[BarnyF]

Tom aka Buckeye Bob,

Are you saying the site that is now Muirfield Village would have served the Golfing World better if it were developed in a more Minimalist manner.  

[Tim_Weiman]

BarnyF:

I did not see the Muirfield Village property before Jack Nicklaus started and am not really familiar with the project details.

We do know that Jack wanted to create something special for his home town and first spent time trying to find the best possible piece of land.  Tom MacWood obviously knows Columbus better than I do, but I would suggest Nicklaus & Co did pretty well with their site selection.

We also know that Jack had a particular concept in mind for Muirfield: a spectator/tournament course.

I'm not the greatest fan of Muirfield, mostly because I don't like the real estate aspect of the project.  However, I would also say I like Jack's idea of a spectator course far more than other subsequent efforts by other designers.

Paul Hornung's account of creating Muirfield suggests moving dirt played an important part of achieving the concept Nicklaus intended.  However, Hornung provides very little detail.  Thus, I really can't judge this part of the project.

We should, however, be careful about focusing too much on examples like Muirfield.  The venue is not intended for your "average guy" and may not serve as a model worth emulating.

[T_MacWood]

John aKa BarneyF
I don't like the term minimalist. It sepends on your definition of the Golfing World -- it is both a tournament venue and a golf club.

It was a site with numerous natural advantages, and the designer chose to create numerous man-made circumstances instead of working with what was there. And now the course is more collection of golf holes than a natrual golf course in harmony with its environment.

[DRGAZ]

To clarify my points and answer additional questions, I will add this.  With regard to the costs being added, I think that most "high dollar" golf courses are not created for golf, but rather, are to put heads on beds, or, to sell real estate.  The developer normally has input into what the designer/architect can do and also has hired him on the basis of delivering something he can sell.  Average daily rates and Initiation Fees at private clubs are unfortunately in America tied to ego, and therefore tied to certain name designers.  That being said, there are Nicklaus, Fazio, Weiskopf and Rees designs that I think are fine examples of a golf architecture.  I am also a HUGE fan of Tom Doak, perhaps even bigger of Bill and Ben, and have seen stuff lately by Brauer, Hills, Morrish, etc, that are terrif stuff.  I believe money has impacted what is done, with things like water features, artificial creeks, and other bells and whistles, but think those sometimes are not done by the architect by choice, but sometimes by owner mandate.  Perhaps architects that are at the very top of the food chain and can collect huge dollars may at some point elect to not do work on C-D sites, or, might tell a developer "no waterfall", but most cannot afford to do that.  Finally, I DO think Fazio, Nicklaus, Weiskopf, and Rees Jones would have ALL done a great job at Bandon/Pacific.  I have also heard some of the "more traditional/minimalist" architects say that they really never had an appreciation for Fazio or Pete Dye until they worked on their first really flat, no natural moment type site, and then felt afterwards that the above were pretty talented to come up with the concepts they
did.  Anyway, when I mean an A site, I would say Pebble, Cypress, Bandon/Pacific, Turnberry, Prairie Dunes, Sand Hills, etc.  A good B+ would be Royal Melbourne, with nice rolls and great soils, but not as much natural drama.  Since I think RM Composite is the best course in the world, an obvious incredible design job was done.  So, the site does not make all the difference, but has a big impact into quality.  The designer take the canvas and completes the painting, and some are more capable, probably, than others if the canvas is a different material, shape, or contour.

[Tim_Weiman]

DRGAZ:

We've discussed issues like "owner mandate" many times.

I agree that accountability for allowing money and technology to have an insidious impact on golf architecture surely rests with owners far more than architects.

With regard to working on flat, featureless sites, I think it does require talent just not the talent I most admire.  Too often these projects spend tens of millions and require large green fees to support.

Any developer certainly has the right to do that.  Often it may be the only choice.

I just worry about the spillover effect, i.e., developers/architects being too willing to apply money and technology where it may not really be needed and only serves to increase the cost of playing the game.

[DRGAZ]

Tim, I agree with your points and share concerns about golf courses of the future and the cycle that some architects appear to be on.  I do think C&C proved at Talking Stick that a flat site can be turned into a terrific golf course(2 of them) while moving less than 400,000 cubic yards on 36 holes.  That being said, some people prefer the other model with lots of creativity and millions of yard of earthmoving.  I guess it is like a person buying a Renoir and the next guy buying a Jackson Pollack.  Personally, I prefer a more classic, more traditional style.    

[Tim_Weiman]

DRGAZ:

Speaking of C&C, I'm most interested in going back to see how things turn out on the less advantaged part of the Friar's Head property.

I've got a hunch we'll see some craftsmanship.

[DRGAZ]

Tim, I bet we see terrific work there on the "agricultural/flat" part of that site.  My personal belief is that this will be the best course opened in the USA in the last 50 years.  Coore has basically lived there, has a great team, a great site, and patience.  I also like the approach that is being taken there, what I call the "anti-Trump" approach to marketing, "less is more".  What a great place this will be.  

[T_MacWood]

DRGAZ
It sounds to me like you are easily pleased -- you like everything and anything. In regards to your rosey speculation about Bandon what is your definition of a 'great' job.

It sounds like your A site comes along once a decade, but you never did described a B,C and D site. For example where would Riviera, Seminole, Garden City and Chicago fall?

I had no idea that developers often demanded waterfalls on their courses. Which came first golf architects building waterfalls or developers demanding them? Do you think that bells and whistles are the only negative aspect of modern design? Do you think moving dirt to create interest on a flat site is strictly a modern phenomenon?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

I didn't know there was a lessor advantaged piece of land, from a golf hole perspective, at Friar's Head.

I think the farmland holes may turn out to be some of the best on the golf course.

I also like the multiple journeys, transitions if you will, in and out of the  various types of terrain.

DRGAZ,

I think a golf course project has an advantage when it has a visionary as its driving force.  One person, knowlegeable about the game of golf, architecture,  and the importance of the composition of the membership.

C & C are talented architects, but the driving force responsible for the success of Friar's Head is and will be Ken Bakst.

[ForkaB]

Patrick

I walked Friar's Head yesterday, and everything you say is true.  Of course, I could be wrong.

[DRGAZ]

Patrick, agree on KB, absolutely.  He, along with C&C, make Friars the "Field of Dreams".

[DRGAZ]

Tom, yes, perhaps I am not enough of a critic, but I do think some modern courses by some modern guys are pretty good.  Let's see, things I don't like:  Spanish Bay, Oak Tree, Grand Cypress, Valhalla, and to throw in an older era one that I am not that found of, Olympic, which is barely Top 5 in the 30 minute drive zone.  So, there are things I can be critical of.  My point was simply that I think ANY reputable designer would have done a GOOD course at Bandon/Pacific.  Perhaps Doak did one better than anyone else, and I am sure was the right call, but who could have botched that?  Perhaps the best test is a D site and see if you can make the same statement about all reputable guys coming up with a good course.  Would some fail at this, probably.  Finally, the places you mention are all good sites, though I prefer LA North to Riveria in all ways, site and design.  Chicago, GC, Seminole all solid, good sites, probaby not great, but with an awesome job done at all.  I have seen some criticism of Seminole on this website, but I do like it, personally.

[ForkaB]

....actually, in this case, I could not be wrong.  Friar's Head is going to be something very special.

[DRGAZ]

Woops, excuse the couple of typos in my last...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

The only thing money and technology hurt is:
POVERTY AND THE OLD TECHNOLOGY.

Rich Goodale,

How could you play NGLA and not get back to me ?

Was it everything I said it was ?

Were you underwhelmed, overwhelmed ?

Please, let me hear from you.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci,

Regarding Friar's Head, perhaps it would be better to say the less "dramatic" part of the property when referring to the farmland holes.

Will some of these holes turn out to be the best holes on the course?  It wouldn't surprise me, particularly the holes on the eastern part of the farmland.

The "multiple journeys" thing seems pretty cool to me as well.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I think that there is a very huge issue that should be brough to his post since it seems to be getting some attention from ASGCA members.

First, I would like to hear some numbers on what the ASGCA has spent on "Remodel U," and just how much has this day long university serviced its members and future customers?

I have my reasons to ask this question simply because I would like to know what ASGCA members think of their craft being de-valued by the biggest name in the business, that does remodels for free?

I think it is a simple question that Jeff Brauer, Ron Kern, and other archiectects SHOULD answer.

[RJ_Daley]

hmmm, let's see now... Tommy points out that one of the biggest names in the biz and high profile ASGCA member offers his services for free at USGA remodelling sites for Opens, and another big guy, Pete Dye, has offered his services free for trade on some indulgences if I'm not mistaken at the monestary project in Wisconsin.  None of the ASGCA member spokesman who chime in here has anything critical to say on that or the quality of that work; or did I miss it?  On the other hand, non-ASGCA guys of low name recognition and no professional organization credentialling usually have to work for peanuts and yet some of us armchair critics might put some of their work in the high personal touch (constantly on site attending to details themselves) category of craftsmanship; and they get poo-poohed by the ASGCA guys as just lucky fellows that happened to get a rarely good site from an out of the box thinking owner-patron and they don't do the depth of documentation and professional design-construction interface that is proscribed by the society's standards.  

I know, I haven't connected any dots and haven't said a darn thing...  I'm still thinking about this...  I'll let you know if I come up with anything...

[ForkaB]

Patrick

You naughty boy  You do know that I did e-mail you several hours before your post.  Please hit the "read" button more often and stop casting asparagus on my reputation on this site!

Rich

[Mark_Fine]

I appologize if some of what I will say has been covered already.  It's hard to read quickly through 90+ posts and catch everything.  

To answer Tim's question - Yes, money and technology have impacted golf architecture?  Has it hurt it is all a matter of perspective!  Golf Architecture today is (can be) a lucrative business profession.  In the Golden Age, few if any of the dead guys ultimately made fortunes designing golf courses.  It may have been their "profession", but it was probably more their "passion" than anything.  Money was not their driving force to do what they did.

Of the high profile guys today, for how many is golf design really their passion??  All will suggest they love it, but most are in it for the money!  Ben Crenshaw comes to mind as one exception because he has already made is fortune and has the luxury to not treat golf course design as a "profession".  

However, I still will argue that there is a lot of good work going on out there today by a lot of architects beyond just C&C, Doak and the usual list you hear about on this site.  We just don't have enough of us going out and playing the courses and seeing what is being done!  

For example, I just played Steel's new course Carnegie Abbey, and it's a really neat design (despite all the money thrown at the project).  Could be the wildest greens I've ever seen on a modern layout.  Steel's hazards "are hazards".  You don't yell for your ball "to get in the bunker".  The course is by no means perfect but it has a lot of good things going on.

I'm played several courses designed by some of the architects Ron Kern mentions like Diddel and Beidel and they've done some very interesting work.  More of us need to get out and play some of these designs.  

Unfortunately most of us focus our attention on the high profile guys and miss a lot of the other guys work.  And then you have someone like Ed Carmen design a Running Deer and the course gets bashed.  There is far more positive there than negative.  This group is hard to please!

My suggestion - get out and play more golf designs.  There is a lot of good stuff going on out there.  There might not be too many Merions coming along but then again, how many Merions are there    Give most of these guys a piece of property like PD or SH and even many of us would struggle not to end up with something pretty special.
Mark  

[Ron Kern]

As I was not directly involved in Remodel U I can't answer many questions about it - I believe it was funded by a grant from a vendor - I never rec'd any benefit from it personally - I think it is a great thing in concept.

As for the free design services -

For entities that need the services in developing a facility to promote the game to make a positive difference in people's lives who cannot easily afford it , I'm all for it.  

In instances where a club, course or university can afford the service, especially in light of big construction budgets and future benefits gained from the work, I am 100% against it.  A club is going to choose Fazio or Dye for free over anybody else charging a fee (also the chance to rub shoulders with a famous person, I'm sure can be an attraction); this scenario definitely limits competetiton and opportunities for other capable designers to do quality work.  A less well known designer may also be more liable to leave his /her ego and any style inclinations at home and better work in the best interest of a particular course.

Candid enough?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ron,
Not only Candid enough, but honest too.

I resepct that.

However, I don't respect the fact that this man is changing some of the great classic courses in golf simply so they can have a chance at attracting a major championship known as the US Open. This is furthered by the fact that he professes in a very arrogant attitude that there is no such thing as a "Classic" design.

I also find it hard to beleive that the ASGCA hasn't called him on it for offering his services in this manner. There is little doubt the largesse of Mr. Fazio's success has many a golf architect admiring his talents, but one would think that devaluing and circumventing the entire Remodel U principle, by offering free services would make a fellow member balk.

There is a point that the ASGCA needs to call foul and it just isn't doing it.

[TEPaul]

I think a lot of these posts are beginning to make it clear how much power, influence and control the ASGCA really has or doesn't have over the work, work habits and styles etc of the members of the association. In other words, not as much as some think. That seems evidenced by some of the things (and the number of things) a guy like Ron Kern says and says he disagreess with that go on with ASGCA members.

Clearly Fazio's restoration fee structure doesn't seem to be making anyone happy except maybe Fazio and particularly the people who work for him. Others have said that basically offering free service for restorations of U.S Open preparation work is really very insidious and does little more than take most of his other competitors out of that particular segment of the business.

Those same other people who claim this insidious tactic of Fazio's (if you can really call it insidious, since it is really no more than everyday competitive practice) should remember the number of architects who have made their names and reputations doing the exact same thing; including Ross, RTJ, Rees, maybe Flynn and others. If this is how they made their reputations in the first place what would lead anyone to expect they would stop it? I don't agree with it, but it seems to be a reasonable reality!

The expectation seems to be that they sort of get to the point in their career (very successful) where they should recognize that they don't really need to do that high-profile crap anymore and that for the rest of their career they should go out and do something really good and adventerous for a change. It's a nice sentiment but a bit of a pipe dream, if you ask me. It sort of follows the common query about why very successful businessmen remain so tough (and sometimes so cheap) when they have clearly made their fortunes. The realistic response is; "They're that way they are because that's how they got there in the first place."

Having said that I wish Fazio would leave the classic courses the hell alone. A better way than trying to convince him otherwise would be to convince those that fall for his "no fee" ploy to realize that they're getting about what they're paying for and that to Fazio the whole process is probably designed to attract other new construction business--just like it always has been!!

[TEPaul]

And one more thing to add to the post above. Just like in the playing of the game itself, and particularly in tournament golf, undoutably there is a tenet or cliche very much at work here which is; "What have you done lately?"

In Fazio's case he obviously tries to answer that question with; "Anything and everything", and he probably always will.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()