GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group
What would be the Antithesis of the Great GCA Triumvirate's Golf Course Designs
Craig Sweet:
The floating green in Idaho does move in relation to lake elevation.
Tom_Doak:
--- Quote from: Ira Fishman on Today at 03:17:25 PM ---I do not buy the premise that Hanse should be lumped together with C&C and Doak in terms of design approach/ethos. My sample size is small but neither PH4 or SS Black are minimalist. Castle Stuart is faux links which I do not see the other architects embracing as an approach although I know that it was the brief given to Hanse. In terms of the SS courses that represent all of the Triumvirate, Black is very different from Red and Blue
Perhaps I am biased because I have a higher regard for the C&C and Doak courses I have played. The Big 3 or the Great Triumvirate might be a catchy categorization, but it is not an accurate one.
--- End quote ---
It is the nature of the press that there always has to be a "Big 3" for some reason. I have always wondered whether it's because less than three would be playing favorites, or because it gives them all a chance to nominate their own candidate for the third position.
zachary_car:
--- Quote from: Ben Sims on Today at 01:01:46 PM ---One thing this thread seems to gloss over—as does Zach Car in his post punk opinion piece and in the preview of Old Petty—is that a lot of what some are calling the “antithesis” of the triumvirate is being built by the same people that worked for and in many cases DID the work for the triumvirate.
It absolutely cheapens what Renaissance and C+C have done when you don’t fully appreciate their flexibility. Great teams can win using any phase of the game.
--- End quote ---
Well, I guess I should first officially apologize for the cheap swipe in that piece....little did I know what was coming down the pipeline. But we did communicate after, and I do look forward to seeing if Barnwell proves me wrong. At the end of the day, I am a nobody writer from Ottawa, Canada who never had a single connection in golf; if I never said anything, who would've ever taken notice of my stuff.....
The sport analogy is interesting here, and one I'll adopt. Why is it that so many elite coordinators (Robert Saleh, being the most recent one) can't become successful head coaches? It's far different skill set being the person in charge, the editor so to speak, from being the second or third in command. You also need to hire your own crew, in turn (Nathaniel Hackett as his OC). Are the their own crews as skillfull as the ones on which they worked as the second or third in command? Maybe yes, maybe no. This happens in every profession, even in everyday life. Successful workers can't become successful managers.
I also think that, considering just how many talented people are chomping at the bit for their shot, nevermind the already established ones, there is alot of pressure to deliver right away. As such, alot of the new golf courses just seem to be trying way too hard, throwing the kitchen sink at it. The reality is that young architects likely don't have three or four new projects to work on and perfect their craft through trial and error anymore.
Tom_Doak:
--- Quote from: zachary_car on Today at 07:29:00 PM ---
The sport analogy is interesting here, and one I'll adopt. Why is it that so many elite coordinators (Robert Saleh, being the most recent one) can't become successful head coaches? It's far different skill set being the person in charge, the editor so to speak, from being the second or third in command. You also need to hire your own crew, in turn (Nathaniel Hackett as his OC). Are the their own crews as skillfull as the ones on which they worked as the second or third in command? Maybe yes, maybe no. This happens in every profession, even in everyday life. Successful workers can't become successful managers.
I also think that, considering just how many talented people are chomping at the bit for their shot, nevermind the already established ones, there is alot of pressure to deliver right away. As such, alot of the new golf courses just seem to be trying way too hard, throwing the kitchen sink at it. The reality is that young architects likely don't have three or four new projects to work on and perfect their craft through trial and error anymore.
--- End quote ---
Successful workers CAN become successful managers. They may not want to, but as Steve Jobs once said, they do it when they realize they have to do it, in order to move the project forward to where they want. On my own team, Eric Iverson is certainly one of those guys who has taught others in order to move the overall company forward . . . and he also taught some of the guys who work for Bill Coore now.
But you are right about the pressure [self-imposed or Instagram-imposed] to be an IMMEDIATE success. In the pre-Internet era, it took me a dozen courses of trial and error to build my team and build some good courses and some so-so courses, to be ready for my shot at the big time. Getting good at something requires a lot of reps in practice. Brian Schneider has gotten a lot of practice at design and shaping while working on my projects, but running the show is something you can't really practice until you are doing it yourself.
Ben Sims:
--- Quote from: zachary_car on Today at 07:29:00 PM ---
--- Quote from: Ben Sims on Today at 01:01:46 PM ---One thing this thread seems to gloss over—as does Zach Car in his post punk opinion piece and in the preview of Old Petty—is that a lot of what some are calling the “antithesis” of the triumvirate is being built by the same people that worked for and in many cases DID the work for the triumvirate.
It absolutely cheapens what Renaissance and C+C have done when you don’t fully appreciate their flexibility. Great teams can win using any phase of the game.
--- End quote ---
Well, I guess I should first officially apologize for the cheap swipe in that piece....little did I know what was coming down the pipeline. But we did communicate after, and I do look forward to seeing if Barnwell proves me wrong. At the end of the day, I am a nobody writer from Ottawa, Canada who never had a single connection in golf; if I never said anything, who would've ever taken notice of my stuff.....
The sport analogy is interesting here, and one I'll adopt. Why is it that so many elite coordinators (Robert Saleh, being the most recent one) can't become successful head coaches? It's far different skill set being the person in charge, the editor so to speak, from being the second or third in command. You also need to hire your own crew, in turn (Nathaniel Hackett as his OC). Are the their own crews as skillfull as the ones on which they worked as the second or third in command? Maybe yes, maybe no. This happens in every profession, even in everyday life. Successful workers can't become successful managers.
I also think that, considering just how many talented people are chomping at the bit for their shot, nevermind the already established ones, there is alot of pressure to deliver right away. As such, alot of the new golf courses just seem to be trying way too hard, throwing the kitchen sink at it. The reality is that young architects likely don't have three or four new projects to work on and perfect their craft through trial and error anymore.
--- End quote ---
Zach (do you prefer Zachary? Sorry if so),
I suppose I should stop beating this horse. I’ve been pretty deferential to associates and interns for a long time. I’m no dummy. Kirby Smart is who delivered my Dawgs to the promised land and not specifically Dan Lanning or Todd Monken. The program starts with Kirby just as Renaissance starts with Tom. Like him—I always feel the need to remind everyone that it’s a team effort and talent has to come from all contributors not just the top.
But yeah, sorry if it looked like I was taking a swipe over that topic again.
I don’t like the premise of this thread. It seems to fail a basic test of knowledge about what’s actually happening in the golf architecture world. Ethos and aesthetic are being conflated in an unhelpful way. Bottom line, there’s A LOT of projects that are new and open or about to be open. There’s talent to be deployed and that talent doesn’t always have to build what they used to for Tom or Bill. Being antithetical for the sake of being antithetical seems a way to fail miserably at being a golf architect. Good golf is good golf no matter what it looks like.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version