[Philippe Binette]

More and more new courses open with ''rugged-style bukering'', ''classic look'', ''minimalism''...

Is a pattern repeating here..

Back during the 70's, a man named Pete Dye developed his style, with severe artistic and visible shaping. He created golf courses following his own process and use his incredible talent with convincing and spectacular result.

Then it happens, Dye got famous by building courses like TPC at Sawgrass and people went nuts.

So a bunch of architect, not following the same process and definitely with less talent started to built courses like Pete Dye. The only way they had to go was to go more spectacular than Dye, and then a bunch of overshaped, ugly looking and overkilling spectacular were built.

It seems like the same is happening with the courses that guys like C&C and Doak built. They built courses with talented people on site, shaping and hand-crafting bunkers with great courses has a result...

And now a series of architect, drawing plans and with lesser talent (or time) built ''minimalist'' courses where they're trying to go more spectacular, big flashy bunkers, wilder greens, more flashy bunkers...

and there you go, courses are overdesigned, over the top and far away from the back to golden age vision...

will this pattern happen over and over again  

[Joel_Stewart]

I'm not sure what you are getting at?  The rough edge bunkering emulated natural bunkers and was how almost all courses built their bunkers until the late 40's or 1950"s.  Then Jones Sr. and of course Dye began using the smooth edge bunkers more in line with the modern movement.  Many courses began modernizing their bunkers, most noticeably Augusta National and now many are restoring them back to their original design.    

[Philippe Binette]

what I'm asking is really:

is the naturalism, minimalism, call it whatever you want movement led by Doak, C&C and friends is becoming a ''trend'', which will over time be killed by its own existence since lesser version of a great idea are or will be produced???

[Michael Dugger]

This notion has been raised on numerous threads over the past few months.

Surely there are those who think, "yes, it is a case of follow the leader."

[Peter Pallotta]

Phillipe
it's an interesting way to ask the question, i.e. whether the inevitable "second generation" of lesser talents, able to focus only on the more superficial aspects of the approach/movement, will hasten its decline.

That may in fact happen, or be happening as we speak (I don't know). But my guess is that, if the fundamentals of the approach (economic, artistic, and practical) are sound -- and I believe they are -- it will continue to be a viable/popular approach.  In fact, if its fundamentals are sound enough, it may become the dominant approach, so dominant that it will no longer carry the 'minimilism' tag, or any tag at all

Peter  

[Tom_Doak]

Philippe:

I did notice that quote from Jay Blasi in the recent issue of T&L Golf where Chambers Bay was named the best new course --

"We wanted people to come away saying 'I though only David McLay Kidd could do links golf.  I thought only Coore-Crenshaw and Doak could do natural-looking and windswept.  Maybe someone else can do this."

He probably got spanked for mentioning the competition in that way, but he's young, and he is apparently a quick study.

It is not unusual for other architects to imitate whatever style is winning awards, but it is a little weird when you see them start to imitate what you're doing.  Some will really embrace the style, and others will just try to copy it and fail because they're at odds with it on other levels.  [I'll let you take your own guesses at whom I might be talking about there.]

As a trend, though, it is a BAD thing.  Everybody should develop their own style, based on their own belief system and experience.  Anything less is uncivilized.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()