Is it possible for a golf course architect to design without any "principles"?

[Frank Giordano]

On a thread a couple of days ago, Tom Doak claimed that he has no principles when it comes to designing courses.  He admitted his reluctance to admit it, as clients might think him crazy.  Exactly.

In my experiences at work and in American political life, I've known people who were unguided by any principles, except their own pleasure or satisfaction or other interest.  People with no principles find it easy to behave in an unprincipled way, as Richard Nixon showed us and as today's politicians show us regularly.  But even the most unprincipled operate according to the principle of self-preservation or their re-election, in the case of the pols.

I understand artistic iconoclasts, whose operating principle is to ignore precedents and fashion their own styles of art.  But a person who deems himself a "minimalist" and is committed to the idea that the GAME of golf should be FUN, and who, in any case, makes design decisions to satisfy a client -- even after explaining a better way, which the client nevertheless declines -- cannot be a truly principle-less designer.

Every new course involves the designer and the land in a relationship, in which certain things have to happen.  Surely someone like Tom, no doubt fairly regularly, given his innovative designs, cannot be accused of being formulaic and guided strictly by a series or list -- see Dr. Mac's Big 13, e.g. -- of requirements in his fashioning his 18 holes.

Or am I overlooking something by reading too literally?  Is iconoclasm and "unprincipled" design work more common than I realize.

[John Connolly]

I would surmise that, yes, yours is probably too literal an interpretation. My guess is that skilled gca's go into projects with eyes wide open and willl consider just about any routing, feature, etc. that the land (and budget) will allow. Perhaps that creative availability to what's possible is shorthanded with the word "unprincipled". Just a guess.

[Mike_Young]

Frank,
I think you might be interpreting TD differently than intended. 

For me I would compare it to a chef who has no desire to be labeled as a French chef or an Italian chef etc. 
As a GCA I might have a totally different bunker style on different courses because of the land etc and maybe even the same to an extent with greens.  I consider that a plus more than a minus.  I think...

Cheers

[Frank Giordano]

Mike,

I do too.  But isn't the commitment to act in relationship to what the land tells you a fundamental principle of all architecture?

And what's wrong with being an Italian chef?  I resemble that remark (as one of my illiterate Texas friends would say).

[BCrosby]

Whenever someone says that they approach a project with no preconceived ideas the following comes to mind:

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.” ― John Maynard Keynes

With a couple of tweaks and word substitutions, the above applies to the practise of golf architecture.  Ideas matter. They set a basic framework within which there can be all sorts of variety. But the ideas that inform that basic framework are not the kind of things that you can shed like an old suit. They make you who you are as an architect.  

Bob

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I do too.  But isn't the commitment to act in relationship to what the land tells you a fundamental principle of all architecture?

And what's wrong with being an Italian chef?  I resemble that remark (as one of my illiterate Texas friends would say).

Defintely..follow the land dictation....and then go to an Italian restaurant.

[Jason Thurman]

Tom Doak, you've said before how important green sites are to your routings.  Can you tell us what you look for in green sites?  What makes for a great green site? 

I don't know that there is an easy answer to this question, but here are a couple of things I look for:

1.  Variety.  I don't want them all sitting up, I don't want them all sitting down.  But I like to find places where the natural drainage goes away in multiple directions, so that I don't have to fill at the green.

2.  A cool natural feature to work off of, or tie into.  Ideally, the green is located somewhere that your eye is naturally drawn to.

3.  A good background.  I learned from taking pictures of golf courses, that the hole looks much better if the flag on the green is flying against something that isn't too busy.  A big mound or dune behind the green, so that the flag is profiled against it, is great.  So is the sky, or the ocean, or a dark shadow, or another fairway, or a big clump of trees across the property.  What you don't want is to set the green at a height where the background contours are awkward and the flag is seen just over the top of them.

4.  A good transition to the next tee.  I place more importance on this with every course I design.  If there is a cool green site, but it necessitates a 100-yard walk to get to where you could tee off for the next hole, I'll often pass it up.

5.  Good natural contour.  Not too steep that the green has to be shelved in, and not so flat that there's no place for the water to drain away from it.

Sounds like a set of principles to me.

The guy wrote a book quantifying the architectural merits of different golf courses, and he's updating it now. I refuse to believe that he doesn't believe there are any fundamental concepts of golf course architecture.

[JWL]

Mike
A really good cook can cook in many different ways...not just Italian, Chinese Southern, English (has there ever been a reknown English cook?),  etc,  and they let their ingredients determine 'what's for dinner'. 

[Frank Giordano]

Mike and Bob and Jason,

I think we all agree that there are fundamental ideas and best practices that inform a person's work or art.  Tom's reluctance to call these "principles," I suspect, indicates a refusal to be pinned down to some unrealistic formula or style or genre, that might influence a prospective client's view of his willingness to do original work or, worse, cause him to constrain himself, bind himself,  into processes and procedures that can perhaps blind him to the possibilities that an interesting site might suggest or propose to his imagination.

That's perfectly fine with me.  Sometimes "principles" is just a word.

[Jason Thurman]

Frank, you're probably right. But "principles" clearly isn't the right word. I'd be interested in knowing what the right word is, as it might shed some meaningful light on his approach or on what makes him different.

[Greg Tallman]

Isn't scoring defense through green contours design principle? Wouldn't TD be thought to employ such a principle in his design business?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I believe that I need to follow principles on every job, just like I tend to follow at least 8 of the 10 commandments every day...

You could even argue that having no principles is a principle in itself.

But seriously, TD has principles.  He and I have had these discussions here, and he likes to present it as being open to everything to avoid formula or being limited, whereas my basic belief is you understand (and articulate) what your principles are, but never be so rigid that you don't realize opportunities where going against what you normally might do isn't the better thing.

So, I have no problems saying things "No blind holes" because I generally believe it (but have been open minded enough to build a half dozen or so when the land told me that was the best solution)

My dad always told me that if you can't explain an idea in about 3 sentences, its probably not a good idea, and won't be even if you expand it to 20, 30 or more sentences.  Good ideas (and principles) are usually close to self explanatory. 

Based on that, and the fact that I fear most of my cohorts design certain things "because that's the way we always did them" rather than really giving it any deep thought, is what causes me to spend so much time trying to write out "what I think" at least as a starting point for design.

[Frank Giordano]

Good ideas (and principles) are usually close to self explanatory. 

Thanks very much Jeff.  Like most artists, TD is clearly less interested in articulating principles and philosophies than in doing the art, for reasons we both seem to understand.  Freedom to do what needs to be done, even if there's no precedent or guiding principle, is the way any artist -- and art form -- advances.

Unfortunately, good holes and good courses are not simply self-explanatory, even when it's very clear that both are very good.  But neither is jazz; and those who care about both art forms sometimes want from the artist a bit more than just to hear and see the product.  Let the artist be and do, I say.  Let the critics mull and discuss and try to explain.  It's simply true that many of us here have more of the inquiring critic in us.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Frank,

For a while, my tag line here was from the TV Chef Jamie Oliver, something to the effect that those who do have more value than those who talk about any particular art. 

But yes, at some point, the press and public want some comment on what the gca was thinking.  They have to share, most often with cliché's to keep it brief as possible.  I doubt too many, even those here, truly understand thought process.

And to be honest, I generally feel that the praise for the Master Builder, whether TD or Frank Lloyd Wright, is vastly overdone.  There is probably 90% of design work that is nuts and bolts, while the critics talk about the last 10%....design really is about more than pure creativity.

[Mike_Young]

Mike
A really good cook can cook in many different ways...not just Italian, Chinese Southern, English (has there ever been a reknown English cook?),  etc,  and they let their ingredients determine 'what's for dinner'. 

JWL,
That's what I was trying to articulate.  Cheers....

[Tom_Doak]

Frank,

I was admiring Tom Simpson's quote in my post.  It's a shame he isn't still with us to have this debate.  I just admired the way he said it.

I do have a bit of a guiding worldview of golf architecture.  I can't imagine somebody getting into the business without one, although there are a few guys who did so without loving golf.  My point was, there are very few rules in my head that I would never break in regards to golf course design, even some most people never think about, like starting and finishing in the same area, or playing the course the same way every day.

I learned many things from Pete Dye, but the one thing I learned that I wanted to avoid was getting my ideals so thoroughly defined that I was building the same course over again.  The way I have done so is to do most of my work on rolling ground, where the design has to respond to the ground first and my "principles" second, with the hope I never have to fall back on the latter.  My other trick has been to work with a slightly different crew every time, so that their own principles and tendencies influence mine.

I have never liked trying to analyze any great architect's style because I don't think they wanted to be stereotyped.  Neither do I.  Others are free to try and pick out my tendencies, but I've said here before that if you manage to do so, I will change that part up on my next project just to be contrary.  

[Mark Fedeli]

Frank, I'd argue that, along with a raging insecurity, Nixon was ruined by having too many principles. He absolutely believed in the moral and historic rightness of everything he did—and the wrongness of those who opposed him. That confidence is what led him to charge so blindly into the darkness.

From his quite fantastic farewell address to the White House staff:

"I am proud of this Cabinet. I am proud of all the members who have served in our Cabinet. I am proud of our sub-Cabinet. I am proud of our White House Staff. As I pointed out last night, sure, we have done some things wrong in this Administration, and the top man always takes the responsibility, and I have never ducked it. But I want to say one thing: We can be proud of it -- five and a half years. No man or no woman came into this Administration and left it with more of this world's goods than when he came in. No man or no woman ever profited at the public expense or the public till. That tells something about you.

Mistakes, yes. But for personal gain, never. You did what you believed in. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. And I only wish that I were a wealthy man -- at the present time, I have got to find a way to pay my taxes -- and if I were, I would like to recompense you for the sacrifices that all of you have made to serve in government."

Now, can we find a golf equivalent to that?

[Frank Giordano]

Thanks for the clarifications Tom.  A minimalist and contrarian, of infinite variety and flexibility, is a highly principled position, denoting a designer incapable of being contained in a clever phrase or two.

Thanks too Mike and Jeff for your contributions at clarifying what you designers do.

[Frank Giordano]

Mark,

Without the abject self-delusion and inadequate sense of the magnitude of Nixon's mistakes, I suspect that most golf course architects, with the exception of a few, move on to their next job without being a "wealthy" man, still concerned with paying their bills.  That probably goes for most of us who have managed to do our work without resorting to the big lies and the vast subversions of our fellows and our republic.