The Evolution of Golf Architecture

[Tom_Doak]

I understand that many here consider that minimalism (whatever it is) is the be all, end all of golf architecture and will be it's final word, whereas I believe that culture being what it is, there will be a post minimalism that will recognize the flaws inherent in it and seek to correct them, just as minimalism sought to provide a new style to look at (always in vogue) AND is quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles (perhaps for marketing purposes?) and less prone to acknowledge what is right (human nature in all of us)

How, exactly, is a style or school of design "quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles and less prone to acknowledge what is right"?  How does a style of design do any of those things?  Or are you talking about particular practitioners of the style, and if so, why don't you quite hiding and just come out and say it -- Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are real braggarts! 

P.S.  What "flaws" are "inherent" in my style, vs. yours?

[Paul Gray]

Jeff,

I grew up playing a classic course whilst all the new kids on the block were emerging. As a kid I was fed a constant message that these new courses were far better than where I played the game. Not knowing any better, I honestly thought I was missing something since I played all these new courses in junior events and simply didn't enjoy them. So, to be frank, I am certainly not being wise after the event.

And now, as a club member, I struggle with the remnants of that design style as I attempt to make the point to the current committee that the thing Tom Simpson put in place for them was actually better not put through the 80's mangle. Any smugness on my part is matched with a very real current time desire to put right the wrongs of an era where water fountains were deemed more important than cutting fairways.

What you apparently see as a fad I see as a return to the virtues of proper architecture. I don't suggest that fads within that won't occur, but I do suggest that the emergence of minimalism is more about a continual rebirth of correct design principles than just another paradigm which will itself be looked back upon as fundamentally bad. Bottom line, not too much from the 80's will stand the test of time in the same way the work of Colt, Mackenzie et all has and will continue to.

[Mike_Young]

I don't know how to define minimalism and I don't know how to define the style sof the 80's and 90's.  But I do see a few things that I think evolved from the early 1900's until now. 
Most of the land used to build golf courses in the 80's and 90's could not have been used for a golf course in the golden Age. 
Most of the golf courses built in the 80's and 90's were built for RE development and not with golf as the priority.
Golf cars allowed more change than earth moving equipment.
And last but not least the entire golf business screwed the game by creating an environment that could not build a course that could sustain itself in many instances.  It wasn't that many of the basic courses we grew up on in the 50's and 60's were minimalism but they were build in a manner where they could make a profit or be affordable.  Once the RE industry adopted golf and builders, archies, equipment compnaies, irrigation companies grabbed hold there was no ceiling. 
As things continue to evolve it will be toward a product that allows the game to move forward.  Many segments of the industry fight such constantly.

[Dan Herrmann]

To me, the next evolution will be courses with significantly reduced irrigation needs.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

I understand that many here consider that minimalism (whatever it is) is the be all, end all of golf architecture and will be it's final word, whereas I believe that culture being what it is, there will be a post minimalism that will recognize the flaws inherent in it and seek to correct them, just as minimalism sought to provide a new style to look at (always in vogue) AND is quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles (perhaps for marketing purposes?) and less prone to acknowledge what is right (human nature in all of us)

How, exactly, is a style or school of design "quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles and less prone to acknowledge what is right"?  How does a style of design do any of those things?  Or are you talking about particular practitioners of the style, and if so, why don't you quite hiding and just come out and say it -- Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are real braggarts! 

P.S.  What "flaws" are "inherent" in my style, vs. yours?

Tom,

Sorry about that, my post was poorly worded.  Obviously, no style of design points out anything, at least verbally (hey, it might be visually obvious!)  I still say that any sort of label is part marketing, and still say human nature is to see flaws more than see what is right.  Just like there is more bad news on most news shows than good news.

As to particular styles, they all have strengths and things they favor one thing (or class of golfer) at the expense of something else in design, no? 

Of course, the need for such a thing varies from course to course, and it is also quite possible that you have managed to get the very best possible blend of those factors possible on most if not all of your courses.  To some degree, every designer believes they have done that!  (and for the most part, we are wrong......because no one has that broad a perspective on golf and in most cases, we don't know what we don't know)

In some ways, a course can't be designed primarily for good players and average ones at the same time.  Not sure that is a flaw of any design style, just sort of a fact - hard courses can't be made too easy, and easy ones can't be made too hard, for the most part.

It can't be designed (in many cases) to reduce grading and drain pipe, and to control drainage in less critical areas at the same time.  It can't be wide and narrow, have big greens and small, flat greens and rolling, etc., for all the ways those things affect all golfers.

In some ways, I think the par 72, 7000 yard with multiple tees course trying to fit all games is part of our problem, but that is another thread.

Any particular design is always a compromise of factors, placing one above another.

Dan

I agree with that. My current column in Golf Course Industry examines that to a degree.

Mike,

I gather you don't think "third owner can make a profit" (common to many businesses....) is a sustainable business model? LOL< but it has been happening in many industries for many decades. 

I do agree that eventually, with starts and stops, the golf product will change to allow the game to move forward in whatever new era comes.  But then, it was doing that in the 1980's right.  At the time, everyone (most of all me) was excited that the golfing public could get a near CC experience without the expense of joining a club.  For most,  even paying $100 ten times a year (or twenty) was a much better deal than a private club.  It was a great thing.  And, considering the times, $100 was affordable.  (Not to mention there were many very good courses of near CC quality for under $50 or $75, too)

But, its easy to look back in these economic times and proclaim the last 25 years a failure, seeing only the bad, no?  I understand that our generation lost sight of the "spend about 2/3 of earnings and save the rest for a rainy day" attitude of our parents.  So, golf was part of a historically skewed period (to the good, at least financially) and golf was sure symptomatic of that problem, even if the CCFAD was actually representing a cost savings (albeit, luxury for less mentality)  But, I am not sure too many saw the drop of middle class wages coming along like they did........even then, that third owner syndrome has allowed many courses to drop their fees to match the market, and perhaps get the debt more in line with what they can charge.

A messy process, no doubt, but the free market (which I know you believe in) has always been that way, going to extremes before righting itself.

[Grant Saunders]

I understand that many here consider that minimalism (whatever it is) is the be all, end all of golf architecture and will be it's final word, whereas I believe that culture being what it is, there will be a post minimalism that will recognize the flaws inherent in it and seek to correct them, just as minimalism sought to provide a new style to look at (always in vogue) AND is quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles (perhaps for marketing purposes?) and less prone to acknowledge what is right (human nature in all of us)

How, exactly, is a style or school of design "quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles and less prone to acknowledge what is right"?  How does a style of design do any of those things?  Or are you talking about particular practitioners of the style, and if so, why don't you quite hiding and just come out and say it -- Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are real braggarts!  

P.S.  What "flaws" are "inherent" in my style, vs. yours?

I think that Jeffs comments are very valid when applied to "followers" of minimalism. Practitioners may be a different matter but the message risks being undermined by the overzealous nature of some supporters.
 

[Tom_Doak]

I understand that many here consider that minimalism (whatever it is) is the be all, end all of golf architecture and will be it's final word, whereas I believe that culture being what it is, there will be a post minimalism that will recognize the flaws inherent in it and seek to correct them, just as minimalism sought to provide a new style to look at (always in vogue) AND is quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles (perhaps for marketing purposes?) and less prone to acknowledge what is right (human nature in all of us)

How, exactly, is a style or school of design "quicker to point out flaws in the previous styles and less prone to acknowledge what is right"?  How does a style of design do any of those things?  Or are you talking about particular practitioners of the style, and if so, why don't you quite hiding and just come out and say it -- Bill Coore and Gil Hanse are real braggarts!  

P.S.  What "flaws" are "inherent" in my style, vs. yours?

I think that Jeffs comments are very valid when applied to "followers" of minimalism. Practitioners may be a different matter but the message risks being undermined by the overzealous nature of some supporters.
 

Grant:

I objected to Jeff's post because he seemed to imply that the entire style was "flawed" in some vague way.  He didn't seem to articulate what those flaws were in his response, only that all design is a compromise, therefore one style should not be considered better than others, etc.

There is no doubt that eventually people will get sick of any style of design and seek something different.  Sometimes that's for the better, and sometimes not ... evolution only supplies the answer over the very long haul.  But just vaguely denouncing the style as "flawed" or that there are "risks" [your word] is marketing, too, just of the negative variety.

There is also no doubt that minimalism means different things to different people; it's not as though anyone else signed on to my Manifesto of twenty years ago.  If anyone believes it's the perfect solution or that any architect's work is above argument, they're sadly mistaken.

[Phil Young]

When I hear someone use the word "style" as a definition of design principle I am reminded of a number of architect's who've dicussed with me their view of Tilly's bunker "style." One "school" of thought is that his bunkers were primarily grass-faced while the other is that they were primarily sand-faced. Obviously the correct answer is that neither was Tilly's "style" rather, his deign principles allowed him to have a different LOOK to the finished bunker based on a combination of things. Primarily these concern two things. First, what he belieevd the land dictated it should look like. second, the preferred look that the club that hired him desired.

To me "style" or "look" has little to do with design philosophy. Using the example of bunkers, design principles and how they are built intertwine with things such as where to locate them in the fairways and by greens, how shot angles for the accomplished player and the lesser player may both be incorporated, the type of shot that the architect expects to be hit at whatever the bunker is guarding (driver to wedge), etc...     

[DMoriarty]

You forgot a third.   Sometimes bunkers attributed a famous architect weren't actually built by that architect, but by someone else.

[Tom_Doak]

You forgot a third.   Sometimes bunkers attributed a famous architect weren't actually built by that architect, but by someone else.

Actually, very few bunkers have been built by the architect who designed them.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Again, poorly worded, and in no way a broad based claim that minimalism is flawed.  Just that every general design style gives something to get something.  Hard perhaps to avoid black and white thinking on internet responses.

Another example - The TPC style accommodates a specific goal of spectators at the expense of naturalism.

Just goes with the territory......

Phil,

I have read your books, etc. on Tillie, and you know more than I, but based on what little I know, I have always suspected that Tillie's bunker style varied, in many cases, with construction crews having a pretty free hand and/or relative lack of site visits by Tillie when away from NYC. as suggested by DM and TD.  Care to fill me in on what I don't know as briefly as possible?

[DMoriarty]

You forgot a third.   Sometimes bunkers attributed a famous architect weren't actually built by that architect, but by someone else.

Actually, very few bunkers have been built by the architect who designed them.

Yes, but I was referring to situations where the famous architect was not primarily responsible for the aesthetic stylings of the bunker. 

[Tom_Doak]

You forgot a third.   Sometimes bunkers attributed a famous architect weren't actually built by that architect, but by someone else.

Actually, very few bunkers have been built by the architect who designed them.

Yes, but I was referring to situations where the famous architect was not primarily responsible for the aesthetic stylings of the bunker. 

I understand, and I think I know the example you're thinking of on the West Coast.  But, to be fair, we'd have to question how many other architects really paid a lot of attention to bunker styling prior to recent times:

  MacKenzie had a certain flair for bunkering, but left it to Morcom or Maxwell or somebody else to sort out the details. 

  Donald Ross, who knows? - we have a hard enough time sorting out whether he made one site visit during construction, so it's hard to imagine he spent a lot of time on bunker styling while he was there.  His firm had a drawing showing cross sections of multiple styles, so clearly they had some leeway to go with the flow.

  George Thomas had Billy Bell's help with bunkers, but we don't credit Riviera and LACC to Bell.

I still believe that where the bunkers are (or aren't) is more important than the edging.

[Adam Lawrence]

I still believe that where the bunkers are (or aren't) is more important than the edging.

Bravo. Who doesn't love a beautiful bunker? But a fugly bunker in a spot where it defines the hole is infinitely more valuable than a gorgeous one that is out of play.

[Jeff_Brauer]

To me, its a great topic.  The evolution of both bunker placement and shaping are worth exploring.

Placement issues would seem to include both placing them further and further down the fw, although keeping them in the championship LZ seems to be a constant for the most part.  Reducing carry bunkers as balls started flying higher (but adding more on approach shots, which seems a bit odd, no?) is the other evolutionary trend in placement.  Are there others I am not seeing off the top of my head?

As mentioned earlier, the effects of construction technology on architecture are interesting to me.

As to other golf course elements, it seems greens have been fairly well set in size and function, with some variations obviously, since about Muirfield in 1892.  Or at least, they struck me as the first modern greens.

Tees evolved, like bunkers, from strictly functional to functional and in some cases artistic (Packard at Innisbrook about 1974, with other earlier examples)

I am not sure the whys and wherefores have been fully examined in book form in that context of "evolution."  Whitten, Cornish/Graves, Doak, etc. all touch on it a bit.

[Phil Young]

David,

And yet there are also those occasions where said design architect does give sepcific details to the person who build the course, especially when he tells the club that he should be hired to oversee the construction of his design and then later when he visits again praises the work...

[DMoriarty]

I understand, and I think I know the example you're thinking of on the West Coast.  But, to be fair, we'd have to question how many other architects really paid a lot of attention to bunker styling prior to recent times:

  MacKenzie had a certain flair for bunkering, but left it to Morcom or Maxwell or somebody else to sort out the details. 

  Donald Ross, who knows? - we have a hard enough time sorting out whether he made one site visit during construction, so it's hard to imagine he spent a lot of time on bunker styling while he was there.  His firm had a drawing showing cross sections of multiple styles, so clearly they had some leeway to go with the flow.

  George Thomas had Billy Bell's help with bunkers, but we don't credit Riviera and LACC to Bell.

I still believe that where the bunkers are (or aren't) is more important than the edging.

I agree that the location and functionality of the bunker are much more important than the aesthetic stylings.  I also agree that some of these guys weren't paying all that much attention to bunker style, at least not at every one of their projects.

_____________________

Phil, if you want to continue to pretend that AWT deserves credit for Billy Bell's bunkers at SFGC, I am not going to argue with you, but we both know that is utter B.S.

[Phil Young]

David,

You are wrong. The "utter B.S." is that Bell redesigned the course in 1930... he didn't. Here is a case where the board minutes and other documents give details that are not in the public venue. Where they clearly state that Tilly redesigned the course and that Bell was hired to oversee the construction.

These documents had been missing for many years and were found by me several years ago during a research trip to the club. Since they came to light I'm the only person outside of the club who has been granted access to them. If you don't want to believe this you simply prove yourself the fool...

I have no intention of arguing with you either...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

I find myself wondering how many site visits Tillie made?  Is there a plan for 1930 redo?  I have no trouble giving credit to Tillie for placement of bunkers in 1930.

I guess the plan itself under Tillie's name, as well as a comparison of bunker placement at Riv and LACC vs. SFGC would show that while Bell built (and probably styled) the bunkers, the architect located them to his style, no?

Would be interesting to me to see the contract arrangement you saw.  Lots of different detailed arrangements.  Even in the 90's, LA redid itself, basically using Harbottle, but with Fazio as the nameplate.  Or, as you say, Tillie did the job, but knew Bell could do the work, recommended him, and the rest is history.  And, as with any firm, there is the main guy, who oversees a lot of projects, and the field guy who does one at a time, and has to have some influence.  (Off topic, but filing old drawings this weekend, and I can still recall who drew which plan by their drafting style 25 years ago - whoever does the plan/construction does have some influence on the finished product)

If Tillie had seen those bunkers elsewhere, and gave his blessing to build in that style, then they are probably Tillie credited bunkers.  I wouldn't argue with David about credit either, but I do understand he likes to understand the deeper backstory of how great courses get built.

[Phil Young]

Jeff,

I appreciate your question's and take no offense at them.

I also appreciate David's desire to "to understand the deeper backstory of how great courses get built..." as I also do. The difference between the two of us is that if he stated that he had seen confidential documents that stated a specific thing I would take him at his word as a point of honor.

Frankly speaking, why should I be doubted on this? That I was given unprecedented access by the club and that they would trust my findings to the extent that they would ask me to author a detailed club history should be more than enough proof that what I said is true.

Also, why should any club allow its private records to be made public simply because someone "likes to understand the deeper backstory of how great courses get built?"

The details of the 1930 project are private and part of the Board minutes and other documents of SFGC. I will not post them here or elsewhere. Either one wants to believe me or not. And to clarify another point, Tilly did more than "place the bunkers" in 1930. They were built in his style. There are numerous photographs of the course from 1925 taken the day the Tillinghast-designed course opened for play. If you looked at these photos you'd swear that Bell bult and "styled" those bunkers. He didn't. Tilly did. Roger Lapham wrote that he kept Tilly on site for a number of weeks in 1924 after he came out for the design for the specific purpose of overseeing the layout and construction of the green complexes. This included the bunkers. They are nearly identical in "style" to those built by Bell in 1930, and by OTHERS under Tilly's direction in 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 & 1938.

By the way, since we ask the question of Tilly, are there any Billy Bell design drawings of the 1930 project? What proof that Bell either designed the 1930 changes or was responsible for the "style" of them does anyone have to offer that is anything more than presumptive?

I am not really looking to discuss this any further. It was David who brought up the point and as I said earlier, I have no intention of arguing it with him.

[DMoriarty]

Let's back up a minute, Phil.

First, I did NOT claim that "Bell redesigned the course in 1930."  Bell built the bunkers.  But your overreaction and defensiveness are duly noted. 

Second, you suggest that, when it comes to your interpretation of the meaning of some mysterious, super-secret SFGC documents, I ought to take you at your "word, as a point of honor."  Surely you ought to understand that this is not how critical analysis works, and for very good reason.

Third, you claim that Billy Bell's bunkers were built in AWT's "style." Thank you for providing a good example of why it is a bad idea to take you at your word regarding these issues.

[RJ_Daley]

While I truly do not wish to get entangled in the sharp back and forth of the preceding, I do have some confusion on the matter of club architecture and construction documents from long ago, still being guarded so closely and privately.  We have seen this matter of debate over the contents of so-called "private club documents" muck up general and common understanding of the details of the historical record time and again when these debates break out where only an exclusive few have been "allowed" to examine them for accurate historical recording and study. 

Perhaps not ever being a member of an historical or exclusive club of GCA significance causes me to simply not have the capacity to "get it".  What possible motive would historically significant club committees have to be so guarded about so many of these seemingly mundane old construction contracts and even board minutes attended by long dead members?  If you are a club official of one of these classic golf architecture clubs, wouldn't you want the historical record to be accurate and available to those that value the study of such?  If there is something to be learned by future generations, why not share the details?  Or sadly in my view, is the exclusivity privacy factor part of the desired culture of being a member and committee official of this genre of storied old club?  Is it thought to enhance the cache of the exclusivity of the club?

[Phil Young]

RJ,

These are private corporate board minutes. It is the Club's choice to keep them private or not. SFGC has held to a long-standing belief that they will remain private. I completely understand and agree with them.

Answer this, at what point does giving access to private records begin and end? Remember too that on nearly every page where golf course architectural information is mentioned in Board minutes, so are many other private matters relating to things such as holding marriages to members personal problems to legal discussions possibly involving lawsuits. Should a club go about the effort and expense of redcting their private records simply so that a or some researchers interested in golf course architecture should have a peak? Why should they do this when they have made the pertinent information available to the public via other venues. In the case of SFGC via a club approved article in Tillinghast Illustrated from several years ago which one can read via the Tillinghast Association website. It is titled "A Brief Course Evolution History of San Francisco Golf Club."

[RJ_Daley]

Answer this, at what point does giving access to private records begin and end? Remember too that on nearly every page where golf course architectural information is mentioned in Board minutes, so are many other private matters relating to things such as holding marriages to members personal problems to legal discussions possibly involving lawsuits. Should a club go about the effort and expense of redcting their private records simply so that a or some researchers interested in golf course architecture should have a peak? Why should they do this when they have made the pertinent information available to the public via other venues. In the case of SFGC via a club approved article in Tillinghast Illustrated from several years ago which one can read via the Tillinghast Association website. It is titled "A Brief Course Evolution History of San Francisco Golf Club."

Phil, fair enough question.  I'm answering it as I mentioned above from the point of view of a person who never was involved or member of a so-called 'exclusive private club', let alone one of great historical relevance to some subject so prone to attract a large number of subject specific historians of amateur and book writer interest.   Yet, I'm not unfamiliar with how private corporation or organization board of director regular and special order business meetings are conducted, and how the regular minutes are recorded.  (I have been a director and president of a couple organizations that were 'private' and had the right to be so, 'associated with' public services.  Many of our deliberations were tangentially about our role in various subjects of public interest and sometimes controversy.  

But, like most organizations that have regular board meetings, there is a recording secretary to take the notes of the minutes, and that entails primarily motions on orders of business, treasurer reports, and new and old business, and other matters for consideration and approval.  In most cases, a discussion on matters may ensue that are of private, or personal privacy nature, not suitable   as official minutes of the board.  In all cases I am familiar with, the minutes of said meeting are available to members for review.  (heck, we posted them in our magazines and on bulletin boards).   Yes, personal or matters of potential embarrassment are omitted or redacted for names and other inappropriate publication.  So, I can understand that during a board meeting, golf club board members may take up motions to approve so-and-so for a contract to design, and someone to construct new facilities, remodel, etc.  Now, during discussion and deliberation, some director may observe that some contractor has a bad reputation for always showing up drunk, or is someone's kissing cousin, etc.   I can't imagine such personal observations are noted in official minutes.   Can you?  If this is a matter of how things might be done on official club minutes and business documents, well I'd be stunned.   But then as I said, I haven't had an insider experience of any exclusive private clubs.   Maybe those minutes and business records are akin to gossip columns...    

Am I wrong, or naive?   Why not have a current club secretary redact sensitive names and business matters days long ago, yet offer historians documentation of the club's key architectural and historical events?  It isn't like the Camp David peace talks or something... it is GCA.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

Simple answer, not worth it for either 1500 gca.com members, or the dozen or so who really take this seriously.  I bet they modify the old Woody Hayes line about passing.....3 things can happen, and 2 of them are bad. Or some such.