Do we have to limit our menu options?

[Keith OHalloran]

While reading the threads in regard to "minimalism" v Rees Jones, I could not help but wonder if we have to limit our choices. I am a steak guy. I will always prefer Peter Lugers over Le bernadin, however, that does not mean I question the genius of Eric Ripert, and do not enjoy going there once in a while.
That being said, I certainly prefer Sand Hills and Friar's Head to most course I have ever played, but that does not diminish (in my eyes) the work of architects that are doing different styles. Sometimes it seems that we will only accept 1 style of course. Isn't variety the spice of life? Can we not appreciate the genius of an architect even if his work is not our cup of tea?

[Tim Martin]

Keith-I don`t think it is that easy. Many will not award that "genius" moniker if they don`t appreciate the style.

[Keith OHalloran]

But isnt that the problem? Can we not appreciate different styles? Can we appreciate a Bentley the same way as a Porsche? If we don't appreciate the genius, because we do not appreciate the style, are we being unfair.

[Kalen Braley]

Keith,

Ask me to build a strategic course full of variety, interesting holes, neat out-of-the box holes, flowing routing, etc, i'm pretty sure I would fail miserably...

Ask me to build a ball-busting penal golf course with 20 yard wide fairways, bunkers on both side of the fairways, small greens with lots more bunkers, and a hit it here or else on every hole...I'm confident I could prevent even the best golfers in the world from scoring well over 4 rounds. 

Quite frankly I don't see the genius in creating a difficult US Open style golf course.  I do see genius in creating an interesting, well routed, diverse, fun, character-filled course that one would want to play again and again.

[Keith OHalloran]

Kalen,
What are your thoughts of Bethpage Black, or Winged Foot? How do they fall in the paradigm?

[Andy Troeger]

Keith,
I'm with you--I just counted and I have 15 different architects represented among my top 20 courses (and thats counting teams like C&C as 1). Also in 15 different states so there's quite a bit of variety there. I think that's what makes architecture fun is to see how different styles work in different locations.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,
What are your thoughts of Bethpage Black, or Winged Foot? How do they fall in the paradigm?

I think from what I've seen of both courses on TV and in pictures, they appear to be excellent tests of top notch golfing skills.

But as far I know...Rees didn't re-design them or change the hole routings, he renovated/restored them.

I think if we want to do a "Rees" analysis we need to look at his original body of work to see his vision of building something from scratch as compared to rejuvinating an already existing superb layout that is being returned to its former glory.

[Tim Martin]

Keith,

Ask me to build a strategic course full of variety, interesting holes, neat out-of-the box holes, flowing routing, etc, i'm pretty sure I would fail miserably...

Ask me to build a ball-busting penal golf course with 20 yard wide fairways, bunkers on both side of the fairways, small greens with lots more bunkers, and a hit it here or else on every hole...I'm confident I could prevent even the best golfers in the world from scoring well over 4 rounds. 

Quite frankly I don't see the genius in creating a difficult US Open style golf course.  I do see genius in creating an interesting, well routed, diverse, fun, character-filled course that one would want to play again and again.

Kalen hit a home run with his post in that the critic doesn`t see genius in the opposing style. It`s a less tangible medium than comparing the Bentley and the Porsche.

[Keith OHalloran]

Kalen,
I am not specifically speaking of Rees designs, I am talking of "non mimimalist" designs in general. Can you see any greatness in Bethpage or Winged Foot even though they are not minimalist?

Tim,
I am not advocating a comparison between Bentley and Porsche, what I am saying is that  a Porsche enthusiast does not have to like Porsche to the detriment of Bentley, he may prefer the Porsche and appreciate the Bentley at the same time.

[Bill_McBride]

Obviously the Tom Paul "big world" theory really does apply to GCA.com members of the Treehouse, who love the natural look of the Golden Age architects and their modern followers, as well as the more formal, angular designs of Macdonald, Raynor and Banks.  I have played some Fazio and Nicklaus courses I liked, and I've played some I thought were overcooked.  It's a "big world."

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,
I am not specifically speaking of Rees designs, I am talking of "non mimimalist" designs in general. Can you see any greatness in Bethpage or Winged Foot even though they are not minimalist?

Tim,
I am not advocating a comparison between Bentley and Porsche, what I am saying is that  a Porsche enthusiast does not have to like Porsche to the detriment of Bentley, he may prefer the Porsche and appreciate the Bentley at the same time.

Keith,

I do like playing Jim Engh courses, and outside of his what his new one appears to be...I don't think anyone would call his courses minimalist....

I guess for me the questions I ask on whether or not I like a course and/or will play it again are:

Was it fun?
Did it offer interesting shots?
Did it have unique holes and/or quirk?
Were aesthetics pleasing to the eye?
Did it have any Wow factor?
Does it have risk/reward?


Whether or not it was minimalist is secondary to those. Minimalism I believe is a good goal in terms of costs and used resources, but I think naturalism is the measuring stick I use more when sizing up if a course fits its surrounds.

[Bill_McBride]

Obviously the Tom Paul "big world" theory really does apply to GCA.com members of the Treehouse, who love the natural look of the Golden Age architects and their modern followers, as well as the more formal, angular designs of Macdonald, Raynor and Banks.  I have played some Fazio and Nicklaus courses I liked, and I've played some I thought were overcooked.  It's a "big world."

I also really like courses by Jerry Pate, Mike Stranz and the ones I've played by Jeff Brauer, Baxter Spann and Mike Nuzzo. 

There are so many great or really good golf courses! 

[Adam Clayman]

Keith, We can limit our choices to thoughtful designs, regardless of style. That's why a person who appreciates and prefers naturalistic stylings can also appreciate the juxtaposition of a Raynor/Banks/CBM.

What we shouldn't confuse is the difference between difficulty and quality. Every real golfer loves to get their juices flowing from a challenge, but, it's important how, where, and, how often, that challenge is presented. 18 holes of the same question, is not a quality design, imo.

The BWT theory allows for every type of taste and pocketbook. This illustrates golf's greatness, more than it does a discriminating palette of gca. I've found positives on courses even non-aficionado's poo poo. And detractions on some top tiers.

As Jim Urbina said to me, "It's all opinion". But, when asked to justify one's opinion, the answer is often quite telling of the person's focus.

[Matt_Ward]

Keith:

In my experiences you have a good number of people who proudly proclaim to being "open minded" -- but in fact are quite dogmatic and often see only one true way to design greatness.

You can see those folks here on GCA.

They worship at the high altar of the same people -- over and over and over again.

Fair enough -- where one spends one's time and $$ is their business.

I like to try the widest variety of styles and architects.

There are people who will forever live in their self-enclosed bubble world. These silo types see design as being a limited expression dimension. Glad to see Kalen raise the name of Jim Engh -- I like what he provides as a direct counterpoint to Doak and C&C.

When conformity is enforced -- the wherewithal for creativity is then sacrificed.

[Matthew Sander]

I like the questions Kalen asks himself when considering a course. One note about nearly all of those questions is that they are all incredibly subjective. No matter how hard any of us try to make this an objective process, the personal nature of tastes will prevail.

I believe Shelly Solow made a salient point regarding these ideas on another thread. The aspects of course design/architecture/construction that can be more objective are the elements that are highly esoteric. The finer points of site particulars, regulations, drainage, turf and materials, etc... are ideas that reside in the deep end for most of us. That leaves the subjective questions of what we like or dislike. The nature of these opinions is what creates such heated discussion on this board...

BTW, another question I ask myself when evaluating a course (typically publics) is "Do I appreciate this course for the $___ that I paid?" It may be the most important for me when evaluating the quality of a course and its relation to peers...I haven't played a significant number of the best courses in the country, let alone the world. Therefore, I evaluate courses relative to my body of experience (as limited as it may be). That said, I find the discussions of the world's greats and the photos that accompany those discussions fascinating.