[Jeff_Brauer]

To be honest, while I don't agree with the argument that elitist describes minimalism, I often use the term "sincere" relating to design.  And, I can see the argument that using all technology available is a more sincere form of design than trying to replicate a style of a bygone era when earthmoving in particular was difficult.  Honest would be another term.

You can force an overengineered design on property that doesn't need it, and you can force minimalism on a site that does.  The most sincere/honest designs, IMHO, are ones that assess what the site and client need, and do their level best to deliver.  I would argue that for 90+% of courses, that doing it for the minimum possible budget is usually implied, but grant that there have always been owners that want to spend more to show off with their new play toys.  Spending more to give them bragging rights is a form of honest design, too!

[Tom_Doak]

Michael Blake--I don't want to try to state his argument, because I don't agree with it.  But I think he was trying to say that it is elitist to argue that all good courses need to be "minimal" or "natural," because in some cases the land doesn't lend itself to that approach.

This part, I'll happily agree with.

 He was saying (I believe) that building a course like the Madison Club on a plain, flat piece of land required an approach that the "mininalist" architects couldn't do, and to criticize or deny that "enhanced" style of architecture would result in an inferior product being built.  

This part, I won't.  There is a big difference between "couldn't do" and "don't want to do" which apparently escapes my fellow architect here.  I haven't said that he could not design a course in the minimalist style ... in fact, part of his argument here is presumably that he could do just that, if only they would give him good land.  So, to be fair, he should not declare or imply that Bill Coore or I "couldn't" build a course which required a lot of earthmoving.  In fact, I happen to know of one that Bill is about to start.  Perhaps we should just go after all of that firm's potential future projects so we could make our point!

[Tom_Doak]

You can force an overengineered design on property that doesn't need it, and you can force minimalism on a site that does. 

You mean you can force minimalism on property that needs overengineered design? 

Jeff, can you name a couple of examples where a minimalist approach was tried by an architect well versed in the idea, and the course suffered because of it?

[Tim Nugent]

This part, I won't.  There is a big difference between "couldn't do" and "don't want to do" which apparently escapes my fellow architect here.  I haven't said that he could not design a course in the minimalist style ... in fact, part of his argument here is presumably that he could do just that, if only they would give him good land.  So, to be fair, he should not declare or imply that Bill Coore or I "couldn't" build a course which required a lot of earthmoving.  In fact, I happen to know of one that Bill is about to start.   Perhaps we should just go after all of that firm's potential future projects so we could make our point!

Hopefully, when completed, those who are not aware of the process will extoll the genius of C&C because they look before them and it appears that the course was just laid upon the land, true to minimalistic tennants  - never being able to believe that an extensive earthwork job actually lies before them.

[Richard Choi]

There is too much confusion around "minimalism" and "naturalism".

Using existing contours of the land and moving the least amount of earth possible to build a course is "minimalism".

Moving heaven and earth to create a course that looks like its been there for ages (say Chambers Bay), is "naturalism", not "minimalism".

I do agree that "naturalism" can lead to elitist tendencies. I don't agree that "minimalism" can.

[Bill Brightly]

Forget about defining "elitist" "minimalism" or "naturalism." What I hear is a major architectural firm that is REALLY concerned about a shift in what golfers, and those who hire architects, want.

[Gary Slatter]

if Henry Ford came back to life what would his next car design look like?

Garland, I love the old quotes but times do change and if they had another chance to say it, they might change a bit knowing what new toys they have to use in designing and building a course.  Personally I love most courses and appreciate the eforts (and differences).

We used to sell two identical shirts, both from the same factory, one had the little polo character and sold for double the amount, and outsold the non-logo shirt 3 to 1.  Interestingly it was the wealthy golfer who bought the no logo shirt,  is it because they were elitist?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Gary,

They are just demonstrating the mindset that got them rich in the first place, if you read "The Millionare Mind."  As to the car Henry Ford would build, I don't know.  Even if the skin/shell looked like a model T, I would hope the engine was a bit more modern.  But its a good example of what I was trying to illustrate - would any of us want a real Model T?

Its okay to style a car or golf course as an homage to the past (a la PT Cruiser) but in reality, its a specialty deal, and I think most appreciate the totally modern car, and in some ways, building a car to 2010 visual sensibilities is more sincere than bringing back an old style, albeit with "more under the hood" a la irrigation, etc.

[Jud_T]

Gary,

They are just demonstrating the mindset that got them rich in the first place, if you read "The Millionare Mind."  As to the car Henry Ford would build, I don't know.  Even if the skin/shell looked like a model T, I would hope the engine was a bit more modern.  But its a good example of what I was trying to illustrate - would any of us want a real Model T?

Its okay to style a car or golf course as an homage to the past (a la PT Cruiser) but in reality, its a specialty deal, and I think most appreciate the totally modern car, and in some ways, building a car to 2010 visual sensibilities is more sincere than bringing back an old style, albeit with "more under the hood" a la irrigation, etc.

Jeff,  couple of points.

1.  I'm not sure the comparison is valid.  There's been clear and steady progress in cars under the hood as well as a maintaining of standards, at least at the high end, in terms of auto design.  While there's clearly been progress "under the hood" if you will in terms of golf course construction, irrigation, grass strains for various climates, etc. it's not clear from a strategic or even aesthetic point of view that standards were improved or even maintained over the same period.

2.  Yes the 2010 visual sensibilities are the most appropriate, however they are evolving and are not what they were even 5 or 10 years ago for a growing number of players, developers, archies etc....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jud,

I won't agree that there strategic elements have regressed over the years. I think gca's have simply modified them to fit the current game, eliminating carry bunkers now that carrying is easier to do, narrowing fw now that straight driving is easier to do, etc.  There are those who argue (including me, partially) that designing a course with bunkering like Ross or MacKenzie makes little sense (top shot bunkers, bunkers 30 yards short of the green, etc.) because they just don't work like they did back in those days, with irrigation, club and ball tech, etc.  For example, CC designed Colorado Golf Club for the running game, but the only running approach I saw was to a restroom by a senior golfer with apparent prostate problems, and they set the course up pretty much to modern standards.  So, is designing the course to a style prevalent in the 1920's the very best thing (I will grant that it works for average players, somewhat nullifying my point)

Its different, but I am not sure its inferior, despite the groupthink here.  It just fits how most people want to play.  That said, I agree that the Golden Age probably was the period of the greatest leap forward in gca thinking, and we are merely refining that, and there are few new real ideas since then.

[Tim Nugent]

Golf architects too often accept an inferior piece of property just to get the job. The result, almost inevitably, is an inferior course.
[Jack Nichlaus, Golf World, 1982]

[Mike Nuzzo]

Golf architects too often accept an inferior piece of property just to get the job. The result, almost inevitably, is an inferior course.
[Jack Nichlaus, Golf World, 1982]

Tim what makes piece of property not inferior?

[Tim Nugent]

Mike - one not well suited for it's intended purpose.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff B.

There are shots my 70 year old mother hits (she plays every day at Sun City Palm Desert) that Jack Nicklaus can't hit. (OK maybe he can but I just don't think he tries those out while "testing" his design)

Where a good player with strength might fly a 9 iron, a weaker player might have to hit another type of shot. Why defer to the good player? One thing I promise is he ain't paying the bills.

[Adam Clayman]

I believe Pinion Hills was built on a site that two leading gca's said was inferior. Ken Dye's vision created a course that proved them wrong.
Sebonack was also built on a site that one leading archie said "No' to.

In the words of the soft spoken thoughtful Jimmy Urbina " It's only an opinion".

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff B.

There are shots my 70 year old mother hits (she plays every day at Sun City Palm Desert) that Jack Nicklaus can't hit. (OK maybe he can but I just don't think he tries those out while "testing" his design)

golf course owners?

Where a good player with strength might fly a 9 iron, a weaker player might have to hit another type of shot. Why defer to the good player? One thing I promise is he ain't paying the bills.

Mike,

The simple response is that reduced carry bunkers and open front greens are more common now, in large part because design philosophy is more accomodating.  IMHO, tee shot carry bunkers are the thing that has been eliminated the most from the GA to today, and its because gca's found out that they unduly punished the guys who pay the bills (and gals) and were really of no consequence to better players once clubs improved.  As to greens, not too many good players run it up, but miss left and right, whereas the open front is necessary for the 130 yard hitting women and 190 hitting seniors.

In a nutshell, that is the two factors that have moved design to more of a flanking bunker mentality, no?  And, is it inferior if it better serves a wider selection of players while perhaps dumbing down the strategy for better players (who may not need to use strategy with new clubs, balls, etc? Or is it an equal conceptual design in terms of how it serves the needs of current golfers and

[Garland Bayley]

...  For example, CC designed Colorado Golf Club for the running game, but the only running approach I saw was to a restroom by a senior golfer with apparent prostate problems, and they set the course up pretty much to modern standards.  ...

You have quite a credibility gap with that one.

[Tim Pitner]

I'd tell him to go play Talking Stick North and then tell me the "minimalists" could't build an interesting course on flat land.

An even better counterexample might be CommonGround in Denver because it only costs $40-$50 to play.  (Obviously, it's not a residential development though). 

It seems to me that what is called minimalism can be associated with elitism because many of the classic courses that inspired the minimalist architecture of today are private clubs that were built in the Golden Age and are elitist to some degree.  And many of the modern minimalist courses are also quite exclusive--C&C, for example, don't build many resort or public access courses. 

But, there is nothing inherently elitist about minimalist architecture.  To me, minimalism is about using the land and more subtle features (e.g., angles of play, short grass) to create an interesting, playable and walkable challenge.  What could be elitist about that? 

[Sean_A]

Jud,

I won't agree that there strategic elements have regressed over the years. I think gca's have simply modified them to fit the current game, eliminating carry bunkers now that carrying is easier to do, narrowing fw now that straight driving is easier to do, etc.  There are those who argue (including me, partially) that designing a course with bunkering like Ross or MacKenzie makes little sense (top shot bunkers, bunkers 30 yards short of the green, etc.) because they just don't work like they did back in those days, with irrigation, club and ball tech, etc.  For example, CC designed Colorado Golf Club for the running game, but the only running approach I saw was to a restroom by a senior golfer with apparent prostate problems, and they set the course up pretty much to modern standards.  So, is designing the course to a style prevalent in the 1920's the very best thing (I will grant that it works for average players, somewhat nullifying my point)

Its different, but I am not sure its inferior, despite the groupthink here.  It just fits how most people want to play.  That said, I agree that the Golden Age probably was the period of the greatest leap forward in gca thinking, and we are merely refining that, and there are few new real ideas since then.

Jeff

To me, once hazards are pushed to the wings and fairways are narrowed, we are inherently talking about the reduction of choices which is eliminating strategy.  I didn't mention the preponderance of water in modern times.  You may think of the past whatever number of years as making courses more playable, but in the main, this is not how I view it.  At best, its a stalemate between the bad elements eliminated from the old days and the bad elements added in the more modern days.  However, between you and me, it isn't even close. The balance of architecture has leaned more and more heavily toward penal ever since CBM, Crump & Fownes created their ideal courses.  As for Tillie and Flynn, these must have been ball buster courses in their day, but compared to today, many of these courses aren't terribly penal - at least they don't stand out as such unless they are used for their original purpose as championship venues.  Penal always has been and always will be a sliding scale.  Here is to hoping the scale slides back toward the origins of the game.  There I go again, hammering on about how over the long run championship golf has essentially been bad for architecture.  You can chalk right next to my dislike of how bunkering is so often used.  This brings me back to the question.  I can't for the life of me figure out how allowing the land to speak as loudly as a given archie will allow can be called elitist.  Rubbish.

Ciao   

[Gary Slatter]

Jeff, starting to enjoy input more every week - look forawrd to meeting you sometime!

[SL_Solow]

I think the comment(s) that suggested the "elitism" reference referred to "intellectual elitism" as opposed to "economic" or "class" elitism is most on point.  Historically, whenever critics have attacked popular trends in an art form one of the most common responses has been to suggest that the critic or critics are part of an isolated class of intellectuals who lack the common touch and are applying standards which appeal onlyto them and a limited group of snobs.  This attack goes beyond the arts; it has been applied with great success in politics (remember Spiro Agnew and the "elite corps of intellectual snobs"?)  By taking this tack, the attacked becomes the attacker without having to respond to the substance of the criticism.

I for one enjoy the exchage of ideas when those who disagree with a particular approach explain the basis for there positions.  I find it problematic when they mischaracterize the position of the other side.  The worst is when they label the position with a code name, such as elitism, in order to avoid the discussion.

As for the current discussion, I am interested in how good the golf course is regardless of technique.  In my experience, those who move large amounts of earth regardless of the site tend to create more repetitive courses as the earth moving creates its own destiny.  Nonetheless, an unwillingness to move dirt eliminates certain sites and may keep an architect from maximizing the site.  The real question for me in characterizing an architect with respect to this issue is "what is the architect's default response and what does it take to make him move dirt?"  The implications for cost are obvious.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Garland, I love the old quotes but times do change and if they had another chance to say it, they might change a bit knowing what new toys they have to use in designing and building a course. ...

Are you saying God isn't making as interesting land as She used to?
I hope you aren't saying that with new toys man can build better land than God.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I agree that minimalism cannot really be called elitist.  There is simply no connection, even if I contend that from time to time, it may be the wrong approach for a given project.

As to wing bunkers, I think Colt called them exactly that and wrote about their virtues.  If Ross says no matter where you put a bunker, its the golfers job to avoid it, I suspect any bunker within a hole corridor will induce strategy for someone.  As to choices for the sake of choices, I have asked that question before - why would a gca (esp on a budget) waste time creating bad choices, or even neutral ones, or even ones that might be experienced only by the 0.0012% of top players, and while I have never thought of it, the bottom 0.0012% of players?

While making courses more playable for other than accomplished white males has been a goal of design for quite some time for most, that is not really my argument in whole.  Statistically, flanking hazards catch more missed shots of good players than carry hazards because good players rarely hit even a bit fat.  At the same time, all players miss left to right at similar rates on long shots.  If we recognize this, why would we keep building carry hazards over and over again?

Of course, there is more and more to the equation, but at times, I still feel like many here would build a course for nostalgia reasons, rather than for the 21st century.  There are some features that are timeless, to be sure, but others would seem to be natural casulties of progress (or if you prefer, change)

[Tom_Doak]

As to choices for the sake of choices, I have asked that question before - why would a gca (esp on a budget) waste time creating bad choices, or even neutral ones, or even ones that might be experienced only by the 0.0012% of top players, and while I have never thought of it, the bottom 0.0012% of players?

While making courses more playable for other than accomplished white males has been a goal of design for quite some time for most, that is not really my argument in whole.  Statistically, flanking hazards catch more missed shots of good players than carry hazards because good players rarely hit even a bit fat.  At the same time, all players miss left to right at similar rates on long shots.  If we recognize this, why would we keep building carry hazards over and over again?

Of course, there is more and more to the equation, but at times, I still feel like many here would build a course for nostalgia reasons, rather than for the 21st century.  There are some features that are timeless, to be sure, but others would seem to be natural casulties of progress (or if you prefer, change)

Jeff:

You seem to be dismissing the idea of building features because they are interesting to the average player.  A good part of golf is played between the ears, and as long as a bunker has an affect on someone's thinking, could it not be considered important, whether a high percentage of players wind up in it or not?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

I just tried to explain that to Sean.  That is not what I am arguing at all.  Its just that things like tee shot carry bunkers are really fearsome to many players, not fun.  And they are meaningless (almost) to top players.

As we all know typically the number of bunkers has continued to reduce over the years, probably for cost reasons, and to speed play by reducing the number of bunkers affecting only poorer players.  As I have said before, it seems bunkers get removed for seeing either too much or too little play, and I have never quite figured out what "just the right amount" of play is in these decisions......

That said, the ANGC (original) theory has prevailed in design for my lifetime.  The question is, after figuring in economics, is a carry bunker very short in the fw worth it?  To the player who hits short, his penalty is likely already no chance to hit the green in regulation.  Do we need to slow play down any further by costing them even more shots?

And, is that something they are really intersested in?  Certainly a few are all right, except in the most pressing economic circumstance and would be appreciated. For the greens fee, the average golfer deserves to hit in a few bunkers, too. But, they probably hit in to enough green side bunkers to keep themselves satisfied, based on my experience being and playing with average golfers......

Just a few Friday afternoon musings.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()