Should Architects Use Their Hole Designs at More Than One Course?

[Chris Simonson]

A recent thread about Flynn reminded me of a thought I had regarding two Flynn holes that I found to be extremely simliar:

#5 at Philly Country and #16 at Rolling Green
#15 at Philly Country and #2 at Shinnecock.

I searched the archives of GCA and found that one architect stated that he copied his own design for a hole at course overseas.  He seemed to rationalize the decision by suggesting that someone was unlikely to play both of his courses; I think he's correct.  However, it seems to suggest that it would not be acceptable if the courses were in close proximity to one another.

Do you agree or disagree with my observation of the holes I mentioned above?

Regardless, is there a prevailing thought about whether architects should copy their own designs or not? 

Lastly, I'm from Philly and I love Flynn and PCC.

[Chip Gaskins]

Welcome...we don't have any Philly guys that love Flynn on this board   Just kidding just kidding...

[George_Williams]

Chris-

I have always felt that it was almost unethical to copy a previous hole or green design of mine.  I make it a point not to.  It's like you are not giving your client what he deserves if you mail it in with a previous design.  Not much fun either.  Pretty lazy, too.  But, I have seen several successful architects who do it over and over through the years- not for me though...

[Richard Hetzel]

Chris-

I have always felt that it was almost unethical to copy a previous hole or green design of mine.  I make it a point not to.  It's like you are not giving your client what he deserves if you mail it in with a previous design.  Not much fun either.  Pretty lazy, too.  But, I have seen several successful architects who do it over and over through the years- not for me though...

What if the topography and the layout dictates that a particular hole might be reminiscent of another hole on a different course by the same designer? I would hope said course architect does their level best NOT to duplicate holes...

[Bill Brightly]

Perhaps Flynn realized how well templates worked for C.B Macdonald?

[Bill_McBride]

Macdonald, Raynor and Banks.  Macdonald, Raynor and Banks and Bahto.  Macdonald, Raynor, Banks, Bahto and Doak!  There is nothing much more fun than seeing the great template holes laid onto the terrain of different courses.

[John Moore II]

The template hole concept was certainly going to be part of my answer. I don't see anything wrong with using a 'template' hole on a course, as long as the hole fits on that course. I don't think the Island should be a template, and it seems that Dye and most others do not use it anymore. But certainly its possible for an architect to use the same basic hole design on several different courses.

[Sean_A]

I spose once guys start shifting a load of dirt around and have enough courses under their belts that it must be hard not to copy stuff - even if unintentionally.  I reckon the difference is always in the details, but for the player this is hard to recognize with only a few plays.  Even on use the terrain courses things begin to look similar.  On the flip side, once a player sees enough courses he begins to recognize similarities.  IMO its unavoidable.  I know archies like to think they can create something totally new each time out, but like I said, that is only in the details.  There are only so many design concepts out there and many of the best ones have already been well identified - so they get used often.  I don't see the harm in it.  To me its just reality.

Ciao

[Philip Spogard]

I don't agree with copying or replicating existing holes but identifying the hole concepts that work (and doesn't wotk) is another thing.

As an architect I find that you draw inspiration from what you see and experience - incl. (especially) the courses you work on where you know every little detail. Often you will see a hole that turns out really, really well in a certain setting - both as a concept, visually, playability-wise, etc. - and know that it works well if you get a site like that again. I think that happens to many architects, e.g. Macdonald's Cape Hole.

I don't think there is a single architect who does not draw on the experiences or concepts he has seen on other courses - be it his own or someone elses, e.g. classic links courses, etc.


 

[wsmorrison]

A recent thread about Flynn reminded me of a thought I had regarding two Flynn holes that I found to be extremely simliar:

#5 at Philly Country and #16 at Rolling Green
#15 at Philly Country and #2 at Shinnecock.

I searched the archives of GCA and found that one architect stated that he copied his own design for a hole at course overseas.  He seemed to rationalize the decision by suggesting that someone was unlikely to play both of his courses; I think he's correct.  However, it seems to suggest that it would not be acceptable if the courses were in close proximity to one another.

Do you agree or disagree with my observation of the holes I mentioned above?

Regardless, is there a prevailing thought about whether architects should copy their own designs or not? 

Lastly, I'm from Philly and I love Flynn and PCC.

Welcome to the site, Chris.  I'm not sure I follow you on the similarity of the holes you mentioned.  I believe them to be quite different, even on a conceptual basis.  Flynn did tend to use many variations on a particular hole type.  The 1st at Philadelphia Country is conceptually linked to Pine Valley 12, Boca Raton North 4 (NLE), Boca Raton South 15 (NLE), Cherry Hills 7, Cleveland Heights 15 (original routing), Denver CC 6. Glen View Club 5, Huntingdon Valley 4, Indian Creek 13, Lancaster CC 4 (original, now NLE), Merion East 10, Plymouth CC 4, Rolling Green 12 (conceptually though topography and stream dependent rather than undulations and sand), Sunnybrook 12 (NLE), TCC Brookline 2, TCC Pepper Pike 17, USNA 2 and Yorktown River Course 3 (NLE).

Regarding PCC 5 and RGGC 16, they couldn't be more different.  One downhill fronted by a pond  and surrounded by a stream with a strategic tree on the left, the other with minimal elevation change benched into a hillside.  The greens are very different in playing character.  The 16th at RGGC was changed a bit and for the worse by Ed Sheeron (sp?).

Philadelphia Country #5



Rolling Green #16



In the case of PCC 15 and SHGC 2, they are both long uphill par 3s, but the green complexes are very different.  Sorry, I don't have very good photos of PCC 15, that green is incredibly good and hard to capture.

Philadelphia Country #15



Shinnecock Hills #2

[Tim Gerrish]

Philip, You are right on..  I try no t to copy holes but pull from experience and courses visited.   I can't imagine copying an entire hole, since the sites are very never the same.  The concept sure!

Occasionally, I will pull out a green sketch from "one of those great courses" and imitate the scheme.  Not a direct copy, but positions and areas and elevation changes.  Of course, I'm still relatively young in the profession having been chasing Geoff, Brian and Mark around for just over 10 years.  I imagine a day when I might not need to do that.  Maybe some of the more experienced architects could chime in.

[Chris Simonson]

Wayne -


Thanks for the pictures and welcome.  I started posting, but I've been reading for a couple years.

While not exact of course, I think they are similar.  The short par 3's are both down hill (to some extent) with trouble short-right, whether it be water or a hill so steep that it will run into water.  They also both have bunkers on the left.  They are also of simliar length with trouble everywhere but left.

The longer holes are uphill from very non-elevated tees, with alsmost blind tee shots.  Again, I think they are of similar length.

I agree Huntingdon Valley 4 and PCC 1 are similar as well.  Pine Valley 12 I thnk if plays differently.

Thanks,
Chris

[Mark_Fine]

Chris,
ALL architects have favorite design concepts/ideas that they like to use and ALL use them on more than one golf course (at least all those who have designed more than one golf course).  None copy holes exactly (though some are close) but many use the same hole templates and just mix up the type of hazards, etc. to make them a little different.  Play enough of any one architect's designs and you will start to see and recognize these preferences.
Mark 

[Jeff_Brauer]

99% of gca's say they never copy themselves or others.  But 99% of gca's actually do copy themselves and others.  Mark Fine is right on in how its done.

BTW, Chris, I was the gca who mentioned the international whose gonna see it comment.

I don't have time to write a whole lot about this, but let me ask what's more important when under contract to provide a functioning design for a client with particular needs?  Doing something that works, even if its substantially been done before, or doing something new?

Doing something truly new for the gca expands his/her horizons and if never done, stifles their growth, and potential ability to provide good solutions in the future.  Trying something truly new for an individual client can work out well for them, but its high risk for a high reward, that may not materialize.

[Tony Ristola]

I don't have time to write a whole lot about this, but let me ask what's more important when under contract to provide a functioning design for a client with particular needs?  Doing something that works, even if its substantially been done before, or doing something new?

Doing something truly new for the gca expands his/her horizons and if never done, stifles their growth, and potential ability to provide good solutions in the future.  Trying something truly new for an individual client can work out well for them, but its high risk for a high reward, that may not materialize.

Because... ?

If it's the best solution to the problem I don't think it's a big deal if an architect uses a concept and tweaks it. He's just putting past knowledge to good use. Theft of ideas is commonplace, so why not thieve and tweak your own occasionally? Can't say I have, but it wouldn't phase me at all to do it.

I do think an investor of millions should get something individual, even new for his investment, but understand why this rarely happens.

[Mark_Fine]

Tony,
Most "investors" as you call them, hire certain architects because that is the type of course they want.  You hire Fazio because you want a "Fazio" type course.  Same goes for Doak or C&C or Rees or any of the dead guys.  If you like Raynor style designs, you hired Raynor.  Same went for Ross or Flynn or anyone else.  These guys all had patterns and tendencies that they followed.

There are always exceptions, but if you see and study enough golf courses as well as the architects themselves, I would be willing to bet that you could be dropped blindfolded on to most any noted designer's golf course and 9 out of 10 times guess who designed it by just walking around and studying the holes for a while.  If it is a classic designer's course, you could also tell where it was changed. 
Mark

[Tim Nugent]

Aren't there something around 17,000 golf courses in the US alone? That's over 300,000 golf holes.
Not counting Canada and overseas.  I suspect that there are probably almost exact replica's of holes on courses that the architects never even saw.  Maybe great minds think alikeand the law of averages catches up.  Pete Dye said that there less than 1,000 orginal golf holes and everything else is just a rendition. 
Jeff has a good point, when someone is shelling out the kind of money it takes to build a golf hole, they typically want something that will work.  How many times have you heard the phrase "good course but... that 18th hole - what the hell were they thinking?"  I imagine if an owner stated, "I want all completely original holes" you would do it (and estatically).  But you should write in the agreement "don't bitch if you don't like it".

I think that if you look at how the architect goes about his design process, you will get a pretty good idea of how "original" a design will be.  If he works out of an office with a cadre of associates, or as a design/build with the same shaper(s) all the time, odds are things will be more repetitious.  This is only natural because the associates/shapers will try to do what they THINK the head guy would do or want.  Hence they fall back on past history.
If the architect tends to do things himself and spends alot of time on-site, you have a better choice of a more varied/original
outcome.  These are just generalizations.  For it also depends on whether the architect is a risk taker and has the testicular fortitude to carry out his ideas in the face of almost certain criticism  (see Mac's letter back to Bell on the opening of CP).

[Jeff_Brauer]

Again, Mark F is right on.

Tony,  I think the investor would think that, given the differences in topo, his design was unique.  I once used the exact same plan on two jobs to show an associate how much the shaper makes a difference, as Tim suggests.  Even I couldn't tell they were the same plan!

As suggested in the first post, I have done a bakers dozen courses around DFW, and am conscious of not repeating greens or tee shot concepts around here, whereas if I am working somewhere else and am "in love" with a certain idea, I would go ahead and copy it closely, if the land allowed. 

Other factors work in - I have repeated template greens - like Road, Redan, Biaritz, but used them on different length and/or par holes because I am not sure that the Biaritz works as well on a long three as a short 4, for instance and want to find out.

There are probably 18 original holes at the Quarry, because of the dramatic land.  However, I have a reverse redan green (but on the long par 4 12th) and the "sombrero green" on 7, which I have used a dozen times in 22 years.  Tim Nugent would recognize it as the third at Kemper, but with a quarry in front rather than a pond.  The concept just works for me, so why not use it.  While the 13th, 16th and 10th are different versions of a double fw that I have used often, I don't think of any of them as templates.  10 would be the most recognizeable to anyone having played one of my courses.  The others fit really unique topo and are different enough that the double fw concept works out to be unique.

We have debated just how much something has to change to be an original.  The same hole on different topography or in different wind condtions will look and play differently.  Putting chocolate drops rather than bunkers might change the mental aspects, as would hairy bunkers or large bunkes over ones with perfect sand.

As to making something work for my current project, whether I am starting with an old idea (mine of someone elses) an idea I have been waiting to try somewhere, or an idea that comes to me as I stand out in the land (although some percentage of what springs to mind is something I have seen or done somewhere, and that percentage is increasing as time goes on)  The real key is to flesh out the concepts to make sure they really work on site, in context of the golf course and also in details - like circulation through the golf course, sun angles, etc.

Beleive me, I have tried to copy greens from one site to the next, both in hand drawings and computers.  By the time I flesh out the details as above, its never an exact copy.  The closest you can come is on transferring a green on dead flat ground to another site with dead flat ground.  Otherwise, I find myself tweaking so much that it might have been easier to start from scratch.

I have always said I would love to have the problem of so many projects that I would have to become repetitive, but I haven't run out of ideas yet.  And, lets get real - Go to the Tufts archives and you can find the same Ross Par 3 hole - maybe 173 times out of 400 he used a template.  Maxwell, RTJ, whatever.  There are even starting to be whispers that the current top designers are starting to get predictable.  Its a tough issue any successful designer has to deal with, especially if they get national exposure.

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff, a quarry?- cool!  I did it at Green Bay, Had the pond but the tees could be built into/ along a hillside slope.  Wanted to see how it would be as a downhill hole.  Turned out, nicely.  In fact, it worked so well that over the years we have added more and more tees along the hillside (I think the farthest one is around 230 - could be farther).  The farther back you go, the further right the angle becomes but with the green shape, it still works.  Ends up that it is very versitile.
I also had the same par 3 built on 3 consecutive courses by the same shaper. Because one course was a flood-control housing project, one a landfill links and the third a parkland, the surrounds were  all different.  When we got to the third green, the shaper was asking about the surface, I said - hell you just built this green twice don't you recognize it?  And he is one of the best in the business!

I asked Dick why he built a beach bunker on every course he didbecause they are hard to do and harder to maintain.  He said it was because at first it was unique and then it became expected.  I tried to carry on the tradition but gave up because they just don't work unless you have a pure sand site with a static water table.  Then a few years later that's what I ended up with and put in a huge one that goes for two holes.  Sometimes it"s just "when it works - it works"

[Tom_Doak]

This is a funny thread and I'm glad I've stayed on the sidelines until now.

On past threads I've argued that golf course plans are not all they're cracked up to be and been rebuked -- now here are a bunch of ASGCA members recounting how the same plan turns out differently on different sites and with different shapers! 

Jeff, you might also want to edit your quote about trying the Biarritz on a short par-4 "to see if it works".  I would never admit to trying something for a client unless I was pretty confident it was going to work.  Don't thank me, a simple tip of the sombrero will be enough.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Consider the sombrero tipped jauntily to the side!

In reality, I have discussed the Biarittz before here, and I am and was of the opinion that its a better green these days for either a par 5 or driveable par 4, since those are most likely to take advantage of a roll up shot.  As to admitting it to a client, I agree.  As I often say, who wants to hear their airline pilot say "fasten those seatbelts, I want to try something new!" 

However, along the lines of Tony R -  (and I think Pete Dye) if I am pretty sure something is going to work, I am not above play acting a bit that I am not quite that sure.  That way, the owner gets something that at least he thinks is new and daring, if he cares.  When its done, I always assure them I knew it would work all along.......which is usually the case.

[Dan Kelly]

In reality, I have discussed the Biarittz before here, and I am and was of the opinion that its a better green these days for either a par 5 or driveable par 4, since those are most likely to take advantage of a roll up shot.

I want to see one on a "driveable" par-3.

In fact, I'd like to see some "driveable" par-3s with any sort of green that's open in front.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan

I have a course opening in a few weeks where there is a 285 Par 3 (inspired by the 8th at Oakmont during that Open) with a Biaritz green.  A back pin can stretch it to 300.  I doubt they will ever use that tee-pin combo, so its more of a talking point, although they hold a major junior tourney there, and I bet some kids could get there easily.  For others, I did a little reverse slope in front of the green to help the shot along the ground.

I guess you would call that a Biaritz on a driveable par 3!  BTW, the swale is about four foot shallower than my Fortune Bay extravaganza on the short par 4 5th.

[John Moore II]

Jeff-What course is that with the 285 par 3? Sounds like an interesting one.

[Jeff_Brauer]

JKM,

Its a complete redo of Weeks Park in Wichita Falls, TX. It will be called the Champions at Weeks Park when reopened on 08.29.08.  I think its pretty solid for a flatland, Texas parcel. But, I felt I did have to add some interest via design to comp for the lack of topo.