[Mike_Young]

I'm not sure this site can answer the question because they really haven't studied the work of enough of the archies out there to decide.  If only talking about signature designers then maybe. 

[Ronald Montesano]

I'm not sure this site can answer the question because they really haven't studied the work of enough of the archies out there to decide.  If only talking about signature designers then maybe. 

And this is the most salient comment.

[Mark_Fine]

Don,
Your quote below makes my point perfectly, thank you!

 "A hills from and Engh, from a Jones Sr course? Seriously? You think you cold have picked an easier set of architects? Everyone can pick out an Engh." 

If you go to my website (though I have not updated it in quite a while) I have done profiles on the design styles of many classic architects which is my area of focus.  The same could be done for the modern architects which was part of the idea behind this thread.

Tom,
You have to admit, ALL great architects have a somewhat distinct style.  That is what sets them apart and makes them special.  Otherwise they would blend in with everyone else.  And it is not just the volume of courses that potentially makes them great (Bendelow did hundreds of courses).  What distinguishes the majority of his courses is probably the lack of quality and more the fact that he was delivering basic golf to thousands all over the country.  That was his predominate style!

I don't argue that many of your courses can look different, but they still are often identifiable from many of their fundamentals whether it be green contour and surrounds, mowing patterns, width, lines of play, tree use, undulation, ... and so on. 

You know very well you could describe the typical design attributes of most noteworthy architects (and I would bet that would include yourself).  That by definition makes them recognizable and to some degree "repetitive" to use that "negative" word .  I recall you once saying and I quote, "I could do Raynor in my sleep".  Was that a negative or a positive about him? 

Maybe one question is, "Could others do Doak or C&C in their sleep"?  Actually I think many are trying

Archie,
I used the Ferrari comparison!  You buy a Ferrari because you want it to look (and perform) like a Ferrari!  Nothing wrong with that!

Again, Repetitiveness might be perceived as a negative word.  At times it can be but other times it is very much a positive. 

Ronald,
Great points!  Well stated!

Mike,
You might very well be correct!  You need to have seen a lot to draw meaningful conclusions.

[Don Mahaffey]

So you can pick out any modern architects work, but you can't tell us what criteria you use or how you do it? OK, got it.

[Mark_Fine]

Don,
My intention was not to identify all the attributes of the modern designers.  As I said, I have actually done that for many of the classic architects because that is where I focus.  My interest here and what I was hoping to get out of this thread was to hear what other people think about modern architects design styles etc and what distinguishes them.

So let me start; If for example I was going to try to design a "Tom Doak style" course, I would probably try to incorporate the following, a routing that is not walkable because carts are just fine, narrow fairways, flat greens, well defined lines of play, abundant use of ponds particularly in front of greens, heavy rough around the greens, non-descript bunkers with a broad collar of rough separating them from any fairway or short grass, very uniform teeing grounds, no long par fours that put even the best golfers to the test,.... Should I continue     Then again, maybe I would do just the opposite

One more quick story;  I remember playing an old Flynn course in Chicago that David Esler had been asked to "restore".  We were playing together during The Flynn Cup and when we got to the 8th hole I looked at him and said, "What happened here"?  David grimaced and said to me, "So you noticed.  Unfortunately we needed more labor and brought in a different crew of shapers for this hole who worked for Nicklaus.  I just couldn't get them to stop doing Nicklaus and this is what we ended up with."

[Paul Gray]

So let me start; If for example I was going to try to design a "Tom Doak style" course, I would probably try to incorporate the following, a routing that is not walkable because carts are just fine, narrow fairways, flat greens, well defined lines of play, abundant use of ponds particularly in front of greens, heavy rough around the greens, non-descript bunkers with a broad collar of rough separating them from any fairway or short grass, very uniform teeing grounds, no long par fours that put even the best golfers to the test,.... Should I continue     Then again, maybe I would do just the opposite

Careful. Someone might take you seriously. Apparently we have a big following these days. 

[Mark_Fine]

I was of course being facetious but those are some of the design attributes I would NOT expect to see in most every Doak course (and usually do).  My question was which modern architects vary the most from such preferred design tendencies?  Is Norman an example?  I have only seen maybe ten of his courses so my limited sampling might not be enough to judge?

[Ian Andrew]

Every architect can be perceived as "repetitive" or "original" depending upon what you evaluate them on. There's always been too much emphasis on aesthetics (bunkering in particular) and not enough on play when it comes to assessing architecture and architects.

The other side of the coin is I've yet to play a single Redan I didn't enjoy ... so what's wrong with repeating interesting ideas or concepts ...


Personally, I would prefer a question that says who has built a course that you couldn't believe they built?

It's far more fun ... because it exposes the bias of each person answering at the same time.
It provides context which is often what we lack in these conversations.

[Paul Gray]

I was of course being facetious but those are some of the design attributes I would expect to see in most every Doak course (and usually do).  My question was which modern architects vary the most from such preferred design tendencies?  Is Norman an example?  I have only seen maybe ten of his courses so my limited sampling might not be enough to judge?

You're doing it again!

Think (know) you meant to say "design attributes I would NOT expect to see in most every Doak course."

 

But seriously, Nicklaus is smart enough to know when the tide has turned and, subsequently, won't hesitate to wear the minimalist cap. But then that lack of repetition obviously says nothing about quality. Pop acts tends to follow trends.

[Mark_Fine]

Fixed it Paul, sorry

Ian,
Quote from Bill Coore, “The three most important things when it comes to a great golf course are the routing, the green complexes, and the hazards!”  He also said, “The hazards are the most important factor on a course, even more so than the greens.”  It is also his belief that, “No other element has as much visual impact on the golfer as the hazards of the golf course.”  

Unfortunately, aesthetics do play a big part in great golf course architecture.  I can't think too many truly great golf holes that look like crap  

I do like your question though and maybe it better states what I was looking for as far as architects who step away from their comfort zone and do things that would surprise us (and not just once but often).  By the way, the problem with this is that how many owners would hire C&C for example to build something that ends up looking like Desmond Muirhead (even if it does turn out to be a great golf course) ??

[Ally Mcintosh]

More specifically Mark, Bill Coore was talking directly about the aesthetics of the bunkering, not their positioning. Which surprised me but was at least honest, the dirty secret being that if it comes to choosing between good aesthetics and good strategy, most architects have no hesitation in going for the former.

Mainly by looking at photos, I do think Tom Doak seems to mix up his style more than maybe a couple of others we talk about frequently, still within his overarching preferences though (e.g. Wide fairways, big greens with transitions hidden).

If Tom or Bill Coore or Gil Hanse or anyone else ever get their hands on a genuine piece of links land for a new 18, what I'd be interested in seeing is if they stuck within their preferences or whether they were brave enough to design it ultra-simple, the only way it would ever look exactly like a genuine classic links and be indistinguishable from such. Not saying that would mean a better course but it would mean a course harder to date to any particular era, architect or style.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()