Construction vs Restraint

[JC Jones]

To take the discussion away from PV vs SH, I wanted to discuss this question on a macro level.

Wayne was commending PV for the quantity of its architecture and used that as his deciding point for preferring PV to Sand Hills.  Where as at Sand Hill, Coore walked the land repeatedly to "find" the holes, instead of building them.

For those who admire/support courses which are created from nothing (i.e. Shadow Creek, Whistling Straits, Bayonne, etc.) and discount those courses that are found (i.e. The Old Course, Shinnecock, Sand Hills) for their "minimal" architecture then I raise this question:

If actions and omissions are equal, does it take equal talent/architectural ability to build a course from nothing as it does to refrain from excessive building?

[Garland Bayley]

...
If actions and omissions are equal, does it take equal talent/architectural ability to build a course from nothing as it does to refrain from excessive building?

All I can say is that on another thread Mike Young and Jeff Brauer classified excessive building as a rookie mistake.  

[Ken Moum]

To take the discussion away from PV vs SH, I wanted to discuss this question on a macro level.

Wayne was commending PV for the quantity of its architecture and used that as his deciding point for preferring PV to Sand Hills.  Where as at Sand Hill, Coore walked the land repeatedly to "find" the holes, instead of building them.

For those who admire/support courses which are created from nothing (i.e. Shadow Creek, Whistling Straits, Bayonne, etc.) and discount those courses that are found (i.e. The Old Course, Shinnecock, Sand Hills) for their "minimal" architecture then I raise this question:

If actions and omissions are equal, does it take equal talent/architectural ability to build a course from nothing as it does to refrain from excessive building?

Like writing, playing jazz piano, painting, making photographs and creating sculpture, the truly great seem to be able to restrain themselves from doing too much.

IMHO, those who produce greatness with the least effort should be admired over those whose efforts are obvious.

"Never let them see you sweat."

K

[Jon Wiggett]

JC,

I think it is probably six of one and half a dozen of the other. Firstly, it take a definite talent to spot a hole amongst the bushes, trees and undergrowth that cover nearly any site even if the features are already there. It is then another thing to be able to bring them out to their best advantage.

On the other hand it is not as easy as one might think to create a natural looking landscape from scratch or blend new one into an old one.

Probably the easiest thing is creating holes along the lines of the 17th at Sawgrass as this needs no blending and doesn't need to look natural.

Of course it is still a talent to find an entirely new style of hole and even the... Desmond Muirhead, a good or bad GCA

[Eric_Terhorst]

For those who admire/support courses which are created from nothing (i.e. Shadow Creek, Whistling Straits, Bayonne, etc.) and discount those courses that are found (i.e. The Old Course, Shinnecock, Sand Hills) for their "minimal" architecture then I raise this question:

If actions and omissions are equal, does it take equal talent/architectural ability to build a course from nothing as it does to refrain from excessive building?

I don't know why the question should be framed this way, i.e., created from nothing vs. minimal or actions vs. omissions.

Professionals and the people who pay them make choices, using  in part the raw material and the desired result to guide their decision-making.  (Not to mention talent, experience, etc., etc.) Starting from a flat piece of land with a desire to make a great golf course and a big budget, the choices obviously will be far different than those made in the Sandhills of Nebraska, with a small budget.  But there are hundreds of choices/decisions to be made in either case, and in judging the end result we evaluate those choices.  

To disparage one because it is "manufactured" or the other because it has "less architecture" is silly.  

[Peter Pallotta]

"Never let them see you sweat."

And as Earl Hines once said, "When you're trouble, make sure to keep smiling".

JC - a good question, and I look forward to other posts/answers.

For my part, and I hope this doesn't sound glib: I think it takes a lot of talent to create something out of nothing; and a lot of talent to create something by doing nothing.  

I have my preferences in terms of the end result, but I can't quantify/qualify the relative talent required.  

I think all golf courses, as golf courses, are in fact created by human hands, whether out of nothing or by doing nothing.

In both cases, the architect works with what G*d has given him; it's just that in the latter case, he can let (or chose to let) G*d's handiwork shoulder more of the responsibility.

Now, I think that choice is important/telling. But I'd be hard-pressed to know what/how many of the G*d-created elements an architect had at his disposal to begin with, or which of those elements had a particular usefulness in creating a golf course (as oppossed to, say, a farm or flower garden); and so I can't really judge the choice either.

Peter

I think from what I've read that Tom Huckaby has a pretty good/right approach to this question.

[TEPaul]

"If actions and omissions are equal, does it take equal talent/architectural ability to build a course from nothing as it does to refrain from excessive building?"

I would say yes it does---eg equal talent, although perhaps a wholly different type or form of talent. And by that I do not mean to say that some architects may not have had or do have both talents in spades.

Both types of talent, in my opinion, require a really good imagination----one to imagine what can be made, almost like the creation of mirage, out of nothing much land-wise. Examples of this would be Shadow Creek and Whistling Straits.

The other, takes perhaps an equal amount of talent to figure out how to use really well for golf land that may not be expressing itself obviously for golf, or perhaps even so well as to be thoroughly confusing. The latter might be Sand Hills---eg there was almost too many possibilities.

JC Jones:

I would take some issue with you for the way you cast this over-all question, and that is how you phrased the work and talent of the so-called "minimalist" as 'ommission'.

In my opinion, the talent of the minimalist to get the maximum really good and interesting golf out of raw ground is anything but ommission.  

What it really is, in my book, is ultimately maximum recognition!

 

[JC Jones]

"If actions and omissions are equal, does it take equal talent/architectural ability to build a course from nothing as it does to refrain from excessive building?"

I would say yes it does---eg equal talent, although perhaps a wholly different type or form of talent. And by that I do not mean to say that some architects may not have had or do have both talents in spades.

Both types of talent, in my opinion, require a really good imagination----one to imagine what can be made, almost like the creation of mirage, out of nothing much land-wise. Examples of this would be Shadow Creek and Whistling Straits.

The other, takes perhaps an equal amount of talent to figure out how to use really well for golf land that may not be expressing itself obviously for golf, or perhaps even so well as to be thoroughly confusing. The latter might be Sand Hills---eg there was almost too many possibilities.

JC Jones:

I would take some issue with you for the way you cast this over-all question, and that is how you phrased the work and talent of the so-called "minimalist" as 'ommission'.

In my opinion, the talent of the minimalist to get the maximum really good and interesting golf out of raw ground is anything but ommission.  

What it really is, in my book, is ultimately maximum recognition!

 

by omission I mean inaction.  by inaction i mean lack of extra dirt, construction, etc.

i would believe the architect in your latter example to be of higher skill/talent than your former example.  

[TEPaul]

"i would believe the architect in your latter example to be of higher skill/talent than your former example."

You know, JC, I wouldn't.

While I certainly admit that my particular personal preference for golf course architecture is the latter (the really good minimalist), I most certainly do have tremendous respect for the talent and imagination of the polar opposite to that---such as the massive earthmovers like Fazio, Rees, Dye, Stranz, Hurzdan & Fry or even newcomers like Archie Struthers. I put them in a whole different class than something like Desmond Muirhead's massive earthmoving with Stone Harbor which was such an aesthetic aberration as to be frankly fascinating in a perverse way.

Those massive earthmovers mentioned above who seem capable of what might be termed "mirage making" are guys with as much imagination and talent as some of the best minimalists, in my mind, and I have to be honest to admit that perhaps half or more of all golfers may be more fascinated with that style and technique then its polar opposite----eg minimalism.

However, this is something I both expect and hope will change somewhat over time.    

[Lloyd_Cole]

Geoff Shack's quote today - "If there has been improvement in the art of constructing golf courses, it has been largely due to the willingness of the best architects to imitate humbly and lovingly what nature has placed before them." ROBERT HUNTER

I tend to think that we fall into camps here, some of us just prefer the idea of found holes compared to built holes. If I play a course and the holes feel as though they were found, ie. nature is successfully imitated, and the golf is good, I'm happy. I don't care if it's completely man made. But how can I possibly come to this conclusion at Shadow Creek?

It's almost comparable to some folk having a real taste for sci-fi and others rejecting the genre out of hand. I don't reject it, but I read very little of it.

Fortunately, there is room for all of us here.

[TEPaul]

Very well put together post there Lloyd. Particularly this;

"I tend to think that we fall into camps here, some of us just prefer the idea of found holes compared to built holes. If I play a course and the holes feel as though they were found, ie. nature is successfully imitated, and the golf is good, I'm happy. I don't care if it's completely man made. But how can I possibly come to this conclusion at Shadow Creek?"

Good point, because after-all everyone who plays Shadow Creek has to drive into and away from Shadon Creek through all that surrounds the golf course and how much more different can those two things be?

I'm no fan of the whole idea of Las Vegas, though, and in my opinion, if one really wants to hang around long in a place like that they probably are hallucinating enough to believe that mirages are sort of real.  

[paul cowley]

Geoff Shack's quote today - "If there has been improvement in the art of constructing golf courses, it has been largely due to the willingness of the best architects to imitate humbly and lovingly what nature has placed before them." ROBERT HUNTER

I tend to think that we fall into camps here, some of us just prefer the idea of found holes compared to built holes. If I play a course and the holes feel as though they were found, ie. nature is successfully imitated, and the golf is good, I'm happy. I don't care if it's completely man made. But how can I possibly come to this conclusion at Shadow Creek?

It's almost comparable to some folk having a real taste for sci-fi and others rejecting the genre out of hand. I don't reject it, but I read very little of it.

Fortunately, there is room for all of us here.

I agree Lloyd....thank God there is room not only for us , but for the courses too.

Naturals great if the site is natural...we all agree.

....but creating 'natural' on a site that isn't natural, isn't natural.....and tough to do.

[TEPaul]

Whoof---thank God Almighty PaulC is back on site (website). Now I can go to bed without feeling some burdensome responsibilty to continue on tonight fielding one thread after another.  

There is a whole lot more naturalism in my pillow than you jokers realize.

[paul cowley]

Tom .....its cool if you want to book out...we all need our sleep and tomorrow is by definition another day.

Sleep well my friend.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JC Jones,

I think there's a significant difference in the creation of the two golf courses, their topography, the methodology involved in creating the golf courses and the financial considerations.

C&C had to have the developer buy additional land to accomodate SH.

Bill Coore called that area the finest land in the country in which to design/build golf courses.

Natural vs construction has far more variables and/or facets than just those two categories.

SH and PV enjoy a unique quality/attribute.
SANDY SOIL

Sandy soil would seem to allow for less construction.

Natural vs construction is so site and permit dependent.

However, I think the genius of the ODG's was their ability to incorporate more of the topograpph.  I attribute part of that to the generally frugal nature of the architects and the culture of the times.

A tight budget would seem to dictate minimalism.
Whereas, an unlimited budget would seem to dictate excess.

NGLA, my favorite golf course, couldn't be described as natural at the green end.  It's a great blend of using the topography with man made amendments.

In the ultimate, the product speaks to the practical and efficient use and balance of natural vs constructed

[Ally Mcintosh]

lloyd has hit the nail on the head...

...it's all about the feel of the finished product, nothing less and nothing more...

...this also applies to minimalism... you can get a minimalist output from a vast range of inputs both in design and construction... the amount of work involved in the input has nothing to do with minimalism... i.e. you can have both construction and restraint - they are two seperate variables...

[TEPaul]

Ally:

I completely agree with you there, although apparently many people only define minimalism as a very minimal amount of earthmoving period. I feel, like you do, that minimalism can also be the look of minimal earthmoving even if there was a lot.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally:

I completely agree with you there, although apparently many people only define minimalism as a very minimal amount of earthmoving period. I feel, like you do, that minimalism can also be the look of minimal earthmoving even if there was a lot.

i guess golf course architecture can make up its own definitions but it would be at odds with the use of the word in all other professions...

a music analogy: a minimalist composition by philip glass or steve reich or john adams or bernard gunter (taking it a step further into reductionism) takes a considerable amount more design and construction (arrangement) than does a radio friendly over-compressed maximalist piece by say, linkin park...