[Will E]

On a recent thread regarding the Kingsley club Tom Doak made a comment that he thought that sometimes a new architect will take unecessary chances creating features that are rather over the top, maybe trying to hard to get attention. I think he even said that he was guilty of this fault eariler in his career (maybe the greens at Black Forest?).
His analogy to the tour was Phil Mickelson's type of aggressive play costing him championships.
 
I think great champions know when to lay up and when to go for it. Still I'd rather watch a risk taker than a conservative grinder.

Do you think that Merion, Oakmont, Pine Valley, Pebble Beach suffer from any first time architect mistakes? Were the architects the Jack Flecks of design? Have the original designs changed so much we could never tell what over the top ideas were ?

[Ran Morrissett]

Shooter, perhaps one of the reasons that the courses that you mention don't suffer from overbroad features is that the principal architects worked on the courses over a period of years. And I imagine that time has a way of exposing overbroad, unnatural features (i.e. if you the architect have to look at it day in, day out, at some point you will realize that you went one step too far).

If Doak had worked on Wilderness Valley for 3-7 years, there is little doubt that he would have discovered that several of the greens didn't play as he intended and he would have thus modified them (assuming the owner would let him take several greeens out of play).

Cheers,

[TEPaul]

There may have been one around here that was over the top in an interesting way! One of George and Young Tom Fazio's original efforts together--Waynesborough C.C., Paoli, Pa. They put so much length into some of those holes in the beginning, the "Big Three" in an early exhibition match said there was no way in hell they could play the course!

It was sort of "planned elasticity" in reverse! You can look back and see some of the old obsolete tees back there! The ball is going so far these days maybe Waynesborough will need to RESTORE some of those old tees!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

You make a good point.

Didn't Ross fine tune Pinehurst for about 26 years ?

Does Dye continue to fine tune Crooked Stick ?

Norman continues to fine tune The Medalist.

Clubs where the original architect remains involved are fortunate.  It will be interesting to see what happens over the years on some of the new, highly praised courses built by relatively young architects.

[Will E]

Do you think that a course like NGLA has features that some would think are over the top if had just opened this summer?

I'd argue that too many of todays architects are afraid to take risk. Is the reason being that they know they will never have the chance to go back and fine tune the design?

We all seem to agree that too much of what's being built today is "cookie cutter" design.

[Chris Kane]

It's got to be tempting for a first-time designer to go overboard, especially in a business ruled by profits alone these days.

How many times have you seen a first effort that was relatively subdued in its design?  I'd venture to say not many times at all.

Making a splash is not the way to attract publicity unfortunately.  They might get praise from these quarters, but you don't see magazine articles on courses that are minimalist in approach, at least when it is designed by an unknown.

[TEPaul]

I think actually you are beginning to see courses today that are notable for their subdued architecture. Maybe subdued is not the correct term, maybe minimalist is!

I was certainly impressed by Pacific Dunes this way and maybe even the architectural subduing of a course like Rees's Old Kinderhook (from the photos I've seen). I think of Hanse's Applebrook too but most certainly Coore & Crenshaw's Friar's Head and Hidden Creek. After a tour of Friar's Head it took a few days for what I'd seen to really sink in. What was sinking in was, again, not so much what they did is what they didn't do. It seemed as if they pared the architecture down to its bare essence! It seems now that they revealed everything the site offered for golf and what they thought needed to be enhanced they enhanced architecturally and then they just let it be!

[Chris Kane]

Tom,

Yes there are new courses today that are noted for minimalist architecture, which pleases most of us.

However, I'm yet to hear of a first-time designer making a splash with minimalist architecture.  Seasoned designers with a reputation for excellence can afford to take the 'risk', but doing a minimalistic style first-time round takes courage.

Its a shame that designers seem to think they must do something extravagent and overboard in order to get a name for themselves.  It wasn't like that in the old days.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Chris,
Another factor that wasn't present in the old days: 100's of new courses being built each year. There is so much product coming on line that unless the "newbie" squeaks he/she won't get any of the oil.
Look what practitioners are up against. So far this year I've seen more articles on waterfalls than golf holes. Heck, unless you move 3 million yards of material( and that's just for the waterfall) you look like a piker.
Hopefully the acknowledgements given recently to courses that were built to "fit" will turn the tide.      

[RJ_Daley]

It seems to me that in this modern era most of the "first time designs" aren't really first designs, only the first ones under the archie's name.  What I mean is that most of the architects we talk about have all substantially designed and built courses under another senior architects name in a more well known firm, then branched out on their own.  I understand that to be true of Doak, Coore, Hanse, Devries, Eckenrode, Axeland and Proctor etc.  The thing is that when they get out on their own, they usually don't start with the primo site and so they may have to stretch a bit to achieve something noteworthy inorder to get their name around.  BTW, I understand Eckenrode is the substantial designer of Barona Creek, but it was under Gary R. Baird's signature.  However that went, it is very good.

I'd be interested to hear from Jeff Brauer about his first course flying solo, and if he felt like he was under the gun to stretch things perhaps beyond what he would do today.

[GeoffreyC]

Remember our running commentary on

RUNNING DEER

this past summer.  That is the essence the poster child if you will of a first time effort that that goes overboard.  With modifications it could be really good.

[Tom Doak]

Ran,

Yes, if I'd been able to tinker with greens at Black Forest for seven years, it would be way better today.  But a professional architect CANNOT expect to work that way.  If I were a client, I wouldn't be too happy with taking greens out of play.

Maybe Greg Norman can get away with it at Medalist, since he owns it now.  Maybe he can get away with it at Doonbeg, too.  But why didn't he just take the time to get them right to begin with ???

Pacific Dunes will evolve a bit ... a couple of new tees, concessions to traffic wear & tear ... but if they have to blow up any greens while I'm alive, I would hang my head in shame.

To answer Shooter's question, all of the courses he named [except Pine Valley] HAVE BEEN CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY from what they were like on opening day ... whether they were "first time mistakes" or "second guessing" or "improvements."

And as Geoffrey C. points out, I think that SURELY more first-time architects err on this side than on the side of conservatism.  [The only ones who err on the side of conservatism, in my experience, are the ones who don't have much imagination.]

[Mike Nuzzo]

Tom,
So what's the worst thing that could happen if my first set of greens are a little over the top?  As long as they are technically proficient (drain and grow), original (?) and varied.  How bad could bad press hurt a newbie?
More than likely it'll be no press.  Do members hate imaginative, challenging greens in the beginning, then gradually learn to love them.
thanks
mike

[Jeff_McDowell]

As I was reading this thread, a couple thoughts came to mind. First, is that I think some people are attributing too much of a courses style to the architect. Granted, the architect is the primary designer, but other factors such as the owner, topography, budget, environmental factors, market, etc. impact what gets built.

The other thought is that publicity is certainly important to any architect, but the golden rule is to keep the client happy. If designing over-the-top features gets you publicity (good or bad) but fustrates the owner, what have you gained? I would say not a lot, considering most new projects are obtained through word of mouth.

I might be an intersting case study on this topic. I have never worked under an architect, and I have one original design to my credit. This course is certainly not over-the-top. It couldn't be. It was a nine-hole addition to an existing facility, so there had to be some consistency. We had a small site, and a small budget. However, the course is playable, fun, and the client loves it.

Hopefully, I will have two more projects under construction in 2002. Both of which I have considerably more latitude. Just last week, I was considering going "minimal" with one project for publicity reasons.

This project will be near three big-budget Jeff Brauer courses with lots of earthworks and white sand. (Jeff may not think they are big budget, but compared to my budget they are.) I think my owner may get better and more press if we do something different. It's the same thought Pete Dye had with Harbor Town. And with our site we might be able to pull it off.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()