A Conversation with Robert Trent Jones Jr.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff, et al.

I would disagree with your previous post that its all about a few trendy names at the expense of everyone else.  IMO, its not about what one says, its what they do.  Specifically build a fun, engaging, golf course with lots of variety and interesting shots.

And its why I have works from the following architects right at the top of my list, in no particular order lest you're looking for bias. 

RTJ 2 - Chambers Bay
Dan Hixson - Wine Valley
Tom Fazio - Gozzer Ranch
Mike Stranz - MPCC Shore
Jim Engh - Black Rock
Baxter Spann - Black Mesa
Rod Whitman - Sagebrush
And yes even Tom D. - Ballyneal, Rock Creeek, Pac Dunes

P.S. I've got several others on my bucket list by various other designers including C&C, Hanse, Nuzzo, John Fought, etc..

[Bernie Bell]

Fascinating.  Thanks for posting.  A couple tidbits from the full interview that didn't survive the edit.

Re defense against equipment/length:  "If I had my way I would ban the wooden tee."

Re criticism:  "No collective rating really resonates with me."  (But welcomes and learns from critical dialogue.)

"It takes a lot of virtuosity to break patterns in your own mind."

Biggest regret:  Not getting Rio job.  His proposal was a single playing field with different courses for the men and the women, so the women wouldn't be compared to the men, or be playing out of their divots a week later.

Lengthy discussion of Chambers Bay design process starting around 41:00. 

[Tim Gallant]

(Our own Jeff Mingay and Don Mahaffey were on recently as well!)



Re: your point on GCA ceasing to improve after Doak et al, again, I don't see GCA as something to improve upon. You have different, but who's to say RTJ was better than Thomas, or Coore was/is better than Dye. I don't think anyone will 'improve' on what Doak is doing as long as they keep trying to mimic Doak. As soon as the next wave comes with something different, I think we'll all be excited by what's to come. The tricky thing is, that next wave need the opportunities.

It would probably help if that "our own" construct went away.  I've seen that here a lot lately and it seems unnecessary at best; if someone posts here enough to be noticed, then people know them.  But that doesn't make their point of view or their work any better or worse.


There are a handful of designers now trying to go in the opposite direction from what I have been doing; we will see if they are able to establish themselves.  But I think you're wrong that it's impossible for someone else to take my style and do it better, if they are not "mimicking" me, but seeing something different in the ground than what I see.


The hard part about not being a minimalist in the modern age, is that approach also sells to the members of clubs doing restorations, whereas the guys doing more aggressive shaping on their new courses will not have that market to fall back on.  They will have to rely on poorer old courses that want to transform themselves into something different.

I'll try to use it less


But I think it has some merit because it's important to highlight the sheer wealth of knowledge that resides on this board to us fellas not in the industry. The fact that the people that are getting interviewed by Golf Digest and Caddie Magazine and wherever else are posting here on a frequent (or in some cases, less frequent) basis, is a testament to just how valuable his board can be for some one that has a keen interest in GCA. Now, I appreciate that that exposure alone doesn't validate views, but it at least shines a light that there are some incredible minds on here.


In the case of Lukas Michel, I just love the fact that someone I know won the US Mid am!!


Re: your second point - I understand if you don't want to name names publicly, but I'd love to know who is going in the opposite direction at the moment - I can think of one outfit.

[Tim Gallant]

On the other hand, Tom, I think one could make a distinction between the golden age of golf course design and, say, the golden age of Hollywood or Television -- where there were  well established and elaborate structures & systems & economies of scale in place (the studios) and/or when a revolutionary technology and a post war boom and sprawling new suburbs and growing families led to tens of millions of 'early adopters' almost overnight (and a set in every home, and the nightly news delivered straight to your living room). I don't know if this is what RTJ Jr was trying to say, but compared to those 'high- points' the golden age of gca does seem more a function of retrospective analysis and an historical blip, ie there just happened to be several truly exceptional architects living and working and writing at roughly the same time.
P

Peter,


Keith Cutten's book 'The Evolution of Golf Course Design' is interesting because he runs through each decade, and tries to put context around why things happened. From what I can read, it feels like there were a lot of factors that might lead to a sort of 'enlightenment' period, which is why it feels like 'golden age' is right. Versus post WWII, when principles and views didn't necessarily align with what we might classically refer to as a renaissance or age of enlightenment.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Tim.
You (and Tom, see his response) are probably right. At the very least, I probably shouldn't have described architecture's golden age as a product of happenstance. What I meant to say was that, in comparison to the "organizational structures" in place during Hollywood's heyday, the gca equivalent seems more like a "loose affiliation" of like-minded talents. But mostly, I was just trying to get a handle on what RTJII might've meant in saying that there was no golden age -- and speculated that he meant something like the above.

[Carl Rogers]

....
I am now passing it over to my associates says a lot about my respect for them.

TD, does this mean that there will be more courses like Stoatin Brae?