Secret Handshake Among Architects

[Mark_Fine]

Let’s not give Pete Dye so much credit for the island green concept.  I trust we all realize that there were many island greens LONG before this one at the TPC (Pete’s or should I say Alice's has just gotten more TV exposure).  I recently restored/renovated one of the oldest island greens in the country a year or so ago at Waynesboro CC in PA.  Many members there think Pete copied their concept.  Maybe Pete/Alice should have never copied this old design concept at Sawgrass?  Then again, maybe they should have.


Regarding the Redan green concept; it is one of the most copied design concepts in golf.  All have their own little idiosyncrasies which makes each unique.  Didn’t some famous architect once say their are essentially about 19 or 20 basic types of golf holes and almost all holes built are just varied versions of these? 

[Doug Siebert]

Perhaps Riv. 10 is a bit like 17 at TOC....


The kind of hole that no one forgets and everyone wants to play....but so out of the box no one would dare try to replicate


IMO, The closest architect to still building super bold holes like this is Jim Engh....and they are lots of fun to play.

How is #10 at Riviera "out of the box" that no one would try to replicate it??? Now #17 TOC its obvious no one is going to try to replicate it, and would look foolish doing so. But what's the beef with building another #10? Yeah the green's pretty narrow etc. but you could build that on a private course.

[Scott Warren]

Now #17 TOC its obvious no one is going to try to replicate it, and would look foolish doing so.

:lol:

[Angela Moser]

Hi Ira,
That's a really good question you are asking. First of all it's the question how different architects come up with hole ideas... there are those who look for the natural hazards and move as less material as possible, creating interesting shots and holes around what's there.
Then there are architects who have libraries auf AutoCAD holes. No one wants pointing at someone else and no one would say that's the way how they work, but there are architects like that. -nothing wrong with that, gotta work for a particular clientele. This way you obviously copy yourself a lot of times, eventhough you might have thousands of holes in your library...


I like Petes and Alice's Dye's work, I like 17 at tpc.But  I thought it was brutal that they copied the 17th at Sawgrass during a renovation onto a German members club -mostly seniors with a lowish ballgame. That's just wrong!
The members don't understand or see that they copied that hole onto their par3 because it's an island green with just sand around it... brutal!!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Angela,


To be honest, I know most of the architects in the US, and a few abroad.  While I don't sit in their offices while they design, only one, Perry Dye, has ever even joked about such a thing.  And, it doesn't take CAD to repeat yourself.  Ron Whitten found the same par 3 hole on 73 different Ross courses in researching the Tufts Library.


For that matter, to get started, I have placed old greens plans that sort of fit my general idea on a light table, (or taped them to a window, the old "Aggie Light Table", but they never end up being anywhere near the last design I used after I pasted them down on the new green site.


Now, do most architects have some hip pocket ideas they like?  Yes, almost certainly. But, they usually get altered to fit the site from course to course.  Do most cram old ideas on a new hole without any regards to the topography?  I don't, and I doubt others do, either.  That has long been a myth here that only a few select architects actually create their holes in the ideal way......although I will agree a few, like Erin Hills, use every specific feature, like a little knob, while most use general land patterns to dictate design, and then build the green.  But most green sites need some work, like flattening the general slope from X% to 1.5-3%, etc., and then, an area of nearly half acre ends up getting touched in some fashion by equipment.


I guess we could get into an argument over what constitutes copying yourself.  Frankly, if I had thousands of holes in my library, with my work load, it would be my grandson who ended up copying me (if he got in the biz.....) Most would say the same, LOL>

[Peter Pallotta]

J - interesting the concern/fear that some architects have about repeating themselves. The great jazz soloists also wanted to create fresh and new and engaging ideas everytime out, and yet it was the very fact that they repeated themselves constantly which gave them each their own individual styles and made them instantly recognizable (which was important/of real value for them, since if the sound/style proved popular with listeners, they knew they'd be sought out specifically by their next employer/for the next gig). Is it really very different with gca? Wasn't Ross 'repeating himself' 73 times simply a matter of always emphasizing his brand/style so that potential clients knew who to hire to get that look?
P
PS - some eggheads in the 1950s tried to analyze/quantify what made for a great jazz solo. They concluded that an engaging and satisfying solo was comprised of 50% expected/predictable note choices and phrases and 50% surprising and unexpected ones. Too much of the former and it very quickly became boring, but too much of the latter and listeners got frustrated and decided that listening wasn't worth it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


Interesting analogy.  Probably the same holds true of rock. Usually, when they "play one from the new album" the crowd doesn't seem as interested as hearing the old hits.  Fleetwood Mac introduces Tusk by saying that in the music biz, once you find a formula, the record company wants you to pound it into the ground until sales start falling.  They said Tusk was different enough the record company objected.  However, to be honest, I think FM sales started declining in that era, but then maybe most musicians do the same thing after they initially hit it big. Only a few survive long term with new material.


Since golf design is also a business product, with practical needs, I can see repeating some well known elements, as they relate to playability, speed of play, turf wear, ease of putting for most, etc.  (varies depending on need)  While we hate standardization, some now perhaps boring design ideas that stick around have obviously proven their worth, or they wouldn't have stuck around.  And, Owners do expect to hire Pete Dye and get a Pete Dye course, but even his style changed over time, but perhaps slowly enough and with enough repetitive elements that they still looked like what the public expected from a Pete Dye Course.


I suspect that repeating a style, if not an architectural concept (carry, angle, etc.) is certainly the norm in the archie biz.  Dick Nugent said he wanted about 15 tried and true adaptations, and would be willing to try up to 3 new holes.  From your research, it sounds like something closer to 9 and 9 might have made him fresher in design and marketing. 

[Ira Fishman]

As Jeff and Peter point out, it is impossible in any profession or even art form to avoid replication/duplication. Even the most innovative chefs repeat flavor and texture profiles.  But to press that analogy a bit further and to explain my OP, the muffaletta sandwich was invented at Central Grocery in New Orleans about the same time CBM designed NGLA.  There are many other versions out there, some of which arguably are better than the original, but if someone told me that the only place I could enjoy a muffaletta was to travel to NOLA to stand on line during the limited hours it is open, I would be fully understanding and indeed embrace its history and uniqueness.  And so to press the analogy even further, is there a golf hole that should have that same status? 


PS Peter, there are some fantastic covers of G-d Bless the Child, but if all singers had a secret handshake not to cover Billie Holiday's version, the universe would be good.

[Ian Andrew]

Now #17 TOC its obvious no one is going to try to replicate it

There around in multiple places from NLGA (adapted) to Old MacDonald (accurate) to Huntington CC (a great take on the angles). It's usually just the green with new angles and ideas drawn in, but there are lots around.


The 16th at The Olympic Course was the 10th at Riviera set in dunes land (loved the hole).

[Mike_Young]

I've been watching this thread for a couple of days and I do agree there has been a secret handshake among many architects for a very long time.  However, it was always there as a CYA for each other more than to protect specific hole designs.  There was period when there was so much bad to mediocre architecture and it continued to be built because that was all there was.  When I first entered into the business I naturally went into it thinking the guys who had been doing it had all types of trade secrets.  The one secret was to make it look complicated to the client.  What I found was that some of the top dudes were the most insecure and spent their time making sure they remained on their perch whether it be via threatening suppliers or developers or writers..  Don't fool yourself.  There are some archies out there that don't recognize the template holes.  There is no hole that is going to be protected and if the right dude does it he will be telling everyone he came up with it while the original is in plain view.

[Sean_A]

Now #17 TOC its obvious no one is going to try to replicate it

There around in multiple places from NLGA (adapted) to Old MacDonald (accurate) to Huntington CC (a great take on the angles). It's usually just the green with new angles and ideas drawn in, but there are lots around.


The 16th at The Olympic Course was the 10th at Riviera set in dunes land (loved the hole).

Yes, there is a very obvious version at Weston-s-Mare...by Dr Mac...so if he didn't have a secret handshake why should anybody else?


Ciao

[Doug Siebert]

Now #17 TOC its obvious no one is going to try to replicate it

There around in multiple places from NLGA (adapted) to Old MacDonald (accurate) to Huntington CC (a great take on the angles). It's usually just the green with new angles and ideas drawn in, but there are lots around.


The 16th at The Olympic Course was the 10th at Riviera set in dunes land (loved the hole).

I meant to really replicate it - i.e. have some sheds you have to drive over, an actual road a few feet behind the green, etc. I haven't played the courses you named, but I hope they didn't build something you have to hit over.

Obviously you can copy its strategy by having the shallow green, very deep bunker that everything in the areas rolls into, and the playing angle with the OB (or similar) right so getting a good angle means a lot of risk. But that's not what I'd call "replicating" the Road Hole.

[James Brown]

I am curious why we haven't seen more holes that look like Riv. #10.

Kalen,


a very good question and one that could be said for quite a few holes. I suspect it is down to the fact that it is so difficult to put your finger on the exact reasons for the difficulty that it presents. Yes, many can talk about what they are in vague or general terms but when it comes to doing a version that is different enough not to be an exact copy and yet still retain the spirit of the hole few if any can.


Jon

In my opinion it is because you have a 100 yard wide fairway in the middle and a 10 yard wide green falling away.


To successfully create the same options, you need to be as bold as that. And for the few architects that are, they still have to get past developers and superintendents who aren't.


Ally

Isn't Bandon Trails 14 pretty similar to Riviera 10?