Will Doak grumble if Old Mac is viewed as his best work?

[jonathan_becker]

Michael,

Don't ever mention Lebron's name again.  He crushed all of Ohio's hopes and dreams this year.   


....now back to Doak and OM 

[Alex Miller]

At the current rate I will be so sick of Old Macdonald by the time of the Grand Opening I might not even go!  

I'm sick of it already (all the hype and the expectations.)  But I certainly look forward to playing it.  I need to ignore these threads (and related ones) so the expectations don't keep rising through the roof. One of the reasons I enjoyed Bandon Dunes was because I had lower expectations than the other two courses.

I haven't seen this much hype since LeBron was in high school.

Yeah, and clearly Kobe is better.

For those of you who are  in to basketball, Kobe is PD and Lebron is sort of Old Mac. Jordan is NGLA  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forget the architects opinion, whose work would you say progressed each step of the way?

Jim,

Let me repeat what I stated previously:

"Wouldn't the ultimate measure of talent/greatness be, if your most recent work was considered your best work ?
[/b][/color]

[Phil McDade]

I haven't seen this much hype since LeBron was in high school.

Michael:

LeBron has lived up to, perhaps even exceeded, the hype he generated. He is, by nearly all accounts, one of the three best basketball players on the planet, and he's not yet 25.

Not to threadjack or anything.

[Jonathan Cummings]

"Dear Leader" 

I blew coffee through my nose when I read this!

[Patrick_Mucci]

To further hypothesize, IF OM is deemed to be truely great, would Tom incorporate elements of that design into his next design ?

[Mike McGuire]

I hope the hype continues and then amps up a bunch of notches.

This can be a big help to clubs trying to get their membership to understand how cool their classic course is, and why it could be better through restoration.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Ran,

I've been thinking about this.

Wouldn't the ultimate measure of talent/greatness be, if your most recent work was considered your best work ?

That's one way to look at it, but I would guess that somebody of Doak's stature would be suspicious of this sort of sentiment, because it is way too susceptible to the passions of the moment.

Terry:

Yes, I would be very suspicious of that sort of evaluation.  There are a couple of architects working now that, every time they open a new course, their fans exclaim that it's even better than their last work!  The only way you can do that for very long is if your early work was vastly overrated.

There is an unfortunate Bell Curve for acclaim in the golf design business.  Early in your career, even if you build something terrific and original, it's hard to get the credit you deserve.  Then, once you've achieved commercial success, you can do no wrong.  But then you get to Step 3, when people perceive that you're coasting or letting your associates do most of the creative stuff, because you've got nothing left.

The unfortunate part of that is that nearly everyone's work is "preceived" to lie somewhere on that curve, no matter the quality of the work they are doing or who else is involved or the underlying potential of the various sites.

I believe that I'm bringing the same effort and determination and skill to each job that I always have.  But, my learning curve has certainly flattened over the last ten years as opposed to the previous ten; so I think the differences between my projects have more to do with the site and the client and the associate and the shapers, than they do with me.

I am determined not to use the same lineup of players twice ... so, for example, Ballyneal and Rock Creek and Old Macdonald [three of my most highly acclaimed recent projects] had three very different teams.  In fact, three different guys ran those jobs -- Bruce, Eric, and Jim -- and the shaping crews were almost entirely different, although Bruce and Eric did a bit of the shaping at the two jobs they didn't run, and Brian Slawnik and Jonathan Reisetter spent a fair amount of time on all three, and Kye Goalby spent a lot of time on the first two.  From that perspective, though, I hate it when people from outside try to assess who did a better job, because they really don't know who did what out there.  

Jim Urbina has certainly gotten a lot of attention for Old Macdonald, and deservedly so, but he would be the first to tell you that a lot of other people had a share in its success, including many who don't get a design credit.

Tom - I think you are giving way too much credit to facets that most people don't care about.  Goalby, Hepner, Placek, etc, etc are part of a team you've successfully put together to build excellent golf courses.  There are so few out there who care about those names and their talent.  You are to be congratulated on the team you're assembled and your team’s collective successes.  I tip my hat to them all.  But at the end of the day a golfer with absolutely no knowledge of who Tom Doak is, walking off an RGD course and saying "wow", moves earth and heaven compared to us banterers here in the treehouse.

JC    

[JESII]

Notwithstanding Tom's desire to let this thread dissipate, what struck me in "Dear Leader's" initial question was the contrast between CBM's reasoning for selecting his various template holes based on shot requirements/tests...and Tom's oft repeated mantra of not dictating shot requirements at the expense of fun and interest.

Did the mandate of using templates, which inherently contain shot demands, bolster the quality of Old Macdonald from what may have been built? Does the golfer actually want to be directly challenged?

[Terry Lavin]

I have a feeling that Tom Doak is secretly hoping for a Girl #122 to appear, so people start obsessing about Tiger's privates private life again and this thread disappears.

[JESII]

Terry,

I don't disagree...but it really is the best opportunity I can think of to compare the two primary approaches to design...Original and Template.

[Terry Lavin]

Did the mandate of using templates, which inherently contain shot demands, bolster the quality of Old Macdonald from what may have been built? Does the golfer actually want to be directly challenged?

I'm surely not smart enough to come up with an authoritative answer to this query, but I would think that the architect is always thinking about shot demands, whether utilizing a template or if using an "original" design.  The fun part of Doak's work, to me, is the regular incorporation of alternate lines of attack that give a player the opportunity (with built-in risk) of being more aggressive while still allowing a conservative way to play the hole.  This can be true on a template as well as an original hole, it seems to me.  For example, let's consider the "typical" Redan, which calls for a shot to the right front of the green, to funnel back and left.  At Old Macdonald, the Redan hole would appear to call for that shot, but in talking with a number of people, it would appear that the ideal shot to that green would be a high fade, because it is far too easy for the shot hit front right to roll off the green in back, leaving a dicey come-backer.  All amateur speculation, take it for what it ain't worth!

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - good questiion. But, while there is probably a lot of meat on that bone, I think the comparison/contrast is a flawed one, at least from one perspective.  The 'historical necessity' that CBM felt he was facing, i.e. the need to establish/promote golf and golf course architecture in America along the ideal/correct principles as manifested in the great old British courses, doesn't have a parallel in Tom D's case, I don't think; I assume the latter doesn't feel any need to save golf or golf course architecture in America, just to design and build the best course he can (with best including a good measure of fun in the definition). And, since CBM did indeed succeed in promoting those fundamental principles in America, and since modern architects have learned both from that and directly from the original inspirations/golf holes, I think someone like Tom D has always, as a given, attempted to manifest those principles in all of his designs. I see OM, then, as an interesting semi-departure in form, with little/no difference in function.

Peter

[JESII]

Terry,

I agree...but what makes this all interesting to me is that CBM narrowed it down to a small handful of concepts/features/blueprints that can each be attacked or tacked around...Tom seems to think there are limitless opportunities to make/create interesting holes and courses.

I'm certainly not suggesting an either/or conversation as we'll never see Macdonald do a Doak Memorial and it doesn't really matter anyway if they're making great courses...

To go back to your example of the Redan concept...it sounds like Tom's iteration captures the primary features of the green running away that is approached sort of at the corner...I'm curious if he's avoided the concept previously. I suspect there are variations on the theme, but when incorporating the full effect did he surpass any previous attempts? Is the Redan at Old Macdonald a better/more exciting hole than any prior iterations of the Redan concept by this team?


Peter - just saw your post when trying to post this one so let me consider it.

[JESII]

Peter,

I think a distinction between CBM and Doak is that CBM was much more specific about the key influences. I say that not because he identified the hole he was copying but because he identified the shot(s) that was/were required to succeed. Modern day architects seem to think it's vile to demand anything...probably because modern day golfers hate to have anything demanded of them...

...until, that is...Old Macdonald showed up...

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

I think you are trying to make some conceptual points without having seen enough of my work to do so ... especially having not seen Old Macdonald.

For example, in bringing up the Redan, you apparently haven't seen any of the five versions of it I've built in the past.  By far the best of those is at Pacific Dunes ... a hole that's maybe 600 yards away from our Redan at Old Macdonald.  So, one of the guiding principles of the new Redan was that it ought to be different than its nearest neighbor.  For that reason, we built the Redan at Old Macdonald to play downwind in the summer, and that prompted a number of decisions about the green and surrounding hazards that make it quite a bit different from the hole at North Berwick, or National, or anywhere else.  I think I heard that it was the least favorite hole among the Macdonald clubs; and if so, I'm not surprised, because it's deliberately different than what they expected.  [And that's not just my doing, either; Jim Urbina was a driving force in not sticking too close to some of the templates.]

Also, while I take your point generally in regard to "shot-testing" holes, particularly on the par-3's ... yet three of his four template par-3's are holes where you have more than one way to get to the flag ... at the Redan you can play with a high fade or a low runner, at the Eden you can take on the Strath or steer through the entrance, and at the Biarritz you can fly it to the back or try to run the ball through the swale.  Indeed, it was Macdonald who first insisted that longer holes give the club member a way around the most difficult features, by "tacking" as a yachtsman does ... which has often been cited as one good definition of strategic design.  So, I think you are oversimplifying his thoughts on design.

I am never going to reduce golf course architecture to a series of templates because I've had a chance to see many, many more great golf courses than existed in Macdonald's time.

[Bill_McBride]

I'm very eager to see Old Mac because there really hasn't been such a course built in 80+ years!

And because I want to see how Tom creates the shot requirements of those holes in the Bandon environment.  There are differences between terrain of all the famous course that affect how the holes play.

A good example would be the Biarritz at Yale vs the Biarritz at The Creek!  Same template, completely different holes.

[Richard Choi]

This brings up a very good point. Aren't all golf courses just derivatives of existing golf courses? What makes Old Macdonald so special in that area?

All creative endeavors involve taking existing ideas and putting a new twist on them. It happens with visual arts and with auditory arts. In fact, read this recent article from Slate where they discuss an AI composer that can produce pretty confident original material by refactoring existing snippets of music in its vast database (http://www.slate.com/id/2254232/). Scientist believe that this probably mirrors exactly how humans create new original works as well.

Isn't Old Macdonald only special in that you are only using previous examples that were available to Macdonald when he was alive and personally experienced?

Going on that same thought, could OM really surpass PD when it is drawn from such a smaller pool of inspirational designs?

[JESII]

Jim:

I think you are trying to make some conceptual points without having seen enough of my work to do so ... especially having not seen Old Macdonald.

Tom,

I knew my lack of experience on your courses (CBM's as well...) hurts me in this conversation, but I thought it would be Patrick that would sniff it out...in BOLD GREEN...so that's why I tried to ask questions where I didn't know the answer. Also, I'm asking less about actual work on the ground than about design philosophy...CBM seemingly started with a belief in what made a good player and used that as the foundation for creating his holes. I feel safe in saying you do not...

Terry brought up the Redan at OM, and explained some of its nuance so I ran with it. You said you were not surprised the members of Macdonald clubs had your Redan as their least favorite, but my question was how does it compare to your other Redan iterations in their/your or other thoughtful posters views. You said by far your best Redan is at Pacific Dunes...can you, or any who agree, elaborate on what makes it so good? Is it a great hole in its own right? Or is it a great hole and a great Redan copy?

I am never going to reduce golf course architecture to a series of templates because I've had a chance to see many, many more great golf courses than existed in Macdonald's time.

I think this quote may just be the crux of it...again, I'm not on a hunt for either/or, just very intrigued by the contrast.

[Tom_Doak]

CBM seemingly started with a belief in what made a good player and used that as the foundation for creating his holes. I feel safe in saying you do not...

Jim:

I've never seen it the way you stated.

Certainly, CB Macdonald started with a belief that he WAS a great player, and I do not.

But I always thought his architecture started with a belief that he had seen what golf was all about, in Scotland, and the rest of Americans had not ... and that it was his duty to bring that spirit of golf to his designs, more than it was his duty to make a golf course that identified the best player.  And if that's the case, then we are not very far apart at all.

[JESII]

Tom,

I'm not trying to say CBM designed for HIS OWN competitive advantage...not at all.

I'm not even trying to say, explicitly, that he was trying to identify the best player.

What I am probably trying to say (probably being the key word...) is that I think his philosophy was based on challenging the player to understand the strategy and hit the specific shots required.

Certainly there's allowance for lesser players, but the core principles seem inclined toward skillful play.


But...let's assume you are correct in this "But I always thought his architecture started with a belief that he had seen what golf was all about, in Scotland"...what does that mean in architecture?

[Mike Cirba]

But, is it better than The Sheep Ranch?

[Tom_Doak]

Sully:

Well, let's go back to how Macdonald proposed scoring the essential characteristics of an ideal course, back in 1906.

Course - Nature of the soil ... 23 points.
     - Perfection in undulation and hillocks ... 22 points.

Putting greens - Quality of turf ... 10 points.
     - Nature of undulation well placed ... 5 points.
     - Variety ... 3 points.

Bunkers and other hazards - Nature, size and variety ... 4 points
     - Proper placing ... 9 points

Length of hole - Best length of holes ... 8 points
     - Variety and arrangement of length ... 5 points

Quality of turf of fair green ... 6 points

Width of fair green of the course 45 to 60 yards ... 3 points

Nature of teeing grounds and proximity to putting greens ... 2 points


You can see that he assigned more points to the quality of the undulations than he did anything relating to strategy or to shot values.  I think that's something that goes back to the nature of the Scottish game.

By that checklist, I presume C. B. would decide that Old Macdonald is too wide.  Maybe he would have liked Pacific Dunes better.

[JESII]

By that checklist, I presume C. B. would decide that Old Macdonald is too wide.  Maybe he would have liked Pacific Dunes better.

Well then he clearly would have been on an island here at GCA.com...

What is a perfect hillock anyway?

[George Pazin]

You can see that he assigned more points to the quality of the undulations than he did anything relating to strategy or to shot values.  I think that's something that goes back to the nature of the Scottish game.

Damn, I love this comment.

Given CBM's seminal role in American golf course architecture, it's a shame more didn't agree. Or at least don't seem to.

What is a perfect hillock anyway?

Halle Berry?