Innovate or Emulate?

[Adam_F_Collins]

I read a book on the subject of the care and creation of Bonsai. In it, the author suggested that it was a mistake to try to improve on Bonsai; that the Japanese masters had so perfected the art, that the best one could hope to do was to reach their perfection.

Likewise, in a few quotes from C.B. MacDonald's 1928 article, "Architecture":

"It would seem that in striving after 'novelty and innovation,' many builders of golf courses believe they are elevating the game. But what a sad contemplation!"

and

"Don't seek an original idea in building a golf course. John LaFarge somewhere has said if 'an idea were an original one it is safe to say it would not be a good one."


Do you agree with these ideas about innovation and emulation? Should golf course architects stick to the lessons of the masters and use their creative gifts to figure out the application of these fundamentals?

To quote the same article again:

"One must have the gift of imagination to successfully apply the original to new situations."

Is there any more room to invent?

 

[JakaB]

The third hole at Victoria National is a new and different concept which makes it the most misunderstood, hated and best hole on the course.  If you want to please your members, innovate..if you want to please one time visitors, emulate and if you want to please everybody, procrastinate.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John, Are there any movements afloat at your club to honor the memory of the efforts of your founder? (Like a major club tournament, etc.)

[JakaB]

The only comment that I would want to make concerning Terry Friedman is that I loved the man....and from all I have heard since his death he loved me too.  A rare combination in my life that will be sorely missed.

[Michael Dugger]

Mr. Doak came into this discussion forum one time and pointed out that if an architect can't do any better than to reproduce yet another biarritz then they probably won't have much of a future in the business.  

Now he may not have said this in exactly the same words as I, and I say this because I know what a stickler some people around here are for context, but the gist of his comment was that if you fail to believe there are still new concepts out there that have yet to be discovered you are severly missing the boat.

Prior to Gil Hanse's 15th at French Creek, I had never seen such a hole.

Some of Kingsley Club is unlike anything I had ever seen before.  

Mike Strantz certainly has his own unique look.

Mr. Doak's work at Cape Kidnappers is pushing the envelope, IMHO, when it comes to golf holes I've never seen before.

My point is this.....good golf architecture is not found by reinventing the wheel, so to speak.  There are certain elements to any good hole that should never be deviated from.  Yet, there are numerous ways to skin a cat, as they say.

Take Macdonald's NGLA, since it was some of what CB had to say that has fueled this thread.  At NGLA he created something unique in that the holes were not direct reproductions of the original Redan, etc.  But, of course, everyone recognizes that the 4th plays like a "redan," looks like a redan......although many think the NGLA one is better than the original at Berwick.

Conclusion.........We ought to have learned something in 150 years of golf architecture.  If a gun was to my head and I had to say what that was it would be that there are certain types of shots and challenges that all golfers relish attempting.  The "essence" of these shots needs retained in all designs.  Many of the classic holes embrace these.  The redan calls for a low burning draw with action.  The cape dares a player to bite off as much as they can chew.  The Biarritz forces one to be accurate.  The postage stamp style green requires even more accuracy.

These shots are fun, challenging and separate the "wheat from the chaff" when it comes to matches.  

So, to answer the question, future designers should emulate "the qualities" of the great holes, but they should work to create new and exciting "golf holes" that we have never seen before.
   

[Mike Hendren]

Adam,

The Evangelist at his finest!

Contrast his statement with this quote:

"We now have our own history, our own traditions, our own superlative courses; and on account of our different climatic requirements and topographical peculiarities, we need our own technique added to the general rules of standard usage which we have assimilated from our friends across the sea.

In taking this position, we should revere the cradle of golf with its fine spirit and distinct atmosphere; but we may also be proud of our own development, and strive not only to keep up the standards of our past, but to go on and improve our newer productions, for the ultimate in golf and golf architecture is not yet attained."

-George C. Thomas, Jr.

Regards,

Mike

[Dan Herrmann]

Michael wrote, "Prior to Gil Hanse's 15th at French Creek, I had never seen such a hole."



But he also built holes that certainly seem to be inspired by others - like #5's quarry features reflecting on the great Merion East.  (Believe me, it's a lot deeper than it looks in the photo!)

[cary lichtenstein]

The truly great architects do both, they emulate holes from the past that in their minds eye fit the landscape, and use the landscape to innovate where they see something that they know works.

If you look at the body of work of Pete Dye, he has done so many holes that you get on the tee and say "Wow, I've never seen this before" Some work and some don't, but most do, but with a hard edge, and sometimes over the top.

At Friar's Head, there were holes that I said "I've never seen this before and they were great."

I think nature is the best architect, but it takes an excellent architect to let nature come into its own.