News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


peter_mcknight

  • Karma: +0/-0
tom doak in the weekly standard
« on: October 09, 2007, 08:06:27 PM »
This is one of the feature articles in this week's Weekly Standard (you know, the Bill Kristol/Fred "the Beatle" Barnes publication in DC).  Way to go Tom!

-----

Putting Golf Back on Course
Another hideous design trend of the 20th century bites the dust.
by Dean Barnett
10/15/2007, Volume 013, Issue 05



Holyoke, Colo.
Golf is supposed to be fun. Seriously. This may be news to a general public weaned on Caddyshack, which led them to think most golfers play the game solely to berate their country club's staff and avail themselves of networking opportunities. But they've got the wrong impression--golf is supposed to be fun.

For people who love golf and consider it fun, everything starts with the Old Course at St. Andrews. Golfers have been playing and enjoying the game there for over 500 years. Ben Crenshaw, one of golf's finest practicing architects, has written, "Every course worth playing retains some small element or spirit of the Old Course at St. Andrews. She is the original."

Tom Doak, the 46-year-old erstwhile golf outsider crowned golf's "It Architect" by Sports Illustrated this summer, caddied at St. Andrews after college. During his two months at the Old Course, Doak "looped" for both scratch golfers and a couple of novices who had never played 18 holes before teeing it up at St. Andrews. Doak noticed that the course allowed every player, regardless of ability, to design his own way around the course. In effect, each player got to serve as his own architect. And everyone had fun.

Golf architecture in America had a golden age in the first 30 years of the 20th century. Masters like Donald Ross, Alistair MacKenzie, A.W. Tillinghast, and Seth Raynor designed and built courses across the country (and indeed around the world) that like St. Andrews stirred the golfer's soul and were fun to play.

But there followed several decades of golf architecture dreck. Architects like Robert Trent Jones and his regrettably prolific scions dotted the American landscape with courses that were difficult and unpleasant to play--largely because they deviated from the tradition born in St. Andrews. Instead of letting each player figure out his own route from hole to hole, they funnelled all into a single narrow path.

Rees Jones, Robert Trent Jones's son, is still one of golf's most prominent architects. He describes his theory of golf architecture as follows: "My style emphasizes definition. I work hard at giving the golfer a concept as he stands over the ball. I want him to see the intended target and be able to visualize the shot." What Rees Jones omits from his reckoning is that some golfers, indeed most golfers, may be incapable of pulling off the shot that he compels them to see. Golfers have enjoyed finding their own way around St. Andrews for over 500 years. Speaking on behalf of the modern golf architecture establishment, Rees Jones in essence insists that he has discovered a better way: He will officiously preside over each and every golfer's each and every shot.

Jones family members haven't been the only architects guilty of committing affronts to golf history and ignoring the imperative that the game be fun. Perhaps the most serious offender has been Jack Nicklaus, arguably the greatest golfer ever. Nicklaus has had a hand in designing 207 courses. While some of his courses are picturesque, few are fun unless you're able to play golf as well as Jack Nicklaus. On many of his courses, the average player will lose half a dozen balls a round, many of them having found a watery grave in one of the man-made water-hazards of which Nicklaus is so fond. As a player, Nicklaus probably wouldn't even notice many of the water hazards that litter his courses. But the typical golfer does.

Worse still, Nicklaus the architect has often violated the most fundamental precept of golf course design: Put a golf course where nature intended there to be one. Let the shape of the land dictate the shape of the course. People began playing golf at St. Andrews because the terrain cried out for it. Five hundred years ago, eager proto-golfers had limited ability to alter what nature had done. The tools of the game were adapted to the challenges of the terrain.

Modern golf architects can move copious amounts of earth, and they've often abused this ability to create uninspiring golf courses on land better suited for strip malls. Some Nicklaus courses are jammed into almost ludicrously inhospitable spots. One can stand on many a Nicklaus-designed tee box thinking, "Start it at the Home Depot, and fade it to the Best Buy."

In the 10 years of Tiger Woods's ascendancy in golf, millions more Americans have watched the game on TV than ever did before. And yet the number of people playing golf has hardly moved. This is largely because golf architects have blighted the country with courses that make playing the most enjoyable game yet conjured by man about as much fun as sticking a tee in your eye. It's said that the only two things men enjoy while being bad at them are golf and sex. Mid-to-late-20th-century golf architects seemed perversely determined to make the typical golf round so miserable that the mediocre golfer would choose clumsy love-making as his only hobby.

Happily, a golf architecture renaissance began in 1994. That's the year Sand Hills Golf Club opened for business.

When Sand Hills opened, it created a stir in the golf world. Nebraska's Sand Hills were perfectly geared for a golf course. Architects Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw hardly had to move any land to create the course. In addition to building what golfers instantly hailed as a classic, Coore & Crenshaw did it cheap.

Coore & Crenshaw's masterpiece ushered in a new era in golf architecture that aficionados characterize with one word: minimalist. The guiding principle is deference to the land. Minimalism holds that a golf course developer should look for land that is ideal for a course, and the architects they hire should let the characteristics of the land dictate the nature of the course.

Sand Hills wasn't only a proudly contrarian architectural statement; Sand Hills was also an audacious business undertaking. The Nebraska county that hosts Sand Hills is bigger than Connecticut and Rhode Island combined and has a population of less than 1,000. Getting to Sand Hills is a chore--it is quite literally in one of America's remotest spots. The nearest outpost of civilization is Mullen, Nebraska, a town of 600 roughly 15 miles away. The closest major city is Denver, over 350 miles to the southwest.

Nevertheless, Sand Hills began a revolution. Right from its opening, golf enthusiasts properly hailed it as a work of genius. Perhaps more important, Sand Hills instantly became a viable financial enterprise. Eager golfers happily made the trek to the proverbial middle of nowhere to tee it up at Sand Hills. Intended as a private club, Sand Hills quickly filled its membership.

Sand Hills also established a new paradigm for destination golf courses. Even though its location is almost unimaginably bare for a vacation spot, Sand Hills deliberately offers almost nothing but golf. There is no spa. A masseuse is not on call. The place is without high-speed (or low-speed) Internet access. Cell phone use isn't allowed on the property, and if it were you couldn't get a signal. Sand Hills does have terrific food, complemented by a wonderful wine list. (Make sure to try the Grgich Hills Cabernet.) But there is little to do there besides eat, drink, and golf.

All of which makes it nirvana for the passionate golfer. You'd have better luck beating Tiger Woods in a $100 Nassau than finding a golfer who's visited Sand Hills and doesn't cherish the memories.

The large ripple that Sand Hills sent out across the golf world finally broke on the windswept coast of Oregon. There, near the tiny town of Bandon, golf course developer and greeting card magnate Mike Keiser discovered land that could accommodate golf courses reminiscent of the world's most beloved oceanside "links" courses in Scotland. What would become the wildly popular golf resort of Bandon Dunes had it all: rolling terrain, Pacific cliffs with stunning views, bone-chilling winds, and, last, tons of gorse--the viciously prickly bush that grows like a weed along Scotland's revered links and irretrievably swallows up errant golf balls.


peter_mcknight

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2007, 08:06:54 PM »
Part II

-----

The only thing Bandon Dunes lacked was accessibility. Bandon is nearly as tough to get to as Sand Hills. And it offers few other wrinkles for the normally pampered golf traveler. As at Sand Hills, there is little to do at Bandon besides eat, drink, and golf. And Bandon has a "walking only" policy. Unless you have a government-recognized disability, you will walk Bandon's courses or you won't play them.

And yet Bandon has thrived. Since opening in 1999, Bandon has used "Golf as it was meant to be" as its slogan and manifesto. The golf world has rallied around both the resort and its philosophy. In less than a decade of existence, Bandon Dunes has become the preferred resort of America's golfing cognoscenti, eclipsing such mainstays as California's renowned Pebble Beach.

If you visit Bandon Dunes, early in the evening you'll see a pub full of golfers with wind-burned faces happily downing beers and huge slabs of Bandon's famous meatloaf. Many of them have spent the past 10 hours walking 36 holes. Few of them are expert golfers. And yet they have all had fun, because the courses at Bandon allowed them to. Many of Bandon's visitors are experiencing "golf as it was meant to be" for the first time, and they look like they'll need the smiles surgically pried from their faces before they return to their workaday lives.

While the Bandon Dunes Golf Resort has three magnificent courses, the acknowledged gem is Pacific Dunes, designed by Tom Doak and opened in 2001. On Golf Magazine's list of the 100 best courses in America, Sand Hills ranks eighth and Pacific Dunes ranks ninth. They are the only courses in the top 20 that are younger than 70 years old.

Tom Doak graduated from Cornell in 1982, already intent on becoming a golf course architect. He began his career as an iconoclast, more known for his writing than his course design. While still young and impolitic, Doak wrote books and articles that gleefully savaged the efforts of many of the era's leading architects. He resented and rightly condemned the way those architects used their modern construction tools to create artificial environments where the typical golf round became an ordeal rather than a pleasure.

Although Doak had been producing stirring courses for over a decade before Pacific Dunes stunned the golf world, it was Pacific Dunes that made his reputation. It transformed the one-time outsider into one of golf's most sought-after architects. But Doak wasn't about to rest on his laurels. Shortly after Pacific Dunes debuted, Tom Doak journeyed to remote Holyoke, Colorado, where he would create what is perhaps the fullest expression yet of golf as it was meant to be.

The town of Holyoke sits in the northeast corner of Colorado, roughly 15 miles from the Nebraska border. The topography is flat, perfect for farming. In the center of Holyoke swings the town's sole traffic light, ensuring that the roughly 2,300 locals and visitors passing through town govern their automobiles appropriately.

The Ballyneal Golf and Hunt Club of Holyoke opened for business in July 2006 and has already won the highest accolades. While several publications release rankings of the top courses in America and the world, Golf Magazine's rankings are the industry's gold standard. In its first year of operation, Ballyneal debuted as the 46th best course in America and the 83rd best in the world. Ballyneal is the youngest course on either list.

Impressive as those numbers are, they're deceptively low. Ballyneal had been open for only a few months of play when the 2007 rankings were due. Therefore, relatively few of Golf Magazine's panelists had had the chance to play and rate the course. In other words, the legend of Ballyneal has only just begun.

The story of how one of the world's greatest golf courses wound up in rural Colorado begins with a fit, youthful, and almost preternaturally energetic 47-year-old lifetime resident of Holyoke named Rupert O'Neal. As a boy, O'Neal and his younger brother Jim used to hit golf balls in an area of dunes known locally as the Chop Hills-- a few thousand acres of dramatically rolling terrain that interrupts the hundreds of miles of surrounding flatness. Even though there was no golf course there, the O'Neal brothers "played golf" in the Chop Hills using the contours of the land and their own vivid imaginations.

Both O'Neals eventually went to college, but from there they followed different paths. While Rupert returned to Holyoke to tend the family's 3,000 acre farm, the Chop Hills had given Jim an affection for golf that he couldn't ignore. Jim became a golf professional, and today is the head pro of one of the San Francisco area's top country clubs.

Over the years, the O'Neal brothers used to talk about the Chop Hills as the perfect setting for a golf course. Both remembered the fun of playing their homemade version of the game. Long after Rupert had put away his clubs, the discussions continued, always purely theoretical. The thought of actually putting a golf course in a locale that golf snobs would undoubtedly dismiss out of hand seemed unrealistic. But that changed with the success of Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes.

The O'Neals were smart. They brought Tom Doak into the project right after he finished Pacific Dunes. Had they waited, Doak's services would have been beyond their budget. But in 2002, the stars aligned.

When he visited Holyoke, Doak saw that the O'Neal brothers were right: The Chop Hills were indeed a perfect place for a golf course. That fact shouldn't diminish Doak's accomplishment in creating one of the world's finest golf courses there. It's not as easy as Doak and Coore & Crenshaw make it look. After the success of the Sand Hills Golf Club, Jack Nicklaus attempted a "minimalist" golf course not far away on terrain almost identical to Coore & Crenshaw's. Golf Magazine's 2007 rankings ignored the Nicklaus-designed course. The magnificent courses that Doak and Coore & Crenshaw have turned out in recent years are the product of long study, but also of aesthetic sensibilities that future golf architects will surely analyze for centuries.

Whenever Rupert O'Neal speaks about Ballyneal Golf and Hunt Club, he does so with evident and justified enthusiasm. In addition to helping create one of the golf world's most special places, O'Neal helped give his home town what is already Holyoke's largest non-agricultural employer.

In many ways, O'Neal has stood on the shoulders of the men who produced Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes, refining their visions to suit his own sensibilities. Like Bandon Dunes, Ballyneal is walking only; that policy should ensure a membership that's serious about its golf, rather than a group of dilettantes eager to crow about belonging to one of the world's best golf courses. Yet Ballyneal supplements its magnificent golf course with supremely comfortable accommodations where you get not only a strong cell phone signal but also wireless high speed Internet and high definition television.

O'Neal clearly doesn't welcome any kind of snobbery at Ballyneal. He is often to be seen dashing about his property in flip-flops, sipping a glass of homemade chocolate milk. O'Neal is looking for members who want to have fun, and who have fun playing golf. To make sure Ballyneal develops the right kind of membership, O'Neal personally plays at least nine holes with every potential member. Open now a little over a year, Ballyneal is still filling out its membership rolls, a fact that avid golfers will want to note.

There remains the pressing question of what long-term impact places like Sand Hills, Bandon Dunes, and Ballyneal will have on golf architecture and the game itself. The early attempts at golf-course design by Jack Nicklaus's successor as king of golf, Tiger Woods, may offer a clue.

For his first project, announced in 2006, Woods took a commission to build a course on a piece of flat desert in Dubai. It was a move right out of the Nicklaus school: Put a golf course where nature didn't intend there to be one, substituting one man's limited imagination for nature's infinite variety. The "Tiger Woods, Dubai," its website says, "will feature 20 palaces, 75 mansions and 190 luxury villas that offer the perfect blend of exclusivity and luxurious community living"--about as far as conceivable from the austere fun to be had at a place like Sand Hills.

For his second commission, Woods undertook to build a golf course on a piece of rolling terrain outside of Asheville called the Carolina Preserve. When the project was announced a few months back, Woods insisted that the land is perfect for golf, and that no man-made lakes or waterfalls will blight his first American design. The course will be walking only.

So has Tiger undergone a conversion? Only the finished product will tell. But this much we know: When someone asked him to describe his design philosophy, Tiger Woods used the magic word: "I'm more of a minimalist," he said.

Dean Barnett is a staff writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

 
 
© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.  

Doug Ralston

Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2007, 08:38:02 PM »
If this article was in anything but the Weekly Propaganda Standard, I would have given it some real credibility.

Ok, I still like it ....... but you gotta get some mainstream press!  ::)

Doug

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2007, 10:23:48 PM »
Not to single out this post by Peter McKnight (I've offered this same observation several times previously), but ...

We are all online.

We are all capable of clicking on a link.

That copyright notice at the end means something.

We should all learn to post links to copyrighted material, rather than the copyrighted material itself.

Thanks for listening.

Dan
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2007, 11:06:28 PM »
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Jason Blasberg

Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2007, 11:16:00 PM »
Dan, the NFL called and they want all the videos you have from Monday Night Football back, it appears you have copied and potentially rebroadcasted them without the "expressed written consent of the National Football League"

« Last Edit: October 09, 2007, 11:16:31 PM by JKBlasberg »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2007, 11:35:22 PM »
Dan, the NFL called and they want all the videos you have from Monday Night Football back, it appears you have copied and potentially rebroadcasted them without the "expressed written consent of the National Football League"



Potentially, huh?

Gee, I think there might be a little tiny difference between breaking the law and having the potential to break the law.

What do you think, JKBlasberg? Do you see that little tiny difference?

(Oh, and by the way: It's "express," not "expressed.")
« Last Edit: October 09, 2007, 11:36:11 PM by Dan Kelly™ »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2007, 11:39:26 PM »
Dan, You'll love the irony here.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=31501

Adam -- Maybe I'm dense tonight, but I'm not seeing the irony. Spell it out?
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Jim Nugent

Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2007, 02:03:26 AM »
Dan, I see a double irony in Adam's post.  First, the thread he referred to did what you asked -- i.e. gave a link to this very topic, instead of copying the article.  But the link wasn't to the article itself.  It was to Geoff Shackelford's blog, which both linked the article and copied large sections of it.  

Geoff is guilty, too, I guess.    

Doug -- something to think about, hunh?

Rich Goodale

Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #9 on: October 10, 2007, 04:08:22 AM »
Good to see Tom D getting the kudos he deserves, but the article is just a puff piece, demonstrating only second-hand (and somewhat faulty) knowledge of the game, particularly as relates to the Old Course.

Dan K is right about attribution in this click and pay world we now live in.  Authors and other creative types get screwed if you only cut and paste their efforts, but nobody else seems to care.

Anthony Butler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #10 on: October 10, 2007, 07:15:19 AM »
Dan K is right about attribution in this click and pay world we now live in.  Authors and other creative types get screwed if you only cut and paste their efforts, but nobody else seems to care.

I agree on your point about creative types: Usually the Weekly Standard doesn't need factual information to fill its pages.
Next!

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #11 on: October 10, 2007, 07:57:59 AM »
Dan, I see a double irony in Adam's post.  First, the thread he referred to did what you asked -- i.e. gave a link to this very topic, instead of copying the article.  But the link wasn't to the article itself.  It was to Geoff Shackelford's blog, which both linked the article and copied large sections of it.  

Geoff is guilty, too, I guess.    


Jim --

Well, I don't see any irony in the fact that some other thread did the right thing. But no matter.

As for Geoff S.: I don't know where one should draw the line on "fair use." Obviously Geoff is free to QUOTE Mr. Barnett's piece, in the course of writing his own. Does "Here are a couple of long, interesting passages from someone else's copyrighted article" constitute fair use? I don't know. I think it probably does -- but I'll leave that to others to battle over.

But Geoff S. did what's right: He did not cut and paste the whole thing -- and he hyperlinked (I think that's the word) Mr. Barnett's article, so that one could go to the original with a single click.

Dan
« Last Edit: October 10, 2007, 08:22:19 AM by Dan Kelly™ »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #12 on: October 10, 2007, 09:35:16 AM »
Dan, I thought the irony was R Boult's decision to link directly to the article. Apparently he thought I couldn't. I found the article reading Geoff's site, so both would get the clicks using my method. Which I thought was fair.

As an aside, Since this is a closed forum, and is used for education, it's my interpretation that copyright laws do not apply. I've respected your repeated requests to act as though the laws do apply and acted accordingly.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #13 on: October 10, 2007, 10:07:16 AM »
Dan, I thought the irony was R Boult's decision to link directly to the article. Apparently he thought I couldn't. I found the article reading Geoff's site, so both would get the clicks using my method. Which I thought was fair.

As an aside, Since this is a closed forum, and is used for education, it's my interpretation that copyright laws do not apply. I've respected your repeated requests to act as though the laws do apply and acted accordingly.

Adam --

Thanks.

(I see what you were talking about, now. I didn't even read R.Boult's post.)

As for this forum: It's not "closed." Anyone anywhere can read the posts of this Discussion Group.

Dan
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Jason McNamara

Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #14 on: October 10, 2007, 06:17:00 PM »
Dan K is right about attribution in this click and pay world we now live in.  Authors and other creative types get screwed if you only cut and paste their efforts, but nobody else seems to care.

I agree on your point about creative types: Usually the Weekly Standard doesn't need factual information to fill its pages.

Anthony, you seem to be confusing the WS with the New Republic.  Wouldn't have thought that possible, myself.  (We are talking about documented factual errors & fabrications, right, not just things with which we disagree?)  


Moving beyond the author's affiliation, etc.,  I would think this piece encapsulates rather well the opinions of many (most) on this site.  Is there anything regarding the substance of the article to which people object?  It's anti-CCFAD, anti-"ball-buster" golf, pro-fun, pro-walking - in other words, pretty much a perfect fit for GCA.

"One can stand on many a Nicklaus-designed tee box thinking, 'Start it at the Home Depot, and fade it to the Best Buy.' "  Pretty good line, and the author even got the shot shape right.

Tom, did the author call you in advance of this story?

Jason, who also likes the Grgich Hills Cab.

kurt bowman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #15 on: October 10, 2007, 06:43:08 PM »
Worse still, Nicklaus the architect has often violated the most fundamental precept of golf course design: Put a golf course where nature intended there to be one. Let the shape of the land dictate the shape of the course. People began playing golf at St. Andrews because the terrain cried out for it. Five hundred years ago, eager proto-golfers had limited ability to alter what nature had done. The tools of the game were adapted to the challenges of the terrain.




Well the rest of us better start looking for remote parts of the earth only accessible by a 4 hour drive, and private planes where no buildings can be seen. God forbid a golf course be put into a metroplolitan area with buildings nearby. Can someone please call all golf raters and excuse SFGC, Oakmont, and any other course near paved roads and vistas of buildings.OOPS, we also need to eliminate the old course. It should probably be at the bottom of the list as you actually play over or around buildings.

Let's put the bulldozers away and only begin building courses where the land cries out for it!! Lets enjoy the 3 new worldwide courses that will open every year if this is the basis on what constitutes a golf course of merit being built.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #16 on: October 10, 2007, 07:23:39 PM »
Jason:

The author did call me just before he went to Ballyneal, and again after he returned.  But he only asked me questions about Ballyneal, and I didn't hear any of his opinions about other designers or courses until the article was online.

Kurt:

I thought you guys were doing those destination courses now.

kurt bowman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #17 on: October 10, 2007, 07:53:07 PM »
Tom,

Yes, we are doing destination courses, the author would lead you to believe that they will no longer be good after it becomes a destination? If you ever give up writing you need to keep this writers phone number. He could lead your marketing campaign.LOL! Please, you need to show him your club at Texas Tech where the land was crying for a golf course.LOL!

Cheers,

Kurt

Anthony Butler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #18 on: October 11, 2007, 02:07:31 AM »
Dan K is right about attribution in this click and pay world we now live in.  Authors and other creative types get screwed if you only cut and paste their efforts, but nobody else seems to care.

I agree on your point about creative types: Usually the Weekly Standard doesn't need factual information to fill its pages.

Anthony, you seem to be confusing the WS with the New Republic.  Wouldn't have thought that possible, myself.  
"One can stand on many a Nicklaus-designed tee box thinking, 'Start it at the Home Depot, and fade it to the Best Buy.' "  Pretty good line, and the author even got the shot shape right.

Wait a sec, I'm confused... which is the one that's up to No. 357 on "Reasons why we're still in Iraq"... anyway, that one.

As far as the "land crying out for a golf course" I think the only thing land cries out for is more rain. Or less. As far as we are concerned, the thing we owe any piece of of earth is to try and occupy it in a manner that causes the least amount of damage to the rest of the planet.

Next!

Don_Mahaffey

Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #19 on: October 11, 2007, 07:05:14 AM »
Kurt,
C'mon, I'll bet one quick search and I could find 100s of nice flowery "articles" about your firm. What I find funny is, if I'm not mistaken and please straighten me out if I am, your boss has taken to using the minimalist tag line on occasion recently. What's that all about?

kurt bowman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #20 on: October 11, 2007, 09:39:19 AM »
Don,

Yes your right I can find some flowery articles about ND. I thought this article was obviously great for TD. Their were a few to many JN stingers for my taste, most of which I think a unfounded unless he is reviewing are courses from 15-20 years ago.

As far as JN using the word minimalism, well I have not heard that. We certainly have built alot of jobs in the past few years where not much dirt has been moved. Which job was he referring to?

Regards,

Kurt

Derek_Duncan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2007, 08:08:05 PM »
I’m not sure what point the author is trying to make here. If it’s to promote the aesthetic of golf or golf course architecture that he happens to prefer and enforcing that by criticizing architects who are successful doing something different, then that’s his opinion and prerogative even if he comes off like Tom Doak’s ad man. If he’s trying to make the case that golf is suffering because it’s not fun anymore, then I don’t buy into his argument.

Golf isn’t growing because it’s too expensive, too time consuming and too far away. Lack of “fun” ranks somewhere afterwards. He talks of how “the number of people playing golf has hardly moved” in the last 10 years, yet this also coincides with the renaissance of the “fun,” “minimalist” courses that he extols. As exciting as they may be, they’re not, apparently, solving the problem.

The greatest boon in American golf participation occurred from the 1950’s through the 1980’s, roughly the era that brought to bear courses that were, according to him, “difficult and unpleasant to play” and built by the likes of “Robert Trent Jones and his regrettably prolific scions.” How could the game grow so much if players were habitually miserable?

Many agree with the author that courses such as Sand Hills, Ballyneal and Pacific Dunes are more fun to play than almost any other brand of course. As many if not more would find these courses too damned hard and very un-fun (if they had the means to actually play them): extricating you ball from an eight-foot deep bunker, four-putting from 60 feet or losing balls in knee-high native grass (as opposed to water or trees) is not the antidote.

I understand the author is attempting to introduce something potentially new to his readership, but he’s both misunderstanding the market and preaching to the already converted. I think he’s flat wrong to assert that these minimalist-style courses are empirically more fun to ply than any other course. I don’t believe the opinion of all players bears that out. The answer to golf’s stagnation has more to do with economics than the fun-factor. People have always been more than happy to play golf on a wide variety of courses of varying style and quality. The answer is not more remote private clubs but rather convenient affordable public courses. And fun comes in a variety of forms.

Then again, I don’t even know if that was exactly his point. But if it wasn’t, then why bring it up?
www.feedtheball.com -- a podcast about golf architecture and design
@feedtheball

Jason McNamara

Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2007, 08:35:43 PM »
Wait a sec, I'm confused... which is the one that's up to No. 357 on "Reasons why we're still in Iraq"... anyway, that one.

You offer hyperbole representing Proof By Assertion.  I offer Stephen Glass, fired for fabricating stories.  I have more examples; let me know.

Or better yet, given the frequency with which you need to vent, perhaps you could find a more appropriate venue for such in the future?  

------------------------


Kurt, fair point about new vs. old JN.  Perhaps I am thinking too much of the Pinehurst National* kind of course, which is not the same as a Whispering Pines.  I didn't know anything about GCA when I played PN several years back, so I couldn't speak to that, but I could confirm that it was not fun (as a 10-12 hcp).  

Tom, thanks for the reply and for doing the piece.  You didn't have any quotes in the story, so I was curious as to what input you'd provided.

Derek, good devil's advocate stuff here.  But isn't it a little too soon for the minimalist movement to have made huge inroads?  Also, what would be a course you consider to be fun?

And a more general question:  Can a tough course still be fun?  

Jason

* Er, make that the Nicklaus course called the National which happens to be located in Pinehurst, NC.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2007, 08:50:37 PM by Jason McNamara »

Derek_Duncan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2007, 10:48:02 PM »
Jason,

It probably is too soon for minimalist architecture to make inroads into the golf mainstream, but even if half of all courses were "minimalist" it wouldn't solve the problems golf faces unless these courses were affordable and available. Even at that, minimalist-style courses don't necessarily appeal to everyone just because they're minimalist.

Personally, Ballyneal is the absolute definition of fun in golf, but I don't presume others think the same thing. I can't recommend it as the panacea for what ills golf. I've met too many players who like and are happy to regularly play golf courses with 1/10th the variability and excitement.  
www.feedtheball.com -- a podcast about golf architecture and design
@feedtheball

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:tom doak in the weekly standard
« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2007, 01:31:59 PM »
Derek -

I wonder if the issue is a supply problem or a demand problem.

While I agree that we need more decent and affordable courses, I wonder if that is really holding back growth.

If it were, we would see growing pressure on existing decent and affordable courses. (They do exist.) But I don't think that is the case. Their RPY are basically flat. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

My instincts tell me that the issue is primarily one of demand. Fewer people want to play golf.

We can all crank out reasons why that might be the case. We've heard 'em all.

But botom line, it's a mystery. I really don't understand what is going on. It worries me because I think demand to play the game will continue to decline as us Boomers get older. A long term trend is in place that may not change direction in our lifetimes. Or at least in mine.

Tell me why I shouldn't worry.

Bob
« Last Edit: October 12, 2007, 01:33:56 PM by BCrosby »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back