Is the deal in golf architecture in the vast differnces?

[TEPaul]

Paul Thomas sent me a nice IM saying he hoped I wasn't offended by something he said about Stone Harbor.

I've said in the past I think the course should be restored to its original outrageous glory. I'm interested in Stone Harbor because to me it represents the outside edge of the spectrum in golf archtiecture of DIFFERENCE!

And even if I wince when I see some courses that are really different I like the fact even they, maybe particularly they, create that very difference in the art of golf course architecture. I think that makes the art form richer.

I sure do have my own preferences. Everyone on here can tell I love C&C's type and style of architecture as well as Doak's and Hanse's a number of others.

But would I like to see the whole world of golf architecture look like the type and styles they do? No, I would not. I believe there should be something for everyone because so many people have differing tastes.

I do think, however, given that vast spectrum and extreme difference that the world of maintenance in the future should understand better how to maintain the look and style and certainly the differing playabilities of those vastly differing courses better and more distinct---one from the other.

I don't like "standardization" or "homogenization" at all in any art form like golf course architecture or its maintenance practices.

Do you all agree with that or do you think I'm as crazy as most seem to believe?

I guess a quicker way to say it is even if I don't personally like something that's really outrageous, I'm glad it's there. Somebody will probably like it and that doesn't always have to be me.

C.B Macdonald once said about the most outrageous forms of early 'geometric" golf architecture that it "made the very soul of golf shriek".

I'm glad "geometric" architecture got built once---I think it shows a fascination evolution. I say let the very soul of golf shriek every now and again----as long as it doesn't shriek too often!  

[PThomas]

Tom  -- I know what you mean and agree with you for the most part, but that picture from Stone Harbour....for me personally I think that pushes my limits a bit too far

is that rest of the course that "different"?  if so, then I definitely would say "YiKes" ...Tom Doak gave it a 0...be interesting to know aht others would give it

maybe we all have our lines in the sand re "extreme" features such as these...for me I think that hole goes over the line...I used to think that trees in bunkers did as well, but after a thread on that I think I'm convinced otherwise -- as long as we don't start seeing too much of that!

[Kyle Harris]

Paul,

Every form of art needs its bounds. Stone Harbor represents one of those bounds. You don't want to mimick it, you don't want to exceed it... but as it stands, still appreciable in scope.

You are very much correct that we don't want to see "too much" of something like a greenside bunker shot over water et al. But as it stands, it would be a different and interesting shot to face once or twice in your life, no?

[PThomas]

Kyle -- you know, I think I would be okay with the bunker shot over the water, but the bunkers shaped like teeth.....mmm

unless I lived there or vacationed there a lot, etc., I just don't think I could see myself spending money to see it!

[TEPaul]

"...Tom Doak gave it a 0..."

Paul:

Tom Doak said that a long time ago. I believe Tom has grown and matured now and would never say anything like that about Stone Harbor today. We should ask him about that and my strong expectation would be that Tom would definitely not say Stone Harbor back then was a 0. I think today he's say it was either a +5 or a -5!      

[Kyle Harris]

Paul,

I guess that's the difference and something I tend to forget.
When I saw/played it, albiet the new version. I didn't spend money to see it, and probably wouldn't the old.

[TEPaul]

The other day we were at a Mike Strantz course in Charlestown called Bull's Bay. Mike actually lives there. Mike's reputation in architecture is most interesting--he's very much gotten the attention of the world of architecture---and "different" maybe a key word. I've never played a Mike Strantz course and I'd never seen one before either. I'd think there would be numerous ways one might describe Bull's Bay. The only description I'm fairly certain no one would ever give it would be subtle or minimalist!