[paul cowley]

....personally I'm a work in progress, and I'm fine with that....least I gell. But time will tell....which won't matter much to me at that point.

[TX Golf]

I am going to have to agree on a few of the comments that TH made earlier. The golfer doesn't give a shit!!!

We have had this discussion about the average golfer many times before, and they just don't care about the details and history of golf all that much. My current roommate is a single digit golfer and has what I would consider an above average interest in the game. He frequently pages through my WAOG and often asks questions. He grew up playing Interlachen CC (a top 100 Donald Ross course) and has some interest in DR. However, if you were to put him on another DR course, he would have absolutely no idea. I could mention the names Crump, Raynor, C&C, Doak, Kidd, etc. and he would have no idea who I am talking about. (except maybe Crenshaw because he played on tour)

I just asked him to list the golf architects that he knows and this was his list. (Ross, Fazio, RTJ, Pete Dye,  Nicklaus, Tillinghast, MacKenzie, and Phillips (only because I always talk about Cal Club). When I asked him which courses he had played by these architects, he had no idea. This is all coming from a guy that has an interest in golf and probably knows much more than 95% of other golfers.

If the grass is green, the greens are smooth, and the sun is out, the golfer really doesn't give a rip. We might hope that they do but they don't. They enjoy a Sunday morning tee time and the afternoon coverage of the PGA Tour, and that is about it.

Differentiation is probably only important when a certain architect is being considered for a certain course. An investor will want to know that they can produce on whatever piece of land is being considered.

Anyways, just my thoughts on the situation.

Robert

[Michael Whitaker]

The short answer is you're right -- it would only matter to those who have seen the other work.

But there is also the issue of an architect's legacy.

How many people care about an architect's legacy? Not many.

There is something to be said for delivering a consistently appreciated and entertaining product. If an archie can do that by utilizing time-proven design features and concepts isn't that a positive thing? It's how an archie incorporates those features and concepts over time that separates the good ones from the also-rans.

If I were going to be a golf course architect I would do exactly what Tom Doak did... visit as many great golf courses as I could and catalog the features that I thought worked and those that didn't.

You know what they say... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Andy Troeger]

I would lean much more to Huck's side of this discussion than Matt's.

I look at golf courses on an individual basis. Is it fun to play? Is there something about it that makes it interesting or unique? Lets face it, the land dictates the interest of most courses at least as much as the architect. Intresting courses can be built from lousy sites, but the percentages are with those who start with a nice piece of property.

If one is evaluating an architect's overall body of work, then sure Matt makes a point that its nice to have some variety involved. When working with a number of different sites, I think being able to blend one's style to the individual site has a lot of advantages. That said, if someone can continue to build great golf courses that still have a lot of similarities to each other, so be it. I'm not going to argue against a formula that works. Every designer copies themselves somewhat, and copies their favorite bits of others' work too. Not that much is really original anymore--just a new take on something that's probably already out there.

The point Tom H. makes that is important to me is that even as someone who enjoys evaluating and playing golf courses--I'm looking at each course individually. Say you are playing We-Ko-Pa Saguaro. Why should it matter if it has similarities to Warren at Notre Dame? If I hadn't played ND, I wouldn't know that there might be similarities. It seems odd to judge a course based on something thousands of miles away...

[Rob Rigg]

Michael,

I would agree that about 99% of the population do not care about a golf architects legacy, but like anything based on taste it is the 1% we are focusing on with this question (I think).

99% of the population do not care about wine or art, that does not mean it is not worth studying or discussing.

So for those who DO care about legacy, such as many of those on this site, does differentiation matter?

I agree with Andy's comment about land dictating interest in a course to a certain degree - but when you are discussing top golf course architects, they can turn a flat piece of land into something spectacular. Whether you think the Castle Course is a strong architectural design or not is certainly up for debate, but I think it is tough to argue that Kidd did not have the vision to transform a cow pasture, with a waste management plant in the middle, into something pretty amazing.

And this works both ways, look at what Kidd, Doak and C&C have done at Bandon. The setting for all three courses is spectacular, especially PD & BD. Someone could have come in and f'd it up. No? Would most people realize this, probably not, but that 1% would wonder about what could have been. Any of the above architects could have tarnished their legacy with a bad design, but they all challenged themselves and delivered.

I think Doak is a great study here because of exactly what Michael said - He took the time to visit, study, take in, meditate on, hundreds of courses throughout the world. He, probably more than most architects (I am not saying all), actually went to the school of golf course architecture and took the time to study.

This is what happens in medicine, law, business, etc. The greats in a field study deeply in that field - through study, they can take what they learn and turn it into something new and unique. In the case of GCA, they can turn it into something different depending on the land, setting, client's needs, soil, etc. They have 1000 ideas to work from instead of 50, it is a huge advantage.

If an architect has that depth of knowledge, it should show in his work. If an architect keeps returning to a "signature" or continues to apply a "formula", or mails in his plans and visits a course twice during construction, then I would argue that his work will get stale. His portfolio will get redundant and potentially boring, to the 1% that actually care.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

It took me about ten years to understand how my business works.

The vast majority of clients are relative novices as far as being in the golf business, and even if they're rich, they're a little nervous about spending $10 million or more on a business they don't understand.

Given that, which sales pitch do you think is more likely to get an architect a job?

a)  It's a beautiful site, and I really don't know what style would work best for this particular site, but if you hire us I'm sure we will figure it out.

Or, b)  You loved our course at Pacific Dunes, and it cost $4 million to build, and we can do the same thing for you here.

Answer (b) is the reason most clients hire "signature" names to do repetitive "signature" designs.  Answer (a) does work sometimes, but probably only for 10% of clients who really aspire to build something original.

[Sean_A]

Unless you are in the business somehow or plan to build a course, I don't much see what an archie's legacy would mean to most folks.  I don't see anything wrong with judging a course and leaving the archie (and his other work) out of it.  Having said that, I think its a natural tendency for anybody interested in architecture to gravitate toward the archies whose courses they enjoyed the most and avoid the archies who have produced disappointing courses.  Again, even at this level, there can't be too many folks who care.

Part of the problem with trying to judge archies on their body of work is we don't what their constraints were.  There are so many factors that pop up and each project must offer its own difficulties.  The best I think we can do is look at courses individually and decide if we like them or not.  If you like enough of an archie's work I spose you like that archie, but some of the reasons why you like him may be down to luck.  I know looking at courses individually is merely a microcosim of the entire body of work, but the difference is we aren't drawing any (or many) conclusions about an archie.  If only the course is focused on it doesn't matter why an archie does something, all we have to do is decide what we think about it and then figure out if we would ever pay to see the course again. 

Like most on here, I have more favoured archies, but I don't have a clue if they are better than other archies cuz I don't know nearly enough about the details of their work as a profession or on a project to project basis.  So, in the end, I lean more toward AwsHuckster's PoV even though I do have an interest in archies and their bodies of work, but I don't take it too seriously because the most important thing are the courses rather than the archies. 

Ciao 

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Of the architects I've come to know (even if some of them are so-called restoration architects) it seems like all of them both like the idea of doing different things and they sure do talk about the idea of doing different things and stretching themselves etc. But how much any of them actually do that to some degree that even people who know them and their basic style and themes might not recognize one of their courses is pretty hard to say.

I think you're right that Tillinghast may be the one with some real differentiation that worked (I've always been impressed by Tillinghast and I'm more impressed this week than I was last week after seeing Winged Foot again).

Certainly Muirhead created extreme differentiaton in his career and his latter style and look didn't seem to work at all. Maybe he figured he could sort of mimic with golf architecture Picasso's paint art career of going from basic traditionalism into extreme and modern sort of pyschological symbolism. It sure worked for Picasso but it sure didn't for Muirhead. One interested in architecture should sure consider why that was! 

If I was an architect and clients would let me I would go without sand bunkering on good topographical sites that had no natural sand around. I'd replace the bunker hazards with the hazard of what I call "gravity" golf. I think it would be cheaper to make and certainly to maintain too. Would it be accepted by golfers? Probably not by all of them or even that many of them, at least not at first.

As Max Behr implied the sand bunker is that odd vestige from the original sand-based linksland that just hung onto golf and never let go. For anyone to truly understand how entrenched in golf the sand bunker has become all they really need to do is look inside any Rules of Golf book. When that time came within the Rules (and long ago) where it became prohibited for golfers to touch the sand in bunkers the sand bunker was pretty much here to stay on golf course everywhere. 

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Speaking of design differentiation and Tillinghast who can say that he did not pull off the all time design differentiation at Winged Foot by going with all that highly dramatic bunkering around about 35 greens and then on the 17th at the East here is this mammoth pushed up green with no bunkering at all. I realize there is some question of fact if there once was sand on the left but if there never was THAT just could be one of the most interesting "design differentiation" switcheroos anywhere.

[Peter Pallotta]

....personally I'm a work in progress, and I'm fine with that....least I gell. But time will tell....which won't matter much to me at that point.

Paul's point, if I understand it right, is worth noting. Don't confuse the critic's post facto analysis of the work (one course or an entire portfolio) with the decisions an architect made in creating that work. That creation happens moment by moment and year by year, and is an ever-changing and internal process; the analysis deals with the fixed and static results, and judges only the externals.  If an architect spends his time "trying to be creative" or "ensuring a lasting legacy" he's probably not focusing on the task at hand, the one specific decision at the one specific golf hole/course on the one specific bit of nature there before him.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

Peter

[Anthony Gray]

 
My questions to Matt remain, however.  I just don't see why it should matter to me as a golfer.

   Tom,

  It does not matter as a golfer but as a connoisseur of architecture it does.

[Jeff_Brauer]

As a gca, design differentiation for the approximately 3500 design geeks, er, I mean connosisseurs, out there is pretty low on my list.

I worry first about getting the best course for my client. In some markets, that might mean doing my style, a new style, a restoration style. In all markets, it means using the site to the max.  It could very well be that the best design for them is one similar to another design I have done.  After all, that's probably why they hired me.

That said, if a template hole - say a Redan - is a good hole in Kansas, its a good hole somewhere else, too, no?  Naturally, it has to fit the topo and wind may be a consideration, but if those are considered properly, then it should be a good hole, even if repeated.  And that goes to a large degree for an "RTJ No. 34", a Fazio hole, or a Pete Dye Cape Hole 18th.

Courses are designed to be played first, analyzed later, no?

[Anthony Gray]

   Jeff,

  You made my point without realizing it. Topo should win over style. The design should be dictated by the land.

[Tom Huckaby]

 
My questions to Matt remain, however.  I just don't see why it should matter to me as a golfer.

   Tom,

  It does not matter as a golfer but as a connoisseur of architecture it does.

Anthony:  Exactly.  That's exactly what I've been trying to get Matt to understand.  And since there would seem to be very obviously way more golfers than connoisseurs of architecture, the short answer to his question does remain a simple "no."

TH

[Kirk Gill]

The bottom line answer to the question Matt poses is, of course it matters. The deeper issue, which is what we've really been talking about it, is how MUCH does it matter?

To those who are able to travel around and play large numbers of courses, or to those who are historically minded and have a desire to place each design and each designer in their proper place in the pantheon of greats, it really matters. Obviously, Matt, even though you posed this issue as a question, it certainly matters to YOU.

But as Mr. Huck so rightly stated, for the majority of golfers the main thing is the course they're playing at that moment. Is it fun? Interesting? Hard? Strategic? Beautiful? Maybe after the round with beer in hand the notion pops up......"is this course as good as THAT course?" and the conversation flows.

And Tom Doak made clear (reiterating, I must humbly add, a point I attempted to make earlier) that the client might have a lot to do with how much differentiation an architect is able to put on the ground.

And look at the architects who are considered to be the true greats. How much of that greatness can really be attributed to the design differences between the courses they created?

To use an analogy, if you like the group Genesis, is the measure of their greatness the fact that they created both Supper's Ready AND Invisible Touch, or is it simply that Supper's Ready is so fricking great?

[Tom Huckaby]

Kirk:

Perfectly summed up.  I like the analogy also.  Those are perfect questions to ask if evaluating the greatness of a group.  My point does remain however that the later Genesis crap matters big time in the evaluation of Genesis as artists, but matters not at all in terms of one's evaluation of Supper's Ready as a piece, or one's enjoyment of it. 

TH

[Kirk Gill]

You're right, Tom, about the notion that the qualitative difference between those two eras matters in the evaluation of them as artists, more than any stylistic differences.

So Matt, could that be true of GCA as well? Which matters more to a designer's "legacy" - that there is a significant design differentiation between their various courses, or that there is (or is not) a significant difference in quality?

[Tom Huckaby]

Again perfectly stated, Kirk.

If every course is great, it really wouldn't matter if they were all the same style.  Only if later courses suffer in terms of quality would this lack of differentiation then matter.

Or at least I think so.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Let me try to ONCE AGAIN explain what has been stated upteeeen times already ..

Joe "I'm swilling 64-ounce beer chasing golf nut" Sixpack could care less about anything more complicated than the course he is playing at that moment.

A no-brainer of home run proportions.

TEPaul:

I agree w you on Tillie and I'm glad you were able to revisit Winged Foot and see firsthand what makes that place so unique. In playing so many of his designs I have not really seen a clear pattern that says, "oh, this is an A.W.T. design.

Tom, I agree with you 1000%, the average Joe and Jane are clueless when a discusison of differentiation is discussed. The more important matter is what those in the know really see when reviewing what an architect does. When all is said and done with an architect's career there will be reviews of what that person accomplished and I frankly believe that the sheer versatility and creativity are what sets apart the very good from the ultra greatest who have worked in such a field.

You see Tom -- I think some architects remind me of magicians -- don't let the masses know how we do our tricks because if they should catch on then we might have to really come up with something a bit more creative and exciting. RTJ used a formula that built his name and the profession in general -- but really how many of his designs are really noteworthy at the highest of high levels? The same might also be said of Tom Fazio. No doubt he's built a winning business and his courses provide max enjoyment to the clients he worked for and the people who were entertained. Have many of those designs really broken new ground on being above and beyond the sheer vast numbers he cranks out. Of the 75+ courses of his I have played I would dare say only a half a dozen or so are especially noteworthy and that specialness has come about because they WERE SO DIFFERENT than the ones he stamped out over and over again.


Michael W:

The base level for discussion doesn't mean squat to the average player. I get that point. Here's what you missed and I repeat what Rob mentioned previously because it captures the point perfectly ...

"If an architect keeps returning to a "signature" or continues to apply a "formula", or mails in his plans and visits a course twice during construction, then I would argue that his work will get stale. His portfolio will get redundant and potentially boring, to the 1% that actually care."

Michael you stated, "There is something to be said for delivering a consistently appreciated and entertaining product."

I don't disagree with that statement.

But how does that square with the fact that over the course of time the mindless repetition of that same product doesn't really advance the ball in terms of one's overall creativity?

Yes, such a product if designed the same may bring in $$ for the developer and no doubt the architect but I would think the "art" element that is so intrinsically linked to the architecture arena would suffer consideably because of this slavish embrace.


Kirk:

Some people are capable in designing courses that are great but are limited in their overall style and scope to one particular formula. The issue is one of their ability to be versatile and therefore demonstrate the GREATER RANGE in their overall design skills.

I used a basic analogy that I thought would illustrate the issue quite clearly. You have actors who can play one series of roles -- drama, action flicks, etc, etc, -- those same actors may not have the wherewithal to do comedy, romance, live theater, etc, etc.

Yes, one can be great in a very narrow range of areas -- Arnold S in his day was great at the action genre -- but you would never confuse him for Laurence Oliver or Henry Fonda or James Stewart. The "greatness" of Arnold S is really therefore limited in terms of overall range and dimension.

Kirk, you ask how much does it matter?

For architects who want to have their work live long after they are gone it matters a great deal. I can't name one single architect who doesn't have the smallest of egos that doesn't want to be thought of as adding to the greatest of design through their work.

In regards to Doak's comments -- no doubt the individual employer decides how much of a leash the architect gets with a given site -- it's their money and their property. However, it's more than likely the architect faces a catch-22 situation because what drove the developer to seek that respective architect out in the first place was the work they have done PREVIOUSLY. The issue for the architect is not to get so caught up in simply regurgutating the same type of golf course design time after time after time.

It does happen and frankly it doesn't take a world traveler to see such a situation if you happen to play a fairly representative sample of an active golf architect.

Kirk, you mention the "true greats" in golf design. If you happen to play a wide array of courses you can see the points I have been making. Some people are good at producing one particular style -- nothing wrong with that but if you held that same person up against another who has a portfolio of varied courses that are rich in diversity / style, etc, etc, then the answer is who is the greater architect is apparent to those who have their eyes open.

You are 1000% correct -- the developer / employer sets much of the terms of creative license that any architect can bring forward. However, I ask this -- those architects who follow the $$$ may in so many ways compromise the art element for the business side of things. Fortunately, there are certain architects working today -- as they did in the past -- who will have a greater say so because of their overall standing in the field.


Jeff B:

Your answer speaks to the issue of immediacy -- satisfy your client at all costs. That's fine -- he is the dud signing the checks that puts $$ in your pocket.

The risk is that those who seek the gold at all costs risk the essence in sacrificing unique and varied designs because of a resolute desire to keep the client happy -- as you mentioned it's likely that a past work was what motivated that prospective client to seek you out in the first place.

Jeff, you state a no-brainer -- no doubt, courses are meant to be played. But great courses can stand up against rigorous analysis to see if what the architect has done is furthering what they have done previously or is simply nothing more than a tired rendition of what they have done before. If I hear about an exciting design that an architect that I respect has done I want to know a bit more about it before heading out the door to play it. If the "new" course is nothing better than the "old" one I've already played then there's no need for me to venture out the door. I can save the time and effort to see it.

Is the newest creation advancing the craft level of what's been done previously? I can tell you this candidly -- after spending many years traveling and playing a wide array of courses around the globe -- architects now face a bit more scrutiny than in years past. Version #1 that they offered a client in Pennsy may not have been seen by future clients located in the Carolinas years ago and therefore the architect could sell Version #1 as being really unique and exciting. Because of today's information age -- that sales pitch doesn't fly as easily.

No doubt there will be clients who could care less and many architects are more than happy to design for them a replica or close copy of past work because such clients want what the other guy before him has.

There's nothing wrong in that the client gets what he / she wants and the architect gets paid for designing / building it.

The issue is one of where does the architect stand in terms of their overall skills in bringing to life a varied and rich menu of exciting layouts that are not merely clones of one another? RTJ excelled in expanding his brand name around the globe but he did so by providing a template that was redone countless times. You can now see where his overall impact on design rests and in my mind, it's not near the top of the charts because of that business desire to get his name in all corners of the globe.


Andy:

Under your theory -- that's what makes McDonald's so successful. You have the same burger in Seattle as in New York. Nothing wrong with that at all -- little creativity and a simple to repeat formula that brings in plenty of $$$$. Does it mean a unique and exciting burger? Not at all. Conformity becomes the rule and with that the wherewithal to evolve into something more gets chucked out the window. Hey, if people are buying it why tinker with anything more than what hash / golf course is being served.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Good stuff.  You still don't seem to get that one can know the difference between golf courses yet still not care about differentiation - this constant reference to "Joe Sixpack" actually misses the point, it's really just logic that the quality of one course does not depend on what's going on at another course - but at least you are on the right track, limiting this to the assessment of careers, by connoiseurs and the like.  In the scheme of things you do see this is relatively trivial though, right?

But trivial matters are what it's all about in here.

So I am happy you do seem to get it.

So, putting on my conniseur hat, I will say that I agree with you - I think if a GCA has a formula that one constantly uses, it's hard to judge the skill as supreme, as opposed to a GCA who shows many differently styles, anyway.  Of course I said that early on.

 



TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Be sure to ask various architects if their overall standing when all is said and done is "trivial" to them.

Given the egos all architects have concerning the "best way" to design golf courses I'm sure, if they are truly candid, that it means a great deal to them to be seen as richly creative and quite versatile in the courses they create.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy:

Under your theory -- that's what makes McDonald's so successful. You have the same burger in Seattle as in New York. Nothing wrong with that at all -- little creativity and a simple to repeat formula that brings in plenty of $$$$. Does it mean a unique and exciting burger? Not at all. Conformity becomes the rule and with that the wherewithal to evolve into something more gets chucked out the window. Hey, if people are buying it why tinker with anything more than what hash / golf course is being served.

Incorrect Matt. McDonald's doesn't have high quality food. Its what makes a high quality place like the Cheesecake Factory successful. I go to one of those every chance I get. They were creative to begin with and created a great product and it works in every location they've put it in. If one doesn't care for CF, substitute your favorite higher-end chain restaurant or store. I suppose maybe its not the local place that's one of a kind, but even those unique places can be similar to each other in some respects.

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck:

Be sure to ask various architects if their overall standing when all is said and done is "trivial" to them.

Given the egos all architects have concerning the "best way" to design golf courses I'm sure, if they are truly candid, that it means a great deal to them to be seen as richly creative and quite versatile in the courses they create.

Matt:

Oh I feel certain that their legacies are important to these artists.  So they ought to take this seriously, for sure - as I'm sure they do.

But again, the feelings of GCA's, and their standing as compared to each other, still does strike me as fairly trivial in the overall scheme of things in golf.

So again, I think it best to just be careful in what you are asking.  Does differentiation matter in terms of the assessment of golf course architects?  Yes.  Does differentiation matter in terms of how great any particular course is?  I think not. 

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Your argument is focused on the standing of the single tree -- think about the broader canvass of the forest itself.

The blinders you've put on your eyes -- can be removed if you understand the distinction of what I have mentioned upteen times.


Andy:

When you say "quality" try to measure the sheer dollar totals McDonald's generates versus the Cheesecake Factory or any other mass produced food item.

Not even close.

Architects that follow the McDonald's model will be richly rewarded on the dollar side of things but not really register anything of architectural value for the long term in the years after they have departed from this planet.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy:

When you say "quality" try to measure the sheer dollar totals McDonald's generates versus the Cheesecake Factory or any other mass produced food item.

Not even close.

Architects that follow the McDonald's model will be richly rewarded on the dollar side of things but not really register anything of architectural value for the long term in the years after they have departed from this planet.

And you've missed my point entirely...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()