Why Originality Is My #1 Criterion for Ranking Courses

[Jeff Loh]

Of course the French have the perfect word for this:  "Terroir"
Loosely translated  "sense of place."


All Champagne is sparkling wine; all sparkling wine is NOT Champagne.

[Tom_Doak]

Template holes are, by definition, somewhat formulaic. We each like those particular formulas.

Yes, but the logical extension of that, taken to its inevitable conclusion, is that there is a perfect formula to be found, and that every golf course should be the same.


And that is NOT what golf course architecture is about.


I am not saying that originality is the ONLY criterion for great golf courses - you still have to do a lot of other stuff right.  But to use a religious term, which I rarely do, seeking originality [ /unique character / sense of place] is the Path that leads you in the right direction.  Formulas are not the path.

[Tom_Doak]

Interesting Tom.  I can't say as I disagree about originality, but as Pietro states, it does have a rather natural selection effect. Seeking originality strikes me a situation where the search is never ending, because one never knows what is around the corner. On this basis, very few (even well travelled) people are qualified to rank courses at least on a world scale.  Yes!

Of course, originality is only the #1 criteria for you, this leaves plenty of scope to justify pretty much anything in terms of rankings    That however, would be the same for anybody no matter their #1 criteria is. All in all, originality is probably a better starting point than anything else that comes to mind.  It certainly beats the hell out of using every club in the bag, its all out there in front of you, consistency of design etc etc.

You mention bunkers and as an archie who generally leans toward strategic design and who became (and remain) rightly famous for your work in sand, I think you place a high value on bunker employment.  [Actually, less than most people, I think.  But bunkers ARE a primary feature of most courses, so it's hard to ignore them when doing rankings.] That isn't to say you aren't happy to lessen the importance of bunkering on the right site...I expect you are. [Yes - just wait til you see some of the things I'm working on.] However, in the specific case of Woodhall Spa, I do question why there are so many bunkers.  Yes, the site is obviously conducive to bunkering and without question sand adds a lovely element to the texture of the course.  However, the employment of the bunkering is a bit over-bearing in that often times it is of the penal type. 

Woodhall Spa is what I would call a penal design, although it does have strategic design elements as well. While I think penal architecture is valid and necesssary in creating good architecture, I generally think it should be used in smaller measures. [I don't remember - what is your stand on Oakmont and Pine Valley?  They are also penal, but unique.] At some point, when courses tip over to being mainly of the penal type, playability and variety are sacrificed.  I then have to wonder why the course exists as is? I do ask because there are valid reasons for heavily penal architecture and they are mainly related to top echelon golfers.  Woodhall Spa doesn't host top golfers. [??  It's the base for England Golf, and it has hosted all sorts of big amateur events throughout its history.  When it first showed up in the rankings, its two biggest supporters were Tony Jacklin and Tom Weiskopf.] If it did, the course would be ripped apart.  From this PoV, Woodhall Spa's penal style isn't effective as a true challenge for the best players. Which then leads me to question of why is the originality of the bunkers important enough to rank it among the very best courses in the world?  I look down the road at a place like Ganton, which is also famous for its bunkers.  While no ugly duckling, I think few would say Ganton has the texture of Woodhall Spa.  However, in terms of placement, the bunkers are a more provacative set because they are more grounded in the strategic school of thought, but that isn't to say there isn't a healthy does of the penal type.  IMO, it is almost impossible for courses with loads of bunkers to heavily represent the strategic school...Muirfield may be one of the few examples on the planet. Interestingly, I haven't heard anybody say Ganton is easier than Woodhall.  [I'm a big fan of Ganton, too, but I don't rate it quite as highly.  The heathland surrounds of Woodhall Spa may have a lot to do with that, because they make the architectural features stand out a little more, which as I've noted is one of the advantages of Pine Valley.]

It could be that the recent work at Woodhall Spa has mitigated some of the penal aspects of the design.  For example, maybe fairways are a bit wider and/or the rough a bit less harsh.  Maybe some flanking bunkers have been removed and diagonal/centreline bunkers added. I shall have a look in the spring.

However, we haven't touched on the obvious elephant in the room. Surely, the interest greens present should be a high priority for rankings. [Which is a funny line of criticism, since practically everyone in the world says I place too much importance on interesting greens in my personal ratings, and in my own work.] Now, I can understand if a course displays a few elements which are so outstanding that other elements may lose some importance.  I guess that is how originality became your #1 criteria and thats fine.  However, when discussing the very best courses in the world, a glaring issue such as hohum greens is very hard for me to overlook.  I know you try to defend Woodhall's greens, but there can't be many top 150 courses in the world with such uninteresting greens as Woodhall's.  [I see them as similar to Garden City and Walton Heath, but not quite as sharply tilted as Walton Heath, because the land is flatter.  Would you say the same of those two?  And, I will grant that both of those courses have one or two greens that are exceptional and much more interesting than anything at Woodhall Spa.] You obviously disagree, but with the issues of over-penal bunkering (to little effect) and unimaginative greens, it is hard for me to take Woodhall seriously as one of the very best courses on the planet.  I love texture and the role bunkers play for texture as much as anybody, but I have a hard time trying to justify Woodhall for top 50 GB&I let alone as a contender for top 50 world.  At a more local level, is the bunker originality enough to carry the day over Ganton...or the other big gun northern inland Notts? [I am a big fan of Notts, too, and was surprised to see it not show up in the rankings.]  Its a close run thing, but for my time, Woodhall come out bottom of the three.

[Sean_A]

Tom

Of course bunkers are a primary element for most courses...and of course I never implied they should be ignored.  However, when singled out as the main reason for a top 100 ranking, I think its reasonable to drill down to what the bunkers actually achieve.  IMO, its the beauty more than anything else which sets Woodhall's bunkers apart from the vast majority of courses.  There are loads of courses which also fit this bill, but of their own place.  Mind you, they are not in a heathland setting.  That said, I think Walton Heath's bunkers are just as lovely, effective and original as Woodhall's, but for some reason they don't get much mention. 

I haven't been to Pine Valley or Oakmont...never been invited.  On paper at least, the courses look to be the epitome of penal...I would say probably more penal than Woodhall.  In the case of Oakmont, it makes complete sense to me.  That is a proper championship venue whereas I wouldn't consider Pine Valley or Woodhall Spa as such.

Yes, Woodhall has hosted the Brabazon, but as time goes on, this is less and less a big tournament. In fact, when the Brab was at its height, its arguable it wasn't a real international event such as it is now.

Yes, your love of interesting greens is well known.  However, for a good percentage of the GB&I courses you rate, you must have found other elements that were of high enough quality to give the greens a pass.  Interestingly, I get the impression panelists don't rate Deal as among the world's very best, yet it has the elements of other highly ranked courses, plus better greens.  I can only conclude the lack of outstanding views is the stumbling block.  If true, this generally doesn't speak highly for the quality of panelists.

Yep, you picked a few examples which don't exhibit terribly interesting greens unless quite firm. I am sure there are others as well.  Which is my point, Woodhall is keeping company with courses that aren't known for their greens.  I would go one step further and say the greens at Woodhall aren't merely a nuetral element, they are a stand out negative element.  IMO, not good enough to allow Woodhall to hang with the very best of GB&I.

Happy Hockey

[Kalen Braley]

I would strongly make the claim that Black Rock in Northern Idaho is very original.  It may not suite your tastes, but there are several holes like #3, 11, 13 you won't see anywhere else.

[Ronald Montesano]

This is a great question, Sweet Lou Duran. The question is, of those three, is one a genius? Yes, and he is Strantz. If he had lived another 2 decades, I firmly believe he would have harmonized his artistic perspective with golf to a greater extent. I believe that we would talk about Bulls Bay and Caledonia as his early works, rather than his masterpieces.

If we are (un)fortunate, each generation loses a master, as she/he was beginning to refine. It gives us an appreciation of genius, and of the good fortune that some genii have to see their work through to a long and natural end.

How well have the Muirheads, Enghs, Stranzs of the golf world fared?

[Tom_Doak]

I would strongly make the claim that Black Rock in Northern Idaho is very original.  It may not suite your tastes, but there are several holes like #3, 11, 13 you won't see anywhere else.

Maybe I need a different word, then.  Running garden hose into a water feature so you can have a waterfall next to the green does not qualify for me as taking advantage of a site's "sense of place".  In fact, Jim is the one designer I know whose work has nothing to do with fitting a course into the existing landscape; that's what makes his work different.

[Lou_Duran]

Ronald,


I don't know if Mike Stranz was a genius, but from the handful of his courses I've played, I sure liked his work.  Quite a contrast between Tobacco Road and Bulls Bay, the latter which I found particularly good and more conventional.  Bob Huntley spoke very highly of Mike having spent some time with him at MPCC's Shore course while it was being redone.  Mike did some wonderful work there on land that was not terribly exciting but had a wonderful backdrop. You are right, he was taken away much too early.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
No one will argue that originality is not important, it surely is,  But Stone Harbor in NJ was definitely "original" but you gave it a Doak 0     My guess is Desmond would beg to differ   


Let's face it, when it comes to ranking and rating courses, to each his own.  There is no set criteria and that criteria (whatever it is) will be weighted differently by everyone.  Furthermore, personal tastes will change the more one experiences different designs around the world.  Tom, as you say in your 0-10 Doak ranking scale, if you haven't seen all the 10's out there, you don't know how good golf architecture can get. 


The lists will always just be lists, no different than Ran's 147 custodians.  I have played most of those courses on his list (can't think of any I didn't like) and I am sure I would enjoy the ones I haven't seen as I value his opinion.  But my list of 147 custodians would be very different even though there would likely be some overlap. 


Mark

[Peter Pallotta]

"Maybe I need a different word, then".

Here's not a different word, Tom, but a 'concept' -- and I'm not sure it applies directly. But I think it gets to something close: 

Someone once described great creative works (or parts of those works) as managing to be "surprising and yet seemingly inevitable" at the same time.

They provide a solution to a 'problem' you didn't even realize existed, until the very moment you recognized the solution for what it is -- and then you say "but of course - why didn't I see that before? it was there all the time - that problem, and that solution".

The way the parts and the whole work together almost takes your breath away with the force of repeated 'revelations' (the surprises, and the very opposite of the formulaic), and yet each part is completely inherent in/to the whole work, a truly integral part of it (the inevitable, and the very opposite of the gimmick).

To me, that's what you described at those courses you named. But, since it took me 3 paragraphs to write all this, I can see why you prefer using the word "original" instead!     

[Tom_Doak]

But, since it took me 3 paragraphs to write all this, I can see why you prefer using the word "original" instead!   

Yeah, sometimes it doesn't all fit into a single word. 


The Germans would probably try, but they still have a lot to learn about golf architecture.


The word you used that was interesting was "inherent".  You can't use it all by itself, but that's a big part of what I mean by native or natural:  it's something derived from the site.  The earth forms at Streamsong were not native or natural, but they were interesting, so we incorporated them like we would the finest natural feature . . . Bill Coore just as much as me.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ha ha - yes, the Germans might try.
In the meantime, you could just add an umlaut to the word (to any word) and sound a lot fancier and smarter, you know, if that kind of thing is important to you...
So, your new #1 ranking criterion is:

Inhärent

I'm going to use to myself, constantly...

[Mark_Fine]

Jim Engh's work is definitely unique and original (at least most of what I have seen including Black Rock).  It can also draw dramatically different opinions on whether is it great or ?.  How would one define Fazio's Shadow Creek?  When it comes to "sense of place" he wants you to sense you are in North Carolina, not in the middle of a desert     The Loxahatchee Club that Nicklaus did is orignial (Jack called it one of his most imaginative designs) but I wouldn't fly across the Atlantic to see it.   

[James Brown]

Love this premise, but I am note sure I totally agree.   The notion of originality suggests that the limit on the number of great courses that could be built is dependent on the number of great sites adjusted by the prevalence of actually designing and building great courses on great sites. 


It seems to downplay the possibility of building a great course on an average site. 


I would throw out CommonGround and Rustic Canyon as examples of less than great sites that produced really good courses without being particularly original. 

[Kalen Braley]

Seems like it needs a checklist of sorts


Original?
Fun to play?
Variety of holes?
Unique to anything in the area?
Designed by favorite architect?   

[Mark_Fine]

Sounds like we need "a list" for the criterion     I said on an earlier thread, I thought the setting weighed very high this list of rating criterion for most golfers.  And just to be clear, no one is wrong with what they think is #1 for them 

[Tom_Doak]

I would throw out CommonGround and Rustic Canyon as examples of less than great sites that produced really good courses without being particularly original.

And that is why they are "really good," but seldom nominated as one of the great courses of the world.


Perhaps, in hindsight, I should have said that originality is the final factor in sorting out what's a great course.  There are tons of "tough but fair" courses, championship courses, template courses, and even minimalist courses, but there can only be a few which transcend those categories.

[Ira Fishman]

I think that the word “Original” may be confounding because it has the common meaning of being different from what came before. Sometimes that can be transcendent and inspiring, but sometimes it can be just weird and awkward. I took the criterion to be more evocative and emotive in the sense of Shivas Irons. That is the feeling I have had after playing four courses: Lahinch, CPC, PH2, and North Berwick. To paraphrase Justice Stewart, you know it when you feel it. There certainly are courses that I have not played that would meet the criterion, but there are some great ones that I have been fortunate enough to play that did not transcend in the way that I had a transcendent sense of place, including Ballybunion, Royal Dornoch, and Pacific Dunes (sorry Tom). So clearly it remains subjective and personal, but I agree with the premise of the thread completely that there is no way to reduce great architecture to a recipe, formula, or AI algorithm.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

there are some great ones that I have been fortunate enough to play that did not transcend in the way that I had a transcendent sense of place, including Ballybunion, Royal Dornoch, and Pacific Dunes (sorry Tom).

You put my work in there with Ballybunion and Royal Dornoch.  No need to apologize! 

[Ira Fishman]

there are some great ones that I have been fortunate enough to play that did not transcend in the way that I had a transcendent sense of place, including Ballybunion, Royal Dornoch, and Pacific Dunes (sorry Tom).

You put my work in there with Ballybunion and Royal Dornoch.  No need to apologize! 

PD deserves to be on the same list as those two courses. But now I have confounded myself because BT was my favorite course at Bandon but I would not have thought of it in the context of my definition of Originality. I s’pose I will need to await the other criterion of greatness to sort it all out.


Ira

[V. Kmetz]

Perhaps, in hindsight, I should have said that originality is the final factor in sorting out what's a great course.  There are tons of "tough but fair" courses, championship courses, template courses, and even minimalist courses, but there can only be a few which transcend those categories.

"final" or perhaps if we're parsing language to hit every bit of implication..."decisive"... that originality is the decisive factor; that after all the wonderful traits of fine courses are tabulated...the "wonder" factor of "how was THAT seen and brought out of the ground?" registers and lingers...the deeper and longer the impression remains, the greater the regard as a matter of preference (and that's all this is, and the only reason important because a leading architect is detailing the soul of the eye that have given many so much golfing pleasure)...

[Bill Brightly]

I was surprised that Tom used originality of a golf course as his number one criteria; I would have guessed he would say effective use of the land.

For those discussing Macdonald/Raynor courses, I think you would do well to consider the template FEATURES and not refer to template holes. CBM did not copy holes, he borrowed features of great holes that he admired, and then built his course at NGLA. He fit those features beautifully with the land and built many great golf holes. These holes are great because they are great golf holes, not because they are templates. The Redan at NGLA is a superb golf hole and if you look at NB's Redan, you can easily see how it inspired Macdonald, but NGLA in no way is it a copy of NB's Redan.


As a fan of both MacRaynor courses and Tom Doak, the construction of Old Macdonald has always fascinated me. I have to believe that Tom felt constrained that he had to construct "template holes" yet he found some great places to use the "required" CBM features. The Alps and Road Hole are superb IMO. Both are great golf holes, make excellent use of the feature, but also are quite unique in their own right. In other words, if you knew nothing about CBM and the templates you would like these golf holes.


On the other hand, I disliked the Redan and Biarritz holes because I feel they do not capture the intent of the originals. They seem a tad forced in an effort to check off template boxes. They would be cool holes on an course not intended to pay homage to CBM. So building courses in a "template style" must not be easy and a complete annoyance to someone who wants the land to dictate what kind of hole should be built.


I LOVE that about Old Macdonald!

[Sean_A]

Perhaps, in hindsight, I should have said that originality is the final factor in sorting out what's a great course.  There are tons of "tough but fair" courses, championship courses, template courses, and even minimalist courses, but there can only be a few which transcend those categories.

"final" or perhaps if we're parsing language to hit every bit of implication..."decisive"... that originality is the decisive factor; that after all the wonderful traits of fine courses are tabulated...the "wonder" factor of "how was THAT seen and brought out of the ground?" registers and lingers...the deeper and longer the impression remains, the greater the regard as a matter of preference (and that's all this is, and the only reason important because a leading architect is detailing the soul of the eye that have given many so much golfing pleasure)...

You may be right because decisive implies an opinion can ultimately fall toward great or merely good depending on the originality.

I always use holes of distinction (which includes original) as a final thought. I figure if a course doesn't have an All-Wales (or whatever larger bit of land which is easily identifiable) candidate or two how good can it be amongst its own crowd let alone on a larger stage. Sometimes a course can be compelling without such a hole, but it's fairly rare.

Happy Hockey

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
I get what you are saying but I am not sure “effective use of land” is the best criteria either.  First of all how many people really know what was there before the golf course?  A handful at most.  If it was a competition between who had to move the least amount of dirt then that might have more merit or who needed the lowest construction budget,...  I still remember someone saying that Pete Dye was brilliant at “finding” golf holes.  Pete Dye is one of my favorite architects.  I love the man and think he is brilliant and one of the greatest architects ever, but in my opinion Pete didn’t find golf holes, he bulldozed the hell out of the land and built exactly what he wanted.  And in most cases what he built was amazing.  Did he make the most effective use of the land?  The answer is all relative. 

[Niall C]

Seems ironic considering the amount of time spent discussing green sites on here, but I would say UK golfers, pay little to no attention to the interest greens provide. I think the US is a bit different even for the retail golfer as it seems to be something US golfers discuss or appreciate.


UK greens, are in the main, lacking quite a lot of interest in even the very top courses. I'm not saying they need buried elephants to provide interest, but even at some of our fabled links, the greens are quite underwhelming. I know strong winds play a part in this, but I wonder how many appreciate how great the greens are at say Royal Portrush, compared to some others on the Open rota.



If you asked most UK golfers to compare the overall merits of Woking to Hankley, I'd guestimate that less than 10% would even mention the greens beyond their condition.

I have to say Mr Coles, I'm warming up to you. A very nice post indeed !


Niall