Distinctiveness Among C&C, Doak and Hanse

[Forrest Richardson]

I was part of a conversation at the GIS Show in Orlando this past week. Someone sort of laughed at the 1980s-90s "popular [favored] designers" saying that he felt much of their work was indistinguishable to most golfers. He went on to explain that while us "architecture wonks" know a 1990s Fazio from an Art Hills..." etc., most day-to-day golfers wouldn't know unless told ahead of time.


I asked if he also thought that of what many consider to be the top celebrated "minimalist" designers working today. For the sake of refinement, I noted three that are very much admired: Coore & Crenshaw, Tom Doak and Gil Hanes.


Eyebrows raised...and then there was a short silence. Most in the group began by defending the differences ("distinctiveness") of the three I mentioned, but soon I heard admissions that, perhaps, this could be true today.


Boiled down: Apart from those of us who either make our living designing and building golf courses, and those who contribute here as enthusiasts, does the day-to-day golfer see distinctiveness among these three? I thought it a good question to expand beyond the small gathering at GIS.

[Steve Lapper]

 Great question, and one I've thought about a bit myself.


 Obviously, Streamsong and Bandon Dunes, both public, are the best places to help define this. When Gil's Black course at Streamsong opens and should he be able to finish a course at Bandon, this will be a far easier to observe in real-time. On the private side, I'd offer that Sand Hills & Dismal Red, and Friars Head and Sebonack provide fertile grounds for comparison as well. A few of us (along with the non-architecturally-centric) have been fortunate enough to play Boston GC & Old Sandwich back-to-back as well.


 When I ask my wife or her friends, as well as my playing buddies (non GCA-focused) to tell me what differences they see between C&C and TD's courses, invariably the first part of the conversation turns to the greens and their degree of undulation and difficulty. I believe most people feel as if both build "different and interesting" greens, but most I know also feel as if Tom's greens are considerably wilder and  usually more undulated. The words I've heard used for Doak greens are "crazy," "wild," and "goofy in spots," whereas the adjectives for C&C are "nuanced," "more subtle" and "tamer." I think most who've played BGC & OS, find Gil's work more similar (site specific) to Toms, but the BGC land seems to have sharper elevation shifts on a tighter property than OS in general. Personally, I really enjoy all three and find it easy to interchange those adjectives for all three designers on different holes. I think the general golfing public does notice those differences, especially when they've been fortunate enough to play both designers inside a short period of time.


  I'm not sure they notice any significant differences in routing, strategic variety, or mix of golfing adventure. All three present significant width, and strategy, all while preserving critical angles and lines of charms. The minimalist school seems to adhere to these principles wherever they have the chance and I'm not sure most golfers would discern the differences nor the subtle variety in bunker placement and aesthetics.


  I do find that golfers who've historically remained indifferent to architectural styles will naturally lump the above trio into a single group, despite even affirmatively noticing the variance of their greens-shaping.

[Dave McCollum]

As far as my retail golfers and friends, very few care about designers and have a hard time seeing the difference between conditioning and design.  OTOH, take these same guys to beautiful well designed course, they will know they are some place special.  For example, I play with a group that goes to Montana nearly every summer and plays Old Works, a Nicklaus signature creation that is both good and affordable.  One year, I arranged for us to play Rock Creek and they were simply awed by the experience.  I doubt any of them could explain it except in tears of what a beautiful course it is.  I doubt any would remember Doak’s name.  Yet, in some unconscious way, they all realized that they had played the best course in their golfing lives.

[Forrest Richardson]

This interests me a great deal because I found myself saying the same about 1970s courses, including the work of my mentor, Arthur Jack Snyder. Snyder, Lawrence, Packard, Bell (Wm F), Graves, Jones (Sr), etc.  Then, I wondered if this were the case back in the 70s...did golfers know the subtle, or larger, differences? I will standby and wait more comments.

[Peter Pallotta]

Forrest - as an outsider who from photos and write-ups can only wish to one day play some of the best modern courses, I think Dave M's last two lines are spot on. There must be some reason why, as a golfer who is much more average than elite, my top 3 must plays all come from the same design group -- but I couldn't tell you exactly why.
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:

I think I know of some differences, though I may never say much more than that.  I can tell you that the artistic side of me bristles whenever someone tries to pigeonhole my work.  I spend a lot of time on each project trying to make sure it is different than the ones before.

I don't think the average golfer sees such things; I'm not sure they can distinguish between our work and yours, much less between Bill's and mine.  We all build fairways that are wide and wider, and that's probably what would attract the average golfer's attention as a point of difference with most other courses.  But it would be hard to identify which of us had done a course based on that.

The typecasting says that I design more severe greens than Bill and Ben ... just like they say Donald Ross built "crowned greens" ... so if you showed someone the 9th green at Streamsong (Red), they would likely guess it was one of mine, though it is not.  I think it's more accurate to say I build fewer greens that are subtle, than Bill does, but there are occasions where each of us is happy to go against type.  Pacific Dunes and Bandon Trails are an interesting study in that department.

It's harder to factor Gil into the conversation because he hasn't built that many courses yet; I think people are just projecting to describe his style.  [Even though they are remote and private, way more people have seen Sand Hills and Ballyneal than Boston Golf Club.]  If you just went by Castle Stuart and the Rio 2016 course, I'm not sure you would call him a minimalist at all.  The key question is how Gil's work evolves as he gets busier, whether he gets comfortable with a certain style, or fights against it.

Working alongside Bill at Streamsong was one of my most fun experiences in design, because having worked together on the routing, I'd projected how I thought many of the holes on the Red course would turn out before we started, and it was fascinating to see how differently he built the same holes than what I envisioned.  It taught me as much about my own work, as about Bill's.

[Peter Pallotta]

Forrest - a question back to you that I hope is at least somewhat related to yours:
If Jack or Arnold or you or Tom or RTJ or Pete or Bill or Fazio or Art etc *didn't* each have a distinct style and approach, what would the reason be for anyone to like/dislike any architect's courses more or less than any other architect's courses? How would *any* of you market yourselves to clients if you yourselves didn't feel there was something different/distinct about your styles?
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

How would *any* of you market yourselves to clients if you yourselves didn't feel there was something different/distinct about your styles?

Well we all think we are just better at it than the other guys! 


That said, there is a lot of imitation in this business.  After Mr. Dye made his "waste areas" famous with the TPC at Sawgrass, Nicklaus and Art Hills and Fazio all began to build their own versions of the same thing.  That was one of the reasons I decided to try out the MacKenzie / George Thomas style at Black Forest, because nobody else was doing that at the time.  [Now, of course, a lot of guys are doing that.]


From a commercial standpoint, as I've said before, it is much easier to keep building in the same style people expect of you.  When someone calls about a new project, you just ask which course of yours they've seen, and promise to build something just like that ... if you're trying to build a bunch of courses at once, it's almost the only thing you can do, unless you trust your associates to freelance to help make them different.


One thing Bill Coore and I certainly have in common is that we try our best to avoid doing anything for commercial motivations.  If you catch us building something that's similar to a hole on one of our previous courses, you can be sure it's just because we really feel strongly that it's a good fit, instead of that it's the easy way to go.

[Jon Wiggett]

I suspect that when most talk style they mean aesthetics where as Tom D points out really we ought to be looking at the strategy employed by different GCAs to judge this particular conversation. I wonder what the difference in style is between say Common Ground and Sandhills in this respect.


Jon

[Tim_Weiman]

Forrest,


I suspect there is a lot the day to day golfer misses, regardless of the architect.


One of my all time favorite rounds of golf was a round I played with Tommy Naccarato on a golf course I had played more than a hundred times.


Tommy made me feel like I had never seen the place before. It was pretty humbling.

[Connor Dougherty]

One thing Bill Coore and I certainly have in common is that we try our best to avoid doing anything for commercial motivations.  If you catch us building something that's similar to a hole on one of our previous courses, you can be sure it's just because we really feel strongly that it's a good fit, instead of that it's the easy way to go.

Tom,
It's interesting you mention that because I've always felt their one-shotters feature many of the same characteristics. Perhaps I'm wrong on that front as I'm struggling to think of them off the top of my head (although I'll spend the rest of the night likely going through them mentally to try to come up with examples, likely a sign that I'm wrong on this!). And I don't mean to thread jack when I say this, but it has made me ponder whether building templates for one-shot holes consistently would be a good design strategy, because one shotters can so easily underwhelm and many of the greatest can be narrowed down to 7 or 8 basic design strategies.

[Bill Brightly]

This is a good topic and one I work hard to consider when I play a C & C or Doak course. (I've only played one Hanse original course, Applebrook, so I can't draw conclusions about his style.)


One of the things that makes it hard is that C & C and Doak courses work so well together when situated on the same property. I think if a first-timer visitor to Streamsong got lost and wandered onto a wrong hole, they would not automatically know they were on a different architect's course, right? The "unfinished bunker" look, wide fairways are common on both courses. There also is a great variety of holes on each course, so the "change" would not be apparent. I'd say this is also true at Barnbougle and to a lesser extent at Bandon (because of the great difference in the land.)


I'd be really surprised if all of the non-professionals on GCA.COM could look at a series of isolated holes they have never seen before and correctly sign them to TD or C & C.

[Tom_Doak]

One thing Bill Coore and I certainly have in common is that we try our best to avoid doing anything for commercial motivations.  If you catch us building something that's similar to a hole on one of our previous courses, you can be sure it's just because we really feel strongly that it's a good fit, instead of that it's the easy way to go.

Tom,
It's interesting you mention that because I've always felt their one-shotters feature many of the same characteristics. Perhaps I'm wrong on that front as I'm struggling to think of them off the top of my head (although I'll spend the rest of the night likely going through them mentally to try to come up with examples, likely a sign that I'm wrong on this!). And I don't mean to thread jack when I say this, but it has made me ponder whether building templates for one-shot holes consistently would be a good design strategy, because one shotters can so easily underwhelm and many of the greatest can be narrowed down to 7 or 8 basic design strategies.

Connor:


I think you are right about that.  I spent a little time comparing some of our courses on Google Earth, and found some interesting patterns.  I will hold off on talking about them for a day or two longer, to see what others come up with.

[Brad Tufts]

I've always felt in general that the C/C's I've experienced might be a little "easier to play than the visuals dictate" whereas Tom D's courses have been a little "harder to play than the visuals dictate". 

As for Hanse, my experience is a bit lighter...but maybe in between, perhaps a touch toward C/C?

It's all splitting hairs for sure, and probably subject to individual properties.  They all feel similar to classic design to me, as my playing experience is weighted heavily toward northeastern golden age parkland golf. 

Something like Dye and Fazio definitely trend toward something different than old-timey small push-up green parkland golf.

[mike_beene]

Perhaps if I see a Royal Melbourne bunkering and greens look I guess Crenshaw.

[Sean_A]

Part of the visual distinctiveness issues comes down sandy sites.  I think some Doak & C&C high profile courses in terms of photos are on sandy sites which does tend to offer a certain look.  What is interesting is that for the most part the modern courses on sand tend to look very different to classic courses on sand.  This could be partly due to the lack of time to weather the course, but I also think fairways are wider on the moderns, bunkers are more prominent, there is purposely more texture and the visuals are increased. 


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Part of the visual distinctiveness issues comes down sandy sites.  I think some Doak & C&C high profile courses in terms of photos are on sandy sites which does tend to offer a certain look.  What is interesting is that for the most part the modern courses on sand tend to look very different to classic courses on sand.  This could be partly due to the lack of time to weather the course, but I also think fairways are wider on the moderns, bunkers are more prominent, there is purposely more texture and the visuals are increased. 


Ciao

There's a lot more open sand on modern minimalist courses built on sand versus classic courses, or at least how they look now.


That will change though. Grass and vegetation will naturally want to invade the open sand areas and for many of these courses in 20, 40 or 80 years, the incumbent club owners / managers will let that happen. And given they will then need to maintain it, someone will maintain it in a very "parkland" way and then we will be playing a course with a much neutered look, even if it still has cool micro-movement, strategy and green sites. And then someone will talk about potentially restoring the original look.


The only thing that will potentially stop that succession is that we live in a communication age where everything can be pored over. But maybe (hopefully) the communication age will implode on itself.


I think there are some similarities in the way that many Renaissance / C&C / Hanse courses are presented. But they're cool courses. And I prefer similarities to be based around great shaping, open views, a love of the topography and hidden mowing lines than I do those similarities to be based around containment mounding, a pristine look, a need to challenge the professional golfer and an abundance of locally shaped, raised greens.

[Tom_Doak]

Doing my daily reading this morning, I came across an article that accounts for my point here quite well:  that people tend to jump to wrong conclusions when the incidence of something is fairly random.  It's a great article if you've got a few minutes to read it:


http://nautil.us/issue/45/power/bias-in-the-er


I think my own work is a more guided by randomness than most architects' work, because I allow my associates more input on site, and because I am less interested in measures of "balance" than other designers are.  Some of my courses have lots more bunkers to the right of the green; others have lots more bunkers on the left.


For example, Bill Schulz is completely right to say that Coore & Crenshaw are more likely than me or Gil to build a right-to-left dogleg finishing hole.  I always attributed that to Ben's natural shot pattern vs. mine.  But in looking over a handful of their courses, it's clear that Mr. Coore is very aware of balance, of not getting too many bunkers on the left side of the landing area or the right, and I suspect the same is true for his doglegged holes, overall ... but Mr. Schulz draws a different conclusion because a few memorable examples.

[Niall C]

Forrest


I'd suggest the average, and not so average, golfer in the UK would be hard pressed to name an architect other than James Braid and he's been dead over 60 years. On the off chance that you could find someone who can name another architect, say someone like Old Tom Morris who has been dead about 110 years, I doubt they would be able to name any design ideas even if they knew which courses they had designed.


In that respect, your question as to what does the ordinary punter know is a good one.


Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

One of the old jazz greats, when asked why the clarinet virtually disappeared from jazz after WWII (replaced/supplanted by the saxophone) said "The clarinet isn't an 'angry' instrument, and we're living in angrier times now". A pithy line, and though very certainly not the whole truth (eg bop just didn't fall easily under a clarinetists' fingers) it was part of the truth. I think Tom D builds angrier courses - the jazz saxophone; Bill builds gentler courses - the jazz flute; and Gil builds the sensible courses - the jazz guitar-piano-bass.
Peter
Chuckling at how useless that post is...

[Kyle Harris]

Tom Doak usually seems to have the flag from another green in view behind the 8th green. 

[Forrest Richardson]

First, thanks Tom for the thoughtful post. The article is interesting, too. When I trained to be a medic many years ago we were lightly trained in the same line of thinking, which is to not always believe what you see on the surface, and instead look for signs and symptoms that could either rule out something worse in a patient...or lead you to discover the 'real' problems deeper below the visual signs. Of course, only so many people are paramedics, which is why at the scene of accidents we often see such stupidity in 'treating' bleeding instead of more life threatening problems.


Second, it is interesting to hear opinions on what the day-to-day golfer understands, or appreciates, in design origin.


I was lucky to be at the Sundance Film Festival this year where my daughter premiered COLUMBUS, a film about [building] architecture and how it is - or isn't! - appreciated. The film is set in Columbus, Indiana which is peppered with tremendous architecture thanks to the founders of Cummins Engine Company who offered to underwrite great building design on behalf of the small town. It is a great film (of course I am proud!) and I am sure it will make it to theaters based on the very positive reviews. While COLUMBUS is not entirely asking the same question as I am here, some of the comments have me thinking that perhaps my quiz to the GCA crowd may well have stemmed from coming back recently from getting to see Haley's latest film! In COLUMBUS a young girl becomes an architecture 'wonk' and sees way beyond the building. She meets the son of a famous architect who grew up with a father who probably loved buildings more than his son...the dialogue between the two is an amazing look into differences and the subtle qualities of building architecture.


A favorite line is when Casey (the girl) comments that the wonderful architecture in Columbus, Indiana is not even noticed by the local population, to which Jin (the son) replies to her:


"I'm just like everyone else here. You grow up around something, and it feels like nothing."

[Carl Rogers]

Would or could C & C or Gil  build a course like Old MacDonald?

[Carl Nichols]

I'm pretty sure that if I were dropped on a course I hadn't heard anything about, I couldn't tell whether Tom or C&C designed it.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak usually seems to have the flag from another green in view behind the 8th green. 

That's funny.  I can think of at least four courses where it's true:  Streamsong, Tara Iti, Old Macdonald, and The Loop (Black).  There are probably more where those came from.