What's new?

[Forrest Richardson]

I think this is a really sad post that, one day, might be read by someone who deducts that the period 1950 to 2015 was a dismal period of golf design when the hottest topic was rebuilding stuff from the Macdonald era, or rehashing tried-and-true holes that have been written about, diagramed and explained to no-end.

I admit — I like much of that stuff, but I feel empty when I eat it.

What a shame. Does anyone else think we may have become a group of lemurs?

[John Moore II]

I think this is a really sad post that, one day, might be read by someone who deducts that the period 1950 to 2015 was a dismal period of golf design when the hottest topic was rebuilding stuff from the Macdonald era, or rehashing tried-and-true holes that have been written about, diagramed and explained to no-end.

I admit — I like much of that stuff, but I feel empty when I eat it.

What a shame. Does anyone else think we may have become a group of lemurs?

I think people on here tend to be too conservative. I like the Double Cape/Boomerang style par 5 that can be seen in some places, #4 on PGA (Ryder) and #4 and 11 at Tobacco Road come to mind. Of course, the Island hole is a great modern template, when done correctly of course. Those are the only two really modern holes that come to mind. Strange thing is, as much as we like Pete Dye, a lot of his work was quite revolutionary at the time. Seems that today we just tend to bring back old ideas on new course sites rather than going for something revolutionary.

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:  I am really curious how you post this in the morning:

I think this is a really sad post that, one day, might be read by someone who deducts that the period 1950 to 2015 was a dismal period of golf design when the hottest topic was rebuilding stuff from the Macdonald era, or rehashing tried-and-true holes that have been written about, diagramed and explained to no-end.

I admit — I like much of that stuff, but I feel empty when I eat it.

What a shame. Does anyone else think we may have become a group of lemurs?

And then this in the same evening:

Re: The Old White
« Reply #44 on: Today at 08:54:37 AM »
Hats off to Lester for his efforts and the results. It looks fun, and the play showed it to be fun. I agree with the notion of nixing the nit-picking — it is a cool rendition and makes you smile. End of story.

My guess it it will make money — and that the dollars will come from people who love golf as a whole, not just the narrow focused prudes who profess to love a certain kind of golf.

[Chris Shaida]

I think this is a really sad post that, one day, might be read by someone who deducts that the period 1950 to 2015 was a dismal period of golf design when the hottest topic was rebuilding stuff from the Macdonald era, or rehashing tried-and-true holes that have been written about, diagramed and explained to no-end.

I admit — I like much of that stuff, but I feel empty when I eat it.

What a shame. Does anyone else think we may have become a group of lemurs?

I'm sorry but I feel like I'm back in graduate schooland there is some poseur moaning about how nobody is doing anything 'new'.  The point is not to do something 'new', really it's just not.  New is a relative term.  If you want to build something lasting your goal can't be to build something 'new'.  That's just shallow, faux intellectualism.  You have to design something meaningful and usable--whether its a golf course or a building or apiece of scultpure.  It can't be just 'new'.  I don't really understand the pose -- at all.

[Tom_Doak]

Chris:

I don't agree ... even though I built one (or several) of the courses Forrest is complaining about.

I think there is new stuff to be built, but that the newness is just in the details and in making different combinations of things you may have seen before [IF you are well-traveled enough].  And most people aren't that well-traveled, so there is plenty of opportunity for stuff to be new to them.

There is everything to be said in favor of simple design, but nothing to be said in favor of lazy design.

[John Moore II]

Tom-How new/revolutionary was TPC Sawgrass when it was first built?

Personally, I would like to see more of the conical mounds and such like we saw at Greenbrier, or a raised horseshoe in the middle of the green, but no one seems to have stones enough to build them.

[Chris Shaida]

Chris:

I don't agree ... even though I built one (or several) of the courses Forrest is complaining about.

I think there is new stuff to be built, but that the newness is just in the details and in making different combinations of things you may have seen before [IF you are well-traveled enough].  And most people aren't that well-traveled, so there is plenty of opportunity for stuff to be new to them.

There is everything to be said in favor of simple design, but nothing to be said in favor of lazy design.

Ok, I guess I should be appropriately chastised.  I don't really know much at all about golf course design.  But I do actually know quite a lot about poetic and artistic 'forms' and how the 'old' is denigrated for being 'old' but then just keeps re-appearing because the reason that it's 'old' isn't some conspiracy but because the underlying form of the 'old' actually makes a TON of enduring sense--a sonnet isn't a sonnet in spite of the 'old' form form but, rather precisely, because of it.  EVERYTHING can't be made new--it just doesn't work that way in any other art form (but maybe golf course design is different?).  In every other art form the 'new' is really mostly the old with some small--but essential--twist.  THat's just how it works.  Looking back the 'revolutions' in any art form look rather puny and 'evolutionary' in retrospect--mostly evolution surrounded by revolutionary rhetoric.  'Revolution' turns into pastiche pretty damn quick--look at huge swaths of 'post-modern' architecture.  Given that this is a 'discussion board' one has to react to the 'discussion' and I'm sorry but the 'sad post' rhetoric just seems jejeune.
 

[Tom_Doak]

Chris:

Well you get points for being the first in GCA history to use the word "jejeune" in a sentence. 

And you are right that many attempts to "innovate" in art are either terribly overcooked, or ridiculously overstated.

But, it doesn't stop people from writing, and every once in a while there is another jewel to treasure because it is a bit different than what's come before.

[Matt_Cohn]

Isn't cart golf new in the past 30 years? Or does it go back beyond that?

[Chris Shaida]

Chris:

Well you get points for being the first in GCA history to use the word "jejeune" in a sentence. 

And you are right that many attempts to "innovate" in art are either terribly overcooked, or ridiculously overstated.

But, it doesn't stop people from writing, and every once in a while there is another jewel to treasure because it is a bit different than what's come before.

Well, consider me doubly chastised for using 'jejuene'--which means I really ought to just retire before I get emabarrassed into oblivion but..part of this is my ongoing confusion/frustration about how most of the 'template' hole discussion seems to start from a defensive position rather than an offensive one; that is, isn't the BEAUTY and enduring INTEREST on an 'Eden' or ('Redan' or 'Biarritz') is the enduring underlying form.  That the whole point is the surprise and delight that comes from seeing how the common form becomes an uncommon instance.  Th e hunch is that THAT is the beauty of the thing--the teasing out of the old and the little bit that is new.  And that without that teasing--without that substantial amount of 'old' one can't even grasp hold of the 'new'.  Or said another way, if everything is 'new' than it weirdly becomes banal (probably because it's just not possible for 'everything' to be new--a 3 hole course! with square balls! and imaginary clubs! and no gravity! or something...).  Yikes, no doubt I'm close to being blown to smithereens...

[Adam Clayman]

By "new" I am referring to anything well liked and fun and that is also not a rehash of the days gone by, reinterpretations or "bring backs" of things that have already been tried.

Forrest, "Things that have already been tried" is awfully vague.

My sense is Mike Devries belongs in this conversation. He pushes envelopes that some have opined will inhibit his ability to get more work. I don't necessarily agree with that because... who wants to build a course that is a re-hash of things tried and re-tried? (save for those pesky little Coore principles) There's already too many of these  copycat courses and what one man finds worthy of repetition, another might find it, or classify it, as borrowing (Ok Stealing). 

Jim Engh is also another who, because of the environs he is known for, could be classified as someone who tries 'new" things. You may or may not like his stylistics, but, you can not argue that you've seen too many other courses/features like his.

[Mac Plumart]

Forrest...

I've been re-reading "The Golf Course" by Cornish and Whitten tonight due to the fact that I completely over-looked the need to study and see heathlands courses to round out my golf course architecture education and I wanted to see if I was over-looking any other basic building blocks.  Chapter 11 is entitled "Evolution of Golf Course Features" and upon reading this title and chapter, I thought of this thread and you.

Lately, I've been surrounded by you in a sense; you started this thread, upon which I tried my best to provide some answers; I got my latest issue of Golf Course Architecture Magazine, which frequently has some articles written by you; and you've provided some great food for thought on one of the latest Askernish threads (a course I am completely capitivated by).

Therfore, I would love you to add some more of your thoughts to this thread.  I did my best to provide some "new" things related to GCA as have others (including Adam Clayman's last post), but this thread has kind of fizzled.

If you have some thoughts regarding this topic, I would love to hear them.