[Tommy Williamsen]

This thread is not meant to figure out which design team is the best. I do not wish to pit them against each other. I just wonder where they are similar and where they design differently. I hate to admit it but I have not been to Bandon. It just hasn't worked out for me.

I’ve played 9 C&C courses, 12 Doak, and 7 Hanse, although most of those Hanse courses were his earliest work.

As we all know, their styles are very different from Fazio, Rees, JN, Pete Dye, and others. They all tend to move less dirt. I think they have more in common than they are different. All three, especially C&C and Doak, have been influenced by the old dead guys. All three understand the value of width off the tee. They design courses that blend in with the surrounding land. Their created features fit so well with the existing landforms that it difficult to know what is natural and what is created.

Chechessee, Sand Hills, Kapalua, Dormie, Colorado, and Hidden Creek are very different sites, yet they all blend in with the surrounds exceptionally well.

The same could be said for Hanse’s Streamsong Black, Number four, Mossy Oak, Inniscrone, and Ohoopee. Does Hanse tend to choose sandier sites on his newer courses, or is that just the way it works out?

High Pointe, Beechtree, both Stonewalls, Lost Dunes, Ballyneal, Streamsong, and Stone Eagle are very different sites, but they all fit in with the surrounds. Are TD’s designs on more varied landforms?

They all love ragged and natural looking bunkers. I wonder if bunkers are more central to C&C’s designs? I know Bill Coore spends a lot of time with the look of each bunker. It appears that TD and Hanse like their bunkers to have a wilder look. It seems that C&C might design more right to left holes than Doak and their greens might be more restrained than either TD or Hanse.

I wonder how differently they might route courses on each other’s sites. All three have been a welcome change from many of the other contemporary architects.

Did I seem to get this right or am I off base? What other similarities and differences are there?

[jeffwarne]

1.Well two of three mentored under Dye(from your other list) and the third one(Hanse) mentored under one of the first two(Doak)-so they have that in common


Because (not having) the 2 factors  below, the three had to prove themselves with positive results in the dirt
1. None of the three firms had a father or family member they took over for


2.None of the three won 18 professional Majors

[Tom_Doak]

2.None of the three won 18 professional Majors

Bill's partner did win a couple of them, though   

[jeffwarne]

2.None of the three won 18 professional Majors

Bill's partner did win a couple of them, though   

Well Schneider's improved quite a bit

[Tom_Doak]

This thread is not meant to figure out which design team is the best. I do not wish to pit them against each other. I just wonder where they are similar and where they design differently.

I typed out a response to this but it will be more fun to sit on it for a few days and see what silly things other people volunteer. 


I do think that the whole topic of trying to define an architect's style is fraught because most of us are not as monolithic about it as Seth Raynor.  There may be some general similarities in our courses but we also make exceptions to our own rules and tendencies.  For example, Memorial Park with its 19 bunkers and The Sheep Ranch with 0 are not indicative of our normal bunkering styles, but I have known Bill for 39+ years and I am not at all surprised that he would do a course with no bunkers.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I haven’t seen very many courses by any of them outside photos... so I don’t really have the chance to embarrass myself with guesswork. I’ll mention three things that come to mind:


- Gil Hanse is less “minimalist” than the others. He tends to build more. I’ve really enjoyed his courses that I’ve played but he leaves his mark with an abundance of features. Perhaps he did too much at Narin and Portnoo as there is a style to the course where previously there was none.


- I seem to recall Tom saying he tends to  work more with cut around his green sites where C&C work more with fill


- I suspect Tom builds more internal movement in his greens than the other.

[Jeff_Brauer]

First, they are all great architects.  Maybe this is like whether you like blonds, brunettes or redheads kind of thread.


I was surprised a bit to see Tommy say Hanse likes wild bunkers.  I say yes and no.  In general, from what I have seen of Gil's work, I think his bunker style often leans to more Fazio than Doak, with exceptions, and his courses generally have cleaner edges.


In my recent tour of PGA Frisco with Lou, I was struck by how eclectic Gil's bunkering was there.  There were some that were truly wild in shape, edging and internal veg, like waste bunkers.  There were also many formal bunkers, although a few morphed from formal to informal within the same large bunker.  Lastly, among the formal bunkers, about half each were mostly blobs (with nice edges) vs the true Mac or RTJ style capes and bays with lots of shape.


I didn't see lots of green contours, at least on a broad scale, but there were definitely some subtle ones overall.  That may be a function of the PGA overseeing the design for use in its big events, however.  I really don't know.


I'm not sure I could compare routing styles between the three from my sporadic and limited views and the varying sites I have seen their work on.

[Peter Pallotta]

What's interesting is that gca seems one of the few art-craft forms where the practitioners downplay the notion of a definite and recognizable style, and/or where the work itself is downgraded by others for being too familiar in style. 

I mean, it seems to me that they must do different work (in different styles) simply because they are different people, and that who they are as people not only will but actually *should* be evident and manifest in their work; that's what makes them first-rate 'artists' instead of 2nd rate 'hacks', i.e. that they are willing and able to express their individuality and values and philosophies in their work, and so honestly and consistently over time that they develop a recognizable style.

I was listening to a documentary about great jazz drummers hosted by a great jazz drummer, Mel Lewis -- who noted the differences in style between Buddy Rich and Max Roach, the first the preeminent example of the 'swing' school and the second the shining example of the 'be-bop' school.

And what he said struck me: he said 'It wasn't that Buddy *couldn't* play bebop, it's that he *didn't* play it (and vice-versa) -- and, far from this being a 'limitation' this was their greatest strength, and what made Buddy great (in his way) and Max great in his own way: they both were completely, and always, *themselves*. And their distinct styles came out of that.

From photos, Tom seems the most dramatic of the architects mentioned, Bill the quietist, and Gil the most accessible.

Peter
with hope that the above qualifies as one of the silliest things that Tom expected us to volunteer!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Peter,


Regards style, all I can say is that the type of golf I know inside out is links golf. And if I look at a links course and can tell the architect by a style then I most certainly will downgrade it... I don’t want to see the “design” on true links land.

[Thomas Dai]

Regards style, all I can say is that the type of golf I know inside out is links golf. And if I look at a links course and can tell the architect by a style then I most certainly will downgrade it... I don’t want to see the “design” on true links land.

Not sure how much of Herbert Fowler’s work you’ve seen Ally but I reckon you’d love to tour a bunch of his courses and see the without style variety of crackers he produced. Darwin thought him a genius.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

With regard to the last two posts, one of the best ways to avoid having a style is not to have the same people build your courses, and actively avoid working with people who think they understand your style.  That would certainly apply to early links courses, built by locals, and I would guess it also applied to Fowler's work.


It is not, however, the most productive way to work!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Agree Tom. But the best way to hide a style is to refrain from building much at all; perhaps not using all the tricks in the bag. Also, on links land, it is surely easier to remove and tie in than it is to build and tie in.


I’ve said it many times before but I think if you can tell a links is modern, then there’s an argument that too much has been done.

[Tom_Doak]

Agree Tom. But the best way to hide a style is to refrain from building much at all; perhaps not using all the tricks in the bag. Also, on links land, it is surely easier to remove and tie in than it is to build and tie in.


I’ve said it many times before but I think if you can tell a links is modern, then there’s an argument that too much has been done.

Are there any links built in the last 50 years which pass your test?


I know you are an admirer of Eddie Hackett's work but his construction work was often painfully obvious.  That might not brand it as "modern" to some eyes, but definitely artificial.

[Ira Fishman]

Agree Tom. But the best way to hide a style is to refrain from building much at all; perhaps not using all the tricks in the bag. Also, on links land, it is surely easier to remove and tie in than it is to build and tie in.


I’ve said it many times before but I think if you can tell a links is modern, then there’s an argument that too much has been done.

See Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns. Yes, I know that the land was not particularly inspiring or pure links.


Ira

[Jeff Schley]

Are there any links built in the last 50 years which pass your test?

Bandon courses

[Ally Mcintosh]

Agree Tom. But the best way to hide a style is to refrain from building much at all; perhaps not using all the tricks in the bag. Also, on links land, it is surely easier to remove and tie in than it is to build and tie in.


I’ve said it many times before but I think if you can tell a links is modern, then there’s an argument that too much has been done.

Are there any links built in the last 50 years which pass your test?


I know you are an admirer of Eddie Hackett's work but his construction work was often painfully obvious.  That might not brand it as "modern" to some eyes, but definitely artificial.

You actually have me wrong there. I don’t quite tow the party line on Eddie Hackett. He didn’t spend any time on detailing, from the construction finishing up to and including hazard placement. The former you can put down to lack of budget and presence (all just built by locals) but not to have a good input on strategy I could never understand.


Although I do think he was so “minimalist” that his courses obviously don’t place as modern. Even the man made stuff is so rudimentary in places that it adds to the older rather than newer feel.


So in a strange way, Hackett’s links pass my test, faults and all.


Not many others do. Pat Ruddy’s hand is all over his work. Fazio’s upgrade of Waterville is clearly modern, Tralee also has obvious modern elements. Mach Dunes probably passes. Askernish most likely.


I’dve been interested to see Coul. I’m most certainly interested to see St Patrick’s.


Don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating simple design. I just think the temptation has been there for all modern designers on links courses to do too much. Some have done it with panache, some have done it with horrendous shaping.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Agree Tom. But the best way to hide a style is to refrain from building much at all; perhaps not using all the tricks in the bag. Also, on links land, it is surely easier to remove and tie in than it is to build and tie in.


I’ve said it many times before but I think if you can tell a links is modern, then there’s an argument that too much has been done.

See Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns. Yes, I know that the land was not particularly inspiring or pure links.


Ira

In fairness Ira, those courses are excellent.


At some point, when the site is not all there, you are better off creating on a big scale. And both of those are great examples (although Castle Stuart could also be an example of pulling out all the tricks in the bag - sensory overload).


I am really talking about those that have had opportunities to build courses in 100% duneland.


Anyway, Tom will probably say - correctly - that all that matters is the end product. I just don’t like to be able to date a links course.

[Tom_Doak]

 

This thread is not meant to figure out which design team is the best. I do not wish to pit them against each other. I just wonder where they are similar and where they design differently.

My response from a couple of days ago:


The problem with these threads is that the conclusions are superficial.  I don't think my philosophy of, say, bunkering is anything near set in stone, so you would draw different conclusions from going to Memorial Park or Stonewall North or Barnbougle, and none of them would be "right" for my thoughts as a whole.  Basically they vary from project to project and year to year, and they're constantly being influenced by all kinds of random events.


I have known Bill and Ben since 1981 and Gil since 1987, although we communicate infrequently.  [I probably talk to Bill the most often, but even that is only a handful of times a year.  I talked with Ben and with Gil about design philosophy much more, 30+ years ago, and Ben's influence on all three of us is probably the main reason our styles are relatively similar.  But, we have all gone on to see different things and do different things.


I would say that probably the most different thing about us is the subset of clients to whom we appeal:


a)  Bill and Ben appeal most to the old-school golf guys, and [more than Gil or me] to real estate developers because of Ben's name;


b)  I appeal most to entrepreneurs who are not scared off by my overblown controversial reputation;


c)  Gil appeals most to more corporate clients and to the directors of major golf organizations, whom he has gotten to know very well over the years.




Ultimately, that affects the kinds of courses our clients hire us to build.


I do think you are right that Bill and Ben visualize a draw more than I do and that influences what kinds of holes appeal to our eyes.  I have not seen enough of Gil's courses to know if he favors one over the other.


I think that I am more influenced by the courses I've seen in the UK than Bill or Gil are, though we all admire them.  I agree with whoever said that Gil is less of a minimalist; I'm not sure he ever said he wanted to be.


I know that Bill tends to solve his problems with fill and I tend to solve mine with cut, which is either a result of what sort of soils we worked in early in our careers, or just the way we visualize things.  That is probably the biggest difference in our work but it does not translate easily for laymen who are trying to analyze our greens and our bunkering and don't really visualize how they are built.  Streamsong was great fun for me and Bill and Ben and our crews, because we would often go peek at what the other guys were doing on a green site we had looked at ourselves, and more often than not the reaction would be "Wow, that's not what I was thinking they would do."


Last but not least, Bill is quite a bit older than me and I'm four years older than Gil, which probably shapes our thinking at least a little, but shapes people's personal reactions to us much more.  One reason I've always been seen as the rebel is because I was so young relative to where I was in my career.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Thanks Tom, a lot of what you indicate players can't tell. "I know that Bill tends to solve his problems with fill and I tend to solve mine with cut."

[Tim_Weiman]

Thanks Tom, a lot of what you indicate players can't tell. "I know that Bill tends to solve his problems with fill and I tend to solve mine with cut."

Tommy,


Count me among the clueless. Typically I couldn’t tell cut vs fill. But it might have something to do with whether one has seen the course or property before.


Tom once showed me where some earth was moved on the first course at Stonewall (a fill, I think), but I certainly didn’t see it before he pointed it out. Conversely, I played the old Memorial Park enough to recognize changes to the land. Of course, the property was so flat (most of it) that it didn’t take an experienced, keen observer to see it.

[Mike_Young]

With regard to the last two posts, one of the best ways to avoid having a style is not to have the same people build your courses, and actively avoid working with people who think they understand your style.  That would certainly apply to early links courses, built by locals, and I would guess it also applied to Fowler's work.


It is not, however, the most productive way to work!

Would you agree that the better the routing the less a style is needed unless an architect just wants to be sure he lets his "style" be known?

[Ally Mcintosh]

If you are determined to hide your style, great land comes first, good routing second, willingness to accept less as more third, shaping the detail fourth.

[Jeff Schley]

If you are determined to hide your style, great land comes first, good routing second, willingness to accept less as more third, shaping the detail fourth.

Ally where does the client's view factor in? 
Or this is theoretical perhaps.

[Peter Pallotta]

If you are determined to hide your style, great land comes first, good routing second, willingness to accept less as more third, shaping the detail fourth.

Ally -
but being 'determined to hide your style' is itself a style, no? I mean: it's one that perhaps few architects have been willing to fully embrace and that fewer still have been able to successfully accomplish, but it's a 'style' nonetheless (I think).

[Kalen Braley]

I think one way to answer this question is what we saw on the Zac Blair thread.

Give them all a topo map and a few days of on-site access to a new project and have them come up with a routing...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()