Has GCA become just a website for devotees of minimialism?

[Tom_Doak]

Mike and Paul:  Don't let me hear you guys say again that "they aren't passing out great sites like they used to" or I will have to slap you back to your senses.  It sounds too much like an excuse.

Ross and Tillinghast didn't get many great sites ... they got good sites unencumbered by stupid development plans, and they had clients who put the golf course as their first priority.  Honestly, I've had a bunch of sites now that were as good as anything Ross ever got to work on.

I would agree with you that there are a lot of sites where you can't build a golf course without moving (some) dirt around ... the sum of the (some) being a matter of interpretation.  And when I take a job on one of those sites, people here don't know how to react; some want to call me a hypocrite, others try to redefine "minimalism" to include moving 800,000 cubic yards on a flat site.  

The truth is simply that I won't be put in a box and that different approaches are valid for different sites ... but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to hire a certain architect for a certain site.  I hope you guys don't get stereotyped either.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I agree. I have gotten some great sites over the years.

I have to ask the rather delicate question, in light of your response, and the pictures of Stone Eagle -

Do you find your work tending a bit more to the mainstream, now that you have worked on sites in different climates?  It seems your work is getting "cleaner" or more sophisticated all the time, a process I also noted that Pete Dye went through.
I guess we all go through it, but when you get famous for a scruffier style, it may be more noticeable.

I suspect minimalism is very possible in the Midwest where you had your first projects, impossible in Lubbock, TX and especially Palm Desert, given the artifical irrigation required, grass types, and perhaps the "clean look" expectations of the Owner, who is trying to attract a bunch of rich, nearly retired guys who don't have much game to join.

[George Pazin]

With all due respect, Jeff, wouldn't the course have to grow in a bit more before we can speculate on the look?

Besides, no architect really does anything other than what the client wants, at least according to some on here....

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

Fair enough. Its possible that the bunkers will have wispy edges, although I know it won't be in fescues, as would be done in the NE or Mid west.

Still a fair question in my mind......

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
Yes, there are still many good sites and we have had and have some now....But developers can create some issues where they step on their weenie with some of these sites....all because they wish to "enhance" it.
Bob,
I thought you liked my spanker jokes.  Plus, I can only be around bright, diverse, intelligent people for a few minutes and then my brain overheats.  And then when you make me eat at a place where they drink carrot juice.....well.....

[Mike_Young]

Tom D,
I guess a good example of "today sites" was in another thread where someone was comparing Century Club to Hudson National.  IMHO there is no comparison and that is not a knock on the architect.  Myself, I did not find HN that condusive to minimalst golf.  BUT..it does not mean I did not appreciate the efforts made by the architect in placing the course on that property.  But the course had to be placed not found whereas Century was found.  JMO

[paul cowley]

 TomD.....far from being an excuse or even a lament, what I am trying to say is that truly good minimal sites are hard to find, and probably always were......but I'm of the 'what nature doesn't necessarily provide I have no problem trying to make up for' school of golf design...I enjoy the challenge of creating something on a site that has little to offer.

  I have noticed  that some designers best work is directly related to the quality of the site, or put another way, if the site doesn't have much that they can react to, they don't rise to the inventive challenge......they need some existing features or landforms to play off of to create their best work. The more minimal the site, the more minimal the results.

...this is not a critisism, but just a recognition of different design approaches, with my reference to Shadow Creek being the opposite extreme.

[SL_Solow]

Returning to the original question, I think it is indisputable that the majority of the posters prefer a particular style.  I hesitate to call it minimalism since so many enjoy the work of CBM and Raynor.  They could hardly be classified as minimalists.  Rather I think that there are a number of characteristics that are preferred.  Generally the majority on this site favor courses that feature width thereby creating options.  Undulating greens are in vogue.  Natural looking features with an absence of obvious containment are favored.  Notwithstanding the professed aversion to "eye candy" interesting bunker work is prized.  However, within this general consensus there is plenty of room for debate and there are others who subscribe to Tom Paul's "great big world" theory holding that a variety of styles can be made to work.  In the end, all we are really expressing is which "style" produces the best playing fields for golf.  Our preferences are shaped by our respective  concepts of how the game should be played.  Those who believe the course should be a strict examination of powerful and accurate ball striking ('far and sure' or the USGA tournament set up) may favor tight driving courses with considerable length.  Others may care less abouit testing the "good player" off the tee and choose to create more of the test on and around the green leaving the less powerful more chances to get around while still giving the long straight hitter an advantage.  But the preferred style is, in the end, less a function of "how" the course was built (eg the amount of dirt moved) and more a function of the way it plays.  Those who can create natural looking features that are interesting to play will be favored regardless of their technique.  I submit that the reason certain architects, both past and present, are preferred to others is that they consistently meet this test.  This is not to suggest that others do not meet the standard from time to time.  If we are truly interested in understanding this discipline we should strive to better understand what makes a design interesting while keeping an open mind in evaluating courses.  It may be that some of the less favored architects may build something great and one of the favorites may mess one up.  When that happens, we should say so and explain the differences from the norm.  Finally, no one should be afraid to express their opinion but, by the same token, they should not be offended when challenged.  The challenges are how we test each others' ideas.  When somebody goes over the top on the criticism it is usually noticed and if it goes on for too long the offending party is shouted down.  But honest opinions fairly presented and well supported are always welcome.

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

It's true that some architects do not do so well with duller sites ... I think it is perceived that we would not, since we rarely get calls about potential jobs in the "lowcountry" or in Florida.  (Eventually, I will seek to prove this wrong.)  Then again, that could just be because my name is not perceived to sell flat housing pads.

Jeff B:

I don't think my work is getting more "mainstream," although it's possible the mainstream is getting more like my work.  The main change in my approach is that at High Pointe I said I would err on the side of doing too little rather than too much; nowadays, of course, I am not supposed to talk of erring at all.

High Pointe and The Legends and Black Forest were not extremely scruffy courses:  they were different mostly because of their green complexes and (at Black Forest) for a set of wild bunkers that is "de rigeur" today.  My wild greens are getting a little milder now because of modern green speeds, but we still build plenty of wild ones compared to anyone else I can think of.

I don't know that Stone Eagle could be described as having a "clean" look -- many of the bunkers have their outside edges defined by rock and desert, but we do not intend to have much long grass anywhere as that would look weird in the desert (though, admittedly, so does green grass).  The client's main input was that we needed to make it extra-wide in order to keep it playable for their member profile -- 225 to 300 feet of grass in the landing area of most holes.  I cheated that down a bit, but that is the main reason why few courses in Palm Desert are named among the classics ... good players think they are too wide open.

PS  We have talked about throwing a little fescue seed around the edges of the course with the winter overseed, to break up the clean lines where the maintained turf bleeds into the desert.  Just my way of messing with the establishment.

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

Just out of curiosity, who has ceased posting due to the supposed pressures inflicted by the rest of us? Most of the people I recall leaving were due to personal reasons/conflicts.

Was this a trick question???  Because I guess in answering this it is a self-fulfilling prophecy as I now have posted, so technically am not some one who "has ceased posting".  

I still post from time to time, but nothing like I used to because I have neither the time or desire to face or answer back to the loads of crap that anyone who would have the audacity to like styles other than minimalist get on this site.  I now visit this site a couple times a week rather than the couple times a day that I used to, and it is for this exact reason.   However I am a right-wing conservative and as such I dont complain or boycott something  that I dont like.  I just take my business elsewhere like all good capitalists do.  However this thread title lured me in because it was exactly what has caused me to loose interest over the last 6mo -1 year.

I went on a great trip a couple weeks back through MI/WI/IN/OH and saw some great places:  Kingsley Club, Crystal Downs, Bucks Run, True North, Greywalls, Green Bay CC, Blackwolf Run, Whistling Straights (2), The Bog, Brickyard Crossing, Windy Knoll, NCR, and Kinsale CC.  

But I didnt post anything.  One because doing a good post with some pictures takes a lot of time, and I was pretty sure that most on here would probably not enjoy many of the courses that I did on that tour.  And they certainly wouldnt have agreed with many of my thoughts on the courses.  Now I am not saying that everyone should agree with me, I am not complaining, I am just answering your questions.  I for one have for the most part just taken to going on my merry way instead of fighting the fight upstream around here.

Again I have no problem with what most people do on here, why should I think that people should change for me.  I am posting this because someone asked.  Just know that the bias towards certain styles and especially certain architects (or more accurately the bias against certain styles and certain architects) on here is one hell of a turn-off for many people.  Unfortunately many of which I am sure you will never hear from because they simply have gone elsewhere.

Now I have to go outside and mow the lawn before it gets so hot here that the lawn furniture starts to melt.

[Brent Hutto]

Daryl,

For what it's worth I would certainly enjoy the heck out of a writeup (especially with photos!) of any one of the courses you name. Part of the problem you face in this environment is that the dozens of people who learn something from a detailed writeup like that, even if they disagree with some part of the opinions you express, is that they're not likely to post much of a reply. Maybe a "nice writeup" comment or a followup question on one or two details but nothing to compare with the shitstorm that can be generated if your thread gets hijacked by one of the kneejerk sniping contests that are common around here.

So I hear you. If putting a lot of work into a detailed and thoughtful photo essay and then risking it being buried in a mountain of bloody-minded gibberish is aversive to you, it makes sense as you say to take your business elsewhere. Yet another example of a tragedy of the commons, IMO.

[RJ_Daley]

Daryl, I for one have always enjoyed your write-ups and you have shared some great photos.  Remember, a lot of us live vicariously through the travels of a fellow like you.  I particularly liked your write-up and photos of that West Virginia out off the beaten path (Gun Flint?) or some such name.

But I wish you wouldn't feel that if you take the time to post and do pictures, that if someone has a different take, even a strong opinion contrary, that it is a put down of your efforts.  When I do a long essay on a course, like I did with Sutton Bay, I expect to have plenty of different opinions.  I don't even mind if they use the photos, or even critique the quality of the photos themselves.  I really don't think we will learn or see much with just backslapping "atta boys" where nothing is seen to be different, superior in quality, or inferior.  

[paul cowley]

 Daryl... I too have always enjoyed your un-biased and un-filtered reports which led me to contact you directly....so let those damn lawn chairs melt and get back to something you do well......p :Dul

[PThomas]

Daryl -- I echo the sentiments of the prior three posts:  let's hear about your trip!

[Mike_Young]

Daryl,
I always like looking at pictures more than reading....so show me some..

[Jeff Fortson]

I'm just going to jump in here.

I think a course should be judged individually and not pre-judged by who designed it (it's hard to do but necessary to be truly critical).

I can say that I look forward to playing a MacKenzie course or a Tillinghast because I have enjoyed every single one of theirs that I have played.  In contrast I am not as pumped up to go play a Ted Robinson course because most of my past experiences with his courseshave been negative.

I have liked at least one design of every architect I have played.  However, I tend to favor designs that I enjoy and I feel move golf in the right direction.

Basically, if cornered into an umbrella of thought I'd consider myself a follower of "minimalism".  I think many people that frequent this sight are just passionate about what they think is good for golf as a whole and tend to be overzealous in their approach to promoting their side.  I happen to do so myself occasionally.  

There is room for any belief or position here in relation to GCA, just don't expect everyone or anyone to agree with you.  



Jeff F.

[cary lichtenstein]

Daryl:

Do the write ups...Do the write ups

Cary aka Quasssi

[Matt_Ward]

Cary:

To get back to what you raised initially -- some people on GCA prefer the same type of course (meal) all the time everytime with no deviations. I like to sample a wider variety of courses but still enjoy the ones often mentioned here.

Sometimes the stridency of those who believe in their own mind that they alone "get it" is really disconcerting.

Like I said before -- the desire sometimes mirrors the same MO demonstrated by the mullahs over in Iraq & Iran. These folks see their understanding of golf course design as the "one true way" -- all others need to open their eyes to how they see things.

Turboe:

Your comments hit home to me. You play plenty of places and even when I disagree with you (a minor amount of times) I know you keep an open mind to a wider variety of courses than many here.

[Pat Brockwell]

One of the best things about golf is that no two courses are the same.  Embrace diversity.  

[paul cowley]

...Daryl, I have to admit your melting furniture has been much on my mind today....I thought Columbia was blow torch city, not Greenwood...anyway I thought of something useful that might help.
 Right before hurricane evac down where I live, I throw anything that I don't want blowing around or thru something in the pool ...... it occured to me that right before your outdoor furniture starts to melt you should just throw it in a pool.
....this would not only save the chairs but also let you go inside and work on your golf reports where it is cool....what do you think?

[wsmorrison]

"Like I said before -- the desire sometimes mirrors the same MO demonstrated by the mullahs over in Iraq & Iran. These folks see their understanding of golf course design as the "one true way" -- all others need to open their eyes to how they see things. "

Why do you keep repeating yourself?  Who are you trying to convince?  It is a shameful comparison you are foolish enough to make over and over.

"Sometimes the stridency of those who believe in their own mind that they alone "get it" is really disconcerting."

You practice exactly what you disrespect in others.  Its just that you don't see it because it is occluded by your ego.  Your criterion for accepting an ability to evaluate a golf course is the number of courses seen.  Believe this if you will since you obvioulsy need some validation, but it is erroneous.

[THuckaby2]

Hi Guys:

Just had to chime in and say there's no way Jim is a Huckaby wannabe as no one would want that title.  If anything I am a Crusty-wannabe.
 

In any case, let's just say Sweeney has me right - after the debate about #4 Sand Hills and the created build-up of that green, damn right my take was "who cares - it's a gorgeous hole requiring a damn good shot to find the green."

And that's basically all that matters to me.  Minimalist?  Sure, this process has lead to a lot of great new courses, and great old courses.  But the result, not the process, is all I care about.

So I love a lot of golf courses.

Bottom line re this thread though is that Shivas is right... and anyone who's followed this forum for any length of time and tries to deny it is just fooling himself.

TH

[Jeff Fortson]

Saying that one needs to play MANY courses over and over to be a qualified critic or authority on GCA is like saying that one needs to throw up their steak dinner and eat it again to be qualified as a critic of the meal they just ate.  Many architects' works are not that unique of their other works.  It's like eating at MacDonalds.  A BigMac is a BigMac, no matter what MacDonald's you are eating at.  Yes, playing many courses can be helpful in forming opinions but, IMHO, it is not the standard by which one's opinions become more important or respected.

There are occasional exceptions, but the playing of an excrutiatingly large amount of courses is not that impressive to me.  Those that use this angle generally can't back up their opinions in any other way so they throw the, "I've played more courses than you so I REALLY know."  It's a total smokescreen for their inability to describe what they saw.  They seem to think the notches on their belts are more important than the experiences they actually had and that the vast number of courses they have played provide them with greater insight than anyone else.  If you want to talk about GCA than talk about GCA, not about the number of courses you have played.

Let me put it this way, with few exceptions, I know what I am in for when I go play a Fazio or Nicklaus design.  This won't stop me from playing more of their courses and I am sure there will be an occasional surprise.  I have enjoyed courses from both architects and disliked some as well.    However, when I tee it up I have a good idea of the strategy that I will be confronted with, the bunker shaping, and the overall feeling of the course before I hit my first shot.  Call me narrow-minded if you like, but I consider my opinion to be honest and observant.


Jeff F.

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,

Holding all other things equal, depth and breadth of experience is very important.  I've played a number of Nicklaus and Fazio courses that bear little resemblence to some of their other work.  Perhaps you're prescient, but seldom have I gone to a new course and felt that I knew all I needed to know after playing one or two holes.

In reality, most people who play golf go through a ranking process of sorts.  We all have our favorite courses, though I would be the first to agree that other factors besides the architecture often come in to play.  It just makes sense to me that if you play many courses and quite a bit of golf, that you are able to make better comparisons.

This does not mean that one should use a wider resume as a way to shout-down an opponent in a debate.  However, if I know that Matt Ward has played 40 Fazio courses, and a large majority of the courses in the top 100 of the various lists, I would take his comments on the subject more seriously than that of a guy who's played 4 or 5, and maybe 10% of "America's Best".

[wsmorrison]

"However, if I know that Matt Ward has played 40 Fazio courses, and a large majority of the courses in the top 100 of the various lists, I would take his comments on the subject more seriously than that of a guy who's played 4 or 5, and maybe 10% of "America's Best"."

Here's another case.  What if that fellow had the architectural eye of someone far more skilled than Matt Ward?  What if that guy was Tom Doak, Ron Prichard, Ron Forse, Mike Young, Bobby Weed, John Fought or Geoff Shackelford?
   
The point I'd like to make  is that in and of itself, seeing numerous courses is meaningless.  

For example, let us say that Matt Ward has seen/played 2000 different courses and Tom Paul has seen/played 300.  But of those 300 he's seen/studied/played each at least ten times, some hundreds.  Included is a laborious study of the evolutionary history and architectural drawings.  Whose comments would you find more useful in an analysis of a course such as Merion East?  Matt Ward who has been there a few times under a few different conditions and can therefore only superficially compare it to 2000 courses or Tom Paul who has played it hundreds of times in competition, walked and studied the course and entire archives for hundreds of hours?  What added value does Matt bring to the table?  Tom may not be able to rank it against the same number of courses (a complete waste of time) but he sure can comment on the playabiltiy and architectural insights a heck of a lot better than Matt Ward.  Maybe you don't find that comprehensive understanding as interesting as I do.  Some would rather see a Matt Ward ranking of New Jersey courses.

What if the course under consideration has been played/walked (more likely played) by Matt Ward twice and played by myself 200 times.  Is Matt by default (due to the number of courses he's seen) capable of a better analysis and understanding than I am?  I doubt it.  Can he compare it to 2000 other courses?  Yes, but only dependent upon his skill set which is not at all demonstrated to my satisfaction.   And of what value is this?

In Matt Ward's case he can see all he wants but that doesn't automatically confer aposteriori knowledge.  Matt Ward is wrong when he considers, a priori, that someone with a fewer number of courses seen is less capable of an informed understanding of a specific course than he is.  Rankings be damned.

There is a way to prove this.  Let's bring Matt along with Tom Paul, Pat Mucci, Mike Cirba or a number of others to a course neither has seen before and have them write up a detailed account of the architecture of the course.  I think we'd all learn a lot about the meaning of quantity versus quality of experience.