I played a new course the other day located on the East Coast.  Clearly the architect was trying to do something different and unique but he tried way too hard to pull it off.  My three playing partners thought it was way over the top and though they missed many of the clever design aspects that were present, they were right – it was way over the top.  

Can anyone else cite examples of this out there?  In the case I mentioned above, it was like the architect was trying to do everything we talk about on this site and wrap it all into one golf course.  I give an A for effort but a C- for over execution.  I suspect the course will be toned down over the coming years or it will fall out of favor fast.  

I used to think Mike Strantz sometimes tried too hard but he often (but not always) pulled it off.  He was and always will be one of my favorite new designers.  So sad he is gone.  

Interesting observation Mike.  In some ways, I would have thought the opposite - not enough effort or just a tendency to keep doing the same thing over and over with a slightly different cosmetic.  

I think your premise may tend to hold true for resort courses or high end public courses.
Competition is tough and architects can be forced to create 18 signature holes at the behest of the owner.

How often that request is made I don't know.  Maybe some of the architects can respsond.  

I think Patrick is right on the money here, except I would say that being bold is a virtue.

Bold has given us its share of bombs, but more often than not have given us winners. Bland architecture can still bomb, but it certainly does not give very many winners.

I think the Engh course (The Creek Club) in GA might be a case of this.  I toured the property and at first thought that it was really cool that someone would try something so unique and different.

But, by the end of the round there was an amazing "sameness" to the entire course that left me very ambivalent about it.  The three greens for the 18th hole kinda topped it off as "trying too hard" as well.

Chris,

In a post yesterday, I said that it appeared Engh was trying too hard at The Creek .  I am not surprised that you (and others) see it the same way.

Tom Doak,

What sort of client or project is willing to go with subtle design features rather than an in-your-face kind of design?  I would think public or private need to make a splash to get members or guests.  Maybe subtle only works when you have arrived as a name architect and can lead the clients/market in a direction.  I guess both design styles can lead to great courses, but one is harder to "get" and requires a longer learning curve.  That isn't something an investor is comfortable with.

Some of the classic era architects that plied more subtle designs don't seem to get the accolades that the bolder architects got.  No reason to believe the same isn't true today.  There is a tendency in America to believe the more you pay (for construction or architect fees) the more you get.  I don't believe this for a minute, but that is likely a minority opinion.

By the way, I think MacKenzie over-bunkered (he seemed to frame a great many greens with mounds and bunkers behind greens) and I think Tillinghast did on occasion, with Bethpage Black being a clear example.  

Mark, why do you hesitate to mention the name of the course?  Are you up for membership in the ASGCA?  

For each course that is built that could be considered the result of an architect trying too hard, or going too far, how many courses are built that could be considered the result of an architect going through the motions, repeating what they and others have done countless times?

Just to further clarify a point already mentioned - subtlety can unfortunatley be confused as bland but when done well, is anything but that.  I always like to point out the #5 greensite at Lehigh.  It is very simple but very dangerous as well and a great example of subtle design.  

Architects sometimes over complicate golf holes with unnecessary design features.  I was walking a course the other day with a client trying to explain that every hole on the course doesn't need a fairway bunker or even greenside bunkers.  On the one hole, adding bunkers to the natural contours of the hole corridor would ruin it (in my opinion).  Sometimes less is more.

Wayne,
It's not necessary to mention the name of the course.  This was just meant to be a discussion topic and not bash a particular course or architect.  There is already too much negativity on this site.  It also could be Forrest rubbing off on me making sure I'm politically correct    

Kirk:

I think what you said is part of the problem ... some designers are trying too hard, to prove that they're not mailing it in.

Unfortunately, some of the subtle things we used to do are being taken away from us.  It used to be that you could build a subtle hole with a green tilted 3% and that was enough to make a pretty good hole ... for example, the 13th at Pebble Beach.  Now most designers are afraid to build a green with that much tilt; so they build a flatter green and six more bunkers to add "strategy", and the modern hole still doesn't reward placement as well as the older hole did.

It is one thing to try something bold and outlandish on one or even a few holes.  But what about on all 18    The course I referred to above for example, took the concept of "defending par at the green" to the absolute extreme and went way over the top.    

Joe,
You said:

"How many courses does an architect have to have under his or her belt before their niche is developed?"

George Crump only needed one!  I can think of a few other guys like him who could say the same thing  

Mark,

True, Crump did an amazing, one time course. I think, in the context of the question, that a niche has to require multiple efforts that result in a pattern. What would Crump's niche be had he done more than a dozen courses? Would he replicate his effort at PV on other properties? No one knows.....

Joe

Joe,
For me, the most obvious example of over doing it is the number of bunkers being built on many of our modern courses.
We're seeing course being built with 200+ bunkers. Now, does a golf course built on heavy soils really need 200+ bunkers? I don't think so, but bunkering has become a crutch, IMO.

Another overused feature is water. Unless it's a low spot for drainage, or for irrigation storage, why does a golf course need water? The answer is, it doesn't...and I can't understand why the use of water features became so popular. I think it's because the over use of man made hazards like bunkers and water can help to mask poor architecture.

Does anyone know why building water features became so common? Was it RTJ who started the trend?