Hi Brett,
I could write a long list of things from my experience on Tom Doak courses for now I am going accept that people are not seeing what I am seeing. I have played 3 courses that was done by Doak 2 new ones and one renovation. Have heard opinions from others of Doak courses that I haven't played.
So I feel that any response from me to your query will be a waste of time because you just don't see it from my standpoint.
Its a difference of opinions whether it is right or wrong we have to agree to disagree - I don't agree with some that you have said likewise the other way round.
Now I am regarding the matter closed (which some may say Hallelujah!) from my side and I hope you do the same as well.
Yours in golf
Ben
-
I get why a lot of you out there are frustrated at me or defending TD that ok a lot of people don't like to be 'challenged'. The funny thing is most of you are not seeing where I am coming from - there are other Architects now upping their game will TD be left behind like Blockbuster did because they didn't evolve? you never know everything has a shelf life. What he is producing then and now from my designers viewpoint is becoming more and more repetitive the longer it goes if you don't see it thats ok if you like what he is producing thats fine. Its also similar to what Norman Foster is producing in Architecture when he produces a new design or project you see it is a typical Foster not something different to what they have done before.
There is no such thing as the perfect golf course and we all have different tastes and do things differently. Some people prefer on cloud to nikes its like that in the golf world outside of GCA circles. I have been in the fortunate position to meet other Golf Course Architects face to face and what their interpretation a golf course should be.
Ben,
I highlighted your Blockbuster analogy, but can't bring myself to comment on it while still being nice.
Your position about Doak's work is bizarre to me. Granted, I'm not an architect of any sort - just a golf consumer. I make my judgements about courses by playing them and evaluating my experiences. I've no interest in "defending" Tom - I'm just trying to defend rational discussion.
I've played around 17 Doak courses - either new builds or major renovations. You posted earlier that you've played two of them (SAB & RC). Yet from that very small sample size (and nothing built in the past 15 years!) you have decided that his style is repetitive and he needs to evolve to remain relevant. Presumably you've decided this by looking at pictures posted on GCA and other sites?
Maybe someone can assess building architecture by looking at photos - I don't think that works nearly the same in golf. Pictures might inspire or discourage a visit, but that's where it ends.
As long as people continue to play golf in roughly the same manner it's played today, I think Doak's work will remain relevant. He builds courses that fit the land and environment that they are built on. His courses require thoughtful play but don't demand particular methods or shots. Skill gets rewarded, but courses are playable by anyone. The courses generally look great in photos, but the real greatness is the way they provide an intriguing playing surface well suited to where they are built.
John,
Appreciate the response it may be bizarre to you but not me. I just view things differently to how the majority of others on this site see. I do notice some sort or repetition of courses that I haven't played on the Renaissance Golf Design website and photos TD courses to the ones that I have played knowing its not a strong case of argument with certain people on this particular site. The more I am seeing it there are more connections between the courses and the design approach/style becoming more obvious to me not others. People may think I am weird but its what I am and what I see however still have a pint of beer with you anytime.
Umm isn't great surfaces sometimes is not attributed to the designer but nature even if it was a great site?.
Like I said to Brett if people don't see what i am seeing - I accept that and are we entitled to their views which is the purpose of this DG.
I do wish all TD courses the best in terms of longevity however there could be a day when TD course is being redone by another Architect which is still a possibility which probably get protests from a number of people here if they are still alive ;D . It happened to Ross and many others.
Cheers
Ben
-
Ben:
Everything in golf architecture is 100% a matter of opinion, and you have a right to your opinion of my work or anyone else's. But I find it telling that you are willing to shrug off others' comments as "Oh we have a difference of opinion" and yet you can't let it go when anyone does the same to you.
As to your opinion of my work, I don't really care, but to make it on the basis of seeing two or three of my courses [and none of my ten best ones] and then declare all of my work as repetitive is just silly. You are entitled to not like it, but you have not seen enough to say THAT.
I am only saying this to you in hopes that you actually take a minute to reflect on the whole thread. You've stated your opinion repeatedly, and stating it over again for the fifth time would be a waste of breath. If you have any sense you'll let it drop. If you don't, a few of us will have a good laugh about it.
P.S. I'm just going to go back to one of your points to tear it up. You're a fan of Pete Dye; I was fortunate to have known him and learned from him. I think he was one of the most creative minds I've known. You gave him credit for being such a pioneer for doing such things as using railroad ties. But you do know where he got that idea, right? Everything he did, you could pull apart just the same way as you have done to my work. You're just choosing not to. Pete's work was quite repetitive because he was stuck with flat sites most of the time -- and that is PRECISELY what made me focus so much on finding clients with better sites that provided more variety to work with, in the same way that Tom Fazio focused on finding clients with money, after watching his uncle work on a few projects that failed financially. Great sites have been the key to my success, but they were also the key to most everyone else's success. If you're such a genius that you've gotta prove it without the benefit of a good site, I'd advise that you might want to try succeeding with two hands before you tie one of them behind your back.
-
To add a bit of historical levity to the conversation, Harry Vardon would likely answer yes to the rather broad question asked in the title of this post.
When Vardon visited the United States on his transformative tour of 1900, he played in Florida and was shocked to find that the entirety of most of Florida’s courses were entirely made of sand. He most certainly left the state thinking “there was too much sand.”
-
To add a bit of historical levity to the conversation, Harry Vardon would likely answer yes to the rather broad question asked in the title of this post.
When Vardon visited the United States on his transformative tour of 1900, he played in Florida and was shocked to find that the entirety of most of Florida’s courses were entirely made of sand. He most certainly left the state thinking “there was too much sand.”
An interesting comment from HV given that the links at Grouville/Royal Jersey, a course that is well worth playing by the way, where he grew up and learnt to play the game, is all sand and back in his day was even more open sand and sand scrape in nature than it is now.
atb
-
I just re-watched the movie again last night and this quote really popped out in context of this thread.
From A Star is Born:
"... music is essentially twelve notes between any octave. Twelve notes and the octave repeats. It's the same story told over and over, forever. All any artist can offer the world is how they see those twelve notes. That's it. He loved how you see them."
I think all of us (to some extent) identify with different GCA's work in similar context...
-
Kalen,
Which version of the movie? To prove your point, they all hit different notes.
Ira
-
Kalen,
Which version of the movie? To prove your point, they all hit different notes.
Ira
Good point, lol. The most recent one with Cooper and Gaga
-
Well, to prove your point further, as talented as Lady Gaga is, she is not even in the same league as Garland and Streisand. I can think of a few gca examples, but probably better left unsaid.
Ira
-
Well, to prove your point further, as talented as Lady Gaga is, she is not even in the same league as Garland and Streisand. I can think of a few gca examples, but probably better left unsaid.
Ira
That could very well be, although I haven't seen any of the prior versions, so couldn't really say.
I just really like the soundtrack, the story, the relationship interactions, etc. in this latest one....it was really really well done in my humble opinion. ;)
P.S. In GCA terms I'll throw out Jim Engh's stuff. I know his courses gets poo poo'd a lot here, but I enjoy them because they're quirky and different and just plain fun to play
-
Ben:
Everything in golf architecture is 100% a matter of opinion, and you have a right to your opinion of my work or anyone else's. But I find it telling that you are willing to shrug off others' comments as "Oh we have a difference of opinion" and yet you can't let it go when anyone does the same to you.
As to your opinion of my work, I don't really care, but to make it on the basis of seeing two or three of my courses [and none of my ten best ones] and then declare all of my work as repetitive is just silly. You are entitled to not like it, but you have not seen enough to say THAT.
I am only saying this to you in hopes that you actually take a minute to reflect on the whole thread. You've stated your opinion repeatedly, and stating it over again for the fifth time would be a waste of breath. If you have any sense you'll let it drop. If you don't, a few of us will have a good laugh about it.
P.S. I'm just going to go back to one of your points to tear it up. You're a fan of Pete Dye; I was fortunate to have known him and learned from him. I think he was one of the most creative minds I've known. You gave him credit for being such a pioneer for doing such things as using railroad ties. But you do know where he got that idea, right? Everything he did, you could pull apart just the same way as you have done to my work. You're just choosing not to. Pete's work was quite repetitive because he was stuck with flat sites most of the time -- and that is PRECISELY what made me focus so much on finding clients with better sites that provided more variety to work with, in the same way that Tom Fazio focused on finding clients with money, after watching his uncle work on a few projects that failed financially. Great sites have been the key to my success, but they were also the key to most everyone else's success. If you're such a genius that you've gotta prove it without the benefit of a good site, I'd advise that you might want to try succeeding with two hands before you tie one of them behind your back.
Please let this be the “mic drop”. ;D
-
Ben:
Everything in golf architecture is 100% a matter of opinion, and you have a right to your opinion of my work or anyone else's. But I find it telling that you are willing to shrug off others' comments as "Oh we have a difference of opinion" and yet you can't let it go when anyone does the same to you.
As to your opinion of my work, I don't really care, but to make it on the basis of seeing two or three of my courses [and none of my ten best ones] and then declare all of my work as repetitive is just silly. You are entitled to not like it, but you have not seen enough to say THAT.
I am only saying this to you in hopes that you actually take a minute to reflect on the whole thread. You've stated your opinion repeatedly, and stating it over again for the fifth time would be a waste of breath. If you have any sense you'll let it drop. If you don't, a few of us will have a good laugh about it.
P.S. I'm just going to go back to one of your points to tear it up. You're a fan of Pete Dye; I was fortunate to have known him and learned from him. I think he was one of the most creative minds I've known. You gave him credit for being such a pioneer for doing such things as using railroad ties. But you do know where he got that idea, right? Everything he did, you could pull apart just the same way as you have done to my work. You're just choosing not to. Pete's work was quite repetitive because he was stuck with flat sites most of the time -- and that is PRECISELY what made me focus so much on finding clients with better sites that provided more variety to work with, in the same way that Tom Fazio focused on finding clients with money, after watching his uncle work on a few projects that failed financially. Great sites have been the key to my success, but they were also the key to most everyone else's success. If you're such a genius that you've gotta prove it without the benefit of a good site, I'd advise that you might want to try succeeding with two hands before you tie one of them behind your back.
Tom,
Thank you for the advice in the last sentence - we will see maybe one day and I do like a challenge ;D
I would appreciate if you can stop 'twisting' words that i am supposed to have said or written and in future could you put them in your response as reference/fact.
Did I actually write that I am a 'fan of Pete Dye'? - Dye did some amazing work and some meh work having played some of his lesser know courses also did i refer to 'Dye being a pioneer of railroad ties'? are you reading accurately what I actually wrote?
Very interesting to see you are stating that Pete's work is repetitive.
With Pete Dye as your mentor many moons ago surely you were able to have more design freedom when you went on your own. Regarding some of your former colleagues are they doing better commercially now? or have they produced better designs than you? people will always have different views of this and the more recent colleagues - could they potentially eclipse you as they have been 'let free to do their own thing'. Thats evolution and moving on with the times.
I have worked with people (Architects or Golf Course Designers) or companies who are commercially astute - one of the clients i worked for is one of the most famous company in the world a multi billion dollar company and their design approach across the company and commercial mindset totally blew me away and I can see why they are so successful and they did evolve over the last few decades to be ahead of the market that puts them in a strong position. It was one of the greatest experience i have had in my work life even though i wasn't keen to work on their projects at the beginning in the end it was the best.
You have your ways of doing things as we all have - is it going to last for the rest of our life/career? I have seen how you work and operate on site. Most on this site (GCA) haven't so I have which was a learning curve for me.
Designers do have certain habits - some don't see it and some do. Sometimes it's better not to give the game away and let others work it out for themselves why this comment is being said and if they have a different view or opinion thats ok. Would life be better had everyone got the same opinion/view?
Cheers
Ben
-
Tom,
One question if you were entering a golf course design competition and the rule is that the entry was just a reference number (no reference to who the designer is) would you win the competition?
Cheers
Ben
-
Ben:
Everything in golf architecture is 100% a matter of opinion, and you have a right to your opinion of my work or anyone else's. But I find it telling that you are willing to shrug off others' comments as "Oh we have a difference of opinion" and yet you can't let it go when anyone does the same to you.
As to your opinion of my work, I don't really care, but to make it on the basis of seeing two or three of my courses [and none of my ten best ones] and then declare all of my work as repetitive is just silly. You are entitled to not like it, but you have not seen enough to say THAT.
I am only saying this to you in hopes that you actually take a minute to reflect on the whole thread. You've stated your opinion repeatedly, and stating it over again for the fifth time would be a waste of breath. If you have any sense you'll let it drop. If you don't, a few of us will have a good laugh about it.
P.S. I'm just going to go back to one of your points to tear it up. You're a fan of Pete Dye; I was fortunate to have known him and learned from him. I think he was one of the most creative minds I've known. You gave him credit for being such a pioneer for doing such things as using railroad ties. But you do know where he got that idea, right? Everything he did, you could pull apart just the same way as you have done to my work. You're just choosing not to. Pete's work was quite repetitive because he was stuck with flat sites most of the time -- and that is PRECISELY what made me focus so much on finding clients with better sites that provided more variety to work with, in the same way that Tom Fazio focused on finding clients with money, after watching his uncle work on a few projects that failed financially. Great sites have been the key to my success, but they were also the key to most everyone else's success. If you're such a genius that you've gotta prove it without the benefit of a good site, I'd advise that you might want to try succeeding with two hands before you tie one of them behind your back.
Tom,
Thank you for the advice in the last sentence - we will see maybe one day and I do like a challenge ;D
I would appreciate if you can stop 'twisting' words that i am supposed to have said or written and in future could you put them in your response as reference/fact.
Did I actually write that I am a 'fan of Pete Dye'? - Dye did some amazing work and some meh work having played some of his lesser know courses also did i refer to 'Dye being a pioneer of railroad ties'? are you reading accurately what I actually wrote?
Very interesting to see you are stating that Pete's work is repetitive (alongside your dislike of square greens).
With Pete Dye as your mentor many moons ago surely you were able to have more design freedom when you went on your own. Regarding some of your former colleagues are they doing better commercially now? or have they produced better designs than you? people will always have different views of this and the more recent colleagues - could they potentially eclipse you as they have been 'let free to do their own thing'. Thats evolution and moving on with the times.
I have worked with people (Architects or Golf Course Designers) or companies who are commercially astute - one of the clients i worked for is one of the most famous company in the world a multi billion dollar company and their design approach across the company and commercial mindset totally blew me away and I can see why they are so successful and they did evolve over the last few decades to be ahead of the market that puts them in a strong position. It was one of the greatest experience i have had in my work life even though i wasn't keen to work on their projects at the beginning in the end it was the best.
You have your ways of doing things as we all have - is it going to last for the rest of our life/career? I have seen how you work and operate on site. Most on this site (GCA) haven't so I have which was a learning curve for me.
Designers do have certain habits - some don't see it and some do. Sometimes it's better not to give the game away and let others work it out for themselves why this comment is being said and if they have a different view or opinion thats ok. Would life be better had everyone got the same opinion/view?
Cheers
Ben
-
Tom,
One question if you were entering a golf course design competition and the rule is that the entry was just a reference number (no reference to who the designer is) would you win the competition?
Cheers
Ben
In a finance and marketing driven world how successful would a course by designer A be compared to one by C&C, Doak, Ebert or Hanse?
Just as a painting with a black background and a few splodges by artist A is worth a couple of hundred quid and a similar picture by a well known artist can be worth tens or hundreds of thousands or more.
In either case an unknown could pass the technical test with a better score.
-
Tom,
One question if you were entering a golf course design competition and the rule is that the entry was just a reference number (no reference to who the designer is) would you win the competition?
Cheers
Ben
In a finance and marketing driven world how successful would a course by designer A be compared to one by C&C, Doak, Ebert or Hanse?
Just as a painting with a black background and a few splodges by artist A is worth a couple of hundred quid and a similar picture by a well known artist can be worth tens or hundreds of thousands or more.
In either case an unknown could pass the technical test with a better score.
Mark,
Thats a good response.
Would clubs look at numbers if it was a Doak, Hanse and C+C course it may gain additional revenue however how many UK golfers do know them? most only see the course what it is not who designed it. Most probably prefer to play the Belfry more than the Renaissance for example. Its can be a matter of knowledge and taste not forgetting accessibility/location. Sometimes hosting certain tournaments elevate it rather than who designed the course.
Its very often the case in Architecture (Buildings) in UK where Expressions of Interest are so much more common than competitions compared with 20 or 30 years ago or beyond. In France there are far more Architectural competitions to find the best design.
Its happening more and more often in GCA like the Architecture world these days that most clients prefer to go with experience, reputation than the optimum best design. People who won competitions or had the opportunity 20-30 years have never had it so much better today and the ceiling for unknowns to break through as grown a lot thicker and harder.
Cheers
Ben
-
Tom,
One question if you were entering a golf course design competition and the rule is that the entry was just a reference number (no reference to who the designer is) would you win the competition?
Cheers
Ben
In a finance and marketing driven world how successful would a course by designer A be compared to one by C&C, Doak, Ebert or Hanse?
Just as a painting with a black background and a few splodges by artist A is worth a couple of hundred quid and a similar picture by a well known artist can be worth tens or hundreds of thousands or more.
In either case an unknown could pass the technical test with a better score.
Mark,
Thats a good response.
Would clubs look at numbers if it was a Doak, Hanse and C+C course it may gain additional revenue however how many UK golfers do know them? most only see the course what it is not who designed it. Most probably prefer to play the Belfry more than the Renaissance for example. Its can be a matter of knowledge and taste not forgetting accessibility/location. Sometimes hosting certain tournaments elevate it rather than who designed the course.
Its very often the case in Architecture (Buildings) in UK where Expressions of Interest are so much more common than competitions compared with 20 or 30 years ago or beyond. In France there are far more Architectural competitions to find the best design.
Its happening more and more often in GCA like the Architecture world these days that most clients prefer to go with experience, reputation than the optimum best design. People who won competitions or had the opportunity 20-30 years have never had it so much better today and the ceiling for unknowns to break through as grown a lot thicker and harder.
Cheers
Ben
Ben,
People never got hired in golf course architecture competitions on the “best design”. Many clients can’t discern the “best” design and they will still go with some hook in the presentation that took their fancy OR a feeling of professionalism from the designer (often with fancy graphics) OR a good sales pitch OR a recommendation from previous work OR something that will guarantee them more revenue.
It’s a ridiculous question to ask not only because of the above but also because there are so many variables from one pitch to the next.
-
Has this dead horse turned to jerky yet?
Yes, I think there can be too much sand. The aesthetics may be great but I think it's playabilty is very overrated.
-
Ben, dude, just stop. You're not making yourself look good here at all. "Would you win a design competition?" What kind of a stupid question is that?
-
Ben, dude, just stop. You're not making yourself look good here at all. "Would you win a design competition?" What kind of a stupid question is that?
It may be stupid to you and Ally.
Sayonara!
-
Ben, why not create a new thread like “Do the portfolios of the new golden age architects lack the diversity of those of the golden age architects?” or whatever argument you’re trying to make? I think part of what is so off-putting about this is that 1) you’ve hijacked a totally unrelated thread based on one word of a random reply and 2) you’re targeting one architect at least partly because he’s on here and you’re trying to get a rise and responses from him and his many defenders.
If you start a new thread comparing and contrasting the portfolios of multiple architects, I think there would be a more interesting discussion, assuming that’s what you’re looking for.
-
Ben, dude, just stop. You're not making yourself look good here at all. "Would you win a design competition?" What kind of a stupid question is that?
It may be stupid to you and Ally.
Sayonara!
This thread brings several thoughts to mind.
1.Imagine if there had been an internet in the late 80s early 90's and Fazio Nicklaus Dye and the Jones brothers were involved in daily "lively" discussions with a young Tom Doak.
Which only adds to my appreciation that TD continues to interact here.
2.A design contest would identify a very narrow skillset of an architect's tool chest, to say nothing of his ability to assemble a team to get it successfully in the ground on budget and on time.
Such a detailed plan might also inhibit an proven, experienced architect who could achieve the above while allowing the project to evolve creatively "in the dirt".
-
Jesus. Okay.
Thirty or thirty-five years ago, I used to fantasize that if only golf architecture was a fair, level competition like golf itself, I would kick everyone's ass and get all the best jobs.
Then I grew up. Life's not fair, and neither is golf for that matter. I realized the only competition was to build the best projects you could on the best sites you could find, and let that lead to more work. And that is how I'm kicking people's asses now. I didn't do it on paper, I did it in the dirt.
Design competitions are a waste of time, for all of the reasons Ally states in his last post. In many cases, the decision has already been made, and the competition is just to make it look like all candidates were considered. [I have been told this directly by the clients at the end of a couple such competitions.]
In golf architecture, it's even worse, because most of the judges can't read a topo map or think in 3-D, so how do they even know what they are looking at? It is really all just a sales pitch by other means. Maybe the best drawing wins, or the best presentation, but that is not really the same thing as the best design.
The only people who take such competitions seriously are Architecture students. Many architects use their competition entries as evidence of their work and talent, even when none of those designs have ever been built. Their "suggestion" for redesigning the far end of Pebble Beach is their legacy. Apparently Ben is one of those guys. And he is trying to turn this thread into a debating competition and "win" against me in that way, so he can't admit defeat.
No wonder we can't reason with him. Please, everyone, let this be the end of this thread. Let him have the last word if he wants. I've got real golf courses to build.
-
Threads like this are hilarious when you’re already four steps ahead.