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.


Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« on: May 24, 2005, 10:20:50 AM »
Today there are a number of well respected and well known architects who would be characterized as minimalists.  I would include, but not limit them, to Doak, Coore and Crenshaw, Hanse, etc.  The question I have is whether their respective work is distinguishable from each other and do they have certain characteristics which differentiate them from each other.  In other words, if one were to look at a course designed by one of these architects would there be certain features which are unique to that architect or would it be that if you were not told who did the work, would the only thing that you could say for sure was that one of them did it, but you could not definitely say which particular architect it was.  I do not mean to imply that each would have done the same thing with the property in question, but only that when looking at the completed project it would be hard to say certain characteristics of the course lead to the conclusion that it is architect X.

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2005, 10:57:47 AM »
Don't tell me I've the stumped the panel.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2005, 10:58:47 AM »
Jerry:

Absolutely we are different than each other, though I'm curious how many people here could really identify some of the differences.  I think I'll let others try before I give away any secrets.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2005, 11:21:48 AM »
I would say that Gil Hanse is more likely to create holes that border on the edge of playability for a medal score than the others mentioned here.  He also seems to create more "half par" holes than the others.  

For instance, I cannot imagine either Tom Doak or C&C leaving a crossing 3 foot stone wall 15 yards short of the green on the par five 11th at French Creek, or creating the crossing bunkers on nine at Inniscrone that effectively blind the approach to what was originally just a tidal wave of a sweeping green.  On the other hand, Gil sometimes also creates forced carries from the back tees that can be unplayable in a headwind (i.e. 11 French Creek, 18 Inniscrone) where I think the others would perhaps avoid those pieces of the property entirely.

Of course, some of this might have to do with the fact that Gil has worked some sites that I think the others mentioned here would likely have turned down.

I'll think more about the other architects and how they compare to each other, but it's a great question, Jerry.

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2005, 11:30:00 AM »
Let me try and get more specific and relate to another ongoing thread.  C & C built non-USGA greens at Hidden Creek and I must say that I really enjoyed them and I think in many instances, they would make a members' club far more enjoyable in the long run, but that is just me.  Have the other minimalists used these types of greens, and if not, do you think they would?

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2005, 11:37:25 AM »
Mike - Heck - I can't get over 11 from the back tees with a tailwind either!

But to me, I see a lot more similarities beteen Hanse and Doak than with either and C&C.  I love all three/four, but just prefer the Doak/Hanse "school" (don't shoot me!).

What I see with Doak or Hanse is more flow.  More whimsy.  More liklihood to take a risk.  Look at Cape Kidnappers - that's some serious risk, and it's apparently worked.  Look at the Udder Course at Stonewall  - whimsy.  Look at FC - lots of non-traditional risks.  But they all work for me.    Granted, they're not everybody's cup of tea, but they've won me over.

To me, C&C architecture is more subtle, but equaly effective.  

All are not the types to move a lot of dirt.

Lastly, since we're coming up on June, I'd love to see Tom/Gil/or Ben-Bill get a chance to work a US Open venue instead of Rees Jones.  Who knows - maybe it'll happen!

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2005, 11:39:33 AM »
Jerry:  You're not doing your homework.  Within the past week, I mentioned that I'm happy building non-USGA greens in good sandy soils, including Lost Dunes, Pacific Dunes, Barnbougle and Ballyneal.

It does bring up the interesting point of who are our biggest influences.  I believe that both Bill Coore and myself would point to Pete Dye and Ben Crenshaw as the top two.  Bill's third might be Dick Psolla, the agronomist who suggested he take a job as superintendent at Waterwood National ... Dick is as practical as they come and his take on USGA greens is very interesting.  I learned what little I know about agronomy from Walter Woods, Tom Mead and Dave Wilber, which isn't a bad combination either, but they're all a bit different so I don't believe there is only one right way to build things.

If Gil Hanse had ever worked for Pete Dye instead of just for me, I guarantee you his work would be different.

Jeff_Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2005, 11:43:11 AM »
I'll take a shot at this.  Are they even really minimalists or naturalists? Of course Sand Hills lent itself to "discovery" of holes rather than construction, but Bill Coore's description of Talking Stick's creation certainly implied nothing minimal or natural about those courses.

Most golf holes are artificial, perhaps what we like so much about these three groups is that they appreciate that fact, but still try to have things appear and feel as natural as possible. Also, as a group, they are probably more attuned to the idea of the player having options over the architects' dictating of shots.  

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2005, 11:44:16 AM »
You know Tom, if I had paid attention in school and done my homework I would have been a doctor instead of a lawyer and a member of some high end country club.  

Peter_Collins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2005, 11:56:49 AM »
This may be too obvious for this crowd, but C&C's craggy style bunkering is distinctive.  I think you can play Friar's Head, The Warren Course, and Chechesse Creek and tell they are from the same architect based on bunkering style despite the vastly different settings.   I have only played two Doak course (Rawls and Pac Dunes), but if I didn't know they were both Doak courses going in I don't think it would have occurred to me in a hundred years they were designed by the same guy.  

astavrides

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2005, 12:00:16 PM »
Could someone brief me on the purpose of using non-USGA greens?  I thought USGA greens would tend to make things firmer. But I guess if the soil already drains well, then USGA greens would be an added expense or hassle?  Are there aother reasons?
Thanks.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2005, 12:00:22 PM »
Peter:  I'm happy with that result.  Interestingly, Jim Urbina and Brian Slawnik both worked on Pacific Dunes and The Rawls Course ... but we were trying to make the bunkers look different.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2005, 12:26:55 PM »
Could someone brief me on the purpose of using non-USGA greens?  I thought USGA greens would tend to make things firmer. But I guess if the soil already drains well, then USGA greens would be an added expense or hassle?  Are there aother reasons?
Thanks.

I think Tom and Bill and others have mentioned that it is more difficult to achieve a really unique creative result with USGA greens, as they have to be more plan oriented, due to the various drainage layers.

Sorry if that doesn't make sense.... :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mike_Cirba

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2005, 01:36:58 PM »
Other differences I've noted; feel free to jump in and disagree because they are based on observed generalizations subject to interpretation and also based on what I believe is a fair sampling of courses from each;

I think Tom Doak strives to avoid being pigeonholed or stereotyped by the look of his courses, yet isn't always successful in achieving those course to course distinctions.

On the other hand and as I mentioned on another thread, I think that C&C run the risk of becoming a designer label.  In other words, I'm sensing too much of that rough and rugged look whether it translates well and naturally to a site or not.  Gil Hanse may be in a similar situation, although his restoration work shows real sensitivity to the original designer and therefore greater variety.

I think that C&C are the best of the bunch at using existing landforms to play into strategies from the tee, usually on a diagonal.  Such ploys effectively narrow the optimal target zone, yet remain playable for everyone.  Examples include such holes as 1, 16, and 18 at Sand Hills, where a drive landing on the correct (left) side of a slope turbo-boost forward towards the hole while shots drifting to the other side leave one in the fairway but at a disadvantage.  They may overdo this, particularly with holes favoring right to left ballflights.  ;) (inside joke to Tom D.)

I think Gil Hanse is the one most apt to introduce humor into a design, sometimes resulting in preposterously odd situations and shots and other times creating something inspired and playfully sublime.  C&C by contrast seem rather dour and quite serious-minded.  I think Tom Doak probably self-analyzes himself out of some of the more whimsical and happenstance possibilities of his courses.

I think Doak is the most philosophically pragmatic of the bunch, while C&C are the most dogmatic.  In other words, Doak will bend to create what he thinks is just another variety of course, or valid design approach, where C&C would probably walk first.  It wasn't always that way, though.

None of the group is above creating eye candy, although Doak seems most bothered by it and seems to be looking to revise his bunkering strategies and minimize their use.  C&C are probably the most like Fazio in worrying about appearances as a design consideration.  

I think it slightly bothers Doak that sometimes his courses are judged as not being true tests for the top 1% of golfers, while I get the sense that C&C could care less and Hanse generally makes his courses plenty hard from the tips, sometimes overly so requiring long carries.

Doak is more apt to use prevailing slopes as a feature of his greens while C&C focus more on creating internal contours.  Hanse's focus is more around the edges of his greens.

I'd personally like to see more randomness from all of them.  
 
I would add that they certainly share more similarlities than differences but I'm more apt to have adventurous fun while struggling on a Gil Hanse course, more apt to be in contemplative, cerebral appreciation on a C&C course, and more apt to be intrigued and inspired on a Tom Doak course.


« Last Edit: May 24, 2005, 01:48:26 PM by Mike_Cirba »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2005, 01:44:42 PM »
In other words, I'm sensing too much of that rough and rugged look whether it translates well and naturally to a site or not.

When does rough and rugged not fit?

One of the most pristine and sterile appearing courses - ANGC - looked better when it was a little rougher, IMHO.

I also like Hell Bunker and its many compatriots better when they were rougher a few decades ago. Curiously enough, it seems like the appearance of the bunkers at TOC varies quite a bit and quite frequently, if older photographs are any guide.

Note: the original question I ask is an honest question, not an attempt to criticise.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2005, 01:49:38 PM »
Mike: It's interesting that you view C & C as caring the least about how the top 1% view a course when Ben Crenshaw clearly is in that top 1%, and he must have at least some interest or concern of how his fellow professionals will view his work.  

Are there other designers out there who have done a significant number of minimalist designs that I have left out?  What about others who we do not view as minimalists who have done some work which can be characterized as minimalist.  When thinking of Fazio I view Galloway National as the closest I've seen of his work to minimalism.  

Mike_Cirba

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2005, 01:54:13 PM »
In other words, I'm sensing too much of that rough and rugged look whether it translates well and naturally to a site or not.

When does rough and rugged not fit?

One of the most pristine and sterile appearing courses - ANGC - looked better when it was a little rougher, IMHO.

I also like Hell Bunker and its many compatriots better when they were rougher a few decades ago. Curiously enough, it seems like the appearance of the bunkers at TOC varies quite a bit and quite frequently, if older photographs are any guide.

Note: the original question I ask is an honest question, not an attempt to criticise.

George,

Do you think rough and rugged would fit the landscape and vegetation at Oakmont, for instance?

Generally, I find it works best on sandy soil such as is found at Sand Hills and Friars Head.   I'm not sure it fits particularly well in a parkland environment.  

For instance, although I'm fond of the Heathland bunkering style at Hidden Creek, I think the property was begging for something more akin to Royal Melbourne type, cleaner bunkering.  There just isn't anything in the  immediate vicinity that occurs naturally that looks that abrupt.  

Interestingly, Steve Smyer's nearby Blue Heron Pines East has bunkering of this sort that I think works very well in those surroundings.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2005, 02:01:37 PM »
I'd also say that Tom Doak creates the best, most interesting, and most demanding approach shots of the group and often the right place to aim is not only not the flagstick, but sometimes not even the green.  

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #18 on: May 24, 2005, 02:03:11 PM »
I think rough and wooly (wolly?) would fit right in at Oakmont. There are plenty of bunkers that are somewhat that way already. The church pews were very rough during the Amateur, though I have heard they have switched to a lighter fescue to eliminate lost balls in the pews.

I think it works fine in parkland settings. Heck, I think it would look fine in Melbourne, too. Must be my own bias creeping in.... :)

Aren't the bunkers at Cuscowilla and Talking Stick somewhat different from HC/FH/BT/SH? They're certainly different at Kapalua, and really at the Warren Course at Notre Dame. Doesn't seem like a real risk of stereotyping to me - sounds like a risk of overgeneralizing on here! :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #19 on: May 24, 2005, 02:04:41 PM »
Mike: The bunkering at Four Streams in Maryland which Steve Smyers did has a definite rough and rugged feel in a parkland type setting although he did stay away from the huge waste type areas which probably would not have worked in the setting.  It does give the course a much more natural feel but they had to cut back the grasses around the bunkers as I believe it was causing play to slow quite a bit because it was nearly impossible to find your ball even though you were a few feet from the green.

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #20 on: May 24, 2005, 02:04:56 PM »
Mike Ciba wrote:
I would add that they certainly share more similarlities than differences but I'm more apt to have adventurous fun while struggling on a Gil Hanse course, more apt to be in contemplative, cerebral appreciation on a C&C course, and more apt to be intrigued and inspired on a Tom Doak course.


Wow - that sums it up for me.  Very well said!

Mike_Cirba

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #21 on: May 24, 2005, 02:12:09 PM »
George,

Some good points and I have to say I like what I saw with the pics of the Notre Dame course posted recently.  I do just think that all of them run the risk of becoming a patented look and I think that constant reinvention of one's art is one of the keys to true greatness and longevity.  

I love the wild and wooly bunker look as much as anyone, but I'm starting to see it becoming a bit cliched.  What's more, others in the field, even Hurdzan & Fry for crying out loud ;), are beginning to copy it.  

I like to see bunker styles that try to tie in to some of the unique natural features and landforms of each individual site.  Some times that might be pot bunkers, sometimes simple Ross-type designs, sometimes sprawling, etc....

Jerry,

I really need to get to Four Streams.  

Dan,

Thanks...glad you enjoyed.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2005, 02:26:35 PM »
If we're looking to throw other architects in here who work in a "naturalistic" approach, then I'd suggest we add Kelly Blake Moran, Mike DeVries, and others.

I'm just not sure that a broad spectrum of their courses have been seen by much of the group.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2005, 04:47:14 PM »
Just to add something else to think about i.e. differences: Routing.

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

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2005, 04:55:12 PM »
What I see with Doak or Hanse is more flow.  More whimsy.  More liklihood to take a risk.  

In my limited experience of Doak and Hanse's work, Lubbock and Rustic Canyon, I've found the opposite to be true.  I have found the C&C greens to be more whimsical.  There have been slightly manufactured components with the aim to create more fun.
The 15th at Cuscowilla and the 2nd at Hidden Creek.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2005, 04:56:09 PM by Mike_Nuzzo »
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back