Replica courses article in Links Magazine

[Mike_Cirba]

Bye;

I've played several Stephen Kay courses and I think it's an inaccurate disservice to suggest that he stamps out the same formula on every course.  Even his holes at the Architects Club are not copies, but simply holes inspired in particular architect's styles.

Forse is doing mostly restoration work these days, on any number of individual Golden Age architect's courses, and Silva's courses don't really follow any set pattern either.  

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by your broadbrush criticism?  

[Craig Van Egmond]

Mike Sweeney,

    I'm pretty sure Perry Dye did Royal Links and recently got sued by the owners. Having never been to Scotland the course was fun, way too expensive though.

[Doug Wright]

Perry Dye did Royal Links and is planning to do a copy of Royal Links next to Denver International Airport. It's on the books but I'm not sure when/if it'll happen.

A replica of a replica? Sheesh.  

All The Best,

[Bye]

Mike,
Go to any of Silva's courses and you'll find the redan, cape, punchbowl ..... Take a close look at the Kay courses, you'll find the same thing.

Forse is all golden age, when he does new work it's all in the tone of the "old masters." Look at his PR, it's all there.

[Guest]

Tom Doak,

Do you have a monopoly on referencing guys like MacKenzie and Thomas? Are you in your work above imitating golf features that have been incorporated before? What do you think of NGLA?

[Michael Dugger]

Guest...
Take it easy man!  

Mr. Doak...
In reference to your question...I always liked what Pete Dye wrote in his book about referring to himself as a golf course designer, not architect.  Thus, I'm inclined to believe that "architect" stands for no more than 'you obtained a degree in architecture'.  Are you implying that it SHOULD mean an architect is one who offers original ideas?

It is sort of curious to me that this thread has garnered as much attention as it has.  I get the feeling that the predominant position of the group is that cookie cutter replication is bad, but original designs BASED ON tried and trued 'hole styles' is good.  Not every Redan is the same.  Not every cape is the same.  There are features to these 'hole types' that all golf course architects and players of the game find agreeable.  

Therefore, we love NGLA, we love Raynor's body of work.  We do not love the places that 'mail it in', so to speak, to use a parlance of the times.  The road hole is in St. Andrew's, not in Texas.  It is equivalent to the first time you see one of the big $$$ casinoes in Vegas...Paris, New York New York, Luxor.  It may look like the Eiffel tower, but it is not.  IMHO...cheap thrills

[Stan Dodd]

This seems to highlight a culturla issue for me.  replica courses bring to mind the new Dragnet or Mission Impossible remakes or a plethora of other remakes of TV shows or movies.  Are we incapable of original thought?  Is golf also reflecting this give me the cheap immitation because the original is too much work culture.  Or $ buys memories/experiences..I can pay $325 for Royal Links  and still be home for dinner.  Just a ramble/rant!
Cheers
Stan Dodd


Rust never sleeps.

[Mike_Sweeney]

And, can someone who builds replica courses call themselves a "golf course architect"?  I'd like to know what everyone thinks.

Tom,

From what I have learned about your business as a very early stage and inexperienced developer, there are two parts to Golf Course Architecture: 1) Creative and 2) Functional.

The Creative side is where the architect brings fun and/or challenge to the golfer playing the course depending on the goals of the developer. Sadly, I have not played any of your courses to date (missed a trip with my Partner to Stonewall last summer) but clearly GCAers feel they are fun and challenging, and the Creative side is a big reason that we are all here.

The other side is Functional. Does the course drain well? Does the routing leave room for houses (oops a bad word at GCA)? Is the maintence budget able to cover the course that was delivered?... Obviously this is not the stuff that starts threads such as "Golf Courses and Spirituality", but it can make or break the economics of a golf course and is a very important piece to the puzzle.

Thus, I would say that Perry Dye (I stand corrected from above) is the Architect of Royal Links, he just was not a very creative one on this project as dictated by the developer. In reference to Kay, again there are no Replica holes at Architects, so I would say he should be credited with the Creative side also.

[A.G._Crockett]

I have really enjoyed reading all of this, which, like Mdugger, I didn't anticipate from the topic.

As I continue to read responses and to think about the topic, it seems to me that maybe a summary of how people feel about "replica" courses, as least on GCA, is similar to the difference between two people who read the same great book.  One reacts to the book by saying, "I want to write a book like that someday!"  The other reacts by saying, "I want to copy that book!"  The former still retains creativity while honoring the greatness of another, while the latter isn't a plagiarist (since nobody will really mistake Texas for Scotland), but the latter also certainly isn't especially creative by building a piece of "road" next to a green somewhere in Texas!

[yogi_barry]

I play and live at a recently opened (circa 2001) daily fee/semi-private golf club south of Jacksonville, Florida.  My firm also (coincidentally - sort of) was the planner for the community and clubhouse architect.  During the design phase our 13th hole, a 190 yard par 3 playing across a large diagonal lake was considered to be designed as a replica of our area's most famous hole - the 17th at TPC Stadium.  The hole would've been shortened to 135 yds with the green smack in the middle of the lake.  In retrospect our client's and the golf course architect's decision to resist the temptation was absolutely right - no matter how wonderful the 17th is, it wouldn't have been the same.  Nor even as good as our current hole!  

A fake is a fake, you can replicate topography, etc - but each golf course becomes it's own special place.  Just like buildings shouldn't be repeated, neither should golf holes.  

[George Bahto]

For what it’s worth, just a word about replica courses.

At the “advanced” age of 70 (hah) I had the opportunity to design and built a course based on architecture of the Golden Age. I never dreamed of ever doing that - I had never even given a thought about doing such a thing.

For a novice, it was a most satisfying experience - a chance to demonstrate what I had researched over the past few years, more important, a chance to honor an architect who had been in the shadows, nearly unknown, for so many years.

To see your one-dimensional drawing talk a life of its own was an incredible feeling.

That said - I would never want to do a replica course again!

I love restoration work.

I would be interested to know if another novice, arm-chair architects, if given an opportunity, would turn such an opportunity down .......   all things being equal - I doubt it

[Tom Doak]

Yes, I guess there is a split.  

I can't really criticize someone for designing a course "in the style of" an older architect.  If Brian Silva wants to make his style like Seth Raynor, why not?  How can we tell him that style isn't his own?  After all Raynor and Banks took their whole act from C.B. Macdonald!

But, if the course is done that way so it can be MARKETED with a dead architect's name, I do think that's pretty low.  For example, the course at Boyne Highlands which features Donald Ross replica holes is now included in their ads as follows:  "Play courses by Robert Trent Jones, Arthur Hills, and Donald Ross!"  From everything I've heard Black Creek is an excellent course, and Brian Silva should be getting the credit for it, not Seth Raynor.

[Guest]

Tom Doak,

I may have missed something, but I could not find the words you quoted regarding Boyne Highlands when I looked on their website. Maybe they are included in a brochure.

Otherwise the language they use indicates a reverence for Donald Ross and clearly call the course a memorial course. There is no confusion about it being designed and built by others trying to imitate the best of Donal Ross. They go into detail in describing how they went about deciding on specific holes and features. If there is a trademark infringement, I am sure there will be a lawsuit. Otherwise, what is the problem? Can you tell us where you read the words you quoted by any chance?

The RTJ and Arthur Hills courses are their own, are they not?

[Tom Doak]

Guest,

Not sure where I saw that tag line for the Ross course ... quite possibly in a TV advertisement, since I live close by.  But they have used it, or it wouldn't have gotten my attention.

For all I know they have permission to use it from Ross's estate.  But I still think it stinks.

[Guest]

Tom Doak,

Can you tell us why, even with the approval of the Donald Ross people (if the have it), do you think that a course memorializing Donald Ross "stinks"?

Do you think it is a "cop-out"? Do you think it is unethical for some reason? Is it fair to say that moving soil to get the golf hole one wants is a "cop-out"? If you think so, isn't that just a matter of style preference (minimalist versus other), assuming the owner is on board financially?

What do you think of NGLA?

By the way, do you feel that your quote above was an exact enough replica of what was advertised to use quotation marks? Or were you just trying to give us the gist of the ad?

Thanks in advance for your answers to these questions.

[A_Clay_Man]

Hey Guest- In stead of blowing what Doak said way out of proportion, why don't you just post under your real name? Or,
Is there some ethical reason you're hiding?

Blanket statements are stereotypes and I find 87.6% of the time they are applicable.

I do know of what I have always thought of a replica course in the middle of the northside of Chicago, Maravitz, formerly Waveland, was a real treat for us city types when we were learn'in. It was alleged to be replicas of holes from the motherland, Scotland.

[Guest]

AClayman,

I apologize. I am not trying to blow anything Tom Doak wrote out of proportion. He is questioning the idea of replica courses in terms both of what he calls a "cop-out" and in terms that seem to cast a dark shadow on the business practices of some resort he lives near by. Those two sides of the issue are interesting to me.

On the one hand, it seems like many golf designers reference the classic golf designers. I get the impression from Tom's first post that there is something wrong with that, but I don't really know what that is. Doesn't anyone else want to know why Tom thinks that golf designers should not reference MacKenzie? Especially since he himself has done so? Is there a line drawn somewhere that one has to cross to be allowed to reference MacKenzie? If Tom knows of one, maybe he can tell us what it is.

As for the business of making replica courses and the marketing of them, I would just like to have Tom fill out a little more our understanding of why that "stinks". Maybe that is an unfair thing to ask. I don't know. But if it really does stink, then maybe selling photos of those golf holes in the form of calendars and marketing those famous courses at all through merchandise (with the courses' permission of course) stinks too. I think Tom is a good person to ask about this stuff because he has written about other courses and used diagrams of golf holes in his written work. I believe he has even sold some of that written work.

If I am being unfair in asking him to flush out his thoughts, I take back all my questions.

[Daniel Wexler]

Guest:

I think a pretty good number of readers know exactly why Tom is bothered by architects referencing MacKenzie when they themselves build courses that don't even wildly resemble the doctor's in terms of strategy, variety, aesthetics, etc.  

I'm not sure if there's "a line drawn somewhere that one has to cross" to reference MacKenzie, but considering that Tom has published a biography about the man and is, so far as I'm aware, the only person on earth who has seen every single one of MacKenzie's courses, I'm pretty certain he's crossed it.  I'm not too sure about some others, though...

With all those questions I was thinking that you might really be Pat Mucci.....but Pat's got the courage to always post under his own name.

DW

[Guest]

Daniel,

I find it odd that people here are making judgements about other human beings, in this case nameless golf designers, and what they may or may not know about building golf holes that reference classic golf designers. If a young photographer came to me and spoke glowingly about trying to make use of someone famous' style, I doubt that I would be as discouraging as Tom in his first post. But it sounds like whatever Tom Doak says is good enough for you. More power to you.

As for asking questions, well, Tom can answer them or ignore them. I didn't want to put words into Tom's mouth, so I asked him to explain what he meant by some of the things he was saying. They seem to me to be questions that are straight to the point and relavent to what he himself had written. Maybe I don't know my way around here, so maybe Tom is not supposed to ever be questioned like I have questioned him. Like I said, if I am somehow being unfair, I take all my questions back.

[Daniel Wexler]

Guest:

I can't speak for Tom -- obviously -- but what I believe he's objecting to is NOT an architect copying/learning from/feeding off the styles of the masters; it is the quoting of the MacKenzies, etc. in an effort to help sell their own work which, in reasonably objective eyes, bears little or no resemblance to the men they're quoting.

Tom, please correct me if I'm wrong.....

DW

[Patrick_Mucci]

Daniel Wexler,

I'm not "guest", but find it interesting that you would make that assumption based solely on an anonymous poster's use of interrogatories.

I don't view posting under one's name as courageous, I view it more in the light of personal responsibility and accountability, a mark of integrity.

[Michael Dugger]

Guest

You are blowing what he said out of proportion.  Let it rest.  

Mucci

You find it "interesting"  that so and so thought such and such about you.  Leave it alone.  This thread had enough controversy before you checked in.

  

[Guest]

Daniel,

Thanks for responding. Regarding these golf designers you mention, Tom's original quote in his first post said,

"Nearly every month now I pick up some magazine or other and read an interview with a golf course architect I've never heard of, who may or may not have ever built a golf course."

Well, what can I say? If he's never heard of these people, how can he or you or anyone judge what they know, what they are intending in their work, how well they are pulling it off, etc., etc.? Maybe Tom is assuming the worst, maybe he misspoke and he does know who these people are. Either way, why do you take disparaging comments about these people at face value?  And does it further this discussion or is it a bit quick to cast aside people copying golf holes/features who may be trying to further the game, at least as they see it? That's just a question. I would hate to see two standards for what is acceptable in golf design. One standard for the named designers, and one standard for those just starting out. It is a complicated issue, so rounding it out might be worth some time.

And the reason I ask about NGLA is that it would have been a shame if MacDonald had been discouraged from building holes that were meant to be copies (maybe not exact copies, but copies nonetheless) because someone told him at the time that it was in some way a "cop-out". I know that is a little different than exact replicas, but it is on the continuum.

[Guest]

mdugger,

Our posts crossed in cyberspace. I have said what I wanted to say. It was about fairness. I will do what you ask and let it rest.

[Guest 2]

This is very interesting.......

I think the "Guest" has hit a nerve when it comes to the idols of this website.....Mr. Doak, C and C, Mr. Shackleford, and the rest.

It is really funny how quick the "regulars" come to the defense of their people.  It is as if every idol's word or action is gold.

While I realize there are some brilliant ideas exchanged on this website, it is ignorant to quickly dismiss outside thoughts.

I admire the "Guest" for challenging Mr. Doak's opinion and hope there will be more in the future.

Without this type of discussion the GCA world is a dictatorship...well maybe it is anyways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!