Natural, stylized, engineered, rudimentary, simplisitic or bad?

[TEPaul]

The entire evolution of the styles, looks and techniques of man-made golf course architecture is probably what fascinates me most. The wealth of various styles, looks and techniques could be viewed as what makes all of golf architecture so rich---it creates the spectrum of difference in the profession or the art form.

Golf course architecture also seems to produce tremendous variations of opinion as to what's great on one end of the spectrum to really bad on the other end. And it seems there never has been complete consensus of opinion amongst golfers or even very serious golf analysts and critics.

It's a little like looking at the entire evolution of the styles, looks and manufacturing techniques of the automobile from the beginning until today---from the first motorized horse buggy to the Model T Ford, to the Pierce Arrow, to the Edsel, to the most sophisticated modern Mercedes or Ferrari, except in golf architecture it's the extremely early rudimentary, to the geometric, to the enginneered, to the ultra natural, to the stylistized and perhaps back to the natural.

So where does the style and look and construction technique of the just plain bad architecture fall in that spectrum?

The reason I thought of this subject was looking at the photos just posted of J.F. Abercromby's Worplesdon. Look at those fairway bunkers in the first photo. Gil Hanse once told me that the worst looking bunkers and the worst bunker architecture were those that just appeared to pop right out of the ground completely artifically! One or a few of those fairway bunkers at Worplesdon almost exactly match that definition and actually look remarkably like a bunker Gil Hanse and I were looking at when he said that.

Now look at the large greenside bunker on the left of the green on #11 at Worplesdon. To me most of that bunker, its angle on a diagonal along the green, it's fairly vertical bank looks remarkably like Raynor's engineered style to me, only it departs markedly from Raynor's look with a series of completely matched basic semi capes and bays which look almost exactly like bunkering at Nantucket Golf Club for which Rees Jones was roundly criticized on here for looking stylized and/or artificial.

So where do we draw the line on here regarding what's good or bad? How can something that Abercromby did many decades ago be considered good and something Rees Jones did five years ago be considered so bad if it in some way looks almost exactly the same? Is it only because Abercromby did it so many decades ago and we admire it for that reason? Or that we expect that Rees would have moved on to something else or something different? Perhaps the answer is that the look of those fairway bunkers and that green-side bunker looks very little like what Abercromby originally did at Worplesdon! Maybe they were redesigned or maybe they're the result of evolutionary maintenance practices.

How about Hidden Creek? When I first saw some of that bunkering under construction I asked Coore why he was building bunkers that just popped artificially out of the ground when they had done so many bunkers at other courses previously that looked so much like nature itself? He said because they were paying tribute to a much earlier and probably far more rudimentary time and look of the early Heathland architecture when they probably just dug a hole and threw the fill right in front of the pit!

So what is it exactly that forms our opinions and drives our opinions as to what's good or bad or indifferent? And when we consider these things are we really being honest or intellectually honest?

Or maybe some are just like me and are simply fascinated by the entire evolution of the styles, looks and techniques of man-made architecture, be it rudimentarly, geometric, engineered, natural, ultra-natural, stylized or natural again! But that doesn't mean I don't have my preferences or that I don't think some things look really great, some indifferent, some bad, and some simply evoke real curiosity for a whole variety of reasons!

[Brian_Gracely]

Tom Paul,

You need to jump on the next Northwest flight to Detroit for the annual Woodward Avenue Dream Cruise, http://www.freep.com.  The weather is supposed to be great this weekend and Oakland Hills is just down the street.

[TEPaul]

Fellows:

No need to simply supply answers that are the same old, same old such as golf architecture is just subjective or its a matter of blondes, brunettes or redheads.

What I'm talking about here is what seems to me to be numerous people and their opinions on this website and elsewhere who look at some feature on one course, perhaps some of those bunkers at Worplesdon and they seem to respect or almost revere them while at the same time looking at bunkering on Rees Jones's Nantucket course, for instance, and they pan them! The fact of the matter is they might look just remarkably similar, and there's simply no denying this fact no matter how much any of those on here or elsewhere want to rationalize things.

There's either a complete lack of observation or some kind of analytical or intellectual  lack of honesty going on here, there's no question of it, in my opinion.

I'm definitely not talking about the obvious and stark differences of style, look and technique between a golf course and its architecture such as Stone Harbor compared to Cypress Point! The differences there would be as clear as night and day to the most complete architectural tyro!

The simple answer to me is too many fall in love with a name or detest some other name and they either can't or refuse to acknowledge the marked similarities in some of the style, look and technique!

I doubt anyone will do a very good job of answering the real question here because I think too many of them either can't or they just don't want to---it might expose something they just don't want to expose!

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

There are two truths you're onto here and I don't know which one you are trying to make a point of -- maybe both?

1.  Looking at a picture of a single hole does not supply enough context to discuss the merits of that golf course as a whole.

2.  Old golf courses (and old architects) tend to get the benefit of the doubt; modern architects have to defend every thing they do.

The first point is fairly obvious, so I'll assume you're after the second.  There are some valid reasons old courses get the benefit of the doubt:

a.  Even an ugly feature tends to naturalize itself over 75 years, as grasses with various textures make their way into the scene.

b.  If a feature was really awful as far as playing the hole, the membership would probably have changed it by now.

c.  If the edging of a bunker is ugly, or if a green is too severe, someone can always claim (perhaps true, perhaps not) that is the fault of subsequent maintenance and not the original design.  A contemporary architect has no one else to shoulder the blame.

However, I do believe it is also true that modern architects are more subject to criticism simply because their holes were just built, the options are clearer, and history has not weighed in on the architect's side ... just like it's more popular to second-guess the sitting President than Kennedy or Roosevelt.

Just one good example:  if I built the old 12th green at Garden City on one of my new courses, I'd be called insane.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I agree with Tom. If he built the old 12th at Garden City at a new course these days, he would be called insane by most golfers. Which makes the argument to restore the 12th at Garden City very ironic, doesn't it.

The same can be said about the Old Course, right. The Old Course is revered. American golfers spend a lot of money to travel to Scotland to play there. But if Doak, or anyone else, built the Old Course somwhere in the United States today, with no one having known of it previously, he'd be called insane. Wouldn't he?

It's ironic.  

[ian]

 "Is it only because Abercromby did it so many decades ago and we admire it for that reason?"

Tom,

You said it all in that part of your comment, and Doak reinforced it with....

"Old golf courses (and old architects) tend to get the benefit of the doubt; modern architects have to defend every thing they do."

Time tells us what is great and what is not. Most people don't want to wait that long. It's an MTV world that has to decide whether Rustic Canyon is better than Barona Creek. Still a stupid question to me and I've seen both, and like both. Time will answer that, but it may not be the same answer for two different golfers.

Great question Tom, I wish my answer was near as good; I'm being hustled out the door by my wife

There is good in all golf holes if your willing to look for it

[TEPaul]

From Jeff Mingay:

"I agree with Tom. If he built the old 12th at Garden City at a new course these days, he would be called insane by most golfers. Which makes the argument to restore the 12th at Garden City very ironic, doesn't it."

Jeff:

I agree with Tom Doak too, and it certainly is ironic. But perhaps this has even gone beyond irony! Perhaps this really has landed in the corner of true bias, even to the point of disregarding what anyone can clearly see!

I am not at all speaking of strategy here--architectural strategy. As far as I'm concerned a course can be very strategic or not strategic at all regardless of whether it's rudimentary, engineered, highly stylistic and ultra modern or ultral natural and old fashioned looking!

I'm speaking of style in the context of a look, general and specific, and man-made construction that looks either natural, stylized, engineered, geometric, or rudimentary. I think most everyone on here can certainly recognize the basic differences and distinctions in those descriptions in architecture. But yet, the same look is both praised and panned on here seemingly only regarding who the architect was!

The example of the 12th green at GCGC is probably a very good one to this point and subject. If it was restored at GCGC it may be accepted but if Tom Doak or another current architect recreated it somewhere else even in the context of a course with a very similar style and look to GCGC would it be accepted? And if it was accepted at GCGC and not a course Tom Doak or someone else did in the style of GCGC why would that be? Obviously only because what Travis or Emmet can get away with today Tom Doak or someone else can't!

"The same can be said about the Old Course, right. The Old Course is revered. American golfers spend a lot of money to travel to Scotland to play there. But if Doak, or anyone else, built the Old Course somwhere in the United States today, with no one having known of it previously, he'd be called insane. Wouldn't he?"

I'm not so sure about that. I think the world is ready and has been for years for a course that has all the characteristics of the Old Course. I just think the reasons courses aren't built like that today or probably ever have been in the last century are extraneous reasons that may not have to do with golf strategy, architectural style, type and look at all. It probably has more to do with more modern concerns about things like liabilities. We should probably recognize those concerns go back a long way!

[TEPaul]

"I revere and respect intelligent strategy and abhor vapid banal beauty."

redanman:

Generally I do too but that remark is almost a total nonsequitor on this thread and to this subject. And you can use your stock blondes, brunettes and redheads analogy on some discussions and some subjects but not really with this question

This question is more like an example of where some on here see a blonde and they think they know where she came from and they think she's gorgeous. Then they see her again, she looks the same, but they find out she came from somewhere else and they think she's ugly.

Why would that be? I beleve I'm pretty sure why that is but I'd love you to tell me why you think that is!

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom P.,

Re: "recreation of the Old Course in America", I was thinking more about blind pot bunkers in the centre of fairways, and putting greens atop plateaux falling away from the line of approach.

These characteristics are largely dismissed by American golfers, aren't they? Particularly when they're featured at all 18 holes!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

2.  Old golf courses (and old architects) tend to get the benefit of the doubt; modern architects have to defend every thing they do.

Tom,

I couldn't disagree more.

WE may give them the benefit of the doubt today, and thats only because we (and you) see the genius of their designs. But I have all sorts of proof that they fought for everything they did. Look at MacKenzie at Sitwell Park. Tell me he wasn't fighting for what he believed in on that one! What about Augusta National, and how Clifford Roberts literally changed the course as he saw fit over a 20 year period that lost every bit of Mackenzi-esque au naturale'.

I also fail to see where most anyone on this website gives you any retribution for any shoddy work because simply put, most of us haven't found any.  But when your doing this for the love and the passion of golf architecture compared to being a successful businessman which you friends, current and future clientele can rejoice in because you knew how to carry on a conversation at a cocktail party--well, art and golf architecture is most definintely blind and the art of being a salesman reigns supreme. Just ask Tom Fazio, Rees Jones and Arnold Palmer. Do any of us actually think they build the same thing as You, Bill Coore, and Gil Hanse? PLEASE! SOme of us have better taste then that!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

And by the way, The Tom Paul Big World Theory, Its as simple as this:

You either get it or you don't. Simple as that.  Some might be able to learn how to get it, others, well unless you open your eyes, open your minds and even open a book or two, your all hopeless!

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

If you back to that Aber thread, you can see that those curves were added later.

One reason they don't look as poor as Rees Jones's bunkers at Nantucket is the fact that the bunkers aren't as manicured:  the grass is worn and going brown.  They are more in scale with the green size too.

[DMoriarty]

. . .The fact of the matter is they might look just remarkably similar, and there's simply no denying this fact no matter how much any of those on here or elsewhere want to rationalize things.

There's either a complete lack of observation or some kind of analytical or intellectual  lack of honesty going on here, there's no question of it, in my opinion.

. . .

The simple answer to me is too many fall in love with a name or detest some other name and they either can't or refuse to acknowledge the marked similarities in some of the style, look and technique!

I doubt anyone will do a very good job of answering the real question here because I think too many of them either can't or they just don't want to---it might expose something they just don't want to expose!

TomP I havent played the primary courses you mention but then your accusation is much broader than that . . .

First, you are correct not to expect a good answer here . . . yet correct for the wrong reasons.  Your post takes vague swipes at unnamed posters.  Do you really expect us? them? me? you? to answer when we dont even know whether we are among the accused?

Second, as is often the case with simple answers, yours is catchy but inadequate.   Styles, looks, and techniques may work in one context and not another.  Dont confuse this with some mamby-pamby to-each-his-own subjectivity.  Like the old course in las vegas.

Third, are you sure that Tom Doak hasnt ever modeled a hole after GCGC 12, or at least been influenced by some of its attributes?  I havent yet played Apache Stronghold but since recently seeing a yardage book and hearing a description of the  course I have been wondering if one of the greens wasnt inspired by GCGC 12.  Not the mounds but the forced carry over an abruptly edged hazard with room between the hazard and green to run the ball in.  (Cant remember the no. but perhaps 17?)

[TEPaul]

DavidM:

That's a classic Moriarty post! I know you're a lawyer but nobody is amongst the 'accused' on here and I'm not a plaintiff in court. This is just a golf architecture discussion group for God's sake and this is nothing more than a question about an observation that's been pretty obvious to me (and others) for a lot of years on here!

Paul Turner:

I think you've probably uncovered the truth of those festures in the Worplesdon photos of the current holes---they must be quite different from the way Abercromby originally built them---otherwise he had an extremely wide varieity of styles! The early photo Tom MacWood posted of an Abercromby Addington hole is just so vastly different in style, look and apparently the technique of construction than those Worplesdon photos of holes today!

[DMoriarty]

. . . this is nothing more than a question about an observation that's been pretty obvious to me (and others) for a lot of years on here!

Your observation was less obvious to me . . . but I must be wrong because you have the agreement of "others" and they are never proven incorrect.  

[TEPaul]

"Your observation was less obvious to me . . . but I must be wrong...."

David:

As you will come to know it's counter to the spirit of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com to feel you must be wrong just because noone agrees with you!  

[TEPaul]

DavidM:

I asked a couple of questions on the initial post of this thread, including;

"So where does the style and look and construction technique of the just plain bad architecture fall in that spectrum?"

and...

"So where do we draw the line on here regarding what's good or bad?"

So far as I can see, the only one who really answered those questions in close to a specific way was Tom Doak on post #6. And Jeff Mingay gave a few very good general answers, in my opinion.

When it comes to just the style and look of architecture (not including something like the strategic ramifications of it) this topic is something that really does interest me regarding my own opinion. One of the reasons is for years the "style" and "look" of Macdonald/Raynor never sat very well with me. It was simply too angular, too engineered and consequently too artifical looking! I just always wondered why they never bothered to change or evolve that style and look more into the real naturalistic style and look of some of the truly great architecture that was contemporaneous to them.

But in the last few years I've come to like the style and look of that angular, engineered architecture. I can't really understand why I seem to have changed my mind other than the fact that it just plays so very well!

My preference has always been towards the truly naturalistic style of architecture and I'm also a proponent of Max Behr's philosophy of the importance of maintaining "nature's part" in golf architecture---and that very much includes the style and look of it. I'm just beginning to wonder if he was actually right about that or at least to what degree he was right or wrong.

TommyN mentioned that this boils down to my "Big World" theory of architecture which means to me the spectrum of styles and looks and types of golf architecture are very wide,  and I think necessarily so! It means that there's something out there for everyone's preferences.

Tommy seems to imply that in his opinion if someone likes something that HE or WE don't like, or if they don't like what HE or We do like then they just don't "get it". I'm not sure I agree with that. I think they simply have different preferences and that's most of the point of the "Big World" theory of golf architecture. Because there really is something for everyone and the spectrum of differences is wide it just makes the art that much richer, in my opinion. Plus, I'm still trying to figure out the extent of the meaning of Bill Coore's seemingly constant refrain to me when I ask him about various architecture "that it's all about differences".

This doesn't mean at all though that Bill Coore doesn't very likely detest some architecture and love other architecture--but he seems to keep saying it's all about difference!

[Mark Brown]

Tom (Paul)

This is an important and complex subject. Archictects of the past definitely get the benefit of the doubt, and I think we ought to question their work sometimes rather than always exalt them. I wouldn't hire Raynor now to design a course even though I enjoy playing Yeaman's Hall and Mountain Lake once in awhile.

At the same time, if you can get past the quirks and odd or gemometric shapes, there is some interesting strategy and merit to much of his work.

Also, I think as a group we need to be more objective with modern architects. It really doesn't matter what their budget was - just look at the strategy and the beauty and whatever else floats your boat -- Fazio's lasting contribution will be in his talent of creating beauty, even though he over does it sometimes. He is more of an artist, while Dye knows how to make a stern test for the best players in the worl, as well as making holes look harder than they are. Nicklaus is big on everything being right in front of you and being fair.

This is a great topic for this group and should be discussed now and in the future. What modern architects (other than Doak, Crenshaw & Coore and Hanse) and courses do the individuals in our group like?

There's got to be redeeming value in some of the 5,000 courses that have been built since 1988. I think we should discuss modern architecture and architects more. Since the beginning of the "minimalist movement" approval has often has on lower budget courses with less earth moving - but at times more dirt probably should have been moved to create a better course.

Also, how many courses did Ross really design on site and how many are really worthy of praise.

Overall, I think strategy is the over-riding element of greatness, along with the features looking natural -- whether they are or not. What gets your heart pumping and tests your game and your mettle

For me Mackenzie stands above the rest in the "Golden Era," with some of Ross' and Tillinghast's best work. It's a complex subject and you did a great job of supplying the questions to discuss. There will be broad spectrums of opinions and passionate discussions disagreements, but when it's all said and done we'll be more knowledgeable and have a clearer understanding of how to evaluate and critique both the older and modern architects and courses -- and that's what this group is all about.

Hats off to you for a great effort in getting this discussion rolling... now what was the question...?

[DMoriarty]

TomP, your initial post did raise issues worth discussing.  My post was more in response to your second, which seems directed your perception of the low quality/ability/willingness of many posters to critique architecture.  Regardless, I hope I havent killed off the discussion, and will try focus on the questions in your first post rather than your second.

What makes you think you can cull out style from functionality and strategy?  Yes there are design elements which are purely stylistic (flower beds arount the tees) but IMO these are less common than one might think.  

Take your Max Behr example, where you implicitly (and correctly i think) acknowledge that that there is more to Behr's naturalistic approach than style and looks.  Yet you proceed to focus on his "style" as if it could be readily disassociated from the functionality of his courses.

You are the Max Behr expert, but I wonder if he wouldn't disagree with you on this one.  His style did not exist in an inconsequential vacuum but rather provided the context for this courses.  For Behr, his style, functionality, and strategic context were interdependent or possibly one and the same . . . at least in theory.  But i am likely mistaken . . . you've studied the man much more than I.

As for your Church of the Big World, I am afraid I remain heretic.  

. . . this topic is something that really does interest me regarding my own opinion.

Somehow I suspect that this statement rings true for more than just this one topic.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Yeah, I'm a heretic too from the Church of the Big World.  I think it's sort of like music and movies...most of it sucks, being largely vanilla pablum for mass approval and consumption, some fails while attempting something nobler like art (often because of lack of talent, not desire), and much less actually hits the mark.

I also don't believe you can separate form and function into little boxes.  Rees's mounds are not only unsightly, (to pick on an easy target) but they provide awkward playability and bizarre shot results (don't ask me to provide a treatise, please...just try landing on one with a cart path on the other side and imagine the result).

Finally, because I only have a moment right now, I think there's nothing wrong with being discriminatory when judging golf courses.  I don't think it's between old and new...I think too many modern architects make that lame argument because they don't understand why their $10million opus lands with a thud when they've created enough eye candy to turn the state of Michigan diabetic.

I played one of these recently.  A previously existing (and pretty good) course was torn up to build a brand new one from scratch on some pretty good land.  Millions of dollars were spent, obviously, on such things as boulders lining a creek bed for all 500+ yards of a par five.

The bunkers were all flash-faced, and conditioning of the greens was perfect.

The only trouble is that the original course was about a 5 on the Doak scale, and this new course is about a 5, as well, only for different reasons.  

Makes one wonder what all the fuss is about.

[Llye Smith]

Do old golf courses and old architects sometimes get credit they don't really deserve? Of course they do. This is the "old dead white man" syndrome. Even Shakespeare had his Titus Andronicus. We've played and loved and revered the classic Ross and MacKenzie and Tillinghast and Raynor and Old Tom courses over the years that we naturally have a tendency to grant carte blanche (or just a warm fuzzy feeling) to them.

Remember, though, this is an historical perspective through 2004 eyes. To Tommy Naccarato's point, I'm sure all of these architects had they're own battles to fight in their own time to see their designs built, not to mention maintained, the way they intended, just as their contemporary counterparts do. But we never saw this first-hand and rarely think about it.

Do modern architects have a tougher time getting the respect they often, occasionally or rarely deserve? Certainly. These guys are still alive and working and fighting to…
· make or maintain a business/reputation or…
· get their work built they way they intended or…
· make their own particular imprint on the history of the game or…
· just survive in their chosen career like the rest of us or…
· something else we don't know about.

So sure… modern architects need to defend simply because, as live targets, they are easier and maybe more fun to hit with our slings and arrows.

Regarding the idea that we love an aspect of a golf course when we see it in a Ross or MacKenzie design but hate it in a Coore or god forbid, Doak design?  
Well, sure... we are all creatures of our own making. Sometimes we teach ourselves to overlook things we don't like about a favorite uncle. On the other hand, perhaps the new guy, a creature of his own making, too, loved one aspect of a classic so much that he tried to shoehorn it into his design where it doesn't really belong.

Oh, and regarding where does bad architecture fit into the spectrum?
As noted above, sometimes bad gets hidden behind a greater body of work or greater reputation—deserved or no. And without the body of work or reputation, sometimes bad is just bad. (maybe that's a topic for another discussion - but then, as mom always said... if you don't have anything nice to say...)    

[George Pazin]

Could part of the reason that older architects are given the benefit of the doubt is that they were the ones learning and paving the way?

I probably learned more calculus than Isaac Newton knew while I was in school, but he created it. He was the smartest guy maybe ever, and I wasn't even the smartest guy in my class.

I'd hope that modern architects could look at some of the things done in the past and realize they didn't work as well as hoped. Take something like Muirhead's course in NJ - it probably was a bad thing that it was built, but I'm glad no one has sought to duplicate it.

[TEPaul]

Mark Brown:

Really fine post there---some excellent general thoughts on your part.

I'll try to frame the basic question again in a tighter and more spare way!

[TEPaul]

". . . this topic is something that really does interest me regarding my own opinion."

David:

If I actually said that---and obviously I did, I really ought to either read what I write more carefully or reconsider what I'm saying. That doesn't make much sense and sounds even worse than that!  

[Mark Brown]

TE

Good. The thoughts mentioned in your post are definitely worth a lot more discussion in areas that generally seem to be dismissed by the group. We shouldn't ignore modern courses, etc. They're a big part of the the game of golf and there are good ones and bad ones. Plus most golfers play most of their golf on them. Let's keep this topic alive.

Thanks for spending the time on it.