Doak vs C&C

[Tim Pitner]

Among people who've played a fair sampling of Doak and C&C courses, respectively, do you prefer the style of one over the other and, if so, why?

[Steve_Roths]

At this point I would say Doak.  Just because he doesn't always use the same shaggy bunkers for every course.

[ed_getka]

I have played 3 from each and would say it is a toss-up. The C&C sites were all fantastic, and they did a pretty good job (Bandon Trails) to a world-class job (Sand Hills). The Doak sites I've seen were pretty good (High Point and Lost Dunes) to fantastic (Pacific Dunes). The work Tom did at High Point was pretty good as I remember (15 years ago). I remember liking the front 9 more than the back nine, but I hadn't learned as much about architecture back then to maybe appreciate the back nine. Lost Dunes was a pretty good job also, with some outstanding greens. Pacific Dunes is world class.
    I look forward to seeing more of both groups work, and I can't honestly say I would prefer to see one over the other.
I will be seeing a few more Doak courses in the next year so this may change.

[Scott_Burroughs]

At this point I would say Doak.  Just because he doesn't
always use the same shaggy bunkers for every course.

Since C&C apparently have the same shaggy bunkers at
every course, the supers at these courses need to be fired
for their appalling non-shagginess:

Warren Course:




Kapalua:

[Steve_Roths]

Well hell if you are going to actual proof to defend yourself what is the use argueing with you.  

I actually just wanted to get the ball rolling.  Man do I like those pictures of the Warren course.  I need to get out and see that soon.  

[Tim Pitner]

Perhaps my initial question--who do you prefer?--didn't set up a discussion very well.

I suppose I'm more interested in the differences in style between Doak and C&C, rather than people's preferences per se.  So, what are the differences?  I think it's fair to say that they're both in the minimalist camp, but clearly have different approaches.  

The only course I've played of either architect(s) is Pacific Dunes (although I'll be adding Bandon Trails and Sheep Ranch soon).  Of course, I've seen a lot of photos but don't have the first-hand experience that many of you do.  Thus, my question.

[George Pazin]

I wonder how many people could actually pass a blind test on who does what between the two, or with many architects, for that matter.

Does either really have a "style"? I've played one of each - The Rawls Course for Tom and Hidden Creek for C&C. I loved them both, would play either for the rest of my life not just gladly, but ecstatically, but they don't really fit any particular styles of other courses of either, at least judging by photos and TV.

Sure, Barnbougle and Pacific might have some visual similarities, but do they really look anything like Rawls, High Pointe, Cape Kidnappers, etc.?

The main visual similarity I see is that none have the clean pristine lines that is prevalent on many other courses. But I could say the same thing about some courses here in Pittsburgh that were designed by unknowns.

The biggest similarity to me between the 2 courses I've played is that each was damn fun, and somewhat difficult to lose a ball.

[Kirk Gill]

Of those who have played a number by both architects, would it be safe to say, generally speaking, that C&C tend to build up their greensites more than Mr. Doak?

[Robert Thompson]

All I will say is this -- when speaking with Bill about course's he most admired when we were in Alberta last week, he said that he always looks at sites and determines whether he thinks he and Ben could have built a course that is the equal of what is now there. With Pacific Dunes he said that would have been tough to say.
Interestingly, he said most architects would have screwed up the PacDunes site.

[PThomas]

Robert_ did Bill elaborate upon why he thought most would have screwed up the PD site?

[John Kirk]

I've played three courses by each architect.  If I had to identify a difference, I'd say C&C design fairways with gradual slopes.  Tom builds "rumpled" fairways in comparison.  That conclusion may be a function of the specific courses I've seen.

[George Pazin]

Further to Robert's point, Bill also told me a similar thing about Oakmont's greens.

What a humble man, for someone at the top of his profession.

[A_Clay_Man]

George,

It would appear I, and a few others, will soon be under the gun to compare BN to SH.
It's not an easy task and I'm sure my opinion will formulate better over time.

Recently someone posted pictures of Colorado GC, and from what I can tell the two crews have taken different tacts, stylistically, on these recent projects.

Likely, they are both results of their respective sites, but I suspect it could be more than that, and for someone more knowledgable, it should be quantifiable. At least someday.

[John Kirk]

John Kirk:

If you peruse the threads I think that you'll find a member
of this forum praising C & C for the "rumpled fairways at
Old Sandwich".  How does that fit in?

I'm just making an educated guess based on my limited exposure to their work.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I've played Sand Hills, Hidden Creek, and Bandon Trails.  Hidden Creek is very flat, and Bandon Trails is pretty flat in places.  I like rumpled fairways.  I enjoy the challenge of playing shots from uneven lies.  Sounds like Old Sandwich is my kind of place.

It's risky trying to stereotype either architect.  I'm sure each firm tries to do something a little (or a lot) different on every new course.  For instance, Chechessee Creek looks vastly different than any of the C&C courses I've played.

[ed_getka]

Tim,
   Tom Doak noted some things in a past thread in the last year, but I have no idea where. Perhaps one of the Bandon Trails threads from last summer.

Kirk,
   I think that the built up green thing may be one thing. One thing that was pointed out to me that I hadn't noticed was that C&C greens tend to relatively level side to side. I looked for this when I was at Bandon Trails and it seemed to be the case there. There is plenty of internal contour, sometimes subtle, sometimes bold. Of course, there are exceptions to any of these generalizations, because at Friar's Head one of my favorite holes, #5, and a few others have greens that are just an extension of the fairway.

[George Pazin]

From my exceptionally limited understanding, I'd guess the flat/rumpled fairway thing is strictly a function of the original site. It doesn't seem either does much to add or subtract from the land, in terms of fairway movement (with The Rawls Course being the obvious exception, as it is completely manufactured).

[Robert Thompson]

Robert_ did Bill elaborate upon why he thought most would have screwed up the PD site?

Not specifically, though he loved the greensites -- I recall him saying that. I was a more general observation -- I think what he was suggesting was that Tom did just about as good a job on the site as was possible, at least in Bill's estimation.

[TEPaul]

"Among people who've played a fair sampling of Doak and C&C courses, respectively, do you prefer the style of one over the other....."

NO

[Jason Blasberg]

At this point I would say Doak.  Just because he doesn't
always use the same shaggy bunkers for every course.

Since C&C apparently have the same shaggy bunkers at
every course, the supers at these courses need to be fired
for their appalling non-shagginess:

Warren Course:

Scott:  I've seen this bunker shape on numerous C&C courses, especially the ostensibly random edging work.  It gets repetative.  I've seen more variety in TD's bunkering work.    

[Bill_McBride]

I wish I hadn't forgotten to take my camera to Barton Creek, where I played the C&C course twice last week.  The greens were anything but built up or manufactured looking, and definitely were not level side to side.  In fact, they were just sprawled out across the natural slopes, as wonderfully natural as you can imagine, huge in most cases, with at least six or eight running front to back and pretty well sloped.  The Crenshaw Cliffside course was definitely walkable as well.

This course was a great contrast to the highly ranked Fazio course on the property that we played, the Canyons.  We didn't play the other course, Foothills, because it rained like crazy that day.  The Canyons course was absolutely unwalkable, with every tee elevated after a corkscrewish cart ride and a downhill tee shot in most cases.  As is often said here, it looked really good but didn't create any memorable impressions after a couple of very good holes.  The short par 4 14th is a dogleg left with a canyon wall at the far end before the turn, so you drive right at it.  This was gorgeous.

C&C vs Doak?  Who cares?  These are without exception great courses, challenging, lots of options, natural green sites, unforced, little building up, "minimalistic."  Hopefully running fast and firm.

How can you choose Pacific Dunes over Friars Head?  Apache Stronghold over Talking Stick North?  Well maybe.  But over Cuscowilla?  or Sand Hills which I haven't seen?  I think this is comparable to MacKenzie vs Tillinghast.  Just enjoy and be glad you have a chance to play them both!