Homogeneous and incongruous at the same time. Interesting stuff.
A good and truthful observation, despite your distaste at the bitterness of some reviewers when it comes to some of the current work being undertaken.
I thought I might expand on this because in an effort to bite my tongue, I often throw in quick comments rather than trying to explain my thoughts. That's probably the worst solution.
I am against any design firm winning too much work on our limited number of links courses. I don't want Renaissance to be working on 30 courses, I don't want CDP to be working on 30 courses, I don't want M&E to be working on 30 courses. The bottom line is that 30 courses don't need "significant" changes so my first gripe is why is all of this work happening?
Sure, I know the score: Every club committee wants to leave their mark, make changes, keep up with the Jones's, "improve". But architects should know when to push for less rather than more work. It's really easy to come up with cool and fancy ideas on a links course. But there should be a huge amount of respect paid before suggesting changes to what has come before. When you are working on so many top courses, it is easy to become complacent in paying that respect. Architects should tell clubs when they shouldn't be doing something as well as when they should.
In addition to the above, because of wind and firmness, changes cannot be suggested to links courses until a designer really understands how that course plays. You cannot design by numbers and yardages on a links course like you can on a target-based aerial inland course. When a designer has 30 courses on the go, he does not have the bandwidth, time or capability to understand and learn each course before suggesting changes. He also does not have the time to be on-site hand-in-hand with the shaper in getting the details right, something that on sand is especially key.
So to
homogeneity: Every designer is going to repeat ideas and styles over 30 courses. It's impossible not to. But with the current M&E work, I'm seeing a consistency in design solution across almost all of these courses. Most of these designs are excellently built and technically very good as you would expect from such a firm and the people they work with. But they are often lacking an element of playfulness with bunker positions, have green designs that don't look location-specific (maybe because they are built off plan rather than detailed in the field), have open sand scrapes on courses that have none elsewhere and containment dunes on courses that are ostensibly low-lying. We are seeing consistent shaggy bunkers built in fairways where they don't necessarily fit and sod-wall bunkers at the green. Sometimes this looks and works really well, sometimes not so. Which brings me to
incongruity:
Every links course has a wildly different nature to the next - that's what makes links golf so great. Those who aren't familiar just see treeless courses with rough grasses, dunes and sea and bracket them all together but most on here will know that each course really does have its own character. If you bring the same type of design solution to each and every links course, sometimes it is going to fit and sometimes it isn't.
To my mind, M&E have taken a trend with their bunker building that was started by the US minimalists. There is no doubt that that is the initial inspiration, even if historic accuracy (shaggy bunkers + positions) and environmental advantages (open sand scars) are being used as the primary selling point. That's not supposed to be a negative. The same folks have influenced and inspired me also. What I
am noticing is that M&E are getting bolder with the way they are implementing this on a few of the most recent courses. Which leaves us with the 17th at Hoylake.
Here we have perhaps the most subtle of all our championship links courses. There is no open sand and most of the course is very flat indeed. It uses other means to create strategy and intrigue. Now there is a par-three introduced with the boldest and most extrovert idea that M&E have come up with yet. Huge open sand scars shaped as bunkers, an island of green with a beach bunker at the rear, hybrid style sod and shaggy face (which I like and use as a concept) and an horizon green. It looks really cool. But it is as far away from fitting in with the rest of the course as I could imagine.
So, in summation, I really like some of the work that this firm have done. After all, every course and plan should be appraised on its own merit and many courses have undoubtedly been improved by their designs. I also admire the effort put in to their "sales" documentation, always presented clearly and in a very attractive manner. I don't always like the type of design solution they come up with. That is only natural. We all look at courses slightly differently and often they have to design with big championships in mind. I have never had that pleasure. I also don't like that they appear - speculation of course - to recommend changes too quickly. There has been a fair bit of unnecessary work done in the name of a style and drama rather than strategy and hole interest (even though style and drama can constitute a reason in itself). I really don't like the propensity to change individual and original features unless it is absolutely mandatory to meet a brief (e.g. erosion changes).
It probably all niggles at me a little more than it should. Maybe it's just because I feel so connected to links golf and have such respect for the courses myself. I probably care way too much. Either way, I thought it better to put down my thoughts rather than keep on throwing the odd individual line or hint.