Design Styles

[Andrew Balakshin]

I was wondering if some people could post on this thread a couple sentences on the style of an architect’s work they are familiar with. (I am sure there is some architect that even the most knowledgeable people here would be interested in hearing about, even if the architect is not very well known  ).

If you are an architect, I guess the question could be: What do you think you are known for? Or what would you like to be known for?

And if you can only add a bit then maybe someone else can add on some more. Like all I really know about RTJ Sr. was that he liked long “runway” tee boxes… maybe someone could add on that.

[Andrew Balakshin]

I’ll start it off with Stanley Thompson:

He was known for his signature par 3s and ability to blend the golf course into the environment (even if he moved a lot of dirt).

Maybe Ian Andrew or Robert Thompson can provide something better for us about Stanley Thompson...

[Tom_Doak]

Andrew:

I hate when people try to do this -- sum up a person's work in two sentences.  Anybody good is going to be a little harder to pin down than that.

[ed_getka]

Andrew,
    I used to think that was possible, but the more I have seen the less able I find myself able to effectively summarize an architect's style.
   By the way, RTJ is known for his pinching bunkers out in the fairway also.

[Andrew Balakshin]

I am curious how people see the differences between architects though.

And yes I know it can not be summed up in two sentences, that’s why I asked for help with ST

[Ron Farris]

My style is classified as UNDER THE RADAR.

[Forrest Richardson]

Andrew — It took Mark Fine and I an entire chapter...and about 1-2 pages each, to summarize the styles of a few legendary designers.

[paul cowley]

Eckstein would argue why take up a whole sentence when for HIS vast majority a single word is sufficient.

[Forrest Richardson]

I like the Prince approach...a symbol which represents:

"The design sytle formerly known as Minimalist."

[Andrew Balakshin]

I understand it’s difficult to try and describe the certain design styles of an architect, or maybe it’s rude to do so, I don’t know (if it is I apologize).

If anyone is wondering, there is a great book called “Golf Travel by Design” (one of my favorites) that does a great job of giving brief descriptions of the style of some current and past architects. The only problem is that it only talks about the 20 or so most popular golf architects.

Forrest: I haven’t read your book but I will try and get my hands on it one day for sure

[TEPaul]

Andrew:

This kind of question probably becomes---to what extent is the design style any architect thinks he's creating and producing or should be known for the same thing as most golfers (who even care about design style) think he's creating and producing?

In this vein, I'm sorry to say that the vast majority of golfers probably care more about what a course or a golf hole looks like vs what it plays like.

[Forrest Richardson]

Which is an interesting question, Tom — do holes look like they play? Or vice versa? Or do both ways work?

[TEPaul]

"— do holes look like they play? Or vice versa?"

Forrest;

Like most things in golf and golf architecture the answer to a question like that is obviously in the eye of the beholder.

In the eye of this beholder the answer is very much NOT NECESSARILY.

I'll give you a great example---one that is used so often when these kinds of questions arise----Riviera's #10.

Here is a hole of a bit over 300 yards that plays from a slightly raised tee to a big wide basically flat piece of naturally featureless ground.

Do you think Riviera's #10 looks like it plays or plays like it looks?  

And in that is probably what the essence is all about of the nexus of what golf architecture should look like and play like.  

[Forrest Richardson]

I think it is an interesting question. For example, if we buy your idea that a majority of golfers care more about the way a hole looks — then this plays into the hand of the golf course architect very nicely.

Anytime we can distract the player, we have won another "battle" in an effort to make things more challenging — without having (necessarily) to add bunkers or other "obvious" trouble.

The golfer who is worried about looks and aesthetics will be sidetracked (no?) as he/she pursues a good score.