When did Jim Engh stray?

[John_Conley]

I've had the pleasure of playing with both Jim Engh (serial lurker, never poster) and Jeff Brauer (our own Keff).  Great guys, each.

An interesting comment came from Brauer.  "Jim replaced me when I left Killian & Nugent."  Later he rattled off a half-dozen names of descendants on the family tree  and said something like, "that's where we all came from and we're all doing the same kind of work...it started at Killian and Nugent."

Ummmmm.  Okaaaayyy.  So what, Jim didn't get the memo?

This site was called - by one of its biggest fans - a "place where a bunch of guys think they know everything about architecture, even though they don't".  So with that, who cares to take a stab at answering this question?  I'll offer some of my own suggestions, read yours, then check in with Jim for an answer.  I should give him a call anyway just to say Hi and congratulate him on all these course openings.  Working hard, for sure.

If all the other disciples from the house of K&N wound up doing similar work, what led Jim Engh to break from the norm and become the provocative innovator he is today?

[John_Conley]

* The 70s had a different effect on some than others.
* The rugged topography of Colorado, where this Dakotan settled, didn't allow for the same approach.
* Nightmares of Indiana Jones and the asps makes everything look like a snake to Jim, including his fairways.
* If I can design a course that plays into my strength in driving the ball, I'll do it.
* Rare optical disease makes it impossible for him to see straight lines.
* Never liked anyone at Killian and Nugent anyway, so my life's work is designing courses like they don't.
* I'm just flat out more artistic than those drones.
* My inspiration comes from the great unknown courses of Ireland, can't you tell?
* Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever combined with Lyme Disease is a lethal cocktail.  Somehow I keep getting jobs.

[John_Conley]

I'm assuming this is obvious to all, but in case the tone gets lost in this forum, Jim and Jeff both seem like great guys to me and they - deservedly - have carved out nice careers in a competitive field.  However, their styles appear quite different to me.  This only bears mentioning because of their common apprenticeships.  For levity only, but I do hope to get the real answer from Engh now that I've learned of his background.

[T_MacWood]

Money?

My impression is Engh is more golf course sculpter than golf course architect. Isn't it expensive to move and mold ever square inch of a given site? I don't know....has he been blessed with budgets enabling him to hyper design each course?

[cary lichtenstein]

Tom:

Every architect is a sculpture of the land. Some prefer to move and sculpt more land than others.

Engh's work is artistic and challenging, my wife and I + another couple just returened from Redlands Mesa which required a 2+ hour drive each way for the day, and everyone so enjoyed themselves.

Again, Jim Engh's work is not for everybody, but I think you should go and play his courses and make that determination for yourself after playing.

Cary

[Mike Nuzzo]

His time with Joe Finger prior to K&N.

[John_Conley]

His time with Joe Finger prior to K&N.

Got it, Mike!  So each one of his courses is a case of him "giving golfers the Finger!" and not giving them the Killian or Nugent?

[Lou_Duran]

Is someone here suggesting that Brauer is a minimalist?

Cary is absolutely right.  Other than C & C, if money is available and the site is bland, who in the profession is loathe to move dirt ("sculpture") and spend it?

TMac, were Macdonald and Raynor golf "sculpters" or architects?  Is money really the root of all evil?  Or does it just facilitate self-expression for those who can get it (the money not the "it"), and perhaps just a touch of green from those who can't?

From my limited exposure to Engh's work, he's an architect of substance and we will hear much more from him.  No doubt that Mr. Finger's considerable knowledge and experience also had a positive impact.  Hopefully his project at Lake Oconee is moving forward and we will have another of his courses in a different environment to enjoy (and contrast).

Nuzzo-

Mr. Nelson had a bunch of good things to say about Mr. Finger.  He also reiterated that Riverhill is the one he would play if he could only play one course.  Unfortunately, he can't play any longer (93 years old) and he sold his home on the course just recently.

[John_Conley]

Is someone here suggesting that Brauer is a minimalist?

Lou, no.   Only that he and Engh are a study in contrast and not two marching to the beat of the same drummer.  I could have asked Jeff on Sunday but thought it would be more fun to do it here.  For the record, I saw Jeff's Indian Creek and Cowboys.  Ain't nothing minimal about those 3-putt greens at the Creek!

[T_MacWood]

Carry and Lou
Re-read my post. I simply answered the question posed in the first post. There was no judgement made of the bi-product of his sculpting, and no mention of money being the root of evil.

There are sculpters and there are sculpters....Engh is in class by himself regarding sculpting...every inch. If you fellows like that sort of thing...no worries. There are plently of men who prefer their women enchanced by silicon, collagen and bleach. Who is to say they are wrong.

Regarding Raynor and Macdoanld, no doubt they were creators, but IMO their greatest strength was routing a golf course to maximize the site's natural advantages...very few did it better.

With modern technology and relatively a large budgets...there are fewer physical constraints, which is the reason some believe the art of routing has taken a fall.

[John_Conley]

Tom:

Thought I'd share this with you.  My epic thread about my trip to DFW was lost, so nobody got to read about my tour of the breast implant manufacturing facility.

Silicon is an element on the periodic table.  Symbol Si, it is a  metal powder.  It is "made" by combining sand (SiO2) with Carbon and introducing heat.  The burn releases CO2 and you are left with Si.

From there it is used to become a compound similar to rubber cement that can be used to fill implants.  You meant to say silicone.  Learned a lot at the tour and this is probably more than you care to know!

[T_MacWood]

No, I meant Silicon. There is a little known cult, located just outside San Jose, who prefer their women enchanced by Silicon...the National Geographic Brotherhood.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Lou,
My comment about Mr. Finger was intened to be a good one.
I read John's comments about straying as it was a good thing.
His technical ability, whether you like his craft or not, certainly is excellent.

His drawing techniques look similar to Ken's and Baxter's, a little more regular, but still similar.

I don't know to what extent their relationship had meaning, but thought I'd throw it out for good measure.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Always love the subtle putdowns you throw forward ... "There are plently of men who prefer their women enchanced by silicon, collagen and bleach. Who is to say they are wrong."
Quick question -- have you ever played a Jim Engh course or do you simply call upon your "gift" of analysis simply from the looking of aerials and the like and then pontificating from your favorite position -- the couch.

The botton line on a number of Engh designs is that the "fun" element is usually front and center. Engh designs golf courses that allow people to enjoy the fullness of what a site can provide.

I have opined that in a few cases Engh does overdose the containment mounding concept by his putting surfaces -- see Redlands Mesa and one or two at Pradera as clear examples. ditto Lakota Canyon Ranch.

On the flip side Engh specializes in providing for the daring go-for-broke par-5's and his par-3's do specialize in many cases on superior ball placement - ergo the 3rd at Lakota Canyon, 3rd at Hawktree, and the 15th at Pradera, to name just three.

I will have the opportunity shortly to play both Tullymore and True North in MI and will be interested in seeing how Engh does beyond the confines of the Colorado landscape.

However, those who fail to see what Engh does provide need to get their eyes checked because while his style may not be the pure "classical" style that the high priests here on GCA see as the "only one true way" he has successfully brought forward a number of early designs that keep you coming back from more and more of the fun so many of them provide.

If the spirit of any golf course drives the player to return then the architect has indeed done well.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
Sorry. I didn't realize Jim Engh and artificially enhanced women were such soar subjects with you. All the heavy lifting has made you grumpy.

I'll try to avoid opining on these subjects in the future....in fact I'll try to avoid all opining. You are without question the opining champion.

Engh sounds like loads of fun...we will all be waiting for your report on Tullymore and True North. Great stuff.

What do you call a tree Engh uses to frame a green at Tullymore?

O'Pine.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

You opine from the seat of your pants -- please skip the usuall BS tap dance and answer the question posed previously -- have you ever played a Jim Engh designed course or is your assessment of his work simply from your "gift" analysis via the home couch?

Tom -- frankly you have a "gift" in talking out of your butt. Your primary claim to fame is whether or not some old time architect slept by the tree when course X was designed. Stay with the ancient history lessons -- and skip the contemporary analysis because frankly it's comical in its silly pursuits of the truth or anything close to it.

I never opined that Engh is bulletproof but for certain select members of the "one way only design school thought" that invades the mines of narrow minded folks here on GCA I can say Engh provides a vision for golf design that is fun to play and rarely boring. He doesn't hit home runs with each design and frankly no one else does either.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I'm not aware of any architects who slept under trees...sleeping in gutters or sleeping with other's wives...thats another story...at the same time!

What are you babbling about now...who said there was only one way to build or design a golf course? Variety is the spice of life.

Did I say you thought Engh was 'bulletproof'? I have no idea what you think...if you love him, hate him or think he is cute. I stopped reading your golf course reviews a couple of years ago.

You really should channel your anger in a more positive way....may I sugggest picking up a book from time to time...in between opining sessions. You appear to have unhealthy attitude toward history....did you suffer an embarrasing childhood experience with a book or worse, a historian?

I simply said Engh was more golf course scultpter than golf course architect because of his obvious inclination to mold nearly every inch. Is that offensive to you?

Opine on that.

[PThomas]

Matt - I think the "fun" factor you raised is an important one....perhaps we call it other things here -- strategic choices can certainly make for fun on a golf course -  but golf should be fun as well as challenging, etc

[Anthony_Nysse]

Play Tullymore in Stanwood, MI last week-Can't wait to play True North in Harbor Springs, MI  this fall and also see his new course at Reynolds Plantation in GA-Why is Jim Engh so good-He's doing stuff that NO ONE else is doing...visually apealing to all and he isn't afraid to push the envelope-He presents holes with options off the tee, options in the approach shots....not just blast away and go chase it...Jim is doong some great stuff and doens't always need the best land to do it. He has a little, and I mean very little, bit of the old Nicklaus in him in his boldness-Muirfield, Glen Abbly, Shoal Creek Castle Pines (Without the mowing patterns ) and Valahlla

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Matt_Ward]

Tom "I will duck any direct questions in the pursuit of more inane babble and verbal dodge ball" MacWood:

Frankly, your main contribution to GCA is if architect "X" drank whiskey bottle "Q" before falling down the stairs and remembering where the bunker should be on a course that no longer exists. History is important -- but up-to-date offerings need to come from direct experiences which conveniently you always seem to lack. Why is that you suppose?

Tom -- you handle the Shell Answer Man bit quite well -- you are the Professor Irwin Corey of GCA -- the world's foremost authority on times long since removed. Just a bit of a suggestion -- how bout catching up to more modern times?

Truth be told Tom -- you didn't answer my question on whether you have played ANY Jim Engh courses. Of course -- that's the standard operating MacWood MO. Throwing forward the subtle putdowns on silicone type courses and inferring them as the only mechanism of design that Engh is capable in producing. What a neat ability and lazy ability.

How do you possibly draw any conclusions about someone's work without ever playing their courses? Of course -- how I can think that such an opportunity in playing someone's work even matters to you.

The Great Oz -- also known as MacWood -- simply pontificates behind the great curtain. Guess what Tom -- the Oz exposed behind the curtain was nothing more than a fraud.

P.S. Let me enlighten you on a few thoughts from the more than half dozen Engh courses I have personally played. Yes, he does provide his share of containment mounding -- the use of which can be a bit repetitive around green sites and I have opined on such. However, given the rugged nature of the sites Engh has worked with -- particularly in Colorado he has done well in getting courses to be fully functional and in a number of cases quite imaginative in their overall routing and shot value demands. When you say he works every inch -- you make it sound like he digs up the entire site and doesn't allow certain natural holes to come to being. Clearly untrue in a number of instances -- of course -- how would you know you have not played any of his courses to say otherwise. You see Tom -- that's what I take a strong dislike for -- the idea that people can tag architects with a neat sound bite or spin and then never own up to the fact that such a tag comes from a person more familiar with their living room couch than the actual playing of the courses by the said architect.  

I have no idea how you throw forward your "point" that Engh is more sculptor and less architect. Another MacWood putdown -- the reality is that Engh is a very capable and successful architect. He is not in the mold of the preferred certain few here on GCA but his courses do provide for a range of fun for all handicap levels and they never bore you. In my mind -- the preceding sentence speaks to his qualities as an architect.

 

[T_MacWood]

Do you feel better now? Could you point to any negative comment I have made about Engh or any of his designs? You just blew a gasket for no good reason. I suggest you cut back on your caffine intake.

Who in modern golf architecture molds the ground more than Engh?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom --

See the work of Doak at The Rawls Course -- the idea that only "certain" architects mold and move land around is lunacy. The same can be said for a number of modern architects today. The sites they face often will require a good bit of "sculpturing" (your word not mine) as well as good ole architectural skill. I don't differentiate the way you do because you have failed to define the words with actual modern course case studies.

Once again -- the MacWood MO is never to answer a direct question. Got to hand it to you Tom -- you are even better than Clinton on verbal dodge ball.

Tom -- you apply tags to people / courses, etc, etc. You then throw forward the term "sculpture" and I see that clearly a perjorative term because you see it as less than being an architect. You then use the term silicone as another backhanded way to denigrate Engh designs across the board. It's the broadbrush mechanism that you do so well. It's as if silicone is always bad and that the "natural" is always better.

I asked you -- over and over and over again -- have you any firsthand accounts with ANY Engh courses? I'm still waiting for the direct answer my Ohio chum.

Tom -- I don't drink coffee -- I just can't see how a person who is so profound and studious on old time historical elements takes such a dim view of modern course design by Engh and others. You see Tom -- the clock reads 2005 not -- 1905.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
Architects have been molding the ground for a long long time...guys like Banks and MacKenzie....no need to have an automatically negative reaction to the term or the idea.

Who in modern golf architecture molds the ground more than Engh?

[John_Conley]

Why is Jim Engh so good-He's doing stuff that NO ONE else is doing...visually apealing to all and he isn't afraid to push the envelope-He presents holes with options off the tee, options in the approach shots....not just blast away and go chase it...

I said this made him innovative and it was challenged.  DMoriarty said others are doing the same.  I asked who, didn't get a response.

DM, if you are out there... can you give me some names please!!  Thanks.

[Tom_Doak]

Those who speculate that Jim Engh spends a lot of money with his style of design are, I think, largely mistaken ... he's kept the costs down by often building things narrow, so the savings in irrigation pretty much cancel out any additional earthmoving costs.  (He doesn't build courses which are impossibly long either, which also saves money.)  And you can't really blame him that much of his work is in the Rocky Mountains, where the extra costs of dealing with rock and drainage problems and low rainfall climates are a given for any designer.

However, Matt, the fact that I've built a couple of courses (out of 25) where we moved a lot of earth around, doesn't really prove anything about my style of design other than it's not too easy to peg.  In contrast, has Jim Engh done a course where he didn't move much earth around?  (None of the four I've seen would qualify, but I've only seen four, so it's an honest question.)

I will be curious to see what he builds on those nine new holes at Carne.