Who is golf architecture's most versatile designer?

[TEPaul]

And how important is versatility in the final analysis? Does it matter at all? The question is a good one from the perspective of those who play and those who design!

[Dunlop_White]

COORE & CRENSHAW

Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw not only portray variations of styles at different venues, but more importantly, they can vary their landscapes at the same venue. Take Friar's Head Golf Club in Baiting Hollow, New York as an example. The routing swings back and forth from tree-lined dunes off the north shore into windswept meadows closer inland.

Ron Whitten once said, "These guys mix it up, and avoid trademarks, better than anyone....What I admire most about their work is their effort and ability to avoid stereotyping their art."
If you think eroded, gnarly edges are their only bunker style, then you haven't seen their third nine at Southern Hills in Tulsa, where they deliberately imitated the clamshell bunkers of the original 18 designed by Perry Maxwell.
If you think low-profile, bump-and-run is the extent of their repertoire, then you haven't played the South Course at Talking Stick in Scottsdale, where their goal was an old-fashioned northeastern course with perched greens and lots of creek carries".

 

[TEPaul]

Dunlop:

You're kidding me?! I thought they were pretty darned versatile but I didn't know the details you just mentioned. I guess I might have to get out there and see all their stuff! What the hell is Pat Mucci going to say to me if I do that? But anyone would have to admit going from designing a course that has 500ft of elevation difference to another one that has about 2 ft of elevation difference in pretty close proximity time-wise probably does show a pretty fair inclination to be versatile!

[SPDB]

I don't think that Coore & Crenshaw are that versatile. They are terrific designers at the absolute zenith of the golf architecture, but there work gravitates toward a specific model - particularly their bunker work. The exceptions seem to be Chech. Crk., and perhaps Talking Stick. Again, no complaint, if I were as good as they were I wouldn't branch to far either.

Are we talking about Modern archs only? For classic I would definitely take a look at Tillie, particularly how he could move from parkland to other styles and change his designs according to the site - e.g. Winged Foot vs. Newport.

For modern, I'll be anxious to see how Strantz fares with the MPCC course, and if that will indicate a versatility going from Tobacco Road to understated (or, at least, not outlandish).  

[Dunlop_White]

SPDB,

Read this Whitten article about the versitilty of Bill Coore. It doesn't mean you have to agree....still it's a good read.

http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/index.ssf?/courses/critic/hiddencreek.html

[A_Clay_Man]

The name that jumped out at me was Bendelow. Mostly because I don't think I know which courses were his, and I'm sure I've golfed a few.

Maybe RJ can comment more, but isn't that a test of versatility, the inability to pigeonhole?

[T_MacWood]

Bendelow?

I'd say Colt....links, heathland, downs, parkland, pine barrens, forest, mountain, tropical, etc.

[A_Clay_Man]

Maybe Desmond Muirhead would be a better answer. He pushed the envelope which clearly implies versatility.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TomP,
You can be good at what you do and not be versatile but you can't be called versatile if you're not good at what you do. Therefore, if you call someone "versatile" it implies that they are not only good but good across a broad spectrum. That should translate into more work.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Does versatility include facility type, i.e public, muni, private, etc. when looking at it from the player's perspective?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

When you "cherry pick" sites, only electing a maximum of two per year, how does one go about exhibiting their versatility ?

Wouldn't versatility best be expressed by selecting wildly different sites with different challenges ?  

[A.G._Crockett]

SPBD,
No matter what Strantz does at MPCC, he has shown me really amazing versatility with the contrast between a course like Tobacco Rd. and one like Caledonia.  Caledonia is a classic design (though manicured) that looks absolutely nothing like Tobacco Rd., or even like True Blue across the street.  

[ChasLawler]

A.G - Of Strantz's work, I've only seen Caledonia, Stonehouse and Royal New Kent in person. While Caledonia is vastly different from from the latter 2, I'd say Stonehouse and RNK are very similar in both appearance (on the ground) and playablity. He designed both of those courses for he same outfit, so that's probably what they wanted, but judging only from pictures I've seen of Tobacco Road and Tot Hill Farm, they at least appear to have that similar look as well.

Not bashing Strantz, as I like his work. Sans cart paths, Stonehouse and RNK are both very interesting courses. Caledonia is top notch in the MB area.

[CJ72]

If you were speaking of the past I would have to say Tilly.  SF club to Baltimore CC to Baltusrol all very different courses and very different bunker styles.    

[TEPaul]

"Wouldn't versatility best be expressed by selecting wildly different sites with different challenges?"

Pat:

I'd certainly think that would help. If an architect is looking to be versatile selecting wildly different sites would be a good place to start. But I guess one could imagine two very similar type sites where the two products were vastly different too.

Just imagine if Fazio/Wynn decided to do another golf course on that flat nothing desert floor next to Shadow Creek that was some extremely low-profile windswept design with no water hazards on it and without a tree in sight. That'd sure be different from what they did there, wouldn't it? And what if for whatever reason that entirely different course on that same site was truly good. That'd be real versatile, wouldn't you say?

And of course I do think Coore & Crenshaw exhibited a good degree of versatility in one year when they produced Friar's Head and Hidden Creek which was a fairly dedicated tribute to early heathland architecture. Doak's Stonewall compared to Pacific Dunes is very versatile to me too.

[TEPaul]

But certainly Muirhead's Muirfield Village compared to his Stone Harbor is extreme versatility.

[Matt_Ward]

If one were to define "versatility" as the wherwithal to create courses in a variety of categories -- affordable public, upscale daily fee and private you would find only a handful of architects who have demonstrated clear successes across the board. I'm not going to assess all-time but from a modern perspective.

Some architects deliberately shy away from one particular category because of better networking / comfort zone within a given area.

There are two people I can list right away in no particular order:

Jim Engh
Tom Doak

In Engh's case you have his successful muni course in Golden CO called Fossil Trace -- his other public successes include Redlands Mesa in Grand Junction, Hawktree in SD and Tullymore in MI. On the private side you have Sanctuary in Sedalia, CO and last year's stunning Best New Private Black Rock in Idaho. In my mind -- that a very good record in spreading the creative juices.

In Doak's case you clearly have Pacific Dunes and he followed that public success with The Rawls Course in Lubbock, TX -- a unique layout because it literally came from nothing. On the private side you have Lost Dunes and the second Stonewall, to name just two. Clearly his work overseas is now pushing hard for even greater international recognition.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

"Wouldn't versatility best be expressed by selecting wildly different sites with different challenges?"

Pat:

I'd certainly think that would help. If an architect is looking to be versatile selecting wildly different sites would be a good place to start. But I guess one could imagine two very similar type sites where the two products were vastly different too.

Just imagine if Fazio/Wynn decided to do another golf course on that flat nothing desert floor next to Shadow Creek that was some extremely low-profile windswept design with no water hazards on it and without a tree in sight. That'd sure be different from what they did there, wouldn't it? And what if for whatever reason that entirely different course on that same site was truly good. That'd be real versatile, wouldn't you say?

That's a hypothetical question. but, a realistic answer to that hypothetical question would seem to be that NOONE has done that, not one golf course designed in/around Las Vegas subsequent to the introduction of Shadow Creek has possessed the qualities/features that you mention.
That should tell you something

And of course I do think Coore & Crenshaw exhibited a good degree of versatility in one year when they produced Friar's Head and Hidden Creek which was a fairly dedicated tribute to early heathland architecture.

As you know, I like both golf courses a great deal, but, the difference in the sites generates a good deal of the versatility in the designs.

Doak's Stonewall compared to Pacific Dunes is very versatile to me too.

I've never seen Stonewall, but with Pacific Dunes sitting on a dune swept bluff on the Oregon coast, I think the difference in the sites may have produced versatility in the respective designs.

[cary lichtenstein]

Versatility also includes being so creative with a nothing site like Tom Fazio and Pete Dye did with Shadow Creek and Whistling Straits.

[Matt_Ward]

quassi:

Don't forget it helps to have benefactors like Steve Wynn and the Kohler family. Versatility with an open check book is quite a bit easier.

[ed_getka]

Versatility would also include restoration work to my mind.
   How well is an architect with a particular style able to work in the framework of a different architect's style. Also, the ability to incorporate various green types. Tom Doak shows good range in his work from subtle (Pac Dunes) to dramatic contouring (Lost Dunes).
   Bill Coore has been on retainer at Denver CC for a number of years and has built two new par 3's there that are solid holes, that I doubt anyone could go and pick out as his work.
   

[A_Clay_Man]

Surprised no one said Ross.

Considering what he had to work with, equiptmentwise, he certainly had to have designs that were versatile. Fitting them in on the land supplied.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I don't think that Coore & Crenshaw are that versatile. They are terrific designers at the absolute zenith of the golf architecture, but there work gravitates toward a specific model - particularly their bunker work. The exceptions seem to be Chech. Crk., and perhaps Talking Stick. Again, no complaint, if I were as good as they were I wouldn't branch to far either.

Are we talking about Modern archs only? For classic I would definitely take a look at Tillie, particularly how he could move from parkland to other styles and change his designs according to the site - e.g. Winged Foot vs. Newport.

For modern, I'll be anxious to see how Strantz fares with the MPCC course, and if that will indicate a versatility going from Tobacco Road to understated (or, at least, not outlandish).  

Sean,
What courses have you seen of Coore & Crenshaw's that have led you to that opinion? Please list all of them.

[DPL11]

SPDB,

I don't think that these bunker styles are all exactly the same.












It will be interesting to see if the Sand Belt style will be used in Oregon. It will be another departure in versatility.

Doug

[Forrest Richardson]

Based on what he accomplished at Mongoky, I would say Slifkin. Although Foulepoint was a "one-off", Slifkin never did bad work, nor did he let anyone down.