Just listened to Stephen Kay podcast. We hurt that guy.

[David Kelly]

Stewart’s photos reminded me of the fact that Architect’s 10th seems all wrong. The green is at the wrong angle to the fairway. If you go wide left of the fairway bunker you have an awful angle to the green. I think you need to play the hole as a cross bunker, either go over the right side of the fairway bunker if you can or lay up short of it. There is no strategic reason to do anything else. Strategy for the rest of the course works well.

But isn't that the point of the hole?  The easier tee shot left of the bunker gives you an approach shot over another bunker with a worse angle while the harder tee shot that takes on the bunkers and is correctly executed is rewarded with an approach to a more receptive green.  A tee shot that goes left is the easier tee shot, correct? Only played The Architects once but that is what I remember and what the photos bear out although I can't see how much room there is on the left.

[Jim Sherma]

Stewart’s photos reminded me of the fact that Architect’s 10th seems all wrong. The green is at the wrong angle to the fairway. If you go wide left of the fairway bunker you have an awful angle to the green. I think you need to play the hole as a cross bunker, either go over the right side of the fairway bunker if you can or lay up short of it. There is no strategic reason to do anything else. Strategy for the rest of the course works well.

But isn't that the point of the hole?  The easier tee shot left of the bunker gives you an approach shot over another bunker with a worse angle while the harder tee shot that takes on the bunkers and is correctly executed is rewarded with an approach to a more receptive green.  A tee shot that goes left is the easier tee shot, correct? Only played The Architects once but that is what I remember and what the photos bear out although I can't see how much room there is on the left.

I always felt that the point of the hole should be similar to Riviera's 10th (Thomas' most famous hole I would think). Where you can take the longer easier route and leave a shot along the axis of the green. Challenge the direct route with more risk. It's not a bad hole, just feels off to me. I accept the fact that I might be missing the architect's intent.

[Kyle Harris]

Jim,


He was going for some strategy and appearance but not a direct copy of Riv.


Cirba,


I also liked the Wilson and Emmet holes early on. 8 was supposed to be a Biarritz. Both Ross holes are also good, especially the 9th green. I thought the Jones hole was actually the weakest out there. Well, second weakest. The Mackenzie hole is a bit twee.

[Garland Bayley]

Really enjoyed Red Mike.

[MCirba]

Jim,


He was going for some strategy and appearance but not a direct copy of Riv.


Cirba,


I also liked the Wilson and Emmet holes early on. 8 was supposed to be a Biarritz. Both Ross holes are also good, especially the 9th green. I thought the Jones hole was actually the weakest out there. Well, second weakest. The Mackenzie hole is a bit twee.

Kyle,


We should get out there together next time you're in town.

[Steve Lapper]

Jim,

Kyle,


We should get out there together next time you're in town.

Although I don't share the same love of fondness for the place that you both do, I would like to join your group when you're in town Kyle. I will deliver a fine bottle to boot! Who knows, if you ply me with any of that bottle I might have to re-evaluate my opinion 

[MCirba]

Steve,


Not quite sure my fondness borders on love for Architects but it's a cool idea with mixed results as I think there was some concern to not make the features as bold, penal, or unforgiving as they might be in "real life" on a public, albeit CCFAD-type golf course but instead provide a slightly watered down version to give a flavor of each architect.


I'll bring a bottle, as well, as I suspect the discussion could go on for many hours.  Is there a Cheng Du nearby? 

[Jim Sherma]

Steve,


Not quite sure my fondness borders on love for Architects but it's a cool idea with mixed results as I think there was some concern to not make the features as bold, penal, or unforgiving as they might be in "real life" on a public, albeit CCFAD-type golf course but instead provide a slightly watered down version to give a flavor of each architect.


I'll bring a bottle, as well, as I suspect the discussion could go on for many hours.  Is there a Cheng Du nearby? 

Mike - I would gladly drive up to Architect's for the conversation and round as well.


Jim

[Peter Pallotta]

Off Mike's post,

I think in most cases with classic old courses we don't know or don't care about what purpose/clientele they were first intended to serve, and at any rate time and technology have usually combined over the decades to 'soften the edges' of those intentions, blurring the lines between what were once 'stern tests' and 'pleasant outings' or courses 'best suited for tigers' and those meant for the 'rabbits' instead. In short, we are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those courses and their architects in part because we simply have no choice, i.e. we don't know any better. But with today's courses, we do know better, or at least can know better, about intentions and primary purposes -- and yet ironically, we routinely and indeed actively ignore that information when it comes to architects like Stephen Kay. Yes, we'll sometimes give an architect the benefit of the doubt in this regard, but usually not if they haven't yet racked up a number of awards and top 10s (because most of us are still children that way, and want to side with what the cool kids say and what youtube says is great, instead of venturing our own independent views -- if we even have views that could be deemed 'independent'). We all pay lip service to TE Paul and his "Big World" theory, but in practice -- as in this case it seems, with Stephen Kay -- we usually come down quite fiercely on the side of the "Our World" theory! The "Me, Mine, and what I Want and Say is Great" theory. And then we turn around and call that 'frank discussion' -- which I suppose it may in fact be, except naturally in cases where there's the potential for a prestigious and much-sought after access opportunity. SK made the mistake of designing a golf course that just about anyone can show up and play!

[David Kelly]

Architects might (reasonably) think that their clients are the course owners and club committees that hire and pay them but ultimately their reputation depends on the people who actually play the golf courses. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Architects might (reasonably) think that their clients are the course owners and club committees that hire and pay them but ultimately their reputation depends on the people who actually play the golf courses.

Ah, very good point, and very well put indeed. Fortunate is the architect whose client's tastes match both his own and those of the people who play the courses, and of the retail golfers who discuss it, and of the raters who rank it (and smart and savvy is the architect who positions himself for a working relationship with such clients). Many years ago here, I asked about the one most important thing in a would-be golf architect's career, and Tom D chimed in with "Connections!" -- meaning connections to the kind of clients that can make it happen

[Kyle Harris]

Architects might (reasonably) think that their clients are the course owners and club committees that hire and pay them but ultimately their reputation depends on the people who actually play the golf courses.

Their clients are the people who pay them to design the golf course. Full stop.

[Jim Sherma]

Architects might (reasonably) think that their clients are the course owners and club committees that hire and pay them but ultimately their reputation depends on the people who actually play the golf courses.

Their clients are the people who pay them to design the golf course. Full stop.

True - but their critics are all those that play the course from then on.

[Kyle Harris]

Architects might (reasonably) think that their clients are the course owners and club committees that hire and pay them but ultimately their reputation depends on the people who actually play the golf courses.

Their clients are the people who pay them to design the golf course. Full stop.

True - but their critics are all those that play the course from then on.

No. The critics only think they’re that influential.

[Steve Lapper]

Steve,


Not quite sure my fondness borders on love for Architects but it's a cool idea with mixed results as I think there was some concern to not make the features as bold, penal, or unforgiving as they might be in "real life" on a public, albeit CCFAD-type golf course but instead provide a slightly watered down version to give a flavor of each architect.


I'll bring a bottle, as well, as I suspect the discussion could go on for many hours.  Is there a Cheng Du nearby? 

It is/was a cool idea with mixed results. Funny thing is that I do believe they (Turco Bros) would've done better had they encouraged the bolder features. FWIW, the place has been on the market for the last 5yrs, with no takers.


As for the bottle, let's go. I'll find a Chengdu close enough!

[Jim Sherma]

Architects might (reasonably) think that their clients are the course owners and club committees that hire and pay them but ultimately their reputation depends on the people who actually play the golf courses.

Their clients are the people who pay them to design the golf course. Full stop.

True - but their critics are all those that play the course from then on.

No. The critics only think they’re that influential.

So, the public's assessment of a finished work has no influence moving forward? At the time of building, the most important voice for the architect is the one connected to the writing of the checks. Once the course is finished and the checks clear whose voice is important then? Mostly it's the voice in the shape of hard cash from dues or green fees that are needed in order to maintain the business' viability. A far second place are formal or informal critiques that may have some sway, but are much less important than cash flow. If a course closes because it never finds viability due to potential customers not liking it enough to pay the carry cost how is that not influential?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I had an interesting discussion a few days ago, but the architect I was speaking to defined great architecture as design that keeps players coming back.  That view would also apply to owners as well as golfers.


I tend to agree, and that would put me in the camp of believing critics (including those here on this site) have less influence than they think.  For example, I see senior men moving up a few tees to make their game fun, I see golfers of all types coming back to courses those on this site would call very average.  Golfers of all stripes are quite capable of picking courses to play that satisfy them.  The critics' acclaim might get them there once, but if they like it they go back, and vote for rankings with their wallet.  Similarly, critics' disdain might make them reluctant to try a new nearby course, or send them in with a "I'll only play once" attitude, but sometimes the negative pre-impression just makes the actual playing that much more enjoyable, since it's much better than they expect.


I get that there are many factors, including distance.....from front door to first tee....so a Doak 5 5 miles from your house may get a lot more play than a Doak 6, 15 miles from your house, i.e., cost, time, distance, maintenance, etc. all factor into the value judgment of the design of the course.  And for most, value, not lowest price or highest rankings and awards, drives where they play.


In fact, while my career mostly covered local or regional public courses, I was always struck by the dichotomy of what I would read here, and what I heard from golfers, owners, etc. on the great minimalist, shaggy bunker designs favored here.  It was like (in my case, but I can't be alone) the discussions here were mostly fantasy vs. reality.

[Cal Carlisle]

Architects might (reasonably) think that their clients are the course owners and club committees that hire and pay them but ultimately their reputation depends on the people who actually play the golf courses.

Their clients are the people who pay them to design the golf course. Full stop.

True - but their critics are all those that play the course from then on.

No. The critics only think they’re that influential.

So, the public's assessment of a finished work has no influence moving forward? At the time of building, the most important voice for the architect is the one connected to the writing of the checks. Once the course is finished and the checks clear whose voice is important then? Mostly it's the voice in the shape of hard cash from dues or green fees that are needed in order to maintain the business' viability. A far second place are formal or informal critiques that may have some sway, but are much less important than cash flow. If a course closes because it never finds viability due to potential customers not liking it enough to pay the carry cost how is that not influential?

If we use Apache Stronghold as an example, did the architect not do what he was paid to do? It seems that both critics and the general public's assessment of the finished work were very positive upon completion. I'm not sure what an architect can do about the poor stewardship and diminishing value that ultimately undermined AS. Most reviews by the public are generally good if they feel they got what they paid for (value). I agree with Kyle, and in your second sentence, it seems perhaps you do, too.

To David Kelly's original comment, does an architect's reputation really depend on the people who actually play the golf courses, or is it the stewardship (in perpetuity) of those paying for the design?

[Lou_Duran]

To David Kelly's original comment, does an architect's reputation really depend on the people who actually play the golf courses, or is it the stewardship (in perpetuity) of those paying for the design?

You're onto something here.


In my travels, I used to be surprised to learn that not all that many golfers knew who designed their course or even cared.  Outside of high-end "signature" designs, even some of the golf staff when asked simply didn't know.  Most golfers do care about the condition of the greens and how tidy the course looks.  But try asking if they know who Tom Doak is, and odds are that you will draw a blank stare.


BTW, I agree 100% with Mr. Malone.  There is really no need to malign the person or his ability because the work doesn't tickle our fancy.  In many cases, an architect is hired to solve a problem defined by his employers and is only able to put in the ground one of the options that they (the employers) deem appropriate.  Most if not all of us in our professional lives have had to execute our employers' vision even though we believed there were other better solutions.  Lucky is the individual who can take the high-road indicated by his convictions and aesthetics after dismissing all other options deemed sub-optimal. 

[Kalen Braley]

I think both sides of this argument have valid points.

However, I have a hard time believing guys like Fazio, C&C, and Doak would have had such a long and prolific career winning job after job after job on terrific sites if they weren't piling up multiple courses on the top 100 lists, which are created by the "Critics".  And it also seems to be true now for Hanse with his Restorations...

[Joe_Tucholski]

Architects might (reasonably) think that their clients are the course owners and club committees that hire and pay them but ultimately their reputation depends on the people who actually play the golf courses.

David very interesting statement.  You didn't actually say the people who play the courses are the clients, you just said that the architect's reputation depends on these people.  For better or worse I believe the individual who pays the bills is the client.  Working in healthcare I can say this creates some unfortunate incentives.

[SL_Solow]

Been busy so I am late to the party as usual.  My take on this thread is that it has gone off the rails.  This is not a thread about whether any of us thinks Stephen Kay is a good architect.  Rather, it is about how we discuss architecture and the manner in which we express ourselves.  It also speaks to the way a target of criticism reacts to that commentary.  I agree that this is a forum for frank discussion.  Each of us is entitled to express our opinions and we should be prepared to defend our views if challenged.  Those who choose to design courses should expect commentary, both positive and negative.  They should consider the source and the content and react accordingly.  Where I think we can go wrong is when the criticism departs from the analysis of the work and becomes personal and impolite.  Unless an individual has been wronged, e.g been the victim of theft, fraud, personal attacks etc., we should confine our criticisms to the architecture, which is all that we should care about.  When the attacks become personal, the architect has every right to be offended.  But if they are offended because someone doesn't like their work, candidly, that is too bad.  If an architect thinks the criticism is unfair, either ignore it or respond.  But when you put work out into the public you should expect evaluation and it won't always be positive.  That is true in many professions and many times the critic has a more direct impact on an individual's prospects

[Steve Lang]

  SL_


Could Golf Club Atlas be sued for any imagined damages?


Just wondering.

[Bruce Katona]

I've always enjoyed playing Architects, BHP & Scotland Run. Since MED was just down the street from Twisted Dune, they are a competitor for daily fee play.  The site Stephan Kay had to work with at MED is very different than what Archie Struthers had as a palate at Twisted Dune.


Back when we did continuing education live and in person, I saw Stephan every year at the NJASLA Annual meeting in Atlantic City as we both attended to capture continuing education credits.  He always was pleasant and giving of his time to chat and catch up.


I think if I has BHP, Scotland Run & Architect's on my design resume I'd be pretty pleased.

[Mike Bodo]

I have a hard time believing guys like Fazio, C&C, and Doak would have had such a long and prolific career winning job after job after job on terrific sites if they weren't piling up multiple courses on the top 100 lists, which are created by the "Critics".  And it also seems to be true now for Hanse with his Restorations...

Agree 100% Kalen! There are many here that aren't giving the retail golfer credit for what they know or don't know about golf design and the hot architects of the day. Social media and popular golfing vlogs and podcasts such as NLU, Random Golf, The Fried Egg, etc. have completely changed the dynamic. Tom Doak is a known brand and commodity in the general golfing world. Coore - Crenshaw, Gil Hanse, David Kidd, Nicklaus, Tom Fazio are established, popular brands themselves. It's not the 70's, 80's and 90's anymore when no one could tell you who designed a particular golf course and what constituted good design. The internet age has forever changed that and has brought into vogue celebrated architects from the golden era that most nearly everyone forgot about. Thanks to sites such as this and others, they've brought the work of these legendary architects back to life. Were it not for the internet I seriously doubt you'd have the amount of "restoration" work being done as we've witnessed the past two decades. I mean, what great, iconic Mackenzie, Ross, McDonald, Raynor, Thomas, Maxwell, Colt - Allison course hasn't been restored or touched the past 20 years? Does anyone think this movement would have came about without wide adoption of the internet? It certainly wasn't the advent of the telephone, TV or printing press that drove this.


As a retail golfer and golf course architecture aficionado I'm grateful to live in the time I do, as I get to play a lot of classic era courses the way they were intended by their creators, while enjoying the best today's top architects are producing around the globe. I'm spoiled, as I remember what it was like playing all the cookie cutter courses built in the 70's, 80's and 90's and the classic era parkland courses that had become overgrown woodland tracks. The lesson to be learned here is to never underestimate what the consumer knows, as they are better educated than ever thanks to this medium. And don't forget, while this site is restricted to 1,500 or so members, there are a LOT of people that are not members that glean the discussion group threads. Thus, we have more influence than one might think.