Adventurous Golf

[Tom_Doak]

I know architects like Tom Doak and Bill Coore spend a lot of time looking for features that reminded them of other famous courses and holes, but I don't necessarily agree with this because it seems to just contribute to the standardization of the game and its courses.     

Tim:

That is one of the worst quotes I've seen on Golf Club Atlas.  One of the reasons I hate this site is because there are so many posters who will fawn over another new version of the Biarritz hole, or some other idea that has been done to death.

I'll just assure you that I would rather find holes that remind me of no other hole or feature, except in spirit.  I've gotten to build a few of them, and not got to build some others.  The second course I laid out at Cape Kidnappers had a lot of those kinds of features, but I don't think Mr. Robertson entirely appreciated it the way you might. 

Likewise, as I've said before, I don't think Mr. Keiser would have let us build some of the more controversial features at Old Macdonald [like the blind shot at the Alps] if it had been my name on it.  If we hadn't had the historic precedent as license, he would have dismissed some of the same features as too quirky.  There is a different standard for modern work, and we are often put in the position of defending what we want to build vs. what our clients think the customer wants. 

It is no coincidence that some of my boldest designs are on the courses like Barnbougle and Ballyneal where the clients were not really golfers, and their only goal was to create something that people would find to be fun.

I do agree with Garland [GJ Bailey] also, that a lot of the coolest features are the result of small properties where designers were forced to tackle a feature instead of avoiding it.  In that sense, some of the huge sites I've been given argue against a really wild design ... but then again we found a lot of wild holes at Rock Creek on the biggest site we've ever had.

[Tim Lewis]

I know architects like Tom Doak and Bill Coore spend a lot of time looking for features that reminded them of other famous courses and holes, but I don't necessarily agree with this because it seems to just contribute to the standardization of the game and its courses.     

Tim:

That is one of the worst quotes I've seen on Golf Club Atlas.  One of the reasons I hate this site is because there are so many posters who will fawn over another new version of the Biarritz hole, or some other idea that has been done to death.

Mr. Doak
 I assume that your biggest problem with my statement is the fact that I attempted to (incorrectly I guess) label the way you design golf courses.  For this I am sorry, but I only based this statement on what you yourself have said in your books, interviews, and even your posts on this site. In your own book you stated that, "To discover all the potential options is the true skill, and knowledge in two areas is key-the ability to visualize existing features from the topographic map, and to make mental comparisons with the best holes one has seen or played in the past. The more familiar one is with the great courses, the more readily he will be able to visualize similar holes on new property."

I guess the point I'm trying to get across with this thread, and that specific quote, is that I find fault in the common belief that, as Mr. Mike Keiser put it in the documentary about the making of Old Macdonald, "Every golf hole is not something completely new, but can be traced back to some other hole." I think this is a bad direction for golf to continue heading in, and think that architects should work to prevent the standardization of the courses and the game rather than promoting it. (Not that I'm necessarily accusing you of doing so)