News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Getting It vs. Doing It
« on: May 01, 2003, 08:25:27 AM »
The club where I play is a Cupp design that includes, albeit rarely, several classical design elements such as a double-plateau (I've dubbed it a stretch biarritz) an extremely wide fairway on a short par four, a drop-down back tiered green, a large green with a central vertical spine, several false fronts and a really cool three tiered green on a short par four that has a center fairway bunker.  

All are evidence that Cupp "gets it."  Why, then, are so many of the other holes indifferent and dominated by containment mounding?  

Is it the target market?  A reluctance to eschew the tried and true for quirk?  Laziness?  Lack of time on site?  A dumbing down?

In addition to answering these questions, I encourage you to post other examples where the architects who are most frequently critized on this site demonstrated that they "get it."

Regards,

Mike
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Getting It vs. Doing It
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2003, 11:32:13 AM »
Mike,

Some may remember that I am already on record for detesting the term "getting it."  This is a main reason why:  if all you have to do to establish your knowledge is copy a couple of old-school features every once in a while, any architect can do that.

Not to say that Bob Cupp is a bad architect -- there are a lot worse.  But I wouldn't call him a classicist, any more than I'd call him a cubist because of that Palmetto Hall course.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Getting It vs. Doing It
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2003, 02:05:28 PM »
Tom,

I almost used a disclaimer re "getting it" but that has almost become a defined term (that can't really be defined) on this web site.  I interpret your comment to implay that some architects merely give a nod to the classical school.  

My question remains,  why don't they go all out.  I realize any response is mere conjecture, but I'd like to hear folks' opinions.

Regards,

Mike
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Getting It vs. Doing It
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2003, 07:11:40 PM »
For many its "the course owners" that hold them back!  For others, they just don't do that old stuff and/or only have so many classic style holes to pull out of their CAD files!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Getting It vs. Doing It
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2003, 07:57:13 PM »
IMHO-

I think the days of not 'doing it' will soon be past.  As we, course owners and operators, continue to watch generic courses fall to the wayside in what has become a competitive market, those architects whose designs have "survived the glut" will find themselves gifted with opportunities to continue creating modern classics.  The real test will be which courses can escape the moniker of “It was nice a nice track before it was built out”.  Those who have failed to demonstrate an ability to create intriguing, challenging, and enjoyable tracks for all levels of play will soon be asking, "Do you want fries with that?"  The days of the ego fluffing resort course are numbered.  In the last twenty years, a number of “jump on the bandwagon” well financed developers have made the quick buck on golf and left average house lined courses with no room for expansion in their wake.  

Fear not, the pendulum will begin to swing back to courses which reflect the qualities of classic design as the market will demand what it cannot find; course which are long enough for today’s equipment and as fulfilling as the courses of old.  A new day is also on the horizon for golf course operators and owners who view their properties as going concerns rather than get rich quick schemes.  The general public will soon cast aside the disposable yuppie consumer culture in exchange for service and nostalgia, for the opportunity to participate or belong to something that has a legacy greater then themselves.  The general public is also growing tired of playing golf amid the residential developments left in the dollar oriented developer’s wake.  Competitive forces will create the new demand for classicism in turn separating the grain from the chaff in the circle of modern architects.

In the 80’s classic Wall Street, Gordon Gecko said, “Greed, for lack of a better word… is good.”  Greed is the death knell of classic design.  Greedy developers stop architects from creating modern classics because classic feature require space that could be used for real estate – see Hole 6 of Forrest Richardson’s “Routing the Golf Course”.  After enough of them have failed, the greedy, out of fear of the elevated risk, will seek other arenas for their capital gluttony leaving golf development to those who love and respect the traditions of the game.  And we, the proven course owners and operators, will be calling on architects who have demonstrated the ability to create the modern classic.

How much do I believe this?  I’m betting the whole enchilada on it!  We open Spring 2004.

Cheers!

JT  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jim Thompson