Feature Interview with Thad Layton

[Joe Andriole]

We are delighted to post this month's Feature Interview with Thad Layton, who along with Brandon Johnson constitute Arnold Palmer Design. With the passing of its namesake, Arnold Palmer Design is in transition, one that allows for a fresh expression of individual style. Thad joined the company in 1997 and as revealed in this month's Feature Interview is thoughtful, well-read and eloquent and his designs reflect as much.  Like many of the new breed of designers, Thad does much of his own work in the field.

Arnold Palmer Design has been around since 1972. I appreciate that many people pigeon hole the entire company based on their perceptions of the work that was down primarily in the 1970-2000 time frame. So be it, but I think that is a mistake. Listen to what Thad has to say and take a look at some of the accompanying photographs and tell me if this is what you expected.

On a personal note, I’ve been a Bay Hill resident for more than 3 decades and played numerous rounds with Arnold Palmer over the years. Of course, Bay Hill and Arnold are forever intertwined and the Bay Hill club and course are a reflection of Mr. Palmer - full of basic values. The golf course is brawny but straightforward - everything is in front of you. It emphasizes the tee shot and there are multiple risk/reward shots, most over water. Arnold most enjoyed driving the ball and taking on do-or-die challenges. The club is far more homey than opulent and most of the employees have been there for many years and are more like family. Arnold had agreed to do a feature Interview for GolfClubAtlas and I very much regret not taping my conversations with him. I can tell you he spoke almost lovingly about Ed Seay, his chief designer for years.

I think both men would be very proud of where Arnold Palmer Design stands today. Ironically, there is reason to believe that some of its best designs have yet to occur. Have a read of this month's Feature Interview and see if you don't agree. I, for one, am certainly looking forward to more of Thad's creativity.

http://golfclubatlas.com/layton-thad-feature-interview/

[Sean_A]

Cheers Joe.  The interviews with folks that are not familiar to me tend to be the most interesting.  I found the interview very impressive and Mr Layton very well spoken...an easy chap to understand.  A few aspects of the interview stood out:

1. The idea of "effective green speed".  I couldn't agree more, though I would add fimness is an essential element of the concept. 

2. I liked the idea of bunker context.  There was no mention of playability which may suggest bunkers should be real hazards...especially if the trend is toward less sand being more meaningful. 

3. Green size, I spose with width comes larger greens, its hard to avoid.  I am not convinced there is a width problem as is suggested. Regardless, I like the idea of "strategic width".  That said, in my experience, that means more bunkers...a catch 22.

Ciao   

[Thomas Dai]

Nice interview.
'Effective green speed'. Descriptive terminology. 'EGS' rather than 'Stimp' highlighted on the TV screen one day?
"At the highest level, golf course architecture is sculpture, not drawing." Having spent a lot of time playing courses built using horses with scoops/drag-pans etc and men using hand tools I appreciate this comment. Not sure it's just at the highest level though.
atb

[Tim Gavrich]

I've had the chance to spend a little time and play a little golf with Thad and am heartened to see him featured this month. He and Brandon Johnson comprise an underrated force in contemporary golf course design. Glad that they're getting some well-deserved attention.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Joe - a very good read.
I was struck by how Thad's 15 year old brain sent him in the right direction; the remarkable west coast itinerary that Mr Seay so generously arranged for him; that Mr Palmer was quick to counter the thought that putting  Augusta's greens during the Masters was 'fun'; Thad's 'empty calories' description of some of the extreme width in evidence today; and his praise for Pacific Dunes as a 'master class' in modern design. Can't help but wish Thad and the team much success.
P

[Joe Hancock]

I’m better for my time spent with Thad and Brandon. First class guys who are not only smart, but want to continue to get smarter. Open minded, but committed to what they know. I could go on, but then they might get a big head....


All the best to them.

[John Mayhugh]

Interesting read. I too liked a lot of what Thad has to say. I was a bit surprised to see his list of all of the areas he has yet to visit.

Other than Bay Hill, I haven't played any of the Palmer top tier courses. What I've seen has been competent but not particularly interesting or memorable. Much nearer to the "dumb blond" aesthetic than something to make you think. Renovation-wise, it's been a number of years since I was at Pebble Beach, but the work in the early 2010s there was not good. Do they still have a role at Pebble?

Seems like I should give Old Tabby a look.

[Joe Andriole]

Neither Ed, Arnold or their designs were particularly complicated - that was not their style. They emphasized playability and fun and it was especially fun for Arnold to meet the challenge of a demanding tee shot. Bay Hill has gone through several iterations during my time there. While the routing is “locked-in” greens and bunkers have all been altered more than once, tees moved and par manipulated on a few holes. Most of the changes were in response to meeting the demands of the PGA tour and maintenance. During one of the renovations I opined to Arnold that 14 (Bay Hill’s worst hole IMHO) would make a good, drivable par 4 if the tee were moved up and to the left and the green complex angled. Mr. Palmer thought a moment and replied - “Doctor, that would make it easier - we don’t do easier at Bay Hill”. Ultimately, the tee was moved back 35 yards across the road and it is a “better” hole for the pro set. I don’t think that this anecdote encapsulates any design philosophy but does say something.

[Adam Clayman]

Joe, Thanks for many things, but more germane to this thread, the first proper use of the term 'risk/reward' I've seen in years.    Wonderful interview.


 

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe, re your idea for the 14th hole, and Mr Palmer's reaction -- in the context of tournament golf, he was probably absolutely right. I've been 'watching' the PGA Championship on the shot-tracker app: they moved up the tees on 11 to make it a short/driveable par 4, and the thing was an absolute birdie-fest all day long, with just about the entire field opting to hit a mid iron to the fairway and a wedge up -- i.e. not only 'easy' but boring too. As Mr Palmer knew, pro golfers during a tournament would've played the 14th as you proposed it in exactly the same way. The *only* bad thing about the 10th at Riviera is that it's given so many tournament set-up committees a 'bright idea'....     

[Adam Clayman]

I'd be interested in trying to open Mr. Layton's mind to the whole "Width" position. Simply put, the road golf course architecture went down, without width, has failed to attract and hold the modern, newer golfer's attention, long enough, to fully appreciate all the finer points, this great sport has to offer.

 This of course brings up the Big World Theory arguments, which are just fine with me. Different courses for different horses. But, I'm beginning to realize the importance the beginner is, in that big world. Not to mention the 87% that can't ever break 90. Local Courses around these parts, all emulate what they see on TV, without regard to macro principles of gca. They are all suffering from diminishing numbers in participation, and their courses all follow the narrow treelined mentality that chokes the course, and kills the sport.


I see it as your challenge Mr. Layton, as an architect, to emulate the words of one of your favorites. Playable for all, challenging to the best. And I for one, with hope for all, you succeed.

[Thad Layton]

I don’t know the protocol here for jumping onto a thread about one’s own interview, but thought I’d take the opportunity to say hello and thank everyone who took the time to read it. Hopefully the passion for the craft is evident and the piece gives those unfamiliar with our recent work incentive to go play it. It was encouraging to see some of the opinions resonated while others provoked thought and generated discussion. While I entirely expected more than a little resistance on my width-related comments, I feel like I could have been more thorough with my explanation. So here is my screed on width and, if you’re in a hurry, just read the next paragraph.


To be clear, I like width…but not at the expense of variety. I believe it was Simpson that said “but for once or twice in a round for the sake of variety, should the center of the fairway be the ideal line”. The corollary of that argument is that to achieve variety, an architect must place an emphasis on tightening things up on occasion.


Perhaps we’ve just got our semantic wires crossed: Some use the term strategy and width interchangeably while I consider them as two very different things. Strategy is a design principal, while width is a design tool.


Of particular concern to me is a trend I perceive where width has become dogma, with courses that don’t have fairways averaging 50+ yards of width getting excoriated as examples of why golf is in decline. I just don't see it that way...People are always looking to codify what makes a course great. Take your pick of any “Top 100” list and ask yourself what they all have in common? IMHO, the only threads that these renowned courses all have in common is the design principals of variety, strategy, and context. Width is a great tool but must be used judiciously and serve to buttress the overarching design principals to be successful.


 
While I think we can agree that strategy is the soul of the game, we’d all benefit by accepting there are more ingredients to build in strategy than width alone. Architects that embrace this approach give themselves the best chance of creating an original and worthwhile golf course that will help to sustain and grow this great game.

[Jason Topp]

Thanks for the interview Thad.  I loved the term "restovation" which I had never heard before but immediately understood. 


I also think I agree with your width comment, notwithstanding my ranting about native areas on another thread.

[Sean_A]

Thad

There does seem to be a mini rebellion against width.  While I undertand that width alone doesn't provide strategy, width does facilitate strategy, for without width its bloody difficult to provide much strategy. I come back to a basic premise, there are far, far more courses which could benefit from width than there are those which could benefit from being narrowed. Hence the reason I am curious about the width backlash.  I spose the same is true of trees which is directly related to width.

Ciao