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.


Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #100 on: November 10, 2010, 12:45:03 PM »
Even from the aerial picture of Dunkerque, most of the holes there look like they would appear and play like fairly normal golf holes from ground level.  It doesn't strike me as all that out of line with the course that keep a cluster of bunkers in a shape that suggests a bear's paw, or a letter, or have tees in the shapes of card suits. It's a little gimmicky, but it adds visual interest without bothering the golf, really.

michael damico

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #101 on: November 10, 2010, 07:19:06 PM »
P.S.  I do think collaboration is the most likely source of innovation.  But I think the key to it will be for a great golf architect to collaborate with someone from another field, who doesn't understand golf well enough to mute themselves from suggesting something that the golf course architect could run with.


Tom,

off the top of your head, what professions do you have in mind? Have you ever heard of James Corner (LA) by chance?
"without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible"
                                                                -fz

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #102 on: November 10, 2010, 08:06:21 PM »
P.S.  I do think collaboration is the most likely source of innovation.  But I think the key to it will be for a great golf architect to collaborate with someone from another field, who doesn't understand golf well enough to mute themselves from suggesting something that the golf course architect could run with.


Tom,

off the top of your head, what professions do you have in mind? Have you ever heard of James Corner (LA) by chance?

Michael,

Is that COMER or CORNER ?  My eyes aren't what they used to be.  But I have not heard of him before now, either way.

As to your other question, a landscape architect or planner would probably be the most likely, as they are often involved with other parts of a large project which includes a golf course.  In fact, there is a landscape architect involved in our project in Spain, who showed me drawings of a project he is doing with Kyle Phillips in Morocco, which might fit the profile ... he insisted that the water features on the course be shaped like those in a formal Moroccan garden.  I'm not sure if the finished project is going to be cool or crazy, but it's sure outside the box. 

michael damico

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #103 on: November 10, 2010, 10:03:47 PM »
P.S.  I do think collaboration is the most likely source of innovation.  But I think the key to it will be for a great golf architect to collaborate with someone from another field, who doesn't understand golf well enough to mute themselves from suggesting something that the golf course architect could run with.


Tom,

off the top of your head, what professions do you have in mind? Have you ever heard of James Corner (LA) by chance?

Michael,

Is that COMER or CORNER ?  My eyes aren't what they used to be.  But I have not heard of him before now, either way.

As to your other question, a landscape architect or planner would probably be the most likely, as they are often involved with other parts of a large project which includes a golf course.  In fact, there is a landscape architect involved in our project in Spain, who showed me drawings of a project he is doing with Kyle Phillips in Morocco, which might fit the profile ... he insisted that the water features on the course be shaped like those in a formal Moroccan garden.  I'm not sure if the finished project is going to be cool or crazy, but it's sure outside the box. 

CORNER. He has his own, firm Field Operations and has (co)written a couple books.
"without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible"
                                                                -fz

Chip Gaskins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #104 on: November 10, 2010, 10:13:46 PM »


The Cupp Course on Hilton Head was considered pretty radical when it debuted in the early 90's.

So how come this Cupp Course's lines/features look absurd with their square geometry while Raynor's look/play fantastic? 

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Where can we go?
« Reply #105 on: April 23, 2011, 09:45:09 AM »
I'm going to flip my switch from curmudgeonly 27 year old to hopeless idealistic 27 year old for this post.

I don't believe we've even begun to broach the surface of possibility as it pertains to golf architecture. Golf has, and will always have, the advantage that it is one of the most rudimentary simple games devised by man at its axiomatic level; Basically, start at Point A, stroke ball until reaching Point B.

For the golf architect, all that is needed is a Point A and Point B.

Thought #1: The Golfer's imagination is both his best and worst enemy. How can the golf course influence this duality?)
Thought #2: Economy of Hazards (how many shots can one bunker influence?)
Thought #3: Economy of Space (Is there any course in the world with more golf per unit area than St. Andrews? What lessons remain to be learned from "the mothership?").
Thought #4: Framing, and the treachery of the heights of cut.
Thought #5: The treachery of perspective
Thought #6: Discontinuity and the golf hole, using null space

If there's sufficient interest I'll take the time to explain my thoughts on the above further. I see plenty of fertile ground.

I think the stagnation comes from the art being set to one paradigm for a century or so and perhaps the art has reached a critical sample size of minds.

Kyle, I'd like to hear you expound on these principles. 

The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright