[Jason Thurman]

As I understand, a course on which it's difficult to determine a signature hole is a good thing. Cart paths should be continuous and nice concrete. "Detail applied in and around hazards" means a bunker with a 3 inch lip and as clean of edges as possible. "Lack of flaws to fairways, greens, tees, and rough" means"immaculate." "Flower beds, shrubs, rock walls, boulders, etc." are critical.

Here's the thing though. Most of us on this site care a TON about aesthetics. We have to be careful to remember that we think aesthetics are just as important as the next guy, we just think he has poor taste if he wants to see flower beds on the course. As much as he likes them, that's how much most of us hate them.

In fact, when I think about what matters most to me in a design, it's strategy, routing, playability, and aesthetics in some order, and almost exclusively. As others have mentioned, the ODGs cared a lot about aesthetics too, and there's little argument that Pine Valley, Cypress Point, and Oakmont have aesthetic qualities critical to their design, just for example.

If aesthetics have become more of a concern today, it's probably because they're more flexible. Architects can move more land and they also have more eyesores to work around, like housing developments or utility towers. It's fair to say that if you want to create a course as aesthetically pleasing as a course built in the 20s, you have to work a bit harder because there's so much more to hide now.

[Niall C]

Jason

What I was referring to was what way up was he looking at it ! For instance, you are suggesting he gave higher marks for a clean edged bunker, well as a confirmed links lover I quite like the lived in look so I might be inclined to detract points but then I am a bit of a contrarian on certain matters.

Niall

[Jason Thurman]

Exactly. Aesthetics matter to us all, but the average GCAer is probably looking for a different aesthetic than the average weekend player.

[Kris Shreiner]

Niall,

Nice thread! I totally concur with your take on Troon. I remember looking over at Troon, when in the area playing Prestwick, and thinking to myself...not the most interesting looking place is it. I've still to play it and have to say it is well down on the desire to play list. That said, sometimes a place reveals more, even if it isn't arresting in presentation, as one covers the ground when actually walking or playing it.

To me, Brora is one such course. It doesn't grab you right out of the gate on a first look. But as you meander around, the fun and joy of the place opens up to you. By the end, your ready for a quick lunch and another romp, particularly on a nice day.

As for modern courses, building them today is so market driven that it almost HAS to have some eye candy or sizzle, lest it be relegated to the "mundane" ranks. In the past, while great ground WAS coveted, I think utility, and function over the land it was draped, factored to a greater degree than today for many architects.

I do think that there are architects today that get a solid balance and many are championed on this site, OR are active members OF this site. And it's not just the headliners. In a way, this economic re-setting of reality has been good for the game; there was some real marginal product being churned out which should see the knife...and it has, OR will!

Cheers,
Kris

[TEPaul]

"Fazio was also the first architect to base his success on rankings, rather than on having tournaments hosted on his courses, so maybe we should blame GOLF DIGEST, who made "Aesthetics" one of the seven deadly sins for which golf courses get ranking points."



TomD:

I do not believe Fazio was the first architect to base his success on rankings, even though he may've been the first to base his success on some "aesthetics" component or criteria that rankings morphed into.

The first who truly based his success on rankings was RTJ and Dick Wilson sort of drafted right in behind him.

In those days the magazine rankings of the time was not called the "100 Best Golf Courses," it was called the "200 Toughest Golf Courses" and the primary way to create "toughness" was to simply extend the length of golf holes and golf courses.

RTJ and Wilson did that bigtime and consequently their courses rose right up on that magazine ranking with that criteria!

[Tom_Doak]

I do not believe Fazio was the first architect to base his success on rankings, even though he may've been the first to base his success on some "aesthetics" component or criteria that rankings morphed into.

The first who truly based his success on rankings was RTJ and Dick Wilson sort of drafted right in behind him.

In those days the magazine rankings of the time was not called the "100 Best Golf Courses," it was called the "200 Toughest Golf Courses" and the primary way to create "toughness" was to simply extend the length of golf holes and golf courses.

TEPaul:  I have to differ on that history.  The first GOLF DIGEST ranking of toughest courses was in 1966.  By then, Robert Trent Jones was a household name, courtesy of his Open Doctor status and working for the Rockefellers, and Dick Wilson was pretty much finished.  There is no doubt their courses did well in those rankings, but it didn't make their names.

Some would argue that Pete Dye was the first to capitalize on the rankings ... Harbour Town was put in the top ten in 1969, and that really put Pete on the map.  But of course it made the top ten because of the tournament and the reaction of the pros.  Perhaps I should have said that Tom Fazio was the first architect whose reputation was not based on what the pros thought of him, good or bad.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

On the timing of those rankings, I totally defer to your knowledge of that particular history. You sure do know it better than most anyone, certainly including me because I have never liked rankings at all anyway.

As for Dick Wilson being pretty much finished by 1966, I completely agree with that though. Matter of fact, by 1966 I believe he was underground pushing up daisies.

Although I had no real interest in golf or golf architecture back in the early 1960s I do remember Dick Wilson and seeing him a couple of times. I probably wouldn't remember him if it had not been for some of the circumstances involved.

At that time he was buildng Pine Tree of which my father was a founder, and since Dad lived in Delray, Wilson came over to the house a few times. One time about mid-morning he showed up and plowed right into the bushes at the end of the parking area of Dad's house. We happened to be standing in the livingroom and saw this.

Dad said: "Oh Christ, not this again." We ran out and as Wilson tried to get out of his car he fell right on his ass and we had to pick him up and put him back in his car. Dad told me to just stay there and make sure he didn't try to get out of his car again which wasn't that hard since he appeared to be leaning back about half passed out.

Dad made a call and after a while a guy came over and picked him up. I think it was Joe Lee.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

I thought that Wilson might have had his final drink by 1966 but I wasn't sure, and I didn't want to declare him dead prematurely.    You know there would be guys waiting to jump all over me on that one.

[TEPaul]

I think Dick Wilson died in 1965.

I've seen a whole lot of drunks in my life and times (particularly of the generations of my grandparents and parents) but Wilson pretty much took the cake. I'm pretty sure that's what he died from.

[Derek_Duncan]

Has modern golf architecture moved more towards providing beautiful views than worthwhile golf ?

Niall

Niall,

My first reaction to your questions was, 'Not anymore.' Many if not most U.S. architects right now would rebuild the club's parking lot if it meant steady work.

But I guess overseas, particularly in Asia where there's some work now, this question is and will continue to be particularly relevant. Why do I fear the answer to it will be a resounding YES, and that too many U.S. architects accepting jobs over there are just going to export ideas that have contributed to the bankruptcy and diminished interest in golf here?

Of course, it's all about what the client wants...right?

[Derek_Duncan]

TomD:

On the timing of those rankings, I totally defer to your knowledge of that particular history. You sure do know it better than most anyone, certainly including me because I have never liked rankings at all anyway.

As for Dick Wilson being pretty much finished by 1966, I completely agree with that though. Matter of fact, by 1966 I believe he was underground pushing up daisies.

Although I had no real interest in golf or golf architecture back in the early 1960s I do remember Dick Wilson and seeing him a couple of times. I probably wouldn't remember him if it had not been for some of the circumstances involved.

At that time he was buildng Pine Tree of which my father was a founder, and since Dad lived in Delray, Wilson came over to the house a few times. One time about mid-morning he showed up and plowed right into the bushes at the end of the parking area of Dad's house. We happened to be standing in the livingroom and saw this.

Dad said: "Oh Christ, not this again." We ran out and as Wilson tried to get out of his car he fell right on his ass and we had to pick him up and put him back in his car. Dad told me to just stay there and make sure he didn't try to get out of his car again which wasn't that hard since he appeared to be leaning back about half passed out.

Dad made a call and after a while a guy came over and picked him up. I think it was Joe Lee.

TEPaul,

That's a funny story. I recall hearing similar stories about Wilson, some probably on GCA.com.

Question--you may not remember or be able to answer, but did Pine Tree realize what a drunk Wilson was, and that his associates (Lee) would likely be doing most of the work? Was the club buying the name?

Maybe a better question is, given the era would it even matter if they did?

[TEPaul]

Duncan:

No, I would not say those guys involved in Pine Tree were buying Dick Wilson's name. You have to understand those people were a large loose group up and down the east coast who all knew each other and in a real way they basically made Wilson's name for him by hiring him to do courses all over the place both where they came from in the north and the south (almost all those people lived in Florida only seasonally).

According to my father, they all just really liked Dick Wilson.

As for his excessive drinking, back in those days that was not anywhere near as uncommon as it is today. It seemed to me about half of them drank too much but Wilson was unusual that way. When their friends tended to over-do it those people had a very interesting way of covering for them and basically just not confronting the realities of those kinds of issues the way they do today. Back in those days with that kind of people if they really drank too much and went on an extended bender what they did is go to these places that they referred to as "Dry Out" places. Some of them were spas. When they were "dried out" they would basically come home again and start it all over. Something like AA was not popular with those people back then. I guess that was just too much of an admission to them that something was actually wrong with them.

Delray in those days was an interesting place. Most of those guys would meet at a few special places in town at the end of the day and have an extended cocktail hour. The Patio was a favorite place I remember.

Even the police were in on it, and not only didn't bother them they actually took care of them.

There is that famous Delray story about B.J, Hollaway, who I remember and knew well enough. He was a good friend of my father's. He had a racing Ferrari he drove around town and at the end of most days at the Patio he was so drunk he would call the police and tell them to come and get him and take him home and bring his Ferrari home for him.

One day he called the police and told them to come and get him. When they asked him if he was at the Patio, this is literally what he said:

"No, I'm at home, I'm quite drunk and I want you to come and get me and take me to the Patio, wait for me and then take me home when I've had enough to drink."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

It seems that most on here agree on that. Question is, is it necessarily a bad thing ? Can an architect achieve more by creating a beautiful golf hole that players will enjoy for that very beauty rather than knocking his pan in coming up with some strategic masterpiece that either the player will be oblivious to or whose game will render the strategy redundant ie. too short a hitter or too long a hitter. Just playing devils advocate.

Understood.

The Bridge was created, vis a vis a directive, that the views be paramount.
So, Exhibit "A" for visual architecture might be The Bridge.

Compromise stifles creativity.

So, can the two co-exist, sure, but at what architectural cost ?

[Doug Siebert]

C'mon, I mean its obvious TV was responsible, not the architects, right?

The first time people saw ANGC and Pebble Beach's 18th hole live and in color, they compared it to the course they played every weekend and found it sadly lacking.  Some of those guys were or became men of means who when given the opportunity to build their own course told their architect what they wanted.  Even if some principled Howard Roarks may have refused to compromise on the quality of the golf in exchange for making the course more beautiful, I'm sure like in any business most were willing to do whatever the guy signing their check wanted.

So it remains today, for every Doak who won't allow aesthetics to rank #1 in design criteria, there are several others who produced a lot of the formulaic crap most of us here hate, where you get courses that magically have every tee shot on a hilltop and somehow manage to have a decent sized body of water (often with a fountain) along one side of the 18th hole.

[Jason Thurman]

Doug, I don't see that as true. I've not played many Doak courses, but aren't aesthetics a HUGE part of the design at Cape Kidnappers, Ballyneal, Rock Creek, and his courses at Bandon?

Just because there aren't waterfalls and fountains doesn't mean aesthetics weren't considered. Aesthetics ARE part of the substance we look for in a golf course, and courses with brainless or contrived aeshetics tend to get lambasted here on GCA even if they have strategic elements or other positive attributes. Likewise, CommonGround is a brilliantly strategic golf course but will never be named with Doak's best work simply because it's not as stunning visually or as strong a property.

I've never met a golfer who didn't care about aesthetics, but I've met golfers with wildly varying tastes in what constitutes good aesthetics.

[Doug Siebert]

Well I won't speak for Tom, but my guess is that he would say the aesthetics are a secondary thing that always comes after the golf in his design process.

Not to diminish his accomplishments at Cape Kidnappers in any way, but that site was going to be spectacular no matter who did the design.  I could have been hired for it, as a GCA armchair architect with zero clue what the hell I'm doing, and I would have produced a visually amazing product.  The quality of the golf holes would suffer greatly, the routing would probably make you want to vomit, and it wouldn't be quite as amazing to look at it, but there's no way anyone could produce anything visually underwhelming on that ground.

I'm not claiming Doak doesn't care about the aesthetics, he'd have to be deliberately contrary and trying to prove a point to go out of his way to make a course look bad.  I just believe from his statements here and the work he's done that he wouldn't compromise a routing or create what he felt was a bad hole as a tradeoff to improve the aesthetics of the course.

I think the fact that he's one of the top tier of architects these days also helps a lot, by giving him access to sites like Cape Kidnappers.  Some architects aren't so lucky, and while he works on sites that are the equivalent of prime Manhattan real estate with the freedom that allows him to mostly do what he wants, other architects do the equivalent of outlet center strip malls where the design is mostly dictated by need.  That's fine, they have to pay the bills, young guys have to start somewhere, etc., but its pretty much impossible to design an outlet center strip mall (or its golf equivalent, the housing development driven course) that's going to wow everyone in the way a Cape Kidnappers or the Freedom Tower does.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug,

Donald Ross, Coore & Crenshaw and others adopted or engaged in the "high tee" philosophy.

Was that a concession to aesthetics ?

[Jim_Coleman]

    I'll give you an example of aesthetics over substance on a golf course no one here would dare disparage.  The eyebrows on Merion's bunkers now are absolutely gorgeous, but they are ridiculous.  If you miss clearing a bunker by one or two yards, you have at best an unplayable lie, and at worst a lost ball.  Boy, boy, are they pretty!

[Niall C]

Niall,

Nice thread! I totally concur with your take on Troon. I remember looking over at Troon, when in the area playing Prestwick, and thinking to myself...not the most interesting looking place is it. I've still to play it and have to say it is well down on the desire to play list. That said, sometimes a place reveals more, even if it isn't arresting in presentation, as one covers the ground when actually walking or playing it.

To me, Brora is one such course. It doesn't grab you right out of the gate on a first look. But as you meander around, the fun and joy of the place opens up to you. By the end, your ready for a quick lunch and another romp, particularly on a nice day.

As for modern courses, building them today is so market driven that it almost HAS to have some eye candy or sizzle, lest it be relegated to the "mundane" ranks. In the past, while great ground WAS coveted, I think utility, and function over the land it was draped, factored to a greater degree than today for many architects.

I do think that there are architects today that get a solid balance and many are championed on this site, OR are active members OF this site. And it's not just the headliners. In a way, this economic re-setting of reality has been good for the game; there was some real marginal product being churned out which should see the knife...and it has, OR will!

Cheers,
Kris

Kris,

I would like to think that you would enjoy Troon. Can't recall how much you can see of Troon from Prestwick but the bit nearest Prestwick is the most interesting part of Troon in terms of topography, thats where you have the holes at the turn including the postage stamp. If you're the type of player who can concentrate in playing the hole in front of you without worrying about the scenery you'll be fine.

With regards to your last comments, I wonder if the downturn might not just polarise development into the cheap as chips farmers golf type development (what I think you refer to as mom and pop type developments in the states) and the really high end stuff like Trump is doing at Aberdeen. The first probably couldn't spell aestheitics and the second probably couldn't spell it either but could afford to get a man in to do the work 

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Well I won't speak for Tom, but my guess is that he would say the aesthetics are a secondary thing that always comes after the golf in his design process.

Not to diminish his accomplishments at Cape Kidnappers in any way, but that site was going to be spectacular no matter who did the design.  I could have been hired for it, as a GCA armchair architect with zero clue what the hell I'm doing, and I would have produced a visually amazing product.  The quality of the golf holes would suffer greatly, the routing would probably make you want to vomit, and it wouldn't be quite as amazing to look at it, but there's no way anyone could produce anything visually underwhelming on that ground.

I'm not claiming Doak doesn't care about the aesthetics, he'd have to be deliberately contrary and trying to prove a point to go out of his way to make a course look bad.  I just believe from his statements here and the work he's done that he wouldn't compromise a routing or create what he felt was a bad hole as a tradeoff to improve the aesthetics of the course.

I think the fact that he's one of the top tier of architects these days also helps a lot, by giving him access to sites like Cape Kidnappers.  Some architects aren't so lucky, and while he works on sites that are the equivalent of prime Manhattan real estate with the freedom that allows him to mostly do what he wants, other architects do the equivalent of outlet center strip malls where the design is mostly dictated by need.  That's fine, they have to pay the bills, young guys have to start somewhere, etc., but its pretty much impossible to design an outlet center strip mall (or its golf equivalent, the housing development driven course) that's going to wow everyone in the way a Cape Kidnappers or the Freedom Tower does.

Doug:

No need to speak for me.

I would say that my firm thinks MORE about aesthetics than most architects do.  It is a responsibility that comes with being given all of those beautiful sites ... if you owned a site like that, you'd want someone who can make the most of its beauty, instead of ignoring it.  We are in position to do this, because my associates spend so much time on site and are so conscious of what they are building, on an everyday basis.

However, your earlier statement which Jason questioned was also true ... even with all we think about them, aesthetics are NOT the #1 criteria for me in terms of design, or where I spend my time and attention.  Interesting golf is always first and foremost, whether it's at Common Ground or Cape Kidnappers.  To that end, I would have to disagree with your premise that aesthetics ARE #1 for any other designer.  I think that you could make the case that "opulence" was the #1 criteria for some architects in the boom 5-10 years ago ... but I'm not sure that is working out so well for them now.

[Doug Siebert]

Doug,

Donald Ross, Coore & Crenshaw and others adopted or engaged in the "high tee" philosophy.

Was that a concession to aesthetics ?

It depends on why it was done.  If you have a course with hills and there is a terrific greensite on a hilltop, a tee located close by will also be on the hilltop.  There's also something to be said for using an especially dramatic high point, either early in the round where you can see all that lays before you, or late in the round to review where you have been.  If you have a course that starts near its highest point, you could even do both as a way of bookending the course and comparing what you saw before you when it was all a mystery to what it looks like now that you've "read the story", so to speak.

Having great visibility to what faces you can be used to induce fear, since you can easily see everything there is to fear.  Dismal River's 18th from the second longest tee had this quality for me.  While I think the five minute cart ride to get there is a bit ridiculous, it is so high up above the fairway that especially playing into a strong wind like I was when playing from that tee that it made the fairway look positively tiny, especially for a high ball hitter like me.  While I made a good solid drive (two, actually, since I hit a second one to try out Chris Johnston's white lightning driver) I doubt that'll keep me from being feeling the same butterflies when I face that shot again in a few weeks   On the other hand, if the wind is going the other direction I may begin to worry about hitting it so far it reaches the point where the fairway really pinches in...

I would never suggest all high tees are bad, or that any designer who uses them is doing so merely for the aesthetics.  But when you see courses that repeatedly play off a high tee, and you pretty much have to take a cart because of the long uphill trips from every green to the next tee, I have trouble accepting that this routing was chosen because it was the best for the golf, rather than the best for the view.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()