Are modern architects over thinking the game...

[John Kavanaugh]

Will we never have another Pine Valley because of the modern concern that everybody enjoy a course...will we never see greens like at ANGC because of the knowledge of modern green speed potential.  Architects blame the lawyers for not taking chances, when they aren't blaming the bankers...Doak and C&C see all the great land that any classic architect ever laid foot on and yet nothing compares with the classics...whose fault is it if not the architects...

[Tim Bert]

Seems a bit unfair to say nothing compares to the classics when Sand Hills is listed by many here as their favorite course and Golf Magazine (I know, we hate the rankings!) puts it in the top 10 US and #11 worldwide.  Seems like you have to beat a lot of classics to get to that position.

With time, who is to say the course won't move higher?

I think you could make a similar case for Pacific Dunes.

Just picking these two courses as examples because you called out C&C and Doak.

[George Pazin]

I might agree with you if I thought for even one second that all architects are overly concerned with everyone enjoying their courses. Most just throw in a few short tees and figure they've done their job, as long as folks play the right tees. But, as I expressed on the other thread, the multiple tee theory doesn't fit high handicappers well for a lot of reasons.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I'd love to design a course one day without having to worry about the 20 handicapper.  I would never consider it my best work, but it would be great if that's what a client wanted to do ... it would let me do some things I haven't done elsewhere.

Pacific Dunes is ranked pretty highly and it's playable, too.  I wouldn't trade that playability for the #1 spot on the list.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

I don't understand your take on playability...I doubt if you would think Victoria National is as playable as you would like, and I just took my head estimator out to play a couple of days ago when he managed to play the last five holes in 46 strokes to smooth out a 125.  He had fun the whole way...why should he feel the need to break a hundred everytime out if he has fun.  He is a 17 handicap and we played from the 6300yd tees..but it was Dec 23rd and windy as hell.

[John Kavanaugh]

Having played Tobacco Road yesterday, I'm beginning to think that any course that is lined with native grasses is too tough for anyone above a 15 handicap.  

Tabacco Road is one of my favorite courses in the world, and my number one value, just because I seriously doubt if Mike Strantz over thought a single hole on that course.

[Adam_F_Collins]

... I just took my head estimator out to play a couple of days ago when he managed to play the last five holes in 46 strokes to smooth out a 125.  He had fun the whole way...

Sounds like an uncommonly easy-going person. Far from the norm. There aren't many people that enjoy shooting 125, as there are a lot of humbling moments in there...

[George Pazin]

I'd be surprised if Mike Strantz didn't overthink every hole on Tobacco Road (and I mean that in a good way), seeing as how he lived on the property for awhile.

Maybe your friend just enjoyed the company.

[Peter Pallotta]

John,
are golf architects over-thinking their designs? I think the answer is "yes, they are", and I think the reason for this is simple: TIME, or more properly, the LACK of time.

With so much expense involved, and with the demands of marketing/advertising/memberships so immediate and insistent, no one seems able to allow a golf course to evolve over years and years, and to slowly mature, and to find its own unique character, and to become - over TIME - a classic.  Instead, everyone seems determined (for better or worse) to design or to play a new course that has INSTANT maturity and character, i.e. one that has 'classic' built right into it, right from the beginning.

Under these conditions, of course there'll be overthinking involved. It isn't natural.

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

George,

Do you really believe that Strantz intended to create a course hard for the high handicap and easy for the low in a resort community.   Did he have a thing against the owners...It looks to me like he just went in there and built what felt good....You hardly ever think real hard about what makes you feel good.  note: I love Tabacco Road..

[Bruce Katona]

Guys: Talk to Archie Struthers who did Twisted Dune.  He built it for the better golfer (as he is one).  We are looking to add an additional set of tees as the markers go from 5,800 yards to 6,700 yards with nothing in between.  While the length is currently too much for the senior player, everyone loves the layout, green contouring, fairway width and the everpresent breeze, which makes the course play the way it does.

Twisted is not in the same caliber as PV, ut cetainly is an all around design which can be enjoyed(and played) by everyne.

[George Pazin]

John -

I don't think that's what he intended, and I don't think that's what he achieved. It's not that hard for a high handicapper - I got around just fine. (I must note that this was 5 years ago and I don't recall a lot of high grass anywhere. I hit into plenty of wasteland that it was relatively easy to play out of.)

I think Mike Strantz intended to build a course that looks really hard, and plays hard if you don't think, and much less so if you do.

He probably also expected it to play harder for low handicappers, because he probably didn't foresee the aerial drop and stop prov1/forgiving driver/rescue club synergy that allows low handicappers to play very conservatively off the tee and still have a wedge in his hand.

Bruce -

I hope I can play Twisted Dune someday soon. Many on the board have recommended it and I can't believe I haven't seen it yet.

[Scott Witter]

This is an interesting thought and I would generally agree with Peter P. Simply by their/our concerns for many countless and important issues, some of which Peter noted, and even Tom Doak would acknowledge, I don't see modern architects having the raw instinctive ability to make the type of decisions that the old dead guys did.  I'm not talking about on-site decisions, those are different and they certainly do happen today with many talented architects.  Much of difference between the modern architects "over thinking" and the dead guys simplified thought processes of course has been a direct result of societies ever-changing expectations, market demands, the growth of the game, the growth of the profession, the laws of liability, etc., the majority of which no one really had/has any control over.  With all things being equal, I believe the modern guys would love to work without a net, free of the many conditions placed upon them, their clients and the site.

But by-in-large, I don't see John K's question as a problem and who can blame the modern guys given the multitude of environmental, business and construction conditions placed upon them, even if some of them are getting the very best sites to work with.  I think the simple fact exists that there IS much more to consider and therefore it deserves more time during planning, design and construction.  We should all remember that we are also talking about a relatively small group of gifted architects from years ago.  There are more architects who practiced during that same time period who didn't do such "great" work.  Where do they fall in this discussion?

The obvious case may also be made that this is simply John K's opinion.  Hey great, discussion is fun, but who is to say that long after we are gone, future independently wealthy GCA wanna-bees won't sit around discussing GCA and say hey, you know that so-n-so architect... he was brilliant and he didn't even have to think about these cosmic particles like we have to.  Man, it must have been so easy back then!

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:  I don't understand what you said at all.  I know several golf course architects practicing today who have great instinctive ability.

John:  I may overthink everything because I'm there so much ... maybe I ought to take on five times as much work so I won't overthink it.  I can see your point to some degree, there is no question Sebonack was heavily overthought, but normally I don't mess up my own (or my associates') good instincts.

You are right that I did not find Victoria National as playable as I would like.  A smooth 125?  I'm just glad I wasn't playing behind you!

[Sean_A]

JOhn

I find this to be an odd question.  I think most courses are designed with a client in mind who in turn has customers in mind.  The architect is paid to get the details right.  Perhaps I am miss reading what overthinking is.

What I find interesting is the lack of very good courses which are minimal in design and expense.  Are there architects/clients out there who have the guts to build a Pennard-like course given a good to excellent property?  By Pennard-like I mean the rudimentary nature of the course.  Little bunkering, one water hole, very subtle contouring of greens.  In short allowing the lie of the land to totally dictate the design.  Cut out the wow factor of extravagent bunkering, USGA greens, fancy turf etc.  All items which people love, but which also increase the cost of the game.

Ciao

Sean

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

In America there seem to be no such minimalist clients (apart from The Sheep Ranch).  I have trouble convincing my clients they don't need to put in a $2 million irrigation system!

Then again not many of them have land as interesting in its own right as Pennard.

[Sean_A]

Tom

That is the rub.  Not many archies will even get the chance to build on Pennard-like land let alone have the property and a wet fish client.  

I must say that The Sheep Ranch sounds fascinating.

Ciao

Sean

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean

It sounds like what some of us want is one really dumb client (I'd qualify, except I don't have any money) and one really dumb architect: stick a few flag poles here and there, string them out in a line going out and coming back, and voila, everybody's happy. I'd join  

Peter

[Jim Thompson]

I think, depending on the relative golf density of a given area, more alternative golf courses are in the near future.  By alternative I mean not mainstream, not typical, and not similar to their pre-existing neighbors.  If I were to do a project in an area with a number of very similar clubs or a zone with many CCFD course, I'd certainly try to swing the design pendulum, either by style or difficulty or both, in dramatic fashion.  To be successful in this era a course will have to be different.  A players club a real test in a pool of playable tracks, a fast and firm golden brown gem in a patch of over green courses, or even a naturalist approach in an area of artificial ultra mowed competition.

In Michigan the influence of the Matthews family over the years has made many of the daily fee courses very similar and most of the privates really do blend together.  The playbook for design will change in the future and it will be good for golf.  I’m not so sure an architect can over think a course or a design provided he doesn’t do all of his thinking as he goes.  To think it through is to design it in a fashion that provides for the multiple levels of experience that are revealed in the 20th and 50th playing of a course.  I fear overworked land more than over thought design.  I think that associates probably help reign the temptation to over ornament the field of play more than they are given credit.

Cheers!
JT

[Tom_Doak]

Jim Thompson:

I'm curious about the very end of your post -- that associates help reign in the temptation to over ornament the field of play.  I would think it's just the opposite.  

On most of our projects we have lots of people out there looking around during construction -- the lead associate from my firm, other associates visiting or running the equipment, the client and his friends, and sometimes other architects or visiting dignitaries or even someone from GCA.  My experience is that when they make suggestions, nine times out of ten they suggest adding something to a hole (usually a bunker), not taking something away.

In fact, when someone does come out and suggests that we would do better to take a bunker away, I almost always take it away.  Mike Keiser did that once or twice at Pacific Dunes, which just goes to show how different of a client he was ... most of his suggestions for additions were alternate tees.

I do like your vision for the future, but I don't see many of our clients following suit on the brown or naturalist end of the scale.

[JLahrman]

Tom,

When you say that you are at a course 'so much' during the process, is this your due to your work style or is it due to the typical relationship you have with your client?  Reading a lot of your posts it seems that many of your clients want to roll up their sleeves with you.  Is all of this time at the course spent refining what you're trying to do, or is it spent working with the client?  Not that I would blame them necessarily: this will probably be the only course I'll build during my life, I've hired Mr. Hotshot Architect Tom Doak, I'm paying $X million for the course, etc.  Damn right I'm going to be on the site a lot, and for the money I'm paying Tom Doak is going to be at the site a lot too.

Let's say I hire you to build a course on a decent piece of land.  I tell you I'm never going to talk to you or visit the site while you build, you're the expert and I trust you and your team completely.  I'll also make sure that no GCA busybodies show up to take pictures of the future JAL CC.  It's only personnel you consider to be necessary.  I just want to show up two years (or whenever) from now and find a sweet course.  How much does the lack of client interaction cut down on your time at the site?

[Tom_Doak]

JAL:  Probably 80% of my time on site is spent working with the shapers and my associates, and walking around by myself to look at what we're doing and think about the design.

Over the years the total time spent on that has gone down considerably ... for the first 3-4 projects I was there every day, then less as I got more confident in what my associates would do while I was away.  I spend about 50 days on the road per course now, 30-35 of them after construction starts; but 5-10 of those are just traveling days, so it's really more like 25 days on site (all day) during the construction phase.

I have thought that I would continue to get more efficient at it but over the past couple of years I've hit a brick wall ... for any time that I save in my decision-making, I'm asked to put more time into meeting the members and visiting with the client and such.  It would be even more, but I'm pretty forward with the clients that I'm there to work and not to sit in meetings; I usually send my lead associate to the meeting and I stay out on site.  Even then, for Stone Eagle and Sebonack it was five days during construction, and another five days before they started, which is one of the reasons I'm charging higher fees now.

Still, a lot of it is necessary to the process, to build trust with the client so they will let me do what I think is right, and so they'll understand what I have built.  I would not want the client just to give us the money and come back two years later ... I've had a couple of jobs like that, and they are the worst-maintained courses of the bunch, because the owner does not love what they got.  If they're involved, they appreciate the course MUCH more.

[Scott Witter]

Hey to all and Tom:

Actually, I had a suspicion that some may not have at first understood my instinctive comment.. I wrote it quickly and didn't have time to reread before sending...so

I'll try to write it again, but hey no guarantees.  I guess I was trying to say that during the "old days" it seems to me at least, that "paper" design, (now I'm going to get flack about this) not the part of the design process that occurs during construction, which by the way is a considerable and essential part of modern talented architects, was looked at with a much simpler "eye"  It seems to have been created with a more straight-forward, free-thinking thought process with of course no where near as much concern, or distraction from all of the other issues as I noted before.  Sure, life and times were different in many respects especially during construction, but I believe the initial thoughts of design, before construction and also from the overall perspective, were much more free thinking...it simply happened (more instinctive) in the sense that they were unencumbered by so many outside, manmade mostly, influences.

Tom, I believe misunderstood my point from the perspective of decision making based on years of change (the game and societies) from say the 1920's and now.  My initial choice of words didn't say what I wanted... There is no question there are many talented architects with remarkable instinctive ability, maybe even some on this site, but I think it is foolish not to acknowledge that even they are influenced, more so now than years gone by, by all of the various obstacles discussed, such that in the end, they are at times "over thinking" their own design ideas and decisions and often weighing them against the impacts of the current development conditions.

Again, I don't think this is either good or bad, just a fact, for most architects, of doing GCA business today.  Clearly, some architects are better at it than others and they are able to "feel" their way in and around the issues to satisfy their egos and create solid golf experiences, and some are working with sites and in locations that don't infringe as much on the design process and therefore these projects are not seen or considered in the same light.

[Tom_Doak]

Okay, Scott, I understand better now.

Most of the distractions you cite are the result of projects which themselves introduce those other components, i.e., development golf projects.

Every architect who has been out to Stone Eagle so far has made some comment about the severity of some of the slopes in the grassed areas, or the rock around the edges of some of the bunkers, or the proximity of some holes with shared fairways, or the back tee on the ninth where you hit over the eighth green -- all of which generally fall into the category of safety issues.  They are quite taken aback when I say I wasn't too worried about those things, because it's just a members' golf course up there, and the members will learn their way around it and they'll be fine.

Those old architects simply relied on golfers' common sense far more than most architects will today.  Then again, they probably had good reason, there were fewer yahoos on the course back in those days.

The one modern issue that really cramps everybody's style is the subject of cart paths ... how to keep them hidden, how to keep them safe, etc.  That is way more of a brain cramp in design than most people realize, it pushes greens and tees farther apart, makes it difficult to have more than two parallel fairways, and on and on.  It's so much easier to design good golf when we get a client who doesn't want paths that I am now taking $50,000 off my fee for any client who agrees to a walking-dominated course with minimal paths -- just as GOLF DIGEST abandons its principles supporting walking, of course!

[Jim Thompson]

Tom,

To your credit, I think you are one of the exceptions to modern design.  I think the second sets of eyes serve best when they tell one that the field has become to cluttered.  Its easy to add, its hard to be simple.]

I think over adding and overthinking are two distinct things.  Adding/ornamenting is a negative while thinking/nuancing is a positive.

Cheers!

JT