[Ben Malach]

I think that from the golf architecture at I have seen. The most copied architect has to be Robert Trent Jones Sr. while Dick Wilson did some good work no one was as heavily promoted as RTJ Sr.

His quote of "hard par, easy bogey" continues to define golf architecture to most amateur golfers I run into. The same group that uses this quote also seeks the hard definitions that defined his architecture. Target bunker, hard mow lines defining fairways, water hazards at an angle to create a forced carry and flat greens that slope generally from back to front. His work as the open doctor lead to the shrinking of fairways leading to the death of angles in the general architectural vocabulary. His use of bunkers stranded in the rough lead to the epidemic of these poorly placed hazards.

Honestly, his sons work and Tom Fazio's are interchangeable to me in most cases. They all build golf that does not respect the land or understand how the Genius Loci of a site can be activated to create inspiration. This leads them to attempt to move earth to accomplish the inspiration required for good golf.

[Ari Techner]

I recall my mentors, Killian and Nugent, telling the story of opening their own biz in 1964.  Having worked for Robert Bruce Harris, and staying in the same town, they figured they had to style differently, plus they never liked the clamshell bunkers they drew for RBH for years.  That left them having to decide whether to copy RTJ or Dick Wilson, and they picked Dick Wilson. 

Because, of course, there was nobody else back before those two guys to admire.


Pete Dye was widely imitated, and didn't like it much.  At one point, he got so sick of people talking about his golf courses "burning down," that he stopped using railroad tie walls altogether.  And nobody noticed!  Because it was already such a stereotype.


If we're going with bunker styles as the key element, I agree with Jeff that Alister MacKenzie is currently the most-imitated architect.  Pretty much every form of the "hairy edged" bunkers Rees Jones likes to make fun of was tried out by MacKenzie somewhere in the 20's ... from the ragged edges Robert Hunter built at The Meadow Club to the steep sand faces of Royal Melbourne.  But there aren't many people building greens like MacKenzie's ...

Tom


Would you agree that the best greens that MacKenzie built were on the courses he worked on with Perry Maxwell?

[Tom_Doak]

Ari:  Not exclusively.  The two remaining MacKenzie greens at Lahinch are stunning, as well as the couple he built at Headingley in Leeds.  Some that bear his name in Australia are also exceptional, though we know he wasn't around for those.  And Pasatiempo, which he certainly was around for!

[Ari Techner]

Ari:  Not exclusively.  The two remaining MacKenzie greens at Lahinch are stunning, as well as the couple he built at Headingley in Leeds.  Some that bear his name in Australia are also exceptional, though we know he wasn't around for those.  And Pasatiempo, which he certainly was around for!

Fair enough.  I have not been to Leeds or Australia yet unfortunately but I can't argue with Pasatiempo and the 2 Mackenzie greens at Lahinch are a couple of my favorite in the world.  Especially the 9th. 

[Martin Lehmann]

Martin:  not all minimalistic courses are equal.  Have you seen any of the real ones?  You have painted with a very broad brush and I have no idea what courses you are talking about.

Tom,

As a non native speaker in the English language, it can be hard to express myself in a clear manner. Nuances might get lost. My apologies for that.

In essence, the point I want to make is the following: for me there are two main aspects to a golf course. First of all, it's a sports field, suitable for playing the game of golf in the best possible manner. For being that, the field requires a certain size, hazards of different kinds and turf of the right quality. That's all. There is not more to it.

Secondly, there is the aspect of look & feel. Besides being a sport, golf has become a life style kind of thing. For many players, golf is not only about bringing in the best possible score, it's also about having a good time outdoors. For them golf is a stroll in a landscape park as much as a ball game. And they expect a golf course to look in a specific way and to be as pleasant as possible.

There is nothing wrong with these two aspects, the question is how to balance them. You could compare it with a house. The main thing is that a house provides shelter to the people who live in it. But since ancient times, houses are statements of the people who own them as well. That's why castles and mansions were built and beautiful canal houses in Venice and Amsterdam. Until the time of modernism, that started around the beginning of the last century. Building architects began to strip houses and buildings to the bare minimum. Ornaments and showy decorations were banned. The famous French architect Le Corbusier regarded houses as machines to live in. For German minimalist architect Mies van der Rohe less was more.

In golf course architecture this development never took place. There are still two basic references on which all golf courses are based: 1. the rugged, natural look of the classic links; 2. the polished and manicured look of Augusta National Golf Club. Golf course architects vary on these two themes and add more or less personal style elements, but in essence this is it.

Which brings me to the point I would like to make: wouldn't it be interesting to apply the principles of modernism / minimalism from building architecture to golf course architecture? This would mean developing a golf course with the main function as sports field as point of departure. No ornaments, no decorations. It would mean breaking away from the rather conservative golfing world. Many golfers wouldn't understand it and probably most of them would hate it. But for me this would be a very interesting road to go. It could change the way golf is looked at, would make the development and exploitation of golf course less expensive and attract newcomers to the game.

To end with an answer to your question: no, I haven't seen many so called "minimalistic" courses with my own eyes. I would love to play Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes for instance. I have played the two original courses at Streamsong though and various courses in The Netherland that stem from the same school of design.   

Please read Robert Venturi's essay "Complexity and Contradiction  in Architecture and for extra credit read Charles Moore's "Space, Shape & Scale in Architecture" for a very different point of view.

The danger of making comparisons and giving examples is that it can distract from the point you want to make and can lead to discussions on derived subjects.

I am familiar with Venturi's position as a post-modernist and his criticism on modernism in architecture. If I remember well, the quote "less is bore" is his. As the proud owner of the last house built by Dutch modernist architect Gerrit Rietveld, it won't surprise that I disagree with Venturi's vision.

Maybe it would have been better if had used the term "functionalism". Because that's the essence of my statement: in golf course architecture various design aspects are not meant to play the game in the best possible manner, but their objective is to decorate and to impress. For me it would be interesting to build a golf course without this kind of ornamentation. And I do think that such a golf course would be less expensive to build and maintain and could cast a different and new light on the game of golf.

What remains is the aspect of taste. Some like it traditional and old fashioned, others prefer a modern style. I like both, as long as the design has undisputed quality. That's why I like Bernini's St. Peter's Square as much as Philip Johnson's Glass House.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()