As I am often accused of being one of the Tom Doak "buttboys" around here, from time to time I challenge myself to remain objective by trying to find fault in the design philosophies or work of the likes of Renaissance GD, Ben and Bill, Bradley, Hanse et al, the bunkerhill crew and/or Devries.

And since it appears to be the opinion of some around here that my affection, per se, for the work of the new generation "master architects" borders on fanaticism, I invite everyone to crack the minimalist.  Tell us why what these guys are doing isn't the best?

John Kav. thinks the 10th and 11th at Pac. Dunes (in its' present configuration) is the "greatest par 4 ever....wasted."  I assume that means you could play a drive down the corridor where the 10th hole occupies and hit a wedge up to the 11th green.  Stick another par three somewhere else on the property and you've recovered your lost hole and eliminated the quirky back to back par threes to start the back nine.  

Hypothetically speaking.......

I hear more than a handful of folks flogging the opening tee shot at Pacific Dunes, for example.

I'm not trying to pick on Pacific Dunes necessarily, it is simply the best course I know pretty well.  

What say you???  Does something about these new "naturalist" architects rub you the wrong way?  I am straining to recall what I've read or heard over the years but I know there is a certain segment of the golfing populace that thinks the Bandon courses suck and would much prefer another round at Torrey Pines.

How can this be?

     

Michael,

I do not have much experience with these guys courses...seems like about one each - - - -Doak at Stonewalls original was very good. Hanse at Applebrook I like very much, and C&C at Hidden Creek which I really like as well. Name another few of the minimalists you're thinking of and I'll see if I've played their courses.

My only gripe with any of this minimalism idea is the new definition of the word...I seem to remember TD describing minimalism along the lines of something that "looks" natural as opposed to being natural.

I am sure there are complexities in the building of a golf course today that make real minimalism totally impractical, I just wish a different term were used to describe the courses.

One of the reasons that I'm such a big fan of Doak, C and C and other 'Minimalists' isn't their lack of earth moving, but their imgination and creativity.  Tom isn't afraid to move dirt and he won't move dirt just for the sake of NOT moving it.  American Architecture had become SO boring and predictable before most of these guys got going...

I find it intresting that one can't get past back to back par3's.  Anybody ever hear (or say that about) 15 and 16 at Cypress?  The reality of 10 and 11 at Pac is that if they weren't Par3s that property wouldn't be part of the course.  If there was enough room for a world class par 4 don't you think that is what would be there?  

Tim,
   I am in no way implying Bandon Dunes is run of the mill. It is far superior to much of what passes for golf in the US. However, I prefer PD of the 3. For frame of reference in 10 rounds I would go 7-2-1 or 6-3-1, PD-BT-BD. There are some outstanding holes at BD. I love #4, 5, 12? (par 3 with central bunker). I also liked the old #1, 7, 11, 14, and 17. I really don't care for #13 or 18 much, but otherwise I enjoy BD. It is just that I prefer the others more. I think the #13-17 stretch at BT is one of the best of the complex. Overall though I prefer PD. I just love the flow of that course.
     When we were at Bandon for the BT opening the guys at the course were telling us that Bandon did the most rounds by far. Which is great for me because I shared PD one evening on a glorious day with ONE other golfer.

I've only played one Doak (PD) and have no criticism of that.  I've played five C&Cs, three of which are first rate (BT- especially 1-2 and 13-18, Saguaro, Cuscowilla).  The other two (Talking Sticks) are also quite well done, a primer of minimalism really, but illustrate IMO a weakness of a minimalist design when the property is flattish and lacks natural feature - the course just lays there.  I'm sorry, Ginger was way hotter than Mary Ann . . .  

I've kind of forgotten, but didn't Ginger have bigger mounds than Mary Ann, but they looked kind of artificial?

Talking Stick is quite flat but there is enough movement that it's never boring.  You'd have preferred a bunch of mounds like that Ginger?  

One interesting point about Coore and Crenshaw:

They've used a modified Lion's Mouth-type green design frequently, where the putting surface wraps around fronting pot-type bunker, in u-shape. There's the 8th at Sand Hills; the 12th at Chechessee Creek Club; and, the fifth at Friar's Head could fit the same description.

I know there's a few more too... ?

Quote from: John Goodman on April 09, 2007, 05:13:25 PM

I've only played one Doak (PD) and have no criticism of that.  I've played five C&Cs, three of which are first rate (BT- especially 1-2 and 13-18, Saguaro, Cuscowilla).  The other two (Talking Sticks) are also quite well done, a primer of minimalism really, but illustrate IMO a weakness of a minimalist design when the property is flattish and lacks natural feature - the course just lays there.  I'm sorry, Ginger was way hotter than Mary Ann . . .  

I've kind of forgotten, but didn't Ginger have bigger mounds than Mary Ann, but they looked kind of artificial?

Talking Stick is quite flat but there is enough movement that it's never boring.  You'd have preferred a bunch of mounds like that Ginger?  

I did actually find both courses a little dull, yes.  Not saying that mounding would improve it - I'm not compoetent to comment as to that anyway; but I'm not remembering the holes at TS the way I do those at Saguaro or Vista Verde, for example.

4, 5, 6 and 12 on the North were my favorite holes on the complex.  

I played at Barton Creek about 12 years ago, and after two days on the Fazio course, had to "settle" for a day on the C&C course there.

Bingo--what a difference! More interesting shots, more interesting greens, a much simpler, more accessible (for a 10 handicap) course. I've sought out C&C courses ever since, and they all have been great to play.

I think the main difference is as much one of feel as anything. There's a grandiosity to many modern golf courses that is offputting--the need for visual spectacle, for "signiture" holes. Golf courses have a texture, and for the best the texture is simple and natural. It's why we like Scotland for golf.

Peter,

Interesting that Colorado GC has a Lion's Mouth, or horseshoe-type green too. I think they're the same - Lion's Mouth and horseshoe.

The Lion's Mouth moniker comes from a template hole Seth Raynor used, featuring the bunker front-and-centre. The 16th at Country Club of Charleston (SC) comes to mind... I'm pretty sure it's the 16th.  

Or maybe it's from the 13th hole at the Old Course - that round bunker dead ahead is The Lion's Mouth, with the tiny Cat Trap in front of it:



The broken ground and Lion's Mouth out in front effectively make this the only green at the Old Course that must be approached in the air.

The biggest mistake that anyone here can make when playing Pacific Dunes is to think of it as a "Tom Doak" design as opposed to say, an "Alister MacKenzie" design.  The opposite goes for when you play Cypress.

There's nothing more irritating than a Ross Society or Raynor Society outing (sorry guys) . . . we pay so much lip service to a small set of old dead guys and and equally, if not smaller set, of not so old and not so dead guys that we forget to look down, up and around and draw our own conclusions about the merits of a particular course.  

I'm not trying to be contrarian but I fear more than 95% of this Board is playing a semi-conscious game of "blue is my favorite color."

The biggest mistake that anyone here can make when playing Pacific Dunes is to think of it as a "Tom Doak" design as opposed to say, an "Alister MacKenzie" design.  The opposite goes for when you play Cypress.

There's nothing more irritating than a Ross Society or Raynor Society outing (sorry guys) . . . we pay so much lip service to a small set of old dead guys and and equally, if not smaller set, of not so old and not so dead guys that we forget to look down, up and around and draw our own conclusions about the merits of a particular course.  

I'm not trying to be contrarian but I fear more than 95% of this Board is playing a semi-conscious game of "blue is my favorite color."

Jason,
I hope your 95% figure is a bit high, but I agree with your premise. There seem to be too many at times focused on the architect instead of the specific golf courses they create.