Coore vs. Doak

[kclarke]

"vs" isn't right but my question after looking at the Friar's Head review is could Doak build this course? And also, having played Pacific Dunes last year and thoroughly, thoroughly thinking it was one of the best ever, could Coore have built it?

The two men seem to build courses that are similarly fun, natural and great.  What are their design differences? Is there one in particular difference in how they go about their designs?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kclarke,

They're both great architects, and have produced great courses, why the need to pose a hypothetical competition that has no definitive answer ?

The same question could be posed of MacDonald, Ross, Tillinghast, etc.,etc., with their courses, but what does the exercise accomplish ?

[redanman]

Why?

[David_Elvins]

Pat Mucci ad Redanman,

I am not sure that the innitial question isnt worthy of more respect than you have given it.

Coore and Doak are often mentioned on this site in a way that suggests that their names are often almost interchangeable.  They, and their courses have much in common, especially when compared to other modern, high profile architects.  Considering this, a brief examination of their differences -what seperates them as designers -seems like a worthy exercise.

[Guest]

Pat Mucci,

The reason is to start a thread and see where it goes, no? You do that all the time. You can start by addressing how the two differ in addressing the wind. Then compare how much emphasis is put on putting versus driving. Etc., etc. What the heck difference does it make when this website supports such a wide variety of questions, as you yourself know. How many threads are there that compare the classic to the modern architects? Comparisons, comparisons everywhere.

Good thread kclarke.

[Steve L.]

Thanks to both of them for bringing sensibility and creativity to their craft.  I'm glad that they are different and hope that each continues to create great places for golf.  And, there are a BUNCH of others who's work is great and different...  

[TEPaul]

KClarke;

Honestly, for me that's sort of a hard question to answer. Both of them but including Hanse & Co and maybe DeVries and possibly Echenrode and kelly Moran, Rod Whitman, looks like Tony Ristola, seem to be way out in the forefront in creating really natural architecture in every way, if you know what I mean.

All their features (particularly the bunkering), all their architectural "lines" seem to be so far out in front of everyone else today in doing architecture that looks like some of the greatest of the Golden Age in its overall naturalness and  strategic design.

Most all of them seem to be building some really wonderful greens too--in shape, dimension, internal contours, playabilities etc that are not in the slightest man-made contrived looking--that fit right into the pre-construction landscape etc!

Obviously, this group's courses probably need more time in play to prove themselves but honestly the look of most all of them are neck and neck with the best of the "Golden Age", if not even surpassing them, if you ask me.

The thought through natural and strategic detail in courses like Pacific Dunes, I hear Lubbock, looks like Stonewall 2, Friar's Head, Hidden Creek, Easthampton, Cusgowilla, Rustic Canyon, Applebrook, Inniscrone, Tallgrass, U of Alabama, French Creek, Barona, looks like Tony Ristola's course in Germany and some of the others I've only heard about seems really impressive.

One of the differences possibly between Doak and Coore, is it seems like C&C have done a course or two as semi tributes to another style, era or look like Hidden Creek is basically a tribute to the Heathland style.

I'm not sure Tom Doak has done anything like that. Not that it's important to do, I just don't know that he's ever done that--seems like Doak's courses are just site unique. But who knows; I've always heard the 3rd green at Stonewall1 is a pretty good copy of Crystal Downs #1 green. It has to be--both greens are very similar.

There really is some terrific architecture coming from this group recently, and now look what Doak has going in New Zealand. And the Coore and Crenshaw company seem to be pretty high on the possiblities of the course under construction in Plymouth Mass. The good news there is almost all their guys are up there working as it's the only course they're working on right now. Gil Hanse will be starting soon in Mass too.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

Then go ahead and provide your response to a hypothetical question.

As to the second part of the question, do they have design differences ?

[TEPaul]

One of the interesting similarities of Doak and Coore and Crenshaw is they may be going very light on shaping the "mid-bodies" of their holes, particularly the sides of the mid-bodies with very few exceptions. That to me was one of the real hallmarks of some of the best of the golden Age architeture and obviously that took a lot of time analyzing for possibilities of what the land was giving your--instead of just automatically changing the mid-bodies as some modern architects tend to do.

Certainly back then they didn't have the ability to do that as much as these days but on good topography using natural landform hole mid-bodies gave those courses such an overall natural look--obviously because it was! Some of the best work today seems to be following that minimalist precept of the past.

[Guest]

Patrick, I wish I could answer. That would mean that I have had the chance to play their courses. But alas, I have not. I still think that posts asking questions without definitive answers are fair game here. I bet you have even asked a few yourself. And so I don't think we should discourage this post. I just can't provide the non-definitive answers myself for lack of playing time.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

Because of the limited number of courses produced, it may be too small of a sampling from which to draw definitive conclusions regarding both architects.  Making the process of comparison, difficult if not impossible.

[RJ_Daley]

I find it interesting that there seems to be a slight cross pollination between some of the constructor associates.  I chalk that up to the supporting cast, those that really do the work in the dirt so to speak, know that both these organizations are the best.  We can't ignore that Coore and Doak have a common mentor organization either.  Nor that other up and commers mentioned above have also been associated with this lineage.  When we examine the great artists of the Rennaisance (the real one in the 15th-16th century, not the GCA firm   ) we see the same sort of mentoring, cross pollination of supporting artists that helped the masters do the frescoes and manage the stone.  Funny how excellence sort of gravitates in proximate circles...

[Guest]

Patrick,

If I had two toothpicks in my hand, I would have enough toothpicks to make a comparison. Two of anything will allow comparisons. They may not meet your definition of "definitive" but who cares? Would you like us to hold your feet to the fire and demand that every question you ask allow for a "definitive" answer? If so, then you had better only ask questions that can be answered with objective verification. Why don't you get off of kclarke's back? Do you have to be a dark cloud here? If you don't like the questions, stop looking in on this thread. There are some here who are just trying to enjoy a little discussion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

Kclarke asked for their design differences, that's calls for a definitive evaluation.

He didn't ask about the differences in two golf courses or two toothpicks, he asked for the global differences in their designs, and I don't know if enough courses have been built to establish what their design philosophies are, let alone the differences in the two.

Like you, I haven't played golf courses designed by both, and I suspect that few have, because of their rarity, thus making the process of comparison limited to a fortunate few.  This too may prevent an accurate assessment.
There is strength in numbers.

Does playing one course allow one to determine the architects design concepts or theories ?

[Guest]

Patrick,

Just let those who have something to say say what they can. What harm is there in that? If you need to be negative, then so be it. You do what you have to do to feel better. This website is about studying golf architecture. There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, in the study of art that is all-inclusively definitive. There are always going to be questions about what forces pushed what features in what direction. But there is also no reason why someone can't point to tendencies in the designs of golf architects. If you have nothing to add in the way of experience, just sit back and read what others think.
Let the fortunate few say their piece.

I am done wasting space on this thread trying to get you to back off of someone asking a genuine question. If you need to rain on someone's parade, have at it. You won't be helping this website by undermining genuine interest in golf architecture. On the other hand, someone who adds even one building block to the overall knowledge here is helping anyone with an open mind who will read it.

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Paul -

Please fill me in on the Coore/Crenshaw project in Plymouth. As you are probably aware, that town has positively exploded with golf courses over the past few years, with Mark Mumgeam, Rees Jones, and Brian Silva getting into the game. All of this on top of the Plymouth CC by Ross! I have only played the Atlantic CC by Mungeam, and I was very impressed. Please respond.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

This may be my last post on this thread as well.

.... But there is also no reason why someone can't point to tendencies in the designs of golf architects......

My point was that it is difficult if not impossible to determine tendencies with such a small sampling of courses as the basis of an anaylysis.

But, let the free flow of the assessment of the design differences begin.

[TEPaul]

Michael Moore:

I couldn't tell you at this point. They did work on it unusually long into this bitter winter as they may be on a bit of a tight construction schedule. They seem to think it's got some real good possibilities. I understand it might be on a rather unusual old estate. I might be all wrong but this one might be very treed. Hope to get up there in the spring.

[David_Elvins]

In an effort to stimulate discussion I would say, from reading this board and nothing else, that Doak requires the player to hit a certain shot more often than Coore does. True or False?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tom Paul,

Doak certainly did a tribute course.  The Heathland course at Legends in Myrtle Beach, one of his earliest designs, was a tribute to Scottish courses (not British Heathland courses, oddly enough), with no trees, burns, large greens, etc.  Probably is still the most dirt he's moved, including Red Raider, though I could be wrong.  Both were dead flat properties.  For Heathland, they removed all the piney trees that littered the site.  At Red Raider, the site was treeless, and they ADDED trees.


Michael Moore,

The Plymouth, MA course C&C are working on is called Old Sandwich.

[TEPaul]

You know now that I think about it (although I don't really buy into this theory that much) but filtering through the  courses I've seen (which aren't that many) Doak seems to create slightly more of a fading type approach shot in his architecture and C&C slightly more of a drawing type approach shot architecture.

If I'm not mistaken I think I remember Tom Doak saying he is a fader and certainly Ben Crenshaw used the draw a lot.

Scott:

Did not know that about Doak's course in Myrtle Beach. Wrong again--not surprising at all--Pat Mucci is clearly starting to rub off on me.

[Dan Kelly]

The two men seem to build courses that are similarly fun, natural and great.  What are their design differences? Is there one in particular difference in how they go about their designs?

I'm with Guest. If these questions aren't proper here, I can't imagine what might be.

And they are NOT hypothetical questions!

I wish I were qualified to address them. Let's hear from those who are.

Tom Doak: How would YOU answer them?

[Steve Lang]

TE Paul, Not to heap on you but, the front nine at Doak's Highpointe course in Acme MI, just east of Traverse City is certainly a tribute to links golf..  with some fadings needed to be sure, but some very intersting draw holes as well.  The back nine there is links-easy over and across hill and dale and hill side and valley of beautifaul N. Mich terrain.

[TEPaul]

SteveL:

Highpointe is one I have played but that was before I thought a thing about architecture. A tribute to links golf in on the hillsides of inland Mich, you say? I must say I didn't get that impression. The only hole that struck me as like something I knew was that back nine par 3 (#13, 14?). I thought for a moment I was at Pine Valley. But I could be wrong--as I say Pat Mucci is starting to get to me. And as for fading holes and drawing holes--that's not something I'm very reliable on either. Other golfers tell me I try to hit draws into clearly fading holes and vice versa, so what can I say?

[ForkaB]

I see C&C winning by a submission after about 7 or 8 rivetting minutes.  For one thing, they are a tag team and poor Tom has to fend for himself. For another, "Gentle Ben" has so much street cred with the GCA crowd that even usually even handed commentators like Ran will not be cognizant of his treachery.  And, just when you thought all was well,  Vince MacMahon might throw something into the script at the last moment--surely not the Duelling Doyens......!!!!!!!!

In my limited comparative experience, C&C's courses are "better" that D's, but we are very early on in this "game"......