What modern architects have the least repetitive/recognizable design styles?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Doak begged to differ when I mentioned in an earlier thread that I thought his courses along with those of C&C followed by Pete Dye and Tom Fazio had repetitive and recognizable styles.  I didn’t say there was anything wrong with this, Seth Raynor, CB MacDonald and many of the classic architects had repetitive and recognizable styles.  I was just stating that if you have seen enough of these modern architect’s courses (not in magazines but in person), you will notice a lot of re-occuring themes, trends, styles!  C&C probably stand out to me the most as it is not that hard (if you were air dropped blind folded onto a golf course) to quickly guess if it was one of their designs.  What modern designers have the least repetitive/recognizable design styles?

[MClutterbuck]

Does this not have to do with longevity on the job as well as location and underlying soil?  For example, Kapalua Plantation course is not too similar to more recent C&C courses. There is an element of time 20+ years and different terrain.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

Any architect with only one course to his name?

I have heard industry rumors that CC courses are getting too much alike.  Haven't played enough to know.

Certainly Doak has tried different styles, like the Rawls course, and most prides himself on minimalism and unique designs to the site, so he may be best suited to really keep a fresh style going.  Still, I predict even he will have trouble unless he really gives each of his talented associates free reign, to the point of it being a different designer.

I have heard Pete Dye say he used inexperienced personnel to shape bunkers, etc. because they weren't trained to do it the same way as last time.  Some truth to that, and I had one owner tell me that TD sometimes follows a similar model, but also sends in the A team or himself at the end to clean it up, if needed.

I would say my style can be recognized, but Brad Klein once said that it was hard to tell my Quarry at Giants Ridge and Wilderness at Fortune Bay were designed by the same guy, which was probably the best compliment I could have expected.

In the old days, Tillie had a variety of styles, which I usually attribute to vastly different construction crews, but Phil Young and others have different theories.

Its just hard. Just as most folks follow the same morning routine, if you design golf courses long enough, its hard to fight patterns, developed either out of human traits and habits, or from following what made you successful earlier.

And lastly, the RTJ forward trend was to create a brand, not just architecture, which negatively impacts a truly different look each time.

[John Kavanaugh]

Looks like Nicklaus wins again.

[Tim Gavrich]

I have heard industry rumors that CC courses are getting too much alike.  Haven't played enough to know.

This may be the most "Inside Baseball" golf industry rumor nugget I've come across in a while. Not impugning you, Jeff the Messenger, obviously, but this notion seems incredibly myopic. It seems to ignore the fact that an incredibly small number of golfers have the time, connections and/or resources to be C&C (or Doak, for that matter) completists.

I would hope C&C, who have clearly hit upon a winning architectural mode, don't find themselves too compelled to make compromises that diverge from their instincts too much, based on egocentric notions like this one.

[Mark_Fine]

Ferrari's look like Ferrari's.  Nothing wrong with that.  All Architects have certain styles and themes that work best for them and I believe most tend to not wavier too much.  Yes different landscapes impact the final design but still most of these architects find ways to leave "their signature" on the final product.  

I believe you can create a bullet point list of the key design features for most noteworthy golf architects.  Take Sebonack as an example.  I think if Doak and Nicklaus were honest with each other, they could both point to where they each influenced the other with their specific design preferences/concepts/ideas.  You can see both Doak and Nicklaus in that course and if you played enough of both architect's designs, you have a pretty good idea of who did what

And by the way, if I am an owner and I hire C&C, for example, to design my new golf course, I want it to look like a C&C design and not like something Rees Jones or Jim Engh built!  That is why I hired C&C!!

Same if I buy a Ferrari!

[Jim Hoak]

Mark or Jeff, can you be specific with what you see as the repetitive characteristics of C&C courses?  I have played a number of them, and I don't know what I'd say is really repetitive.  I know you say that you aren't saying that is bad to be repetitive, but there is an insinuation that it isn't a good thing.  Other than wonderful design--and fun courses to play--I'm at a loss to identify "bad" repetition.
Similarly, what are you saying are the repetitive characteristics of Doak courses.  I've played fewer of them, but I don't see it.
Now, when you are talking about Fazio or Nicklaus courses, I can see repetition immediately.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Most architects have go to design ideas.  With CC its the jagged bunkers, kick in banks, and real low profile greens, among a few others.  You can make the case that a low profile green (i.e., sits low, no backing mounds) looks as different as each backdrop it sits in front of.  That said, I have even heard Bill Coore say their style works better on some sites than others, and I have heard him say one of the constants is bunker aesthetics (i.e., jagged edges, but also presumably size, scale, shape).

So, we all recognize we have some constants. Personally, I would like the problem of having designed so many courses it was something I was worried about!

More seriously, and semi on topic, one thing I have noticed that is almost a sea change IMHO is oval or traditionally shaped, with the jagged edges providing the character, as opposed to the puzzle piece shapes.  In many ways that is good.  Those bunker noses are hard to maintain, and whatever edge you put on a bunker requires hand maintenance to avoid breaking down.

Plus, it is a clear difference from the guys whose style they were trying to break away from.  But, I see it slowly catching on amongst other architects.  Maybe they will have to move on to something else, bunker wise to stay ahead of the pack.

[Paul Gray]

Mark,

Are we really talking about superficial style or did you mean design philosophy?

We can talk about pointless nonsense such as frilly bunkers for ever but we're you alluding more to the notion that an architect might attempt to force a long/short/fat/thin/easy/hard track on the land regardless of the site? For example, David McKay Kidd has recently been quite vocal about changing his his philosophy from a position of 'test the best' to one focused on fun.

[Mark_Fine]

Paul,
Your comment about Kidd is a good example - an architect specifically saying he or she is changing their design philosophy.  The proof will be in the product and how Kidd's new designs differ from his old. 

This topic should not be that controversial.  I was just curious which architects people thought had the most variety in their designs and whose are the most difficult to recognize?  I can all but guarantee you it is not C&C (even though they are one of if not my favorite modern designers).  When I go to play one of their courses, I know what to expect and am rarely disappointed.  Furthermore they leave their signatures (some of which Jeff pointed out) on essentially every design they do. 

Another simple example, how many times does Pete Dye end his courses with a 5-3-4 finish.  If you played enough of them, you would know the answer is "often"!

[Paul Gray]

Mark,

Agreed.

And I'm equally unsure that it's a problem, at least so long as the architect still "listens to the land." To me, a Colt course is always fairly obviously a Colt course and yet the land still dictates the design. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Doak begged to differ when I mentioned in an earlier thread that I thought his courses along with those of C&C followed by Pete Dye and Tom Fazio had repetitive and recognizable styles.  I didn’t say there was anything wrong with this, Seth Raynor, CB MacDonald and many of the classic architects had repetitive and recognizable styles.  I was just stating that if you have seen enough of these modern architect’s courses (not in magazines but in person), you will notice a lot of re-occuring themes, trends, styles!  C&C probably stand out to me the most as it is not that hard (if you were air dropped blind folded onto a golf course) to quickly guess if it was one of their designs.  What modern designers have the least repetitive/recognizable design styles?

Mark,

What do you see repetitive between Barnbougle, Cape Kidnappers and St. Andrews Beach?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul and Mark,

Well, the original question was style, but the philosophy is even a bigger issue, which should be discussed.

Both JN and DMK have publicly said they now consider designing easier golf courses, both after seeing how hard their courses were to play, and why not emphasize fun.  (my words, not their exact quote)  I have come to similar conclusions, and I don't think my courses were all that tough in most cases.

What other architects have come out 1/2 to 2/3 through their careers and made a similar dramatic change in either basic style and/or major philosophy?  I guess we could count Tillie and his tour, or even Mac with the bunkers reduction numbers at ANGC and a few public courses he designed.

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
I might be behind you in the number of Tom Doak courses I have seen (only about 15 for me) but my point is that in the subset that I have experienced I seen similarities in his courses.   As one example, Streamsong Blue has been discussed a lot here.  To me Streamsong Blue is an example of a "public access" Senonack (I see more Doak in Sebonack than I do Nicklaus).  If you have played both, you should see the similarities. 

Do you not think Doak has design styles/preferences that he likes to use in most of his golf courses?  If you were blind folded and taken to a dozen or so golf courses, do you not think you could guess which ones were designed by Doak vs someone else?

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Ross clearly went through a series of design styles over his career.  He was a bit rough to start, got very refined in the middle of his career and then more frugal toward the end. Of course he never even saw 1/3 of the golf courses he designed and another 1/3 spent maybe a day or two at most on site!  That explains the variety in quality in his designs.

[Mark_Fine]

Since several here are trying to "defend" Tom Doak, maybe I should ask the question this way - If asked to guess the architect, do you think you could identify (most of the time) a Doak course from a Rees Jones or a Tom Fazio or a Pete Dye Course?  Or could you identify a C&C course from a Arthur Hills or a Jim Engh or a Robert Trent Jones design.  If not, you might need to play more of their golf courses 😉

[Chris DeToro]

Since several here are trying to "defend" Tom Doak, maybe I should ask the question this way - If asked to guess the architect, do you think you could identify (most of the time) a Doak course from a Rees Jones or a Tom Fazio or a Pete Dye Course?  Or could you identify a C&C course from a Arthur Hills or a Jim Engh or a Robert Trent Jones design.  If not, you might need to play more of their golf courses 😉

Well sure, but that wasn't really the original question or post.  I don't think it would be a good thing if you couldn't tell the difference between them all.  Just like a writer or any other artist, a strong architect is going to have a distinct style that distinguishes them from the rest. I've only played a couple of his courses, but I find Gil Hanse's work to be less repetitive.  I also agree with the sentiment that Tom Doak is less repetitive--yes, he has a distinct style, but I've never felt that his courses were too similar to one another

[archie_struthers]

  ??

Interesting ,  thanks Mark .  

I'm really confident that it would be easy to identifying, Rees, Ross, Fazio and Doak's work .  They all have styles , with Doak being the least recognizable , Ross second . This being said Iit wouldn't be hard to guess who did what.

[Philip Hensley]

Jeff,
Ross clearly went through a series of design styles over his career.  He was a bit rough to start, got very refined in the middle of his career and then more frugal toward the end. Of course he never even saw 1/3 of the golf courses he designed and another 1/3 spent maybe a day or two at most on site!  That explains the variety in quality in his designs.

The Donald Ross dvd by Cob Carlson does a great job showing this. The one thing that stood out was how his bunker designs varied from region to region because they would use local crews and therefore they didn't know what bunkers were "supposed" to look like. They would just do it as they knew how to do it, and then the guys a few states away were doing bunkers the way they knew to do it.

[Joe Zucker]

Jeff,

That's an interesting comment about Nicklaus and DMK, I've also heard those remarks.  Do you think their reputation helps them get away with designing "easier" courses?  Obviously Nicklaus's name helps him every where, but what is it's impact here?  You also mentioned that you have had similar feelings as your career has progressed.  I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on how less challenging courses are received by different architects.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,
I might be behind you in the number of Tom Doak courses I have seen (only about 15 for me) but my point is that in the subset that I have experienced I seen similarities in his courses.   As one example, Streamsong Blue has been discussed a lot here.  To me Streamsong Blue is an example of a "public access" Senonack (I see more Doak in Sebonack than I do Nicklaus).  If you have played both, you should see the similarities. 

Do you not think Doak has design styles/preferences that he likes to use in most of his golf courses?  If you were blind folded and taken to a dozen or so golf courses, do you not think you could guess which ones were designed by Doak vs someone else?

Mark,

I have played Streamsong Blue, but only walked Sebonack during the grow in, so that particular comparison I won't comment on. But, is Common Ground like Renaissance? Is Pacific Dunes like Stonewall? Is Ballyneal like Old Macdonald? Is Black Forest like Atlantic City? Is Tumble Creek like Lost Dunes?

Maybe, but I don't see it and I do think one of the virtues of Tom's work is how many of his courses each have their own character.

The three courses in Aussie/NZ I cited are excellent examples. Cape Kidnappers, Barnbougle and St Andrews Beach (my favorite of Tom's courses) really are quite different.  Hard for me to call any of them a "Tom Doak" course.

[Don Mahaffey]

Since several here are trying to "defend" Tom Doak, maybe I should ask the question this way - If asked to guess the architect, do you think you could identify (most of the time) a Doak course from a Rees Jones or a Tom Fazio or a Pete Dye Course?  Or could you identify a C&C course from a Arthur Hills or a Jim Engh or a Robert Trent Jones design.  If not, you might need to play more of their golf courses 😉

A hills from and Engh, from a Jones Sr course? Seriously? You think you cold have picked an easier set of architects? Everyone can pick out an Engh.

What would be impressive would be if you backed it up a bit with some real information. For instance, instead of telling us that Streamsong and Sebonack are alike, explain in detail what is alike. That would be interesting.
Explain the traits in Doak's work and C & C's work. Give us more than, "they look alike"

Tell me how to tell the difference between Hanse and DeVries? Between Brauer and Young? Saying they all just look alike is what I'd expect from an inexperienced observer.

I'll start. I worked with Tom Doak and I've seen a number of his courses. What I notice first, is usually what I don't see, and that is mowing lines. Next I look for how my son might play the hole and how my mother might play the hole. In almost every case, even with a hole like #5 at DR Red, there is at least two options. Maybe not on the 11th at PD, but usually my moms route is as  interesting as my sons. I also like to study the green to tee transitions. IMO, Doak and crew are the best in modern golf at this skill.
Finally, I look for something different. The 11th at High Pointe, 7th at Ballyneal, The 4th green, 5th green, and 6th fwy at Apache Stronghold, the 7th and 17th at Old Mac, the 6th and 13th at PD, 4th and 5th at SS Blue, 4th, 6th, 14th, 15th, and 17th at DR Red. Not sure trying to find something different is a trait?  Tom will probably see this and tell me what I missed, but when I see something that others probably wouldn't do, I might be on a Doak.

[Tom_Doak]

I just think the premise of the thread is wrong.

Whose style is recognizable has too much to do with how many courses each architect has done, and whether one's style is successful enough to be imitated by others.  For a while there in the 1980's and 90's, tons of other architects [starting with Nicklaus and Arthur Hills] were copying Pete Dye's long flat bunkers; did that make Pete's style more recognizable or less?

The more important question is whether the architect is happy doing the same stuff over again, or whether he's not.  Again, partly that depends on how many courses you've done -- the more you've done, the harder it is to keep finding something different -- but lots of designers fall back on old ideas when they're stuck.  Jack Nicklaus has done an admirable job of trying to change his style over the years, but his firm is not a bit shy about taking a green he liked on a previous course and plugging it right into the next one.  [They go back and survey the ones they really liked, for just that purpose.] 

To me, it's the use of templates like that, more than the look of the course, that makes an architect repetitive.  Everyone does it to some degree, whether it's Pete Dye's finishing holes, or Bill Coore's fondness for the 8th green at Sand Hills, but some do it a LOT more than others.  At least they've found something recognizable enough to repeat, other designers never do 

For the most part, when I'm stuck for an idea, I pull from classic courses instead of my own; I think that's what makes my work harder to identify.  I built greens like the 13th at Crystal Downs at Riverfront and Apache Stronghold, but haven't gone back to that idea again.  I've built a few Redans, but I think I've retired that idea now.  I've built something like the 6th at Pacific Dunes at Streamsong and North Shore, but I'm not gonna go build it everywhere.

[archie_struthers]

 


I don't think,having style is bad , but doing the same things again and again might be.  Guessing that shapers tend to,have a distinct style , so it's not always the architect if the same guys are doing the construction. They "know" how the architect likes it . If the boss gives them more freedom to explore my guess would be it would be less formulaic. 

Bunkering style would be the big giveaway to me , with Jones and Fazio being the most recognizable. Sculptured edges you know.

Van Gogh had a style , certainly Picasso's work is recognizable , it's not always a negative .

[Ronald Montesano]

A. Does the thread title decree (or merely suggest, or not at all) that repetitive/recognizable is a negative?

B. Don M. makes the point I intended to make, that schools of modern architects are easily isolated from each other. Put Engh and Strantz in one bowl; Hills, Nicklaus, Palmer and Fazio in another; and Young, Devries, Hanse, Doak and Coore in a third (apologies to those I've left out -- Jeff B., I haven't played your courses and don't know if you have a bowl of your own  --   Then, break them down. The delineation is more challenging for those who aren't pure experts in the field.

C. What are the tipping points, where a tyro becomes an aficionado, an aficionado becomes an expert, and an expert becomes a zealot?

D. Can the same be said about classic architects? Is an Emmett that much easier to distinguish from a Tillinghast? How about a Travis from a Ross? A MacKenzie from a MacDonald? Once you achieve a certain level of expertise (see point C) it is easier.