Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Howard Riefs on November 29, 2016, 02:53:50 PM
-
Interesting...
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2016/11/29/architect-kidd-claims-media-seduced-him-into-excessive-desig.html (http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2016/11/29/architect-kidd-claims-media-seduced-him-into-excessive-desig.html)
-
::)
-
It's so much better to be seduced by the devil you know than the one you don't. It's okay: DMK is firmly back in the fold now, and all is right and proper in his designs. I do wish though that he wouldn't chastice himself so harshly and often about his supposed crime: struggling to break free from your mentor and to boldly go in a different direction is a well established rite of passage, and nothing to be embarrassed about. Plus, with friends like these he doesn't need to be his own enemy...
-
Someone blaming the media as a distraction from his own shortcomings. Hmmm, where else have I heard that recently? ::)
-
This does not make me feel any better about what I've seen for the soon-to-be-opened Rolling Hills CC in so cal.
The only consistent element of DMK's golf design has seemed to be... his accent? Very hard to predict what will come next between the differences in his high profile courses: Bandon Dunes, Gamble Sands, Castle Course. Test me blind and I would have guessed 3 different architects for each.
*Disclaimer*
I felt compelled by the nature of this discussion group to make this comment - if it should turn out to not be well-received please understand the pressure I faced when typing this up.
-
In a recent architecture panel at Sunningdale in NY, I openly shared that from 1989 to around 1999 I was a decidedly average architect. To most of you I still am. ;) The one advantage with getting older is I no longer care what others think, nor do I have any desire to be at the pinnacle of this business. I've watched it up close, it's not as easy as you think.
David wanted to be at the top. He was really ambitious. And you could argue that he made it too. That position comes with a lot of pressure and criticism. In 1989, I was 24 and did not come from a golf course construction background, although I did have of construction experience. By 1999 I was 34 and a year away from the project that changed my trajectory. I built plenty of courses in between and was technically competent, but still had no clue about what I was trying to build when given my own opportunity.
I apprenticed and was fortunately edited. David learnt, made choices and perhaps a few mistakes in front of the golfing world's eyes. He evolved and has a different opinion on what is good. Now he has to weather the past work. The difference is mine are well hidden renovations. :) So, I feel for where he's at.
I hope that provides perspective.
But I think his criticism of the media was a horrible mistake in judgement.
Every time I made a compromise, each time I approved a shape or green contour, I always had the choice to do something different. Every decision I ever made is on me. Likewise, each thing he built anything, it's on him. Part of going from good to great is ability, but just as much is recognizing something is either not good enough or poorly conceived. The greatest lesson and final lesson most need is self-restraint. There's always an alternative ... and one of them is to not accept a commission.
I am nobody without the constant help of the media that I have received. I owe them my career and to a certain extend if David sat back and thought about it, that is the case for him too.
I like what I see from the early photos of Sand Hills. I hope David has found the sweet spot in design and life. This is not an easy business. People question your every decision. The competition for work is very intense. And in today's day and age there is not a lot of media opportunities left.
Anyone who makes a living at golf course design is very, very lucky. There is not a single architect who has got to that place without someone else's help. Often it's a key person in the media that thinks you deserve additional opportunities.
Signed,
The still Decidedly Average Architect
-
While I think it was a poor choice of words I suspect he largely meant that he was driven by a drive for quality (or acclaim) and misread the criteria.
I suspect most ambitious people follow a similar career path. Most of us just do not have so much scrutiny of our work.
-
He could pull a Tom Fazio and go back and get paid millions to fix and updates his creations.
-
David is right that most modern courses are too difficult. Heck, some people even think my courses are too difficult! [It seems to be the same subset of guys who are still bitter about the anchoring rule. ;) ]
I have seen this all of my life in this business. There are multiple reasons:
1. architects who are very good players, who must not realize how hard they're making it for everyone else;
2. young architects who are not very good players, trying to show the good players how clever they are;
3. architects of all ages who are desperate to win in the GOLF DIGEST formula and get their courses on magazine covers;
4. sons of famous architects trying to show they can out-do their dads; and
5. clients who tell their architect to make a course tournament-tough even though a tournament is never going to be played there.
I'm sure there are even more categories than this. I guess David is trying to put himself in category (3) but at the same time trying to change the agency of the statement -- that it was somehow the media's fault, instead of his own fault for trying to please the media. [If that's really what he said, of course. The media and the political and business establishment have been giving lessons in changing agency about their own failures for some time now. "Mistakes were made," without anyone in power ever taking the fall for them.]
One of the things I realized about Pete Dye, in hindsight, was how lucky he was to have Alice Dye there all the time as a sounding board and second opinion, to tell him when he was going overboard. Every young architect could use someone like that! But usually they've got the opposite -- friends urging them on to do even more outrageous things.
As a result, I changed my m.o. many years ago, and started letting my associates build the first version of a green without being hands-on myself, so I could become the editor and tone them down as needed. If I start building wild contours myself, I'm defensive of them, but if they're not "mine" it is easy to feel more detached and make the right call. The only really severe green at The Loop is the one I went back in and jazzed up in the spring after we'd shaped it the fall before, and I didn't have time to reflect and soften it a little.
-
I doubt that I need to remind anyone of my decade long contention that raters have been bad for design. I'm glad to see a leading architect admit it and look forward to a bevy of owners to soon follow. #stopthecomps
-
I doubt that I need to remind anyone of my decade long contention that raters have been bad for design. I'm glad to see a leading architect admit it and look forward to a bevy of owners to soon follow. #stopthecomps
There is going to be push back. ;D
(http://imageshack.com/a/img924/7027/jaaqDB.jpg)
-
I doubt that I need to remind anyone of my decade long contention that raters have been bad for design. I'm glad to see a leading architect admit it and look forward to a bevy of owners to soon follow. #stopthecomps
I on the other hand probably do need to remind everyone of my long-held contention that the dominance and power and uniformity of today's consensus opinion/conventional wisdom is literally unmatched in the history of golf course architecture as we know it. It is truly an unsettling development, no matter how much good and even great work has been produced by the top flight architects who have themselves shaped that very consensus. It holds such sway now that a good architect who has run afoul of the current conventions feels compelled to publicly flagellate himself for his apparent sin not once but twice -- as he'd already done so in an article a few months ago about Sand Valley, where he 'admitted' his failure and bemoaned the fact that he'd ever veered from the Mike Keiser model. Now, I like and appreciate and value the MK model as much as the next fellow; but when everyone, even on this thread, seems to take absolutely for granted that DMK was indeed mistaken for building a hard golf course, as if there is no longer room in the big world of golf/golf design for even one ambitious attempt at something different....well, something just doesn't seem right.
Peter
-
In a recent architecture panel at Sunningdale in NY, I openly shared that from 1989 to around 1999 I was a decidedly average architect. To most of you I still am. ;) The one advantage with getting older is I no longer care what others think, nor do I have any desire to be at the pinnacle of this business. I've watched it up close, it's not as easy as you think.
David wanted to be at the top. He was really ambitious. And you could argue that he made it too. That position comes with a lot of pressure and criticism. In 1989, I was 24 and did not come from a golf course construction background, although I did have of construction experience. By 1999 I was 34 and a year away from the project that changed my trajectory. I built plenty of courses in between and was technically competent, but still had no clue about what I was trying to build when given my own opportunity.
I apprenticed and was fortunately edited. David learnt, made choices and perhaps a few mistakes in front of the golfing world's eyes. He evolved and has a different opinion on what is good. Now he has to weather the past work. The difference is mine are well hidden renovations. :) So, I feel for where he's at.
I hope that provides perspective.
But I think his criticism of the media was a horrible mistake in judgement.
Every time I made a compromise, each time I approved a shape or green contour, I always had the choice to do something different. Every decision I ever made is on me. Likewise, each thing he built anything, it's on him. Part of going from good to great is ability, but just as much is recognizing something is either not good enough or poorly conceived. The greatest lesson and final lesson most need is self-restraint. There's always an alternative ... and one of them is to not accept a commission.
I am nobody without the constant help of the media that I have received. I owe them my career and to a certain extend if David sat back and thought about it, that is the case for him too.
I like what I see from the early photos of Sand Hills. I hope David has found the sweet spot in design and life. This is not an easy business. People question your every decision. The competition for work is very intense. And in today's day and age there is not a lot of media opportunities left.
Anyone who makes a living at golf course design is very, very lucky. There is not a single architect who has got to that place without someone else's help. Often it's a key person in the media that thinks you deserve additional opportunities.
Signed,
The still Decidedly Average Architect
Post of the Year. Honesty, humility and knowledge of subject were points you hit right down the middle of the gca fairway. Even if you're really better than average!
-
Now, I like and appreciate and value the MK model as much as the next fellow; but when everyone, even on this thread, seems to take absolutely for granted that DMK was indeed mistaken for building a hard golf course, as if there is no longer room in the big world of golf/golf design for even one ambitious attempt at something different....well, something just doesn't seem right.
Agreed. Just as it's not good for everyone to build courses that are too hard, or too long, or par-72, it's not good for everyone to build courses that conform to a narrow model of what the retail golfer likes. But as in any business, there are more followers than leaders.
-
Now, I like and appreciate and value the MK model as much as the next fellow; but when everyone, even on this thread, seems to take absolutely for granted that DMK was indeed mistaken for building a hard golf course, as if there is no longer room in the big world of golf/golf design for even one ambitious attempt at something different....well, something just doesn't seem right.
Agreed. Just as it's not good for everyone to build courses that are too hard, or too long, or par-72, it's not good for everyone to build courses that conform to a narrow model of what the retail golfer likes. But as in any business, there are more followers than leaders.
Tom,
Thanks for building courses that retail golfers have little interest in playing until the critics give us permission.
-
I don't know if this is the place....but for some reason I feel compelled to say...
...how much pleasure it gives me to have such "access" to the thoughts of posters like Messrs Andrew & Doak (and many others like Jeff Brauer +++). I'm really, really interested in golf & the design/construction of golf courses. But you guys are out there doing it & leaving courses that will hopefully be there for your childrens' children to enjoy. For you to post so frankly as you have here (& elsewhere) makes me feel better about trawling through some of the less uplifting threads we get here. Thank you for taking the time to share.
-
I doubt that I need to remind anyone of my decade long contention that raters have been bad for design. I'm glad to see a leading architect admit it and look forward to a bevy of owners to soon follow. #stopthecomps
I on the other hand probably do need to remind everyone of my long-held contention that the dominance and power and uniformity of today's consensus opinion/conventional wisdom is literally unmatched in the history of golf course architecture as we know it. It is truly an unsettling development, no matter how much good and even great work has been produced by the top flight architects who have themselves shaped that very consensus. It holds such sway now that a good architect who has run afoul of the current conventions feels compelled to publicly flagellate himself for his apparent sin not once but twice -- as he'd already done so in an article a few months ago about Sand Valley, where he 'admitted' his failure and bemoaned the fact that he'd ever veered from the Mike Keiser model. Now, I like and appreciate and value the MK model as much as the next fellow; but when everyone, even on this thread, seems to take absolutely for granted that DMK was indeed mistaken for building a hard golf course, as if there is no longer room in the big world of golf/golf design for even one ambitious attempt at something different....well, something just doesn't seem right.
Peter
Pietro
The public spoke on this matter...what critics say/said doesn't hold much sway. I have never come across a course where so many people disliked it. However, many changes have been made which is testament to the fact that DKM got it wrong. Plus, I take DKM at his word and really do think his admission was in earnest and not a marketing tool.
Ciao
-
Was there an initial design brief, ie "we would like you to do it along these lines" or was DMK given carte blanche to do as he wished at the Castle Course? Just curious.
Atb
-
Was there an initial design brief, ie "we would like you to do it along these lines" or was DMK given carte blanche to do as he wished at the Castle Course? Just curious.
Atb
There was a competition - 7 bidders.
Robin Hiseman was runner up I believe.
The boldness of The Castle Course has as much to do with Paul Kimber and Mick McShane if you ask me. It's disappointing to see DMK not stand up for it at all times because in my opinion, it's a really interesting design. Something pretty bland could have been built there if they'd chosen the wrong architect. (Not by Robin I suspect).
It may be a little overboard GCA on steroids but bold beats bland most of the time.
-
Ally
I agree with you and think the course (when I played it) only needed some tweeking, which it may have had by now. There was a lot of really good stuff created. But it always amazed me that drainage was skimped on. To me, this was (is?) the single biggest negative. If the course was dried out it would be easier to put the ball on the ground for some of the more treacherous shots. Then of course some fronts could be eased to help matters. That said, I don't know if the public will ever get on board given the horrible reputation. It will take some time, but with care I think the Castle could be a winner.
I sort of compare Castle to Rosa Sandy Links because both are OTT modern designs, but for different reasons. The Castle is wide but doesn't play so because of the severe aerial approach greens. Sandy Links is just plain narrow with the greens not helping at all to relieve the situation. To me, Castle is a far more interesting design and much closer to Trump Aberdeen in quality than Sandy Links.
Ciao
-
I don't know if this is the place....but for some reason I feel compelled to say...
...how much pleasure it gives me to have such "access" to the thoughts of posters like Messrs Andrew & Doak (and many others like Jeff Brauer +++). I'm really, really interested in golf & the design/construction of golf courses. But you guys are out there doing it & leaving courses that will hopefully be there for your childrens' children to enjoy. For you to post so frankly as you have here (& elsewhere) makes me feel better about trawling through some of the less uplifting threads we get here. Thank you for taking the time to share.
Greg,
I have thought about this as well, and frankly, feel honoured to even post on the same threads as most of you guys. Not to get too deep, but to me, this is the 21st century equivalent of sitting in the Eagle & Child and sharing a pint with The Inklings while discussing literature. Although I like the discussions here far more :)
Echoing the thanks to all those within the industry who take the time to share your well-informed thoughts.
-
I think most of this board is either unaware or forgot the stealth storm of shit that DMK fought through after the opening of Bandon Dunes. Many saw it as the most amateurish design in modern history.
-
I think most of this board is either unaware or forgot the stealth storm of shit that DMK fought through after the opening of Bandon Dunes. Many saw it as the most amateurish design in modern history.
You'll need to cite some references for that. The course was voted the #2 modern course by GOLFWEEK three months before it opened. I could not have been happier for it, because it didn't give them much chance to ignore my course if I managed to build something better than David's.
-
Tom. You may enjoy this quote from TEPaul: "Both Bandon and Pacific Dunes are really terrific courses but in my mind Pacific Dunes is head and shoulders better for various reasons and a lot of little reasons. I could go into what some of those reasons are but when one totals them all up and weighs why those things happened at Pac Dunes compared to Bandon next door, in my opinion, one would have to say because Doak and his really accomplished crew are better architects than Kidd and his crew. Better all the way from conceiving of and pulling off an unconventional routing to the variety of the holes set in what appears to be Nature's very own canvas. "
From this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,318.msg7010.html#msg7010
-
......Something pretty bland could have been built there if they'd chosen the wrong architect. (Not by Robin I suspect).
It may be a little overboard GCA on steroids but bold beats bland most of the time.
Well, that is a statement that bears more discussion!
I suspect there was at least some pressure to build in the Spirit of St. Andrews, and also some desire to see different design. Sometimes, the context of other courses in the area do set design parameters to a degree.
And, while this site has been devoted to minimalism, yes, on a dull (other than views) site, in this visual age, yes, you do feel the need to do "more."
I recall talking with Bill Coore, who said, in essence, that Sand Hills was the perfect fit to their style, musing that on lesser sites it wouldn't work as well. I tend to agree, even if the general thought on this site is to minimize, minimize, minimize.
Or at the very least, how to draw the line between design more stuff and going overboard.....
-
So, to be clear, there's one quote from one person a couple of years after Bandon opened? Not sure that proves your point. If you read Dream Golf, you'll see Bandon was widely praised out of the gate. I think only in retrospect did some think the course was overrated, but that happens to many courses as they are reevaluated in the years after they open.
Tom. You may enjoy this quote from TEPaul: "Both Bandon and Pacific Dunes are really terrific courses but in my mind Pacific Dunes is head and shoulders better for various reasons and a lot of little reasons. I could go into what some of those reasons are but when one totals them all up and weighs why those things happened at Pac Dunes compared to Bandon next door, in my opinion, one would have to say because Doak and his really accomplished crew are better architects than Kidd and his crew. Better all the way from conceiving of and pulling off an unconventional routing to the variety of the holes set in what appears to be Nature's very own canvas. "
From this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,318.msg7010.html#msg7010 (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,318.msg7010.html#msg7010)
-
So TEP's old post is the "storm of shit" PD had to fight through?
Bob
-
I think most of this board is either unaware or forgot the stealth storm of shit that DMK fought through after the opening of Bandon Dunes. Many saw it as the most amateurish design in modern history.
Not much of a shitstorm, and it wasn't exactly stealthy, either.
David cashed in immediately after Bandon Dunes with two great commissions -- working for Charles Schwab at Nanea in Hawaii, and for Fred Green at Queenwood in London. But Pacific Dunes' opening took a bit of shine off his star, and I started getting some high-profile jobs that he might have otherwise gotten. And I will give zero percent of the credit to Golf Club Atlas for that, since Julian Robertson has never heard of Golf Club Atlas.
More importantly, Nanea and Queenwood did not do the same to back up David's reputation after Bandon, than Cape Kidnappers and Barnbougle Dunes did for mine. Partly that was because his two courses were super-exclusive and the magazines don't write about those, the way they do about beautiful resorts that everyone can play. Partly, but not nearly all.
-
"...and then Alice...remember Alice? This is a song about Alice...."
Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant"
-
So TEP's old post is the "storm of shit" PD had to fight through?
Bob
Bob,
Please quote me correctly. It was a stealth storm of shit. You don't even know you're in it then come out wondering what stinks. This idea that while building a questionable design you are being universally praised by the press is enough to alter anyone's future work for the worse.
-
So TEP's old post is the "storm of shit" PD had to fight through?
Bob
Bob,
Please quote me correctly. It was a stealth storm of shit. You don't even know you're in it then come out wondering what stinks. This idea that while building a questionable design you are being universally praised by the press is enough to alter anyone's future work for the worse.
So stealth-like it continues to this day, right here, on this thread.
-
Let's see. DMK had to endure a stealth storm of shit that he didn't know was a storm of shit but actually was a storm of shit because he felt shit on?
Yup. Got it.
Bob
-
"It's a Wonderful Life" was a complete failure when it first opened; the post WWII movie-going public stayed away from it in droves. Frank Capra was shattered, both professionally (it was the end of his Liberty Films) and personally (with a crisis of confidence and a weakening of will/direction). Doubting himself for the first time in his career, he started to make the kind of compromises that he'd never made before: filming scripts he wasn't completely happy with, having others choose the cast, taking notes/suggestions for edits from the studio heads. His next three (and not coincidentally, final three) films were utterly forgettable, and soon afterwards he retired and left Hollywood forever, though still only in his mid-50s. Years later, looking back, he wrote something like: "When you make movies the way you think best and stick to your guns no matter what, angels come down and sit on your shoulder and help you make something great. But after "It's a Wonderful Life" I didn't fight anymore for what I believed in, and didn't make my films the way I wanted to -- and so the angels left me, and they've never come back".
Needless to say, "It's a Wonderful Life" is now recognized as the very good/excellent movie that it is, and that it was, and that it has always been. Sure, "the public" will have their say very soon after a golf course opens; all the more reason, it seems to me, for the architect involved to fight for it and believe in it even when no one else does, or at the very least not to publicly disavow it so quickly.
Peter
-
Let's see. DMK had to endure a stealth storm of shit that he didn't know was a storm of shit but actually was a storm of shit because he felt shit on?
Yup. Got it.
Bob
Bob:
The only storm of shit regarding DMK's efforts at Bandon Dunes started the day a ranger told JK that he needed to hurry his fat ass along to stop holding up the course. He's been on a one-man crusade against the place since then.
The TEPaul quote makes me think of the famous picture of Jayne Mansfield and Sophia Loren. They're both beautiful women, just so happens one had a lower cut top that night.
Sven
-
Sven -
I happened across that picture just the other day. As Jayne leans over in front of her, Sophia's facial expression is priceless.
Peter -
Good stuff. I did not know that about Capra and IAWL. It was a shame he got the cinematic yips. He was one of the best in his heyday.
Bob
-
Let's see. DMK had to endure a stealth storm of shit that he didn't know was a storm of shit but actually was a storm of shit because he felt shit on?
Yup. Got it.
Bob
Bob:
The only storm of shit regarding DMK's efforts at Bandon Dunes started the day a ranger told JK that he needed to hurry his fat ass along to stop holding up the course. He's been on a one-man crusade against the place since then.
The TEPaul quote makes me think of the famous picture of Jayne Mansfield and Sophia Loren. They're both beautiful women, just so happens one had a lower cut top that night.
Sven
Really, next thing you'll be telling me is that patrons of Bandon aren't judged by which courses they prefer.
-
John,
I really don't care if you like Sophia more than Jayne.
Sven
-
I can't believe that it took this long to name my Motocaddy. Me and "Little Sven" just finished a wonderful 9 hole walk on a brisk Indiana afternoon. I hope he has a work visa, being in Indiana and all.
-
Wow, quite the honor (I guess it beats an outhouse). Are you still role-playing?
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48963.msg1106517.html#msg1106517 (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48963.msg1106517.html#msg1106517)
-
Of course my wife and I roll play. Her robot is named "Big Sven".
-
Of course my wife and I roll play. Her robot is named "Big Sven".
That one made me chuckle.
No wonder she doesn't care how long it takes you to play golf.
-
John,
What a load of crap. Just because one person gets an A in calculus, and the other gets an A- doesn't mean the latter is a dumass'
They are both terrific courses, even if Pac Dunes is the better course....
-
401K and a gross of double A's.
-
John,
What a load of crap. Just because one person gets an A in calculus, and the other gets an A- doesn't mean the latter is a dumass'
They are both terrific courses, even if Pac Dunes is the better course....
Kalen,
I took you for a guy with a fantastic memory for detail. Weren't you around here for the opening of Bandon? You don't recall the disaster of the original 16th? I know people were talking before Doak's private poo poo party. It can't be just in my imagination.
-
I have played Cape Kidnappers, St Andrew's Beach, Barnbougle and Queenwood ( a number of times) and Tom is certainly right to hint that his relative success post Bandon and Pacific was not just down to David's courses being private. Queenwood is a decent course but hardly memorable. It has too many indifferent holes - for example, five par 5's, only one of which is a good hole. A driveable par four that does not really invite you to go for it etc It suffers from the fact that it has a set of greens that combine too much undulation and speed for the average golfer. The set-up is further aggravated by the fact that the club has 15+ tour pro's as members and I always have the feeling that the course is set up for them rather than normal members.
David's latest UK effort, Beaverbrook, is a much better course, and true to the lessons he espouses. Better site, better fitted to the land, more width, better set of greens, better bunkering, more good holes - overall more enjoyable to play.
Philip
-
John,
What a load of crap. Just because one person gets an A in calculus, and the other gets an A- doesn't mean the latter is a dumass'
They are both terrific courses, even if Pac Dunes is the better course....
Kalen,
I took you for a guy with a fantastic memory for detail. Weren't you around here for the opening of Bandon? You don't recall the disaster of the original 16th? I know people were talking before Doak's private poo poo party. It can't be just in my imagination.
JK,
I wasn't actually, i didn't join until 2006. I did know the 16th had been reworked, but I don't know all the details of what was done. Perhaps an old thread details this.
I have been to the resort a few times though and to suggest BD is dogmeat is a gross mis-characterization. Is it as good as PD? No in my opinion, but its certainly a darn good course.
-
John,
I played the original 16th - it was fine.
It presented a difficult drive into a strong headwind because of where the landing area end up being.
There were other options available.
-
A bit OT, but following the conversation, I played no. 16 on Bandon multiple times in 1999. In that year, on that course, my life changed. And that hole was at least 1/18th part of the process. Much of the original playing ground, lines of play and lines of sight, have been altered over the years, not by moving earth but rather by gorse eradication and mow lines through the fescue. Bandon is a significantly different course than what I believe was intended, that is, how it played on the ground in 1999 and the next year or two, as well.
It remains a wonderful course today, but before the "resort" changes it was absolutely superb with all sorts of wonderful subtleties and challenges that no longer exist. I'll forever place it above Pacific in my own pantheon, but much of that is due to the course it was, the course I recall, and the course that changed my world.
-
......Something pretty bland could have been built there if they'd chosen the wrong architect. (Not by Robin I suspect).
It may be a little overboard GCA on steroids but bold beats bland most of the time.
Well, that is a statement that bears more discussion!
I suspect there was at least some pressure to build in the Spirit of St. Andrews, and also some desire to see different design. Sometimes, the context of other courses in the area do set design parameters to a degree.
And, while this site has been devoted to minimalism, yes, on a dull (other than views) site, in this visual age, yes, you do feel the need to do "more."
I recall talking with Bill Coore, who said, in essence, that Sand Hills was the perfect fit to their style, musing that on lesser sites it wouldn't work as well. I tend to agree, even if the general thought on this site is to minimize, minimize, minimize.
Or at the very least, how to draw the line between design more stuff and going overboard.....
Yes Jeff, I know very very few examples where flat, featureless farmers fields have been turned in to an excellent golf course without using some bold shaping.
That's not to say the subtle, middle ground isn't the desired outcome. Or isn't possible. It's just that most architects / shapers would try and fail.
So a big, bold course works better than a failed attempt at being minimal, the latter often resulting in bland.
Of course, interesting greens go a long way to helping the lesser approach work.
-
"It's a Wonderful Life" was a complete failure when it first opened; the post WWII movie-going public stayed away from it in droves. Frank Capra was shattered, both professionally (it was the end of his Liberty Films) and personally (with a crisis of confidence and a weakening of will/direction). Doubting himself for the first time in his career, he started to make the kind of compromises that he'd never made before: filming scripts he wasn't completely happy with, having others choose the cast, taking notes/suggestions for edits from the studio heads. His next three (and not coincidentally, final three) films were utterly forgettable, and soon afterwards he retired and left Hollywood forever, though still only in his mid-50s. Years later, looking back, he wrote something like: "When you make movies the way you think best and stick to your guns no matter what, angels come down and sit on your shoulder and help you make something great. But after "It's a Wonderful Life" I didn't fight anymore for what I believed in, and didn't make my films the way I wanted to -- and so the angels left me, and they've never come back".
Needless to say, "It's a Wonderful Life" is now recognized as the very good/excellent movie that it is, and that it was, and that it has always been. Sure, "the public" will have their say very soon after a golf course opens; all the more reason, it seems to me, for the architect involved to fight for it and believe in it even when no one else does, or at the very least not to publicly disavow it so quickly.
Peter
Peter
That's nicely written and an interesting story. One major difference though between the film and the golf course. No one buggered about with the film after it was released. It was allowed to be judged over time on what it was. That doesn't tend to happen with golf courses, even the ones we now think of as architectural masterpieces and shouldn't be touched. Who's to say what people would be saying about the Castle course in 40 years time if it had been left untouched.
Niall
-
Ally
I've only ever walked the Castle course in part but it is clear there is a hell of a drop from the top of the course to the bottom. Given the slope it's hard to imagine that some bold shaping wouldn't be required at least somewhere to make it work.
Niall
-
Ally
I've only ever walked the Castle course in part but it is clear there is a hell of a drop from the top of the course to the bottom. Given the slope it's hard to imagine that some bold shaping wouldn't be required at least somewhere to make it work.
Niall
Castle Course may well not have survived another 40 years without the changes. Unlike films, courses cost money to keep alive. Studios just "write" off a non-earner film and cover the cost with other films. Not many courses have that luxury.
Ciao
-
Sean
According to many on here, the Eden has been brutalised and destroyed by the work of Donald Steel, yet I'll bet it's still one of the more popular and played courses in Fife. Despite what we "know it all" gca'ers think, there is still the mass ranks of golfers out there who are happy to accept it for what it is and enjoy the experience. For instance, a pal of mine still talks about playing out of a greenside bunker to about 3 feet and then watching as his ball slid off the green and 30 yards back down the fairway. He had a great day out and while he wouldn't want to play it in a medal, he loved it simply as a day out.
Niall
-
Yes, Eden has been raped, but its still good, affordable golf...a good trip filler or if I lived within 2 hours or so worth playing once a year.
Ciao
-
Ally
I've only ever walked the Castle course in part but it is clear there is a hell of a drop from the top of the course to the bottom. Given the slope it's hard to imagine that some bold shaping wouldn't be required at least somewhere to make it work.
Niall
Yes, I think so too Niall. It was a pretty uninspiring, flat fall as well.
I guess what I was getting at is that 75% of architects would have built a bunch of side slope holes held together with barely concealed containment mounding on the flanks. That was the way. And whilst DMK might not have been a pioneer in the same way as Doak and C&C, at least he was significantly advancing the art with The Castle Course from that fairly mundane style that we saw in Europe through the 80's and 90's. A goodly portion of that might have been down to Mick McShane who also worked at Kingsbarns and just recently is helping Christian Althaus come up with some interesting looking stuff. It's not "minimalist" but it is "naturalist" and I'd take it every time over most of what is produced on this side of the Atlantic.
One thing I do think they got a little wrong on The Castle Course is that the shaping further up the hill should have softened and got more subtle so that it tied in to the farming fields across the road. But then we might not have got the 5th which is one of my favourite holes on the course with a cool green site which I believe has been changed since I last was there, more's the pity.
-
David is right that most modern courses are too difficult. Heck, some people even think my courses are too difficult! [It seems to be the same subset of guys who are still bitter about the anchoring rule. ;) ]
I have seen this all of my life in this business. There are multiple reasons:
1. architects who are very good players, who must not realize how hard they're making it for everyone else;
2. young architects who are not very good players, trying to show the good players how clever they are;
3. architects of all ages who are desperate to win in the GOLF DIGEST formula and get their courses on magazine covers;
4. sons of famous architects trying to show they can out-do their dads; and
5. clients who tell their architect to make a course tournament-tough even though a tournament is never going to be played there.
I'm sure there are even more categories than this. I guess David is trying to put himself in category (3) but at the same time trying to change the agency of the statement -- that it was somehow the media's fault, instead of his own fault for trying to please the media. [If that's really what he said, of course. The media and the political and business establishment have been giving lessons in changing agency about their own failures for some time now. "Mistakes were made," without anyone in power ever taking the fall for them.]
One of the things I realized about Pete Dye, in hindsight, was how lucky he was to have Alice Dye there all the time as a sounding board and second opinion, to tell him when he was going overboard. Every young architect could use someone like that! But usually they've got the opposite -- friends urging them on to do even more outrageous things.
As a result, I changed my m.o. many years ago, and started letting my associates build the first version of a green without being hands-on myself, so I could become the editor and tone them down as needed. If I start building wild contours myself, I'm defensive of them, but if they're not "mine" it is easy to feel more detached and make the right call. The only really severe green at The Loop is the one I went back in and jazzed up in the spring after we'd shaped it the fall before, and I didn't have time to reflect and soften it a little.
This piece of writing is why I am so p,eased to be able to call Tom a friend...this is just an educational piece of brilliant writing....thank you mate
-
I have played Cape Kidnappers, St Andrew's Beach, Barnbougle and Queenwood ( a number of times) and Tom is certainly right to hint that his relative success post Bandon and Pacific was not just down to David's courses being private. Queenwood is a decent course but hardly memorable. It has too many indifferent holes - for example, five par 5's, only one of which is a good hole. A driveable par four that does not really invite you to go for it etc It suffers from the fact that it has a set of greens that combine too much undulation and speed for the average golfer. The set-up is further aggravated by the fact that the club has 15+ tour pro's as members and I always have the feeling that the course is set up for them rather than normal members.
David's latest UK effort, Beaverbrook, is a much better course, and true to the lessons he espouses. Better site, better fitted to the land, more width, better set of greens, better bunkering, more good holes - overall more enjoyable to play.
Philip
Let's not forget the SITE..As I am sure Tom would be the first to point out...
Queenwood versus Barnbougle or Kidnappers....I wonder which courses will garner the most attention
-
I don't know if this is the place....but for some reason I feel compelled to say...
...how much pleasure it gives me to have such "access" to the thoughts of posters like Messrs Andrew & Doak (and many others like Jeff Brauer +++). I'm really, really interested in golf & the design/construction of golf courses. But you guys are out there doing it & leaving courses that will hopefully be there for your childrens' children to enjoy. For you to post so frankly as you have here (& elsewhere) makes me feel better about trawling through some of the less uplifting threads we get here. Thank you for taking the time to share.
+1
-
It's not "minimalist" but it is "naturalist"
What does that even mean?!
-
It's not "minimalist" but it is "naturalist"
What does that even mean?!
Would have thought it self-explanatory, Jaeger. One who succeeds in making something look natural without taking a minimal approach.
-
It's not "minimalist" but it is "naturalist"
What does that even mean?!
Would have thought it self-explanatory, Jaeger. One who succeeds in making something look natural without taking a minimal approach.
That's what I thought you meant, thanks. j
-
Just posted a brief interview with DMK on my blog, along with quite a few photos of his courses around the world.
https://geekedongolf.com/2016/12/21/the-evolving-artist-an-interview-with-david-mclay-kidd/
I have only played Bandon Dunes, so it was interesting for me to see his work laid out side by side in this format. I find that exercise thought provoking with other architects where I have played multiple courses. I did a similar style post with several of Tom's courses that I played last year (https://geekedongolf.com/2015/09/07/a-doaky-season/) - comparing and contrasting is interesting to me, especially when it is below freezing outside.
Back to the interview - not sure that there is anything terribly new or earth-shattering in it, but he did write a few nuggets that piqued my interest, as did the tone. Thought you might enjoy the read given some of the other threads that are kicking around right now.
-
In a recent architecture panel at Sunningdale in NY, I openly shared that from 1989 to around 1999 I was a decidedly average architect. To most of you I still am. ;) The one advantage with getting older is I no longer care what others think, nor do I have any desire to be at the pinnacle of this business. I've watched it up close, it's not as easy as you think.
David wanted to be at the top. He was really ambitious. And you could argue that he made it too. That position comes with a lot of pressure and criticism. In 1989, I was 24 and did not come from a golf course construction background, although I did have of construction experience. By 1999 I was 34 and a year away from the project that changed my trajectory. I built plenty of courses in between and was technically competent, but still had no clue about what I was trying to build when given my own opportunity.
I apprenticed and was fortunately edited. David learnt, made choices and perhaps a few mistakes in front of the golfing world's eyes. He evolved and has a different opinion on what is good. Now he has to weather the past work. The difference is mine are well hidden renovations. :) So, I feel for where he's at.
I hope that provides perspective.
But I think his criticism of the media was a horrible mistake in judgement.
Every time I made a compromise, each time I approved a shape or green contour, I always had the choice to do something different. Every decision I ever made is on me. Likewise, each thing he built anything, it's on him. Part of going from good to great is ability, but just as much is recognizing something is either not good enough or poorly conceived. The greatest lesson and final lesson most need is self-restraint. There's always an alternative ... and one of them is to not accept a commission.
I am nobody without the constant help of the media that I have received. I owe them my career and to a certain extend if David sat back and thought about it, that is the case for him too.
I like what I see from the early photos of Sand Hills. I hope David has found the sweet spot in design and life. This is not an easy business. People question your every decision. The competition for work is very intense. And in today's day and age there is not a lot of media opportunities left.
Anyone who makes a living at golf course design is very, very lucky. There is not a single architect who has got to that place without someone else's help. Often it's a key person in the media that thinks you deserve additional opportunities.
Signed,
The still Decidedly Average Architect
Maybe the best post I've ever seen on here.