[Rob Rigg]

Picking up on Matt's thread about a GCAs ability and willingness to differentiate design style and characteristics across their courses -

If you had the ability to play 5 to 10 courses created by any single architect repeatedly over 3 months, with them present for discussion on 10 rounds, which architect would you choose and why?

How much would variation in design style, location, topography/settings and creativity play a part in your selection?

Since architecture is art there is obviously no right answer, but it will be interesting to find out which "school" the peeps on the site would "enroll" in if they had to pick one.

[Chip Gaskins]

OLD

Colt
Murifield
Portrush
Swinley Forest

NEW

Coore & Crenshaw
Hidden Creek
Sand Hills
Bandon Trails

[Rob Rigg]

Alive, Dead, or one of each (for extra credit)

[TX Golf]

MacKenzie...

The variability and topography of his courses would absolutely have something to do with it, as well as the history that has followed many of them. Hearing him speak regarding the creation of CPC, Augusta, Pasatiempo, RM West, Crystal Downs, etc... would just be awesome. I don't know if there is a group of five courses that vary more in setting than those five.

[C. Squier]

C.B. MacDonald

You know before the round what holes you're going to see, which would seem mundane at first blush.  But when you get to the individual template holes they each have a distinct personality you wouldn't expect from such repetition.  Nothing highlights the differences in topography and setting like the use of template holes.  It's like visiting different Major League Baseball stadiums.  The basics are all the same, 90 ft bases and a 60.5 ft pitchers mound.  But the "topography" of the outfield and the setting of the stadium makes them all completely different.  Firm base of design to start from, but the subtle differences in each course make for all the fun.

[Anthony Fowler]

Great question.  What is the market value tuition for such a school? How much could you get 10 people to pay for a month of golf on C&C courses and 10 rounds with the masterminds?  I'll guess 80k.

I think you have to go with C&C here in the living category although there a few (not many) other good choices.  There are probably some architects that would be tough to put up with for 10 rounds. 

In the dead category I think it's MacKenzie.  Sorry that my picks are far from controversial.

[Rob Rigg]

No one else wants to take a stab at this? 

Fine.

NB - I have played very few courses designed by the many architects that I would like to study.

I'll take Doak for my contemporary architect.

- Pac Dunes, Ballyneal, Barnbougle, Kidnappers, High Pointe, Rawls, Charlotte Golf Links, etc., etc.

Several brilliant settings that demanded layouts to compliment them, several settings that needed to adhere closely to a client's request, other decent settings that could have been special or mediocre depending on creativity and execution, and so on.

Kidd would be my second contemporary choice, if I could pick one, simply because I have played Tetherow and was impressed with his work, and it would be interesting to see how his designs changed (or didn't) at BD, Nanea, Machrihanish, the Castle Course, Huntsman Springs, TPC SF, Powerscourt, etc. etc.

[David Stamm]

Dead-

MacKenzie. To hear him explain his thought process on designing the course would've been a thrill. Especially in regards to CPC and if he ever saw Raynor's plan and why he thought his was better. To hear the explaination straight from him about camouflaging. Aand his take on how ANGC has devolved. That would be quite entertaining!


Today-

Gil Hanse. To simply hear Gil explain his takes on the GA arch's and how he thinks the principles apply today and how he tries to use them for inspiration in his own work.

[Bill Brightly]

I am going to say Seth Raynor because as far as I know, he wrote very little about his work and his thought process. I'd love to hear him explain how he approached the land in placing template holes. I'd ask him if he felt that he had to "force" the templates on the land, or did the holes reveal themselves to him naturally.

I'd ask him what he thinks about critics who say his courses were "over-engineered."

And I'd pick him because he seems to be one of the more unassuming characters of the great architects.

Am I the only one here who LOVES the works of some of the ODG's and the Hot New Guys, but think it might be hard to listen to them pontificate for 10 rounds? I would certainly prefer one round each with 10 different archies!

[Kalen Braley]

I used to always think it would be MacK for something like this.

But the more I learn about George C Thomas and see his original work, the more I'm sucked in by his genius work. I think I'd have to go with him.

[Jason Connor]

Mackenzie and Doak.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()