[Don_Mahaffey]

I was in a discussion not long ago about golf course architecture and the statement was made that every step forward in modern golf course architecture has been grounded in a look back. Is that true?

Can a good modern golf course be built without basing it’s features on the past? To build a successful modern golf course must we always try and build something that is reminiscent of a course built a century ago?

Only once in my life have I had the opportunity to be involved in a project from start to finish. In that case, we knew how we wanted the course to play. Nevertheless, we never really set out to copy any features or models of the past. But we did want it to play like one of our favorite old courses. We wanted the player to be required to hit ”shots” because that seems to be one common characteristics of the greatest courses in the world…at least those maintained in a way to meld with their intended design.
We succeeded, at least based on our observations and the reviews of those who have played the course. Doesn’t this prove that you can build a modern course without modeling it after golf courses or features from the past?

Doesn’t focusing purely on playability free up the designer to create original features? Is it the old features we love so much or is it the way they play?

[Anthony Gray]

  There is more eye candy now which is not a bad thing.

  Anthony

[Mac Plumart]

Can a good modern golf course be built without basing it’s features on the past? To build a successful modern golf course must we always try and build something that is reminiscent of a course built a century ago?

Don...to try to answer your question above, were TPC Sawgrass, Shadow Creek, or Harbour Town based off of old golf courses?  I don't think they were and they are very successful.

But you bring up a great point, tried and true principals of good golf seem to repeat themselves again and again in a successful manner because they are in fact tried and true principals.  At least that is my take on it.  Isn't that why people still read Mackenzie's book(s), Thomas, Colt and the gang?

[John Moore II]

I think there are certain features that are universal to golf, certain design qualities and such. However, I think some of the best courses have been the ones that pushed what was commonly thought to be 'normal' or whatever. While certainly not minimalist, Shadow Creek is thought by many, including the poster-man for minimalism Mr. Doak, to be a really, really good golf course. Certainly stuff like man-made waterfalls and stuff aren't the best, but a lot of stuff can be new, or presented in a new way, and still be great.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Don,
I don't think it's possible to build a golf course today without grounding it in the principles of what came before and I don't think it's possible to build one without including many of the same features/elements found on the old courses.

[John Moore II]

Don,
I don't think it's possible to build a golf course today without grounding it in the principles of what came before and I don't think it's possible to build one without including many of the same features/elements found on the old courses.

But if you have one feature from Course Q, one feature from Course Z, etc., is it really using something old, or is it just taking what might be best and altering it to fit a new place? I mean, very little that is truly new can be done, unless someone has the idea to built a golf course out of synthetic turf all over.

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

If you look hard enough back into the past you can probably find a precedent for almost anything to justify your viewpoint.  Example:  if Jack Nicklaus had wanted to sell Loxahatchee on being traditional, he could have said he was reprising the old course in London with its "alpinisation".  [Name escapes me at the moment, and I've gotta get on a plane.]

Some modern architects try to sell you on their work being "new" because they want the credit for the idea.  Others of us attempt to deflect credit by saying the idea actually comes from someplace old.  Neither really makes a difference -- it's either a good feature for playing golf, or it isn't.

[TEPaul]

"I was in a discussion not long ago about golf course architecture and the statement was made that every step forward in modern golf course architecture has been grounded in a look back. Is that true?"


Don:

If one wanted to get really general about answering a question like that I guess one would have to admit that there certainly are some set of requirements (good construction and architectural standards so to speak) to golf architecture or good golf architecture that will always endure; call them "principles" if you will.

However, I doubt all of them need to be looked at in the context of "looking back" any more than modern building architecture needs to look back to classic Greek and Roman architecture from a thousand years ago for sound building architecture principles and formulae.

We are into a "renaissance" era right now though with some architects but not all, and the former are actually articulating that they are actively looking back to pull some factors and characteristics out of the past for various reasons. Some of that may actually have to do with maintenance practices as much as actual golf course architecture.

[Niall C]

  There is more eye candy now which is not a bad thing.

  Anthony

Anthony

I like good aesthetics as much as the next man but I wonder if we, ie architects/pundits/punters, are guilty of some times concentrating on that rather than the bones of the course. I think thats why some of these old classic courses are still appreciated and loved today, because they had/have more than just looks. I wonder how many of the newly lauded courses will still be going strong in 100 years time ?

Niall

[Mac Plumart]

Niall...

I think you have hit a homerun with that post.  Eye candy has the potential to come and go, especially if it is maintenance related.  But, a golf course with good "bones" just might have a better chance to stand the test of time.  IMO.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()