[Mark_Fine]

I played a new course the other day located on the East Coast.  Clearly the architect was trying to do something different and unique but he tried way too hard to pull it off.  My three playing partners thought it was way over the top and though they missed many of the clever design aspects that were present, they were right – it was way over the top.  

Can anyone else cite examples of this out there?  In the case I mentioned above, it was like the architect was trying to do everything we talk about on this site and wrap it all into one golf course.  I give an A for effort but a C- for over execution.  I suspect the course will be toned down over the coming years or it will fall out of favor fast.  

I used to think Mike Strantz sometimes tried too hard but he often (but not always) pulled it off.  He was and always will be one of my favorite new designers.  So sad he is gone.  

[Mike Nuzzo]

I thought what is wrong with almost all modern architecture was as a result of trying too hard...

[Mark_Fine]

Interesting observation Mike.  In some ways, I would have thought the opposite - not enough effort or just a tendency to keep doing the same thing over and over with a slightly different cosmetic.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

I believe that architects attempt to be creative.

Whether they try too hard and force the design and features is another question.

If it's a good feature, they get praised, if it fails, they get bombed.

If an architect doesn't try to be creative, bland architecture might be the final product.

Being bold could be a virtue.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I think your premise may tend to hold true for resort courses or high end public courses.
Competition is tough and architects can be forced to create 18 signature holes at the behest of the owner.

How often that request is made I don't know.  Maybe some of the architects can respsond.  

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mark,
Yes, I agree there is a comfort zone and sameness once they have achieved a niche.  The trying to hard part happened when finding that niche.

Over shaping, over bunkering, over water features...

Were runway tees inovative?

[TaylorA]

I think Patrick is right on the money here, except I would say that being bold is a virtue.

Bold has given us its share of bombs, but more often than not have given us winners. Bland architecture can still bomb, but it certainly does not give very many winners.

[G Jones]

I think that a lot of architects tho seem to confuse creativity with cosmetics. There are plenty of courses with fairly straight edged fairways (no unnecessary craziness, no ameoba edges unless there is a reason for them) such as Muirfield (uk), which are architecturally great and have unique holes. However I think a lot of modern designs go for crazy fairway and green shapes, and crazy holes, when a bit of subtlety and a collection of 18 well thought out holes would be much better than 18 holes that are all trying to be classics.

It isn't the look, or boldness of the design style that makes a course great or bland... it's the small things - the green complexes and cleverly placed frugally used bunkers - that make a course great. People too often seem to be so busy trying to make the next Pine Valley that they get carried away.

Mark,

I believe that architects attempt to be creative.

Whether they try too hard and force the design and features is another question.

If it's a good feature, they get praised, if it fails, they get bombed.

If an architect doesn't try to be creative, bland architecture might be the final product.

Being bold could be a virtue.

[Chris Cupit]

I think the Engh course (The Creek Club) in GA might be a case of this.  I toured the property and at first thought that it was really cool that someone would try something so unique and different.

But, by the end of the round there was an amazing "sameness" to the entire course that left me very ambivalent about it.  The three greens for the 18th hole kinda topped it off as "trying too hard" as well.

[Tom_Doak]

Absolutely.

Unfortunately, subtlety and restraint are sometimes seen as "bland" by people who don't appreciate architecture, so there is a tendency for many designers to overdo things.

The hardest part about working with a great site is knowing that you are working on something that could be great, and finding the right balance of subtlety and wow! to pull it off.

On lesser sites, overdoing things is not such a crime, because there was little chance the course was going to be great anyway.

[wsmorrison]

Chris,

In a post yesterday, I said that it appeared Engh was trying too hard at The Creek .  I am not surprised that you (and others) see it the same way.

Tom Doak,

What sort of client or project is willing to go with subtle design features rather than an in-your-face kind of design?  I would think public or private need to make a splash to get members or guests.  Maybe subtle only works when you have arrived as a name architect and can lead the clients/market in a direction.  I guess both design styles can lead to great courses, but one is harder to "get" and requires a longer learning curve.  That isn't something an investor is comfortable with.

Some of the classic era architects that plied more subtle designs don't seem to get the accolades that the bolder architects got.  No reason to believe the same isn't true today.  There is a tendency in America to believe the more you pay (for construction or architect fees) the more you get.  I don't believe this for a minute, but that is likely a minority opinion.

By the way, I think MacKenzie over-bunkered (he seemed to frame a great many greens with mounds and bunkers behind greens) and I think Tillinghast did on occasion, with Bethpage Black being a clear example.  

Mark, why do you hesitate to mention the name of the course?  Are you up for membership in the ASGCA?  

[John Shimp]

I think The Creek Club at Reynolds Plantation images
shared the other day were an example of an architect
trying to hard to be creative -- in this case Jim Engh.

[Kirk Gill]

For each course that is built that could be considered the result of an architect trying too hard, or going too far, how many courses are built that could be considered the result of an architect going through the motions, repeating what they and others have done countless times?

[jim_lewis]

I think it is a "sign of the times" cultural thing that is much bigger than golf course architecture. It seems to me that people in general and golfers in paricular (including many on this site) want new and different. There is little appreciation of "tried and true". New golf courses are often praised as being creative. The term "pure golf" is not used to praise new courses as much as it once was. Maybe that's why some think Tobacco Road is wonderful and don't get Pinhurst #2. Architects, like anyone else trying to make a living, have to understand what the customers want. The same can be said about movies, restaurants, music and many other things. If I sound like an old fart yearning for authenticity, that's because I am.

[Mark_Fine]

Just to further clarify a point already mentioned - subtlety can unfortunatley be confused as bland but when done well, is anything but that.  I always like to point out the #5 greensite at Lehigh.  It is very simple but very dangerous as well and a great example of subtle design.  

Architects sometimes over complicate golf holes with unnecessary design features.  I was walking a course the other day with a client trying to explain that every hole on the course doesn't need a fairway bunker or even greenside bunkers.  On the one hole, adding bunkers to the natural contours of the hole corridor would ruin it (in my opinion).  Sometimes less is more.

Wayne,
It's not necessary to mention the name of the course.  This was just meant to be a discussion topic and not bash a particular course or architect.  There is already too much negativity on this site.  It also could be Forrest rubbing off on me making sure I'm politically correct    

[BCrosby]

As long as new courses have big budgets, big design fees and big home site sales projections, there is going to be crushing pressure on gca's to design eye candy. The course needs to say VAH VAH VAH VOOM to first time visitors. (Or something like that.)

I don't envy good architects that find themselves in that position (not that anyone held a gun to their head to take the job originally.)

For that reason I have always thought that some of the better, more subtle new courses would come from lower budget projects. A good architect will have more freedom to do less on such projects.

I think Longshadow is one of those courses. I hope there are many more out there.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Kirk:

I think what you said is part of the problem ... some designers are trying too hard, to prove that they're not mailing it in.

Unfortunately, some of the subtle things we used to do are being taken away from us.  It used to be that you could build a subtle hole with a green tilted 3% and that was enough to make a pretty good hole ... for example, the 13th at Pebble Beach.  Now most designers are afraid to build a green with that much tilt; so they build a flatter green and six more bunkers to add "strategy", and the modern hole still doesn't reward placement as well as the older hole did.

[Tom Dunne]

Tom Doak,

In your own body of work, which hole(s) would you say are most representative of your trying to produce something "above and beyond", either stylistically or in terms of strategy? And as a follow-up to that, where would you say you pulled really something special out of the fire as well as perhaps a hole that didn't quite come off as planned...

I have to think the temptation to try something bold or even outlandish is a force that works on all architects at one point or another, even those inclined toward subtlety and restraint. After all, even C&C have the 14th at Bandon Trails!  

[Mark_Fine]

It is one thing to try something bold and outlandish on one or even a few holes.  But what about on all 18    The course I referred to above for example, took the concept of "defending par at the green" to the absolute extreme and went way over the top.    

[Joe Hancock]

I find this an almost impossible question to answer. If I were an architect, how many courses should I have designed and built before I can begin to understand the process, especially from an outside looking in perspective?

How much dirt must I move before I can deem something overshaped, whatever that must mean?

How would I know if someone is trying hard? Is it similar to watching a great musician, who seems to make great music while looking effortless? A guy who struggles with decision making and has too many changes of mind must be trying too hard......

How many courses does an architect have to have under his or her belt before their niche is developed? Do those of us who have yet to design and build and watch people play golf on our course know if we will develop a niche?

I don't know....

Joe

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
You said:

"How many courses does an architect have to have under his or her belt before their niche is developed?"

George Crump only needed one!  I can think of a few other guys like him who could say the same thing  

[paul cowley]

TomD....you are so right about the simple 3% and what others would find interesting nowadays....#13 PB being a great example.... really just a filler hole, similar to #15....but not easy to score on unless you get close.

Its a hole that is tougher than it looks, mainly because of the steep but subtle green slope......but not at all that interesting.

A little stepchild.  

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,

True, Crump did an amazing, one time course. I think, in the context of the question, that a niche has to require multiple efforts that result in a pattern. What would Crump's niche be had he done more than a dozen courses? Would he replicate his effort at PV on other properties? No one knows.....

Joe

[Kirk Gill]

Kirk:

I think what you said is part of the problem ... some designers are trying too hard, to prove that they're not mailing it in.

Well, as Mom always said, if you can't be part of the solution, at least be part of the problem.

Or something like that !  

I'm just saying that there is a lot of temptation with any act of creativity to either be safe or to be outlandish. Golf courses are very expensive to build, so it seems as if the temptation to be safe would often win out. Add to the money pressure the traditions and history that surround the game, that can impose conformity even as they add richness and pleasure.

So what you say about how a designer might feel forced to remove subtlety and add a bunch of wow factor is very interesting to me. Were the architects of old under this kind of pressure?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Joe,
For me, the most obvious example of over doing it is the number of bunkers being built on many of our modern courses.
We're seeing course being built with 200+ bunkers. Now, does a golf course built on heavy soils really need 200+ bunkers? I don't think so, but bunkering has become a crutch, IMO.

Another overused feature is water. Unless it's a low spot for drainage, or for irrigation storage, why does a golf course need water? The answer is, it doesn't...and I can't understand why the use of water features became so popular. I think it's because the over use of man made hazards like bunkers and water can help to mask poor architecture.

Does anyone know why building water features became so common? Was it RTJ who started the trend?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()