The Architectural Ripple Effect

[Andrew Summerell]

The Ripple Effect is where one, or a group of great courses, influence the lesser courses around it. It may also take place due to one, or only a few great architects.

Having played most of the decent courses in the London heathland, it is easy to see similarities amongst the courses. I have seen the same in the Melbourne sandbelt, as well as some of the American courses I have played.

Of course, many of the Scottish links courses I have played have certain similarities, most probably due to the strength of the landscape; and there in lies the difficulty of the question.

How much of the similarity is due to the landscape ?
How much is due to one, or a few, great courses in the area ?
How much is due to one great architect ?

I believe it is too easy to just say it’s the landscape, the soil type, the topography in every case around the world. I have often wondered what would have happened if Harry Colt came to Melbourne, instead of MacKenzie; or if MacDonald had never fallen in love with golf.

What other areas around the world have a prominent ripple effect due to one or two great courses or architects ? How is the influence evident on the lesser courses in the area ?

[Tom_Doak]

Andrew:

This happens locally in many areas.

Most clubs in Chicago have evolved toward big blobby sand bunkers, no matter who designed the course originally, because Medinah was the course that hosted Opens and that's what they have.

Likewise, nearly every course in Philadelphia has flashed-sand bunkers, due either to the "white faces of Merion" or to William Flynn's involvement with many of them.

Some of it has to do with local conditions, though ... the Sandbelt's bunkers hold up with their stiff upper lips because the soils are just right for it ... links courses have small bunkers because big ones get eroded easily ... courses in Georgia tend not to have flashy bunkers because the clay will contaminate them.

That's all about bunkers, but it could be applied to other architectural elements as well; what has worked successfully before in an area tends to be repeated.

[Anthony Butler]

The greatness of courses in a proximate area lies in the commonality of the terrain and the shared goal to create something special using that terrain. (e.g Sandbelt. Long Island.)

That depth of quality is usually created before any one course overshadows the others in the area. If Kingston Heath or Commonwealth were built after RM had attained it's worldwide reputation, I imagine they would be different and lesser courses than they are. In cases where the same area has been used to create courses in proximity to one already acknowledged as great, results vary. (i.e. Pinehurst).

That by the way is no criticism of Sebonack which I will likely never play...

The architectural ripple effect tends to be less tied to location and more tied to business factors like circumstance and availability. i.e. Cypress Point lead to Augusta National. RM resulted in NSW Golf Club.