What difference does it make? Personally, I enjoy playing unique golf courses. And, unique golf courses derive their character from unique landscapes. Think about it, Shinnecock Hills, Cypress Point, Pine Valley, Royal Melbourne, the Old Course at St. Andrews. These course all derive their individual character from inherent site characteristics.

Imposing a preconceived idea onto any landscape results in an inferior golf course. Period. Precedent teaches us that. Imposing a dunesland course on Montreal Island results in a fake links.
 

Jeff:

I totally agree that the uniqueness of a property (or lack thereof) makes or breaks a great course.  I too much prefer playing unique courses.  However, I question your reliance on "precedent" in rejecting the idea that "imposing a preconceived idea onto any landscape results in an inferior golf course."  Yes, I concede that if by "any landscape" you mean a lousy landscape, the result will likely be inferior, and yes I concede that if your notion of "preconceived idea" necessarily means one entirely at odds with its landscape, then again you'll have an inferior course.  

What I suggest, however, is that an exceptional "preconceived idea" "imposed" upon a rather neutral landscape, such as a sod farm, or flat plain, can still yield very good to exceptional golf courses (I have in mind Tall Grass on LI and Whistling Straights in WI).  Because I share a preference for a course that appears found in the land vs. one created on the land, when I visited Kohler, I prefered the River course to the Straights course, but I can't say the Straights course is necessarily inferior, it's entirely different.  

Perhaps Pete Dye is the modern master of "imposing" his will upon
landscapes, but classic design has its examples too.  For instance, as many on this board have discussed Lido was literally raised from the sea.  I've not seen a sea that I looked at and said, ahh, here I see a tee shot and over here I see a green site.  

My point when boiled down is this:  let go of precedent to the extent it inhibits creativity, reflect and draw from it but do not dwell on it (I realize your post does not suggest looking only to precedent), reject the idea that a links-style course can't be built on unlikely landscapes because in todays world, unless you're travelling half way around the globe or you strike Linksland gold somewhere, most landscapes (with notable exceptions) will not be as good as those at Cypress, Shinney, National, etc.

Thus, I again conclude that while there may be, there shouldn't be, a criticism of a course as "fake links."  Rather, it should have or want merit for what it is not for what genre it ostensibly originates.

Matt

While I don't really remember the grass that well ( I played this course last summer), I think it was just plain old bent grass, or something similar. Also, it was drizzling when I played the course so it played very long. However none of that really matters, because as I said (and phillipe has backed-up) all the holes play uphill, and you never get to much run when a hole goes uphill. And that is what I didn't understand, if you are building a course from scratch, why make almost every hole long and uphill with raised greens?

Again, I don't know the CR and slope. And they didn't put it on their site.

The course is actually IN Montreal. It's on the very eastern tip of the the island of Montreal. It's more than 15 minutes from downtown though. I live 10 minutes from the course(if no traffic) and downtown is 15 minutes at best from my house. So I would say the course is at least 25 minutes from downtown.

[quote author=Jeff_Mingay lAt Whistling Straits, on the other hand, Pete Dye imposed a dunes-like landscape on a site that inherently exhibited a completely different character. It's clear where construction begins and ends at Whistling Straits.
   

Jeff:

If you didn't see or know about the site at WS before visiting I'm not sure that I can agree with you.  Unless I missed something, I don't think Dye added the some 30 ft of elevation above Lake Michigan.  Therefore, in relation to the drop off to the lake, the dunes are not so foreign a contrast in my opinion.  

What is evident, however, is that they are too busy and don't appear to have been formed by Mother Nature.  I would not at all say that dunes are out of place with the feel of the property given its wind swept location above Lake Michigan.  

Let's plan to visit WS in 60 years to see how natural it looks then (I'll only be 91)

What about my point with projects such as Lido?  Also, wasn't   a lot  reclaimation done at both the Ocean Course and TPC Sawgrass, yet both those courses seem to fit perfectly with their  immediate environs.

The thing that bothers me most here is that Pat Ruddy does do work on actual links courses in Ireland doesn't he?

That is a very scarry thought.


It was built on a piece of land own by the city for its sewage plant.

Phillipe, why am I not surprised?

Ian,

I was thinking about the TPC as well when I was reading some of those comments.

Have you played this course?


At least this course doesn't have any waste bunkers or artificial lakes (though there is like a marsh if I remember). Is this an Irish course? No. But it looks more irish than a lot of other manufactured "irish courses". Actually, in Montreal we have a Cooke design called The Challenger (http://www.golflechallenger.com/en/accueil.htm) that advertises itself as Irish, yet has lakes all over the place. These two courses are night and day. The montreal island club may not be ideal, but it's a not bad looking imitation. People have paid a lot more, for a lot worse.

It seems my comments have been completely misinterpreted.

A golf architect can build whatever he/she wants to build, Ian. Including a fake links. The thing is, a fake links doesn't suit my taste, aesthetically.

I've had a ton of fun playing Devil's Paintbrush, for example, but I'm really not enamoured with the double greens, sod wall bunkers, etc. I think those features are a bit gimmicky on that site.

Again, that's only my opinion.

No, if every golf course looked like a course designed by Bill Coore or Tom Doak, that wouldn't be good for the game. One of golf's great attractions is the remarkable diversity of its playing fields. That's not to say I, personally, like the look of, and enjoy playing a course like The Challenger. (In fact, the name alone would keep me away if I lived in Montreal!)

People are generally fixated with certain architects - whether they are golf architects or building architects. How could it be any other way?

There are certain people who wouldn't even consider hiring Doak to design a golf course for them. Just as there are people who wouldn't consider hiring Frank Gehry to design a new building. That's the way the world spins.

Certain styles of art are attractive to us, individually. Others aren't.

Matt

I played the ocean course at the tee's ahead the back tee's (and when I say back tee's i'm not talking about the 8000 yard tee's). The reason I say this course is more difficult is because I wouldn't call this an all together fair course. Most of the holes are downright penal....hit the fairway or reload. I know it's hard to beleive what I'm saying, but when a course has no par 4s under 400 yards, plays to a par 70, has narrow fairways, mostly uphill holes, exposed to strong winds and has some pretty severely elevated greens, then that has all the ingedients to create a ball-buster. I don't think I'm crazy here. Wouldn't you admit that that seems pretty difficult?

I played the course once. i walked it twice. Once during construction and once when it opened.

How do all the holes play uphill? Well they don't, just most do. A few par 4's play downhill, and to be honest, they are actually the shorter ones. And the par 3's play downhill.

I think the best way to explain the topography is like this. Imagine a property that has a huge buldge in the middle. Imagine some holes playing on top of the buldge. Imagine some holes playing around the buldge. Imagine some holes wanting to get on top of the buldge. Imagine a few holes (the par 3's) jumping off the buldge.

It just so happens that the property is shaped in a way where most of the holes are influenced by this buldge and are trying to get up on top.

Besides, the par 3's, I can remember 2 holes that clearly played downhill, the 1st and the 5th. Actually, They both have flattish tee shots, it's their second shots that drop down the hill.


Phillipe, you played this course. I'm sure you noticed all the uphill holes, right? ( I don't think i'm crazy and making this up)

Jeff,

On the contrary, TPC Sawgrass exhibited a revolutionary look when it originally opened for play during the early 1980s. No other golf course had ever looked like Sawgrass.  
Great point, well put
Moreover, Sawgrass doesn't appear that out of place in its native surrounds. There are some high mounds, here and there, but no towering "Irish dunes" rising out of that swamp.  
sure it does, everything is flat for miles and there are huge fills everywhere.

I've had a ton of fun playing Devil's Paintbrush, for example, but I'm really not enamoured with the double greens, sod wall bunkers, etc. I think those features are a bit gimmicky on that site.
I think that site was made to be a heathland course. Dana left almost all the contour of the land in, the natural stone walls, and the native grasses. With no trees and a windy site, what was wrong with that decision

People are generally fixated with certain architects - whether they are golf architects or building architects. How could it be any other way?
I'm not, why limit yourself to a few ideas when you can look at everything and select what you like. I, like you, perfer the GCA favourites, but I also mentioned that I like certain Fazio courses, and provided a detailed review of my favourite Nicklaus course too.

Jeff,

Would you call Wolf Creek a 'fake links'?  

Mick

Mick ol' pal, I was hoping no one would bring Wolf Creek into this discussion  

In many ways, the original 18 holes at Wolf Creek could be described as a fake links, yes. An interesting fact though is, those 18 holes were opened for play in 1983, long before any one else thought of attempting to mimic links features and playing characteristics on an inland site (particularly in Canada), I think.

If I'm wrong, please let me know who else had attempted this concept before Rod at Wolf Creek.

The South nine at Wolf Creek, added in the early 1990s, is a very good course. And definitely not a fake links. Coincidentally, the South nine possesses my favourite holes at Wolf Creek (even though Rod disagrees with me!). But, as per Ian, I know everything. So, Whitman's going to have to live with the fact that he's wrong!  

Oh, I played your Blackhawk last week and since we just got 25cm of the frozen stuff dumped on us looks like thats it for the year.

You'll be happy to hear that the course was in great shape and that the greens on the front ate my lunch.

Guys, it's late, the Yankees just lost in extra innings again, so I will catch up in the a.m., but I implore you to re-read my posts and Jeff I expect you to answer the "mimic" issue come morning.  

The rest is just a reasonable combination of logic and reality . . .