[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I cannot think of anywhere in the world where three better courses actually touch each other. NGLA, Shinnicock and Sebonack. Each is great and belongs in the elite class of the very best courses on earth. However notwithstanding their proximity to each other, they could not be more different. Southampton GC is also touching and none too shabby either. I these courses make for the ultimate discussion forum on golf architecture.

[Tom Huckaby]

But Tiger.... wouldn't another way to look at this be that these four courses prove that architecture DOESN'T matter?  That is, the land is great there, so the courses are great.  Architecture makes them different, for sure... but the land makes them great.

Four great courses on absolute featureless land would more prove the worth of architecture, no?

Just more food for thought.  I know NOT touching great land too much is a huge achievement of architecture in and of itself....

TH

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom, 4 great courses on average land would be an achievment. However, one can build an average course on great land as well. I think the issue here is not the greatness per se but the different styles all finding a place at the top while sharing the same type of land. Shinny, NGLA and Sebonack have distinctive styles which have very little in common. Shinny and NGLA are viewed along with 4 or so other courses as the cream of American golf. I feel Sebonack and Friars Head will join Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes and a few others in the great new courses in America. Bandon Dunes has three great courses and each is unique, but they do not feel so totally different to me as the Long Island threesome.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tiger - concur - but what this proves then is more that architecture can and does make courses DIFFERENT, if that is the intent....

Oh well, it's a silly quibble.  But I thought that was the point here.

I will say this:  the Southampton area most definitely proves that architecture EXISTS, and that courses can come out very differently as done by different people.

But I doubt Doak is happy with you calling Bandon Dunes basically similar to Pacific Dunes, either.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

The "land" wasn't just there waiting to be cleared and seeded.
CBM altered the land at NGLA.

Remember, he duplicated to a degree, what became, template holes.  The redan, the short, the eden, the cape, the road hole, the bottle, the hog's back, the narrows, the alps, the leven, the punchbowl, the sahara.

These holes weren't laying there, waiting to be discovered, they were created, quite unnaturally.

Shinnecock is different, in the land and in the designs, original and amended.

Sebonack is unique and bears no resemblance to either of it's neighbors.

Southampton has a connection to NGLA even though the land is different ..... the designer.  Thus, the architecture is familiar because the brain of the designer was patterned, creatively.

One of the most interesting studies that reveals how the same land can yield credible, if not meritorious, diverse designs
is York CC, where both Flynn and Ross provided seperate designs over the same piece of property.

So, in the ultimate, it's not that the land yields a single design, or a general pro forma, but that man, through his creative efforts designs enormous variety by amending the land to suit his concepts.

Shadow Creek should have taught you that

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

I concur with all of that.

But you can't deny that's great land for golf, in general.

But anyway, that's not my point... or I guess my question.... which is this:

which GREATER shows that architecture matters:  Shadow Creek or the courses around Southampton?

TH

[Tom_Doak]

Tom H:

I have enormous respect for Shadow Creek.  But what it shows is that MONEY matters.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H:

I have enormous respect for Shadow Creek.  But what it shows is that MONEY matters.

Well said.  But change it to a certain course in Lubbock... which shows the greater architectural skill?

TH

[Geoffrey Childs]

Tom H:

I have enormous respect for Shadow Creek.  But what it shows is that MONEY matters.

BUNK!

Sorry Tom but you could not be more wrong on that one.  If you gave a monkey $100 million he could not build a course (or building) with architectural merit. Regardless of the merits of the design at Shadow Creek which I think is highly over rated it is not the amount of money put into the project that makes it good or bad.

Are the merits of Sand Hills changed because it was built so cheaply?

Is the >$1 billion  cost of each new world trade center tower going to factor into the merits of its architecture and its ability to fill in the manhattan skyline and serve as a tribute?

When you give a Doak score to a course is the amount of money spent to build it a factor in your evaluation?

[Tom Huckaby]

GC:

I doubt TD is saying money is ALL that matters.  But as great as Shadow Creek is - and I am one that defends it as great - they did spend pretty much limitlessly there.  For purposes of this discussion it might not be the best example.

Or at least that's all I agreed with.

 

[Geoffrey Childs]

GC:

I doubt TD is saying money is ALL that matters.  But as great as Shadow Creek is - and I am one that defends it as great - they did spend pretty much limitlessly there.  For purposes of this discussion it might not be the best example.

Or at least that's all I agreed with.

 

TOm - capatalized and in italics. MONEY No other cavats in that not so subtle dig on SC.

Would a monkey have done as well with the money as Tom Fazio?  Would you?

[Tom Huckaby]

GC - OK, fair enough.  TD can speak for himself.  But as to the topic at hand... well... I want to make the comparison more between the Rawls course and those in Southampton.  Which shows more that architecture does matter?

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby, Geoff & Tom,

One can't view Shadow Creek in the sole context of "money" without incorporating Yale and Lido into the equation.

I think all three projects speak to the creative mind of the architect.

Tom Huckaby,

I don't think you can make a comparison because the golf courses are so removed from each other, generationally, culturally and functionally.

All show that architecture matters.

It's the final product, the architecture and its inherent and enduring values that determines the merits of the golf course, not the land.

But, you're forgetting that Shinnecock was redesigned.
That some/many of the original holes no longer exist, and that the newer holes replaced the original holes.

Architecture trumps the land because architecture can and does alter the land, although the land, and today, the law, can combine to dictate the final product.

Don't forget about Tommy Naccarato's Sandpines and Gib Papazian's Spanish Bay.

According to them both courses sat on high quality land, yet the final product is mediocre

[Geoffrey Childs]

Tom Huckaby, Geoff & Tom,

One can't view Shadow Creek in the sole context of "money" without incorporating Yale and Lido into the equation.

Pat - why are you including me in that group.  I agree with you ( or you agree with me   ) and that's why I brought it up in the first place.  Evaluate what's in the ground.  We're not talking about best values in architecture for the money and a Doak score is not normalized for the budget of the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby, Geoff & Tom,

One can't view Shadow Creek in the sole context of "money" without incorporating Yale and Lido into the equation.

Pat - why are you including me in that group.  I agree with you ( or you agree with me   ) and that's why I brought it up in the first place.  

Evaluate what's in the ground.  

We're not talking about best values in architecture for the money and a Doak score is not normalized for the budget of the course.

Geoff,

It it was, Tom Doak would have to disqualify Sebonack, which wasn't developed on a shoestring budget.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Now of course I am likely going to regret typing this very soon after I push the post button... and lord knows someone might use it as a tagline....

But that makes great sense - and is very well said.  That clarifies things here quite well.

 

TH

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom oh Tom. You must be getting a bit touchy now that USC had to sqeak by Arizona after we beat them into submission. I said the courses at Bandon do not feel as different as the Long Islands ones relative to each other. I doubt Tom will be offended by this. He should feel great given he designed the best of the Bandon courses and now has his on mark on some of the most famous golf property in the world.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tiger:  I only speak about college football to fans of teams that are undefeated.  Did you say something?  Is Mucci piping up somewhere?  

Re the topic at hand, well.... I still wonder what Doak would say even now re your lumping Pacific in with others so Virginia cavalierly.  But re the rest, the sometimes-wise Mr. Mucci did straighten me out.  It is one of his duties.

 

[Carlyle Rood]

Tiger:  I only speak about college football to fans of teams that are undefeated.  Did you say something?

Quick!  Speak to me before UGA faces Tennessee this weekend.

[Lou_Duran]

The site doesn't mean much.  We are told that by Tom Fazio, and, some 20 years earlier, by the prolific Texas architect Ralph Plummer.  Bunk?  I think so.  When money and design talent are available, I do think that the surroundings might be more important than the actual site.  Would we be clamoring about Cypress Point if the same course was a couple of miles inland?  Would Torrey Pines be awarded a U.S. Open but for its ocean front location?

Except on a couple of things, I wish I was Tiger.  Tiger Bernhardt not Tiger Woods.  That guy sure gets around and in a most upscale way.

[Tom_Doak]

For God's sake, Geoff Childs.  I did put Shadow Creek in the front of The Confidential Guide and rated it a 9 on the Doak scale, and have taken a lot of heat for that over the years, even though I am promoting another architect's work in doing so.  And I never said anything about The Rawls Course above, nor have I ever suggested anywhere that it was better than Shadow Creek.

But Tom Fazio himself would tell you that if you have enough money, you can create anything, citing Shadow Creek as the greatest example.  I've heard him tell people that very thing, when they really wanted to hear how good their land was, and he wouldn't tell them.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Lou I think the Tiger with a W in his last name has it better. I am impressed you have a possitive cash flow wife.

[Geoffrey Childs]

For goodness sake Tom Doak. I did not bring up the Rawls course.  I have not seen it.  You can build something worthy out of nothing if you have money AND TALENT.  Your comment was certainly another one of those - I think the world of X's work at BUT comments.  That is the point and this thread is titled "Architecture does Matter" not "Waht is the relationship of a budget with the resulting architecture"  DO you give the budget a factor when you give a course a Doak score or is it the architecture that Matters?  

If someone gave you some ocean front marshy property and told you you had full environmental OK's and you had totally unlimited budget to build dykes, fill in marshes and build from scratch your ideal dream course that you think would be the best course in the world.  You spend $1 billion and fulfill your wildest expectations.  Then an architect competitor goes on GCA and says - Yes I have enormous respect for Tom Doak's dream course BUT it really shows what money can do. Would you think any monkey could do the same on your unlimited budget or was it your talent for golf course architecture?

[Geoffrey Childs]

Agreed -

As were Yale and LIDO in their day and with the technology available at that time. We don't hear what marvels of golf course architecture they are/were BUT comments about those two courses.

[Lou_Duran]

Tiger,

I count my blessings every day, even when Net cash coming in is a bit slower than that going out.  Nevertheless, the grass is always greener on the other side of the pasture, and playing CPC, PBGL, NGLA, Shinny, Sebonack, Friars Head, etc. turns me very dark in that shade of envy.

BTW, if you get to San Antonio, go play Briggs Ranch.  Ditto for Escondido in Marble Falls (Horseshoe Bay).  I know you are not big on Fazio, but both, I think, are excellent courses on nice but not outstanding sites.  Also, Boot Hill, Sutton's course just north of Fredericksburg, is very good.

Redanman,

What does Shadow Creek lack architecturally?  How do you compare it to Trump National in NJ?

Tom Doak,

Toot you own horn.  Please.  What rating would you give Rawls?  I sure hope enough raters have seen it to get on the Texas list.  I am going to try to make it back out there in November.  With the ongoing two year drought, I wonder if it has grown in properly.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()