[Scott Warren]

I've felt this for a while, but Mike Young expressed it well this morning:

It's what an architect doesn't do on a great piece of land not what he does that makes people consider him good.  

It reminds me of a similar quote about Jimmy Page being so great not for what he did play, but for the notes he didn't play.

I immediately think of the 6th hole at Barnbougle Dunes (below). How many architects would have resisted bunkering either or both of the pyramid dune and green?


Likewise the 16th green at Royal Cinque Ports. I feel as though 95% of modern architects would bunker this green rather than having the only sand 40 yards short.


Is the greatest quality that sets the best golf course architects apart not their ability to build great features and conceive fantastic strategic challenges, but rather their ability to know when enough is enough?

While I think this is more pointed in the modern era where large amount of soil can be moved easily, it's also something I love about the work of JF Abercrombie and Tom Simpson - using the land alone where it provides sufficient interest, particularly off the tee.

[Joe Hancock]

So, how do we expand this thought beyond bunkering? Does it hold up under other scrutinies, such as contouring on greens or fairways?

How about mowing lines that define the golf course? Do we feel the same way, in that restraint is a positive virtue?

Just asking in hopes of moving the original question past the ever-so-obvious bunker example.

Joe

[Scott Warren]

Joe,

Expand away!

My goal is always to elicit input from people smarter and more insightful than I (people such as you!).

Interested to hear your thoughts on restraint in other aspects of a hole's/course's design.

[Peter Pallotta]

Scott - do you know the story of Frank Capra, the (imo) great American filmmaker and multiple Oscar winner of the 1930s and 40s? In his prime, he did everything well, and had overflowing talent -- as a co-writer he understood story and structure and character, as a director he understood the technology of the day and could frame and light and pace a scene beautifully, and as a creative professional artist he understood his audience. In fact, it was this last ability/talent that I think he was most proud of. And, as he tells in his autobiography, when he put all his talents to full use and made what he thought as perhaps his best film, "It's A Wonderful Life", only to watch the audience turn away in droves and the film flop at the box office, he was devastated. It almost broke him (he made two or three middling films afterwards and then basically retired in his 50s) to realize that he had so badly misjudged his audience; and with that realization, he lost his confidence completely (and knew it).

Which is to say, I think it's a point that doesn't get mentioned enough, i.e. that while the architects we admire do everything well, and have all the necessary talents and abilities, one of the things that sets them apart is their understanding of the intended audience/golfer -- they know when to use restraint, and when not to (and are proven right over and over again, and more often than not).

Peter
Thanks for the pics. We need a Scott photo tour/essay soon.

[David_Tepper]

"It reminds me of a similar quote about Jimmy Page being so great not for what he did play, but for the notes he didn't play."

Scott -

Are you sure about that? Jimmy Page played a lot of notes. He was no minimalist.
Peter Green, on the other hand, was a different story. Listen to "The Supernatural" on the John Mayall Hard Road album.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoasUjXBkm8

DT

[Tom_Doak]

I often think, when I see the work of other young architects, that what they really need is someone to tell them to tone things down just a bit.

A lot of the way I work is to let my associates come up with cool stuff, and then edit it and tone it down until I think it's right.  Some of my best clients have done the same thing for me.

[RJ_Daley]

I believe restraint is a huge factor, but not the sole characteristic that sets the best apart.  Sometimes, restraint is not what the mission or assignment is to the selection of which architect gets a job.  Yet, even if a job calls for something extraordinary due to target market, type of facility, and intention of which target market the course is to be created for, even then, knowing how to pull back from what is truly over-the-top is a trademark of 'the best'.  

Let's look at an example.  Whistling Straits is a course the developer humorously says, 'he gave Pete Dye and unlimited budget - and he exceeded it'.   One should consider the property that was given.  Some say an unremarkable flatish property with a couple of creeks running through it to the typical Lake Michigan sandy-washed stoney beach with a bit of a rise from the beach a few yards in, and then unremarkable topography.  The interesting feature being that the land was used in WWII for target practice for Navy dive bombers.  So, it was also an environmental clean-up site.  

I think it is plausible that a great architect could have taken that land and have done a minimalist routing that would yield a good golf course, with flatish style, and earth work features just enough to give the hole corridors definition, and some slopes and green pads with interesting surrounding hazards, etc.  There are any number of models and styles for such from some of the Mac-Raynor repitoire to modern day examples like Rustic Canyon.  

But, the mission was given that they wanted the bombastic, and price was no object, and restraint was not the prime goal. So, we got unrestrained, yet arguably great design that can hold big major tournaments, and has the high end wow factor sizzle of the elite resort.  The goal was not restraint and Pete wanted the lake to be seen from almost everywhere on the golf course.  He still needed all the other elements of talent and to be among the best to conceive the two tier ledges system, and to move that much dirt and get it all approved.  So, other factors came into the mission, and restraint wasn't one of them.

One can argue that he could have used some restraint in creating bunkers that are so remote, they don't come into play, even for hot dog vendors at the PGA.  I agree.  I don't know why he didn't restrain that!  But, not many are going to argue that Dye isn't amonge of the best archies and he didn't come up with something, 'one of the best of its kind'.  

[Mike_Young]

IMHO so often bunker use is a cop out.  The contrast of sand on grass is too obvious and is no where near as subtle as perhaps "green on green" in a fairway or green complex.  For example if you can give the feel of an extremely wide fairway and yet have one side with subtle lateral movements it may be much more strategic than a bunker.  JMO

[Sean_A]

Scott

I can't say restraint is the separator of talent, but I think for the ODGs it was often practiced especially for fairways.  I mention it a lot, but Fowler was the king of restraint and that is partly why his courses are not easily identifiable.  However, in addition to restraint, I think balance and center placement is incredibly important.  Its quite rare to see courses use hollows & humps as much as bunkers unless the land provides for the H&H.  I think this is where Simpson was so good.  He seems to have been profoundly effected by the Valley of Sin and that is as good a feature as you will see anywhere.  

Ciao  

[Scott Warren]

I often think, when I see the work of other young architects, that what they really need is someone to tell them to tone things down just a bit.

A lot of the way I work is to let my associates come up with cool stuff, and then edit it and tone it down until I think it's right.  Some of my best clients have done the same thing for me.

 Renaissance does this as well as any firm/architect I have come across.

Build what matters. Don't build the rest. Seems simple,  but it isn't.

[Ally Mcintosh]

See Subtlety vs Eye Candy

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56826.0.html

I think even one or two the most lauded architects on here don't always show restraint. So I don't think it is a necessity. But I do think it helps immensely.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

A couple of points.

# 1  Would you say that NGLA represents CBM's and SR's best efforts at "restraint" ?
# 2  Ditto Yale ?
# 3  Ditto Lido ?
# 4  Doesn't architecture, like many other things, go through cycles and/or styles en vogue ?
# 5  We see the finished product, but, how many developer owners base their decision on the architect and
       the golf course after the fact ?  
       Don't many to most architects submit plans for review and approval prior to the commission ?
       Unless you're an architect with an impressive portfolio, do you want to submit a plan that might be perceived as bland ?

So, it's easy to "Monday morning QB"

And, most courses, on opening day, don't resemble the same course ten years removed.
Wasn't the plan at Merion to route the playing corridors and then add the features/bunkers as time went by ?
      

[Tom Kelly]

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

- Leonardo da Vinci

[Jim Nugent]

As a 100% neophtyte, I look at the two pictures Scott posted above, and think to myself that with that kind of land, restraint may not be so hard, but on land that is average or worse, restraint could be more difficult to attain.  Architects or others in the know, does it work something like that?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Scott,

While I understand the question, I doubt it, because if we totaled up our favorite golf courses, many would not be called models of restraint.

Simply put, natural talent really separates the architects.  The most talented put the best golf courses out there, period.  IF they build features, they build more than not well, attractive and in the right places.

Hard to quantify, but we all know it when we see it.

[Jason Thurman]

An experienced architect has a lot of tools at his disposal. A talented one will identify the right tool for the right moment.

There are plenty of other important elements, but restraint is definitely one of them. Keep in mind that practicing restraint doesn’t always create a restrained product. I wouldn’t describe Raynor or Langford’s work as “restrained,” but they undoubtedly knew what NOT to shape and what features NOT to add just as much as they knew when to be more invasive.

Mostly, I agree with Jeff. Talent is the separator. But restraint is an important component of talent that often separates the talented from those merely proficient or experienced.

[George Pazin]

Restraint is one of the hardest lessons to learn in life; it goes hand in hand with humility, another positive trait ignored in our world today. Most will never learn this lesson, but the great ones learn it early and apply it often.

[John Kirk]

# 1  Would you say that NGLA represents CBM's and SR's best efforts at "restraint" ?

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here.  Doesn't NGLA have 370 bunkers?
 

[jonathan_becker]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jonathan,

I'll bet that if you posted photos of Cypress Point, you'd be portraying holes that look even busier, but, because it's Dr Mac, he get's a pass ?

Now I happen to love CPC and MacKenzie's work, and I happen to like the look of the above hole.

I don't think that "restraint" is necessarily a good thing, given a particular site.

Hollywood, certainly isn't exhibit "A" in restraint, yet, it's a great golf course.

And, what everyone seems to forget, how the hole looks in a photo is no indication of how it plays.

Would you say that this represents "restraint"

Would you, Scott and others be critical of this hole ?

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/CP13.jpg

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/CP16a.jpg

                        

[Sean_A]

Restraint on a sandy site takes on a different meaning.  If its easy and cheap to build bunkers in the sand it seems silly to spend more money creating other features when the punter really likes to see sand anyway.  On the other hand, where does it end?  Some sandy sites have a few dozen bunkers and some a few hundred.  It gets back to money during the build and money to maintain.  Often times, the more money involved, the less restraint is practiced.  But then if there is no money to build frills, is that really restraint or necessity?  Its mainly about money and opportunity.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Jason,

I agree and was going to cite those two as well.  Perhaps lack of restraint at the green is more acceptable than elsewhere.  (At least until a rater putts one off the surface ).

[Joe Hancock]

Joe,

Expand away!

My goal is always to elicit input from people smarter and more insightful than I (people such as you!).

Interested to hear your thoughts on restraint in other aspects of a hole's/course's design.

Scott,

I'm not sure you're first sentence describes me, but I'll try to give you an idea of what I'm thinking.

I've seen instances where tee complexes are as elaborate and visually busy as any other part of the course, and that, to me, is an example of not showing proper restraint. Of course, that's an opinion based on preference, as would be anything we toss out there in a thread such as this. I happen to be one that thinks a tee should be a place that starts the hole with all the fanfare out in front of the golfer, not surrounding them with distraction. Grass lines are the same way for me. Overly complex grass lines that seem to move in and around every little contour on the ground is not only difficult to mow, but is a visual nuisance. I'd rather see grass lines that drape over the landscape in a more simple manner.

Another thing I just thought of in a more difficult to describe aspect; use of trees in the design. The pendulum is swinging towards removal of a lot of trees on golf courses, and generally that's a good and needed thing. But, it can go too far as well. The well placed tree can be a nice respite on the course, as well as a strategic element when used properly. It seems that trees have become the woody weed, but, like a turf sward, all the weeds don't have to be removed to make a proper presentation.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Restraint on a sandy site takes on a different meaning.  If its easy and cheap to build bunkers in the sand it seems silly to spend more money creating other features when the punter really likes to see sand anyway.

Sean,

Have you ever played CPC ?

Walked the course ? 

On the other hand, where does it end?  Some sandy sites have a few dozen bunkers and some a few hundred.  It gets back to money during the build and money to maintain.  Often times, the more money involved, the less restraint is practiced.  But then if there is no money to build frills, is that really restraint or necessity?  Its mainly about money and opportunity.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()