Which Tom makes more sense – Fazio or Simpson?

[Sean_A]

Contrast this mindset with what appears in Wethered & Simpson’s Design for Golf:
The reason is not far to seek. The point was emphasised by Ruskin many years ago that the demand for perfection was invariably a “sign of misunderstanding of the ends of art.” As for Architecture (in his day such a thing as the minor art of golf architecture was almost unthinkable), he even went as far as to lay down the seeming paradox that "the work of man cannot be good unless it is imperfect." The application of this principle does not imply that all imperfect golf courses are necessarily admirable; but it does suggest that in the absence, fortunately, of any existing course that confounds all criticism, some imperfect courses are amongst the most interesting and amusing to play over.

Later on, they write: The course we think of should be noble in spite of its defects, as perfection throughout would be a monument of chilly precision incapable of inspiring us or of stimulating our jaded imagination.
 
Which Tom makes the most sense to you?

John,


Lovely quote, and thanks for posting.


I've given the thread some thought, and (of course) the Simpson quote makes more sense to me. That said, who am I to tell Mr. Fazio how he should design one of his original golf courses. As they say, it would be boring if all courses were the same, and while his courses aren't necessarily my cup of tea, I admire that he has a philosophy, and has more or less stuck to that.


What I disagree with is when you see a Simpson course go under the knife because some architect thinks they can make a hole(s) better, with little regard to the original intent of the architect. I have no doubt that in isolation, there are a lot of holes on classic courses that, from a technical, strategic perspective, could be made better. But to alter these holes is to fly in direct contrast with what the original designer intended, thus altering the very fabric of the golf course.


Just like I wouldn't like to see Coore & Crenshaw make a RTJ original course more strategic, I can't understand how we allow this pursuit of perfection to alter the identity and philosophy of classic courses.

Assuming we are talking about courses of some merit, I couldn't agree with you more. All courses can't be all things to all people. Surely there is room the personal in all directions of design. Good post.

Happy Hockey

[Tom_Doak]

I have no doubt that in isolation, there are a lot of holes on classic courses that, from a technical, strategic perspective, could be made better.

Even that is a matter of opinion, but you make a good point.


When we were building Pacific Dunes, I advocated strongly for the 12th hole to be less jazzed up than most of the others.  It was one of the last ones we built, and if we built too many bunkers and other features, it would look like we were trying too hard to distract you from not being on the coast.  [See: 18th at Royal County Down]  If somebody went back there twenty years from now and added a bunch of mounds and bunkers to make the hole more interesting, I would be very disappointed.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

You certainly jazzed up #3 with two centerline bunkers, and a well protected smallish green.  Was it a case of already having too many notes by #12?

Which reminds me! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCud8H7z7vU

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

You certainly jazzed up #3 with two centerline bunkers, and a well protected smallish green.  Was it a case of already having too many notes by #12?

We built twelve holes at Pacific Dunes the first winter/spring; they were the holes closest to the clubhouse.


We had six more to complete the job:  3-4-12 and 13-14-15.


4 and 13 were already laying there, mostly, although the 4th green site is some of Jim Urbina's best work ever.


14 was a fair amount of work -- I had to borrow ski goggles for two days to get the green roughed in -- but the idea was clear-cut.


So the last three holes to decide what to do were 3, 12, and 15, which are three of the four par-5 holes.  By then everyone understood how good a course we were working on, and there was a lot of pressure to make those three holes "stand up to" the rest, as Tillinghast famously said.


#3 had the beautiful view from the green site, so we just made it interesting strategically, and figured it was fine. 


I thought the 15th could rest on its cool green site, but Mr. Keiser thought it needed more jazz between the tee and the green.  I had always thought of it as similar to the 14th at Dornoch -- or at least, as similar as I will ever get to see -- and that hole has NO jazz other than the natural ridges between the tee and the green, so I was resistant to over-doing it, but Mike was strongly in favor.  And I pretty much said okay, we will keep working on that one until you're happy, as long as we can keep #12 pretty simple.  I figured it fell between the two most memorable holes on the course, and any attempt to jazz it up would just look silly.


In the end, I would say the 12th at Pacific is probably the least compelling hole on the course, but I would argue that is one of its strengths.  The bunker in the fairway for the second shot is exactly in the right spot when it's into the wind, or when there is no wind.  And in the summer, when the wind is in your face, it plays like the longest hole on the planet and it benefits from the lack of embellishment.  I am very glad I argued for it, even though there are many geniuses who think it ought to have "more strategy", i.e. more bunkers.  I doubt they would like their idea as much if they had to putt out with sand still in their teeth from playing out of another fairway bunker. 

[Jeff_Mingay]

For whatever it's worth, 12 and 14 are two of my favourite holes at Pacific Dunes.

[Tom_Doak]

For whatever it's worth, 12 and 14 are two of my favourite holes at Pacific Dunes.

You, and nobody else!!

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,

You certainly jazzed up #3 with two centerline bunkers, and a well protected smallish green.  Was it a case of already having too many notes by #12?

We built twelve holes at Pacific Dunes the first winter/spring; they were the holes closest to the clubhouse.


We had six more to complete the job:  3-4-12 and 13-14-15.


4 and 13 were already laying there, mostly, although the 4th green site is some of Jim Urbina's best work ever.


14 was a fair amount of work -- I had to borrow ski goggles for two days to get the green roughed in -- but the idea was clear-cut.


So the last three holes to decide what to do were 3, 12, and 15, which are three of the four par-5 holes.  By then everyone understood how good a course we were working on, and there was a lot of pressure to make those three holes "stand up to" the rest, as Tillinghast famously said.


#3 had the beautiful view from the green site, so we just made it interesting strategically, and figured it was fine. 


I thought the 15th could rest on its cool green site, but Mr. Keiser thought it needed more jazz between the tee and the green.  I had always thought of it as similar to the 14th at Dornoch -- or at least, as similar as I will ever get to see -- and that hole has NO jazz other than the natural ridges between the tee and the green, so I was resistant to over-doing it, but Mike was strongly in favor.  And I pretty much said okay, we will keep working on that one until you're happy, as long as we can keep #12 pretty simple.  I figured it fell between the two most memorable holes on the course, and any attempt to jazz it up would just look silly.


In the end, I would say the 12th at Pacific is probably the least compelling hole on the course, but I would argue that is one of its strengths.  The bunker in the fairway for the second shot is exactly in the right spot when it's into the wind, or when there is no wind.  And in the summer, when the wind is in your face, it plays like the longest hole on the planet and it benefits from the lack of embellishment.  I am very glad I argued for it, even though there are many geniuses who think it ought to have "more strategy", i.e. more bunkers.  I doubt they would like their idea as much if they had to putt out with sand still in their teeth from playing out of another fairway bunker. 

I just looked at some aerials of Number 15. It would have been an awesome hole without the jazzing up. Indeed a version of Foxy from tee to green. And I second Jeff that 12 is one of the top holes. Elegant in its simplicity but the fairway bunker and angling of green against the mound make it plenty strategic.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

Thanks for the detailed explanation, the how and why are often the most interesting parts of GCA to me.

Speaking of such, I'm curious why 10 and 11 was ruled out as a possible short 4?  Google earth shows 310 yards as the crow flies from the the back lower tee on 10 to the middle of 11 green, (10-15 yards longer going around the dune).  With that location and view, seems it could of been a "Cracker of a hole" to borrow Sean's phrase. Layup and play over the inlet or go for it with the tee ball? Yes it would have likely eliminated the upper green on 9, but seems it would have been a helluva trade-off. With then of course another par 3 squeezed in elsewhere.

[Tom_Doak]

Speaking of such, I'm curious why 10 and 11 was ruled out as a possible short 4?  Google earth shows 310 yards as the crow flies from the the back lower tee on 10 to the middle of 11 green, (10-15 yards longer going around the dune).  With that location and view, seems it could of been a "Cracker of a hole" to borrow Sean's phrase. Layup and play over the inlet or go for it with the tee ball?

Well, the fairway for a hole like that drops off to oblivion about 230 off the tee, and you can't see 11 green around the dune from 10 tee, so you'd be playing blind around the hill, or worse yet, over it and maybe still off the cliff.  I did not consider that for more than 5 seconds.


Plus, Mr. Keiser fell in love with the upper tee on #10 the first time he saw it.  And though he resisted the idea of back to back par-3's, in the end, he was counting "ocean holes" and my solution was two for the price of your one.

[JC Jones]

Almost a decade ago, I had a current practitioner stop me when I called him a golf course architect and say he considered himself a golf course designer.


I’ve spent the subsequent years working on projects like roads, railways, schools and hospitals with a range of engineers, architects and designers of various disciplines and can understand now why a designer would view themselves as distinct from an architect and even moreso an engineer.


Even more than the professional skills they apply being different, I think there is a significant difference often in their philosophy and their view of what it is they’re building.


Some see a piece of infrastructure that will perform a specific purpose and function and deliver that in isolation. Others see the foundation for the creation of a new community to come together and the people who will use it guide the creation process.


The engineers need a firm answer for everything, a right and wrong, and the designers know some things can’t be adequately described or explained and that everyone who interacts with a thing will have a different experience.


The engineers are the 17th at Sawgrass, the designers are the Redan hole at North Berwick (the irony that a Long Island engineer tried and failed to capture what made it special is not lost on me!).


While all who work in the golf course field likely have a bit of each of designer/architect/engineer in them, I suspect Tom Simpson was almost a pure golf course designer and Tom Fazio is far more of a golf course engineer.

Well said and great thoughts.  My only note would be that it doesn't make one necessarily better than the other (its all personal preference after all) and the extremes at either end are likely to yield unfavorable results.