Over the past few years and more, certain critics have accused regulars at this discussion group of being bias toward certain architects - ie. Tom Doak, Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw, and a few others.

Where does this supposed bias come from?

A majority of golfers have no interest in participating here, at GolfClubAtlas' DG. They're simply not passionately interested in golf course architecture.

On the other hand though, those regulars who do participate at this DG seem to seek out specific courses, old and new; they read the classic texts, as well as contemporary writing on the subjects of golf course design and construction; frankly, they seem to genuinely pay attention to what has gone on, and what is currently going on throughout the industry.  

So again, what has instigated the supposed bias toward certain contemporary architects here, at this DG?

Do these supposed Doak-, Coore- and Hanse-lovers have something to gain by posting their admiration for courses designed by the aforementioend architects? Or is there really something to those courses designed by the architects who regulars at this DG supposedly lean toward?

I'm not trying to suggest anything... I simply think this is a legimiate question considering criticism of bias toward certain contemporary architects at this DG.

"Golf and golf architecture is a great big thing and there's room in it for everyone! It's a BIG WORLD."




Some people on here think 99% of the world's golfers are idiots. So what?

Perhaps the "bias" that is preceived here on GCA is nothing more than 20 or 30 posters who are very prolific and the "bias" really doesn't exist to that great an extent.

Do these supposed Doak-, Coore- and Hanse-lovers have something to gain by posting their admiration for courses designed by the aforementioend architects?

No, nothing to gain or loose.  Just perhaps the joy in sounding their opinions with people equally as interested in talking about this narrow subject, even if it generates extraordinary passion for such a small subject.  For cripes sakes Ian, say which course you aren't enamored with and why.  Maybe we or even Doak or Ben will learn something or realise something.  They aren't above learning or respecting someone's opinion.  Especially someone that knows a thing or two.  

These highly paid, highly compensated archies that do not come on the one and only world wide web forum to discuss the very guts, heart and soul of their profession (Rees, Faz, Jack) don't come on here for the reason that they can't stand criticism and don't want to put themselves in the position of getting shown up by some passionante golf architecture nut case.  That could harm their lofty image, and diminish their marketability.  They won't come on here and defend their own work because there is a risk that isn't worth jeopardising - the notion that someone might discover the emperor has no pants.

Yet, modern and diverse architects other than these lofty few who reside in the pantheon, DO COME HERE TO DISCUSS.  They also risk being panned, shown up, caught in a double standard.  WE ALL DO.  Anyone who stands in the town square on a soap box risks exposure or criticism.  But, most confident people stand in there and don't put themselves on a pedestal to be above the fray of the ongoing discussion or debate.  

We participants on GCA.com represent a very very small number of golfers, and folks that are willing to stand in the town square and open our ideas and thoughts up to scrutiny and debate.  Sometimes that leads to pissing matches within our own narrow community.  Yet, usually some greater understanding comes from even those heated exchanges.

So, my own inclination is to discount any of those archies that think there is a "hate fest" going on about their work, and not worry if their jr. associates or surrogates come on here and whine that we don't love them too.  It isn't true.  Many have clearly spoken objectively on the other thread with the Soileau rant, and I for one am not appologetic or sympathetic with someone that commands enormous fees and can't stand a little scrutiny or critique.  Boo hoo...

I might add that all these architects who believe they are the greatest because they do the most and command the most $$$, or anyone else at the top of their profession, ought to read the book written by Dr. Richard Feynman, "What Do You Care What Other People Think".  

Faynman had a special disdain for all the lofty physicists that would go to the elaborate world conferences expecting to be kowtowed and catered to like they were gods, and would get huffy if anyone challenged their ideas.  Faynman preferred to walk the side streets, be with regular people, do for himself like regular folk and focus on the less extravagant, because that is where he learned the most.  There is something eternally true about that and how it challenges the notion of hubris and self agrandisement by any of the high and mighty.

This is an interesting topic. Ian makes very good points, as do others.
I think there is great admiration for the work of a few "stars" who have really taken our golf design world by storm.

Many of you know that I spent 15+ years as a graphic designer and creative director. I learned a good lesson about "fame" and "favored" designers (and design) in that profession. Allow me to elaborate...

Beginning in the 1980s a young designer hit the streets by the name of Charles Spencer Anderson. He left a larger firm that had a great reputation and struck out on his own. Anderson built an empire on "retro" design. He scoured old U.S. Trademark applications and amassed thousands of ions and designs which he continually drew from to create fun and new designs. (His work is probably best know by masses on Turner Classic Movies — TCM.)

Anderson was among the first to bring retro design to the world of graphics in the modern day — and combine it with great writing and twists of his own. He was not just "restoring" old designs, but bringing the charm and look of old, and proven, designs to new projects. He became a star and traveled around the world speaking, designing and winning awards right and left.

Anderson is still among the top of his profession.

But...one of the aspects of his fame that I recall was a trend in the late 1980s and early 1990s for designers and corporate clients to emulate what Anderson was doing. Designers across the world (mainly the U.S.) began making packages and annual reports look like throwbacks. The retro design wave hit strong.

The worst part of this was what I saw when serving as a guest teacher at universities. Many students of graphic design during this time were becoming "little "Andersons"...they were not thinking on their own and solving problems — breaking new ground. Fortunately, a few students were experimenting with their own styles and focusing on problem solving and communication first — worrying about what Anderson was doing second, or not at all.

What I took from that design "era" was that too much emphasis on a particular style or theme is never good for expanding design experimentation. It certainly was not good (at least for a decade) for graphic design in general. At the end of this "retro" era in graphic design, designers and clients returned to a wider range of design styles. It was as if the fad passed quietly into the night. The only thing left were a few carry-overs and, perhaps, an appreciation for the retro look and style, which, of course, never goes out of style in reality.

I am a great admirer of many of the favored architects discussed on GCA. But it is always refreshing to hear about other work, and work by others — especially that which is 180 degrees apart, or at least much differently aligned and carried out. Sometimes I seek this out on GCA as it is nearly always more enlightening and interesting.

Adam and RJ,

"For me, It all boils down to the first time I found this website, and those immortal words --"If you enjoy golf in a natural setting, we think you will enjoy this website"--- "

How natural is the work of Raynor? It ties in nicely to the surrounds, but the work is an awesome contrast to it's surroundings.

Does this all boil down to containment mounds are bad, no mounds are good? Fazio's work almost always ties in wonderfully to the surrounds, so that is good?

Travis used lots of mounding at a number of his courses for seperation (the length of the hole at Lookout's 1st and 10th), it certainly is fun, but it does not tie in naturally. Or is that OK because he's Travis and not Nicklaus?

Is Tom Doak's Texas course golf in a natural setting ? So should it not have been built? Should it not be studied ?

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

It's not that simple. So how can people just love everything one architect does and hate everthing another does? That's my issue.

Okay...here goes...let the sh*t start!
 
C&C's Hidden Creek in Egg Harbor, NJ does not do anything for me. I played there on a nice Sunday morning, shortly after the course open with Jeff Bradley.
  I don't understand where the accolades in regards to being a Top 100 club-It's a nice members course, but that's were it stops. The course was being built at the same time that Friar's Head was built, so I think that maybe alot of the focus at the time was on FH.
  I can look at pics and remember the holes, but I can't remember all the holes in my head. I thought that the bunkering was rather unispiring and the holes just seem to run into eachother-Like Nicklaus course I played last weekend in Charlotte-Left me wanting a little more, wondering where and if there was a wow hole and there wasn't at HC.

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

Jeremy

I very much fall on the side of "build them a place to have fun and play a game".  If you can do that at an affordable price, you are an artist.

Ciao

Sean

Jeremy Glenn:

Yours is perhaps one of the most level-headed posts on this type of subject this website has ever seen.

"Golf and golf architecture is a great big thing and there's room in it for......."

It's too bad that golf courses can't be evaluated as wine.  Put a bag over the bottle and then rate it.  Sometimes the $10 bottle will beat the $100.  Sometimes Napa is better than Bordeaux as evidenced in the famous blind testing of years ago.

 Play the course without knowing the architect, heritage, etc. and then evaluate.  That would show what if any bias there is. Impossible, yes but the results would be interesting.  I would guess that C&C, Doak, etc would continue to be evaluated highly but some courses by others might be higher than currently evaluated.

 It is clear that the frequent posters and likely the vast majority of those who post are biased toward minimalist designs.  That is not bad.  The problem lies when the favored architects can do no wrong.  Do they ever design a bad course or even hole?  And the unfavored can do no right.  
Even Lafite has a bad year!

Jeff,

Stars vs. Leafs??!?

Come on....  There are two things in hockey I cheer for:  "Les Glorieux"; and whoever is playing against the Leafs...  

This is a great question to ask here.  I've been active on this DG for a little under two years now, and read the articles regularly, even if I don't post with the same frequency.  

So I'm not sure if the 'legitimate question' is directed at a handful of 'regulars' here, or anyone in general.  Whether I'm considered 'regular' or not, I have thought about this some.  

Jeff, your first question was 'where does this supposed bias come from?'.  It may come from a number of angles.  Personal reasons, business interests, past experiences.  I cannot speak for others, but can tell you my personal views.  

I prefer to play my golf on 'older' courses, or those built over fifty years ago.  Why?  To my eyes and mind, they have a certain 'look', a certain 'feel'.  There is a sense of history about them.  Most all of them, for me, are very inspiring to play.  There are some 'older' courses, however which I do not feel are as 'inspiring' to play, and it is because of their architecture.  A case in point is Congressional. There is tremendous history to the club itself, and I couldn't have asked for a better membership with which to spend time.  However, despite the history, I never cared much for the golf course.  Why not?  I didn't find it visually appealing.  I found it extremely well cared for--Mike Giuffre does a tremendous job.  However, most all holes are straight, with two or three exceptions.  The bunkering is well off the lines of play, in most cases.  A lot of the greens are relatively simple in their contours, and apart from having high greenspeeds, are really not all that difficult to putt.  I played some good rounds there, and some bad rounds.  Why didn't I like it?  The architecture.  Not the architect.  

During summer 2004, I played Beechtree for the first time, and despite playing (beyond) poorly, loved the course.  I don't need to brown-nose Tom Doak or Cory Lewis, nor do they need me to.  I loved it.  I loved the way the holes set up from the tee, and design and appearance of the bunkers and architectural features; the contours in both the fairways and the greens.  Why did I love it?  The architecture.  

Later on in the year, I played French Creek, in the October 2004 outing.  I appreciated the chance to play it, but overall, I didn't care for the course.  I didn't play well at all that day, but I still felt it was overall too penal; too many forced carries, some fairly long (and I am a long driver of the ball) and death (water hazards, wetlands, out of bounds, thick woods, etc) lurking close at hand on many shots.  I understand they are hazards to be avoided, but to me, there didn't seem to be a chance for a player who was 'off' on that particular day, to get the ball around the course, in contrast to something like Bethpage Red, where you can be off, but not become bruised and bloodies in the process.  It's difficult to say if I would have liked it better had I played better that day, and would gladly give it another chance to form a more accurate opinion of it.  I do understand the wetlands have a strong influence on the course's architecture.  I did like a lot of the greens there, and how Gil used slopes to create interesting putting.  

In contrast to Tony, I absolutely loved Hidden Creek.  Again, I don't need to brown-nose Pat or Coore/Crenshaw, nor do they need me to.  I played below average in the May 05 outing, not poorly but not 'average' for me, but loved the architecture of the course, and can recall many of the holes.  I fully agree that I would have gone back to the first hole and played again if the opportunity was there.  

I understand the last three examples I have given are 'new' courses, built by 'most favored' architects.  Where I am tying this in is that in my mind, these architects overall are creating golf courses that for me, remind me of the 'older' courses that I have such an affinity for.  They are building courses that offer a high degree of strategy, perhaps offer some quirky features, offer bunkering that has a 'natural' and perhaps more 'weathered' appearance to it, and greens that are fun and difficult to putt--offer interesting contours and features that tie in with the surrounds well, much as "Golden Age' architects such as Flynn, Ross and Park.  

Where this now works back to Jeff's original post is the first full paragraph "On the other hand...the industry."  My opinion is that the "bias" architects seem to have the common thread of learning from the past--learning from the Golden Age architects--and what made some of their courses so good--and carrying it forward into today.  Tom Paul and I have talked a little about the concept of "going back to go forward", or words to that effect, in terms of learning from the past in order to forge ahead.  I feel these architects that we may be "biased" towards have successfully gone back and "learned" from the past and are using what worked well for those architects, along with modern technology and fresh ideas, to create courses that have that "instant-old" feel to them, in many cases.  For example, Hidden Creek feels "old" to me, like it has been there for many years, as does Beechtree.  In fact, one of the things that drew me to Beechtree was its resemblance in some spots to some of the Bethpage courses and others on LI, where I had played many rounds growing up.    

Another common thread among many of these "bias" architects is that the "wow" factor may be gained with a golf course that is more subtle, but multidimensional, meaning it plays different ways-aerial, bump and run, etc-depending on the day-without the need to create 'wow' with all sorts of ponds, waterfalls, fountains, 'signature holes', that sort of thing.  There appears to be a lot less in the way of earthmoving-more letting holes fall where they may on the land.  Sometimes it provides for an uneven lie in the fairway, but hey, that's golf.  That's the rub of the green.  It may be unfair, but as is life sometimes too.  

The one criticism I have with some-not all-of the architects that are 'less favored' is that their courses tend to be much more manufactured in appearance, and not as well tied in with the natural environment.  Yes, you can apply the same criticism towards the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks school of design-manufactured/engineered holes-but I think they too tie in with their surroundings better in many cases than the "less favored" architects.  Remember, a lot of their holes were adaptations, not verbatim copies of holes which Macdonald felt 'ideal'.  And like all architects, sometimes it was a figurative grand slam, other times, it was a strikeout.  

In conclusion, I would like to answer Jeff's question "...is there something to those courses designed by the architects who regulars at this DG supposedly lean toward?" with, yes, there is.  It's the architecture.