Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture

[Peter Flory]

There is a difference between a playing field and technology.  Any innovation in golf course architecture won't be better, it will just be different- like fashion. 


And in fashion, what does innovation get you?  Tight jeans and nose rings.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Creativity is, by one definition, the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination:[/font]

Ding, Ding, Ding, you just stated why AI won't be creative. It does not transcend, but rather follows.

[V. Kmetz]

Regarding your comparisons to building architecture:  years ago I had a (potential) client who was a huge Frank Lloyd Wright fan.  When I told him that his site was too difficult and rocky to build something, he said that FLW said no site was impossible, to which I responded, yes, but FLW didn't have to maintain grass on 60 acres.  The client went ahead and spent several million dollars to prove me wrong . . . but no one thinks the course is groundbreaking architecture.  I was surprised to find that it's still there, I've not heard anything about it for twenty years!

As total as his talent and influence have been, many of FLW's most noteworthy buildings are notoriously not built for the long haul, have structural deficiencies (Johnson Wax, Fallingwater), always went massively over budget and cost small principalities to maintain and refurbish.  And the imposition of his conceptions in design and materials on unfriendly, difficult sites in LA (Ennis-Brown, Hollyhock) ends(ed) up threatening their very existence 50...100 years on.


By contrast, his simpler Prairie and Usonian houses have held up with greater endurance and critical acclaim and the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo was the only major structure to survive the 1915 (?) earhquake which leveled the city.

[Tom_Doak]

Not really random, just constant narrowing of choice based on parameters fed into the memory bank.  GCA's work the same way, no?  You have a left to right sloping green site, and you start mentally thinking about all the left to right sites you have seen and how the greens there were designed.  Maybe you flip a few right to left ones for good measure.  Then you look at how steep the site is, and look for similar ideas, that, if tweaked slightly, might form the basis of your design.


Throw in your mental checklist of other types of holes ahead and behind this one to avoid repetitive greens, and whatever else you mentally consider.  At some point, of the literally hundreds of thousands of greens on 20,000 courses worldwide, it has probably been done before.  Plug in a few adaptation, saving trees not on the model green, adding cart paths or whatever, splitting one bunker into two, replacing sand with grass bunker, etc. etc. etc., and sooner or later, you arrive at what you feel is the best solution.


Of course, I am of the notion that ideas really don't come out of nowhere.  They come out of our design, golf, or maybe even life experiences.   If, as someone has suggested, I was designing a green the day after playing with some D players on a Jim Engh course, it might influence me towards more playability, just as seeing the boldness of his designs might influence me to make that green I was designing just a little easier, but visually more bold.  That is the biggest problem with my idea, it would take a constant software upgrade to let the computer mimic the non static life of a golf course architect.

I stopped doing most of that 20 years ago because I had seen so many things and had so many ideas in there that it was impossible to sift through them all.  Now I just look for inspiration.


When I worked for Mr. Dye, he was so tired of trying to come up with new ideas for flat ground, that he would sometimes tell a shaper to just "go f*** up that green site" so that he would have something to work with.  And then he would just take that and try to make it playable and interesting for golf.


So, one month I will be on site staring at a green site and trying to decide what to tell the shaper . . . but then I'll come back six weeks later and take whatever they did with my instructions [or lack of them] and go from there, and rarely think twice about what I'd told them to begin with.  And yes, that might be influenced by the last course I played, or by something I saw 25 years ago, but usually I will go with whatever feels right to me as we work on it.


I'm sure that sounds crazy to some people but it has been producing pretty good results.  In fact that is probably the most important thing I learned from Pete, to not over-think what I was building.

[David_Elvins]

The premise listed in the opening post is without merit.


I have seen heaps of innovative architecture. 


The problem is most of it just isnt well regarded. 

[mike_malone]

Since we live in the time of conspiracy let me posit that Ran planted the article to jazz up gca.com

[Ronald Montesano]

Ron is an old man, closer to retirement and death, than hiring and birth. This status gives equal parts urgency and frustration.

This is a back-handed compliment: I have not seen one from you and your team that is really very contrasting in terms of style and design approach. Its ok to be in a comfort zone in terms of design and if it attracts clients then you are doing something right. Your argument failed me at this juncture.

The entire missive, his 95 theses, reads more like a zen koan.


Is land available to do what he urges?


Amateurs imitate professionals. Playing spaces are made to equal professional ones as soon as possible. As long as pro golf plays over 18 holes, amateurs will want to do so, too.


Foot golf was innovative and outside the box. It went far... Frisbee golf, too.


You can't fool all of the people, all of the time.

[Thomas Dai]

What a rather strange position to take considering where, literally where, golf courses have been developed over the period in question and the variety that has resulted. Really rather bizarre.
atb

[Ben Stephens]

Your style is quite similar across the spectrum of the courses you have done - I have played two of your courses St Andrews Beach and the Renaissance Club which both feel like a Doak course like Dye, Ross and Jones have done - I really liked SAB more than Renaissance. I have not seen one from you and your team that is really very contrasting in terms of style and design approach. Its ok to be in a comfort zone in terms of design and if it attracts clients then you are doing something right.

Cheers
Ben

I've built 40 courses, and you've seen two of them [which were built three years apart, both on sites close to the ocean but just removed], and you are disappointed that they did not contrast more?

Maybe you should go to my site [www.doakgolf.com] and have a look at more of the courses I've done.  The ones by the ocean are the most highly ranked, but they are not the sum total of my work.

Regarding your comparisons to building architecture:  years ago I had a (potential) client who was a huge Frank Lloyd Wright fan.  When I told him that his site was too difficult and rocky to build something, he said that FLW said no site was impossible, to which I responded, yes, but FLW didn't have to maintain grass on 60 acres.  The client went ahead and spent several million dollars to prove me wrong . . . but no one thinks the course is groundbreaking architecture.  I was surprised to find that it's still there, I've not heard anything about it for twenty years!

Tom,


I have seen plenty of pictures, aerials and write up of your courses. You have have been a designer that I have looked up to in the last 20 years thanks to Golf Club Atlas. And also from others who have played a number of your courses.

Like Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairie Houses (some of which was his best work like Robie House and Wingspread which I did research on whilst at University) to me your course design approach/style and shaping is similar however it is done on different sites and sizes which makes the courses contrasting for example Tara Iti has more sand than Pacific Dunes which has the cliff tops however the shaping/style looks similar. Wright had different sites, materials and texture/colours however the style/shape was similar when it came to Prairie Houses.

Your approach to golf course design is no bad thing if it brings in more work for you and your crew - long it may continue. The books are a great way for spreading the gospel. I love reading the Anatomy of Golf Course Architecture is one of your best books and probably one of the best plus a must read for up and coming GCAers.

I really hope St Patricks will be my third Doak course (Woodhall Spa is the nearest but it is not a 100% Doak course even though you have vastly improved it as a golf course IMO) Any chance that we can see Don Placek's sketch of St Pats layout? .

Going back to golf courses aren't other golf course architects copying your style and approach at the moment likewise many architects did with FLW. Isn't that a huge compliment to you and Gil?

Regarding design evolution and innovation - didn't Wright evolve his design approaches with the Guggenheim, Johnson Wax, Fallingwater and Talesin West? the same for Philip Johnson. Each building has a shelf life 30-50 years is common and needs repairs or updating to current trends/innovation same goes for golf courses.

Will another architect change one of your courses in 50 years time to meet the current trends and innovation? Lot of Ross major courses were modified by RTJ ironically its being reversed to a Ross style but tougher than RTJ did. 

One wonders if you will be able to evolve trying out something different from that you have not done before in terms of design approach and innovation like Wright did to be ahead of their competitors? or is this too much of a risk for you? 

SAS Golf Design turned down a job around 8 years ago because the site was really awkward however it was still possible to build a golf course however there were restrictions in the current design that we could not change/improve the course - so that it is fully understandable if you don't want to put your reputation on the line which we also felt the same.


Cheers
Ben

Re: Fallingwater cantilevers - I am currently working on a flood resilient house in England which has a large cantilever for the first floor however it is being constructed in a steel frame rather than concrete and uses Vierendaal trusses to support the cantilever.    with concrete walls to prevent flood water coming in the ground floor and garden. It is unconventional compared with standard architecture/houses. I am been fortunate to be involved in this and its been great to be doing something different and more challenging.

[Ben Stephens]

Not really random, just constant narrowing of choice based on parameters fed into the memory bank.  GCA's work the same way, no?  You have a left to right sloping green site, and you start mentally thinking about all the left to right sites you have seen and how the greens there were designed.  Maybe you flip a few right to left ones for good measure.  Then you look at how steep the site is, and look for similar ideas, that, if tweaked slightly, might form the basis of your design.


Throw in your mental checklist of other types of holes ahead and behind this one to avoid repetitive greens, and whatever else you mentally consider.  At some point, of the literally hundreds of thousands of greens on 20,000 courses worldwide, it has probably been done before.  Plug in a few adaptation, saving trees not on the model green, adding cart paths or whatever, splitting one bunker into two, replacing sand with grass bunker, etc. etc. etc., and sooner or later, you arrive at what you feel is the best solution.


Of course, I am of the notion that ideas really don't come out of nowhere.  They come out of our design, golf, or maybe even life experiences.   If, as someone has suggested, I was designing a green the day after playing with some D players on a Jim Engh course, it might influence me towards more playability, just as seeing the boldness of his designs might influence me to make that green I was designing just a little easier, but visually more bold.  That is the biggest problem with my idea, it would take a constant software upgrade to let the computer mimic the non static life of a golf course architect.

I stopped doing most of that 20 years ago because I had seen so many things and had so many ideas in there that it was impossible to sift through them all.  Now I just look for inspiration.


When I worked for Mr. Dye, he was so tired of trying to come up with new ideas for flat ground, that he would sometimes tell a shaper to just "go f*** up that green site" so that he would have something to work with.  And then he would just take that and try to make it playable and interesting for golf.


So, one month I will be on site staring at a green site and trying to decide what to tell the shaper . . . but then I'll come back six weeks later and take whatever they did with my instructions [or lack of them] and go from there, and rarely think twice about what I'd told them to begin with.  And yes, that might be influenced by the last course I played, or by something I saw 25 years ago, but usually I will go with whatever feels right to me as we work on it.


I'm sure that sounds crazy to some people but it has been producing pretty good results.  In fact that is probably the most important thing I learned from Pete, to not over-think what I was building.

Tom,


You should write a book about your time with Pete Dye, the stories that most have not heard and how much Mr Dye has influenced you and your work. It would be well worth the read IMO.


Cheers
Ben

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,


Thank you for providing me with one of the best GCA threads in a fair while ...albeit initiated by a Whitten outburst!
As Mike Malone alluded to and it did cross my mind,
"Since we live in the time of conspiracy let me posit that Ran planted the article to jazz up G.C.A.


And Jeff B. your insights and arguments are great to read and digest but I was amused at your brother's analogy
"..there is a reason no one uses chocolate sauce on roast beef.... no doubt it was tried somewhere and found sorely lacking..".
Not so in Scotland where venison and chocolate sauce in red wine is a delicacy promoted by Ramsey and The Three Chimneys on Skye!!
Chuckling here, Colin

[Ben Stephens]

If Mike Strantz lived longer, what shape would this thread take?


Mr. Stephens,
I am an Architect myself.
I more than defend the work Gehry, Morphosis, BIG & Moss as exceptional talents working for the 1/1000 of 1 percent of clients who have a very open  mind and able to sign multiple blank checks for a project.


But sadly, do those projects really touch the lives of enough people to really make a difference at a societal scale?


Which is the argument for making the most out of projects with modest to moderate budgets.

Dear Carl,


James Boon and myself have been an architect for nearly 20 years imagine the one to one discussions that we have had over the years


You are right about Mike Strantz what a missed opportunity as he had his best years ahead of him I wonder how much of the jobs Tom and Gil have had would have been a Strantz.

Gehry, Morphosis, BIG & Moss all had to start somewhere, like Tom Doak they preached their works very well in books and the internet to spread the Gospel. Zaha spent years promoting her works before actually building one and her reputation was quite fierce hardworking person which is probably why she died quite young. A family member of mine has been fortunate to meet Frank and Zaha through their line of work and I have a signed book by Frank which is basically a scribble.

My father says - a time and place - all these designers hit the spot bang on which opened new avenues for them to work on the top 1% of projects. However you can design a house in different styles using cheaper materials its all about making it look a million dollars.

Cheers
Ben

[Ben Stephens]

Regarding your comparisons to building architecture:  years ago I had a (potential) client who was a huge Frank Lloyd Wright fan.  When I told him that his site was too difficult and rocky to build something, he said that FLW said no site was impossible, to which I responded, yes, but FLW didn't have to maintain grass on 60 acres.  The client went ahead and spent several million dollars to prove me wrong . . . but no one thinks the course is groundbreaking architecture.  I was surprised to find that it's still there, I've not heard anything about it for twenty years!

As total as his talent and influence have been, many of FLW's most noteworthy buildings are notoriously not built for the long haul, have structural deficiencies (Johnson Wax, Fallingwater), always went massively over budget and cost small principalities to maintain and refurbish.  And the imposition of his conceptions in design and materials on unfriendly, difficult sites in LA (Ennis-Brown, Hollyhock) ends(ed) up threatening their very existence 50...100 years on.


By contrast, his simpler Prairie and Usonian houses have held up with greater endurance and critical acclaim and the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo was the only major structure to survive the 1915 (?) earhquake which leveled the city.

The Prairie Houses were more straightforward build than Fallingwater. There is some reinforcing work being or has been done to the concrete cantilever at Fallingwater. It is the most iconic and well known FLW buildings alongside the Guggenheim, better known than Robie or Wingspread which is a favourite of mine. Legend says is that FLW drew up Fallingwater in one day as the client Herbert Johnson (i think) called over the phone to his office to say that he is coming to see the designs and FLW just had the idea with a click of a finger.


Another example is Sydney Opera House by the Danish Architect Jorn Utzon which was done without computers - it was astonishing at the time and way over budget however it has paid it all back by being one of the biggest icons in Australia that has attracted tourist all over the world just to see that building. I was privileged to meet Richard Le Plesteurier a Australian architect who worked with Utzon on the project and he said Utzon was a genius - a one off probably never to be seen again.

[Mark Pearce]

Thank you for providing me with one of the best GCA threads in a fair while ..

Agreed.  This is the best actual architectural discussion for some time and benefitting from significant input from real golf course architects, please keep it going, gentlemen.

[Don Mahaffey]

Didn't C & C just build a course with no bunkers?
Didn't Doak just build a course for the PGA Tour that only has 19 bunkers? (3 are small ones packed in tight in a low on a par 3)


In Frisco,TX  Gil Hanse is building a course and I just saw a tweet from the Supt proclaiming one hole had 29,000 sq ft of bunkers. He built more bunker sq ft on one hole than C & C and Doak did on 2 18-hole golf courses!?!


Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....


Who says different stuff isn't getting built?


I keep reading these journalists like Whitten or Shack proclaim nothing new under the sun but it feels like maybe they need to get out and get some sun.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....

If it really takes 30 minutes to putt out on nine holes he should probably tone it down 

[Tim Martin]

Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....

If it really takes 30 minutes to putt out on nine holes he should probably tone it down 

I thought the same and would love to see the proposed playing time of the regulation 9 holer come in at under 2 hours. No knock at all on the courses as I’m sure they are all fun to play.

[Tom_Doak]

One point on which I agree with Ron is the last one quoted in the OP:

• If the past is the only thing you bring to the table, sooner or later clients will decide to eliminate the middleman. (Whitten then mentions examples of a public course built by a golf contractor w/o an architect and Cypress Point restoring bunkers on their own.)

Well, I kind of agree, anyway.  A contractor can't really go *without* an architect . . . he may take on the role himself, or delegate it to a kid who is interested in that, but somebody's gotta decide where the holes go on a new course.  It just doesn't have to be a guy who has design credits to his name already.  Eric Iverson did that for a contractor years ago; Joel Weiman and Andrew Green did it for Macdonald and Sons.


But, the idea that clubs that need to rebuild their bunkers have to hire an architect to do a $2 million restoration?  I can't believe that has survived as long as it has.  When I started in this business, most superintendents would want to direct all that work themselves, to show their value to the club.  During the boom, they wanted nothing to do with it, saying their job was the grass and someone else should be hired for all of that -- but we are not in a boom anymore, and their job security may not be as strong as it used to be.  Mostly they just need a good shaper, and there are dozens of those guys around.  Most are aspiring architects, but cutting out the middle man is pretty easy if that's what you want to do.

[Ira Fishman]

The analogy to building architecture is useful but has its limits. The vertical nature of buildings and the variety of materials enables more options to serve the same function. Just take one city: MOMA, the Guggenheim, and the Whitney all serve roughly the same function yet are very different in architectural style and form. Golf has limited verticality and limited variety of building materials. I suppose one can make the argument that RTJ was innovative because he emphasized verticality through forced carries, but just as there is some bad building architecture philosophy, minimizing the ground game is a bad golf architecture philosophy.


Ira

[Ben Stephens]

Didn't C & C just build a course with no bunkers?
Didn't Doak just build a course for the PGA Tour that only has 19 bunkers? (3 are small ones packed in tight in a low on a par 3)


In Frisco,TX  Gil Hanse is building a course and I just saw a tweet from the Supt proclaiming one hole had 29,000 sq ft of bunkers. He built more bunker sq ft on one hole than C & C and Doak did on 2 18-hole golf courses!?!


Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....


Who says different stuff isn't getting built?


I keep reading these journalists like Whitten or Shack proclaim nothing new under the sun but it feels like maybe they need to get out and get some sun.

Don,

I think in parts Ron Whitten is referring to the design style of the golf courses in which a lot of new courses is becoming more monotonous - there is not one that stands out as different to the rest not how its layout is whether its a 18 hole, 9 hole, par 3 or putting green. Its something out of the box ie the next big thing that Ron is looking for


Gill Hanse golf course in Frisco sounds like it will look like a normal Gil Hanse course nothing really new but similar style with different shaping and quantities of material.


Coore and Crenshaw Sheep Ranch echoes their approach of shaping however they just simply removed the bunkers to be different however their design style has not really changed.


Have a look at what Mike Cocking is doing at Lonsdale he is doing something different to the norm that OCM have been doing for years. https://www.lonsdalegc.com.au/cms/ - I am looking forward to seeing the finished version as it is a different design style which echoes the past and looking towards the future. Maybe Mike Clayton can chip in ....
 


Cheers
Ben

[Mark Fedeli]

Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....

If it really takes 30 minutes to putt out on nine holes he should probably tone it down 

A longer length putting course would be fun, though. Where you might have par 4's and 5's and take a few big whacks. On my visit to Sand Valley last year, we decided to play the last hole of our trip, the 18th on Sand Valley, with putters only. I won the hole with a 7 vs. my competitor's 8. I could've easily made some numbers much larger than 7 had I been using the whole bag.

[Dan_Callahan]

Gill Hanse golf course in Frisco sounds like it will look like a normal Gil Hanse course nothing really new but similar style with different shaping and quantities of material.


Coore and Crenshaw Sheep Ranch echoes their approach of shaping however they just simply removed the bunkers to be different however their design style has not really changed.

And a Monet looks like a Monet. Doesn't make each individual painting any less spectacular.

[John Mayhugh]

Interesting discussion so far. I wish that GD would put up the column on their website, as there's plenty more to roll your eyes at than just what I posted.

Seems like all Whitten really wants is for someone to come up with an architectural innovation that counters equipment advances.
This way regular players can still play the same equipment (sort of) as professionals, and GD's advertisers will be happy. Bizarre that a person who acknowledges "time constraints and resource limitations" cannot grasp the problems that come from needing to add distance to thousands of golf courses.

At its essence, golf is an outdoor pursuit where you try to hole shots in as few attempts as possible. Equipment innovations have come in order to make a difficult game easier, but at some point continually adapting golf courses to remain difficult for the few highly skilled players makes no sense. If hitting the best shots is all that matters to some, simulators and Top Golf can fill that role.

[Ben Stephens]

Gill Hanse golf course in Frisco sounds like it will look like a normal Gil Hanse course nothing really new but similar style with different shaping and quantities of material.


Coore and Crenshaw Sheep Ranch echoes their approach of shaping however they just simply removed the bunkers to be different however their design style has not really changed.

And a Monet looks like a Monet. Doesn't make each individual painting any less spectacular.

How about Picasso?   

[William_G]

Didn't C & C just build a course with no bunkers?
Didn't Doak just build a course for the PGA Tour that only has 19 bunkers? (3 are small ones packed in tight in a low on a par 3)


In Frisco,TX  Gil Hanse is building a course and I just saw a tweet from the Supt proclaiming one hole had 29,000 sq ft of bunkers. He built more bunker sq ft on one hole than C & C and Doak did on 2 18-hole golf courses!?!


Mike Nuzzo just built a golf course with a routed 9-hole putting course (30 minutes) a 9-hole short course (1 hour) and a regulation 9-hole course (2 hours)....all based on time to play....


Who says different stuff isn't getting built?


I keep reading these journalists like Whitten or Shack proclaim nothing new under the sun but it feels like maybe they need to get out and get some sun.

yes agreed!


yet this thread is littered with lots of I did's not we did's by the most well published golf course designer on this site


golf architecture is a lot like Landscape Architecture which is a lot less well known, yet FLW frequently incorporated landscape into his designs and developments, FLW was an organic architect


lots of good stuff here, yet when I'm reading a huge coffee table book documenting what "i" did, I'm left wanting more of what we, "golf" is/are doing or going to do. Bill Coore was all smiles all day on opening day at his bunkerless course, he is doing it.


how many courses in Myrtle Beach that are nothings but 18 holes for a cart ride?


cheers