News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Variation in Presentation
« on: August 14, 2016, 02:32:05 PM »
This is NOT a criticism of any architects work, rather it is a question to those who know the body of work of Gil Hanse, along with Jim Wagner and their team members...

Has any other modern architect varied their design presentations more than these guys? I don't have a lot of experience playing their courses, but have seen a few in person (Rustic Canyon, Streamsong Black, remodel work at LACC and Winged Foot(which is really a different animal)).

For those more familiar with their original designs, what's your opinion? Are they more chameleon-like than most? If so, is it a function of their willingness to take on sites that don't fit the preferences of others? Or is my premise completely wrong?
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Blake Conant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2016, 02:43:45 PM »
The stacked sod bunker look has been imparted on a number of different courses.  Winged Foot, Streamsong, Rio, etc.  Used it in different places, but it does seem to be a constant recently.

I saw French Creek awhile back and it was bittersweet.  There's some lumpy, funky shapes out there that look really old school, but I haven't really seen that look since.  Would love to see more. 
« Last Edit: August 14, 2016, 02:48:57 PM by Blake Conant »

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2016, 03:54:20 PM »
If we take the favoured three design houses (Renaissance, C&C and Hanse), the biggest variation in presentation I've seen comes from Renaissance.

Bearing in mind I'm judging primarily from photographs having played only a couple of courses from each.

Matt Schiffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2016, 07:44:15 PM »
Joe, I would agree with your statement that Hanse and his team vary their visual style very well from course to course.  Rustic Canyon looks (and, I'm sure, plays) quite a bit different than the Olympic Course or Doral and those are all different from what I saw at Crail.  I think it's certainly a testament to their talent that they can go from a very natural, minimal style golf course to a very formal, classic look.  I would argue, however, that a number of other high profile GCAs are also finding success across widely different visual styles - Kyle Phillips and David Kidd come immediately to mind.  I'm sure there are others.


I know that Renaissance has done some renovation work on classic courses but do they have an original 18 in that style?  Don't know about C&C doing anything more formal either...
Providing freelance design, production and engineering for GCAs around the world! http://greengrassengineering.com/landing/

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2016, 08:05:40 PM »
Matt,

Good call on Kidd and Co..

I haven't had the pleasure of seeing any of KP's work, but thanks for bringing him to mind as well.

I'll likely learn that, once again, my perception is not reality.
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2016, 08:29:38 PM »
I know that Renaissance has done some renovation work on classic courses but do they have an original 18 in that style?  Don't know about C&C doing anything more formal either...


I don't think I understand your definition of "formal" if you don't think Bill and Ben have done anything that fits.


I would say our most traditional, parkland-style courses are Tumble Creek, Stonewall x2, Medinah #1, and Beechtree [RIP].  But if you are looking for raised greens with bunkers both sides, then no, I'm not going to build a whole course full of those.


Really, building courses with different presentations is a function of building in a lot of different places around the world with their own climate and grasses and sand [or no sand].  We've been lucky to work around the world, as have most of the others mentioned.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2016, 08:45:41 PM »
Joe, I think these highly acclaimed GCAs of the last 25 years have been getting many if not mostly prime land tract sites, mostly sand based, and ideal or conducive to golf design, construction, and turf selections.  So, I wonder if they develop there go-to shaping and style trademarks, and often some becomes a bit challenging to distinguish who build what.

Yet, I think all of them would have also definitely departed markedly from what we might call trademark or hallmark design and construction style and shaping principles, had any or all of them had to take many more less desirable in topography and poor soil characteristics for turfing plans and bunker shapes or FW slopes. 

I look at Cuscowilla as a bit of C&C departure.  I hadn't had the chance to see the east coast Stonewall, Riverview, etc of TDs, nor Rawls.  So basically, other than High Point, I hadn't seen anything TD had to consider different ground and topo. 

Gil and DeVries seem to come under the same category, where they will use construction techniques that fit the topo, soil and climate, and I just bet a clayey boring site would yield much different ideas and shapes than we are used to seeing from them.

Just my thought, and not widely enough exposed to the broad spectrum of any of their works to be anything more than conjecture.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2016, 09:03:30 PM »
You raise for me an interesting question, Joe: why *should* architects vary their presentation? I mean, writers as different as Willa Cather, William Faulkner,  and Gore Vidal were always Cather-esque and Faulkner-esque and Vidal-esque no matter what book they were writing or subject they were writing about. Don't get me wrong: probably like you, my bias is that gca *is* different than writing (with architects working on different sites and not on the same blank piece of paper etc), and that thus the presentation should *change* from site to site. But maybe that bias is indeed simply a bias, and one with no significant or substantial basis (in golfing/playability terms) other than an aesthetic one.  Just wondering.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2016, 09:08:42 PM »
Peter,

You're question is valid, and it's been thrown back at me before. But, I wonder how breakout ideas come about if one stays in the tried and true stable?

Which leads to this; Does golf design need any breakout ideas( or...presentations?)
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Peter Pallotta

Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2016, 09:20:44 PM »
Joe - you're not only a widely-experienced design professional but also a heck of a player, so you'd be the best person I know to answer a similar question: Do you think break-out design ideas focused primarily on *the playing of the game* (i.e. making choices and hitting shots) are related in any significant way to varied presentations? In other words, if an architect is "not open" to the latter, do you think he/she might miss opportunities for the former?

Peter

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2016, 09:22:16 PM »
I'd say there have been no 'break out' ideas. Silly ideas for variety and originality sake that make a mockery of playing the game with well developed golf skills, based on small innovative tweaks accomplished through athletic skill improvements that come from dedicated practice haven't been seen in GCA, from my perspective.

Yes, every once in a while some one comes through with some tweak to a method of construction leading to a slight variety of design that may in a very minor way change how the method of play to certain designed in characteristics of 'change agent' archies may occur.  But, does anyone have an example of an archie that blew up conventional wisdom on how to play at the highest level?  Sure, technology flogs length.  Speed flogs green slopes and turf maintenance.  But, method to play at longer distances based on tech improvement is just scaled up from methods to play the swing over the decades as is the putting stroke tweaks to get it in the hole. Nothing new under the sun, I think.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2016, 02:05:16 AM »
Incidentally, the reason I mentioned Renaissance was primarily because of The Renaissance Club and St Emilion, two courses that look much more humble because of the respective locations they are built in. They completely fit their surroundings and pay homage in style whilst never copying other courses close by.

For Hanse, Castle Stuart is one course built in a different locale with different soil. A brilliant feat of design and construction. Yet it felt remarkably similar in style to other courses of his that I played that were built on sandy soil in the States. Craighead feels a little different for sure but I discounted that based on budget and how early it came in his career.

From photos only, I'd be interested in someone showing me a C&C course where the style is deliberately different, more simple.

I hadn't really considered Hanse re-do's or renovations by the way. I think the mark of someone changing it up is best seen by the new builds.

Jaeger Kovich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2016, 08:17:51 AM »
Peter,

You're question is valid, and it's been thrown back at me before. But, I wonder how breakout ideas come about if one stays in the tried and true stable?

Which leads to this; Does golf design need any breakout ideas( or...presentations?)


Joe, looking for architects that always try to change it up and build different stuff is the reason we get along! Different makes the world go round.

Matt Schiffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2016, 08:53:58 AM »
Maybe another way of phrasing the original question is - if you're dropped onto a golf course without knowing where you are, could you reasonably identify the architect?  There are many really good to great to legendary GCAs - past and present - who you'd be able to guess in 3 or fewer tries.  From what I've seen, I'd say that Hanse and Co. isn't one of them. 


I'm going to hope that someone can drop me onto Stonewall (x2), Cuscowilla, The Renaissance Club and St. Emillion soon, so I can test my theory.
Providing freelance design, production and engineering for GCAs around the world! http://greengrassengineering.com/landing/

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2016, 09:35:27 AM »
Maybe another way of phrasing the original question is - if you're dropped onto a golf course without knowing where you are, could you reasonably identify the architect?  There are many really good to great to legendary GCAs - past and present - who you'd be able to guess in 3 or fewer tries.  From what I've seen, I'd say that Hanse and Co. isn't one of them. 



Not all of it, but certainly some of that is due to familiarity. It gets harder to keep building different-looking courses as you continue to build more of them.  Bill Coore and I have both built 30-35 courses - Gil about 1/3 as many?  Once you've built 6-8 well-known courses that have a similar style, people tend to ignore the outliers instead of seeing them as evidence of originality.


P.S.  I forgot our most traditional looking parkland course -- Common Ground in Denver.  I really doubt you'd pick that one out as mine.

Jaeger Kovich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2016, 11:17:43 AM »
Tom - The Village club was pretty traditional/parklandy too. Not sure anyone would have picked that out as your work either.

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Variation in Presentation
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2016, 11:35:32 AM »
I think of Nicklaus courses as being similar but there actually is a huge variety.   

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back