[Kalen Braley]

Sean A's post about courses that define you as a golfer got me to thinking....

What courses defines the architect as well...as an architect?


This could mean a few different things I suppose,,like:
What was their first course that said "Hello World, I've arrived" to some extent?
Or the one course they are most known for?
Or perhaps even the one course they loved the most even if it didn't generate mass amounts of attention.


This can be any architect, past or present, loved or despised, known or obscure, etc!


Thoughts?

[Thomas Dai]

And the interaction with the architects individual personality traits as well (plus the clients).


Show offs!
Shy.
Controlling.
Analytical.
Etc
Etc


Atb

[Chris DeToro]

For me, Pinehurst 2 has defined Donald Ross' career and certainly shaped my perceptions and expectations of what a Ross course "is" to an extent.  As I've played more of his courses in the Northeast, though, I'm not sure that model fits.

[Greg Tallman]

If a single course definitively defines an architect... is that a good or bad thing?

[Kalen Braley]

Greg,


I don't think it has to be either.  What I find interesting as I play multiple courses, by the same architect....is how they evolve in the types of features/strategies they use.  Or by the same token if they don't evolve.


I suppose these features don't necessarily relfect on thier personality, but it could certainly define the architects preffered style.


For example, when I think Dr. MacK, I think of bunkering styles, and the use of illusion/deception in where he places them.

[Peter Pallotta]

K -  don't want to side-track this, as it is a good question; but maybe the following is not too far off-topic:

One of the things I most appreciate about the architects who participate here is that they are so open about their basic/fundamental/essential approach and qualities as golf course architects. 

I remember a thread I started quite a while ago where I listed which architects I thought of a "Logicians", which as "Romantics" and which as "Hybrids". 

Many if not most of the architects who participate on this site I pegged as hybrids -- and I remember that when another poster suggested that Tom D was in fact a Romantic, he was quick to share his self-understanding in this regard, i.e. he agreed with the hybrid label, and outlined what strengths he saw himself bringing to the table.

In other words, I think if we read their own words -- here or elsewhere, from present day or from the past -- most architects will tell us how they define themselves ...and I think that, at least with the architects who participate here, that self-definition is pretty closely aligned with how we would define them, i.e. with an objective, for lack of a better word, definition. 

The question then is -- and I guess this is your question -- which golf course most resembles/typifies that definition. 

And on that specific question -- sorry, I got nothing....

[Tim Gavrich]

Dye/TPC Sawgrass-Stadium


Nicklaus/Muirfield Village


C&C/Sand Hills or Friars Head, I presume?

[Ian Andrew]

You have a few here who could provide their opinion ... it might not match yours!
Assuming they don't cope out and give the favourite child analogy...

[JMEvensky]

One of the things I most appreciate about the architects who participate here is that they are so open about their basic/fundamental/essential approach and qualities as golf course architects. 

+1--that's a worthwhile sidetrack.

[Randy Thompson]

Dye/TPC Sawgrass-Stadium


Nicklaus/Muirfield Village


C&C/Sand Hills or Friars Head,


I feel like TPC had a few to many hands in the soup to define as Mr. Dye`s reflection and I think Teeth of the Dog fits better. Ususally the Architect evolves over the years but he created a master piece with Teeth of Dog early in his career and with mínimum resources.

[Ash Towe]

Tom Doak- Pacific Dunes.


Mike de Vries- Kingsley Club but might be Cape Wickham over time.


Graham Grant- Ocean Dunes.


Bob Harrison-Ardfin or perhaps Ellerston if more people could see it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thought about this for a few days.

The obvious answer is to pick your highest rated course, in my case the Quarry at Giant's Ridge (or nearby Wilderness at Fortune Bay, etc.)

Perhaps the best answer is the type of course you did most of.  In my case, it would be moderate budget, high quality courses that were generally better than the design program the city or client had really expected.  Courses like Tangleridge and Ridgeview Ranch near Dallas, or maybe Sand Creek Station in Newton, KS, which had it all....medium budget, flat site, housing design/road crossings, high water table, no trees, etc., and is still rated the number 2 public course in KS, with a lot of play when the business study said it would likely fail because it was too far from Wichita and had to be priced - GASP! - over $30 (first in market to do that) to break even.

Then again, there are many architects who fit my profile......but "Designed affordable high quality public golf courses" wouldn't be the worst thing to have on my tombstone a few decades from now.

[Carl Rogers]

To qualify, don't these courses have to be:
1. well or widely known and played?
  (or do we accept that the experts on the subject are correct and take their word for it)
2. relatively unaltered from their original state?

For instance:
a. Which Maxwell & Tillinghast courses would qualify?  Aren't their best courses all very private?
b. Thomas, Riviera has been on the tube a number of years and but does qualify as "familiar"?
c. ANGC could not qualify for any one Architect given the alterations on top of other alterations.
d. Ross, Pinehurst No. 2, would C & C's work qualify as an "authentic" or "interpretative" restoration?

This is all getting very murky for me.

[Kalen Braley]

Pete,


its all good, an excellent point!


Carl,


I left it intentionally a bit vague, wanted to see where the treehouse would take this one, but you do raise some good points.


As to an archies opinion of his favorite course, I kind of feel its like a touring band, where they have a list of songs that everyone wants them to play at every concert, on every tour.  While thier fans love it, I'd have to guess some groups start to detest having to play them again and again and again.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kalen,

My pattern has been to love my newest courses for a few years, hate then from 5-10 years as I move on to something else style wise, and after about 10-15 years, go back and realize what I was trying to do in most cases was pretty good for what it was......

And frankly, with my newest projects, in some ways, its like re-recording the greatest hits with new musicians, where the ideas seem appropriate.....I know its not politically correct to say, but on the plane last night, after building one of my old favorite concepts - a "catwalk" approach to a green, I sketched out my all time best approach areas.  Why not use as many of the best as possible? Ditto backdrops, tee styles, bunker and green complexes, etc. 
 (I really felt comfy with this on my China projects a few years ago....what's chances anyone would see that course and some of my US stuff, too?)

As you would expect, as I work on the actual topo, not from memory, not all fit as I think they would, and need modification, updating or abandonment.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak- Pacific Dunes.

I suppose it would be stupid to argue if people want to say Pacific Dunes is emblematic of my career, or characteristic of my work.  I've become known for my work beside the ocean, and I wouldn't trade that identity for anything.


However I don't think Pacific Dunes is the course most indicative of my design style.  My style is about minimal earthmoving and about green contours dictating the strategy of the hole.  High Pointe was a great example of that; the North course at Stonewall is a great example of that; Barnbougle and St. Andrews Beach are great examples of that; and Ballyneal is a great example of that.  St. Andrews Beach required the least earth movement of all, but the greens are tamer than typical for me, so most people would not choose it as my avatar.


To be honest, I think it's silly to try to identify an architect by one particular course.  The most common example of that is equating Donald Ross's career with Pinehurst #2, when in fact #2 is very atypical of Ross's work, both in the amount of time he spent on it, and the style of the greens complexes.  It may be his best course, but it's not indicative.

[Sean_A]

Tom Doak- Pacific Dunes.

To be honest, I think it's silly to try to identify an architect by one particular course.  The most common example of that is equating Donald Ross's career with Pinehurst #2, when in fact #2 is very atypical of Ross's work, both in the amount of time he spent on it, and the style of the greens complexes.  It may be his best course, but it's not indicative.

Plus...the greens are not as he designed.  Thats why the turtle back theme is so rare for Ross 

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,


Its certainly a silly exercise, but it'd perhaps make a for a good magazine article to sell a few more glossies.


I am curious about the lesser courses that you guys are proud of which aren't the higher rated/more talked about ones.

[Peter Pallotta]

See, for Tom I would've said "undulations" as a marked/defining characteristic of his work. It's a classic marriage of naturalistic aesthetics and proportional playability. 

There's a terrific line by Mike Clayton in the feature interview about a Tom Simpson course being defined this way: rarely is the middle of the fairway the ideal place to be.

Now *that* is the kind of insight into design qualities/characteristics that I'd want to start with in choosing a defining course.

[Ash Towe]

Tom,
Nobody knows your courses better than you and who am I to argue with your comments. However, Pacific Dunes may be the one you are most associated with, due to being a part of Bandon Dunes, plus a course that anybody can access and so many have.

[Thomas Dai]

How many courses just a few weeks after opening let alone years or decades later, are as the architect intended? Mowing lines, bunker creep, vegetation growth, fiddles by committee and greenkeeper here and there.


It must be massively frustrating to create something and then have someone else change it later on but have your name still be held accountable for the every aspect of it even though latterly you aren't. Mona Lisa with later added moustache?


Atb

[Tom_Doak]

It must be massively frustrating to create something and then have someone else change it later on but have your name still be held accountable for the every aspect of it even though latterly you aren't. Mona Lisa with later added moustache?

Thomas:


It is hard to build things that stand the test of time, but this, too, is part of the test of time.


My wife was an art student, and she was taught clearly that the important thing is the experience of creating the art; what happens after that is out of your control.  It's a good lesson for any of us in golf architecture.  It's sometimes hard to remember, but we are lucky just to have had the opportunity to build a course at all.  Most people I know would kill for the chance.

[Jaeger Kovich]

It must be massively frustrating to create something and then have someone else change it later on but have your name still be held accountable for the every aspect of it even though latterly you aren't. Mona Lisa with later added moustache?

My wife was an art student, and she was taught clearly that the important thing is the experience of creating the art; what happens after that is out of your control.  It's a good lesson for any of us in golf architecture.  It's sometimes hard to remember, but we are lucky just to have had the opportunity to build a course at all.  Most people I know would kill for the chance.

Absolutely! Love the process.

[Peter Pallotta]

That's what professionals who have achieved results always like to say to amateurs who haven't! 

We should indeed love what we do/the process. But mistaking the means for the end isn't a particularly good idea either, especially if you want to do great work.

Somehow I doubt that Tom has managed to build his very successful career and produce his stellar body of work by not focusing intensely and always on the end product, the actual/finished golf course.

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()