Ian, while much of your thesis makes sense, in my world travels I have yet to play an unwalkable course that's worth bothering to play more than once, there's just no magic in cartball, the spirit of golf doesn't reside in those dumbed down bastardizations of the game. So yeah, a walkable routing should be part of every architect's checklist.
melvyn is not a dumb azz#
I often think about the benefits of the template designers of the Golden Era. They had tried and true strategic hole designs in their back pocket and then would look at the property and figure out the best locations to integrate those designs, tweaking and individualizing them depending on what made the most sense.
Those courses rarely disappoint and the philosophy seems a more sure way to ensure you'll come up with something that challenges and pleases the majority of golfers. I suppose there is a lot of pressure on GCA's to do something unique on almost every hole, on every course. But it's harder and more hit and miss.
Ian:
When I worked for Mr. Dye, I was stationed briefly in Clarksburg, WV, where Pete's client James LaRosa had become obsessed with building "the greatest golf course in the world". Pete told him that I was in charge of that list, so Mr. LaRosa spent those two weeks asking me a million questions about what it would take to reach that goal. [I think Pete set me up on purpose :D ]
For an exercise I did a thorough analysis of the top ten courses in the world, and what they had in common, to see how many real "rules" of golf architecture I could find.
Nearly all of the rules suggested by others were clearly violated by at least one course:
Par-3's to four compass directions? MUIRFIELD has three playing to the east.
Par? Everything from 70 [PINE VALLEY AND MERION] to 72. BALLYBUNION has five par-3's.
Balance? BALLYBUNION has a lot of doglegs, almost all of them to the left. Another course I can't think of now goes predominantly right.
Length? NONE of the top ten courses were 7000 yards long back in 1985 when I did this exercise. Cypress Point and Merion were under 6500.
Beauty? OAKMONT is not really beautiful, and ST. ANDREWS is an acquired taste in that regard [ask Sam Snead!].
Green size? PEBBLE BEACH has some of the smallest greens in golf. ST. ANDREWS some of the biggest.
Green contour? They range from fairly flat [MUIRFIELD] to extreme [AUGUSTA, OAKMONT, PINE VALLEY], leaning to the extreme.
About the only thing they did have in common was that all of them were walkable. Since then I have paid close attention to the rankings to see whether this rule will fall by the wayside ... there are a few now in the top 100 that aren't really walkable, but it doesn't seem that any of them will push into the top 25.
The other thing they had in common was Character. Sometimes it comes from Intention, as at OAKMONT or PINE VALLEY; sometimes it comes from the site. But each of the great courses has a distinct character that isn't borrowed from somewhere else, and isn't easily replicated.
......... I m more convinced now that the owner is even more important. It is obviously the key to Jeff's sports analogy and I think it goes back to The land also....
Tom-To play devil’s advocate NGLA certainly follows the template model and is almost universally accepted as great.
Tom-To play devil’s advocate NGLA certainly follows the template model and is almost universally accepted as great.
Tim, along with NGLA add Fishers Island, Camargo, Lido, St. Louis CC, Chicago Golf, Mid-Ocean, Old White, Yale, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow, parts of Merion and ANGC...
... and Tom's own Old Mac.
i.e. the list of exceptional golf courses based on templates is long and outstanding.
Tom-To play devil’s advocate NGLA certainly follows the template model and is almost universally accepted as great.
Tim, along with NGLA add Fishers Island, Camargo, Lido, St. Louis CC, Chicago Golf, Mid-Ocean, Old White, Yale, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow, parts of Merion and ANGC...
... and Tom's own Old Mac.
i.e. the list of exceptional golf courses based on templates is long and outstanding.
Do you understand the difference between "rarely disappoint" and exceptional ??
About the only thing they did have in common was that all of them were walkable. Since then I have paid close attention to the rankings to see whether this rule will fall by the wayside ... there are a few now in the top 100 that aren't really walkable, but it doesn't seem that any of them will push into the top 25.
Do you understand the difference between "rarely disappoint" and exceptional ??
I don't think I do, and I would love to read your thoughts on this difference.
About the only thing they did have in common was that all of them were walkable. Since then I have paid close attention to the rankings to see whether this rule will fall by the wayside ... there are a few now in the top 100 that aren't really walkable, but it doesn't seem that any of them will push into the top 25.
Apologies for deleting the rest of your thoughts, I just found this ironic. I doubt many would consider the course in Clarksburg to be comfortably walkable. Most of our gca group didn't seem to think so, based on the choice of carts. It sure did break some rules, though.
Tom-To play devil’s advocate NGLA certainly follows the template model and is almost universally accepted as great.
Tim, along with NGLA add Fishers Island, Camargo, Lido, St. Louis CC, Chicago Golf, Mid-Ocean, Old White, Yale, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow, parts of Merion and ANGC...
... and Tom's own Old Mac.
i.e. the list of exceptional golf courses based on templates is long and outstanding.
My own comments:
1) NGLA was not a "template course". It INVENTED the idea of templates, so Macdonald could design them however he wanted to fit the land. It's also an exceptional piece of ground, as are several of the others listed, to Ian's first point.
2) At Old Macdonald we held out to REINVENT the templates instead of doing the cookie-cutter version of them. If we'd gone with the cookies I don't think the course would be nearly as successful.
3) There is a difference between "great" and "exceptional". All of the courses listed may be considered great, but not many of them are really exceptional.
Tom-To play devil’s advocate NGLA certainly follows the template model and is almost universally accepted as great.
Tim, along with NGLA add Fishers Island, Camargo, Lido, St. Louis CC, Chicago Golf, Mid-Ocean, Old White, Yale, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow, parts of Merion and ANGC...
... and Tom's own Old Mac.
i.e. the list of exceptional golf courses based on templates is long and outstanding.
My own comments:
1) NGLA was not a "template course". It INVENTED the idea of templates, so Macdonald could design them however he wanted to fit the land. It's also an exceptional piece of ground, as are several of the others listed, to Ian's first point.
2) At Old Macdonald we held out to REINVENT the templates instead of doing the cookie-cutter version of them. If we'd gone with the cookies I don't think the course would be nearly as successful.
3) There is a difference between "great" and "exceptional". All of the courses listed may be considered great, but not many of them are really exceptional.
Taking your points one at a time...
1) I disagree. NGLA is almost entirely templates. Yes it was the the first template course, but a template course nonetheless: the Grandmother of Templates, designed by the Grandfather of US golf architecture.
2) Agree totally about Old Mac, but don't see how that changes the fact that the designer based it on templates. If anything, Old Mac shows the flexibility in the template concept.
3) This seems like semantics to me, but accepting some undefined distinction, do you not consider Yale and Fishers exceptional? Many who wrote about Lido thought it was exceptional: one of the revered golf critics of the time called it the best course in the world. Merion is a ten on the Doak scale, and just about every other scale as well. Most rate ANGC a ten, and IIRC you gave it a 9, which surely is exceptional. Most consider Old Mac exceptional.
Overall, anything in the world top 100 seems exceptional to me. With 30,000 courses globally, that's the upper one third of one percent. That isn't exceptional?
I get the feeling you, Tom, don't like the constraints a template course puts on you. Yet Old Mac, Merion and ANGC show how broad-ranging the concept can be. I used to wish, in vain I'm sure, that you would be the one to recreate Lido, if that project ever got off the ground. I thought and think no one could do it better than you, even if you were slightly gagging at the prospect.
For years I've wondered what CPC would have looked like had Raynor lived to complete its design. Where would the templates have gone? Would the course get the sky-high rankings it does now, almost always counted among the top few in the world?
I don't want to put words in Mr. Doak's mouth, and he can correct me if I'm wrong -- but I believe he was differentiating between the two by saying a course can be great without being exceptional. And, if I'm understanding him correctly, he may even venture as far as to say a course could be exceptional without necessarily being great (but that may be a leap he did not intend).
I think he intended exceptional to mean a course that does something new and different; some wholly original idea or feature unseen before.
I don't want to put words in Mr. Doak's mouth, and he can correct me if I'm wrong -- but I believe he was differentiating between the two by saying a course can be great without being exceptional. And, if I'm understanding him correctly, he may even venture as far as to say a course could be exceptional without necessarily being great (but that may be a leap he did not intend).
I think he intended exceptional to mean a course that does something new and different; some wholly original idea or feature unseen before.
I think he intended exceptional to mean a course that does something new and different; some wholly original idea or feature unseen before.
We are using different definitions of "exceptional" than Jim N or Tim. They are thinking it's just a synonym of "great" -- if they think any course in the top 100 is exceptional. We are using "exceptional" as "an exception to the rule", or really different ... something that does more than just tick the boxes of what is conventionally considered great.
We are using different definitions of "exceptional" than Jim N or Tim. They are thinking it's just a synonym of "great" -- if they think any course in the top 100 is exceptional. We are using "exceptional" as "an exception to the rule", or really different ... something that does more than just tick the boxes of what is conventionally considered great.
Here are the three definitions Webster's online gives for exceptional:
1. : forming an exception (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exception) : rare (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rare)2 : better than average : superior (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superior)
- an exceptional number of rainy days
3 : deviating from the norm: such as a : having above or below average intelligence b : physically disabled
- exceptional skill
To me all the template-based or related courses I listed earlier satisfy any part of that definition: they are superior, better than average; they form an exception by being among the top fraction of 1% of all courses in the world; and they deviate from the norm for the same reason as well.
Even using your definition of exceptional, which seems to me more like 'unique,' which of the courses I noted in my last post do you not consider exceptional?
I can't place it right now, but I suspect at most, there have been a few 10 or so course lists for exceptional or unique courses, not the full 100. In fact, if there were 100 that fit the criteria, they might not be all that exceptional anyway. The dirty dozen would be a better list for that.
And that's just a start - I'm not looking at the list. Suffice to say there will be plenty of room for Askernish, Prestwick, Dornoch, Royal Worlington & Newmarket, and maybe Kingsbarns or Castle Stuart; also Garden City, Shinnecock Hills, Harbour Town, the TPC at Sawgrass, Shadow Creek, The Sheep Ranch and The Loop, and a few holes of Black Diamond; and then the way-out-there places like Himalayan Golf Club.
What about a course like the original Stone Harbor?
Is there any sort of requirement of a baseline level of quality?
Edward:
Sure, there is such a thing as "exceptionally bad". That's why I don't want to make a list!
I don't want to put words in Mr. Doak's mouth, and he can correct me if I'm wrong -- but I believe he was differentiating between the two by saying a course can be great without being exceptional. And, if I'm understanding him correctly, he may even venture as far as to say a course could be exceptional without necessarily being great (but that may be a leap he did not intend).
I think he intended exceptional to mean a course that does something new and different; some wholly original idea or feature unseen before.
I should just let Edward continue the conversation on my behalf. He got it spot on.
We are using different definitions of "exceptional" than Jim N or Tim. They are thinking it's just a synonym of "great" -- if they think any course in the top 100 is exceptional. We are using "exceptional" as "an exception to the rule", or really different ... something that does more than just tick the boxes of what is conventionally considered great.
For example, I think Tobacco Road is exceptional, but I don't think it's great. It's got flaws and it wears them on its sleeve. It's still worth seeing, more than whatever is the next Raynor course on your list.
Also, NGLA may be mostly templates - or pieces of templates - as you know them now. But they didn't really exist beforehand, other than the Eden and the Redan and the Road greens, and Macdonald would have had license to redefine even those if he couldn't figure out how to fit them to that site. Just look how different the Alps is from what's at Prestwick!
I'm just amazed that so many people celebrate the paint-by-numbers approach to design.
I often think about the benefits of the template designers of the Golden Era. They had tried and true strategic hole designs in their back pocket and then would look at the property and figure out the best locations to integrate those designs, tweaking and individualizing them depending on what made the most sense.
Those courses rarely disappoint and the philosophy seems a more sure way to ensure you'll come up with something that challenges and pleases the majority of golfers. I suppose there is a lot of pressure on GCA's to do something unique on almost every hole, on every course. But it's harder and more hit and miss.
Do you understand the difference between "rarely disappoint" and exceptional ??
Speaking of TR....
And this is just a total shot in the dark, but how interesting and/or feasible would it be to have a top notch pro tourney there? Would the confines allow for spectating, or too impractical? Perhaps a smaller event like a Walker Cup where galleries are small?
Just wondering....
Speaking of TR....
And this is just a total shot in the dark, but how interesting and/or feasible would it be to have a top notch pro tourney there? Would the confines allow for spectating, or too impractical? Perhaps a smaller event like a Walker Cup where galleries are small?
Just wondering....
It's only 6,500 yards. They'd just blast it straight over all the quirk
Ian,
A great OP - certainly lots to think about.
My thoughts:
'I find there is a lot of threads that talk about specific details and are trying to determine hard and fast rules. I assume they would like to make the evaluation of golf course architecture more scientific.In my opinion, you can't define how to create exceptional golf architecture.'
I would agree with this, but I would add that IMHO, you can't create exceptional golf course design without knowing the rules that you say can't lead to exceptional design. If I don't know what the non-exceptional is, how can I create the exceptional? For me, that's why I love to discuss, and try to come to some general consensus for what constitutes good or even great course design. Will that lead to exceptional design? As you say, probably not. It might not even lead to good design, depending on your execution. But if I don't know what to break, how can I break it?Even the most famous painters in the world generally had some schooling, or mentor. Picasso didn't start cubism without first understanding what wasn't cubism. Macdonald didn't create National without first knowing what courses there were in America at the time. I think this goes to your point about intention. Pete Dye had an intention, and so did C&C at Sand Hills. It may not be 'unique' as Tom says, but it was rare, at least at the time they created these masterpieces.
Sean,
Perhaps that would be because GD and others have lists and criteria for the 100 Greatest Courses, but none for the 100 most exceptional courses. And, each lists criteria has a guidebook for getting to "great."
I can't place it right now, but I suspect at most, there have been a few 10 or so course lists for exceptional or unique courses, not the full 100. In fact, if there were 100 that fit the criteria, they might not be all that exceptional anyway. The dirty dozen would be a better list for that.
Tim,
I agree with your comments about understanding where to start. Picasso was taught by his father who was an artist. Many architects work under others for decades before attempting their own solo work. But the problem is rules and principals will only produce a good or perhaps great result.
Exceptional requires the artist to take flight and begin to use their intuition rather than some form of a process. And herein lies the rub at what I'm trying to get at. The design process uses both the intuitive side of your brain and the the logical side. It bounces back and forth between the two states depending on the task is. Design is not a single side of the brain operation for a creative person.
You may choose to use the logical side and your list on concepts and ideas to begin the process. I personally don't. But the flashes of inspiration are where the flight into something intuitive and more eccentric happens. The greater the designer's ability to "play" in that space, the greater chance of expanding their ideas beyond conventional. Exceptional lies "way out there." Not everyone can go there because deep down inside "you have to believe in something or be looking for something" to have any possibility of extending out beyond where you're comfortable. Then you have to have the conviction to see it through...
Speaking of TR....
And this is just a total shot in the dark, but how interesting and/or feasible would it be to have a top notch pro tourney there? Would the confines allow for spectating, or too impractical? Perhaps a smaller event like a Walker Cup where galleries are small?
Just wondering....
It's only 6,500 yards. They'd just blast it straight over all the quirk
Some of the more memorable holes I've built which fall into the "flash of inspiration" category (where I wasn't sure at first how they would turn out, but then made a key decision later) include a lot of my best holes
High Pointe 13
Stonewall Old 18
Ballyneal 7
Barnbougle 4
Pacific Dunes 8
Old Mac 7 & 8
These are not all "original" ideas - for example the 7th at Ballyneal is loosely based on the 7th at Crystal Downs. But it wasn't planned that way; I had to stare at the green site for several days before I realized that would be the perfect solution for it.
... If I don't know what the non-exceptional is, how can I create the exceptional? ...
... If I don't know what the non-exceptional is, how can I create the exceptional? ...
The non-exceptional is so common. Can it be used to motivate the exceptional?
If you strive for the very best within you, I believe you have a chance for creating something exceptional.
Did Mozart understand the non-exceptional before he began to create the exceptional?
Pac Dunes 8? Wow! I adore 7 and 9, and find 8 to be a suitable transition. What am I missing?
Pac Dunes 8? Wow! I adore 7 and 9, and find 8 to be a suitable transition. What am I missing?
I believe the 8th at PD is based on the 3rd at Woking; you can work your ball off the right green side slope to get close to holes cut behind the bunker to the right.
...
If the architect's aim is to build something "exceptional", he should be trying to do something different than he's done before, and that may entail taking chances with original or unusual ideas.
... For that matter, what was exceptional when we built Pacific Dunes is no longer as exceptional today.
Jeff_Brauer said, "I relate it to comedy, where the key is substitution of a new, completely different idea when everyone else would insert the tried and true."
IMHO Substitution will not get the job done...
Exceptional comes from removing yourself from the comfort of a framework you trust.
And yes, the idea that someone could be supplanted by computer aided artificial intelligence because they can process a million times faster than we can comes into play. Scary, but I love it. Siri, what type of green fits a left to right sloping site?" Siri: Have you considered copying 3 of the 5 basic features of 16 at ANGC?" LOL, but it could happen someday.