Analyzing Modern Golf Design

[T_MacWood]

The profile of Maycama got me thinking, is there a modern name golf architect who doesn't appreciate interesting strategies? Nicklaus, Fazio, Dye, Doak, Hanse, Rees Jones, Hills, Brauer, Coore, DeVries, Hurdzan, Strantz and many others create designs that provide strategic interest, why then do we like some designs better than others?

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, of course they all appreciate what they believe is interesting strategy.  Why else would they bother to design a single bunker or turn a hole from either left to right or vise-versa?  If they had no appreciation for strategy, they'd be building and designing footbal fields.  It is all in their interpretation of what is interesting and their sense of the aesthetic component as it relates to the land they have to work with or the land they must create to achieve their own individual understanding of strategy.  It is up to us as the golf course playing consumer to determine which archie on any particular project has the best balance of strategic interpretation using the land or creating the field in the manner that appeals most to our own sense of aesthetic/strategic balance.  That will never be an exercise of evaluation with unanimous agreement as long as we are in the human race.

[Joel_Stewart]

Tom:
This is an interesting question that delves a little into comparing modern work with classical work.  Some of the modern work we see today, Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes look and feel like classical design that we embrace it enthusiastically.

Furthermore, occasionally a modern architect, Fazio as an example at Victoria National will not be encumbered with houses, cart paths and owners with no clue and allowed to create something outstanding within their style.  This is where Doak and C&C have been able to stand out (so far)because they haven't taken projects for the money.

[BillV]

Obviously one thing that is often missing from modern architecture for ost courses is a "core" which of all people Fazio coined or "created".  He is advertising Berkeley Hall as such and as a greater product.  Haven't seen BH, so I can't comment.  He had a core at a few other projects and so have Rees, RTJ,Jr, C&C, Doak, Hanse and others, unfortunately some used better than others, so it is just not the presence of the core that calls for great architecture. The core is not the answer.  

I think modern architecture fails most often in the routing as I have said here before, but that is not the answer either.  

Presence of absence of strategy and the ultimate quality seems to be dictated by the owner or developer as much as anyone, unfortunately.

There is nothing inherently good or bad in modern architecture but it certainly seems to have a different set of driving forces than especially pre-WWII architecture.  

Golf course architecture seems to be as much related to ego drive of those ultimately responsible as any factor.  I submit Castle Pines=Jack Vickers, Victoria National=Teri Friedman, Sanctuary=Dave Leininger, etc.

I want to see the Coore and Crenshaw Club, The Gil Hanse Golf Club, The Jeff Brauer Club, The Keith FOster Club, The Tom Fazio Golf Club, The Tom Doak Golf Club and quite honestly I really waant to see the Rees Jones Club, each where the architect chose the land, designed the design all according to exactly what he wants to do (Order of architects was chosen randomly, no one get excited).

I think there is nothing inherently deficient in the architect to design and the builders to execute, but I often come up wanting more.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Perhaps the best to judge modern architecture - and most equal way to compare it to the Golden Age - is to wait 30-70 years, or more, when these courses have matured, had their improvements, hosted tournaments, built some history, and become old money clubs of distinction.

Following the trend in credit cards, I can only assume, that when all is said and done, someone will dub this the "platinum age of golf architecture".

Jeff

[Tom_Doak]

Bill V:

The marketing of Berkeley Hall as a "core course" is a joke.  

I've seen the land plan [not the actual golf course].  It's a huge housing development surrounded by marsh, and instead of putting golf holes on the marsh, they put all the housing on the marsh frontage and the golf course on the interior and started selling the "core" concept.

I'm also not sure about your point of architects getting to do what they really want to do ... I would think out of 200 courses, Rees had a few clients who would have left him free to express himself.  On the other hand, at the Pete Dye Golf Club, Pete fought with the owners about every square inch of the place.

Joel S.:  I disagree with your implication that any course done with a housing development is taken "for the money."  We take them because we want to provide good golf, and because work is good for honing our craft:  much more than sitting on the computer condemning development courses.  

Of course, we love to find projects that have beautiful sites and no development constraints, but to restrict yourself only to those would be somewhat cowardly ... as though you can't handle what other architects have to deal with.  What one has to do is take the best projects offered at the time, and make the most of them.

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

I don't get the "joke". I have seen and played the North course at Berkley Hall and call it "core" or whatever you wish, the fact is that from the first tee to the 18th green you never cross any street. Regardless of the developer's motivation, there are no houses or building lots in the interior of the course.  The tees are near the previous greens and walking is easy and encouraged.
Rather than disparage this concept, it seems to me that we should applaud it and hope other developers will adopt the same concept. Of course, it is not an original idea, and maybe the Berkley Hall marketing department is guilty of doing what most marketing people do. Who cares? The fact is that most residential golf developements abuse their course in favor of houses.

I am curious.  If you you had been offered the contract to design the two courses at Berkely Hall, would you have taken the job? If so, would you have designed "core" courses, and if so, would you object to the marketing dept. promoting it as a "core" course?

If we want to criticize a high-end property with a Fazio course, I suggest that Old North State is a better target. At last count, you have to cross streets 11 times on that course.

If some developer is willing to allow his architect to build a "core" course, I'm all for him, regardless of his motivation or his selection of architect.

[BillV]

TDoak

I think you get what I am getting at.  

I had previously called these type of courses (core) those "built on a contiguous piece of land".  Core is less unwieldly (Double negative intended   ) so I tend to use Fazie's "term".

I am well familiar with Berkely Hall's land plan as I have received about 20 since I once "showed interest" in Belfair.  I even told the real estate guy specifically that I was not interested in Berkeley Hall. It appears to loosely fit "core".  Whether or not it is the best land (Whatever the hell that is in the lowcountry!) I'll find out when I go check the courses out on my next trip to that area.

As for the idea of "Joe Architect Golf Club", personally I would hope that presented the opportunity to seek out the land, lay out and build the course, answering to no one, not even one's dog,  that the archie in question would tag the property so.  Whether or not anyone ever did (Pete Dye) or will (?) does not matter to me.

Personally, I wish you luck (And anyone else who might be on my list) that such an opportunity that you feel good enough about to so name presents itself to you.

[T_MacWood]

My original intent was to compare old to new, but to seperate the best modern work. Most modern architects, high profile and low profile (there are still a few exceptions), have a very firm understanding of strategy---Gib's description of JN's Maycama, the positive comments of Ocean Forest, GD's recent expose of Jeff Bauer's best, the universal praise for Pacific Dunes, and Kingsley .... Are all these modern courses equally good or do some courses seperate themselves from the pack?

I believe the good courses can be seperated from the great courses by analyzing the nature of the hazards. The more natural the hazards and the more natural the overall presentation, the more interesting the course and ultimately the more likely the course will continue to be interesting decades from now.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom MacWood - I play a Raynor/ MacDonald course all the time as my home course.  Its hardly characterized as natural in its presentation or hazards yet it is a joy to play over and over.  I never tire of playing there.  

Instead I would contend that it plays differently with the seasons (this time of year is particularly fun especially since it has not rained in a while) and it offers strategies that are equally challenging and fun in different winds, firmness of fairways and greens and even different tees that we play.

The modern courses that tell me to play this way or I am penalized (progressive punishment) will always be a bore to play unless I am on my game. Interesting recovery shots on a course will always get me coming back to play again. Natural features are nice but they have little to do with how the course actually plays.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
What kind of site is Yale? Is it blessed with natural features? Were the designers successful in utilizing the natural features of the site?

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

Yale is certainly a dramatic natural site and Raynor obviously hit a home run with his use of the land- but it's a site whose result was created by tons of dynamite. The water hazards at Yale are as natural in appearance as can be but the greensites and bunkering do have the engineered look of Raynor. Certainly the course looks beautiful to me but not as natural as a Ross course (Plainfield, Metacomet, Siwanoy) or the natural use of equally dramatic land at Westchester CC by Travis.

The point I tried to make was that the natural features I think you are speaking of are a bonus when you get a result like a Plainfield or Westchester. The shot values and interest around the greens are what keep me interested. Not to uncover another can of worms here again but that's why I don't object to the restored Bethpage Black as others do.  I'd love it if it still looked like Pine Valley but it still plays great.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
I consider the lay of the land the greatest natural hazard. Don't you think Yale would have had an engineered style dynamite or no dynamite, that region is rocky, and Tillinghast and Travis were not adverse to the use of dynamite.

Can an engineered style like Macdonald, Raynor or Langford's maximize and meld with natural site? I believe it can, and have seen it at St.Louis, Chicago, Skokie, Shoreacres and Camargo. In my opinion their designs work because they identified, maybe better than anyone, the interesting natural features of the site and routed their courses to take full advantage of those features. Does the lay of the land play any part in the way Yale plays? I've always believed -- possibly mistakenly -- that what made Yale was the dramatic quality of the site and the way in which the architects tool full advantage it.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom - I agree with every point you just made but we got crossed up somewhere when you used the term "hazard" which I assumed to mean bunkers and water (places where you can't ground your club without penelty   ).

Obviously, much of what I wrote about also required dramatic ground features that also changed with the seasons.

[GeoffreyC]

please excuse my moronic spelling

[Tags:]

Tags: