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.


JakaB

Not that there is anything wrong with that...
« Last Edit: November 26, 2004, 02:47:45 PM by John B. Kavanaugh »

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2004, 01:15:20 PM »
Define formulatic?  

JakaB

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2004, 01:27:15 PM »
Their green complexes...routing schemes and hazard placement are similar in nature....the strategic nuances are repetitive...

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2004, 01:34:28 PM »
John,
First off, you may want to correct the spelling. Second, how many Coore & Crenshaw courses have you played?

Do YOU think they are most formalaic and if so, please explain how?

As for me, NO they aren't the most formalaic. They are probably the least formalaic. You want a formulaic golf architect, then go to the man that expouses it the most--the master framer.  (or is it bater)

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2004, 01:36:14 PM »
John,

Do you see all those nuances in Coore & Crenshaw courses?

JakaB

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2004, 01:41:59 PM »
John,

Do you see all those nuances in Coore & Crenshaw courses?

That must be what makes them seem repetitive....btw..I like formulatic..I can't seem to get formalaic out of my mouth.   Didn't Raynor follow a formula...nothing wrong with that.  This is not a bashing attempt..

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2004, 01:44:58 PM »
What does "expouses" mean, while we're at it?
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Matt_Ward

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2004, 01:46:21 PM »
Tommy:

I love the fact that you challenged John to cite how many C&C courses he has played before his attempt to claim C&C courses are all formulaic. Glad to see you've seen the light.

Bravo indeed !!!

Who knows maybe the same thing will apply to those who make such comments on Fazio, Nicklaus, Rees Jones, et al.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2004, 01:47:51 PM »
No, not by a long stretch.  

Before seeing Olde Kinderhook, I'd have nominated Rees Jones for that award.  

But, as I pointed out in the Bandon Trails thread, I think they do risk becoming a stereotyped "look" and not every site is as rugged and raw as that look suggests.  Personally, I would like to see them try something really different, or daring, or evolve into whatever direction the next artistic phase of their careers might take if they are willing to stretch the envelope.

I'd hate for them to become like the band "Boston", where the first ten songs (on a single album) were their best and eveything that followed were just inferior variations on the same theme.

And John...quit stealing my ideas!   8)
« Last Edit: November 26, 2004, 01:49:06 PM by Mike_Cirba »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2004, 01:55:28 PM »
Matt,
7 or 8 Courses should be suffienct enough to know if an architecture firm is being formulaic in their designs.

Once in a while, you'll get a winner in their where the associate had the chance to do something different--such as Mike Strantz at World Woods. (A course I haven't seen but I'm told came out exceptionally well for a Fazio course)

C&C being formulaic is about as possibly as John being serious, or better yet, Matt Ward being confined to one state. (Florida)




Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2004, 02:00:46 PM »
If one were to sufficiently analyze a course, then determine who the architect is based on said analysis, would that make the architect formulaic?

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

JakaB

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2004, 02:02:34 PM »
Tommy,

Don't you think laying the same modern strategic nuances on top of natural looking sites is a formula...a good formula but a formula none the less....

Matt_Ward

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2004, 02:03:15 PM »
Tommy:

If an architect has say 20 courses outstanding and someone has played 7 or 8 courses as you mentioned that's one thing. If the portfolio (e.g. Nicklaus, Fazio, et al) is considerably larger and the same number of courses (7 to 8) are used as a measuring stick then I would tend to place those critiques at a much lower level of credibility. People with deeper portfolios and long design careers can go through a period of evolution in their final products -- that evolution can be both up and down.

Sample size / re: course critiques are meaingful to me no less than when people make note of surveys. The greater the sample size the better the likelihood on their meaning.

P.S. I have always loved Florida -- just not for golf !!! ;D

JakaB

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2004, 02:18:24 PM »
I really do believe that limiting yourself to discussing only courses you have seen in person to be a silly exercise...that being said....I have this gut feeling that if you would plot the green contours....not to scale...because of basic pad size differencials...you would find many of the greens at Cuscowilla, Sand Hills, Friars Head and Bandon Trails to be duplicates of each other...ie..products of a successful formula.  Is this an incorrect observation..

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2004, 02:42:51 PM »

But, as I pointed out in the Bandon Trails thread, I think they do risk becoming a stereotyped "look" and not every site is as rugged and raw as that look suggests.  Personally, I would like to see them try something really different ....

Mike,

Is this what they did w/ Talking Stick South in somewhat of a retro sense?  If so, would that be considered a (relative) flop?  Or where they just following orders to provide the owner with a more traditional alternative to TSN before they enjoyed the leverage to turn down such jobs?

TSS puts their batting average below that of Donald J. Ross in my book - but I'll wait until they've built another 400 courses to state a definitive opinion. ;)

FWIW, I do not find C & C to be fomulaic.  Also, I have just recovered my hearing and speech after having to put my hands over my ears and sing loudly for five consecutive hours to avoid being corrupted by JakaB on the drive home of Hillbilly Tour.

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2004, 02:46:24 PM »
I really do believe that limiting yourself to discussing only courses you have seen in person to be a silly exercise...that being said....I have this gut feeling that if you would plot the green contours....not to scale...because of basic pad size differencials...you would find many of the greens at Cuscowilla, Sand Hills, Friars Head and Bandon Trails to be duplicates of each other...ie..products of a successful formula.  Is this an incorrect observation..

John,
Yes, this would be an incorrect observation. The greens at Friar's Head are some of the best putting surfaces in the Game, but that is a pretty broad list of great putting surfaces from the Old Course to the National to Winged Foot, Pine Valley, Riviera and way, way many others. To compare Cuscowilla or Chechesse or Sand Hills to these would be an ultimate compliment.

I myself, have yet to see Coore & Crenshaw duplicate any green they have done before. In fact, when they are building their greens, it looks as if they have taken great time to get them perfect for the situation or strategies of any site in question.

I have sworn myself not to waste the day on the computer, and I'm probably going to be really busy tonight, so I'll end it here. But in closing, I will stake what they do, as what Tom doak does and Gil and Mike DeVries and others who take great time to shape and form greens themselves--actually getting on a sand cat and moving and shaping the green with a box blade--as being the guys who care most about their greens. I understand the Mike Strantz does the similar or at least stands by and watched it being done by others and maybe even Forrest Fezzler, and if thats true, then thats awesome too because they do want the green to work with the strategy from the fairway and around the green itself, even the entire golf hole.

Doing it from a drawing board in Montclair or Jupiter Hills or Palo Alto just doesn't get it done for me.

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulatic architects working today..
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2004, 02:48:31 PM »
Also, seeing that picture of your Brother is another prime example of an architect that cares to the point that he will do it himself--because we all know, unless you fully trust someone fully, Doing it yourself is the only way its ever going to fully get done right.

At least in ones own mind.

JakaB

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulaic architects working today..
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2004, 02:58:17 PM »
I can only hope Frank Lloyd Wright didn't finish concrete...cause your theory of who is on the blade makes no sense to me...

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulaic architects working today..
« Reply #18 on: November 26, 2004, 03:23:42 PM »
Tommy,

You forgot to throw Whit's name on that list of guys who personally shape greens, and go to great lengths to "get 'em just right"  ;D
jeffmingay.com

JakaB

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulaic architects working today..
« Reply #19 on: November 26, 2004, 03:25:30 PM »
By Tommy's standard the only guy I know who didn't give a damn was Ross...how'd that work out..

ian

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulaic architects working today..
« Reply #20 on: November 26, 2004, 03:33:08 PM »
"But in closing, I will stake what they do, as what Tom doak does and Gil and Mike DeVries and others who take great time to shape and form greens themselves--actually getting on a sand cat and moving and shaping the green with a box blade--as being the guys who care most about their greens"

Tommy,

So if you can't run a dozer, then you can not be an architect who cares about greens????!!! How many greens has Tom, Gil or Bill shaped in their latest projects. You can understand how I would find this a bit insulting.

I assumed you played at Friars Head, so give me your opinion of the 7th green, where was the pin, what was your experience with that green? (Before you go to town, I agree with you that the greens are very enjoyable and well thought out at Friars Head) Do you think the 7th green is reasonable, brialliant, or over the top? I'm curious.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2004, 03:42:32 PM by Ian Andrew »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulaic architects working today..
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2004, 06:17:32 PM »
Jeff,
Forgive! I never meant to leave Rod out of this!

Ian,
The 7th at Friar's Head is my kind of green. Its a manly green for a manly kind of fellow like myself! ;D  The entire time I was writing my post above, I was thinking of the 7th green. I was also thinking of the brilliance of the 1st, 4th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 14th, & 18th.

As far as I'm concerned, there should be a billion more putting surfaces like those on the Old Course and the EDEN Course in St. Andrews.  Those are putting surfaces that are require you to think how to approach them from the tee and its precisely what Simpson & Wethered wrote of in the Architectural Side of Golf. I suggest to you to re-read this book again and again Ian. It will allow you to see further see the light.

Asking Matt Ward or John to do the same would be futile simply because reading wouldn't allow them to hear their own voices which tend to always get in the way.

JakaB

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulaic architects working today..
« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2004, 06:25:28 PM »
Tommy,

I am sure the greens at Friars Head are great...my question was do they seem to follow the same formula as at Sand Hills and Cuscowilla..not to mention the ones at Bandon Trails that havn't even been finished yet..

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulaic architects working today..
« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2004, 06:30:45 PM »

So if you can't run a dozer, then you can not be an architect who cares about greens????!!! How many greens has Tom, Gil or Bill shaped in their latest projects. You can understand how I would find this a bit insulting.


Ian,
Come on! You insulted? Your a golf architect, You have a much thicker skin then that!

But I'll stand by my statement because I do know for a fact that all of the above go to great lengths to get their greens right--or at least how they hope they'll play. They also intrust and encourage the guys who work for them to expound on them further. This is my entire point.

You can't tell me that you can sit in an office and get your greens right. I know your not saying it, and frankly, I don't know what kind of greens you build because I have never been on any of them. But I do know that showing up for one or two days every 2-3 weeks and directing some tobacco-chewing operator over the loud noise of a running dozer isn't going to produce very good greens either. We're talking greens that WORK with the golf holes and their strategies and are the products--the passions for those who take pride in them--and how they are getting it done.

That being Ian, Have you shaped your own putting surfaces before? Tell everyone here the difference in doing so compared handing the chore over to someone, walking away and hoping they get it right.

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Are Coore and Crenshaw the most formulaic architects working today..
« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2004, 06:59:38 PM »
Tommy,

I am sure the greens at Friars Head are great...
How are you sure they are great?
my question was do they seem to follow the same formula as at Sand Hills and Cuscowilla..
I don't know I haven't been to Sand Hills or Cuscowilla. I know you haven't been to Friar's Head, so how would you even begin to explain them as being forumlaic?

not to mention the ones at Bandon Trails that havn't even been finished yet..
John, I'm told that all of the greens are shaped and seeded, if not grown-in at Bandon Trails. How would you kow what they are like to even make the suggestion their are formulaic?

In closing, I know this is just you being you-the entire thread. I think I have answered the question. Are they formulaic? No they are not formulaic. Formulaic is something that is utilized over and over-rehash after rehash. Was Seth Raynor Formulaic? Yes, absolutely! But it was a better kind of formulaic--it was more emulation of design principles and ideas as he knew them and was taught them by some pretty stout individuals. Besides, Just because I'm saying Coore & Crenshaw are not formulaic doesn't mean that being Formulaic is a bad thing either.

Its all about intent.



Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back