Are you ready for a really controversial thread ?

[Ben Stephens]

Pat,

I wouldn't think that this thread is controversial. If Rees had done a hole like this it would surprise me as it is not really his style. The heavily contoured greens and craggy/rough edged bunkers is not part of the Rees Jones trademark isn't it??

From a personal view Rees Jones courses the way they are designed look artificial and manufactured. Both C+C and Doak courses do look more natural.

If someone had asked me who designed this hole I would have said Hanse, C+C or Doak because it is their style and it has been proven in the past that they have all come up with holes in a similar style.

This is similar with Architecture - look at Richard Meier (the Rees Jones of Architectural buildings!) he has a particular style as well as Frank Gehry. It can be difficult to completely change the preferrred design style like for example James Stirling, a British modern architect his style changed throughout his career.

Ben

[Mike Hendren]

Would we have similar responses had the question been "What would you be saying about this hole if Robert Trent Jones II  had been the architect ?" PRIOR to Chambers Bay?

Bogey

[Mike_Young]

Mike - why?  It's winter, we love golf but can't play, and it's fun to discuss

Dan,
I understand; except these types of threads are so obvious that we all know the script before they play out.   I would much rather discuss a thread such as which ODG architect was most likely to have asked Barney Frank to dinner or which modern architect has an AR15 in his truck etc.  Or even better...how many modern architects can crank much less work a D5?  All of that stuff would be entertaining.  Discussing design styles is like discussing Angeline Joline, Heather Locklear and Jennifer Anniston as to which is the best looking.  It just doesn't matter.  And there is no answer.  If you gonna be controversial then stir some sh*t don't compare design styles.  

[Ian Andrew]

I'd say that creates an imperfection in terms of the flow of the routing

Tom,

Our group discussed this possibility while walking the bridge. I defended Tom's choice as being more than worth the "short" walk back. We discussed play, the architecture, things that want to kill you, and the setting around us while crossing the bridge. You don't always get the time to reflect and it was an ideal point in the round. It reminded me of why I like the breaks in the action at Highlands Links.


Pat,

Yes we are all prone to bias.

One of Khanamen's studies outlined in Thinking Fast and Slow lays out the basic premise:
(these are my words adjusted for the topic)

When a golf course architect has made an initial impression, you will always judge the next piece of work based on the first impression. Whether the next work is superior or inferior to the first work, you will mentally adjust your impression to bring it into context with your beliefs.

[Jason Thurman]

I just don't get it.  This site is really out of things to talk about.  This thread is no different than discussing a political preference on Fox or MSNBC.  It is a given that most of us on this site prefer a particular type of golf design.  I do.  So why would we expect a fair debate of a totally different style and all I can really see that is being discussed regarding design is how one "ties" a green into the surrounds.  We all do it differently.  A much more interesting comparison for this site would be to ask the same question between TD and Seth Raynor because most on here already have their mind made up when it comes to RJ.

I think it's worth our time to spend a little time addressing the biases of the forum. Personally, I get tired of the anti-criticism of the work of Doak and Coore & Crenshaw. They're great architects, no doubt, but there's room for real critical discussion of their work. I do tend to agree with you though that maybe Rees is the wrong point of comparison, since his style is so different from that depicted.

I'm more inclined to wonder what the verdict would've been if Hurdzan/Fry or Lehman/Brands had built the hole. I have a feeling it would get killed by many for being a forced carry with double hazards and a walk that creates a routing disruption. I'm sure many would also love it for the green complex and beautiful site and tie-ins.

[Tom_Doak]

I think it's worth our time to spend a little time addressing the biases of the forum. Personally, I get tired of the anti-criticism of the work of Doak and Coore & Crenshaw. They're great architects, no doubt, but there's room for real critical discussion of their work.

Jason:

No doubt Hurdzan/Fry and Lehman/Brands agree with you on this.  But, just curious, do you ever offer any real critical discussion of my work?

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat,

Ok, you are looking for honesty from fans of Tom Doak's work who also generally dislike or don't respect the work of Rees Jones.

I am in that category.

Honestly, when I first saw pictures of this hole and when I first saw it in person, I didn't like it, not because of the shot to be played, but because I just didn't like the look at all. It brought to mind an approach shot on a par four at Doonbeg in Ireland that I strongly criticized years ago when Doonbeg was built.

The strength of this hole, IMO, is the green. I'd like to play it on a regular basis and to different pin placements. That would be challenging and fun, but I doubt I would ever come to like the appearance of the hole. I would say the same thing about the C&C hole next door. More interesting to play than to look at.

By the way, one observation I would also make about both the Blue and the Red course at Streamsong is that I don't think either course is easy to photograph. Certainly someone with my limited skills flashing an iPhone won't being able to capture many good pictures. I spoke briefly about this with Larry Lambrecht. Presently Streamsong in its best light - no pun intended - will take the work of a professional photographer more than many other places I have seen.

Ironically, the hole we are discussing might be the easiest to photograph on the Blue course. I neither like the look nor think it really represents the course as a whole.

Enough honesty for you?

[Lester George]

I certainly expect (and am confident) that the swale behind the green is substantial or there will be a ton of water inundating the green from the hillside behind.  It looks very nice to me.  How large is the green?

Lester 

[Matthew Petersen]

I just don't get it.  This site is really out of things to talk about.  This thread is no different than discussing a political preference on Fox or MSNBC.  It is a given that most of us on this site prefer a particular type of golf design.  I do.  So why would we expect a fair debate of a totally different style and all I can really see that is being discussed regarding design is how one "ties" a green into the surrounds.  We all do it differently.  A much more interesting comparison for this site would be to ask the same question between TD and Seth Raynor because most on here already have their mind made up when it comes to RJ.

I think it's worth our time to spend a little time addressing the biases of the forum. Personally, I get tired of the anti-criticism of the work of Doak and Coore & Crenshaw. They're great architects, no doubt, but there's room for real critical discussion of their work. I do tend to agree with you though that maybe Rees is the wrong point of comparison, since his style is so different from that depicted.

I'm more inclined to wonder what the verdict would've been if Hurdzan/Fry or Lehman/Brands had built the hole. I have a feeling it would get killed by many for being a forced carry with double hazards and a walk that creates a routing disruption. I'm sure many would also love it for the green complex and beautiful site and tie-ins.

I think the walk back would be a big gripe. This is where Tom's willingness to be a part of the discussion group and frankly discuss his choices pays huge dividends. If Hurdzan or Lehman built this hole it would just be a mystery as to why the routing was such. We'd all sit and wonder and say, "I can see this is a green site worth using but why couldn't he have gone this way next instead?" But for dedicated readers of the forum, Tom has explained the routing issues several times over now.

I'm not sure ultimately if that's a GCA bias or evidence of how little any of us non professionals actually understand all of what goes into routing.

[Mike Hendren]

The criticisms of Rees would be substantially muted if he participated on this site.   

Bogey

[Ronald Montesano]

why does everything have to be an argument with you?

I prefer the term debate. In truth, I debated because "Rees would never have taken on this project" screamed out for a retort. It had no basis, no proof, no substantiation. I think part of the basis for posting membership in this forum is backing up what we type. Lurkers can read, but participants should bring proof.

And, my friends call me "Dude," so I consider you my friend.

[Tom_Doak]

I certainly expect (and am confident) that the swale behind the green is substantial or there will be a ton of water inundating the green from the hillside behind.  It looks very nice to me.  How large is the green?

Lester 

According to the numbers provided to me by the greenkeeping staff, it's 9373 square feet.  It tilts a bit from front to back as well as from right to left, so it plays a bit smaller than that.

And, yes, the deep swale at the back of the green was important for the release of storm water.  Of course, only a fellow professional would note the need for that.

[John Ezekowitz]

Here is the 11th at Atlantic. It was the only hole on the course that compelled me to take a picture. Unfortunately, my perspective isn't great so some of the coolness of the hole is lost. It is a short Par 3 where the green actually slopes away from front to back significantly. The slope, combined with the ravine behind, make the green a pseudo-infinity green from the back tee.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat - interesting that your original post asks about a "golf hole" like this, i.e. about an individual golf hole, taken in isolation, independent of the flow and balance and 'narrative' and aesthetic of the course as a whole. I'm not criticizing - we all do it, despite all our talk about great routings etc (i.e. despite our understanding that the art-craft of golf course architecture is reflected in the whole even more than in the parts, or even the sum of the parts).  And yet, there is no way around it: if we can't 'judge' a course by photos -- and you often, in debates with others, ask if they have actually played the course -- how much less can we discuss a designer or his work by one photo? True, we often have done it with architects we don't like, but in those cases we were being unfair.

On the hole itself: I found myself thinking I'd want to be Bruce Lietzke (fade) and then I thought it better to be Mark Calcavecchia (draw) and then I thought it best to be Corey Pavin (short).

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

One other thing I'd like to mention about this hole, that has not been mentioned so far, is that I think it's important to take the hole in context.

All the other par-3's on the Blue course [not to mention the par-4's and par-5's] have huge amounts of short grass around the greens to allow recovery play after a poor tee shot ... so much that I've taken some criticism in other quarters for making the course "too forgiving".  Seen in that light, the seventh hole is an important piece of the puzzle, really the only place on the course where you are challenged to hit a good shot or face dire consequences.  But, it's really not as hard as it looks, because it's a pretty big target.

PS  And Peter is very prescient!

[Josh Tarble]

The only controversy I could see coming from this hole is the walk and "disruption" to the routing.  I don't even think that is a big deal.  It looks like there is optimal room across the water, so it's not an all or nothing carry.  Plus from the tees most will play its only ~160 yards.

What's the difference between that hole and this one:




- taken from Bill McKinley's tour of Fox Chapel

[Jason Thurman]

I think it's worth our time to spend a little time addressing the biases of the forum. Personally, I get tired of the anti-criticism of the work of Doak and Coore & Crenshaw. They're great architects, no doubt, but there's room for real critical discussion of their work.

Jason:

No doubt Hurdzan/Fry and Lehman/Brands agree with you on this.  But, just curious, do you ever offer any real critical discussion of my work?

Truthfully Tom, I haven’t played enough of your work to offer much. CommonGround is the only Doak course I’ve seen so far. I enjoyed it, but also found some of the strategies a bit repetitive and the property left a bit to be desired. I’d like to see more, obviously.  I’ve been a bit more critical of Coore and Crenshaw, and particularly their work at Dormie Club.

From what I’ve seen in person and in photos, your group and the C&C group are among the elite architects working today. There’s no doubt that you do good work. But there’s also no doubt in my mind that if Lehman/Brands built the 7th at Streamsong Blue, it would get some of the classic “water par 3” feedback that this forum spits out. We’d probably hear a few clichés like “A person should be able to play every hole with a putter” and “bunkers shouldn’t stand between water and a ball’s intended target.” And after reading just last week about the horrifyingly long transitions at walking-only Erin Hills, in a thread when many claimed short transitions are more important than great holes, I’m sure Hurdzan and Fry would’ve gotten raked over the coals for the backtrack across the bridge. And when everyone was fawning over photos of Streamsong Red, I kept thinking “This doesn’t look much different from photos of some Fazio courses that get panned around here for being ‘too penal’ when photos get posted.”

Of course, personally, I disagree with most of those ideas anyways. I’d rather play great holes, I never use a putter on the tee of a par 3, and I don’t see a lot of formulaic rules for bunker placement. I’m also not one to whine about forced carries of less than 200 yards or a course that uses a water hazards to occasionally force a competent shot. My point isn’t so much that the hole pictured DESERVES criticism. It’s more that the hole would receive more criticism from that crowd if it had been designed by a capable builder that doesn’t happen to be a treehouse favorite.

[Lester George]

Tom,

Your last post is the one I was waiting for.  Putting this particular hole in perspective with the rest of the shots required and the surrounds of the other holes on the course is (or should be) the revealing part of this.  That is the way many architects I know keep a "running score" of themes, ideas, shot values, looks and strategies as they create a course.  To isolate one hole and discuss it's merit is sometimes meaningless unless the architect can put it in PERSPECTIVE with the other relative aspects of the design.  Nice job communicating that.

Love the scale and the fit with the surroundings.

Lester

[archie_struthers]

 

When I first saw this picture it looked like the first and second at Bayonne had a baby.  Looks fun !

Very doubtful Rees would ok this , IMHO.

[Tom_Doak]

Truthfully Tom, I haven’t played enough of your work to offer much. CommonGround is the only Doak course I’ve seen so far. I enjoyed it, but also found some of the strategies a bit repetitive and the property left a bit to be desired. I’d like to see more, obviously.  I’ve been a bit more critical of Coore and Crenshaw, and particularly their work at Dormie Club.

From what I’ve seen in person and in photos, your group and the C&C group are among the elite architects working today. There’s no doubt that you do good work. But there’s also no doubt in my mind that if Lehman/Brands built the 7th at Streamsong Blue, it would get some of the classic “water par 3” feedback that this forum spits out. We’d probably hear a few clichés like “A person should be able to play every hole with a putter” and “bunkers shouldn’t stand between water and a ball’s intended target.” And after reading just last week about the horrifyingly long transitions at walking-only Erin Hills, in a thread when many claimed short transitions are more important than great holes, I’m sure Hurdzan and Fry would’ve gotten raked over the coals for the backtrack across the bridge. And when everyone was fawning over photos of Streamsong Red, I kept thinking “This doesn’t look much different from photos of some Fazio courses that get panned around here for being ‘too penal’ when photos get posted.”

Of course, personally, I disagree with most of those ideas anyways. I’d rather play great holes, I never use a putter on the tee of a par 3, and I don’t see a lot of formulaic rules for bunker placement. I’m also not one to whine about forced carries of less than 200 yards or a course that uses a water hazards to occasionally force a competent shot. My point isn’t so much that the hole pictured DESERVES criticism. It’s more that the hole would receive more criticism from that crowd if it had been designed by a capable builder that doesn’t happen to be a treehouse favorite.

Well, that is a classic straw man argument.

If you want to criticize my golf holes, go right ahead.  If you want to put up a picture of a great hole by Lehman/Brands, go ahead.  You aren't doing either; you are whining about what might have been said if somebody else had designed something, instead of me.  Which is pretty much 100% projection on your part.

As to the differences between Erin Hills and Streamsong, there are many.  I'm 100% in agreement with you that the walk from #7 to #8 at Streamsong is less than ideal, but I made the decision for reasons described earlier in this thread.  You haven't played the course, so you don't know it, but most of the other green-to-tee transitions are very short; that's a big deal for me.  The same is apparently not true for whoever deserves credit for the routing of Erin Hills ... either because of wanting to host a tournament or just wanting great views from the back tees, the walks are almost uniformly long.  It's a pretty big difference between the two projects, even with the two exceptions on Streamsong Blue.

And, incidentally, both of the long walks on Streamsong Blue are concessions at crossover points in the routing, in order to make the walk at Streamsong Red work out perfectly.  That was one reason I bristled a little bit at Brad Klein's comment about how the Red course was a better walk.

[Mike_Young]

I don't think I have ever criticized Tom's work on here but it's not that I haven't seen things I might not particularly like.  The reason I don't criticize his work here is because whether I like a particular feature or not I know that he spent the time and evaluated the situation and had a reason for what he was doing.  The same goes for C&C and for others.  I can go to any course and find things to criticize if that is my goal when playing golf.  But I just don't find it in me to criticize one slope in a green or one bunker placement when I it is obvious to me that the architect put his heart into a project.  BUT what I do criticize is when it is obvious that the architect "mailed in" a green complex and either had no passion or thought or talent for the end results.  I often get that feeling from some of the signatures.  
BTW..I played the hole twice and forgot I had to walk back over the bridge until I read it here...damn routing

[archie_struthers]

 


Lots of interesting thoughts shared here and no doubt certain favorite sons are given some slack on this site. I cant imagine Pat stirring the pot , can you?

But, if you look at this hole and its wild and wooly appearance , and were told it was built by Rees, most afficionado's of his style wouldn't believe it !

[Ronald Montesano]

The only controversy I could see coming from this hole is the walk and "disruption" to the routing.  I don't even think that is a big deal.  It looks like there is optimal room across the water, so it's not an all or nothing carry.  Plus from the tees most will play its only ~160 yards.

What's the difference between that hole and this one:
- taken from Bill McKinley's tour of Fox Chapel

tom's is wilder? seth's is more difficult?

[Jason Thurman]

Tom, what's my argument? I'm just suggesting that certain cliche crticisms get thrown around in the forum a lot and serve as lowest common denominator crutches to support arguments against other architects' work. Do you disagree? I don't think it would take much time to find ten examples of people posting things like "forced carries are always bad" or "bunkers between water and a target are a no-no."

As I stated, I have no criticisms of the hole. I haven't played it, and even if I did, I don't anticipate that I'd find much to criticize. I don't mind backtracking walks (as I posted in another thread two days ago), I don't mind forced carries, and I don't care about "bunker placement no-nos." What I do know is that plenty of guys use those cliche arguments to disparage the work of others, and then mysteriously no longer stand by that argument when looking at one of your courses, or one of C&C's, or one of Hanse's.

I'm not whining at all. I'm just putting forth an observation and speculating a bit. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am.

[Chris Johnston]

I enjoyed the hole in question and both routings at Streamsong.  I would rather have the small transition than not have the terrific hole 100% of the time.  

Also, I don't think the thread is controversial at all.  Thank goodness different architects design different architecture - we all have personal favorites, in name and style.

There is something similar to this in practice with with our first course.  Most who play it are quite pleased to see something "out of the box" from what they expected from the designer.  I can't tell you how many "he isn't my favorite designer" guys head home with a far different view.    We are proud to have a very cool Nicklaus course!