[Tom_Doak]

Ira,

When I compare the current batch of work to what was being produced 100 years ago it seems very hard to see the distinction. When you compare the work of Ross to Raynor, to MacKenzie, to Tillinghast, to etc... they are all very different. While the philosophy on play might have been very similar, the look, feel, and style of their courses were much more distinct. That is something I, and I believe others in the golfing world, are not seeing in much of the work being produced today. The distinct designs of the courses from the golden age have been significant in their longevity and it is in the uniqueness of their design that the great courses of the world have in common. We talk about places like Pine Valley, The Old Course, and Oakmont  so favorably in part because there is nothing else like them in the world.

Was it only after time that the great courses of yesterday showed themselves to be unique and distinct, meaning that evolution will occur with the courses of today, or was their just a greater breadth of design styles that produced a broader range of work than is going on today?

Ben:


I agree with you that design today is not as diverse as it should be.


But it's unfair to compare a period like the 1920's, when there were hundreds of courses being built each year, to today, when there are less than fifty per year.  When the business is big, more architects get chances to try their stuff, and there is more impetus to try new ideas in order to attract attention.  [Ten years ago, there was plenty of room for Mike Strantz and Jim Engh and Tom Fazio and Rees Jones in addition to the minimalist camp.]  But when it's small, like now, many firms [and many developers] get conservative and stick to what's been successful and is already drawing attention.  [You could say the same for movies today.]


Your sample is also pretty lop-sided.  MacKenzie, Ross, Raynor and Tillinghast were all working in the 1920's ... but then the courses you cited were Pine Valley, Oakmont and St. Andrews, none of which were built in that time frame nor by any of those architects!  If you are expecting new courses to rival those, you're probably going to be disappointed.


At the end of the day, though, the only architect whose work I can control is my own, and I think the courses we build are pretty diverse.  The rest of your wish list is up to others.

[Ira Fishman]

Ben,


Please see my post at #5 in this thread.


Thanks,


Ira

[Jonathan Mallard]

From his last post, I think Tom is giving most of us too much credit/expecting too much.
I don't think there's one in a hundred who can see what the expert (in any profession) can see -- because that seeing is a product/result of the *doing*.

Let me try and take this concept and extrapolate it to one item on the loop that I think had to have been really picked over by Tom and his associates to work for the final product.


Drainage.


Tom - how big of a challenge was it to provide adequate drainage paths and situate them such that the playing of the holes from the opposite direction in the same affected disturbed area was not unduly impacted? To me, this would have taken a decent amount of thought starting with the selection of the playing corridors which if I'm not mistaken speaks to considerations in the overall routing.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - how big of a challenge was it to provide adequate drainage paths and situate them such that the playing of the holes from the opposite direction in the same affected disturbed area was not unduly impacted? To me, this would have taken a decent amount of thought starting with the selection of the playing corridors which if I'm not mistaken speaks to considerations in the overall routing.

Sorry to blow your theory, but the premise behind the construction of The Loop was to keep every aspect of it as simple as possible, so as not to fight the complexity of the concept.  This included the drainage.


The soil was very gravelly to start with, and the contour quite wrinkly, with a few bigger depressions.  So, our model was to keep the contour wrinkly, leaving a lot of drainage pockets with very small watersheds that don't need artificial drains or sumps, instead of directing surface drainage to bigger basins that had to be sumped.


Yes, I did tend to route the golf course through the valleys on the property, so we kept most of the drainage internal to the course instead of having to pick it up at the edges of the holes.  Also, when the site was cleared the superintendent was extra aggressive in removing roots, to the point that many of the holes were excavated about a foot below the surrounding grade at the edges.  A lot of the work my crew did was re-shaping the fairways to mend those edges ... which helped create all the little bowls in the fairways.

[Tim Martin]

There has never been more access to information than in present day 2018. Between golf based websites, television, bloggers, magazines, digital photo collections, trade organizations etc. I just don’t believe there is much out there hiding in plain sight. Far more important to me at least is “is the course fun and compelling” versus “is it different”. The knock on somebody like Raynor is that the templates were no more than a lather, rinse, repeat strategy yet to almost everyone I know in the golf world these courses are loved for the simple reason that they are compelling. What would Yale be today if the powers that be told Raynor hey we are sick of the template holes so you need a new approach. “Hey Seth we don’t need a Biarritz, Alps, Eden or Double Plateau green”. For sure it would be different but would it be as much fun?

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ira,
I read your reply no. 5 and all I see is you commenting that courses are different, but not how they are different. Focusing on courses built in the last 10 or 12 years, what points of distinction should the golfing public be looking for in these new projects? Where does one architect stand out from another? What modernly used design styles are standing out and how are they best showcased?
Ben

[Ira Fishman]

Ben,


Sorry for the delayed reply. I cannot answer the more general questions because I have not played enough modern courses. But as to the differences among the ones I referenced:


PD is more forgiving off the tee on the whole than BT but requires hitting it in the correct place for the most promising angle into the green. BT offers quite a bit of deception off the tee where PD is more of an open book. The contours at and around the green put more of a premium on the short game at PD. BT has more variety in its holes, and has a couple that push the edge in terms of audacity,particularly 14 which has been much discussed on GCA.


For the mountain courses, Steel uses an unusual combination of ground game (rolling fairways, huge greens)  and what I would term 1960s American (forced carries, deep bunkers in some corners, etc). Norman is more traditional in routing an aesthetically appealing course at Red Sky. Coore and Crenshaw try a bit of both the two approaches although the course was too soft when we played it.


As to Dye at the River Course at Kohler, it is as far away from the sand-based, minalmist approach as you could imagine, but it does great justice to to the land using the streams and trees to dictate being smart about strategy but on occasion requiring the type of heroic shot not often called for on what you might have in mind when you started the thread.


Hope this helps a bit.


Ira

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()