[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.

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

Nothing to do with the client. We are talking about hiding any trademark style. I bet Tom hasn’t got hired many times by a client who says “I want this to look like a typical Tom Doak course. Make sure everyone knows it’s by you”.... And if he does, we’re on a different discussion of what that means.

[Mark_Fine]

I do believe that the kind of site and the quality of the site dictates a lot about what gets built.  Doesn't Streamsong present a good example of the different styles of these architects on fairly similar topography?  I have only played the Blue and the Red so I can't do a detailed comparison but doesn't some of their design differences show up in what has been built?  That said, I think we would all mostly agree if RTJ or Pete Dye or Jim Engh or Desmond Murihead or Tom Fazio all designed courses on that same kind of property we might have a good idea who did what?  How many here would know who did the Red, the Blue or the Black if they weren't told ahead of time?  If you could, why? 


Note:  I really don't think is a bad thing if an architect has a style preference or gravitates toward certain features or choices.  Look at what Kidd did vs Doak at Bandon.  Was that at all style preference or not?  Maybe the truest test would be a flat featureless piece of land and let all architects submit a design.  Now they are all starting from zero 

[Tom_Doak]

Nothing to do with the client. We are talking about hiding any trademark style. I bet Tom hasn’t got hired many times by a client who says “I want this to look like a typical Tom Doak course. Make sure everyone knows it’s by you”.... And if he does, we’re on a different discussion of what that means.

Ally:


I think you're wrong there.  If I get hired to do mostly resort or public courses, that's probably going to make your interpretation of my style different than if I got hired to do projects like Wolf Point that had a sole owner who wanted to play every day.


For example, I personally like small greens, and wish I got to build more of them, but I don't often have a project where it would be okay to do that.


I do agree that one's routing choices is an integral part of one's style; I just don't know how to summarize that easily, and as you say it depends on the land you're given.


Also, who says we are trying to hide our styles?  I'm probably the only one of the three who has ever thought much about that.

[Ira Fishman]

I appreciate that this is the triptych of the current age of golf course architecture.  And I acknowledge playing only a couple of courses by each architect. Plus I know that the OP asked us to not compare and contrast.


However, the Hanse courses that I have played are a cut below the C&C and Doak courses that I have played. Streamsong Black is dramatic (and enjoyable) from tee through green but has more than a few awkward holes. PH4 is a very good resort course that benefits from being part of PH.


Ira

[Ally Mcintosh]

Nothing to do with the client. We are talking about hiding any trademark style. I bet Tom hasn’t got hired many times by a client who says “I want this to look like a typical Tom Doak course. Make sure everyone knows it’s by you”.... And if he does, we’re on a different discussion of what that means.

Ally:


I think you're wrong there.  If I get hired to do mostly resort or public courses, that's probably going to make your interpretation of my style different than if I got hired to do projects like Wolf Point that had a sole owner who wanted to play every day.


For example, I personally like small greens, and wish I got to build more of them, but I don't often have a project where it would be okay to do that.


I do agree that one's routing choices is an integral part of one's style; I just don't know how to summarize that easily, and as you say it depends on the land you're given.


Also, who says we are trying to hide our styles?  I'm probably the only one of the three who has ever thought much about that.

I got sidetracked answering Jeff’s question about where the client comes in... I was giving an order of things that are important if  one was determined to hide the hand of man and by extension a “style”. That has nothing to do with a client.


I don’t disagree that one will build a different type of course dependent on who or how that course will be used.


To your last paragraph, I am not suggesting that hiding a style is always the right thing to do. Although this little side conversation did start with me saying that on pure GB&I links land, I prefer when there is no obvious style on show, as this in itself dates the course.

[Don Mahaffey]

I’ve worked with one firm, and worked with “associates” from the other two.


Even with the firm I’ve worked with I’d be hard pressed to describe a “style”.


They are all design build firms that use their employees or trusted independent contractors to perform critical artistic work. But I find they’ve all developed their own unique processes.  I find one to be more willing to have a little imperfection in their finish work, and one seems to draw from a more diverse talent pool to perform shaping tasks.


One seems to always be looking to do something different, one does very little consulting work, and one has seemingly become the go to renovation firm for many classic courses.


Mostly I feel like they’ve all earned their place by consistently meeting or exceeding client expectations. And all have played a huge part in growing the talent pool of talented course constructors. They are great mentors.

[jeffwarne]

Nothing to do with the client. We are talking about hiding any trademark style. I bet Tom hasn’t got hired many times by a client who says “I want this to look like a typical Tom Doak course. Make sure everyone knows it’s by you”.... And if he does, we’re on a different discussion of what that means.

For example, I personally like small greens, and wish I got to build more of them, but I don't often have a project where it would be okay to do that.

That's certainly music to my ears!

[Jerry Kluger]

I think so many view this as something which can be defined and specified but it cannot.  These men are all golf course architects, not artists, they do not start with a blank canvas.  They start with a piece of land and they try and understand what their client wants and then see what they can do to meet those wants on the land which they are given.  The similarities are very basic but they each go far beyond that to design and build a golf course.  Just because an architect believes that the best course is one built by moving the minimal amount of dirt doesn't mean that they all see the same routing, the same placement of holes, the same hazard locations, etc.  I would suggest that the other similarity that they have is they believe that golf courses should play firm and fast and the randomness of that condition is part of the enjoyment of the game.  At least in the US at the highest levels of the game they don't like quirk or randomness rather they want to know that they can hit a specific shot and it will have a specific result.  It is so funny to me the way so many Americans view the best courses to be green and lush and manicured yet they go on a trip to the UK or Ireland and come back raving about the courses which are completely different from what they view as the best courses in the US; I wonder how many would want to play those courses on a regular basis.

[Joe Hancock]

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).

Reminds me of a lyric in the song “Freewill” by Rush....”if you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice....”

[Tim Martin]

This is an odd thread with one of the subjects actively posting about his own work while commenting on the work or style of the other two. Very one dimensional IMO.

[Steve Lapper]

This is an odd thread with one of the subjects actively posting about his own work while commenting on the work or style of the other two. Very one dimensional IMO.

+1

[jeffwarne]

This is an odd thread with one of the subjects actively posting about his own work while commenting on the work or style of the other two. Very one dimensional IMO.

Sure it's not perfect, but wouldn't you say we're fortunate to have one of the three the thread is about?
To say nothing of all the other architects and related industry people who have chimed in here.
But, it certainly would be great to have all three "and the rest"(sounds like the Gilligan's Island jingle) on this and every other relevant topic.
I certainly would've liked to have had Eddy Hackett been alive to chime in on his thread, though we used to have Pat Ruddy on these pages before some postings got a bit personal.....

[Tim Martin]

This is an odd thread with one of the subjects actively posting about his own work while commenting on the work or style of the other two. Very one dimensional IMO.

Sure it's not perfect, but wouldn't you say we're fortunate to have one of the three the thread is about?
To say nothing of all the other architects and related industry people who have chimed in here.
But, it certainly would be great to have all three "and the rest"(sounds like the Gilligan's Island jingle) on this and every other relevant topic.
I certainly would've liked to have had Eddy Hackett been alive to chime in on his thread, though we used to have Pat Ruddy on these pages before some postings got a bit personal.....

Jeff-Why not let the thread develop a bit? I’m not really interested in hearing Tom’s take on his competitors. I have a Confidential Guide.

[jeffwarne]

This is an odd thread with one of the subjects actively posting about his own work while commenting on the work or style of the other two. Very one dimensional IMO.

Sure it's not perfect, but wouldn't you say we're fortunate to have one of the three the thread is about?
To say nothing of all the other architects and related industry people who have chimed in here.
But, it certainly would be great to have all three "and the rest"(sounds like the Gilligan's Island jingle) on this and every other relevant topic.
I certainly would've liked to have had Eddy Hackett been alive to chime in on his thread, though we used to have Pat Ruddy on these pages before some postings got a bit personal.....

Jeff-Why not let the thread develop a bit? I’m not really interested in hearing Tom’s take on his competitors. I have a Confidential Guide.

I'm guessing that Tom commenting is bound to spur more other industry experts and architects into commenting than him not.
Which at least frames the discussion a bit.


To put into my terms, I'm far more excited to have Jim McLean call into my show when we're discussing him, Butch Harmon or Sean Foley, than I would be about an 18 handicap(yep that's us on this thread ).
But it gives all of us "18's" a starting point to chime in , the same as I might take the next call from the 18, which often encourages other golf pro colleagues to chime in, giving us a lively discussion from multiple perspectives-which we seem to have here.
Of course it would be better if Hanse, and Bill Coore were participants!


And if Tom is reading this, it may turn out that my Eddy Hackett analogy has been replaced by this as my weakest argument to date.

[John Kavanaugh]

Isn't the real fun watching Tom mature as an adult over the last 20 years?

[jeffwarne]

Isn't the real fun watching Tom mature as an adult over the last 20 years?

I've gotten to see McLean do it over 30 plus;)
Perhaps there's hope for you and I JK..

[Tim Martin]

Again with only one of the subjects involved you get skewed discourse. When a forum is available where all three can weigh in then I would be interested.

[jeffwarne]

Again with only one of the subjects involved you get skewed discourse. When a forum is available where all three can weigh in then I would be interested.

Despite this being the best site I know of for civil discourse, with respect, we get "skewed discourse" on every thread.
This forum IS available to all three, two just choose not to participate-our loss.
Why lose the third? Although I'd say the point has been rendered moot by now....

[Tim Martin]

Again with only one of the subjects involved you get skewed discourse. When a forum is available where all three can weigh in then I would be interested.

Despite this being the best site I know of for civil discourse, with respect, we get "skewed discourse" on every thread.
This forum IS available to all three, two just choose not to participate-our loss.
Why lose the third? Although I'd say the point has been rendered moot by now....

Why have the third be the judge, jury and executioner on a thread where he is a title subject without input from the other two? I know Tom has worked with and known these guys for a long time but he admitted he doesn’t have all that much communication with them. I would like to know their take way more then what he thinks their take is.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Again with only one of the subjects involved you get skewed discourse. When a forum is available where all three can weigh in then I would be interested.

Despite this being the best site I know of for civil discourse, with respect, we get "skewed discourse" on every thread.
This forum IS available to all three, two just choose not to participate-our loss.
Why lose the third? Although I'd say the point has been rendered moot by now....

Why have the third be the judge, jury and executioner on a thread where he is a title subject without input from the other two? I know Tom has worked with and known these guys for a long time but he admitted he doesn’t have all that much communication with them. I would like to know their take way more then what he thinks their take is.

I just don't understand the objections. I am happy when Tom responds on threads. He certainly has more knowledge about this topic than most. I am smart enough to weigh most everyone's comments.

[Tim Martin]

Again with only one of the subjects involved you get skewed discourse. When a forum is available where all three can weigh in then I would be interested.

Despite this being the best site I know of for civil discourse, with respect, we get "skewed discourse" on every thread.
This forum IS available to all three, two just choose not to participate-our loss.
Why lose the third? Although I'd say the point has been rendered moot by now....

Why have the third be the judge, jury and executioner on a thread where he is a title subject without input from the other two? I know Tom has worked with and known these guys for a long time but he admitted he doesn’t have all that much communication with them. I would like to know their take way more then what he thinks their take is.

I just don't understand the objections. I am happy when Tom responds on threads. He certainly has more knowledge about this topic than most. I am smart enough to weigh most everyone's comments.

Parity

[Jerry Kluger]

It is easy to state the obvious that only one of the three is participating but it is far more difficult to state how this is somehow affecting the openness of the discussion.  Most of us are not golf course architects so to have a discussion like this with a highly recognized architect is a great opportunity to learn more than you would without his participation. I don't believe that any of us, including Tom, would try and make an argument that any one of the three is demonstrably better at his profession than the others. Tom apparently enjoys discussion gca with novices like us and if you don't want to join the discussion that is your prerogative but don't ruin it for the rest of us.

[Tim Martin]

It is easy to state the obvious that only one of the three is participating but it is far more difficult to state how this is somehow affecting the openness of the discussion.  Most of us are not golf course architects so to have a discussion like this with a highly recognized architect is a great opportunity to learn more than you would without his participation. I don't believe that any of us, including Tom, would try and make an argument that any one of the three is demonstrably better at his profession than the others. Tom apparently enjoys discussion gca with novices like us and if you don't want to join the discussion that is your prerogative but don't ruin it for the rest of us.

Jerry-Fair enough as I made my point. I’ll happily bow out.

[Tommy Williamsen]

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.

I think with some of his recent designs like Mossy Oak #4, and Ohoopee his bunkering has a wild natural look, but it could be because of the terrain and soil.

[jeffwarne]

The first 48 hours of this thread we had 7 different professional architects/shapers/contrators  with 19 different posts(including 6 from one of the subjects) ,and a lively discussion/question-answer including some of us from the peanut gallery.


Then we decided we needed to "let the topic develop a bit"


And we've had zero posts in the last 48 hours....

While we"ve managed to get PReed's latest dumpster fire to 9 pages...

Can we have some more "skewed discourse" please?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()