Is the only way to be original through quirk?

[Bart Bradley]

There are infinite combinations of features that make up a golf hole. But can new holes be designed combining those features in conventional ways that will produce a golf hole that feels unique or original?  Are architects forced to combine features in odd or quirky ways if they want to have their work seen as original or innovative?  Is quirk the only answer to move the art forward?

Discuss.

Bart

[Tom_Doak]

It depends on what you mean by "original".


If you mean "there is nothing else like it on planet earth," chances are that most really good golf holes have some relative cousin somewhere.  Of course, the relation may not even have been known by the architect who built the so-called "original" hole -- Alsiter MacKenzie, for example, said that when he built the Gibraltar at Moortown, he did not know the details of the Redan which it is said to imitate.  But, God forbid you should ever claim to have an original idea, there will be plenty of guys ready to dismiss it as a copycat.


If you mean "it is different than any holes I've built before," I think that is the height of golf course design, and it's entirely possible without resorting to gimmickry ... though, of course, it gets tougher to pull off the more courses you have built.


For many architects, just building a green at grade without importing fill would be entirely new and original.

[Tim Gavrich]

Tom--


I'm sure you haven't reached the point where focusing on pursuing the "different from anything I've done before" goal might start to cause you to take some risks that could result in not-great golf, but do you think there may come a point where that might happen? A point where holes/courses you've designed will more heavily influence the ones you design in the future?


Certainly you've seen and studied more golf courses than most anyone on the planet, but I'd imagine that most people who've played at least one of your courses haven't played more than two or three of them in total. Can a case be made for an architect to be almost obligated not to actively avoid designing holes/courses that resemble his/her past successes in service of improving the architecture palate of the golfing public?


Put another way, if during a future project you found that a hole was looking and seemed like it would be playing similarly to, say, #16 at Streamsong Blue, would you make a palpable change, even though #16 at SSB is an awesome hole? Do you think some "templates" might ultimately emerge in your career, or do you aim to avoid that eventuality?


Having played a decent number of Tom Fazio's courses and having looked at photos/maps of many more, it's occurred to me that his courses are kind of like the Cheesecake Factory. Which is not meant to be an insult - they make pretty good food, for a chain.


Of course, Alinea and the French Laundry are objectively better, but so is Morton's.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom--


I'm sure you haven't reached the point where focusing on pursuing the "different from anything I've done before" goal might start to cause you to take some risks that could result in not-great golf, but do you think there may come a point where that might happen? A point where holes/courses you've designed will more heavily influence the ones you design in the future?

Tim:


You mean like designing a reversible 18-hole course?   


It is all too easy to just fall back and keep building what people seem to like, and I am resisting that as actively as possible, because the architects whose work I admire did not do that.  MacKenzie did not build the Gibraltar over and over; and Walter Travis built a bunch of wild greens, but not the same ones.


I try to avoid it by working with a bunch of other talented people [including new ones] and letting them contribute ideas.  And the whole driving force behind the resurrection of my book project has been to make myself get out and see new things and find some new inspiration.


Early in my career there were a handful of templates that I built a handful of times.  The 13th green at Crystal Downs found its way to Riverfront in VA [3rd hole] and Apache Stronghold in AZ [5th hole], always at the end of a long and difficult par-4.  I've built a couple of versions of the Eden hole at St. Andrews, and at least five different versions of the Redan ... usually in places where it's uncommon to find one.  I sure as hell wasn't going to build one next door to North Berwick or The National Golf Links of America [and amazingly, I have worked next door to both]. 


However, I consciously stopped building those particular holes years ago, and won't pull them out again unless the green in question is literally laying there for us.


In your example, I wouldn't build a great hole in New Zealand and then erase it because I thought it was too similar to #16 at Streamsong ... but I also wouldn't ever want to get to the point of walking a property somewhere and telling my associate to "put #16 at Streamsong here," as many architects do.  [It's easier with CAD.]

[paul cowley]

Really good post Tom...I'm glad for you and the place you're at...deservedly so, and I doubt you would change much about the path you chose to get here...good stuff!

[paul cowley]

...but no...the answer to the question is no.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There are infinite combinations of features that make up a golf hole. But can new holes be designed combining those features in conventional ways that will produce a golf hole that feels unique or original?  Are architects forced to combine features in odd or quirky ways if they want to have their work seen as original or innovative?  Is quirk the only answer to move the art forward?

Discuss.

Bart

Bart,

From time to time I have done what seems like an original hole by combining useful and appropriate parts of other holes into some new combination.

I have followed the lay of the land to produce original (for me) holes (although usually find that if I look long enough, there are similar features elsewhere, thought of long ago by some architect.)

From experience, going out of my way to be quirky doesn't ever seem to ring true. It always looks a bit self conscious.

The quirk works only when it is so site specific it almost had to be done.

[John Kirk]

Originality can also be expressed in how the golf holes are sequenced together.  Even with eighteen "template" holes, the number of ways they can be ordered is 18!, or 6.4 * 10^15 (quadrillion).

Not an important contribution to the thread, but it's something.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bart,
 
Originality and quirk would seem to continue to lie within the landform.
 
The problem as I see it, is that some of that originality and quirk are unacceptable by modern tastes.
 
Tom Doak has often stated that he muted some of his designs for that very reason.
 
"Radical" architecture, once in vogue, has fallen out of favor.
 
Not necessarily with this group, but, with the retail and country club golfer.
 
The first 4 holes at NGLA are pretty original and pretty quirky, yet, I've heard first time golfers complain about their "unfairness" their departure from what those golfers see on a daily basis.
 
In short, golf, years ago, began catering to a broader spectrum, a less serious, less strident golfer, and dumbed down the field of play to attract that element.
 
Ergo, originality in the form of quirk fell out of favor.