News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Our Era
« on: November 22, 2012, 06:03:13 PM »
Having played a historic course recently and studying its genesis, its progression and changes, and seeing what it is now...has led me to believe that we need to fully appreciate our current place and time in the world of golf course architecture.

There may not be a flood of golf courses being built right now, but it seems that what is being built and what has recently been built could stand the rest of time and be regarded very highly for generation to come.  Courses like:

Sand Hills;
The Bandon Complex;
Kingsley;
Rustic Canyon

There are more, I'd love you to add to the list...but my broader point is that since these courses are living entities, they will morph and change over time. And we need to observe, chronicle, and appreciate these gems as they are the next eras Pine Valley, Merion, and Pinehurst.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2012, 06:37:14 PM »
Mac, I agree, there have been a lot of good and great golf courses built in the last two decades -- hence the moniker here the 'second golden era.'

I think courses like Friar's Head and Ballyneal could be added to your list.

But, the question I often think of is how will these courses evolve? Of course, it is impossible to know what they will look like in x years, but have many of them changed already?

We've all read how many golden era courses were altered to some extent shortly after their opening (often by a different architect than originally designed it).

Sand Hills has been open for 17 years.  Has it changed in any way? Should it? I'm sure C&C have been back, did they / have they recommended any changes?

What about Wild Horse?

Pacific Dunes has seen a lot of rounds, many by first-time / one-time players.  Has this caused it to be altered in any way? Should it be?

Do many modern architects re-visit their courses 5, 10, 20 years later?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Our Era
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2012, 07:28:12 PM »


Do many modern architects re-visit their courses 5, 10, 20 years later?

Mark:

There are lots of big-name architects getting back to their old courses now, trying to drum up some renovation work to keep their staff busy.  When business was booming, they didn't have time to pay attention.

Pacific Dunes (and Sand Hills, too) fights an ongoing fight with the wind to keep sand in the bunkers and keep them from becoming twenty feet deep over time.  They are never going to be exactly the same over the decades ... and they were designed with that in mind.  But, there have not been any other significant changes to the course over the 11 years it's been open.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2012, 07:53:38 PM »


Do many modern architects re-visit their courses 5, 10, 20 years later?

Mark:

There are lots of big-name architects getting back to their old courses now, trying to drum up some renovation work to keep their staff busy.  When business was booming, they didn't have time to pay attention.

Pacific Dunes (and Sand Hills, too) fights an ongoing fight with the wind to keep sand in the bunkers and keep them from becoming twenty feet deep over time.  They are never going to be exactly the same over the decades ... and they were designed with that in mind.  But, there have not been any other significant changes to the course over the 11 years it's been open.

I'll bet the fairway bunker down the left side of #3 at Pac Dunes is one you're thinking of!  Any others in particular?

Peter Pallotta

Re: Our Era
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2012, 10:23:45 PM »
Nice post, Mac.

It made me wonder: how does your experience of today's great courses compare with the experience of a "Mac" who lived 80 years ago and played NGLA and Shinnecock and Garden City.  I find myself thinking that, in the most significant/meaningful ways, those two experiences might be just about the same, or at least much closer than we think.  I think I'm going to try to hold on to that thought; it feels like it keeps things/discussions about gca in perspective. 

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving -- which is the least I'd expect from someone who just might be the poster child for this holiday :)

Peter

Malcolm Mckinnon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2012, 01:38:53 AM »
Mac,

I think that you mean stand the "test" of time and I agree.

Living about the New York/Philly/Boston corridor I have played many of the classic courses and have a deep appreciation for them.

I also think we are living through a new "golden age" in GCA with a bunch of talented folks, {you know who you are}, creating a bevy of really fine and sophisticated new crop of golf courses even in these times of paucity. No list of courses need be mentioned yet I commend you (Mac) for your restraint in not nominating "Dismal River" on your list.

Thanks! To the architects and the money behind them who draw on the past and are building classics for the future generations.








« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 01:49:22 AM by Malcolm Mckinnon »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2012, 08:50:25 AM »
Yes, Malcolm, I meant "test" of time.

Peter...I think you are correct about the experience, a big difference is that we have the ODG'S books and work to draw off of to help us now...while they were creating something new back then.


Also, I read lots of comments during the creation of older courses and commonly read things like, 'when this courses matures (grows in) it will be special'.  But nowadays we expect it to be perfect from the jump.  I think this mentality and lack of patience is a problem.  Perhaps Ballyneal is the poster child for this.  It seemed to not get a warm welcome from Digest Raters right away...but now it is highly regarded by everyone.  

Does our current mentality lack the foresight to see how a course will develop?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2012, 09:27:57 AM »
I wrote this in 2008. This was my take on what I consider “my era” at that moment.
It took the highlights of what happened over those decades.



1970-1980 The Brand Name

This era was the initial sign of the future rise of the celebrity or “brand-named” designer. The first “name” designer was Jack Nicklaus, the designer of Glen Abbey Golf Course in Oakville, who remains even through to today the best known of the “brand-name” designers – those golf architects who are recognizable by name.  His eventual successful transition from player to architect ushered in the next great architectural trend – one that remains prevalent today – the trend to hire a “brand name” designer to design a new course. Nicklaus’s serious interest began with his visits to The Golf Club to see what Pete Dye was building. While he struggled with many of the ideas that Pete had, he certainly became increasingly interested enough to get eventually involved with Pete - as only a consultant - at Harbour Town in South Carolina. Harbour Town turned out to be ground breaking and the flash point to beginning a new trend in golf course architecture. Harbour Town may have been the symbolic end to the Trent Jones era even though he and many others continued to build in that style long after the popularity had declined.

In 1973, Jack would work with Desmond Muirhead to develop Muirfield Village Golf Club, the new home for his Mermorial Tournament. The plan involved a tournament course - loosely based upon Augusta National - and a housing community built around the outside of the course largely to finance the project. Muirhead planned the community and (according to most) routed the golf course. Desmond was a man with unusual ideas - and likely frustrated Jack – and they parted ways before the course was built. Jack hired Bob Cupp and Jay Morrish to be his staff and to see the course through to completion. Jay Morrish was the on site architect for Muirfield Village. The course displayed Jack’s ideas about play and aesthetics which he stuck with until the last decade or so where he softened his demands on players and began to build courses that were a little more player friendly. With the success of the Memorial Tournament and the high praise for the course, Jack Nicklaus was in high demand right from the outset. He would become one of the most prolific golf architects in this era.

Pete Dye was definitely the rising star in golf architecture circles during the 1970’s. The decade began with Harbour Town, which immediately attracted golfer’s imagination during the Heritage Tournament. They were enthralled by his courses that looked so different than anything else they had seen. The timber banks, waste bunkers, pot bunkers, tiny greens, use of accent grasses in the bunkers, tight fairways, etc. This looked nothing like there course and golfers traveled in droves to see this magical place. This happened because this was the decade where televised golf took off with large ratings brought upon by stars like Jack Nicklaus.  The public was now exposed to all these new courses through their television and this exposure was responsible for the rise of Pete Dye.


1980-1990 - The Road to Excess

This happens to be the era I care for the least.  It began with Pete Dye building a new tournament course called The Tournament Players Club of Sawgrass. This was part of a grandiose dream of Deane Beaman to build tournament courses belonging to the players where the average guy could pony up some significant dollars to go tee it up on the same courses. The players would begin a slow and steady investment in these courses and would reap major profits down the road. They would even joint venture these with resorts and housing developments to bring in a bigger return. They would rule the world……well IMG would do a much more efficient job later, but that’s another story. The TPC courses (beyond Sawgrass), built using player consultants, are largely forgettable courses that have all gone under massive renovation.

AT Sawgrass, Pete took a lousy property that was barely above water table and covered with bush, and slowly turn it into a brilliant piece of architecture and engineering. The course was based around most of his ideas involving smaller wilder greens, strategic placement of tee shots, clever strategic choices, but where it went two full steps further than his previous work was the addition of so much water directly into play. Pete had made the decision that the only way “to get those dudes thinking” was to use the finality of water as a way to make them blink. The ultimate statement of this was the island green built at #17, which came about by accident. This was the best source of sand on the site and they over mined it in order to cap all the fairways - and found there peninsula green had become….an island green. Once in play, they knew they had created the perfect tournament hole and a place the players feared from the opening tee shot. He had those dudes thinking and Pete Dye was in control.

Another architect who also would go on to embody the word “control” was Tom Fazio. Like Pete, the more courses he created, the more he wanted to control the site. Tom began with his uncle George Fazio creating tough layouts like the National in Toronto, but would eventually go on his own and create a very player friendly style that would define him as an architect. While Pete was into carry angles and deception, Tom preferred defining bunkers and a clear path to the hole. Tom seemed to be more concerned with hiding cart paths and grading tie-ins than he was about creating dilemmas. If anything, much of Tom’s work can be characterized as too safe and too fair to be great. Mackenzie always theorized that great holes began with initial controversy until they were understood - Fazio avoided controversy in favour of making a beautiful player friendly landscape.

The ultimate expression of his ability and style was Shadow Creek built in 1989. The course built for Steve Wynn in the desert and was a remarkable undertaking. Fazio began with a flat featureless site and moved millions of yards of sand. He then planted a massive amount of pine trees and landscaped the entire proprety to create a lush oasis with ravines amd wonderful rolls where you could only see the mountains in the distance but none of the flat desert right next door.  The course is stunningly beautiful.

Bill Coore once remarked that "Fazio was golf's greatest Landscape Architect."


1990 – 2000 The Decade of Contrasts

This is one of the most interesting decades due to the explosive divisions in architectural philosophy practiced by a series of high profile architects.

You have Rees Jones continuing on the legacy of his father with his new work like Atlantic Golf Club. His renovation work at Bethpage Black and other famous layouts provides him with the “Open Doctor” moniker just like his dad had and he become the USGA’s go to guy – like his dad. Nicklaus continues to work on hundreds of projects with many being outside the US, but gets into financial problems with the development and construction arm of his company. Pete Dye becomes the very antithesis of his early origins, while he continues with the remarkable design ideas that brought him to prominence; he now shapes and moves everything – a far cry from The Golf Club. His courses are still strategically excellent and fascinating, but the work lacks the same charm of the early courses. This culminates at Whistling Straights where he takes an average albeit lakefront property and moves millions of yards of earth to build a stunning “links” layout with so many bunkers that nobody has ever counted them.

Mike Strantz, who had previously worked for Tom Fazio, was an architect walking completely out of step with all other – to my delight. The first signs of his genius are with a small tight property at Caledonia where he builds a remarkably clever and interesting layout that is a little different looking and playing than what people are used to. But there was so much more to come when you listen to this quote from an interview, “It is important to make the golf hole look more difficult than it really is. That is almost always the case on our courses, but if your mind convinces you that it really is a difficult shot, you’re beat before you even take the club back.” Caledonia was tricky in places but when he built Tobacco Road he built the most intimidating and controversial course constructed in recent time. This course is either loved or hated. I personally think this is because the course needs to be understood and respected before you can try out play it. The course uses large doses of intimidation – including blind shots – to overwhelm the player into playing in fear. The course also has width and short cuts galore to encourage a risky style of play, add this all up and you have one of the most unique and entertaining courses I have played. His work eventually softened culminating with his last course - the sublime Monterey Peninsula Shore Course - but one thing you can say about Mike’s work is that it was always interesting.

The final prominent architect of the decade is Bill Coore. Bill began working with Pete Dye as a superintendent but became interested in architecture working on a few smaller jobs. He became involved with Ben Crenshaw and began to design so very lay of the land layouts with lots of interesting ground options and alternate strategies. The work caught immediate attention for the enjoyment in created when you played the courses. Everything changed overnight when they were asked to do Sand Hills in the middle of the Sand Hill country in Nebraska. Sand Hill was an exceptional property. Coore and Crenshaw showed the patience to walk and walk the property until they had found the right routing. While 100’s of perfect holes were available, they walked until they found a routing that would work, without having to disturb any of the natural site. Many of the hazards are natural blow outs, and others that were created to look like they were also blow outs too. The course is like Prairie Dunes where the line between golf and nature is blurred. The golf course is a perfect reflection of the site, has a perfect set of holes and will be this era’s greatest course.

Coore and Crenshaw caught everyone’s attention and ultimately ushered in a new movement called Minimalism. It may have originated with Pete Dye, and been actually rooted in the Golden Age, but it was Coore and Crenshaw that really made the architecturally statement that this movement was going to change architecture. They built their ultimate expression at Sand Hills and then followed it up with a series of wonderful examples on many sites around the country. Decades later their style has had such an influence that it was copied by many architects including Nicklaus and Fazio.


2000 – 2007 Minimalism becomes Popular

Coore and Crenshaw have established themselves as the best architects in practice – their reputation clearly eclipses former decade leaders Fazio and Dye. Both are still busy, but people have found Fazio too predictable and Dye to…well….to unpredictable. A new crop of designers have also emerged to take over from the previous generation and while a few practice a version of modern design, most practice a style similar to Coore and Crenshaw. This style has been given the name “Minimalism” and this has become the new buzzword in golf design – it’s the name of the movement that defines this decade. The trend appears to be very firmly rooted and will quite likely be the defining trend for the near future.

Minimalism is actually a lousy term for what the movement really is since it was incorrectly named for the assumption of no earth movement in these new “retro” designs. The new movement is more a return to the roots of golf design. The latest crop of architects are choosing to ignore almost anything done recently and instead look all the way back to the work of the Golden Age of Golf Course Architecture. They are influenced by Colt and Mackenzie, rather than by Nicklaus or Fazio. They love early Pete Dye but have little regard for his latest work. They all love Bill Coore and want to build courses like he does. He has become the benchmark for this generation, their inspiration and often their mentor too.

So why is this style better than modern or post modern? It’s the playing experience itself. Golden Age Design is about freedom and discovery. Modernism or Post-Modernism tends to tell you what to do and where to go. Golden Age design invites you to gamble or “to shoot the bones for the whole works,” but also provides you with the freedom to take any route, including a tentative longer route to avoid risk.  The great Golden Age layouts always compel you to take on greater risk than you should.   

While architects like Gil Hanse, Mike DeVries, and others have create wonderful and interesting layouts, the architect who has moved to the forefront to take on Coore and Crenshaw is Tom Doak. Doak is to some a controversial figure due to his strong opinions and Confidential Guide to Golf Courses, but without question one very talented designer. Tom made his name initially with his writing and opinions and back them up with a very interesting first course called High Pointe, but his work at Pacific Dunes was his coming out party. The course received immediate comparisons to Cypress Point for its architecture, stetting and unusual hole sequences. The course was shorter than normal, wider than most, but brilliant in the use of the environment and the land to create a series of very compelling holes. Doak followed that up with a series of spectacular sea side courses in Australia, New Zealand and in the US. His work is comparable to the work of Coore and Crenshaw in both playing style and aesthetics – and now in quality too. There is no question he is clearly influenced by the work of Coore and Crenshaw – the question now is can he surpass it.


In the original piece about the future I assumed Tiger would buy out Fazio and assume his business.
But a little car accident and "small" banking crisis changed it all, so I was wrong.
I eventually wrote this at the end of 2010 looking out at the next decade.



2010 -2020 What will Happen this Decade

The economic fallout from the Banking Crisis did more to change golf architecture than fashion or popularity. This decade will see only a handful of well financed, well thought out, realistic business models getting built. The Minimalist movement will completely dominate golf course architecture since it makes more economic sense and continues to garner critical support. Golf is in recession and this will be a the final catalyst for a change in styles.
 
Golf will continue go through hard times this decade but eventually there will be more building. As with all new cycles it will begin with more sensible economic models. The more ambitious projects won't come till the end of the decade. The driving force in new projects will no longer be real estate – ending the dominance of the brand name designer.
 
I originally assumed that Tiger Woods was to become the biggest designer in the game, but between the change in economics and his transgressions, there's now a better than even chance he does not build a course this decade. The dominant architect of this decade is going to be someone who is busy even now. He will have a small office, loves to run a dozer and would be classified a minimalist. His influence is the philosophies and principles of the Golden Age. I would predict that it's going to be Gil Hanse.
With every golf development bubble, the end was unexpected and brutal....

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2012, 09:46:06 AM »
Ian, did you predict Hanse before The Olympic course, Doral, etc?  If so, WOW!

Great post, by the way.  With this new era of minimalism and prudence, do you see hope for more gems being built as a percentage of overall courses?

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Connor Dougherty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2012, 05:08:46 PM »
“…the real reason St. Andrews Old Course is infinitely superior to anything else is owing to the fact that it was constructed when no-one knew anything about the subject at all, and since then it has been considered too sacred to be touched.”

--Alister MacKenzie

Well, hopefully TOC will still be considered "too sacred to be touched."

As for the tracks from "Our Era," technology may become far more useful in saving modern classics because access to information is so much easier now than it was at the end of the first Golden Age. For example, if anyone attempted to ruin Rustic Canyon with design changes, it would be easy to pull up Geoff Shackelford's thoughts on the course in Grounds for Golf on a Kindle or iPad or whatnot. Or, for that matter, it would be easy for them to pull up the course profile on here or any of the numerous threads on the discussion boards. I like Ian Andrew's thoughts on Tiger Woods designing courses. I would like to think that Gil Hanse will become the face for future architects, but it really does come down to the Olympic Course. If the Olympic Course receives incredible praise the same way TPC Boston did when they hosted their first tournament, minimalism will be king for a long, long time.

For now, this era's classic courses that have not been mentioned:

If we were to go international,
Cape Kidnappers
Barnbougle Dunes
Barnbougle Lost Farm
(maybe) St. Andrews Beach

Courses that I have not played but would think are candidates for this list based on what others have said:
Cabot Links
Old Sandwich
Streamsong complex
Castle Stuart
"The website is just one great post away from changing the world of golf architecture.  Make it." --Bart Bradley

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2012, 01:30:40 PM »
As for the tracks from "Our Era," technology may become far more useful in saving modern classics because access to information is so much easier now than it was at the end of the first Golden Age.

Connor, I think you are totally correct.  Better records, easier to access records, and prudent Stewardship can help preserve courses.

However, I do not think all, or maybe even many, of these gems will make it through unscathed.  So, we need to enjoy them while we can.

High Pointe, probably a modern gem, might be gone for good.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51256.0.html

Kingsley has been changed already.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35373.0.html

I'm pretty sure the Bandon Complex is looking to host a major.  I'm afraid what that might mean to the courses.

I do have high hopes for a place like Sand Hills, but in that environment/climate. I think the course will morph regardless of the Stewardship and intent.


I guess we just need to enjoy these things while we can.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2012, 02:30:58 PM »


I'm pretty sure the Bandon Complex is looking to host a major. 



Why so sure about that? I would really hate to see that happen. Do those courses have enough length or would mutilation be required?

I'd love to be wrong...am I?



USGA Executive Director Mike Davis was here this week, along with USGA President Jim Hyler and Thomas O’Toole Jr., the chairman of the Championship Committee. Is there talk of doing another USGA event in the future?

Keiser: I would like that. I’d love to do others. I would love to do the Walker Cup. I would love to do the U.S. Amateur. I’d love to do any of the amateur [championships]. I supposed I would love to do the juniors (Junior Amateur or Girls’ Junior) because just like the Public Links, most of these contestants don’t even know what a true links course is. Even though golf started in the 14th century in Scotland in dunes, we say, “OK guys and girls, what’s a links course?” As I said to someone [this week], I’ll bet the U.S. Amateur Public Links Championship has never been played on a links course, even though it has links in its name.


Would any of this stuff require siginicant course changes?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Matthew Essig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2012, 03:18:47 PM »
The Full Circle Era

  • Links courses being built.
  • Returning to the brown look.

....................Maybe a ball roll-back in the near future  :D...................

I am looking for more to add to the list to reinforce my idea.
"Good GCA should offer an interesting golfing challenge to the golfer not a difficult golfing challenge." Jon Wiggett

Connor Dougherty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2012, 05:05:53 AM »
The good news is the tournaments that Kaiser mentioned are all Match Play events, which makes changes to the fairways and whatnot less likely (I'm not saying it wouldn't happen). As for which courses would host them, Old Mac is around 7000 as is Bandon Dunes. For the higher profile events like the Walker Cup or the US Am, you would have to think they'd put them on Bandon. I can't think of a more dramatic match play hole for TV than the 16th on BD.

I mentioned, somewhat jokingly, earlier in this thread that, "hopefully TOC will still be considered 'too sacred to be touched.'" It's interesting to see this thread now that the changes have been announced. How could a golf course, with all that is written about it's architectural greatness, be changed? I had mentioned that with technology, it is easier for us to see what architects think of designs. However, no course, not even Augusta National, has the volume of analysis that TOC does.

Now I think that changes are simply unpredictable. I've realized that even with all of the information at access, almost all of us want to be armchair architects, and if given the opportunity, we will try to change courses as we see fit. Then it comes down to who is in a position to live out their dreams as an architect. That's why Pinehurst saw a "Dark Ages," as mentioned in Chris Buie's "Middle Ages of Pinehurst" in the IMO section. That's how the R&A and the Links Trust made changes to TOC. Right now, it is hard to see changes occurring at Sand Hills, Barnbougle, Rustic Canyon, or the Bandon complex from anyone other than the architects themselves because ownership is not likely to suggest or demand changes.

Tom Doak said on the preservation of GCA thread, "The only thing I know for sure is that if The Old Course at St. Andrews is changed, the rest of them aren't even worth arguing about." Whether the changes are right or wrong, the changes to TOC have shown that nothing is considered "sacred" and anything can be changed. They just had the right people in power to make the changes they wanted. That's what happened at Pinehurst, that's what happened at Augusta National, and that's what may happen to all of the gems of our era.

That's why I hope Sattler, Keiser, and Youngscap live until they're 200. Then some of these places might have a fighting chance. :D

I don't want this to turn into another argument about the merits of the TOC changes, as that would distract from the intention of this thread. I'm just trying to merely use this as a reference point as to how modern courses could be changed in the future.
"The website is just one great post away from changing the world of golf architecture.  Make it." --Bart Bradley

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2012, 10:37:39 AM »
Connor...

Mentioning The Old Course is perfectly appropriate.  But it just isn't The Old Course, it is every course.  Every course is changing either by nature or man.  Augusta National is still around, but it isn't the course it was in 1934.  Merion isn't the same.  Nothing is. 

I'd argue we need to play, chronicle, discuss, take photos, and annotate every chance we get.  Perhaps not only for the short-term enjoyment, but long term purposes as well.

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2012, 10:43:24 AM »
Thank God that our ancestors were not so selfish that they stood in the way of progress. I'm really not interested in playing 1934 courses and conditions. Very few people are.

We need to be careful not to burden our children with what fits our tastes out of some sense of nostalgia mixed in with a dose of "we know what's good for you".

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2012, 10:51:34 AM »
Please explain in more detail, John.

I am think I'm advocating playing our current crop of golf courses and enjoying them...as they will morph over time and change.

I did mention Augusta of 1934 and note that it is a different course today.  I think our current crop of courses will be different as well in 70ish years.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2012, 11:03:15 AM »

I did mention Augusta of 1934 and note that it is a different course today.  I think our current crop of courses will be different as well in 70ish years.


I hope the current crop of courses does change to fit the culture of our children.  I am not going to be so arrogant to believe to be that one parent who can predict or mold what that culture will be.  So many on here elevate golf course architecture to be an art while trying to stifle the natural progress and change that art requires.  We have had our fun served just like we like it, let our children have the same.  They might even be smarter than we think.

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2012, 11:24:29 AM »
John, is that why Mackenzie hated The Old Course?
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Mark_F

Re: Our Era
« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2012, 02:21:12 PM »
But, there have not been any other significant changes to the course over the 11 years it's been open.
It's a pity you weren't around when The Old Course came into being Tom - it might not have needed changing now.

Connor Dougherty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #20 on: December 16, 2012, 06:12:36 AM »
John, perhaps I'm one of those children making suggestions as to how golf courses should evolve, considering I'm 19 and a sophomore in college ;D. I can't help but think that the children you are referring to are probably closer to me in age than I am to you!

Mac, you mentioned the changes to Augusta since 1934 and how we have to chronicle as much as possible over time. I find this very interesting because I have thought that for the most part, a beginning to end study of Augusta shows how the philosophies of GCA have changed over time. In essence, Augusta National serves as a timeline for GCA, and studying that course alone teaches us so much about GCA from 1934-2012 (with the only part missing being the revival of minimalist architecture). I think that Augusta has started to split off from that, so maybe one of these courses from our era will fill the void that has been created.
"The website is just one great post away from changing the world of golf architecture.  Make it." --Bart Bradley

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2012, 04:24:58 AM »

Pacific Dunes (and Sand Hills, too) fights an ongoing fight with the wind to keep sand in the bunkers and keep them from becoming twenty feet deep over time.  They are never going to be exactly the same over the decades ... and they were designed with that in mind.  But, there have not been any other significant changes to the course over the 11 years it's been open.

Tom,

I'm interested to know how big that fight is at Pacific Dunes (i.e. how much effort / sand it takes them)?... If you were to go back to the start would you have built them at all differently... And did this effect the way you built your bunkers at Old MacDonald?

I've never visited Bandon and for what it's worth, I like the idea of building bunkers that evolve with nature - In theory, a sustainable design that would have worked well at one or two other recent builds I can think of.... But I guess that at some point, there may be a maintenance impact (through erosion) that overrides the initial design intent.


John Chilver-Stainer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2012, 06:47:06 AM »
Every Era can be an improvement on the previous era, but almost always there is a difference. I have nothing against progress, and new courses of our Era can reflect this.

I believe also there’s a place for preserving some of the more typical efforts of our forefathers, particularly the good examples.

When in 50 years all Gil Hanses’s bunkers are squared off, and Tom Doak's routings are altered in the name of progress, will this be a good thing?

Does the banner of progress have a carte blanche to change EVERYTHING?

Personally I like to see examples of history and tradition in the landscape, and I also like to see brave new world originality. There’s room for both.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2012, 04:43:15 PM »
John...

I think you bring up a great point.  There is certainly a place for the classic links courses of Great Britian and Ireland.  There is a place for the Golden Age designs.  There is a place for the maximalist designs.  And our current 2nd Golden Age designs.  I guess I'm against changing all courses to a singular "norm."

But again, I'm trying to stress that we need to enjoy what we have now...because every course is constantly changing.  As great as Augusta National is right now, which I'm sure it is...it isn't the same course is was in 1934. A similiar concept can be applied to every course and every time frame.  In fact, I love "The Lost Holes" section of Golf Course Architecture magazine for this very reason.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Will Lozier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Our Era
« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2012, 10:06:59 PM »
John, perhaps I'm one of those children making suggestions as to how golf courses should evolve, considering I'm 19 and a sophomore in college ;D. I can't help but think that the children you are referring to are probably closer to me in age than I am to you!

Mac, you mentioned the changes to Augusta since 1934 and how we have to chronicle as much as possible over time. I find this very interesting because I have thought that for the most part, a beginning to end study of Augusta shows how the philosophies of GCA have changed over time. In essence, Augusta National serves as a timeline for GCA, and studying that course alone teaches us so much about GCA from 1934-2012 (with the only part missing being the revival of minimalist architecture). I think that Augusta has started to split off from that, so maybe one of these courses from our era will fill the void that has been created.

Really interesting thought Connor.  Not bad for a college lad. ;)  I've often thought how cool it would be to see Augusta move back to minimalist/natural presentation!  And what is amazing (perhaps sadly) is that ANGC probably has the resources to present the course in it's original version on a whim - i.e., for 100th Masters - and for only a year! ???  How cool would that be - original layout with hickories or persimmons, for the 2034 Masters?! 

Cheers

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back