[JakaB]

In his review of Glen Dornoch Ron Whitten has the following statement..."I enjoy minimalist architecture as much as the next purist, but unlike most, I don't believe your name has to be Coore, Crenshaw, Doak or Hanse in order to do low profile stuff."....If this isn't a slam on certain people of this discussion group...I have grossly underestimated the knowledge of the golfing public.   I love the use of "unlike most"....who the hell is most...

[Scott_Burroughs]

It seems as if he could still be lurking about here, despite being MIA here since we (well, several here) picked apart (quite well, in fact) his Tillie/Burbeck piece by showing facts versus his postulating based on a Burbeck family member who'd been stewing for years based on hearsay and a foggy memory.

[T_MacWood]

I agree with Whitten that many are capable of the low profile stuff. The Golf Club might be the best example.

I believe Whitten coined the term 'minimalist' to describe the work of Coore and Doak. I dislike the term.

[Tim_Weiman]

JakaB:

It doesn't matter if Ron Whitten wants to slam certain architects or - for heaven's sake - certain people who participate regularly at Golfclubatlas. Who knows?

The more minimalist architecture the better. The more "minimalist" courses Ron can uncover and write about, the better things will be for the golfing public.

FYI, there are still many people who never even heard of Coore, Doak or Hanse. So much has been written about the big names that these guys still aren't that well known by Joe Pixpack.

Joe doesn't need big budget courses. So, I hope Whitten can use his position to be a leading advocate for the minimalist approach.

[JakaB]

Well tell me....am I wrong to think this was a little jab at certain members of this site....or are their other "purist cells" out there spewing the same ole propaganda we do everyday...about him, him and him.

[Tim_Weiman]

Shivas:

Exactly. Here in Cleveland we have all kinds of Mom and Pop courses that you might call "minimalist". They were built in the 1950-1960s by architects we never talk about. Sure, they aren't world class venues, but they have provided pleasure for many ordinary guys for a long time.

[TEPaul]

"I love the use of "unlike most"....who the hell is most..."

JakaB;

It does sort of sound like "most" to Ron Whitten might be many of those on this website.

But look on the bright side with this remark by whitten;

"I don't believe your name has to be Coore, Crenshaw, Doak or Hanse in order to do low profile stuff."

I like that statement a lot. I don't believe your name has to be Coore, Crenshaw, Doak or Hanse either in order to do low profile stuff or many of the other things they do, so I'm looking forward to a lot of other architects doing that "stuff" in the future at the behest of people like Ron Whitten.

I encourage it and perhaps Ron Whitten will too. He should say he encourages it though! And if he does and other architects start producing it then Ron Whitten won't have to think he's "unlike most" (purists) anymore. Then we can all be one big cozy and happy family and I would fully expect Tom Fazio and Rees to want to join our happy/cozy family, provided their clients agree, that is. And if they all do then we can all get high and have a big "low profile" lovefest!!

And then the only question becomes will Pat Mucci repent, will we forgive him all his transgressions, and will we invite him to our "low profile" lovefest too?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tim,

You could put Doak in there as well as an archie many Joe 6's have never heard of.  Pacific Dunes is high profile to us, insiders, and die hard travellers, but to Joe 6?

I've mentioned Bandon and Pacific to a number of folks around my club, including the head pro, and I get blank stares.  No one's ever heard of them.  Doak?  I doubt it.

[Tim_Weiman]

JakaB:

Again, who knows? Do you think Ron Whitten wants to take a jab at certain people at this site? If so, for what reason?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Of course there's other architects who don't move much land and yes, there's not national names.  My club was built in 1968, the heart of RTJ and Von Hagge times, and the only earth moved was to dig a few ponds and use that to build the greens and tees.  Partly why I never get tired of it.

Tim,

I gave a reason above.  We picked apart his "theory".

[Mike_Cirba]

Funny thing is I've written positively in the past here re: Glen Dornoch, which is certainly one of the best courses in the Myrtle Beach area.  

It is MUCH different than other Clyde Johnston work I've seen, such as Heather Glen and Wicked Stick, and there are certainly some creatively unorthodox holes that get big points from me for cuyones by the architect.  

Still and all, it's probably a 5 or 6 on the Doak Scale, and not in and of itself worth jumping on a plane for the next flight to North Myrtle Beach.

By contrast, some of the best works of the other "minimalist" architects he mentions are.  Is that bias or discretion?  

[JakaB]

Tim,

Just when I'm having fun...I gotta go...I just know Ron Whitten left us..and I miss his imput.  I should not guess why he left...but it just seems like an obvious choice for a professional in his field....sad really.

[Tim_Weiman]

Scott Burroughs:

The name recognition of Fazio, Dye, Jones and Nicklaus (of course) still far exceeds that of C&C, Doak, Hanse, DeVries, etc.

We think of Bill Coore as one of the special artists of the game, but he still isn't very well known. As for Doak, take away Bandon/Pacific and you are left with very little publicity. Keep in mind that Mike Keiser doesn't throw advertising dollars at the Bandon Dunes resort and compare that to what Herb Kohler threw at Blackwolf Run or Whistling Straits when they opened.

In some ways Coore or Doak remind me of visiting small wineries in Napa or Sonoma (my favorite was always Grgich Hills). You have a small group who absolutely loves their work, but "the masses" still really haven't been introduced.

[TEPaul]

ScottB:

If Joe six pack has never heard of Tom Doak and his fellow travelers or doesn't care about him (them) I say screw Joe six pack. What's the big deal with Joe six pack anyway? Particularly since;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there's room in it for everyone (including Joe and his sixpack)".

[TEPaul]

JakaB;

Who knows why Ron Whitten quit coming on here as he did now and then. But do you think a recent remark above like this might have anything to do with it?

"Talent is talent, and everyone knows it except perhaps Whitten."

[ForkaB]

Whitten's major faux pas (and it may just have been him being ironic) is the use of the words "low profile" to refer to C&C, Doak, Hanse, etc.

[SL_Solow]

I am troubled by the personal tone of some of these remarks.  Whitten's article recognized the attractiveness of a minimalist golf course.  Hardly something that we should have a problem with.  He then suggests that a good minimalist effort should be recognized even if it is not the product of a "minimalist brand name."  That seems to be the same argument many of us have used to promote many of our favorites regardless of our personal taste.  It seems that we should all agree that good work is good work regardless of the source. If Whitten had not taken a perceived cheap shot at what is perceived to be this treehouse's shared bias I suspect his remarks would have brought cheers.  If we concentrate on the substance I believe we will find much to agree with.  As to the personal remarks directed at Whitten, we should not forget all the fine work he has done as a historian.  Much of the revival in the interest in GCA can be traced to his hard work, particularly in collaboration with Geoffrey Cornish.  Whether you like the GD ratings or not, they have helped focus attention on the topic and stimulated discussion.  On balance his has been a positive contribution.  Certainly his views should be subject to review and criticism where warranted, but his overall contribution should not be dismissed easily.

[T_MacWood]

SL
I agree there is really no reason to get bent out of shape based on what Whitten wrote. The reason for the tone is clearly the result of JohnK's original post, he obviously is intent on inflaming emotions on GCA and indirectly using Whitten as a target. It is par for the course for old JakaB - his goal from the start has been to make GCA a useless site that shouldn't be taken seriously. I don't take his posts seriously...I doubt he takes his own posts seriously, with the exception of his posts regarding Barry Mantilow.

[Mike_Cirba]

SL_Solow;

I completely concur with everything you said re: Whitten's overall knowledge and pioneering contributions, except for your remark about this "treehouse's shared bias".

If we share some universal bias here, then why are we always arguing??

Furthermore, what some people call a bias I'd simply call experienced discretion.  There is nothing wrong with well-travelled people making value judgements between good, better, and best, and then sharing those opinions.  I thought that was the purpose of this site.    

[SL_Solow]

Mike; I agree.  Unlike some others I do not view "bias" as a word that has an inherently invidious connotation.  Perhaps if I had substituted the term "predisposition" I might have been clearer.  We all bring our past experiences and preferences to any discussion.  It is the ability to transcend those predispositions and take a fresh look at problems while retaining the lessons that gave rise to our preexisting views that makes a good critic.

[Matthew Schulte]

Perhaps it is worth debating on whether or not the treehouse would even unilaterally agree that Glen Dornoch is a minimalist design.  Are railroad ties really part of a minimalist approach?  I fully expect someone to make the argument that they have been successfully employed by the Scots, and therefore it is pure.  To me, they were used at Glen Dornoch more a la Pete Dye, than anything resembling Scotland.

I also agree with an earlier comment, that regardless, the more mainstream press that minimalism gets the better for all of us who truly appreciate it.  Whether Ron Whitten sees it the way we do or not may not be relevant if it advances the cause.    

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba asked;

"If we share some universal bias here, then why are we always arguing??"  

Because arguing is the way it is around here! Why do cowboys like to get into a barroom brawls every Friday night? Because they think it's fun, it's relieving and good for one's fitness.

Same here on Golfclubatlas. Arguing is dynamic, it's educational, edifying, satisfying and manly. If I didn't have Pat Mucci to kick around everyday I don't know what I'd do! Arguing about architecture is the way of the world around here. Agreeing on everything would be the worst of all worlds. We'd all be a bunch of gentile and effete sophists.  

[Willie_Dow]

My immediate impression of Ron's article is that he has taken a page out of GCA's book.  Is Tom Paul's right-brain working, and David Wigler's left, as mentioned on the HARE BRAINED thread, not a good read?
I would score Ron's article an observation rating @ 7.5, and he is acknowledging his following of GCA without application.  Like many!

[Tom_Doak]

I certainly didn't take that quote as any kind of slam on our work ... I know Ron too well to think that.

He probably does believe that the Treehouse gang is too focused on the work of a handful of architects, and relatively ignorant of the work of many others, and I'll second that observation.

However, I would disagree with him if his premise is that there are a lot of other architects who are equally good at building low-profile courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

In your continued attempts to convert everyone to the the religion of C & C, you're now attempting to convert jews to gentiles, taking GCA well beyond the field of architecture.

Perhaps you meant "genitals" or horses-asses.

It's doubtful that you meant genteel.  

Correcting you has gone from weekly, to daily, to hourly  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()