Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Matt_Cohn on November 21, 2021, 04:08:54 PM
-
Doak, Crenshaw, Greene, Hanse, Foster, Phillips, Eckenrode...the mainstream of 2000's golf course architecture has a very identifiable look and feel. These big names seem to have similar visions of how a golf course should look and play, and there are lots of guys I didn't name there who are also doing very good work—and in many cases, very similar style work. In a nutshell, they're all building courses that look like they were built 100 years ago.
Who's doing something different? Is there a Mike Strantz or Pete Dye out there, building great stuff that really contrasts with mainstream 2000's golf course architecture? Are there any new ideas?
-
Well, there's this guy named Robert Trent ...
Contrasting stuff would have to depend on the topography to some degree.
The guys you mentioned all fit into the fair and playable category. The ground game category. The putting is an adventure category.
What's different, I suppose, would have to contrast to a degree with those categories/philosophies.
|| Geometric Golf || Heroic Penal Golf || Small Flat Greens Golf ||
I'm not certain what could be done differently.
Don't forget Dan Hixson
-
Doak, Crenshaw, Greene, Hanse, Foster, Phillips, Eckenrode...the mainstream of 2000's golf course architecture has a very identifiable look and feel. These big names seem to have similar visions of how a golf course should look and play, and there are lots of guys I didn't name there who are also doing very good work—and in many cases, very similar style work. In a nutshell, they're all building courses that look like they were built 100 years ago.
Who's doing something different? Is there a Mike Strantz or Pete Dye out there, building great stuff that really contrasts with mainstream 2000's golf course architecture? Are there any new ideas?
I will disagree with your premise. If everybody was doing the same thing, everybody would be churning out great golf courses. Maybe you should look beyond the surface to try and scout out some differences.
-
I will go out on a limb and predict one of the top architects is going to do something revolutionary and the one that does will clearly distinguish themselves as the visionary for future golf course design. It needs to be someone like Doak or C&C or Hanse or even Fazio because they all have the credibility that if they do it, it has to be pretty darn good and worth studying or maybe replicating or at least inspiring to other architects to take similar risks. They also need a client willing to back them as golf courses are not cheap. The difficultly is all these guys have a standard and essentially a brand to keep. Who here wants to commission one of these guys to build something totally new and different when they know they can probably get a world class or at least an outstanding closer to what you would expect design with minimal risk. Can any of you imagine C&C for example building from scratch a course like Tobacco Road - I don't think so. But if they did something totally different, it would likely be embraced and maybe they could change the direction of design (at least for a little while) as was done by some of these guys in the last 20 years. Good luck to all :D
-
Tom's response is telling: because if you look beyond/beneath the surface, ie the aesthetics, there is only one main consideration left, ie how the course *plays* -- its strategies and challenges and questions and recovery options etc. In other words, the 'shots' it asks/allows you to play.
Hey, maybe there's room for Golf Digest's rating criteria after all! :)
-
Peter,
Play Tobacco Road and see if you feel the same. The design and aesthetics and variety of obstacles of the course makes figuring out the “shots it is asking” very hard to decipher and very challenging. In some ways it is more a mental test then a physical one. You don’t say on any hole “it is all right in front of you, just execute the shot”. It is more a matter of which shot ;D
-
I will go out on a limb and predict one of the top architects is going to do something revolutionary and the one that does will clearly distinguish themselves as the visionary for future golf course design. It needs to be someone like Doak or C&C or Hanse or even Fazio because they all have the credibility that if they do it, it has to be pretty darn good and worth studying or maybe replicating or at least inspiring to other architects to take similar risks. They also need a client willing to back them as golf courses are not cheap. The difficultly is all these guys have a standard and essentially a brand to keep. Who here wants to commission one of these guys to build something totally new and different when they know they can probably get a world class or at least an outstanding closer to what you would expect design with minimal risk. Can any of you imagine C&C for example building from scratch a course like Tobacco Road - I don't think so. But if they did something totally different, it would likely be embraced and maybe they could change the direction of design (at least for a little while) as was done by some of these guys in the last 20 years. Good luck to all :D
Mark:
This might be the silliest post you've ever made, and that's saying something.
For one thing, your premise is wrong: Mike Strantz DID build Tobacco Road, and it did NOT change the direction of what everyone else was doing. So why would that direction change now if one of us managed to mimic it? [It wouldn't be that hard to do.]
Second, while I feel we are all capable of building something radically different if we wanted to, I think I can speak for myself and maybe for Bill Coore that we have spent the last 20-25 years putting out what we believe the future of golf should look like. If we did choose to do something different in our old age, it wouldn't mean we had totally changed our philosophy or ethos, and that we wanted everyone else to copy those courses instead.
Third, I doubt you would recognize something radical and different if you saw it. I am not sure why Mike Strantz's work was totally different than anything ever, but a fully reversible course [The Loop] or a bunkerless course [The Sheep Ranch] are just more of the same.
Matt can lament the lack of creativity all he wants -- as long as he remembers who is copying whom -- but the only way to change it is for someone to go stick their necks out. It's actually a very good time for that, if there's someone out there who really has the talent.
-
I think I can speak for myself and maybe for Bill Coore that we have spent the last 20-25 years putting out what we believe the future of golf should look like.
Hi Tom, thanks for your replies and as always there's a lot to digest. This line was interesting. One way to phrase my question is whether there are architects out there with notably different visions for what the future of golf should look like, either stylistically or otherwise, and whether any of them have merit.
I wouldn't say every architect is doing the same thing, but I do think that a lot of courses built or renovated these days look very similar. I don't know exactly what else I want to see, and maybe financial realities make it hard to try something wildly different. But yes, I wish there were more wildly different stuff out there than what I've seen.
-
Tom,
Mike passed away too early to know where he would have taken design and at the time he built Tobacco Road he was not all that well known and surely not a leader in the GCA profession. Many at the time thought Tobacco Road was over the top. There is a big difference who does these things and who doesn't. Also sounds a bit condescending to Mike that what he did would be pretty easy to do but he probably felt the same way about your work so the feeling was probably mutual :D
Your second point validates my point about some of the top architects being set in their ways and have a style/brand to protect. Can't blame them. Why take risks? I just think one of them will step out and do something very different. Time will tell. My guess is it will be Gil Hanse but we will see who is first.
I might recognize more than you realize but you think what you want. Maybe Mike fooled me and most everyone else who has played Tobacco Road but very few if any courses out there are anything like that design. Yes it incorporates many ideas used elsewhere. I can see concepts coming from courses such as Lahinch and Prestwick and Royal North Devon and Royal St. George's and North Berwick and the list goes on but who else has designed and built an 18 hole course like he did at Tobacco Road? I didn't expect it to get copied but I did expect him to continue to introduce us to designs that were each very different from the last one he did. He was a breath of fresh air and he could have made a real difference as he gained popularity and recognition but we will never know. By the way, isn't The Old course reversible and isn't Royal Ashdown Forest bunkerless? Played both and recognized both. :D
-
I think I can speak for myself and maybe for Bill Coore that we have spent the last 20-25 years putting out what we believe the future of golf should look like.
Hi Tom, thanks for your replies and as always there's a lot to digest. This line was interesting. One way to phrase my question is whether there are architects out there with notably different visions for what the future of golf should look like, either stylistically or otherwise, and whether any of them have merit.
I wouldn't say every architect is doing the same thing, but I do think that a lot of courses built or renovated these days look very similar. I don't know exactly what else I want to see, and maybe financial realities make it hard to try something wildly different. But yes, I wish there were more wildly different stuff out there than what I've seen.
Matt:
"Look" might have been a bad choice of words since I was referring more to how we think golf courses should play -- fairly wide off the tee so it's easy to find a ball, fairly challenging on the approach shot, interesting around the greens. And equally importantly, our courses feel like they are a natural part of the land, even where we've made changes.
But your question is a good one: are there architects who have a radically different vision of what playing golf should be? Jim Engh was the last one I can think of, and he's not working much these days, so maybe not that many people really bought into his vision. I can think of a couple of other guys who would stake their claim, but it remains to be seen whether they will build courses that attract golfers and clients.
-
Mark,
Do you think what Gil did at Streamsong Black was different enough? Never seen it in person, but it certainly seems to be fairly polarizing among GCA members with a lot of unusual shot and recovery requirements...
P.S. I've always thought Jim Engh's stuff was very out-of-the box, and while I've enjoyed his courses, I know many here don't prefer it to put it nicely.
-
Tom,
Mike passed away too early to know where he would have taken design and at the time he built Tobacco Road he was not all that well known and surely not a leader in the GCA profession. Many at the time thought Tobacco Road was over the top. There is a big difference who does these things and who doesn't. Also sounds a bit condescending to Mike that what he did would be pretty easy to do but he probably felt the same way about your work so the feeling was probably mutual :)
Your second point validates my point about some of the top architects being set in their ways and have a style/brand to protect. Can't blame them. Why take risks? I just think one of them will step out and do something very different. Time will tell. My guess is it will be Gil Hanse but we will see who is first.
I might recognize more than you realize but you think what you want. Maybe Mike fooled me and most everyone else who has played Tobacco Road but very few if any courses out there are anything like that design. Yes it incorporates many ideas used elsewhere. I can see concepts coming from courses such as Lahinch and Prestwick and Royal North Devon and Royal St. George's and North Berwick and the list goes on but who else has designed and built an 18 hole course like he did at Tobacco Road? I didn't expect it to get copied but I did expect him to continue to introduce us to designs that were each very different from the last one he did. He was a breath of fresh air and he could have made a real difference as he gained popularity and recognition but we will never know. By the way, isn't The Old course reversible and isn't Royal Ashdown Forest bunkerless? Played both and recognized both. :)
I have a great deal of admiration for Mike Strantz's work, particularly his way of creating dramatic-looking hazards. I think everyone in the business builds better-looking features now because we've all studied what he did, but nobody has tried to outright mimic his style, out of respect. I am sure that I know a few guys who could do it if we turned them loose. That's not to say that they could design a course as good, but they could mimic the style.
I am never more energized than when someone tells me I can't do something, but never more annoyed when someone says I have a brand to protect. That's baloney. I would posit that my courses look much more different from each other than Mike Strantz's courses do, but that's partly a function of his work being confined mostly to one part of the USA. It's also partly a function of people looking the other way at all of the courses where I've built a different look. St. Emilion and The Loop and Memorial Park look pretty different than the stereotype of my work, but I can't help it if people pay more attention to Tara Iti and Pacific Dunes!
Also did Mike Strantz ever visit Lahnich and Royal North Devon and Royal St. George's? Honest question, I don't have any idea, but I was surprised to see you cite them as his inspiration for certain holes.
-
Many people confuse different with good.
-
Whether it be the developer, the architect, the shaper, or some other person of influence on the design of a golf course, the most important thing (in my mind) is the visionary be true unto themselves. If you’re *trying* to do something different but you aren’t truly different(or different-thinking) then you’re fighting the process.
It’s one thing to learn a new way or have a change of preferences, but it’s quite another to pretend to be artistically radical when your nature is quite conservative. Serve the game of golf while remaining true to yourself and it should work out well…..
I guess if you are looking for something different, seek out the architect whose logo is a bowl of psychedelic mushrooms on the horizon, or something like that……
-
Kalen,
The Black was under construction when I was last down there so I have only played the Red and the Blue. You are right about the Black from what I have heard from guys whose opinions I trust and the reviews from them are mixed. I reserve judgment until I see it myself (Covid has slowed travel for me until very recently) but hopefully in 2022 I will swing down there.
I used to talk to Jim Engh regularly many years ago. As has been said, he definitely designed some unique layouts. I think the last one I saw was The Golf Club at Black Rock. Jim had an incredibly diverse site and did his thing (which as we both know was very different from most). Some holes you love and some you shake your head but he definitely was trying to be different and I always admired him for it. Change takes time especially in a game filled with tradition but it will happen, always does as most anything that is stagnant usually dies. Who knows if we will see it in our lifetimes but I know a few who have ideas and we will see :D
Tom,
Mike Strantz did one of his last interviews for Forrest and I for our Hazards book. His wife (Heidi if I remember her name correctly as it was back in 2005) helped while he was in the hospital - Mike insisted he wanted to do the interview even though he could no longer really talk at the time :(
He was told us he was inspired by many of those courses I mentioned and others that heavily influenced him were St. Andrews and Royal County Down. He also loved Pine Valley and said he rarely would he ever build a course where at least one thought from Pine Valley didn't pop into his mind. We only used a portion of what Mike told us in our book as we had to limit content but I still have some of my notes. Mike was infatuated by Hazards (no surprise). One of my favorite quotes from Mike that we did manage to include in the book was about the definition of "unfair", a term he and I both agreed has no place in the world of GCA. Mike said, "One of the definitions of 'unfair' is marked by injustice, partiality, or deception." Mike said that sounded to him like it could be part of the definition for the game of golf itself :D
Mark,
Very true. Different for the sake of being different is one thing. Stone Harbor was different but it was not very good at all. But there are always exceptions and different is what sparks innovation otherwise nothing would ever change. Sometimes it is a bumpy trial and error process to find success.
-
8) ::)
You could build something totally different than anyone else but it might really suck :-X
I've played a few courses by a name designer (better golfer)with a plethora of 90 degree doglegs , a course built to honor ancient Greek and Roman mythology and a course with so much going on I wanted to blow it up by the ninth hole . Really enjoyed imploding a par three totally surrounded by wood planking (Greate Bay #2) yikes....a green with a giant tree growing in the middle of it , etc etc etc. I thought a brilliant guy from around here named Ed Carmen built something unique at Running Deer, but it just didn't quite play right. Visited what was supposed to be a spectacular closing hole in OC Md. that required a six iron lay-up and a three iron second shot , not too good etc etc etc and this is within a couple hours from my home in the deep south of NJ>
We appreciate good design that flows, that's why lots of the architects we like work so hard to keep it from being a crazy staccato of difficult holes one after another. They agonize over and over about how to rout it so the challenges resonate with all kinds of golfers, not just guys who are scratch players or hit it 320 yards.
So I'm not thinking bottleneck fairways to reign in long hitters on multiple holes. Or wild over the top green that are not puttable as soon as they get firm and fast or the wind blows. Or bunker complexes that have 18 DA's like the 10th at Pine Valley.
Maybe someone could build a seemingly benign 18 holes with some radical kick plates in the fairways or even on the greens that mandate a specific trajectory that is foreign to most of our great players of today who hit it very far and very high as a rule. That's what someone with real special talent might do , someone "so good with the stilletto" that you can't see the pain coming. Now that might be a dream that's achievable.
-
You'd think that if a radically different vision of what playing golf should be was actually possible we would've seen it by now -- at least once, at some point over the last 150 years. But we haven't. Not even once. We didn't see it when golf (and gca) moved from the Scottish linksland to the English inlands; nor did we see a radical new vision of golf or gca when the game migrated across the oceans from GB&I to Australia and America, ie to Chicago and Long Island and Philadelphia; and we didn't see it as golf spread across North America, and to California and to the deserts and the mountains; nor was some new way of thinking about how the game might be played expressed in the work of RTJ or Pete Dye or Tom Fazio or Mike Strantz, not at the swamp that was Sawgrass nor at Tobacco Road, for all its flash -- for in order to have 'deception' the 'norm' has to be honoured/implicit; and even as dramatic a shift as a literal renaissance in golf course architecture didn't bring about a 'new vision' of the art-craft in any of its essentials. And all of this is not a criticism, it's just a reality. The game is the game, and it abides -- thank goodness.
-
Archie,
Great points and some good examples. No one here is arguing different is always better.
Peter,
Wasn’t there a story back in the early 1900’s when the head of the U.S. patent office resigned because he said there was nothing meaningful left to invent ;D
-
Mark, I get your point, but I think that's the basic mistake/misunderstanding around here. Golf architects don't "invent" anything; architects "create". An analogy: They've been making movies in the same way for almost 100 years, and story-telling's essential narratives and fundamental 'narrative structures' had been around for hundreds of years before that -- firmly established long before Shakespeare made such genius-level use of them. And they still apply, in precisely the same way, whether it's a DeMille biblical epic or a Woody Allen comedy or a Martin Scorcese mob movie. Nothing has changed for decades; no one has 'invented' anything new in even longer than that -- and yet, year after year after year, talented filmmakers (and golf course architects) produce/create a new batch of wonderful pieces of work, all of the unique, each and every one of them different. In one sense, all of it is 'new' and 'different' -- but in another sense, none of it is.
-
This thread is rife with some gross oversimplifications. What the premise seems to ask though is if anyone can be identified who might change course design away from the current paradigm that arguably began in the 90s with Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, and so on. I'm wary of why anyone would want to do that. It would require departing from the tenets of the first Golden Age that the leading contemporary architects referenced by the OP have spent their careers reintroducing and modernizing for golfers after what GCA's homepage refers to 1949-1985 as design's dark ages. There were already decades of "mainstream" course design and construction that repudiated what OTM, Colt, Tillinghast, Ross, etc. did--and now you're looking for someone so bold as to forgo not just architects of that ilk but also C&C, Doak, Hanse?
I have zero concerns that a shared sense of "similar visions of how a golf course should look and play" among top architects working today would ever actually lead to a feeling of mundane sameness at a course to course comparison. As Mr. Doak mentioned earlier, that's a fault of not paying close enough attention.
The flip side to that question is that there are plenty of existing designs and working architects whose style clearly contrasts with those the OP considers mainstream, if that's what someone would prefer. Black Rock was already mentioned, but I'll refrain from listing additional courses I think would also apply.
-
I’m sure there have been a few architects with vision over the years (like Strantz) but history usually writes who the “Visionaries” were and it most often comes hand in hand with success.
Since the 6 or 7 ODG “visionaries”, I’d argue that we’ve had 4 so far that will be remembered in the history books - Trent Jones, Dye, Coore & Doak.
I think Tom defined quite clearly up above that he and Bill have a similar belief in how their courses should play. A part of that translates in to look (such as free flowing width, hiding transitions to fit in with the landscape). So they definitely use some similar tools to achieve their visions.
But that certainly doesn’t mean the courses look the same under the surface framework. And I’ve said a few times on here before that purely aesthetically, I think Tom mixes it up more than his modern contemporaries (from what I’ve seen, often on photos). Whether it be St Emilion or Renaissance or Common Ground or Barnbougle Dunes or The Loop, they are all quite different.
I do think that framework often identifies the work though. I’m not sure the courses “look like they’re 100 years old” (to quote Matt above). Or maybe the point is that there are no 100 year old courses (in America) that still look like they did…. But one of the reasons St Patricks is “different to any other links built in GB&I” is because it works within that framework. It doesn’t make it less than great though. In fact, it is part of the reason it is great.
-
Here we go again!
I can see where Matt is coming from.
If people play a golf course not knowing who the architect is they would see similarities across the spectrum - the style and appearance of courses by Doak, Hanse and C+C are quite similar even if they play differently. Do they share shapers who have similar approaches or learned within.
I feel it is becoming a bit stale despite the great sites they have been working on and conservative rather than do something out of the ordinary
Pete Dye stands out as you can identify a Dye course as it has its own style like Zaha Hadid or Frank Gehry in Architecture maybe call that period from 1960s to 2010s as 'Dyeism'. He had a hybrid of old and new ideas and created a style that stands out on its own.
Has anyone really tried to replicate Pete? like the others have in regards to Thomas, McKenzie and Ross et al.
Andrew Green is slightly different as his shaping and bunkering are more jagged like at Inverness, Congo, Oak Hill and Scioto.
Desmond Muirhead came up with really quirky designs and most don't realise he co designed Murifield Village with Jack (correct me if I am wrong)
Lido is both new and old - it has been replicated by computer and that information has been relayed to the ground in terms of contours and shaping is this the future of golf course design? Can design through computers create a new style or vision - I believe it will happen hopefully sooner than later
-
The irony of this thread is the proposition of a “stale redundancy of excellence” atop the GCA food chain and perhaps that would be a bad thing.
It’s not real.
Let’s step away from the drafting table a bit. At least in the US, we have a long way to go with regard to the saturation of design excellence for the bulk of golfers. If there were 100 Originals each of C&C, Doak, Stranz, Hanse, DMKidd, King/Collins Rhebb/Johns Etc, this might hold more validity. A Hanse Match Trail would tasty. Devries and Foster munys… delicious.
Access to great GCA is rare, so to propose that the contemporary GCA+ pool has become “stale” or redundant is a bit of a stretch. There is no contemporary GCArchie with a high volume catalog akin to Ross’.
We wish there was a glut of great golf architecture but in reality, many retail golfers (granted, again, in the US) are playing circular greens with seed smuggled from the baseball outfield and off the black market from the Tackle/Helmet/football stadium.
(Ok that’s harsh but not too far off) Find some bunker sand to buy right now. Go ahead… I’ll wait…
Others have nice courses but there are still not enough. Our best publics are over sold and can be saddled with 5 and 6 hour rounds regardless if they are in urban or rural areas. We don’t have a very high GCA+/Golfer ratio.
Cirba and Bausch were at Jeffersonville with Ron Prichard and they learned that the Jeff was going to do 60,000 rounds in calendar 2021. 60k. We need more “GCA+” across-the-board to fulfill the demand. Sweetens is on a waitlist status, some Lawsonia tee times are sold into 2023 and you have between 06:00:00 am and 06:00:10 sec am to get a tee time at Houston Memorial.
On the high end, every top gca course weekend is likely sold out through 2022 and into 2023.
When we have a course by the aforementioned in every city, and I can ride a train town to town with my clubs on my back and play two a day, then maybe this proposed “similarity glut” is a thing. Ross is likely the closest GCArchie to have his own eco system.
When there is a Houston Memorial Park Golf, Goat Hill, Common Ground,George Wright, Lawsonia, Winter Park 9, Sweetens Cove, Tobacco Road, Jeffersonville or the like in every town, we still would have barely broken the surface of a demand for contemporary GCA excellence. And when the Covid bump levels out, GCA excellence will likely prevail.
Right now, we’re shouting in a very small room. I wish Stranz was overbuilt.
-
Whatever the future of GCA might be, it is NOT Streamsong Black. It's different and unique, but it is not something that can be duplicated elsewhere.
I loved the course, but I don't think there are many properties with 16,000 acres of land available like the Streamsong property. Even there, they will go VERY slowly on building another full 18 hole course, simply because the best terrain from the phosphate mining has been used; building another flat central FL course would probably cheapen the brand. (I think they are planning a short course near the lodge?)
The greens at the Black are 11 acres, and I think the average is more like 3 acres of greens? (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about those numbers, but you get the idea.) The amount of contour on those greens only works because they are so damn big to begin with. Plus, if you played the Black for the first time without a caddie, not only would you not know where to hit any number of shots, but you'd hit to the wrong green at least a couple of times. It's a unique course for sure, and a great one, but it is NOT the future of GCA.
In that regard, Streamsong has much in common with Tobacco Road; it takes a visionary approach for courses like the three at Streamsong or The Road to be built, but guys like Tom and C&C and Hanse and the late Mike Strantz need a good canvas and quality paints to let them do their best work. And there are only so many of those around.
If it's in any way repetitive to play any two of Tom's courses, or C&C's, or Hanse's, I have yet to see it. But the commonalities of design are a HUGE step forward, and I hope it stays that way.
And FWIW, if I were a GCA and somebody said that I had built a course that looked like it had been there for 100 years, I would think that I had hit it out of the park. Just my opinion...
-
High quality affordable golf is what might be a new trend that is still missing. Maybe that is an oxymoron, maybe not. It is along the lines of what V-Halyard said but I don't think it will come from the big name architects unless every community has someone willing to donate eight figures and a big slush fund for on-going maintenance. Gil doesn't have time to work on these kind of courses and who can blame him when he has Merion, Winged Foot, Olympic,...begging for his time. Gil emailed me a few weeks ago passing on a project for a lower end course that he didn't have time (how could he) to work on. But those are the courses where a big or at least some positive difference can be made for the masses.
Even look at a course like Southern Pines in NC. The change is dramatic, I loved it! Might now be the best of the three (Mid Pines and Pine Needles). But what also is new and dramatic is the new green fee which will go up over 4 fold to close to $200 a round. Will the locals who played there still embrace it? They needed someone to write a donation for $10MM so they could keep the fee affordable. But then you still have a slightly (to put it modestly) expanded maintenance budget that will need to be paid for by someone.
We are blessed with a new Golden Age of course design but very few of these great courses are ever seen at all or more than once by the far majority of golfers who play the game. I like the idea of shorter courses with a par less than 70 that are fun but still challenge most levels of golfers and at the same time also capture the current more natural look and feel but are lower in maintenance upkeep and utilize much less real estate. I don't have the name to make something like this happen but someone will do it and it will change the game for the better.
-
A thought experiment: pick a course that you have played that you think looks too much like the others built since Sand Hills. Even better pick one built by C&C or Doak. What would you do different that you think would have made it a better course?
I am not a Doak acolyte as several of my posts have made clear so I am generally curious in seeing how the premise of the OP could be made more specific.
Thanks.
Ira
-
Ira,
Interesting question but not sure that is what the intent of this thread was? I don’t think anyone is questioning the quality of the latest top designs - are they?
A friend of mine who is well traveled just played Mid Pines, Southern Pines and Pinehurst #4 with me. He absolutely loved all three courses but his comment (take it how you want) was they all looked pretty much the same. Maybe he is clueless as he is just a golfer and not an architecture snob. He also played Tobacco Road and he said that course stood out to him as totally different/unique and was super fun to play. He didn’t say it was better, just very different.
-
Mark,
Matt can speak for himself but I read his post to say that he thinks despite the high quality of the last thirty years of architecture, perhaps it is time for something different. I certainly am open to that but so far TR is the only real example of different that might be as good/better. So I am just proposing that people smarter than I become more concrete.
Ira
PS Tough to devine intent even reading a carefully stated OP.
-
A friend of mine who is well traveled just played Mid Pines, Southern Pines and Pinehurst #4 with me. He absolutely loved all three courses but his comment (take it how you want) was they all looked pretty much the same. Maybe he is clueless as he is just a golfer and not an architecture snob. He also played Tobacco Road and he said that course stood out to him as totally different/unique and was super fun to play. He didn’t say it was better, just very different.
Well the same guy just rebuilt the bunkers on all three of the courses you cited, so that mystery is not too hard to figure out, is it?
-
Ira,
Agree. Let Matt comment.
Tom,
I didn't say I argued with him but that is maybe proving the point; many things are starting to look the same even though it wasn't the same architect on all three courses. Maybe that is not a bad thing it looks the same if it's all good.
-
A friend of mine who is well traveled just played Mid Pines, Southern Pines and Pinehurst #4 with me. He absolutely loved all three courses but his comment (take it how you want) was they all looked pretty much the same. Maybe he is clueless as he is just a golfer and not an architecture snob. He also played Tobacco Road and he said that course stood out to him as totally different/unique and was super fun to play. He didn’t say it was better, just very different.
Well the same guy just rebuilt the bunkers on all three of the courses you cited, so that mystery is not too hard to figure out, is it?
We played all three courses two weeks ago. The bunkering does look similar probably for the reason Tom mentions. However, the three courses otherwise look and play quite differently from each other. Perhaps your friend's reaction is evidence that bunkering can have an outsized effect on impressions.
Ira
-
Ira,
In what way did you feel they played so differently? The overseeing was a big factor but that is a maintenance issue vs a design issue impacting playability.
-
Ira,
In what way did you feel they played so differently? The overseeing was a big factor but that is a maintenance issue vs a design issue impacting playability.
I am reluctant to distract from an interesting thread which I probably should not have done with my last post, but in summary: elevation changes, tightness off the tee, risk/reward shots off the tee, green contours, use (or lack) of cross bunkers, impact of water, cross course vistas (or not), boldness of features, plus a few other aspects.
Ira
-
Ira,
I agree, it would be interesting to start another thread as to the differences. It might make for good discussion especially if a number of people here have played them all.
-
Mark,
Matt can speak for himself but I read his post to say that he thinks despite the high quality of the last thirty years of architecture, perhaps it is time for something different. I certainly am open to that but so far TR is the only real example of different that might be as good/better. So I am just proposing that people smarter than I become more concrete.
Ira
PS Tough to devine intent even reading a carefully stated OP.
I think Jim Engh was a good example of someone who had a wildly different view of what golf could/should be like. It looked and played very different---not just different than other designs at the time, but also different than anything else that had come before. And a lot of people thought it was at least pretty good. Is there anyone like that now?
-
The more golf construction I do the more I realize how much difference there is in the design work being done today.
Compare Memorial Park in Houston with the other work done in the region in the last decade. It’s very different.
I just saw Meadowbrook CC by Andy Staples. I’m not seeing much work like that
We just finished a project with Tripp Davis. Best surface drainage approach I’ve seen, and he’s not a sexy name here.
Working on something with Jay Blasi that I believe is going to be very noteworthy if it happens, and it looks positive.
Mike Nuzzo’s Wolf Point hasn’t opened many doors for him, unfortunately, but it’s pretty damn good as evidenced by the auction price and golfer reviews.
Pay attention to how courses are drained. Checkout if the ball is reacting on mostly convex features or concave. Are bunkers up in the air or nested into the ground? Can you see tees from across the course or do they reveal themselves as you enter the teeing grounds? Short grass around the greens is trendy, but is it smooth snow cone cup like, or fall offs with some edginess and wrinkles? Do the greens play larger or smaller based on how they fit in the green complex?
There are many examples of different approaches to golf architecture out there. Just look closer.
-
Quite a few years ago it seemed all the new courses I was playing were designed by CC/Doak/Hanse. I did get a little burned out, they were all fun, but were all very similar. I began going out of my way to play Dick Wilson, Robert Trent Jones and Walter Travis courses. It was a great experience and I had a lot of fun. My point is, they have many courses that are very different, just try and pick different architects and different decades to play. It does seem that UK has more variety than the US.
-
The more golf construction I do the more I realize how much difference there is in the design work being done today.
Compare Memorial Park in Houston with the other work done in the region in the last decade. It’s very different.
I just saw Meadowbrook CC by Andy Staples. I’m not seeing much work like that
We just finished a project with Tripp Davis. Best surface drainage approach I’ve seen, and he’s not a sexy name here.
Working on something with Jay Blasi that I believe is going to be very noteworthy if it happens, and it looks positive.
Mike Nuzzo’s Wolf Point hasn’t opened many doors for him, unfortunately, but it’s pretty damn good as evidenced by the auction price and golfer reviews.
Pay attention to how courses are drained. Checkout if the ball is reacting on mostly convex features or concave. Are bunkers up in the air or nested into the ground? Can you see tees from across the course or do they reveal themselves as you enter the teeing grounds? Short grass around the greens is trendy, but is it smooth snow cone cup like, or fall offs with some edginess and wrinkles? Do the greens play larger or smaller based on how they fit in the green complex?
There are many examples of different approaches to golf architecture out there. Just look closer.
What’s one feature on one of those courses that hasn’t been done before in many places? I’m mostly just asking, but kind of challenging too.
-
Matt,
One feature that hasn't ever been built? Ever? If that's your bar for something different then I cry uncle.
That's like asking a guitarist to play a new note. Designing is about organizing the features like composing is about arranging the notes. A never been done before single feature is out of my realm.
-
Matt,
One feature that hasn't ever been built? Ever? If that's your bar for something different then I cry uncle.
That's like asking a guitarist to play a new note. Designing is about organizing the features like composing is about arranging the notes. A never been done before single feature is out of my realm.
Thanks, Don.
You're better than me both at building golf course and at writing good posts. You said (clearly) in two lines what it took me ten lines to say badly!
-
Matt,
One feature that hasn't ever been built? Ever? If that's your bar for something different then I cry uncle.
That's like asking a guitarist to play a new note. Designing is about organizing the features like composing is about arranging the notes. A never been done before single feature is out of my realm.
Thanks, Don.
You're better than me both at building golf course and at writing good posts. You said (clearly) in two lines what it took me ten lines to say badly!
That's literally not what I said. :)
What’s one feature on one of those courses that hasn’t been done before in many places?
I said, "done before in many places." In other words, what was done at any of those courses that wasn't already widespread as a design feature or technique? I'm sure they're fantastic—they look like it! But I'm wondering if anything is really that new about them.
-
What’s one feature on one of those courses that hasn’t been done before in many places? I’m mostly just asking, but kind of challenging too.
If Wolf Point were all maintained at one height of cut, something we did consider, it would be hard to tell where everything or even anything was, especially without a flag.
We brought a 20-year design veteran to the site during construction and they were very confused as to where all the features were located.
Even Fergal O'leary, who's played thousands of courses, didn't know where he was going on the finished product (per his review and he did play without a sherpa). And it had an affordable construction budget due to a great owner and design/build team.
At Memorial Park we converted a 100% city potable water irrigated golf course to one primarily irrigated with a rain catchment system.
Nine Grand has 3 different nine hole course types (big, par 3, putting) in 115 acres.
-
P.S.
The yardage chart on the Wolf Point course profile points to far more in-between yardages than normal.
https://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/wolf-point-ranch/
-
In the past decade or so, Tom Doak and Renaissance Golf Design have done or are currently delivering:
- A super-low budget public course (Common Ground)
- A CB Macdonald tribute course (Old Macdonald)
- A freestyle golf park (the original Sheep Ranch)
- A reversible course (The Loop)
- Reuse of a remediated phosphate mine (Streamsong)
- A reproduction of The Lido course near Sand Valley
- A par 68 sub-6000-yard course (Sedge Valley)
- A course that begins and ends in different places (Dismal River)
That seems to me like quite a lot of "something different" from one principal designer and associates!
-
In the past decade or so, Tom Doak and Renaissance Golf Design have done or are currently delivering:
- A super-low budget public course (Common Ground)
- A CB Macdonald tribute course (Old Macdonald)
- A freestyle golf park (the original Sheep Ranch)
- A reversible course (The Loop)
- Reuse of a remediated phosphate mine (Streamsong)
- A reproduction of The Lido course near Sand Valley
- A par 68 sub-6000-yard course (Sedge Valley)
- A course that begins and ends in different places (Dismal River)
That seems to me like quite a lot of "something different" from one principal designer and associates!
I agree. I am not sure what folks expect. Which post 1945 archie has a resume as diverse as Doak's?
Ciao
-
Great list Scott. I am excited about the shorter less than par 70 course. I hope it starts a major movement in that direction. I keep hearing from people that they have enjoyed playing golf during Covid but it takes so long and is very expensive. We want these people to stay with the game.
-
In the past decade or so, Tom Doak and Renaissance Golf Design have done or are currently delivering:
- A super-low budget public course (Common Ground)
- A CB Macdonald tribute course (Old Macdonald)
- A freestyle golf park (the original Sheep Ranch)
- A reversible course (The Loop)
- Reuse of a remediated phosphate mine (Streamsong)
- A reproduction of The Lido course near Sand Valley
- A par 68 sub-6000-yard course (Sedge Valley)
- A course that begins and ends in different places (Dismal River)
That seems to me like quite a lot of "something different" from one principal designer and associates!
Completely agreed,
And you didn't even mention RCCC, as fantastic of a "mountain" style golf course that you will ever play...and very walkable to boot. 14-16 is nothing short of world class IMO.
My top 3 Doak courses are RCCC, Ballyneal, and Pacific Dunes. They are all 9s on my personal DS and all very different from each other...and I couldn't possibly rank them except 1a, 1b, and 1c.
-
A lot of the "modern" work that gets the most attention looks very much the same. Because I'm a student of GCA, I'm able to tell the difference between how Hanse approaches work compared to Coore & Crenshaw. Just one example. If I had played more Doak courses, I am sure I'd begin to appreciate how Tom goes about things versus _______. Most golfers, I will guess, see "about the same thing" in terms of looks. They will also appreciate the site — Ocean views, forests, dunes, etc.
If I were to coin a phrase of the most attention-getting modern work, I term it "Throw Back".
Stellar ideas in golf design are sorrowfully lacking. Not much excitement, which is depressing. The recent emphasis on alternative formats, short courses and play formats will — hopefully — have a positive and profound impact. In order to do something different, in my opinion, we need to be "designing" and re-thinking the format and play — not just the aesthetics, edges and "treatments" that get inflicted once the routing is set.
-
8)
Thoughtful, interesting
thanks Forrest
-
We're using the word different differently.
There must be thousands of jazz tunes written over/based on the same ii-V-I chord progression, from the bouncy Honeysuckle Rose of Fats Waller to the sophisticated Satin Doll of Duke Ellington -- all of them different one from the other, and yet to a modestly astute ear not all that much different at all, given that they're all based on the exact same foundations/principles.
I don't think I have to mention the literally tens of thousands of rock and blues tunes that have been written over/based on the near-ubiquitous I-IV-V chord progression -- and for that reason, to my untrained ear, all sounding pretty much alike (or at least, sounding strangely familiar), despite their sometimes-many surface differences.
"Country music is three chords and the truth."
-
Peter,
There is a quote from the latest version of "A Star is Born". It certainly resonated with me and supports your understanding too.
“Music is essentially 12 notes between any octave...Twelve notes, and the octave repeats. It’s the same story told over and over, forever. All any artist can offer the world is how they see those 12 notes. That’s it.”
Safe to say, I really like how some arrange those notes...
-
Matt,
One feature that hasn't ever been built? Ever? If that's your bar for something different then I cry uncle.
That's like asking a guitarist to play a new note. Designing is about organizing the features like composing is about arranging the notes. A never been done before single feature is out of my realm.
Your post reminded me of a recent Youtube from Rick Beato. He explained why he believed that "Never Going to Let You Go", the #1 song from 1983, was "the most complex pop song of all time".
https://youtu.be/ZnRxTW8GxT8 (https://youtu.be/ZnRxTW8GxT8)
Anyone who heard the song (most of us) back then had no idea of the underlying complexities (outlined in RB's video).
For GCA, coming up with something like this....complex to knowledgeable GCA aficionados, but just "a good course" to 99% of people that play it... is undoubtedly a bridge too far.
-
Thanks for that Kalen, I hadn't read that before.
I want to be clear, though: in all this I'm not trying to minimize or downplay any architect's talent or originality, I'm just suggesting that these don't lie in being 'different' -- especially if 'different' implies not utilizing the same principles and materials as everyone else does.
If you get a chance (and I'm pretty sure you've already heard this), give a listen to Ella Fitzgerald singing "How High the Moon" (in its original Swing style) and then at about the half way point starting to scat/improvise over the same tune-chord progression using Bird's "Ornithology", the very epitome of the Bop style.
Three and a half minutes of absolute mastery. And no matter how 'different' Ornithology is/gets here, How High the Moon is always firmly present there, right underneath/in the background.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf_yECTnuko (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf_yECTnuko)
-
Peter,
Agreed on the clarification...
P.S. Not sure if you've heard of these guys, but pretty much validates your prior post! Just 4 chords is all you need! ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I
-
:D Never get tired of that clip, thanks Kalen.
That says it all.
Especially funny/fitting near the beginning, when Benny starts playing and Jordan says "Yeah, that's Don't Stop Believing by Journey -- great song, very original...."
-
Many people confuse different with good.
Actually most people associate “different “ with “bad”.
In his book “ The Creative Curve” , Allen Gannett demonstrates that most successful products are a mix of old and new. That’s why we have 25 James Bond movies, 10 Fast/Furious movies, the Marvel Universe, and Tiger King 2-it’s just safer than something “different “.
The trick is to combine the familiar with the new. There’s a reason “ The Godfather 2” wasn’t titled“Young Don Corleone”- it’s safer to highlight the similarities than the differences.
In golf, we have template holes and our favorite designers, old and new. While some of their designs may seem superficially similar to us golfers, I’m sure a lot of that is our own confirmation biases.
When an old course like Baltusrol or Oakland Hills gets “restovated” it checks a lot of boxes and evokes nostalgia for comfortable, familiar things with a side of redemption.
The Lido is the Holy Grail-a mythical NLE old course, constructed using cutting edge technology, executed under the watchful eye of Tom Doak. It will be wildly successful.
I know TD has mentioned resurrecting High Pointe in some fashion. If he does, the new version won’t be the same but the storyline is infinitely better this time!
-
In the past decade or so, Tom Doak and Renaissance Golf Design have done or are currently delivering:
- A super-low budget public course (Common Ground)
- A CB Macdonald tribute course (Old Macdonald)
- A freestyle golf park (the original Sheep Ranch)
- A reversible course (The Loop)
- Reuse of a remediated phosphate mine (Streamsong)
- A reproduction of The Lido course near Sand Valley
- A par 68 sub-6000-yard course (Sedge Valley)
- A course that begins and ends in different places (Dismal River)
That seems to me like quite a lot of "something different" from one principal designer and associates!
Scott,
Different in type of golf courses produce however similar in appearance, shaping and style
Cheers Ben
-
I have read this post with interest. From the start I have had issues with its basic premise. Putting aside the issue of whether "different is good", I think the timing of the question is important. When Trent Jones refined his style which departed in meaningful ways from the leading architects (I suspect there was a little Joshua Crane mixed in) he was different, How long did it take before those who adopted his style were "copycats" as opposed to those who were trying to refine that style. Would it have been fair to expect Trent to change his style so that he could remain "different. (Aside to my friend Peter Pallotta; not all artists can be Miles Davis). Similarly, when the likes of Tom Doak, C&C and the like, abandoned the Trent style, influenced no doubt by Pete Dye and the old masters, this was deemed different; a departure from the prevailing norm. Is it fair to expect them to find a new style in an effort to be "different" years later? Are those who adopt the core principles of this style to be downgraded for lack of creativity regardless of the merit of their work or their own stylistic changes to the "model"? For me, adapting to different terrain, prevailing weather conditions, surrounding developments and the like are far more important than achieving novelty. Finally, since perhaps the most important factor is routing, that skill translates across all styles regardless of the current fashion
-
Sometimes it takes 1 play, sometimes more than one play (due to wind, wet/dry conditions, the operator not hitting the ball where it appears to should go etc.), but there are times I'll mention to a playing partner " I don't get this", or "That doesn't belong here".
Sometimes the answer reveals itself on a replay or a view from the intended target and I'll say " Now I get it - should have been _____ and played only a _____ yard shot".
Other times it's "WTF was he/she thinking and if that's what they were thinking someone had sh!t for brains on this hole"
The last comment is usually reserved for trees in the middle of fairways or completely overhanging greens with the room to hit a low run up and play the ground game.
-
I have read this post with interest. From the start I have had issues with its basic premise. Putting aside the issue of whether "different is good", I think the timing of the question is important. When Trent Jones refined his style which departed in meaningful ways from the leading architects (I suspect there was a little Joshua Crane mixed in) he was different, How long did it take before those who adopted his style were "copycats" as opposed to those who were trying to refine that style. Would it have been fair to expect Trent to change his style so that he could remain "different. (Aside to my friend Peter Pallotta; not all artists can be Miles Davis). Similarly, when the likes of Tom Doak, C&C and the like, abandoned the Trent style, influenced no doubt by Pete Dye and the old masters, this was deemed different; a departure from the prevailing norm. Is it fair to expect them to find a new style in an effort to be "different" years later? Are those who adopt the core principles of this style to be downgraded for lack of creativity regardless of the merit of their work or their own stylistic changes to the "model"? For me, adapting to different terrain, prevailing weather conditions, surrounding developments and the like are far more important than achieving novelty. Finally, since perhaps the most important factor is routing, that skill translates across all styles regardless of the current fashion
This is a very astute post. I would add only the following:
Not all artists are Picasso.
Very few golfers will get to play more than a couple of the post Sand Hills courses so being different not particularly relevant for most of us.
Ira
-
I have read this post with interest. From the start I have had issues with its basic premise. Putting aside the issue of whether "different is good", I think the timing of the question is important. When Trent Jones refined his style which departed in meaningful ways from the leading architects (I suspect there was a little Joshua Crane mixed in) he was different, How long did it take before those who adopted his style were "copycats" as opposed to those who were trying to refine that style. Would it have been fair to expect Trent to change his style so that he could remain "different. (Aside to my friend Peter Pallotta; not all artists can be Miles Davis). Similarly, when the likes of Tom Doak, C&C and the like, abandoned the Trent style, influenced no doubt by Pete Dye and the old masters, this was deemed different; a departure from the prevailing norm. Is it fair to expect them to find a new style in an effort to be "different" years later? Are those who adopt the core principles of this style to be downgraded for lack of creativity regardless of the merit of their work or their own stylistic changes to the "model"? For me, adapting to different terrain, prevailing weather conditions, surrounding developments and the like are far more important than achieving novelty. Finally, since perhaps the most important factor is routing, that skill translates across all styles regardless of the current fashion
Nothing changes until different intervenes, but I get yer point.
I often think the issue of similarity in design is only a problem for those who travel a ton and pay loads of attention to social media. In other words, it's not a problem.
Ciao
-
I have read this post with interest. From the start I have had issues with its basic premise. Putting aside the issue of whether "different is good", I think the timing of the question is important. When Trent Jones refined his style which departed in meaningful ways from the leading architects (I suspect there was a little Joshua Crane mixed in) he was different, How long did it take before those who adopted his style were "copycats" as opposed to those who were trying to refine that style. Would it have been fair to expect Trent to change his style so that he could remain "different. (Aside to my friend Peter Pallotta; not all artists can be Miles Davis). Similarly, when the likes of Tom Doak, C&C and the like, abandoned the Trent style, influenced no doubt by Pete Dye and the old masters, this was deemed different; a departure from the prevailing norm. Is it fair to expect them to find a new style in an effort to be "different" years later? Are those who adopt the core principles of this style to be downgraded for lack of creativity regardless of the merit of their work or their own stylistic changes to the "model"? For me, adapting to different terrain, prevailing weather conditions, surrounding developments and the like are far more important than achieving novelty. Finally, since perhaps the most important factor is routing, that skill translates across all styles regardless of the current fashion
Good comparisons and analogies Shel.
-
Sean,
Good point about those who travel. I remember Tom Fazio stating that he never built the same hole twice. Really??? Who is he kidding. If you only ever play one or two Fazio courses in your lifetime which is probably more than most, you would never know and agree with him, but if you have played 50 you might beg to differ ;) [size=78%] [/size]
I still consult in the semiconductor industry and the company Intel has a philosophy called, “Copy Exact”. Once they get a process that works, they don’t change anything until the next generation of chips. I don’t think any of us feel there are architects out there who copy exact, they don’t, but there are some where if many of us who [/size]are well traveled were blindfolded and taken to a golf course, we would have a good idea who designed the golf course. Some will take this as a negative, others would be proud. Pete Dye immediately comes to mind and he is one of my favorites. [size=78%] :)
-
I think we look at bigger picture items when saying doing something different. I believe the real genius of the Golden Age guys was moving away from the Victorian geometric style then prevalent because apparently, no one thought to do it differently. Even more important was their adaption of design from seaside links courses to other types of sites, climates, etc.
Allowing par to be 69 to 73 rather than par 72, which had become standard, putting the occasional bunker away from the main landing zone, or putting small interior contours back in greens, etc. are smaller innovations or departures than the grand scheme of changing from stiff to natural design elements and adapting as needed.
I tend to see Pete Dye as the only guy who substantially changed gca in the second half of the 20th century. He went to Scotland, like so many others, but didn't come back with a truly Scottish style, but rather some combination of things that did turn out to be unique, different, and good. Can we say that architects who mimic the Golden Age style are really doing something different?
-
In the past decade or so, Tom Doak and Renaissance Golf Design have done or are currently delivering:
- A super-low budget public course (Common Ground)
- A CB Macdonald tribute course (Old Macdonald)
- A freestyle golf park (the original Sheep Ranch)
- A reversible course (The Loop)
- Reuse of a remediated phosphate mine (Streamsong)
- A reproduction of The Lido course near Sand Valley
- A par 68 sub-6000-yard course (Sedge Valley)
- A course that begins and ends in different places (Dismal River)
That seems to me like quite a lot of "something different" from one principal designer and associates!
Good list. You might add:
- Redesign of a municipal course that is popular with everyday golfers, is easy to maintain and hosts a PGA Tour event (Memorial Park).
-
That one did come to mind after I had posted, Bob. I think I saw Brian Schneider Tweet that it has only 17 bunkers. Now that’s something different!
-
I'm going to lead with two contrasting terms that double as buzz words: exclusive and inclusive.
As points of departure, course designs and builds can be viewed as one or the other, based on a variety of factors. Some that come to my mind are: equipment of the era, skill level of players, intent of owner, intent of architect, severity of land.
At some point in time (probably space-race era), golf builds and re-dos strayed into the territory of exclusive. Challenge and difficulty (at the expense of other factors) were the operating principles. Monsters and mayhem won the day.
Little by little, perhaps because fewer people measured enjoyment by number of balls lost, clubs broken and tossed, and strokes added to handicap, the value of inclusive began to reach the golfing masses. Architects were aware of it, but not all were able to commit to it (perhaps because the owners were unwilling to commit to it.) Even a course as challenging as the Black at Streamsong is inclusive. You may leave with 45 putts, but none crosses a hazard.
The notion of different for me, begins with distinguishing between inclusive and exclusive. Michael Strantz work was discussed earlier in this thread. I found Stonehouse to be very golf-exclusive, Tot Hill Farm to be mildly exclusive but fun, and the others to be inclusive.
Who is doing something different and inclusive?
-
Just getting back from Connecticut where I played Fenwick Golf Club. I shorter 9 hole walking course that is a gem. I would love to see more 9 hole fun walking courses where the architect does not need a standard par 35 or 36. Let the land dictate what holes should be created. An 18 hole round with par 72 is sometimes a very long day with redundant holes.
-
I would love to see more 9 hole fun walking courses where the architect does not need a standard par 35 or 36. Let the land dictate what holes should be created. An 18 hole round with par 72 is sometimes a very long day with redundant holes.
+1
atb
-
Just getting back from Connecticut where I played Fenwick Golf Club. I shorter 9 hole walking course that is a gem. I would love to see more 9 hole fun walking courses where the architect does not need a standard par 35 or 36. Let the land dictate what holes should be created. An 18 hole round with par 72 is sometimes a very long day with redundant holes.
I had a similar thought after reflecting on a recent day at Wykagyl. While the course carries a par of 72, it achieves it with five par 5’s and five par 3’s. I found that playing two less par fours provided additional interest and excitement throughout the round
Could this "new" thing we seek be as simple as less adherence to a "traditional" routing that features ten par fours and a par of 72? Does increasing the number of par three and par five holes provide the average golfer more opportunities for excitement in the form of birdie and eagle putts? It would certainly provide more variety throughout the round.
-
Could this "new" thing we seek be as simple as less adherence to a "traditional" routing that features ten par fours and a par of 72? Does increasing the number of par three and par five holes provide the average golfer more opportunities for excitement in the form of birdie and eagle putts? It would certainly provide more variety throughout the round.
I will differ with this because I think it's easier to design an interesting par-4 than an interesting par-5.
How many courses can you name that have five or more par-5 holes that are different and memorable? The Berkshire (Red) famously has six 3's and six 5's, and while I can remember all of the short holes 35+ years later, I cannot remember a single one of the par-5's.
One of the reasons I think Muirfield has the best set of par-5's in the world is because they had the sense to stop at three of them.
-
Could this "new" thing we seek be as simple as less adherence to a "traditional" routing that features ten par fours and a par of 72? Does increasing the number of par three and par five holes provide the average golfer more opportunities for excitement in the form of birdie and eagle putts? It would certainly provide more variety throughout the round.
I will differ with this because I think it's easier to design an interesting par-4 than an interesting par-5.
How many courses can you name that have five or more par-5 holes that are different and memorable? The Berkshire (Red) famously has six 3's and six 5's, and while I can remember all of the short holes 35+ years later, I cannot remember a single one of the par-5's.
One of the reasons I think Muirfield has the best set of par-5's in the world is because they had the sense to stop at three of them.
And thus we return to the fact "different" doesn't always translate to "good"!
-
Tom,
Maybe that is your challenge, do something no one has done, design a course with five great par fives. I agree with you I can’t think of any (with five great par fives or even four). I can think of some with three out of four great par fives but as you said, the par fives are many times the least memorable holes. The four at Tobacco Road are pretty darn fun and memorable. But many golfers like par fives because they can score well on them and many of the good ones present high risk high reward options.
-
Tom,
Maybe that is your challenge, do something no one has done, design a course with five great par fives. I agree with you I can’t think of any (with five great par fives or even four). I can think of some with three out of four great par fives but as you said, the par fives are many times the least memorable holes. The four at Tobacco Road are pretty darn fun and memorable. But many golfers like par fives because they can score well on them and many of the good ones present high risk high reward options.
If its a great hole I don't care what par is. But I find many par 5s to be far short of great and essentially adding nothing to the game but a longer walk. I just played Berkshire Red and without question the drawback of the course is the par 5s. I am not convinced four long holes is a sound design concept let alone five.
Ciao
-
Designed/intended as ‘par-5s’ or as ‘Bogey-5s’?
Atb
-
Call me biased but I think the new Carne course has 5 highly individual and great par-5’s…. At least I can’t think of a course that comes closer.
-
Primland starts 5-3-5-3-4-5. There are only three Par 4s on the front, two less than 350 yards.
4 of the 5 Par 5s are different and memorable in good ways. The fifth Par 5 is solid.
Ira
-
Don't know.if it's been mentioned yet but the most "different" modern course I played in the past decade is Ballyhack by Lester George.
Rates YUGE on the balls scale
-
At the risk of thread-jacking, I'd like to posit that par 5s, by and large, are overrated and probably unnecessary, especially with the looming resource and land crunch that is closing in on golf. The greatness rate on par 5s is so much lower than that of par 3s and 4s that I think they're inferior as a class of golf hole. There certainly are good and great par 5s, but is the extra land use worth it? I've never walked off a course bemoaning the dearth of par 5s. Elie gets on fine with zero and the CC of Waterbury, one of my favorites in CT, has just one. OK by me!
-
At the risk of thread-jacking, I'd like to posit that par 5s, by and large, are overrated and probably unnecessary, especially with the looming resource and land crunch that is closing in on golf. The greatness rate on par 5s is so much lower than that of par 3s and 4s that I think they're inferior as a class of golf hole. There certainly are good and great par 5s, but is the extra land use worth it? I've never walked off a course bemoaning the dearth of par 5s. Elie gets on fine with zero and the CC of Waterbury, one of my favorites in CT, has just one. OK by me!
I agree 100%. And, to further the threadjack, I'd say that in my mind there is no doubt whatsoever about the validity of everything you have written. Granted, what does "my mind" count for in this regard, and here in this august company? And, granted too, I am likely not typical of this illustriously well-travelled group of architectural aficionados because I have played so few 'special' golf courses in my life -- and while I have liked more than a few Par 5s I've played, I have only ever truly loved precisely one (1) of them.
Finally, I believe (well, I suspect) that many many others, including architects and industry professionals and media types, actually agree with Tim (and me), but will not say so out loud, for various reasons political, social and professional. But in my mind there would be only benefits -- and no downsides -- in the vast majority of courses having only 1 Par 5. I just hope it's a good one.
-
At the risk of thread-jacking, I'd like to posit that par 5s, by and large, are overrated and probably unnecessary, especially with the looming resource and land crunch that is closing in on golf. The greatness rate on par 5s is so much lower than that of par 3s and 4s that I think they're inferior as a class of golf hole. There certainly are good and great par 5s, but is the extra land use worth it? I've never walked off a course bemoaning the dearth of par 5s. Elie gets on fine with zero and the CC of Waterbury, one of my favorites in CT, has just one. OK by me!
Yer not wrong.
Ciao
-
Par-5’s can often solve routing puzzles. This may seem counter-intuitive because they use so much land but it’s amazing how often they are used to connect one corner of a site to another.
In it’s own way, that also accounts for why so many of them aren’t that interesting. Many architects don’t like wasting the good topography on one hole when they can get a really good three and four out of it.
-
Par-5’s can often solve routing puzzles. This may seem counter-intuitive because they use so much land but it’s amazing how often they are used to connect one corner of a site to another.
In it’s own way, that also accounts for why so many of them aren’t that interesting. Many architects don’t like wasting the good topography on one hole when they can get a really good three and four out of it.
I agree. But par 5s rarely make the statement par 3 connector can. Sometimes needs must where par 5s are concerned.
Ciao
-
Peter,
There is a quote from the latest version of "A Star is Born". It certainly resonated with me and supports your understanding too.
“Music is essentially 12 notes between any octave...Twelve notes, and the octave repeats. It’s the same story told over and over, forever. All any artist can offer the world is how they see those 12 notes. That’s it.”
Safe to say, I really like how some arrange those notes...
Great quote.
This guy understood: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0
-
Mike Young,
You may be interested to know that my wedding dance song was The Beatles playing "Til There Was You" from "The Music Man" and as that song wound down we threw on shades and segued into a rollicking "Gagnam Style". All Pictures have been secured for safekeeping.
-
Mike and Mike...terrific.
I wonder what this guy could have... or would have... created if he were alive now with near limitless tools and methods to create music!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USe-wZ0AOQQ