News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


TEPaul

Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2003, 05:44:22 AM »
Rich:

If you say C&C are better than Doak than this is all very good stuff for golf architecture. Then this is a competition that's being played out on a very high level indeed. Not to mention, however, that although your opinion is uniquely your own and that's hunky dory you don't seem to have that certain perspicuity that it takes to fully appreciate Pacific Dunes. No matter because;

"golf and it's architecture is a great big game and there's room in it for everyone."

Look out, here comes Hanse with what looks like another homerun. More good stuff for the future of architecture. An even larger group of them really do seem to be vying with each other in quality, interest and difference and turning things in a great new direction!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2003, 06:43:21 AM »
Tommy

So what is Gil's latest blockbuster? Possibly Gulph Mills redux?

I think that Pacific Dunes is an excellent golf course but slightly less excellent than, say Applebrook and Kinsgbarns and (I assume, only having walked it) Friar's Head.

I very much agree with you that your opinion is only your own and I very much encourage you to continue to defend it, regardless of its merits. I also very much agree with you that the competition that currently exists between D and C&C and all the other great and possibly great archtitects that you and others mention is very very good for the game.

All hte best

Rich
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

redanman

Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2003, 07:08:50 AM »

Quote
redanman,

I am not sure that the initial question isn't worthy of more respect than you have given it.


Take Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills, Friar's Head sites.

Take Doak, Coore, Hanse & co? How many others?

Who would have done better?  Does it matter?  I think it is a matter of personal taste.  Period.  So shoot me.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2003, 07:56:28 AM »
There seems to be a consensus about C&C, Doak and Hanse. The question is, is there another architect who is even close to as good as they are, to whom one could entrust sites like FH and PD?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2003, 08:16:05 AM »
I've only played Sand Hills, Notre Dame and Lost Dunes, but based on what Ive seen on this site and elsewhere, I'd say they have more in common than they have differences. Both have obviously been influenced by the old guys and aren't afraid to borrow a Bairritz-like hole or a Redan or a modified Redan. They both seem to understand the advantages of width. They both appear to have a gift for aesthetics, melding their features with existing features, and creating man-made features that are difficult to distinguish from Nature. Both seem to put a lot of effort into interesting green complexes.

Some of the differences: although you will find stylistic variety from course to course, depending on variables like site and which associates are heading the project, Id characterize C&C bunkers as tending to be Simpson-like and Doaks as more MacKenzie-like or perhaps Colt-Maxwell-MacKenzie like. It also appears C&C utilize diagonal hazards more often. Where as Doak seems to push the envelope a little more, especially with green contours.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom Doak

Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2003, 10:47:14 AM »
I would have to say I think how we approach a project is pretty much the same, but that our finished products are different.  I don't know that there is any way to quantify "how," since every site and every client is different.  Hell, I probably would design some of my old courses differently if I had them to do over again, so you can't even compare me to me!

At Sand Hills and at Kapalua, I walked away thinking (maybe "hoping" would be more accurate) that I would have made the same decisions that Bill and Ben made.  Since then, while there's not a single one of their courses I haven't admired, there's also not one where I thought I would have done the same thing they had done.  This includes Friar's Head ... certainly we could have built something there, but I don't think we'd have done the same thing.

And I'm glad we are not building the same things ... or both copying Seth Raynor's style.  Vive la difference!

I think in the most general sense, our styles are similar because as Tom Paul pointed out, we are less likely than practically any other architects today to move earth in the fairways.  But certainly we've both done courses where we had to, and did, and as I get better at it I'm not afraid to do things when the mood strikes.  Pacific Dunes has 3-4 places like that which no one seems to have noticed.

I think Bill's green designs are a little more restrained than my own.  I remember taking him around Lost Dunes during construction and his eyes were wide ... that was after we'd walked Notre Dame in the morning and I'd been impressed by how subdued it was.  But, in Oregon and in New Zealand, I've been more restrained.

Certainly we are both also big believers in surrounding ourselves with talented people and letting them help ... we both learned that from Pete Dye.  So it's never been just me vs. Bill.  In New Zealand right now it's me and Bruce and Eric and both Brians and Chris Hunt and Dan Proctor, and I will say that Bill and Ben themselves couldn't touch that team ... but they wouldn't try to go it alone, either.

I hope they do take the job to do the third course in Bandon, because I'd love to see what they can do there ... although, if the roles were reversed, I'm not sure I would want to take the inland property and compare the result to Bandon and Pacific Dunes.  In any case, it looks as though we will be designing courses side by side on a project a couple of years out [sorry, I can't divulge any specifics at this time], and we are all looking forward to looking over each other's shoulders while we work.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

bakerg

Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2003, 11:00:05 AM »
Tom,
 
How about divulging one little secret about the future project.  Private or Public?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom Doak

Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2003, 11:03:31 AM »
One of each.

Sorry, that's all you'll get for a while.  The permitting of this project could be contentious because it's a sensitive site, so the client wants it to stay out of the limelight as much as possible until he has the all-clear.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

bakerg

Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #33 on: February 21, 2003, 11:06:55 AM »
Thanks.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2003, 11:37:04 AM »
I won't comment on the style, never having played a course by either team.  One difference that I see, correct or not, is TD perhaps more willing to take on a broader range of sites than C&C might.
Look at his project in Lubbock. Moving milllions of cubic feet of earth, creating 20+ feet of elevation change, having to go to the outlying countryside for inspiration, etc.. I wonder if C&C would do this??

I think that so far C&C tend to be like C.B. and TD more like the Dr..,if comparison is necessary.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2003, 11:46:23 AM »
Mr. Doak,

I'm intrigued as to why you would think that the inland course at Bandon will fail to live up to what the first two are.  

Let me rephrase that, you did not say that it would not live up, but that you might not be inclined to take that job, if you were C & C.  

Is not the inland property at Bandon akin to Pine Valley?  Similar to Jupiter Hills or a Spyglass?  Have you seen the property they are proposing to build the course on?  What can you tell us about it?

I personally think it will make a fantastic addition.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2003, 12:06:28 PM »
Tom Doak --

Thanks very much for your reply.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2003, 06:28:05 PM »
As I was reading down the thread and before I saw Tom Doak's response, I was thinking, "Gee, to respond would take quite some while." Then I see Tom's response and it has to be one of his longest posts - not Tom Paulian but lengthy nonetheless.

I doubt that either architect has greater respect for natural, existing landforms than the other. Of course, comparing how they choose to incorporate such features into the routing would be a very taxing undertaking mentally.

And to be fair, someone would have to have seen all their respective best works to conduct that excercise.
Maybe my brother could do it as he has seen Apache Stronghold all the way to FH but I don't know anyone else who has  ???

Ultimately, bearing in mind both teams (it's certainly not Doak vs. Coore) build highly walkable courses, I wonder if it boils down to who builds the best holes? Ala that architect's report card thread I started 5-6 months ago, does it come down to short par threes, medium one shotters, long one shotters, short par fours, medium par fours, etc. etc. etc.

If so, where would that leave you? C&C have never built a hole better than the natural 13th at High Pointe. Renaissance has never created a hole better than 13 at Friar's Head.

As you go through the par categories, the one difference that I see is in the three shotters. I could be biased based on recently focusing time on the FH course profile but in general, C&C EXCEL with three shotters. And in a close match of one and two shotters, that could tip the balance in their favor - at least for the time being. When the OZ and NZ courses open for Renaissance, the scales could tip back, who knows?

What matters the most is that both teams continue to get choice properties as we all win in that case.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #38 on: February 21, 2003, 07:10:18 PM »
Ran,

As I indicated early in this thread, both are great architects, but, in fairness to Tom Doak, Bill Coore has a collaborative co-partner.  I understand the team concept both firms employ, but Bill Coore, as talented as he is, has another well known name that shares the marquee and contributes to his efforts.
What parts are Bill Coores, and what parts are Ben Crenshaw's and what parts are the result of the synergy between the two.  It's got to be difficult to isolate and identify exactly what is Bill's sole work since he's so entwined with Ben.

Is this exercise fair to everyone ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

guest

Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2003, 07:42:33 PM »
Suprised that Mr. Mucci hasn't played the bias card here. Can't we add Rees to the mix?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Coore vs. Doak
« Reply #40 on: February 21, 2003, 08:10:01 PM »
Guest,

Since you brought it up, I'll let you do the honors.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back