Does Design Differentiation Matter ?

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

No different than you missing mine "entirely."

We agree to disagree.

[Rob Rigg]

And after all that it is great to see that we all agree that design differentiation does indeed matter in situations where the 1% who actually care are comparing an architect's portfolio across as many designs as possible while keeping in mind client expectations that often have to be adhered too although often stifling creativity, while the architect/artist attempts to stay true to his own unique design philosophy and create something special (unless the client wanted a virtual photocopy of another design the architect has already created and will not settle for less).

Excellent! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff B:

Your answer speaks to the issue of immediacy -- satisfy your client at all costs. That's fine -- he is the dud signing the checks that puts $$ in your pocket.

The risk is that those who seek the gold at all costs risk the essence in sacrificing unique and varied designs because of a resolute desire to keep the client happy -- as you mentioned it's likely that a past work was what motivated that prospective client to seek you out in the first place.

Jeff, you state a no-brainer -- no doubt, courses are meant to be played. But great courses can stand up against rigorous analysis to see if what the architect has done is furthering what they have done previously or is simply nothing more than a tired rendition of what they have done before. If I hear about an exciting design that an architect that I respect has done I want to know a bit more about it before heading out the door to play it. If the "new" course is nothing better than the "old" one I've already played then there's no need for me to venture out the door. I can save the time and effort to see it.

Is the newest creation advancing the craft level of what's been done previously? I can tell you this candidly -- after spending many years traveling and playing a wide array of courses around the globe -- architects now face a bit more scrutiny than in years past. Version #1 that they offered a client in Pennsy may not have been seen by future clients located in the Carolinas years ago and therefore the architect could sell Version #1 as being really unique and exciting. Because of today's information age -- that sales pitch doesn't fly as easily.

No doubt there will be clients who could care less and many architects are more than happy to design for them a replica or close copy of past work because such clients want what the other guy before him has.

There's nothing wrong in that the client gets what he / she wants and the architect gets paid for designing / building it.

The issue is one of where does the architect stand in terms of their overall skills in bringing to life a varied and rich menu of exciting layouts that are not merely clones of one another? RTJ excelled in expanding his brand name around the globe but he did so by providing a template that was redone countless times. You can now see where his overall impact on design rests and in my mind, it's not near the top of the charts because of that business desire to get his name in all corners of the globe.

Matt,

I know what you are saying, but also can think of many examples from all gca's work where building to the clients vision has furthered the craft in one way or another. 

From my own work, I know I have "sandbagged" a few clients, building them a better course than they imagined when they signed on for a muni course.

In terms of design features, I played one of my new designs yesterday where the client dictated limited bunkers. I experimented with 1 foot ridges near greens, chocolate drop mounds, different contours, etc.  The funny thing is, while I may not have gotten all those experiments just right on this course, and you might not even like it, the furthering of my craft might come on my next course, when I refine those ideas.

Lastly, if the gca lets the site dictate design to a large degree, its going to look somewhat original.  Using RTJ as an example, the first five at Spyglass look entirely different than the next 13, which look more like "typical RTJ."  They seemed fairly original for him and the times, no? 

Slightly OT, but in a discussion earlier this week I heard a first - this gent told me he is renting a condo at Pebble Beach for a month to end the year.  Along the way, he commented that he was playing PB, CP and of course Spyglass, which he proclaimed to be the best of the three!  He is a good player, and liked the challenge over the greater aesthetics of the other two.

I think the summary here is that if a gca makes the most of the site he/she is probably furthering the craft, no?  And, that would hold true if certain stylistic elements hold true to other designs.  Please name a gca who doesn't carry certain stylistic elements from design to design.

All of that said, none of us gcas' ever want to get to the point where a traveling golfer or critic can tell our courses from the parking lot and would write "another typical XXXX course" so it does carry some importance to us.  Of course, we probably figure no one will hire us if our designs are considered stale, same-o, same-o, or otherwise "past the expiration date."

[Andy Hughes]

Matt, I have gone round and round myself with this type of question. As little as I know about art, even I can normally tell when I am looking at a Van Gogh. Does that detract from his legacy as an artist? I don't know. Would his reputation as an artist be better if that wasn't the case? Got me.  But I have to assume by what you have written you would give Van Gogh demerits?

Then I look at a basketball player like Bill Russell. While I believe him to be the best that has ever been, he surely did not have as wide a range of skills as a Magic Johnson or even Wilt Chamberlin. The ultimate goal is to win and Russell was the best there was at that--am I using the wrong metric to make my decision of who was better? Again, would you give Russell demerits?

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck:

Your argument is focused on the standing of the single tree -- think about the broader canvass of the forest itself.

The blinders you've put on your eyes -- can be removed if you understand the distinction of what I have mentioned upteen times.

Matt:  can we cease with the childish put-downs and not so clever word play?

It's really very simple.  This matters when assessing architects.  It does not matter when assessing golf courses.  I thought that needed to be clarified.  But if you can't accept that, then fine. 

TH

[Jason Topp]

This question is at the heart of judging Raynor courses.  I really enjoy seeing how the same concepts were implemented in differing locales.  For me, the familiarity may add to, rather than subtract from, my enjoyment of those courses.  So it may matter, but it does not matter much to me on those courses.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

I hear what you are saying --- but in my travels I have seen way too many times the same concepts / formula being used time after time after time because often the client is simply interested in having a similar version of what drew the developer to the architect in the first place.

The issue for architects (especially when their legacy is at issue) is to be bold and daring -- not just follow the quick and easy method in sending to a client a pre-packaged formula that's been done over and over again.

In regards to your comments on RTJ -- his work at Spyglass is indeed different than so much of what he did. In his own book towards the end of his life he highlighted Spyglass as one of his very best courses and I concur. It's too bad more of them were not as unique. Ditto his outstanding work at Mauna Kea -- another of the courses he mentioned as a career highlight.

I'm not saying that an architect's craft cannot be "furthered ... in one way or another." The issue is the frequency of that happening.

From my own work, I know I have "sandbagged" a few clients, building them a better course than they imagined when they signed on for a muni course.

The pressures of the industry and in getting something the client likes -- can often mean simply throwing forward the same efforts from the past that people have liked.

There's nothing wrong with that from a business standpoint -- my contention is that from an "art" standpoint it's self-limiting and needs to be seen for what it is.

Jeff, when you say if the architect is making the most of a site -- I have no issue with that. But, if making the "most" of a site is simply providing the same basic template that's been done before and it's not any better than what has happened previously -- then that's in my mind -- a mail in.

There's no doubt that each architect has their own style -- but let's not play dodge ball with my major point -- that style cannot be seen as a cover for lack of versatility and creativity in doing something that above and beyond what's been done previously.

Clients, are like Hollywood movie chieftains -- they want to throw forward what the public / prospective members will buy. For most people they are easily satiated with whatever comes down the pike. Those who see the forest and not just the isolated tree -- can discern when talented architects are pushing ahead with efforts that show a clear evolution and growing in terms of the craft itself. A good example in my neck of the woods is what Kelly Blake Moran provided in Lederach in Harleysville, PA. Far beyond what he has done previously and for a layout at the muni level it cuts new ground for a Pennsy area that is devoid of much of anything that is rock solid from a public perspective.

I feel for many architects because they need to win a business in which past work was what got them to the table for final interviews but then they must decide if they seek to expand their own capabilities by adding other elements that have not been tried or been limited in scope beforehand. It's not easy -- but frankly I as a golf course enthusiast don't want to play version "A" for the sixth or more time from the same architect.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I can hear what you are saying...at the same time, there are some real broad brush assumptions in there about what a variety of clients want, what a gca's state of mind is, etc.

Yes, clients want what sells.  But, what makes you think that the same mouse trap works in golf when the better mouse trap works for all other business ventures?  To a degree, a new gca in a metro area can provide a difference based on style (and in some cases name)  Or, the developer can provide a better site.

I think Faz, Doak, Dye, and Nicklaus, etc. would tell you that each client wants their best golf course, better than their most famous one, etc.  That's how many signature architects started developing really hard courses.  And, no one would hire them if they said "I am going to do a less good course for you than I did the last time."  And, when I look around at the improving work everyone else in the field is doing, I always feel like I need to do my best work ever just to stay even with the field.  So, there is some pressure to improve from the outside, and for anyone who has had some success, pressure from the inside to keep moving forward. 

I think most gca's get as tired of drawing the same old plan as you might get playing them.  If I do a Redan, say, on four courses in a row, they will all be different and I won't do it on the fifth, "just because."  I think most are the same way.  If they aren't, their associates are.  Not that many I know in the business are so jaded as to mail it in.  Its a great op to be a gca in the last two decades, and I hope most of us tried to make the most of that opportunity.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Your claim about my "broad assumptions" is not made cavalierly but from actual site visits to a wide range of courses from the top contributors and from throughout different parts of the USA in reviewing such work.

You asked, "... what makes you think that the same mouse trap works in golf when the better mouse trap works for all other business ventures?"

I never said there wasn't similar efforts in other areas of the business world. Heck, I mentioned McDonald's earlier in this thread as the perfect way to keep people happy by just mass producing the same burger time after time after time. Hasn't seem to hurt their botton line in regards to lack of creativity. But if one were to say McDonald's has the most unique burger that would be an entirely different story.

Unfortunately, the golf design business is a marriage of both art and making $$$. Clearly, some architects, from the finished products I have played, -- Tom Fazio is one of them but not alone -- follow a carefully created formula that works -- now they might not use version "A" all the time -- maybe you get a bit more variety with version "B" or "C", but the main elements are for the most part there if one has one's eyes open. Please don't think I'm saying ALL TF courses follow this same pattern. Not at all.

The same thing was true of RTJ and I mentioned a few of his stellar courses in which he went beyond the tried and true and brought forward something a bit more creative and to be honest -- outside the box of what you would normally see (e.g. Spyglass Hill, Mauna Kea, etc, etc). No doubt having unique sites does help in those particular instances.

The same also applies to Seth Raynor and few on this board think of his layouts as mail in jobs but in my mind they are there.

You see Jeff I just think many architects get comfortable with doing things as they have in the past. Few want to upset the money tree when things are going good and the clients are knocking at the door for services. The old adage -- if it ain't broke don't fix it would apply in plenty of cases.

Jeff, I salute people who design courses because those who are successful must marry the need to satisfy clients and at the same time I realize many of them truly want to do something above and beyond what they've done previously. But the reality of the business world can often intrude on this desire to go beyond what one has done previously and if a client insists he / she wants what was done a course or two before then what architect is going to throw $$ away just to be different?

Candidly, as others have mentioned on this thread -- most people don't really follow the bouncing ball of various architects that closely. So if C&C does a course on the east coast and it's successful there's nothing really preventing them from doing a near similar repeat design on the west coast. Few people will really play the two and even if they do so long as the client is happy everybody wins.

Jeff, you personally believe "most (architects) are the same way" in that they will try to provide a good bit of variety in their work. I don't doubt that is the intent of many -- but the final product, from my personal experiences in reviewing a greater body of work -- does see ingrained patterns that far too often become the norm for repetition.

I know many architects don't want to admit that but there are plenty of cut'n paste mail in designs I have played. Far more than those layouts which are really breath taking for being so bold, against the grain and at times controversial but not simply for the sake of controversy.

Originality is an unknown factor -- while it can be praised and is truly sought when it happens successfully (e.g. Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, etc, etc) -- most times the "what have we done before" model is a very tough one to ignore when the practical reality of client cash is being waved in front of one's face.

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed replies.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I think it was Pat Mucci who asked when is something a formula and when is it just a tried and true idea that makes sense?  Certain things, like green size, tee size, cart path width and location, etc. just make sense where the business model is similar (obviously, a walking only course would have different constraints)

My sense is that most gca's (from my extensive studies, playing of courses, etc., plus a little insiders knowledge of how the process works) may iterive versions of tried and true concepts for about 2/3 the holes, and try to think of new concepts for perhaps 1/3.  I agree not too many courses have 18 original holes that don't borrow elements from past work - ours or someone else's - and I am not sure there are that many truly new ideas out there.

Also, we all are influenced by what we see.  A clear example is the lacy bunker edge trend.  Yeah, CC did it first (in this generation at Sand Hills) so everyone else doing it isn't exactly advancing the craft, but I think if you look at a lot of gca's, they do change styles over time.

Some - Rees and Keith Foster come to mind, can bring it in two different styles - their style and the renovation style (Rees for Opens, Keith for Maxwell redos)

Think about it - I could advance my own craft, without advancing gca at all.  (Again, improving my bunkers in one style or another could be an example)

I could advance the craft in a technical matter that someone like you or the average golfer wouldn't necessarily see.

I could implement 18 great new ideas on a flat site (and if you think about it, that's a good place to try new ideas if you are going to build them) and create an interesting, but not great course that didn't "advance the craft"

I could do a course that was different for a market, but not different in the world.

Lastly, I am not sure your examples - Sand Hills and Pac Dunes - are totally out of the box thinking by the gca.  They were out of the box thinking by the owner.  The gca's made the best use of the sites.  So, while you trot out the top of the top examples, my thinking is along the lines of the average sites most golf courses will get built on. 

IF Fazio trots out a forumula in Des Moines, Iowa to create a golf course that looks a lot better than a cornfield, it may be perfectly appropriate.  And, lest we recall, his style to overcome lackluster sites DID advance the craft.  If he put the same holes given an op to design Pac Dunes V, it might not be right.  But, it is a poor comparison to say he hasn't been original.

Overall, its a great topic, but for reasons alluded to in my posts, i still have trouble putting the topic of differentiation in its own neat little box. I hope that makes some sense.

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
Been busy and have not read the posts here but your thread title roused my attention.  I am convinced that if you see enough of essentially any golf architect's courses (past and present architects), you will see probably 80% similarity in design style, etc.  I'm sure some architects/posts here will debate this, but its true.  That doesn't mean anything negative.  I'm just stating a fact.  Brands are brands for a reason 
Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

Good morning!  Its a great topic, and I have always said that it would be a great problem to have to have designed so many golf courses that I run out of new ideas.

I agree with you, but even forgetting brand, if you design any number of golf courses, you start realizing certain things work.  Part of having experience is knowing what NOT to do.  This certainly can lead to standardization as much as any client expectations.

Matt,

I got to thinking last night.  Perhaps the short version of my post would be to emphasize the top 5-10 courses of any gca to determine their range of differentiation.  If an oceanfront site looks like a cornfield course with an ocean by it (although some would bascially say that is the knock on PB) then maybe the gca didn't stretch too much.

Looking at the Pete Dye book last night, it struck me that many of his courses are far less exciting than his TPC and other top courses.  Even those have similarities.  Do we count him down for being somewhat repetitive?

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
As you well know, you have to look beyond "just the pure aesthetic" differences when you study/assess a golf course design.  Just because the architect flashed a little more sand on one course vs. the other doesn't mean he changed his "design style/philosophy". 
Mark

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

No architect gets a free pass - Pete Dye included.

I think when success does happen -- the pattern for many architects is to simply ride the wave and keep it coming -- no less than the Hollywood embrace of tiresome sequel after tiresome sequel.

Thinking outside the box is a risky situation because if others like your work -- even if it's been done upteeeen times -- who's to care when the $$ is coming in fast and furious.

The issue for some on this post is tied to the reality that they will not likely play or personally visit a broad array of different courses to even contemplate thinking that repeated design items done verbatim are getting a little old in the tooth.

Let me point out the island green concept. It's been to DEATH but there are always those willing to try and sometimes there can be unique surprises. Chris Cochran was Jack N's guy at Courgar Canyon in Trinidad, CO and the 16th green features the island green concept. There is no water -- just a raised green sitting on a pre-existign bluff. It works magnificiently. You can view the hole through the current cover photo on the latest Golfweek issue.

Jeff, the issue is not the "idea" as you alluded to Pat M -- but the desire to fast track a design that literally takes from one course and applies to the next a literal blow-by-blow connect the dots similar type effort. C'mon, what's the point in playing the same type of hole when the one that was done previously still shines above and beyond the many clones that follow?

I don't doubt that some will see such a situation as nothing more than a "basic concept" or a "style" element. I think such words are accurately applied in a number of instances but the situation I am describing is much more frequent than just a benign element.

Jeff, I don't doubt you and other architects may do "technical" items that few, if any, will see. I'm just speaking about actual finished products that I can encapsulate by playing the courses in question, seeing how they stack up against others in that respective architect's portfolio and really analzying what, if any, do they have that makes them so unique.

Clone architecture is not meaningful to me.

I also think architects, yourself included, have to be a bit more forthcoming -- you are in the customer service business -- if a client wants a replica of what you just did that is successful then you and others will do it -- the $$ is there and you get a satisfied client. How can you beat such short term satisfaction?

My concern is, as I have mentioned several times, is when the work is really reviewed a given architect can be saluted for having such a successful career EVEN if the same pattern is there over and over again. I just fundamentally believe that a way to show total creaitivity is through differentiation because it shows a willingness to always be aware of not just throwing the same pitch over and over again.

Thanks again for your thoughtful replies.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Believe me, I understand your opinion and take on the subject.  And, while true to some degree, I don't think I am not forthcoming!

For example, I have never been told to build the exact same course as the one I just did. I think owners feel that if they like the general ambiance or style, that they will get a unique, site specific course, and they just have confidence that the gca will be able to produce something of similar ambiance.

Given that we are working on vastly different terrains, I can tell you that there is no fast track to using some old design on a new site.  Usually by the time you plop green no. xxx on a new site, and then start fitting it in on plan, it might just have been quicker to start from scratch.  Trust me on this one.  And this comes from a CAD guy who has tried to drop tees, whatever, into new projects. It rarely works, except on flat ground. 

Of course, I wouldn't re-grade a left to right fw  to an exact copy for ease, even if I could.  Why?  Because my budgets don't allow me to move the extra 20,000 CY per hole it might take to ignore the original topography.  The only gca I can think of that might, is of course, Tom Fazio, since its his modus operandi to reshape the land regardless to his vision.

As for ideas and concepts, we have to go back to the template ideas.  Is it good to play a Redan on every course of a gca because its a good shot concept that should be part of every well balanced test of golf?  Or is including one of these simply a gca "mailing it in?" 

I think a (or a few) reverse or side slope green ought to be part of a balanced test.  I didn't feel that way ten years ago, and I may not feel that way 10 years from now.  So my designs of the current period will be different than those of my past and future, no?  But for any five year period, there will be that type of repitetion, no?

Or should I just leave Redans out of my next few designs just for design differentiation? (actually, I will probably do that because as you suggest, I do get bored with them personally, even if the golfers might find them quite nice)  I would also not use one if I just didn't see a fit for topo or wind.  And, if I did use one, I would try to improve the last one I did and it would come out a bit different on angle, size, etc., once it got done.  And, I would consider how the type of grass on the approach might affect the playability. Does bent offer more or less roll than bermuda and how should the front and side slopes be affected, etc?

So, even with a similar hole, is that "mailing it in?"  Or is it well considered architecture that just happens to come out with a similar result?

Its a great topic that I enjoy thinking about.  Its not that I don't see your point, but I see it in grey rather than black and white. I also think your thought process applies only to the lucky few gca's whose portfolio exceeds 100 courses or more.

As always, I could be wrong. I await your answers to my "mailing it in?" questions!

[Pete Lavallee]

Matt,

I quick summary of this thread would be ythe opinion  that you seem to think that a GCA should get better over time. However in any creative field: art, writing , or music, the artsist's best work almost always comes first. It then receives critical acclaim and the atrist trys to please his clientele by providing more of the same.

Specifically in the field of music what artist's work has improved over time? I know of only one musician who claims this to be the case: Paul Simon. Most musician's seminal work is the pinnacle of their career; is the drop off because they are lazy? I frankly doubt it. Creatively speaking one can contribute to his field by doing something different; but can any artist define his career as creating a series of work that is always different from what preceeded it? I think the answer to that is no and I wouldn't expect GCA to be any different.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pete,

Interesting take and I can see some comparisons.

I would say the Beatles had a shift and generally got better as time went on and they morphed from stage to studio band.  That said, their early music is different, but not necessarily inferior.  It just takes a different mood to appreciate the early vs the late.  Some artists didn't make that transition so well - Chicago lost their edge when they tried to go from jazzy stuff to "serious" music.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of a gca who has changed style and truly suffered for it, or for that matter, gotten signifigantly better.

For that matter, I would love to have heard some of the discussions between record company execs and artists about their new work......(Simon, your last one was a stinker! Write something that sells more CD's!  We have a formula here at XYZ records - 3 upbeat songs for every slow one!)

There are some artists who keep putting the same songs (or new versions of old songs) on multiple albums.  We all recognize those as being similar to what Matt is saying about gca's just plain running out of ideas, but in need of still cranking out product.

There are also some artists who, despite different songs, keep to a similar style.  Who can't recognize, say, a Bob Seger song? (or for that matter, Paul Simon, Neil Diamond, etc.)  Maybe its a matter of using the same band, instruments, etc.  And, I am sure each songwriter gets into certain idioms that work for them, or they just can't break out of.  Simon does so by looking at music around the world as his backdrop style.  In any case, this applies to Matt's thesis - style stays very much the same even as the words and music is new.

So, maybe those lucky few gca's who are commissioned to do more projects than they have original ideas just run out of new ideas, as much as they find that certain ideas just happen to work better for them.  Like musicians, a gca probably doesn't recognize that his best work is past.  Nor would he/she admit that his best work is NOT in the future, and thus, rarely turns down a commission.  Really, how do you know until you design the course that it won't be one of your best?

gca isn't quite like music because its part true art, and part real world practical design rather than existing in a vacuum.  Has a recording artiste ever been told his record is "too fast for current green speeds?"   Other than that kind of technical issue like I can't recall having too many a discussion with an owner about desiging for "what sells."  I do have discussions with management companies about what is easy to maintain, what is going to slow or speed play, etc. 

That hardly translates down to discussing a single feature that I have proposed.  "Brauer those chocolate drop mounds are just plain goofy and don't photograph well...put in a bunker instead!"

Okay, now I am just rambling while eating lunch.  Sorry!

[Peter Pallotta]

small point but not sure it's been mentioned. Don't forget an architect's tastes. Might it be (I think it is) that in the end architects design the courses they want to design, i.e. ones that fit their tastes.  We confuse taste with talent. and unchanging tastes with a lack of creativity. The only thng I can reasonably ask of an architect  is that, within the context of his tastes, he give a course design the best he's got. And if he sometimes doesn't do even that much -- well, he'd be just about like everyone else in the world. By and large, though, gcas strike me as more conscientious than most

Peter

[Matt_Ward]

Pete:

Yes, I would think the someone can get "better" (hard to define in an art type profession) but I also know that sometimes the best work from certain architects does comes quite early in their careers (see Tillinghast as a good example) and even possibly C&C now.

However, consider this ... Take the career of Jack Nicklaus as a designer - his earliest work was filled with layouts that narrowly tied themselves to his type of game / shot pattern. Jack simply built courses for Jack and few developers were going to question the judgement / wisdom when hiring Nicklaus given his stout record as the game's premier player.

Over the course of time -- Nicklaus has clearly diffentiated the types of courses he is doing NOW.  They are clearly better in a number of instances because the elasticity missing with so many earlier efforts is now a big part of what is front and center now.

Pete, the problem is that when people get all the $$ and acclaim they simply can get intellectual or design lazy and simply throw forward the same tired renditions again and again. However, it is possible that a certain few will not do such a thing and actually get better with age. I see Nicklaus as one of those examples.

Jeff:

Thanks again for your detailed answer.

A few comments ...

Try to realize this will due respect -- architects will cover for other architects. It's sort of like the men in blue bleeding blue for another and not red.

Jeff, I hear what you say that architects not blessed with significant resources may be very limited in trying to replicate items even if they wanted to because of the reality of budgets and the type of clients THEY get. However, the prevalence of what I mentioned still holds water for those who have certain conditions (you did mention TF) that allow them to get a desired product no matter what it takes.

Jeff, you have this idea fixed in your head - that no architect ever does a "mail in." C'mon, you are not being serious because my field time in playing a vast array of different architects (from the Nicklaus/ Fazio types all the way to the low man on the totem pole) suggested clearly otherwise.

I'm glad to see you have added a few other elements to your bag of golf tricks (forgive me it's Halloween !). But I don't think many architects really can divorce themselves from their own work and really be candid about what is and what is not present. Sometimes it does take the eyes of someone else to point those things out.

Jeff, I used the "island green" design gimmick as a past example. I'm not saying that island greens should NEVER AGAIN BE USED. What I am saying is that it will take some clear imagination to really add something to a subject area that's quite exhausted. It's no different than a Hollywood director insisting that a car chase scene be added. In my mind, such a scene had better top the likes of the ones seen in Bullit, French Connection and Ronin, to name my top three.

What's amazing is that when the economy and golf course development were sizzling is when I really saw more of the same-oh, same-oh routine. Guess it must have been the times because the need for such services was really hopping then.

I simply posted this thread for architects to realize that there are people who watch very carefully for things of this type. It does matter because versatility and creativity do count.

I don't doubt that one man's style may be the only one trick pony show situation that a given architect is ever able to create. There's nothing wrong with being extremely limited in terms of one's style. It may be, as I have said upteeen times, very satisfying because it pays the bills, keeps existing clients happy and likely attracts future clients.

Jeff, you are right that such an issue of "differentiation" may likely apply to those limited few folks who have been most fortunate to have designed that many courses. However, like I said before -- I see what C&C have done recently (see Saguaro at We-Ko-Pa) and I see them falling backwards because they've done better prior and it seems to me at least to be a cut'n paste of past work. Just realize that I believe some architects may not even be aware of this and in other cases don't care because the $$ rolls in and the client(s) is a happy cmaper with the finished product.

I do appreciate your take on this.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

Some people still think Jack Nicklaus' best work was early in his career.  And if his recent courses (of which I've seen few) surpass his earliest, perhaps it's because he is playing less golf and devoting more time to design.

Pete L:

Your analogy to music is an interesting one, but I could make the same comparison differently.  Part of golf architecture is knowing about golf, but part is knowing about how to play the instruments, just like music.  Not even Mozart wrote his best stuff the first time he sat down at the piano ... he had to PRACTICE first.  And practice is what can make golf architects better over time. 

You are right that it's difficult to be as CREATIVE later in one's career, although like Jeff, I am also more fond of The Beatles' later work, so perhaps it can be done in golf architecture, too.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter makes a good point....I doubt a competitor like Jack Nicklaus will ever design a cousre as quirky as, say Tom doak, with a lot of blind shots, etc., because his background quite naturally dictates a course that minimizes luck to a large degree.  Those of us trained in Landscape Architecture might quite naturally be drawn to holes that look good, even if it requires the same/similar patterns of bunkers.

Matt,

I am not trying to cover for anyone. I freelly admit that outside critics can sometimes be a good prod to get better.  gca's are, after all and thought to the contrary, human beings!  And, I think I admitted that most of us do repeat, sometimes for reasons you mention.

I just am looking deeper at the reasons than "we make a lot of money, so we mail it in."  Frankly, few of us are making any money right now!    But, I truly don't see many of the bretheran who have lost their passion for golf course design to that point.  Nor has my experience been that a client asks for - implicitly or implicitly - the same course we gave someone the last time, but I repeat myself, which I hate to do!

Thus, it makes sense to me that if there is repetition, there are other reasons for it.

Some may be negative - I agree that a gca with 30 projects going will be more likely to duplicate designs in the name of saving time.  Maybe the slowdown will lead to some better work. However, if the details are better, but there are no really new concepts, then I submit that the gca's are spending more time on site, but not necessarily coming up with new ideas.  Thinking about the upcoming Presidential election, has there ever been a two term president who had as many ideas to implement in his second term as his first?  Certainly not recently, with W, Clinton, Regan, with two of three of those considered very good presidents.  Not really sure about FDR before our times.

As to island greens, yeah I tend to agree.  We certainly don't need another TPC 17, even if its a big world out there, and some golfers on a muni who can't afford TPC might appreciate a Dye Course and an island green on their regular course.  Dye even tried to disguise his next one, using rocks instead of rr ties.  Others have used more formal walls, floated the green, etc.  

There is probably a limit to how far an island green can change or a Redan, etc.  Some ideas and technology just mature and reach their ultimate state.  I mean, the basic shape of cars really hasn't changed for a long time, despite egg shapes, tail fins, and other decorations on the basic model.

So, at least its a civil and hopefully interesting discussion!  Anyone who mentions Merion on this thread and I will beat their asses well into next year........(insert smiley)

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Let's move into specifics -- please tell me what earlier courses you believe are the best representation of what Jack has designed. I'd be happy to make the case from the ones that have come more recently -- say the last 10-15 years.

Tom, I think Jack has mellowed in his later years and has tried to be more aware of different player styles besides his own.

Jeff B:

Jack may not design the quirky styles as done by Doak -- but his work has clearly moved away from a particular style that favored more of a one-way orientation to play such courses.

Jack's "style" today is more elastic and as the man himself has aged is less domagtic to the single-minded belief that ALL play must follow one type of route to play well.

If you were to see what Jack did w Outlaw at Desert Mtn (AZ) you would see quirky features as defined by Nicklaus when held against his earlier work. In the case of Outlaw you get greens which are angled more, favor the ground game and often times require a good bit of old fashioned combination of luck and skill to play there. What's so funny is the people who complain about Outlaw now is that they are using the standard of what Jack did earlier in his career -- as I define it -- architecture that provides for near 99.99% certainty in all such situations.

Let me address your other points ...

Jeff, when architects get higher on the pecking order they want to spread the seed of their talents to as many corners of the globe, or given area market place, as possible. When the volume picks up it's likely they will speed things along and as a result you likely get more of the same design patterns time after time after time.

RTJ was renown for this. There are plenty of courses that are simply forgettable. You get the inane airport landing tees and the greens which are as big as Kansas with the proverbial flanking traps that simply sprawl in all directions similar to the City of Los Angeles.

Jeff, my point, which you may have really dismissed, is that clients don't know much about golf. If they are told that course "X" done by architect "Y" is really good -- then it's no great shakes for that prospective client to possibly want something for them that's akin to that previous layout.

You mention that "there are other reasons for it." Well, I'm still waiting to hear a few of them. Architects sometimes don't realize what they are designing because implicity they often fall back on the same reasoning and habits which have created previous courses. Again, I'll say this again for emphasis -- there's nothing wrong with that because if an architect can only produce a one trick pony show then that may be their limit from a creative process. Heck, if it's making $$ and clients are happy and that brings to life future clients then everyone is happy.

Jeff, reinvention can happen - the issue is do the folks involved understand thoroughly what they have done previously and do they have the capacity to bring to life something that goes beyond what's been done before.

Let me repeat in clear terms --

I don't get excited about CLONE ARCHITECTURE.

If the original from a given architect was THAT good I don't need to play the same thing "X" amount of times in the future. Think of the sequel movies that have tried to glom onto to the success of the original.  I understand that variations can be of the slight type. The par-3 16th island green at Cougar Canyon in Trinidad is exemplary in being so uttely refreshing in resurrecting a very tired and yawning concept.

Jeff, I understand 'design concepts' are fairly well developed in golf course architecture. It's not the concepts that are at issue for me but how those concepts are actually brought to life. Too often architects allow their personal egos to get in the way -- that they are the only ones WHO GET IT.

I'm glad you acknowledge the reality that if someone looks at their own work for too long it's doubtful they will see the elements that are pointed out by astute observers.

My desire with this thread has been to point out elasticity / thinking outside the box is often given lip service because fans of given designers can be quite narrow in their mind on what constitutes unique and versatile designs. It does happen and it's important for those viewing the contributions being made to point them out when they come onto the scene. Converesely, people need to get out of the habit of setting the crown of greatness on the heads of people eternally whose main claim to fame is really only being able to provide golf design from one particular viewpoint over and over again.

Like I said before -- clone architecture doesn't work for me.

Thanks again for your dialogue on this topic.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I have enjoyed the discussions, too, but there is no need to repeat yourself again on your basic point. I understand it.  And, if you haven't heard any reasons for it, then you haven't been reading my posts! 

For example, you basically confirm what I said about clients not giving really specific instructions...how can they if they don't really know golf?  Yeah, they get recommendations, or go on reputation, and some do go play the courses and go on gut feel of what they like best.  But, none of that implies that they all hamstring their selected architects with detailed instructions. 

If there is too much repetition for your tastes, its on the head of the gca's who may have hit their limits of creativity, settled in too narrowly on what constitutes good architecture, etc. On that we agree.

You make an interesting point that I was noodling on between visits to gca.com.  Not only are gca's subject to certain points of view based on background, so are critics and golfers.  Elsewhere there are comparisons to musical artists.  I held up Paul Simon as an example of someone who changed his style.  I always looked forward to new albums.  Recently, I heard people waxing eloquently about Jessica Simpson doing a new style - Country Western.  Since I am not a fan, I could care less.

As we alluded earlier, most gca fans would probably eagerly await a similar offering from their fave architect and decry one from from someone who they didn't like.  (As in another Doak masterpiece vs another Fazio "mail it in."  You confirm that by calling RTJ features "inane" thereby revealing your biases.

Is a Jessica Simpson CW album reinvention or is that marketing?  What gca's have reinvented themselves mid career?  (Actually, Mike Hurdzan quickly comes to mind, but after 30 or so upscale courses, is he starting to repeat himself like all the rest of us?)  As to the inane RTJ features, they were very cutting edge when he did it early.  They furthered the craft. But, no one feature or style works everywhere, or can accomplish everything.

And, we get bored seeing the same thing, no doubt.  Is that a product of the TV generation, pop culture and a faster moving society where we always search out something new?  And, if so, then why do we like going back to Scottish courses, or Golden Age courses that don't change much?  It it because they are better, different, or because the nostaligia of "going back in time" touches us?  I mean really, are all Ross courses that much different from each other?  Mack at Royal Melbourne and Crystal Downs aren't that much different either.

Design differentiation has a lot of different levels.  You are talking about over a career.  What about at one place?  When given a chance to design three resort courses in MN, I was very conscious of differentiating the designs, but are owners today more likely to demand the Bandon model - 4 courses by 4 gca's (if you count Doak channeling MacD as a 4th) vs. 5 by Ross at Pinehurst?  As a Dye-Spann fan, would you have preferred the second course to be done by them or Doak at Black Mesa?  Should Prairie Club have been done by CC, and if so, would they be required to do something completely different than Sand Hills?

Again, my point is that its just not so simple as saying that gca's have too big an ego, pander too much to clients, etc.  Its a complex relationship bewteen artist, user and critic, with each playing a factor.

Disagree if you will.  Your topic has certainly made me think, which is always a good thing!

So, what are you going as for Halloween?  I think I will go as a struggling golf course architect again this year........



 

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Fair enough -- I'm glad this has been a thoughtful discussion far from the all the inane bomblast that often infects so many threads on this site.

Jeff, I can certainly appreciate the many points you have made.

The problem many architects have with "reinvention" or deciding to go with clear differentiation is that it entails plenty of risk. Given the few jobs the majority of architects get -- I'm not counting the big time boys which represent a very narrow number of select individuals -- the desire to stay within one's comfort zone is likely the path many will choose. I also said, in the event you missed it, that even if an architect were to design similar courses ALL THE TIME -- if the client liked them and people played them then clearly it's been a success to that degree.

My comments on RTJ are based on the sheer number of different courses of his that I have played. RTJ did much for the profession of golf course architects by bringing to life what they provide -- sadly, my comment on the value of the respective courses he did is quite low because the formula for nearly all of those layouts follows a clone mentality.

Jeff, when you say "cutting edge" type stuff from RTJ -- the reality is that "cutting edge" stuff needs to be seen in some sort of historial overview from the standpoint of real staying power. Simply being different for the sake of being different is not what I am talking about. It's about demonstrating a clear connection to going outside the box with designs that truly still register as being meaningful long after the architect has passed from the scene. If you read RTJ's book he simply points a very small number of his own layouts were really meaningful in his own words.

You say RTJ "furthered the craft," -- I say he provided the impetus for someone like Pete Dye to go in a completely opposite direction in terms of course style and for that reason I am grateful that Pete recognized what RTJ had done to the design universe and opted not to follow in his exact footsteps.

RTJ had an uncanny way to sell himself and market his product -- "the sun never sets on a RTJ course" -- but when you really size up courses that have been instrumental in a longer lasting way -- much of what he has done will not merit that high a grade in my opinion.

Jeff, I get bored because once the art side of the business gets pushed in the rear view mirror to a slavish devotion to the business side -- you'll inevitably get from many people a rush to provide a "one size fits all design" that clearly is nothing more than a mail in effort. C'mon, as long as the client is buying the product and the people are lining up to play it frankly who really cares if the actual design is really noteworthy or simply an assembly line product done time after time like a McDonald's Happy Meal creation. That's why I say discerning eyes that have sampled firsthand the products can and should provide an overview of what has been done.

No doubt architects can get stale and at the same time they can also come forward with stellar efforts. TF gets bashed plenty on this site but I have been quick to praise a number of his efforts when in my mind they have clearly sought to go beyond the paint-by-the-numbers formula he often follows.

Jeff, architects have egos -- some have ones as big as Texas (no pun since you live there). Each that I have ever spoken to believes they have the real sense of what golf course design is about. In a number of cases I have seen some outstanding work when architects are blessed to get top notch sites that give them a canvass just waiting to burst forward with something sensational.

Risk is part and parcel in any career. Those who have worked hard and long to get noticed will often follow the path of least resistance -- in their minds, if it ain't broken -- don't fix it.

Jeff you ask about courses like Royal Melbourne and Crystal Downs -- I have played the latter and I've also played a fair share of other Ross layouts. As you know Ross didn't visit anywhere near the sheer number of sites he was involved with. As a result, only a tiny fraction of what he created truly is still noteworthy in my opinion. As much as Ross is celebrated there are a fair share of his courses that have long ago been made into parking lots and strip malls.

No doubt design differentiation can only be seen over a broad period of time. But people do follow their past success with a mistaken belief that all they need to do is to keep the same stuff coming forward.

Like I said before if Hollywood wants to do more car chase scenes -- then if they wish to grab my attention it had better go one step beyond the all-time ones like Bullit, French Connection and Ronin. To add car chase scenes to the story line is mindless and will be seen as empty filler. The same holds true for people who throw in holes that have been far better with earlier works.

I understand the branding mechanism that Mike Keiser has so smartly created with Bandon Dunes. To go with the same designer for all courses risks the very thing I am speaking about. Jack Nicklaus did a superb job w Lyle Anderson at Desert Mountain but his batting average there, in my mind, is only .500 given the six courses he designed there. The idea in having different architects work different layouts at a given site is a smart business and design philosophy. It builds value for all the different courses and keeps the original architect from having to surpass the earlier work when the probability of that happening is likely to be small.

If C&C were to have been chosen for Prairie Club -- I would hope they would not create a Sand Hills lite or a Sand Hills version II. The original is supreme -- as I said to you sequels in film usually don't work and the same holds true for many course designs.

Jeff, I have learned a good deal from your comments. Thanks for sharing your candid thoughts.