Should a tough championship caliber design....

[TEPaul]

....be in every real well recognized golf architect's career inventory before their career is done?

Which of the good architects had one or some and which of the good ones never really did?

[Dan Kelly]

Not if his (or, or course, her) other-than-tough-championship-caliber designs are of the highest quality.

[wsmorrison]

Good question, Tom.  Ideally, if I were an architect, I'd like to have a variety of courses in the portfolio, particularly including championship caliber courses.

Flynn, compared to his overall output had a fairly high proportion of his courses in the tough championship caliber.  This would include:

Shinnecock Hills
Mill Road Farm
Boca Raton South
Cascades
Huntingdon Valley
Lancaster
Rolling Green
The Country Club, Brookline (design and redesign)
Merion (design and redesign)
Eagles Mere (New Course)
Opa Locka

That's about 11 of 52 designs and 20 redesigns of varying degrees.

[Tom_Doak]

Dr. MacKenzie waited until the very end of his career to do one, at Augusta National.  I guess Royal Melbourne should qualify as well, although there are a couple of people on this web site who think otherwise.

But I don't think it's a prerequisite to being a great designer.  If that's not what your clients are after, then building a tough championship course is not really a job well done.  And if you never have a client who wants that, why is that any reflection on one's ability?

[Matt_Ward]

I take a different slant from Tom Doak.

In the totality of an architect's work I believe having the fullest array of different course types is what separates one architect from say another. At the end of the day the person with the most complete portfolio will have established the greatest case for their ability to design the fullest range of layouts.

Many architects simply spit out the same formulaic design pattern time after time because the clients and business work in tandem for such courses. A good argument can be made such a situation applies to Tom Fazio, Inc. (with noted exceptions).

No doubt -- if an architect doesn't have clients opting in a certain direction the probability of someone designing such courses may be limited -- if nonexistent. Nonetheless, IMHO, you can't simply dismiss those architects who have such designs within their collective works.

Other architects may be skilled at designing certain type of courses and it's possible others shy away from doing other courses outside their immediate skill / familiarity range. Clearly, a personal matter as much as anything.

An architect with the greatest range is akin to the baseball player who can run, throw, hit and hit with power. Plenty of ball players can do one or two or even three of the aforementioned items. Few can do all of them. The same, IMHO, applies to architects.

[wsmorrison]

Matt,

It was extremely difficult to follow what you are trying to say.

Let me pose you this question.  If a baseball player could run as well as anyone, throw efficiently and hit for average, leading the league on one or more ocassions, but did not hit with power; in other words was a prototypical lead-off hitter (so he was asked to get on base, make the pitcher throw a lot of pitches and steal) and led the league in put outs every year, wouldn't he be a hall of famer even though he didn't hit for power?

In any service field you can only do what is asked of you with what you have to work with.  

Forgive me, but I think I'll take Tom Doak's stance over yours.  Here's another sports analogy.  If Tom Doak were as good at quarterbacking as he is at designing golf courses, I think I'd ask him about winning a superbowl.  You, I'd ask how good the beer is in the stadium

[ian]

Tom P,

No, a tough championship course may be a great test without being a great golf course.

Aronomick comes to mind. A great test of your ability to hit shots and stay focused, a course that applies unrelenting pressure on your game. There are very few holes that excite you or that you anticipate, it is a course where you knuckle down and play. The course is so stern and consistant that it blends one hole into the other until you are left unsure which hole was which. It is simply unmemorable......but a true championship test.

Who didn't? Stanley Thompson, from what I can tell, has never talked about creating a championship course. Has Bill Coore? The last two times I talked to him the subject was the (lost?) design element called fun.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul,

Like Wayne Morrison, I'd have to side with Tom Doak.

If clients aren't looking for a "championship" test, why would we ever hold that against the architect?

Besides, I can't imagine why anyone would place so much priority on testing a small elite group of players - maybe once every ten years - than creating enjoyment for the 99%.

Over emphasis on testing elite players is a problem today. We certainly wouldn't want to make the problem worse by suggesting to architects that we'll think less of them if their focus is where it should be.....on the 99%.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

Interesting what you say, particularly about Aronimink. It doesn't seem like some of the so-called new "renaissance" guys today are all that interested in doing a so-callled "championship" design although some of them seem more than a little interested in how a tour pro or really good player fares on one of their courses. Was this type of thing something that the "Golden Age" had greater interest in while golf architecture was in more of a developmental stage?

Who was the last architect to dedicatedly do this kind of design successfully? Was it Pete Dye? He sure seemed interested in designing occasionally for the "championship" crowd---he seemed to almost humorously delight in it.

PVGC was surely not designed for the everyday player and was not supposed to even be for him. One may also forget that in the architecture world back then PVGC was controversial among some architects (as undemocratic). Would it be if something like it was built today for today's game?

[T_MacWood]

When digging through the history of golf architecture, for whatever reason, the idea of a championship calibre design has never struck me as all that important. I know I've seen the term used throughout history, on both sides of the Atlantic (and elsewhere), but rarely was it an emphatic point with most architects.

Thompson and Coore are good examples. Doak? MacKenzie is another good example...was even Augusta National designed as "championship" caliber test? Tom Simpson? Macdonald's NGLA was intended to be an ideal golf course, is that synonimous with "championship"?

When I hear the term championship design I think demanding, straightforward, fair, and often dull.

[Dan Kelly]

Let me pose you this question.  If a baseball player could run as well as anyone, throw efficiently and hit for average, leading the league on one or more ocassions, but did not hit with power; in other words was a prototypical lead-off hitter (so he was asked to get on base, make the pitcher throw a lot of pitches and steal) and led the league in put outs every year, wouldn't he be a hall of famer even though he didn't hit for power?

Only if he played center field for the Phillies.  

[TEPaul]

I don't think there's any question ANGC was designed and built as a championship test golf course. It was a unique model of one for sure but I don't think there's any question that was one of its real purposes. A club would probably never follow its opening with a tournament like the Masters unless that was in the back of the principles' minds. The same can probably be said for Pinehurst #2 as well. Is there any doubt that in some way the one may have inspired the other. Tracking various courses as frequent championship venues is probably a pretty clear indicator of what was intended as well.

PVGC and its Crump Cup
HVGC and its Lynnwood Hall
Baltusrol
Merion East
Oakland Hills
Pebble Beach
Riviera
Winged Foot
Where was the Western held for many years?
and probably a number of others I can't think of.
I've even heard a couple of old pros mention the CC of Cleveland as an intentional championship test. Perhaps even the Cascades too.

[wsmorrison]

I'm that transparent, huh Dan?

Well, I don't think you have to be all things in a given field (or on a given field) to be considered a success--even a hall of famer  

I think that a tough championship caliber design doesn't necessitate being straightforward or often dull and it doesn't mean it can't be a course that is enjoyable for lesser players.  The best courses can provide a broad spectrum experience.  People knock Shinnecock Hills as brutal and they would find it tough to play on a regular basis.  I don't get that at all.

If I were an architect, I would like to create something that is all things for all calibers of players...sort of the unreachable star, but hey it would be a glorious quest.

Interestingly, as difficult as Pine Valley is for high handicappers, they love it, don't they?  I know it is true of the overall experience--it is a marvelous place, but I also mean the actual golf experience as well.  I think that it completes most player's golf dreams.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I think when Augusta National opened, the press went to great lengths to point out what a great test of golf it was for the best players but also how great it was for hackers.  I'll have to dig up the NYTimes article that trumpeted the course.  I sent Bobsy Crosby a copy.  He's been studying this lately, maybe he'll see this and give us his take.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

I don't think there's any question that Jones contemplated that ANGC could be for the "everyman" golfer too. I've never read much by Jones about the course but it seems like he mentioned that more than once in one way or another.

[Dan Kelly]

I very often analogize golf course architecture (of which I know a little) to writing (of which I know quite a little). Here's what I see as the essential truth about both of them (and most other creative fields, I suspect): They are both crafts, in which artistry is possible.

I can't see why a GCA would need to have done every sort of course to be considered great, any more than a writer must have written in every genre to be considered great.

Is E.B. White any less a writer because he didn't write The Great American Novel? Is Hemingway not one of the greats -- because his poetry is nonexistent (so far as I know!)? Is Eugene O'Neill to be dismissed because he left us no musical comedies?

[TEPaul]

Dan Kelly (R)

Very fine point using analogies of types of writers to golf architects. However, GCA always seems somewhat eely when comparing it to other art forms. Attempts to contrast it to other art forms may be a better way to look at it. Perhaps the primary reason it may be better to constrast it to other art forms is simply the uniqueness of GCA's medium. What other art or design form has such a medium as golf course architecture does?

[les_claytor]

What makes Augusta so great is that it tests the scratch player while being very playable for the handicap player.

I love to hear Pete Dye talk about "John Q Public" aka: the average player, and designing to help "John Q" get around.  Tour caliber players really play such a different game that a design can challenge a scratch players game, while allowing ample opprotunity for John Q to get around.

Championship caliber tests also have quite a bit to do with course setup.  

[Tom_Doak]

I do think it would be interesting to see what I could do on a true championship course.  My sense is that it would be easy to do a course that is testing for the Tour pros, as long as you don't worry about making it fun for the average golfer the rest of the year.  But I would want to accomplish both, and that will be very hard with today's conditions.

I'm sure Sebonack is strong enough to fulfill the former requirement.  Jack and I have different ways of making the course testing for a good player, and we've put them all together in that course.  I just hope it's still fun for the members.

But I don't need to prove anything to anyone except myself.  

[T_MacWood]

MacKenzie and Jones' goal at ANGC was to:

1. Give pleasure to the greatest possible number of players

2. Require strategic thought as well as skill

3. It must give the average player a chance, while requiring the utmost of the expert

4. All natural features must be preserved

If you read Jones' thoughts on golf architecture at the time, he was quite critical of the stereotypical "championship" standard which emphasized mechanical accuracy and length above thought. ANGC was the antithesis the "championship" design.

Was the primary focus at ANGC the membership or championship considerations?

[EAF]

Robert Moses told Tillinghast to build a tough course when he was hired to design the Black Course at Bethpage. So he built a championship caliber course that is difficult, yet fair for all but the high handicap players. The course is not boring. Part of the interest when playing the course is the difficulty of overcoming the challenges presented.

I have been lucky to play a half dozen "championship courses" and have found that difficult greens and approach shots cause many situations where bogey is a good score for average players. I like a course that protects par even when it is not set up for a tournament.

For an an architect to be considered for greatness, he must design at least one course that could host a major championship and test the best players.

[JESII]

I got the distinct impression from Tom's initial post that his question was more geared towards establishing an architects versatility than it was in determining his 'greatness'. Tom, please correct me if I'm wrong. This question seems an obvious evolution of thought from the statements Bill Coore made the other day about why their team selects its next project, and what their career goals are in terms of work location and design style.

Would anyone argue that an architect that built strictly "championship" courses was great because he built "championship" courses. If he created multiple style courses that, like Augusta or Shinnecock, were also great courses for its membership then "greatness" could be applied.

Versatility is the key to this I believe.

[TEPaul]

"Was the primary focus at ANGC the membership or championship considerations?"

Tom MacWood:

What do you think? The answer certainly lies in the clubs history as it relates to the Master tournament don't you think? The answer obviously is it was both and right from the git-go!

That's very likely the real brilliance and genius of the design of that particular golf course. It was essentially designed and patterned after the basic strategic intent of TOC. Did it look the same as TOC? Not even close, and that's so much of the interest of it. It's essentially the same basic strategic make-up as the old course but in a fruit tree farm in Georgia> But in play it was supposed to accomplish basically the same result---end result that is. ANGC was a highly strategic course patterned on the theme of TOC of true variation of golfer's choice off the tee but with absolutely none of TOC's potential tee shot penality. That right there is remarkable difference from TOC but nevertheless Jones and MacKenzie could see it could accomplish the same basic design intent and strategic intent. Why? Because both course's are perhaps the best "green backwards" courses ever known. And the fascination of the course and the brilliance of it is Jones and Mackenzie figured out and understood how to do it at ANGC with no direct penalty on tee shots alone with tremendous unencumbered fairway width (very few fairway bunkers unlike TOC).  It completly picked up on the brilliance of the "greens backward" essence of TOC but in a totally different "through the green" way.

Was ANGC intended to be a "championship" design? Probably about the same way TOC was always considered a "championship" design. Could both also accomodate the less good golfer? Of course they could and brilliantly---ANGC originally perhaps even better than the great Old Course herself.

And then over time Roberts and others began to dilute and minimize that original strategic brilliance of ANGC. Did Jones appreciate that? Apparently not!

[JESII]

And then over time Roberts and others began to dilute and minimize that original strategic brilliance of ANGC. Did Jones appreciate that? Apparently not!

Tom,

Please expand, if possible.

[BCrosby]

Ian/TEP -

I continue to be baffled why people think Aronimink is a slog. The front nine is as memorable and as good a nine holes as any designed by Ross anywhere. 3, 4, 5 are great holes. I love the short 7th. The 8th is a doozy of a long par 3.

What holes there tend to blend together? Yes, it is a hard, yes it plays long, yes it is unrelenting. Ideally they might have a couple more par 5's. The 17th could use a restoration. But a boring slog?

On ANGC:

The key to the view of MacK/Jones about ANGC is their view of TOC.

They believed that the greatness of TOC was predicated on its being both a great championship venue and a great hacker's course.

That was the design challenge they took on ANGC. If it failed either of those tests, it flunked. It was the key to their view of "strategic." It was to be the home course of the greatest golfer in the world (and his Walker Cup buddies) and titans of industry who couldn't hit it out of their shadows. So it had to cover a lot of bases. And it did.

The whole point of the original design at ANGC (and RM too I suspect) was to make the distinction between a champioship track and an enjoyable members' course irrelevant.

In the decades following it's opening (and as the startling popularity of the Masters began to dominate the thinking of people running ANGC), changes were introduced that reduced the playability of the course for hackers in favor of creating more challenges for world class players. (See changes at 7, 10, 11 and 16.) But that is another story.  

I think the same test ought to apply to modern designs. The best of them ought to make the distinction between "championship" venue and a members' course irrelevant.

That's not easy to do and very few pull it off. Most architects today seem to think that such courses are separate animals. Even worse, the USGA's setups operate from a philosphical assumption that such things do not and can not co-exist in the same course.

Bob