News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Cirba

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« on: November 18, 2001, 02:23:00 PM »
A mere decade ago, this tandem was the hottest design team in golf, putting together a string of well-regarded, high-visibility courses that were almost univerally regarded and acclaimed.  The courses, mostly built in the southwest US, are almost a who's who of the time period (Estancia, Forest Highlands, TPC Scottsdale, Troon, Troon North, Harbor Club, Shadow Glen, Double Eagle, Loch Lomond, The Wilds?).

Their work was distinctive, strategic, and artistic, featuring stylishly deep bunkering and accommodation of the ground game.  The almost single-handedly revived the short, driveable par four, and many of their courses had a wide variety of hole lengths and "half-pars".

Since their split in 1993, each has gone on to design other courses, but like the leaders of the Beatles, their solo work seems to be somewhat less popular or well-received than their team efforts.  Is it a case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts?

Today, I played my first solo Morrish course and it's a fine one, with many of the same architectural features he popularized with Weiskopf.  Given that limited basis for assessment, I'd ask the group the following questions;

What do you think of the duo's design style and lasting contributions?

What do you think of their more recent, individual efforts?

Is there a difference between the two, and if so, why do you think that is?


Mike_Cirba

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2001, 04:05:00 PM »
I'd also mention La Cantera as among their best, and I'm somewhat curious as to why two architects whose designs seem to exemplify a lot of the things we collectively enjoy seem to generate so little critical discussion on this site.

Surely they created a longer-lasting impression than Nehru jackets and Magical Mystery tour.  


Matt_Ward

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2001, 04:49:00 PM »
Mike,

I believe Estancia is a Tom Fazio design.

In response, I often found the Weiskopf / Moorish tandem to be clearly different in their own way but never a scene stealer among modern designs. Let's keep in mind that rarely did they have sites that did not offer solid surrounding beauty. I also think this has helped push them ahead because of the "eye candy" that appeals to many average players. Many of the contributors on GCA are a bit more sophisticated in their approach.

My only aspect was the repetition. You almost always had the drivable par-4 and many times there was too many designed par-3's -- the class overuse of the downhill par-3 was clearly a part of their efforts. As a low handicap player I always believed there was a tendency to "dumb-down" courses -- blend the courses into the scenery and never really add any element that might be remotely judged to be "over the top."

To their credit I just finished reading an article not too long ago that stated that the Weiskopf Moorish designs had the top value for real estate sales among the big name architects with Nicklaus finishing second but not that close to the top position.. So, you have to give them credit in giving developers what they want most -- $$$$$.

Minus the original Forest Highlands course which I do like, even though there are too many par-3's there, most of their designs I would define on the "lite" side. If push comes to shove I would be hard pressed, beyond the original Forest Highlands layout, to name any of their courses among my personal 100 courses I've played.

That doesn't mean I don't like their collective work, but I just don't find many of the designs really special to separate themselves from the crowd and be on the tip of one's tongue say 20-30 years or more into the future.


Mike_Cirba

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2001, 05:01:00 PM »
Matt,

Mea Culpa on Estancia's attribution.

If I read into your argument, are you really saying that M&W's designs aren't challenging enough for the better player?

You'd have to agree that in the late 80's, early 90's timeframe that their design name had significant cache in the architectural world.  I really doubt that it was due to Weiskopf's household name reputation as a great player, so why were their courses of that time period so highly-regarded?  For a number of years, they DID seem to have "broken from the pack".  Was it due to "eye candy", or more from being a precursor to a return to strategic, thoughtful designs?

Have you played any/many of their individual designs, and if so, how do they differ from what they created as a team?


Mike_Cirba

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2001, 05:15:00 PM »
In trying to look for more information on this design team, I came across the following James Achenback article that ponders some of the same questions more eloquently;
http://golfweek.digiknow.com/articles/1999/features/architecture/6918.asp


Bob_Huntley

  • Total Karma: 0
Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2001, 06:39:00 AM »
Clint Eastwood had an incredibly beautiful piece of property stretching from Carmel Valley to the south to the boundaries of Monterey to the north. The vistas were stunning, the Santa Lucia mountains south to the waters of Monterey Bay northward. The trouble was that there wasn't much flat ground around. Mr. Morrish designed a course on the unlikeliest of properties and came up with something playable. However, a player hits up to half a dozen holes with some severe elevation changes. The greens are superbly groomed. A couple of members walk the course but are considered eccentric by others. The course name, Tehama; the Doak scale would be challenged to come up with a number.  

Gene Greco

  • Total Karma: 0
Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2001, 07:36:00 PM »
Matt:

  What's wrong with "repetition"?

  CB and Raynor did it on every course they ever designed.

   Frankly I love the risk/reward inherent in driveable par 4s and always felt this to be a positive on all Weiskopf/Morrish designs.  

"...I don't believe it is impossible to build a modern course as good as Pine Valley.  To me, Sand Hills is just as good as Pine Valley..."    TOM DOAK  November 6th, 2010

joe zaepfel

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2001, 08:26:00 AM »
Matt, Wasn't Estancia originally Weiskopf and never put into play until Fazio reworked it somewhat like Norman/Fazio at Mirabel? Appreciate your comments.

Jeff_McDowell

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2001, 09:14:00 AM »
Morrish and Weiskopf did a golf course and housing project just southwest of Minneapolis called the Wilds. The course is truly an example of design extremes. There are some solid holes with wonderful details, and then some absolutely worthless holes.

On the good side, the fairway landing area on the par 5 second is hogbacked. If you flirt with a bunker and catch the downslope you can easily reach the green in two. There are many examples of nice details such as these.

On the bad side, there are about four holes that are so poorly conceived, they should have stopped at 14 holes. For example, there is a par three on the back nine that plays up an extremely steep hill. I could barely see the pin the day I played the course. To make the hole worse, there are bunkers haphazardly cut into the hillside, which are a failed attempt at putting lip stick on a pig.

The confusing thing about this par 3 is that it is two holes behind one of the nicer par 3 green settings I have seen.


DRGAZ

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2001, 09:15:00 AM »
Joe, a routing done by Weiskopf and Morrish was in place, but part of that land was sold/lost(Estancia had early financial problems), which pushed Estancia into a smaller piece of land.  The original WM routing for Estancia ran through part of what is Troon North Pinnacle.  The Estancia developers, I think, decided to bring in a new name to the valley, since Weiskopf/Morrish had already done Troon and Troon North.

Tommy_Naccarato

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2001, 06:28:00 PM »
Mike, I think a better comparison would be to Abbott and Costello.

I'll let you figure out who is who and which guy is which.

A perfect example of this would be Ojai Valley Inn. Jay's son, Carter should be horse-whipped, if not beaten with bamboo sticks soaked in brine and lye. But to also see the work that Jay has performed at Ojai, deserves an even worse fate.

So, to prevent this from being bashing, I have to provide example__OK, then the rejuvenated old #3 and 4 which is now
#7 & 8. These holes are so unbalanced now because of the difficulty of Carter Moron's version of memorable George Thomas on the lost holes, you come into the excellent #9, which was #4, and before was.........Forget it!

Shaping on the new holes maybe some of the worst in existence. Absolutely no attention to detail, and the new holes look exactly as such. Put it in the hands of Hanse or Doak and it would be undetectable that they were new. (Wait!?! Aren't they supposed to be old?)

However, I do think that Jay and Terrifying Tom actually did compliment each other some way. Look at Forest Highlands. Onthe other hand, we have the beautiful Marbella CC here in Orange County, and it certainly is one of more forgotten private clubs--All for good reason.


Mike_Cirba

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2001, 06:42:00 PM »
Tommy,

My "Lennon & McCartney" comparison had more to do with their popular success together, and subsequent less well-received efforts as solo artists than anything else.

I was attempting to try and understand what others might feel was missing in their solo efforts that was there in their tandem efforts.

I understand that Morrish's "restoration" work at Ojai is lacking, to say the least.  Still and all, six of M&W's courses have appeared on Golfweek's "Top 100 Modern" list over the past two years, and I know that The Wilds and La Cantera are also well regarded in many quarters.  Overall, that's not a bad effort considering the duo only worked together for about 25 courses.  

Personally, I've only played one course that both worked on, and one that was a solo Morrish effort.  Considering the time frame, as well as what other modern architects were up to then (late 80s, early 90s), they seemed to usher in a return to penal, artisitc bunkering, including center fairway stuff, lots of half-pars, and interesting driveable par fours, not to mention a pretty fair effort at strategic thought.  

So...what went wrong when they went their separate ways?  Was it a case of one guy being technically proficient and the other being the creative visionary?  


DRGAZ

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2001, 04:48:00 AM »
While I think most do agree that their work together was perhaps better, Weiskopf has a course set to open next spring in Michigan called Forest Dunes which is very, very good, and traditional golf in all ways.  I also think Jay has done nice work in many locations.  

Mike_Cirba

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2001, 05:44:00 AM »
Thought the following words by Weiskopf sort of dovetailed into a number of current threads being discussed here...

“I had enough controversy as a player, so I try to stay away from design controversy,” said Weiskopf, who is 57. “My design thoughts are reflected in all the things I've seen in the past that I like. No one has reinvented the wheel on this issue. And I think the best golf courses built since the 1930s were built in the 1990s and are to come in 2000 and beyond.”

As a designer he admits he doesn’t have formal training and he can’t draw a stick figure, but he can “sketch” and he knows what he likes. He’s a traditionalist. He likes false fronts. He doesn’t like blind tee shots (there’s also a liability issue). He wants a reachable par 4 on every course he designs. He wants a balance of holes with doglegs right and holes that bend left. He likes less mounding.

Weiskopf names Alister MacKenzie as his favorite golf-course architect, identifying Pasatiempo and Cypress Point, the two gems MacKenzie built before Augusta National. Next on his list are Donald Ross, A.W. Tillinghast, Billy Bell and Charles MacDonald. These are the old-style builders that excelled in simple, playable, enjoyable, memorable and maintainable golf courses. He says these are the most respected courses we have today and they have stood the test of time.

Weiskopf has always admired MacKenzie’s bunkering, especially in the days there was extensive fingering. He wonders why Augusta National, through the years, has tamed MacKenzie’s bunkers, except on the fairway at No. 10 where they left his original work almost intact. Weiskopf realizes it’s all about easier maintenance.

Another one of the traditional elements he laments may be gone forever in new courses is the ability go from green to tee in a few steps. “Only four of the 40 projects I have been involved with weren’t also being built along with a considerable number of houses. Building courses that are easy to walk -- well, that’s just not going to happen anymore.”

Weiskopf, who won 15 tour titles and five foreign championships, has a vision on each project.

He says his team starts at the design table, but he gets creative out in the field. He likes to learn what strengths and limitations the land has by walking it. And sometimes he’ll even walk the site and put out stakes for possible routes. Even with his imagination going in many directions, he says he’s careful not to let areas remind him of holes he’s seen before.

He says to imagine a hole could be just like the 16th at Cypress Point is a mistake -- that holes leading up to a specific one are influenced by those that follow.

“I’m not into naming signature holes, I’ll let the golfers decide that,” he said. “But each hole has to have its own identity.”


Mike_Cirba

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2001, 05:49:00 AM »
From Jay Morrish's website, his philosophy seems more of a pragmatic and "nuts and bolts" approach;

"At Jay Morrish & Associates, Ltd., our commitment to perfection as it equates to each project is admired throughout the industry.
The only way we can insure perfection at each site, is to be involved at every stage of design and construction. This requires our personal attention to every detail and therefore limits our projects to an exclusive few.
 
A prerequisite to the success and playability of any golf course design is its maintainability. Today's developers must have the ability to provide for cost effective maintenance to preserve the beauty and playability of their facility on a daily basis.
An architectural standard of a Morrish design is the exclusion of all types of expensive maintenance features whenever possible.

Highly detailed planning throughout all phases of construction is another architectural standard of Jay Morrish & Associates, Ltd..
The uniqueness of each location can only be fully enhanced through infinite attention to detail in all architectural drawings. This is the distinctive trademark of a Morrish design and is crucial to its success.
At Jay Morrish & Associates, Ltd., our services include irrigation designers and turf specialists as part of the team to provide the technical support required for each project. We also provide each of our clients with an exclusive list of the highest quality construction firms.
A selection of landscape designers, clubhouse architects, land planners, photographers, and graphic designers can also be provided on request.

Carter Morrish joined his father in 1989 and brings to the firm a concentrated background in landscape architecture and golf course construction. Carter is involved in many aspects of the business including design, construction management and the drawing of detailed construction documents.

Carter and Jay share the same values and standards for every aspect of their work. Their hands-on experience gained from the design of the world's finest golfing facilities, insures the attention to detail that results in a golf course uniquely suited to the terrain and the locale.





Matt_Ward

Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2001, 08:38:00 AM »
Mike,

I guess I should add that I credit Weiskopf / Moorish with adding "fun" and "playability" to their respective sites. In many cases they are also not boring!

As I said earlier, this duo also had really good looking sites to usually work with. Consequently, many of their holes look good in pictures (i.e. Links Magazine, et al).

On the flip side, I see many of their courses as being short on the challenge side -- especially for the lower handicap player. I must disclose that I have not seen or played Loch Lomond as opposed to many of their courses here in the USA.

Weiskopf and Moorish built many of their courses to suit the needs of developers looking to sell houses and lots. In this area you have to give them high marks for the value they provided developers and home owners on those respective sites.

I just think as time proceeds many of their designs, with one or two exceptions, will be just a footnote in the grand scheme of golf course design.


Jeff_Lewis

  • Total Karma: 0
Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2001, 08:56:00 AM »
Matt, I've played Loch Lomond many times, as well as Troon North and Double Eagle. Troon North (Monument) was quite good before the housing overwhelmed the environment. I thought the designers' ability to evoke Scotland in an almost subconscious way given that the terrain resembles Scotland in no way was remarkable. Double Eagle is lovely, serene, balanced with beautifully shaped bunkers, but is definitely a little light from the standpoint of challenge, they way they usually set it up. I have to think the course could be played in a more challenging setup without stretching the design.

Loch Lomond is ALMOST perfect. With the exception of one green complex (11), the golf course has everything. The back nine, which only touches the Loch at the last, is actually superior to the more scenic front side. I have always thought that when posterity considers Weiskopf, he will have the last laugh. Even if Jack kicked his butt on the course, Tom is doing better than holding his own now.


Gene Greco

  • Total Karma: 0
Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2001, 09:11:00 AM »
   Played Loch Lomond a few weeks ago. It is "almost" perfect except virtually all my tee balls plugged as well as many approaches which missed the greens. Asked the caddies if LL played like this all the time and they answered in the affirmative.  

  How much of their drainage problem affects the way the course ought to be played? I feel it does, and significantly.

   What can they POSSIBLY do about it? The course was built seemingly in a bogg.

"...I don't believe it is impossible to build a modern course as good as Pine Valley.  To me, Sand Hills is just as good as Pine Valley..."    TOM DOAK  November 6th, 2010

Jeff_Lewis

  • Total Karma: 0
Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2001, 09:26:00 AM »
Gene, Loch Lomond has certainly experienced drainage problems. Most people who play the course outside of mid-may to september will encounter wet conditions. During the high season, though, I have rarely encountered problems with the playing conditions.
But is a short season a legitimate criticism of a course?
I would think that improving the drainage should be number one on their list of potential improvements, though.

Craig_Rokke

  • Total Karma: 0
Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2001, 12:24:00 PM »
John & Paul?...I don't know. I was thinking more along the lines of "Tears For Fears".
Lennon and McCartney were the best of their generation, and though their solo work didn't garner as much acclaim, it was still very
strong.

Like TFF, Morrish and Weiskopf achieved their
biggest success in the mid to late 1980's. Both teams crafted a well-engineered, easy-on-the-senses product, and they both spent time near the top of the charts. Similarly, their
breakups were apparently bitter. I think it's safe to say that their solo successes have
not come close to their ones as a team.  


Tom_Doak

  • Total Karma: 12
Are Morrish&Weiskopf the Lennon&McCartney of architecture?
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2001, 09:59:00 PM »
Or maybe The Captain and Tenille?

They were quite successful as a team.