"Who" cares if an architect is repetitive??

[Mark_Fine]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there some statistic out there about the average golfer only ever playing a dozen or so different golf courses during their playing career?  If this is truly the case, does the old saying, "Seen one, seen them all" really hold any merit in golf course design?  Ususally it takes seeing a number of courses from an architect before you can comfortably draw such a conclusion (and that is if you are really looking).  But how many golfers ever really see more than a few courses from any single architect anyway so who really cares if the guy is just rubber stamping out one or two variations of a good design around the world?  

Continuing on with this "do architects need variety theme", I was just looking through Shackelford's book on The Art of Golf Course Design (I love his books) and realized that 99% of all golfers are lucky if they even play one or two of all the courses mentioned by Geoff and that Miller painted pictures of.  Isn't that book written for guys like us who get to play them not the average guy who can only dream about a round at Cypress or Pine Valley or Riviera or Sand Hills.  Yes those courses are truly works of art but Joe Golfer doesn't get to see them?  They are what they are because of what they are and that is why they are so widely recognized.  

I just wonder if architects like Fazio and Jones, even the dead guys like Tillinghast, Ross, Thomas and Raynor,... you could go on and on with the list, understood this concept of repitition and who plays where better than we think?  
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Can't seem to get anyone to respond here and I'm off on a trip soon (so many courses to see) and won't get to respond for a few days.  I will say this in the meantime, I believe Ross understood this concept very well and maybe he is the one to blame for the present state of golf course architecture!
Think about that for a minute before you disagree.  Think about how he ran his golf course architecture business!  Do we have any modern day Donald Ross's??
Mark

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark:

Interesting point.  I really don't meet that many people who play a long list of courses.

So who cares if an architecture is repetitive?  Only guys who make it a point to get around and that's a pretty small group.

[Paul Richards]

Mark

Another way to describe it is an architect's "theme".

Nicklaus' architectural "theme" was to build courses that
suited his game - namely the high fade with a long-iron
over trouble.

[David_Elvins]

My unqualified view on the subject would be that if an architect should make the best of the ground that he is given.  Since two sites are never the same, all courses should have their individual characteristics.  THerefor, if Nicklaus, or whoever, rubber stamps a signature design, then 1) He is not making the best of the natural surrounds and is therefor architecturally "defficient" and 2) probably moving more land than neccesary to build the golf course to his signature style, thereby causing problems with increased cost, environmental concerns etc.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark,
Maybe I'm not totally undestanding what you are trying to say, but where would this leave George Crump, Hugh Wilson, Robert Hunter, Max Behr and others who didn't really do that many designs?

But from a modern view, I have seen an large amount of work from architects out here, (Ted Robinson, Billy Bell Jr., Schmidt and Curley, some of who have been too ultra repetitive (Robinson and Schmidt and Curley) to those who haven't (BB Jr.) and it has everything to do with creating from scratch or having a budget that cold get an architect into trouble by doing too much or not having enough and creating something phenominal. (this is not a bash, it is an opinion.)

My point:

Goose Creek compared to other works by Schmidt and Curley-These guys COULD be very good, Goose Creek is an example of building something with no huge budget and they got a piece of ground--a corner of a riverside cow pasture that took some intersting routing and the result is a course that has the series of holes that work real good together (With the exception of the 18th which just doesn't work, but they really tried.) Meanwhile their other stuff at Talega Valley, Oak Quarry and SCPGA is very similar because of the use of a paticular green complex or par three hole over and over and over. They do it again at Crosby National a couple of times and they used it three or four times at Landmark's 36 holes, but still they have some other good golf holes to go with it. I think the amount of work they had got them in trouble creatively and ultimately in the final product, it sort of shows.

Ted Robinson is known for using the same holes or paticular bunkers over and over and over. Repetition is an understatement. Then, you get to #9 at his Tijeras Creek in Rancho Santa Margarita and it's like it was something you have never seen before, only to diaspapear at #10 which is just like any other typical hole you have seen on any Ted course. The next hole its back to a style of architecture you have never seen Ted do, and it stays that way until you get to the 18th which is just like the 10th hole parallel to it--horrible. simply put, when he had the land that was going through the wild areas of canyons and such the course is the best of Ted's ilk and it is actually impressive to me! Think about it--Minimal Ted!!!

The second he got to do some masterplanning and didn't rely on the natural element, it has the feel of every Ted course one has ever played.

I don't thing there is anything wrong with emulating strategies as seen on other courses, but I do think there is a certain aspect to all of this that can get a bit horrifying when architects create the same thing over and over whether it is on purpose or not. Nicklaus's Bears Best is a perfect example, IF the holes are created exactly like their originals, where is the provocative chance in creating great golf holes?

Another thing I would like to add is, while I have seen far less great courses then you, I can attest that I have met people that have seen far less courses then myself and understand golf architecture better then I ever could. If people like myself are given great architecture and can get past all of the modern gimmicks, no matter who the architect. its all aout creating, refinement and going the distance.

Also....If Donald Ross was repetitive, and given my minimal experience with his courses, how come in one round at each of the courses, Plainfield, Gulph Mills, Lu Lu Temple, and a short walk around some holes at Aronomink, I can see features of Ross's subtle genius of routing and use of evolved hazards? Its not just because of my interest in analyzing golf architecture, it has everything to do with what you see and the genius of what he wants you to look at. How did he come to find all of this? Where was he getting all of this inspiration to put golf holes and hazards?

Donald Ross come back, Modern golf architecture needs you!

[TEPaul]

What I was going to say David Elvins just said almost word for word!

If you think about that it probably really does explain why  the holes of the olders guys are less repetitive than the modern architects (although Raynor and MacD obviously did copy many of their holes).

I've played a ton of Ross courses in my life and I don't really see that much repetition in what he did although he was the most prolific of the earlier architects. I believe I can recognize a slight career theme in Ross's routing style but I would bet not 1/10 of 1 percent of golfers would ever notice that.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark, How is that for Repetitivness? Tom Paul and I post at the same minute talking of Ross's ability to route a golf course. Maybe it's something in the air on both coasts!

[R.S._Barker]

I normally do not voice my opinion on topics here, but this one strikes a chord with me because I have had the opportunity to play a fair amount of the top 100 courses by the recent polls in the last 10 years.

When I first got into Golf course architecture which was about 3 years ago ( at that time not knowing what was classified as a Classic hole design, nor even the difference between a good course and a bad one ), I tried to look for specific things in my round that I could " bring home " and study..be it the routing, a certain type of bunker shape, or even the specific mounding and shapes employed in the greens themselves. I knew not that I had played a Leven, Redan, Cape...or any of the other myriad types of holes at that time.

During that period I played Muirfield, Firestone, Camargo, Chicago, Lookout, Pete Dye, and a couple of others that rank high on that list and I never really paid any attention to repetitive action in design. In retrospect, I've played more Nicklaus and Raynor/MacDonald designs than any other..and a couple things stand out in retrospect.

Jack does tend to stick to his " visual tee approach "..in that you can see the entire hole from the tee ( for the most part ), nothing is hidden, and that IF you make a proper shot..you'll at least be in position to score..scoring well not being included in that thought however.

Seth and C.B's designs tend to follow a more natural line, in that hidden bunkers, fairways with very natural feel to them exsist, and greens that border on pure genius are the norm from both a " bump & run " approach and from a straight strategic value. Their designs tend to really make me think from opening shot to last putt, and that is what sticks with me throughout..replay value ( where applicable ).

Now, I flash forward to the last year or so, and I see myself learning the curve so to speak, in that I tend to survey each hole and course I play looking for the subtle things that seperates a Lookout Mountain from a Camargo....and I find that those details are very minute, and really do not take away from my love of the art of golf design.

In closing, I truly believe that most golfers tend not to worry to much about the repetitive design, unless it is somthing that is easily seen. We tend to be to absorbed in the game itself, and unless we are playing a true gem that the whole world knows about...like NGLA, Pine Valley, TOC or Bethpage Black ( to name a few )...those small details do not appear to affect our game.

Just a thought,

[TEPaul]

RS Barker does make an interesting point in referring to Nicklaus that might be true of many modern architects and why they might appear more repetitive than the older architects. To Nicklaus, apparently, and certainly Fazio, since he said it so much in his book, there are just certain things architects can't do today because today's golfers will not accept them! One of those things is that everything has to be right in front of you, as RS Barker mentioned (visual tee appeal).

That certainly cuts out the entire use of any blindnessl, I suppose, and has to limit the modern architect to a palette that's far more restricted than in the past--hence more repetitive "looks".

But anyway to Mark's actual question, 'who cares if an architect is repetitive'? Not many probably, but obviously we do! Most golfers might not even know what golf architecture is but the point is to raise their level of awarness in the art of architecture not to reduce it to the lowest common denominator.

[Mark_Fine]

Just played Smyers Southern Dunes course in Florida.  Here is a good example of an architect using the same design schemes over and over.  This course looks very similar to Old Memorial, Blue Heron Pines East, Royce Brook West,...  

There are 183 of those standard "rubber stamp" bunkers on Southern Dunes and if you eliminated 100 of them, no one would notice, the grounds crew would go out and celebrate, the green fees could be lowered by 20 bucks, there would be less frustrated golfers and the course would improve dramatically!  The repetitive "look" he is trying to create just doesn't work for me.  It's still a good "strategic" design with plenty of width and some neat playing angles but the bunkers everywhere overwelm the design.  

I guess if you only ever play one Smyers course, you might not be bothered as much by this.  I still stand by my comments about removing 100 of the bunkers though!
Mark

[Craig Van Egmond]

Tom,
         Blindness is not totally gone from new designs, the Coal Creek course at Newcastle by Bob Cupp has 4 holes with some blindness.  

        #8 is an uphill par 3 where you can see the front of the green and a bunker only.  #13 is a totally blind tee shot to a longish par 4. #15 you can see the green but cannot see where your tee shot has landed and #17 is another blind tee shot to a green you cannot see.

        I have been hit on the leg on #13 while waiting to hit my second shot.  

[Tom Doak]

I care.  I try not to repeat myself too often, simply because it would be boring to do.  

I AM guilty of doing the same green complex maybe 3-4 times out of 14 courses, but I'm probably not going to use it again unless a perfect site comes along for it, because I'm already tired of it.  [In each case, it did fit the site with a minimum of change.]

The pressure to repeat yourself comes from clients -- lots of Pete Dye's clients in the past twenty years have asked for island greens.  Pete had to actively resist them.  [Perry never resisted, which is why Pete has so many to "his" name.]

[Willie_Dow]

The questiion of "who" cares is starting to drift!
What is the definitiion of "repetative"?  Is it leaving your mark?  If so that is a problem.
I love past references to The Country Club when Rees came in before the US Open and the membership said,"we didn't recognize any change".
This wa a coordinated effort between the TCC and Rees.  Few clubs, or courses, pay the time or pay attention to these details.

[Mark_Fine]

Willie,
I was defining it as an architect who has one or two designs and repeats them over and over again with only slight variations.  

For some architects, if you play enough of their courses, you sometimes get this feeling - "haven't I played this same course and/or holes before"!  As an example, I know John Conley has played both Southern Dunes and Old Memorial and I'd be curious how he compares both courses?
Mark
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

Isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery ?

I think departure from successful repetitive designs has more to do the the perception of modern day creativity.

Somehow, there appears to have been a time when if it wasn't unique, it wasn't a distinguished design.

I've always been amazed that more good holes don't have their design principles copied, or the holes themselves replicated.

The 6th, 7th and 8th at NGLA come to mind immediately, and you could probably throw in a handful or two of other holes at
NGLA.

From my perspective, I could play almost every hole at NGLA dozens of times, enjoy myself, never get bored, and be challenged from a scoring aspect.

So why aren't more of these holes duplicated ?

[Willie_Dow]

Pat
Duplication is not leaving a mark, it is leaving itself!