New essay on Tom Doak

[BCowan]

Mike, that is so hurtful.  I think I'll check and see if I'm still banned from Tommy's site.

I think I was banned also...don't remember what happened...

Didn't Max and Erma's go out of business? 

[Kalen Braley]

Mike, that is so hurtful.  I think I'll check and see if I'm still banned from Tommy's site.

I think I was banned also...don't remember what happened...

Didn't Max and Erma's go out of business?

The site is still there, I've never bothered with, sounds a bit pretentious.. 

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,


You mentioned you may want to "move on" from Minimialism..which I was guessing was mostly tongue in cheek.  What would that look like thou?  Rawls on roids?

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob, Niall - you're both right.
I simply meant to suggest that in Dr Mac's time golf was still primarily a "gentlemen's" game - the few exceptions like Marion Hollins and Joyce Wethered being precisely that, exceptions. 
Yes, out went the cross bunkers and in came the strategy, but in large part all for the sake of the middle-or-upper-class Bernard Darwins of the world (give or take a few strokes or a few thousand pounds here and there).
TD's courses are serving a much broader range of golfers today than Dr Mac's would have served in his own time; and that Dr Mac's courses do serve a broad range of golfers *today* is, at least in part, because of the vast changes in technology.
But I'm nit-picking. I enjoy trying to understand and figure out for myself how and why something that works so well, works. In that context, neither the conventional/historical explanation nor even that of the architect himself strikes me as satisfying. No insult intended, of course, to either the historical record or to TD's communication skills.
Peter   

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


You mentioned you may want to "move on" from Minimialism..which I was guessing was mostly tongue in cheek.  What would that look like thou?  Rawls on roids?

Kalen:


Two things:


1.  I just don't like to be typecast.


2.  Not every site will work for minimalism, so does that mean I shouldn't tackle something else? 


For example, I see a lot of "big earthmoving" projects and visualize ways it could have been done very differently, with less total earthmoving.  That isn't generally my cup of tea, but I might like to do it once or twice to show a different way.  In short, I think there is plenty of room for out-of-the-box ideas in design and construction, but I don't see many people trying them.


A while back I had a bit of a crisis where I wondered deeply what more I had left to accomplish.  A good friend reminded me I was in a position to do anything I wanted to do ... and not long after that, I went over to Forest Dunes and started doing something different.  Which reminds me, I owe my friend a beer or two.

[Jim Nugent]

A while back I had a bit of a crisis where I wondered deeply what more I had left to accomplish. 

A couple of possibilities, if they interest you:

Design a modern-day Oakmont.  A tough-as-nails but fascinating tournament course that could be a site for U.S. Opens, yet at the same time bogey golfers can play without losing a half dozen balls (even if the course slopes at 150+).   

Design a modern-day Winged Foot West, i.e. a masterpiece on an averagish piece of land. 

[Peter Pallotta]

TD - you reminded me of one of my very first posts from about a decade ago (!) - the distinction between minimalism and naturalism. In short: I think there are miles to go before you sleep, and literally tons of earth still to be moved -- and with that, all the fun you'll have in completely covering your tracks every step of the way!

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,


It certainly seems you have a bit of a conundrum that many architects would love to have.  As far as I'm concerned you have nothing left to prove from the 1/2 dozen or so of your courses I've played.


I would seconds Jim's idea on building a playable ball buster..


But my personal preference would be for you to build something way way outside of the box.  On the order of magnitude of a cross between North Berwick, TOC, and a Jim Engh creation...that would be quite the interesting love triangle offspring...

[Tom_Doak]

A while back I had a bit of a crisis where I wondered deeply what more I had left to accomplish. 

A couple of possibilities, if they interest you:

Design a modern-day Oakmont.  A tough-as-nails but fascinating tournament course that could be a site for U.S. Opens, yet at the same time bogey golfers can play without losing a half dozen balls (even if the course slopes at 150+).   

Design a modern-day Winged Foot West, i.e. a masterpiece on an averagish piece of land.

Jim:


You are thinking as I am.  The short answer is that there are LOTS of ways to go if you just abandon the modern insistence on one size having to fit all, which does not work anymore, if it ever did. 


That's not how the ODG's came up with Oakmont or Pine Valley [on the one end], or North Berwick or Cape Arundel [on the other end].

[Ulrich Mayring]

Tom,

I've heard complaints by architects that "so and so gets all the best sites and lucrative projects whereas I am only called in when the property sucks and there is no budget."

So here's your challenge: build a course that shows the complainers that they could do a lot better with what they have.

Ulrich

[Tom_Doak]

I've heard complaints by architects that "so and so gets all the best sites and lucrative projects whereas I am only called in when the property sucks and there is no budget."

So here's your challenge: build a course that shows the complainers that they could do a lot better with what they have.

So you're saying they call me a so-and-so ? 


There's no way I would take your challenge as you've defined it.  There are a lot of golf courses that are doomed to mediocrity because the client isn't interested in anything more, or the situation is otherwise impossible.  I'll happily pass on those -- and so should anyone else who wants to do good work!  Taking a job like that because it's all you can get is a sure sign you'll get more of the same.


What we are looking for is a client who will trust us to do something different and cool.  It doesn't have to be on the ocean to be cool.  But I am not going to pass the next time someone offers me a good site on the ocean, either!  We have a very good track record on those.

[Ira Fishman]

A while back I had a bit of a crisis where I wondered deeply what more I had left to accomplish. 

A couple of possibilities, if they interest you:

Design a modern-day Oakmont.  A tough-as-nails but fascinating tournament course that could be a site for U.S. Opens, yet at the same time bogey golfers can play without losing a half dozen balls (even if the course slopes at 150+).   

Design a modern-day Winged Foot West, i.e. a masterpiece on an averagish piece of land.

Jim:


You are thinking as I am.  The short answer is that there are LOTS of ways to go if you just abandon the modern insistence on one size having to fit all, which does not work anymore, if it ever did. 


That's not how the ODG's came up with Oakmont or Pine Valley [on the one end], or North Berwick or Cape Arundel [on the other end].

Mr. Doak (or anyone else who has participated in a most challenging discussion about the future and its relationship to the past), what questions would you want to discuss with ODGs at a dinner (held in a locale where the summer sun sets very late) regarding what the future should be?


Ira

[Tom Bacsanyi]

A while back I had a bit of a crisis where I wondered deeply what more I had left to accomplish. 

A couple of possibilities, if they interest you:

Design a modern-day Oakmont.  A tough-as-nails but fascinating tournament course that could be a site for U.S. Opens, yet at the same time bogey golfers can play without losing a half dozen balls (even if the course slopes at 150+).   

Design a modern-day Winged Foot West, i.e. a masterpiece on an averagish piece of land.

Wasn't Erin Hills supposed to be the answer your first challenge (not for Tom but in general)?  Sort of Oakmont, but much wider and more playable?   Place got roasted relative to par.  Meanwhile, little old Merion with ribbon fairways gave the boys all they could handle. Sadly, I think that narrow=high scores for the pros and there are no other correlations to be found.  I guess Chambers with severely inconsistent greens kept scores high while being fairly wide in general, but that is a special case.  Tom Doak, what would you do to make a course tough without making it super narrow, or would you pass on the challenge outright since it's not really your style?

[Ulrich Mayring]

Tom,

you can consider yourself to be a member of the so-and-so club, if you like

I'm trying to come up with an example of someone (not necessarily a golf architect), who took up that challenge to go back to square one and show people one more time why he's come as far as he has. I have no 100% convincing case, but I guess Stephen King took it pretty far (quote from Wikipedia):

In his introduction to The Bachman Books, King states that adopting the nom de plume Bachman was also an attempt to make sense out of his career and try to answer the question of whether his success was due to talent or luck. He says he deliberately released the Bachman novels with as little marketing presence as possible and did his best to "load the dice against" Bachman. King concludes that he has yet to find an answer to the "talent versus luck" question, as he felt he was outed as Bachman too early to know. The Bachman book Thinner (1984) sold 28,000 copies during its initial run—and then ten times as many when it was revealed that Bachman was, in fact, King.

Ulrich

[SL_Solow]

Ulrich;  I was involved in a similar conversation with a relatively young architect.  Putting aside that I consider Tom to be a friend, my objective observation was that the remarks were motivated by the "green eyed monster" known as jealousy.  So I asked the gentleman whether he thought it was an accident that Tom was entrusted with good sites.  I did not get a response.

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,

you can consider yourself to be a member of the so-and-so club, if you like

I'm trying to come up with an example of someone (not necessarily a golf architect), who took up that challenge to go back to square one and show people one more time why he's come as far as he has. I have no 100% convincing case, but I guess Stephen King took it pretty far (quote from Wikipedia):

In his introduction to The Bachman Books, King states that adopting the nom de plume Bachman was also an attempt to make sense out of his career and try to answer the question of whether his success was due to talent or luck. He says he deliberately released the Bachman novels with as little marketing presence as possible and did his best to "load the dice against" Bachman. King concludes that he has yet to find an answer to the "talent versus luck" question, as he felt he was outed as Bachman too early to know. The Bachman book Thinner (1984) sold 28,000 copies during its initial run—and then ten times as many when it was revealed that Bachman was, in fact, King.

Ulrich

Lincoln lost his reelection after his first term in Congress. When he returned to run for Senate ten years later, he lost again. Two years after that he charted a future that would be very difficult to imagine at the time.


And to be clear, not equating Gca to anything remotely as important, but just addressing the challenge.


Ira

[Jim Nugent]

A while back I had a bit of a crisis where I wondered deeply what more I had left to accomplish. 

A couple of possibilities, if they interest you:

Design a modern-day Oakmont.  A tough-as-nails but fascinating tournament course that could be a site for U.S. Opens, yet at the same time bogey golfers can play without losing a half dozen balls (even if the course slopes at 150+).   

Design a modern-day Winged Foot West, i.e. a masterpiece on an averagish piece of land.

Wasn't Erin Hills supposed to be the answer your first challenge (not for Tom but in general)?  Sort of Oakmont, but much wider and more playable?   Place got roasted relative to par.  Meanwhile, little old Merion with ribbon fairways gave the boys all they could handle. Sadly, I think that narrow=high scores for the pros and there are no other correlations to be found.

As I understand it, unseasonal weather (especially rain) took the teeth out of Erin Hills, and left it with few defenses against the pro's.  TOC has the same problem btw during the Open Championship. 

But I've heard a number of average golfers say they can play Oakmont and have a blast.  They don't lose many balls, and they love the course, even if it's hard as hell. 

[Pat Burke]

I've heard complaints by architects that "so and so gets all the best sites and lucrative projects whereas I am only called in when the property sucks and there is no budget."

So here's your challenge: build a course that shows the complainers that they could do a lot better with what they have.

So you're saying they call me a so-and-so ? 


There's no way I would take your challenge as you've defined it.  There are a lot of golf courses that are doomed to mediocrity because the client isn't interested in anything more, or the situation is otherwise impossible.  I'll happily pass on those -- and so should anyone else who wants to do good work!  Taking a job like that because it's all you can get is a sure sign you'll get more of the same.


What we are looking for is a client who will trust us to do something different and cool.  It doesn't have to be on the ocean to be cool.  But I am not going to pass the next time someone offers me a good site on the ocean, either!  We have a very good track record on those.

like this....need a former tour pro with no abilities??  I can't even point into the distance in my shorts and shades with a topo map due to my shoulder

[Mike_Young]

Ulrich;  I was involved in a similar conversation with a relatively young architect.  Putting aside that I consider Tom to be a friend, my objective observation was that the remarks were motivated by the "green eyed monster" known as jealousy.  So I asked the gentleman whether he thought it was an accident that Tom was entrusted with good sites.  I did not get a response.

That's a daily thing in this business.  In this day of fake news, fake Clubcorp members and fake architects you never know what will be said about ya...

[Jeff_Brauer]

There are a lot of golf courses that are doomed to mediocrity because the client isn't interested in anything more, or the situation is otherwise impossible.  I'll happily pass on those -- and so should anyone else who wants to do good work!  Taking a job like that because it's all you can get is a sure sign you'll get more of the same.

You should never know its going to be a mediocre course until you design and build it, eh?  I have had clients expecting mediocre public courses and given them much more.  They usually don't really know the difference.


It's the gca equivalent of "sand bagging."

[Tom_Doak]

There are a lot of golf courses that are doomed to mediocrity because the client isn't interested in anything more, or the situation is otherwise impossible.  I'll happily pass on those -- and so should anyone else who wants to do good work!  Taking a job like that because it's all you can get is a sure sign you'll get more of the same.

You should never know its going to be a mediocre course until you design and build it, eh?  I have had clients expecting mediocre public courses and given them much more.  They usually don't really know the difference.


It's the gca equivalent of "sand bagging."

Jeff:


I'm not saying an architect can't provide something a lot better than a client expects, in the right circumstances. That's what I tried to do early in my career.


But I'm sure you have heard young guys saying they wanted to do this and that but the client wouldn't let them, or the client insisted on some feature, or the permits made it impossible, or they just didn't have quite enough shaping budget, or whatever other excuse.


Really what they are saying is they are bummed they took the job under those conditions.  But they still took the job, so they got what they should have expected.

[Kalen Braley]

Gotta give em what they want right?   

[Peter Pallotta]

The trick is to give them what *you* want, but to make them think it was *their* idea all along.
I have a feeling there may be a few self-satisfied developers out there smugly confiding to friends about how their design input 'made' the course...

[Jeff_Brauer]

My old boss used to get away with saying "We used your idea, but had to change it just a bit to fit it in" when presenting an idea that was nothing like the greens committee member suggested.  They were still beaming in the corner......

[Ulrich Mayring]

When Michelangelo started on his David, the block of marble was already sitting idle for 40 years and had been neglected by two other sculptors. It was widely considered a doomed project, but Michelangelo proved that this was only true for artists with average skills. A master could still turn it around.

Ulrich