Homogenized design

[Tommy Williamsen]

Two days ago, my wife and I drove the eight hours from our daughter’s home in Ann Arbor to our home in Virginia. On the car radio I mostly listened to Symphony Hall on XM. I listened to a Beethoven Symphony, a Rachmaninoff piano Concerto and loved them. The drama and intensity of Beethoven and the soaring melodies of Rachmaninoff thrilled me. Then a number by Phillip Glass was played. The music was busy, the harmonies disjointed, and the theme repeated ad nauseum. I turned the radio off. My sister loves Glass because he is “more interesting” than the old masters. I can appreciate that even if I’d rather have the flu than listen to most of his stuff.
In many of the threads recently, we have trashed some courses and lauded others. I get it. We all have our preferences. Guys have said that because X course is ranked lower than Y course the rankings have no credibility. The lauded courses tend to be the Myopia Hunt, Shoreacres type courses. Long brutes, like Torrey Pines have taken a hit. Courses that do not have raggedy looking bunkers are denigrated. I’d much rather play Shoreacres than Medinah #3, yet I can appreciate both.
I am getting the feeling that many think that every course should look like TD, C&C, or Hanse had designed or renovated it. There seems to be little acknowledgment that different things please different people. This is a big world and there is room for all kinds of music and golf courses.
OK, give me your best shot.

[JMEvensky]

In music, golf course design, and just about everything else, variety is certainly the spice of life. But you're absolutely right about Phillip Glass--never thought I read PG and Beethoven in the same sentence.

[mike_malone]

Part of the problem is the setup. After those two masters any other composer has a high hurdle. I played NGLA a day before Bethpage Black and BB had too high a hurdle to jump for me.


  I have an “ ambition “ scale so I played WFW one day for a high price and in high rough and then the next day Centerton in NJ for $25. It was no contest in my mind for what was the best experience per dollar. 


  Last week I played three premier Flynn courses and one less ambitious design of his. Some say his courses have a similarity which borders on homogenization but for me it’s brilliance in routing and use of the land. 


While different courses are admired by different people I believe there are objective standards in course appreciation just as there is in music.


It’s funny that I read this after just listening to a Beethoven Piano Sonata and thinking “ classical music could have stopped there” then realizing I would miss some of my top five favorites.

[Drew Maliniak]

I'm very willing to see more work from King-Collins, Brian Silva and Troy Miller.


Do think Mike Keiser influence on U.S. golf is underestimated.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Mike, I agree that Flynn was a master router. I think that is why I like Fowler so much. I’m not sure many were any better than he was.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,


Random thoughts -


Routing probably won't ever be homogenized, because every site is different.  Features have been homogenized many times over the years, for different reasons-


Construction technology (from bulldozers to irrigation, to PVC drainage pipes, to USGA greens, to bunker liners, etc.)  It didn't take long for designers to figure out, and then repeat, their best ways to use those technologies.  GCA's may not have had a choice, either, as the manufacturers sales forces were pretty persistent.  Who would recommend hand watering when automatic irrigation was available?  Or topsoil greens when the USGA said their method was "proven" to make better greens?  Technology has gone a long way to making regional designs look and play more similar than almost anything, as has the trend to hire national architects in every region, rather than rely more on closer ones to the project.


Generational trendsetters - i.e., copycat design, from MacKenzie, to RTJ after WWII, to Pete Dye in the 60's, to faux links (which I date to the ASGCA trip to Scotland in 1981) to Fazio perfection in the 90's, and then to the more rugged look post 2000, which we can perhaps call the Sand Hills look.   Or maybe even non architect Mike Keiser influencing design as much as the USGA blue coats did earlier?


The funny thing is, when I first started coming on here, many had a preference for C and C and Doak because they believed so many were touting Fazio to be trendy and they wanted something different.  At some point, the rugged look may become passe around even here, lest participants get accused of name dropping architects and preferences.  It's bound to happen!


The market for gca isn't much different than markets for any other product.  Once something becomes too established and repetitive, there is room for some young whippersnapper to come in with something new.

[John Mayhugh]

In many of the threads recently, we have trashed some courses and lauded others. I get it. We all have our preferences. Guys have said that because X course is ranked lower than Y course the rankings have no credibility. The lauded courses tend to be the Myopia Hunt, Shoreacres type courses. Long brutes, like Torrey Pines have taken a hit. Courses that do not have raggedy looking bunkers are denigrated. I’d much rather play Shoreacres than Medinah #3, yet I can appreciate both.
I am getting the feeling that many think that every course should look like TD, C&C, or Hanse had designed or renovated it. There seems to be little acknowledgment that different things please different people. This is a big world and there is room for all kinds of music and golf courses.
OK, give me your best shot.

I'm amazed at how often people ignore what others write and assign their own reasoning behind preferences.

I've only played Torrey South one time and it was in the very early days of my interest in golf architecture. I loved the setting and thought the course was ok, but didn't feel any need to return. Contrast that with my first time playing Oakmont, which could also be described as a "long brute" though not as long as TS. Oakmont was a revelation as it was the first really difficult course I played that was also quite fun. Guess what? No raggedy looking bunkers. The course excels because of strategic interest and outstanding green complexes. Torrey South has neither of those.

If you think looks is what separates the likes of Torrey South from Oakmont, you might want to read through some of the course profiles Ran has done. It is a shame that he doesn't also profile mediocre courses, as the contrast might be useful to some.

I found this article from Andy Johnson to be really interesting and shared it with some non-GCA friends. His suggested improvements don't involve bunker naturalization or "looking" like a Doak/C&C/Hanse sort of presentation. It's fundamentals, not fluff.
https://thefriedegg.com/torrey-pines-south-course-changes/

[Tommy Williamsen]

In many of the threads recently, we have trashed some courses and lauded others. I get it. We all have our preferences. Guys have said that because X course is ranked lower than Y course the rankings have no credibility. The lauded courses tend to be the Myopia Hunt, Shoreacres type courses. Long brutes, like Torrey Pines have taken a hit. Courses that do not have raggedy looking bunkers are denigrated. I’d much rather play Shoreacres than Medinah #3, yet I can appreciate both.
I am getting the feeling that many think that every course should look like TD, C&C, or Hanse had designed or renovated it. There seems to be little acknowledgment that different things please different people. This is a big world and there is room for all kinds of music and golf courses.
OK, give me your best shot.

If you think looks is what separates the likes of Torrey South from Oakmont, you might want to read through some of the course profiles Ran has done. It is a shame that he doesn't also profile mediocre courses, as the contrast might be useful to some.

I'm not quite sure how you get that comparison from what I wrote. I never even mentioned Oakmont. Oakmont is more than a long golf course, it is loaded with character. Never did I even intimate that think looks separate the quality of one course from another. I did just the opposite. I don't care how bunkers are designed, but very many on this site do. I do care how and where they are placed and if there is some variation in the placement.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tommy -
I think the fact that you were a very good player goes a long way to explain why you have more catholic tastes and a broader appreciation for a wider range of quality golf course architecture than do many of the rest of us here.
That may seem simplistic/reductionist, and it may well be -- but after years of reading thousands of posts from hundreds of different posters, I've come to believe it's true.

[John Mayhugh]

Tommy,


You said courses that do not have raggedy looking bunkers are denigrated. I brought up Oakmont as an example of a “brute” of a course that does not have raggedy looking bunkers. Yet it’s not out of favor on here. To further explain things, this single example shows the issue with your premise. More examples are available.


I think the looks of a course inspire initial interest, but if it’s not actually good, interest wanes.

[Ira Fishman]

For me, this thread raises the tension among group think, trendiness, time limitations, and being confident in one’s likes and dislikes. My interest in Gca came relatively late about 10 years ago through vacations to the Greenbrier, Primland, and PN/MP. It was a good introduction, but I only knew Ross by name and not CBM/Raynor let alone Steel. I had never heard of Coore or Doak, but I also had played only a couple Fazio, RTJ, Nicklaus, or Dye courses. In other words, I was blissfully uneducated. The enjoyment of the vacation trips in the US led to Ireland, Pasatiempo, CPC, Bandon, Scotland, the Heathlands, PH, and Streamsong.


I have picked carefully based on what I previously liked including some not so famous links courses so I have been disappointed only a few times (Castle Stuart, Kingsbarns, PH 4 and 8 . However, I wonder if I have not sampled widely enough especially among modern architects because I do not want to risk the opportunity cost of limited time given my confidence in what I know I like or because I want to tell folks that I played the “in vogue” courses.


Ira

[Sean_A]

Some times I wish the bunker was never discovered then invented. So much wasted energy in terms of maintenance and gca discussions.

Ciao

[Carl Rogers]

After looking at Torrey Pines for several days,  I make two suggestions to the next generation of GCA:


    Make bunkers real hazards
    Substitute scruffy semi rough for high lush rough 

[Peter Pallotta]

Some times I wish the bunker was never discovered then invented. So much wasted energy in terms of maintenance and gca discussions.
Ciao

Or at least, that the process had stopped with 'discovered'.
But architects and club committees etc are forever 'inventing' and 'improving' and 'renovating' and now 'restoring'.
They can't help themselves, it seems -- they seem incapable of leaving courses  alone or of truly accepting & embracing them just as they are, each a unique field of play (with all that this entails).
And so, not coincidentally, neither are we so willing or able.
Greatness, as you say, is overrated. And clinging fiercely to our own narrowly personal conception of 'greatness' even more so!

[Sean_A]

Some times I wish the bunker was never discovered then invented. So much wasted energy in terms of maintenance and gca discussions.
Ciao

Or at least, that the process had stopped with 'discovered'.
But architects and club committees etc are forever 'inventing' and 'improving' and 'renovating' and now 'restoring'.
They can't help themselves, it seems -- they seem incapable of leaving courses  alone or of truly accepting & embracing them just as they are, each a unique field of play (with all that this entails).
And so, not coincidentally, neither are we so willing or able.
Greatness, as you say, is overrated. And clinging fiercely to our own narrowly personal conception of 'greatness' even more so!

Which is exactly the reason I don't buy the idea of the long ball creating all the reno work like some rollbackers claim. People change shit. It's in their nature.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

+1 Sean
We've strayed soooo far from what a bunker once meant, and could easily still mean with about 1/10 the work and volume


Obviously the genesis of this thread was the commentary on Torrey this past week by the more GCA minded in the golf world.
I heard an amazing amount of negativity and bashing, and some of it had merit.
That said, I spent my week defending TP as I prefer to see it in the rotation,and think it is an underrated US Open site, and I think we can agree it has produced two amazing US Opens.
To those who say the course has nothing to do with exciting events, I'd counter -no lost plinko greens(2x Shinny, 2010 Pebble,Chambers), no slosh/wet slog  (Bethpage/Congressional),so good predictable turf and weather are part of that equation.


Andy Johnson's article inked above  had some very solid suggestions, something I'm sure that crossed many of our minds over the years watching and playing TP. Sure, maybe there were some permitting objections to getting closer to the canyons, but I think we all agree to some degree that the property's natural features could've been incorporated more strategically and imaginatively.
That said, the canyons ARE in play on multiple holes and certainly are visually intimidating.
The real enemy is the automatic go to reach for bunkers to create strategy/penalize errant shots, and it's just so apparent at TP.


But, I never want perfect to be the enemy of good.
I think TP is an excellent US Open site of many reasons.
1. muni/public access
2.the epic views/site
3.logistics
4.the weather in June
5. there is playable(not plinko) grass on the greens AFTER the USGA does it thing. Zero chance Rahm makes those 2 putts at Shinnecock at either of its last two Opens(a USGA thing, not a Shinny thing)
6. the fact that the course IS a good test,even if for different reasons than we'd like (narrow fairways, bunker left/right) firm greens
7. west coast time slot
8. greens that have interest and slope(unlike Bethpage)especially when firm, which they were for both US Opens held at TP.


So I'd like to see it in the rotation and I'd like them to do a few gentle, thoughtful adjustments even taking more bunkers out as they merely confound the average guy as the pros use them for containment and rough avoidance.
This shouldn't take $17 million, even in CA.
I'd suggest the USGA chip in, but they are generally the genesis/epicenter of overspend and dated/poor (re)design. which they continued to rinse and repeat for years-usually with the same guy.


So let's not discard TP, or do another costly huge renovation, but encouraged it to be nurtured  over time into an even better product under thoughtful stewardship.

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:


You said fire away, so I will.


I am as sick of people talking about bunkers as anyone here.  Maybe more so, because I’m sick of my work being typecast as looking a certain way, and lumped in with the work of Bill and Gil.


I was at Gullane and North Berwick today and I love the bunkers here because people talk about how they play, not how they look.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy:


You said fire away, so I will.


I am as sick of people talking about bunkers as anyone here.  Maybe more so, because I’m sick of my work being typecast as looking a certain way, and lumped in with the work of Bill and Gil.


I was at Gullane and North Berwick today and I love the bunkers here because people talk about how they play, not how they look.

I bet you do grow weary of being "typecast." I agree how they play is more important than how they look. Like I said it is a big world.

[Jon Sweet]

Part of the problem is the setup. After those two masters any other composer has a high hurdle. I played NGLA a day before Bethpage Black and BB had too high a hurdle to jump for me.


  I have an “ ambition “ scale so I played WFW one day for a high price and in high rough and then the next day Centerton in NJ for $25. It was no contest in my mind for what was the best experience per dollar. 


  Last week I played three premier Flynn courses and one less ambitious design of his. Some say his courses have a similarity which borders on homogenization but for me it’s brilliance in routing and use of the land. 


While different courses are admired by different people I believe there are objective standards in course appreciation just as there is in music.


It’s funny that I read this after just listening to a Beethoven Piano Sonata and thinking “ classical music could have stopped there” then realizing I would miss some of my top five favorites.

I often see here where people talk about price or value. Conditioning as well.
When I play a course I simply try to see it as it is with no importance placed on what I paid to play it and what condition the greens are in. There are a few courses here locally that are in horrendous shape but in terms of strictly the golf course, they are miles better than the more expensive private clubs. With Belmonts redo, the 12 holes there are as good as any in the area. Prior to that it was a 18 hole Tilly in disrepair. The 18 Findley course is about 20 bucks to walk, in awful shape, but the bones of the course are amazing.
Hard to remove that almighty dollar from the equation but I think that’s the best way to assess a course.
I just try to look at it as, if we condition all of them equally, which course really would stand out.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I think my original post must have been poorly stated. All I was trying to say is that on GCA there tends to be a group think about architecture. It makes sense because we all love golden age architecture. But there are a lot of good architects out there, even if we do not particularly like the style or the strategy of the course. There is a place for the tiny pot bunkers of Pete Dye, long flowing bunkers of JN, the mounding of Rees, the big bold and brawny Fazio courses, Raynor, Fowler, TD, C&C et al.


In music I prefer the old masters, but there is room for Philip Glass or even country music. Well that might be taking it too far.

[Steve Lang]

   You mean country & Western right?  All part of TE Paul's big tent theory...