[Tim Pitner]

In reviewing a golf course, how much credit do you give to originality of design?  The question arose after recently playing Jim Engh's Fossil Trace.  IMO, many of the holes were innovative, but some didn't work for me at all.  So, in my personal review, the course both earned points and had points taken away.  A fellow GCAer and I were contrasting it with another area course (Keith Foster's Buffalo Run) that, in my mind, doesn't reach as high as Fossil Trace, but also doesn't fall as far with respect to its lesser holes.  

Which do you prefer--the more original design with some significant flaws, or the more conventional design with many solid holes but nothing transcendant?  Why?

[PThomas]

i thoughts Engh did a good job at Fossil Trace considering the multiple things he had do deal with at the site...the fossils, the prison, etc...

[Tim Pitner]

i thoughts Engh did a good job at Fossil Trace considering the multiple things he had do deal with at the site...the fossils, the prison, etc...

Paul,

I generally agree, although it's not a prison--just a jail, I think.

I mentioned Fossil Trace and Buffalo Run to give some examples, but I was aiming more for a general discussion about which types of courses people prefer, rather than a specific discussion of Fossil Trace.  Courses that take chances and sometimes fail or courses that might be considered more humdrum, but deliver mostly solid holes throughout?  Put another way, would you rather play a course that has 9 holes you really like and 9 holes you hate or a course that has 18 holes that you generally like, but don't feel too strongly about?  

[Tommy Williamsen]

I played Fossil Trace this past August and it sure does get high marks for originality.  I thought the back nine was absolutely a treat.  The way he used the outcroppings was brilliant and daring.  The first hole was pretty good as well.  Especially trying to figure out where to hit the second shot.  The rest of the front nine left me cold, however.

[Bill Brightly]

"it's not a prison, it's just a jail..."

So don't be upset, Mom...

[Bart Bradley]

I actually think this is a very interesting question.  For me, originality done right gets a lot of points ...BUT, one real stinker of hole can really ruin my perception of a golf course.  Now that you've brought it up, I can think of many times when I have praised a great course by saying "that course had NO bad holes"... So, like everything, originality done well beats solid golf but I would prefer solid golf over originality done poorly.  I am sure that GCA's agonize over just this fact...how much of a chance to take on something truly different.  It must be very stressful to put out something totally bold and original...because armchair GCA's like most of us might just torch someone for it...I haven't played the courses you referenced so I can't comment on those.

Bart

[Mark_F]

I think uniqueness is one of the most important elements of a golf course, but I guess this has an asterisk to it.  

If you aren't well travelled, does copying holes or concepts matter to a person who has never seen the original? Barnbougle's 13th green is supposed to have been inspired by the famous Sitwell park green, but since none of us ever saw it or played it, does it matter? No, I would think.

On the other hand, how interesting can it be to play, really, copies of Redan's, Road Holes and others?

The Postmodernists would have you believe that it is impossible to create anything original anymore, thus giving free reign to the lazy and unimaginative.

Maybe the superficial dullness of much modern design is why golf is slowly, inexorably heading for the same slow death as tennis.

[Phil McDade]

I'm much more willing to put up with the occasional clunker or two per 18 holes in order to see something originial or unconventional.

Sort of like my game -- I can tolerate a few bad holes if I play reasonably well for the others.

[Tim Pitner]

I actually think this is a very interesting question.  

I'm glad at least one other person thought so, although it's a little disconcerting that you sound so surprised.

I'm much more willing to put up with the occasional clunker or two per 18 holes in order to see something originial or unconventional.

Phil, does this hold true for repeated play?  

[Kirk Gill]

Originality can't trump playability. If the originality is expressed in a way that makes the course just feel goofy, then I might just play it once for grins, but wouldn't want to make it a steady diet. On a few occasions, though, I've found that holes that seemed forced from a design standpoint were really a result of some situation that I, as a player, couldn't see - like having to deal with a funky property line or protected wetland or some other issue that wasn't immediately apparent. In other words, sometimes creativity or originality are forced on an architect who is working with a difficult property. Fossil Trace is, I believe, a great example of a course being built through a maze of property issues, both the difficulty of the land itself and the political/environmental landscape that had to be dealt with.

But all that wouldn't matter if the course wasn't a good one to play, and FT makes the cut on that account.

Tim, can you think of a course you've played where the zeal for originality was just "too much?"

[Tim Pitner]

Tim, can you think of a course you've played where the zeal for originality was just "too much?"

No, not really.  I think Stone Harbor would qualify, but I haven't played it.  I can think of individual holes--for example, Fossil Trace #7.  When I walked onto #7 tee, I thought, wow, I've never seen anything like this--a shortish par 4 with a green set well above the fairway and an enormous, scar of a bunker that leads like a trail up toward the green.  So, points for originality.  But, the hole is visually jarring--it's a bit of an eyesore, actually--and I have to say I don't like it, despite it's innovativeness.  

The Bear Paw hole at Bear Dance might be another example, but that's more of a cutesy feature than an original design.  

Another example of originality versus solid, but unspectacular design might be Tobacco Road versus one of the quality Ross courses in the same area.  I haven't played there, but from what I've seen and read, it looks like Tobacco Road might be the more interesting course to play, but would it be more enjoyable, especially for repeat play (when the novelty of TR might fade)?  

[Tom_Doak]

I can think of quite a few courses where the zeal for originality went too far:

Stone Harbor
Stonehouse in Virginia
Loxahatchee before they blew up the mounds
the Cupp course at Palmetto Hall (NOTE:  I've never seen it, relying on others' opinions there)
Dismal River
and others I won't name here for fear of starting a war.

Nevertheless, I do value originality very highly in golf architecture.  I would rather play a course with two great holes and a lot of just okay holes, than a course of 18 very good straightforward holes, which is why I'm hard on certain architects who pride themselves on the latter.  But to suggest that no one can go too far is just wrong.  It's in the eye of the beholder, of course -- but this whole discussion group is, for that matter.

[Jim Franklin]

I played Fossil Trace this past August and it sure does get high marks for originality.  I thought the back nine was absolutely a treat.  The way he used the outcroppings was brilliant and daring.  The first hole was pretty good as well.  Especially trying to figure out where to hit the second shot.  The rest of the front nine left me cold, however.

Spot on Tommy. I loved the first hole and thought the back nine was really fun, but 2-8 were bland.

[Tim Pitner]

Nevertheless, I do value originality very highly in golf architecture.  I would rather play a course with two great holes and a lot of just okay holes, than a course of 18 very good straightforward holes, which is why I'm hard on certain architects who pride themselves on the latter.  

Tom,

Do you suppose your answer would be the same if you were just a golfer and not an architect?  Do you value originality from a playing perspective or from an intellectual perspective, or are the two inseparable?

Jim,

#4 and #6 at Fossil Trace were two of my favorite par 4s on the course, perhaps in part because they are more "bland" than some of the other holes there.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

I felt the same way when I was 15 years old, long before I was a golf course architect.  In fact, it's what led me to want to become an architect ... wanting to do something different.

However, the argument against originality is that very few people have seen as many courses as I have ... so the Redan can be "original" to them.

[wsmorrison]

"I would rather play a course with two great holes and a lot of just okay holes, than a course of 18 very good straightforward holes, which is why I'm hard on certain architects who pride themselves on the latter."

Do you differentiate this notion as a member/regular player of a course versus making an occasional guest appearance?  Without question, I would rather my regular play be on a course with 18 very good straightforward holes as opposed to a course with two or three great holes and the remainder okay holes.

[Brad Swanson]

Nevertheless, I do value originality very highly in golf architecture.  I would rather play a course with two great holes and a lot of just okay holes, than a course of 18 very good straightforward holes, which is why I'm hard on certain architects who pride themselves on the latter.  

Jim,

#4 and #6 at Fossil Trace were two of my favorite par 4s on the course, perhaps in part because they are more "bland" than some of the other holes there.  

Ditto for #4.  I think its the best holes on the course, maybe because its very unlike most Engh holes stylistically.  Also the back is gimmicky, and downright dangerous in spots.  Stand on 16 green long enough and some hack trying to drive 10 will have you diving into the pond for cover.  18 is a par 5 where I think I once hit 9 iron in for my second shot.  I do like 13 (especially the green).  

Cheers,
Brad

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

The only courses I play regularly have close to 18 great holes, so I can't answer your question.    But I think I would still prefer a bit of excellence to a bunch of straightforward.

[Mike Hendren]

Tom Doak,

Please provide a few examples of holes you've designed that you consider original.  I nominate the 2nd at Tumble Creek.

Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Mike H:

Okay, I'll just stick to my 5-6 recent courses that have gotten the most exposure so that as many people as possible can understand my examples.

At Pacific Dunes, I would say the really original holes are #6 and #9.  #8 is very cool and few people have seen anything like it, but I did steal that concept from Woking.

At Cape Kidnappers, #4 and #12 and #18 are pretty original.

At Barnbougle, #4 and #8 [which some people don't like] and #13 are original.

At Sebonack, I think #6 is really the only original hole; maybe #14 too.

At Ballyneal, I would say #7 and #8 and #12 and #17 are all original holes.

[wsmorrison]

"The only courses I play regularly have close to 18 great holes, so I can't answer your question."

That is my good fortune as well.  Luckily, I live in Philadelphia and get to enjoy the fruit of the local vine so I don't always have to go too far afield.  But have clubs and will travel if the courses have great holes

[Ryan Farrow]

Tom, how about #10 at Apache Stronghold. Its one of those holes that took me a few plays to finally figure out. Its such a different split fairway situation and really freaks people out on the tee. Ironically enough it felt out of place to me, maybe it was just the bunking that made me feel that way but its an interesting concept on what seemed like a pretty flat stretch of land.

[Kyle Henderson]

Personally, I definitely would rather have a something original. I can tolerate a few absurd holes if there are also a few superbly unique holes in the routing. Variety is spice of golf... for me.

However, if I was going to join a private club and play the same course every day (which I probably wouldn't under most circumstances) or if I was overly concerned with my score and developing my skill set, then I might probably opt for a set of 18 solid, uninspired holes.

That being said, of the courses I've played, Tobacco Road is the only one I would never tire of playing everyday because it has such a wide disparity between daily pin placements, conditions and teeing grounds -- I expect many would disagree with my choice.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I'm a little surprised you didn't mention #7 or #16 although 16 would be mostly based on its green complex.

As for #8, I didn't really get it, but perhaps that just me.

A case could also be made for #11 in terms of its defenses and outstanding bunker work.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()