Bill...good post....I need to Google Ozymandias.

And Forrest...just a correction.
None of the forts or ruins or rice fields were found and improved on. They never existed on any of thier sites previously.

They were invented as part of the design and their construction was such that they would be a believable part of the landscape.....similar conceptually to Desmond Muirheads more extreme hard-scape expressions, but much more natural, believable and less in your face.

I think incorporating these elements as part of the strategy of a course is unique enough.....whether they are worth a damn is another question.
...and one I'm not asking.

Are the minds in golf design today wasted on re-birthing looks and styles and approaches of the past? Are the minds of today forceful enough to dare to try new things? Are the minds of today contributing something other than to define an era known as "...the era when courses began to look like courses people had seen in books...it was good, but it was no Golden Age for certain..."?

Anyone looking for "new things" in golf design today need look no further than the Links at Las Palomas in Puerto Penasco, Sonora, Mexico.  Amazingly, the eleventh hole sort of fits right in when you are playing the course, after you wind your way through a series of solid holes in the encircling dunes and then find yourself in the open center of the course.  Here's #11, is there anything more new and different than this being designed today?



This has to be as "outside the box" as anything designed anywhere since Desmond hung up his drawing board.  And it works!  It's a very good downhill par 3 at about 175 yards, and featured a critical audience of dozens of seabirds sitting on those horizontal fountain-walls the days we played there in February this year.

I haven't ever played one of Desmond's courses - at least so far as I know - but I really enjoy his book with Tip Anderson on playing The Old Course.  He knew his stuff and also how to ask Tip the right questions.

Willie — Having written three books on golf architecture, including much about the history of how and why the game developed, strategy and design philosophy, I am not sure why you would think I "need" to regain some insight on old ways of how the game was played. I feel I have a good handle on that, but am always yearning for more insight. That is independent of the question posed.

We must keep in mind that the game is no longer played through the streets of villages, nor is it played among dozens of people all weilding clubs with little regard for protocol. However, those, too, were part of the history of the game.

We no longer play the watery filth, the stymie or much match play*. But those were all a part of the game.

My guess is that you no longer play with wooden implements, but I cannot be sure. I am fairly certain that you no longer play with feathery balls.

None of this is to say that the ground game, width or certain other hallmarks of good courses are out of style — or should they be.

___

*As a whole, golf is not a game of strokes in a majority of the time.

It is not the roll! It's the carry that is out of hand. I am not sure...maybe more.

Of course I recall the grand print — and, by the way, it just turned May 5th (Cinco de Mayo) here...we missed you and the brothers!

Maybe modern golf is about variation — no standards at all. An aerial course might be fun...so, too, a bump-and-roll course...and, also, one embracing a blend.

Forrest:

You know, I get the feeling on this thread (your thread, and a very potential subject) that you aren't getting even close to any real satisfaction with the answers you're looking for.

Where do you want to go from here? Ask some more specific questions if they're in your mind even if you feel things may get real critical for some reason---either from you or from others about things you may say.

I'm glad to see Bill McBride make that post with the photo of your #11 hole at Las Palomas again. Is that a good place to start for you to carry on this discussion?

Shall we really try to get contributors to post responses about what they think of that photo and that hole even if they've never seen the course? Bill's right, that hole is the closest thing I've ever seen to Desmond Muirhead's Stone Harbor.

That's a course I know. I think you know the feeling most people have of Stone Harbor (or the way it was originally) and you may know my feeling about it.

I've said I think it should be restored to the way it once was and in many ways I'm not kidding. It certainly isn't my favorite course by a long shot but I actually like it to play sometimes as it's so different in play than most courses and artistically and aesthetically it really does define an outside edge of the entire art form.

Time and history has sort of told us that it didn't work in the sense of being popular or perhaps in the sense of the beginning of a new direction in golf and architecture. But is that all there is---eg popularity, acceptance? It was a gutsy, perhaps crazy move on Muirhead's part but for my part I'm glad he did it. Mostly I'm just fascinated he did it, and why.

And now it looks like you did a hole very much like it, at least in the minds of golfers.

Would you mind telling all of us why you did that? This is not a question that's based on criticism---I really want to know and I think it relates perfectly to this thread of yours.

I get the feeling not many have commented on your Las Palomas #11 because they may feel they don't like it or shouldn't like it or the way it looks and they just don't want to say so on here.

Encourage them to be critical if they want.

I like "out side the box" thinking. No, I actually love it.  Whether it works or is popular or not is another thing to me. It's related, of course, and probably closely related but it's another thing anyway.

This thread you titled "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" should probably be more about the mind of the artist and what's in it anyway, not necessarily just about what he's already created.

Bill:

The photos we almost always see of the "Jaws" hole of Stone Harbor with those two bunkers flanking the green but separated by water hasn't been that way for years now. Those flanking bunkers are now totally attached to the green with no intervening water.

Mike, can't comment on the Jaws hole as I've never seen it in person (the Mucci Rule) - but I can tell you that #11 at Las Palomas is downhill, maybe a 20' drop, and you can definitely see its full outline and shape.  The website photo of the hole is an aerial but from pretty close to the ground.

Forrest,
After reading your last post I guess the biggest breakthrough in our age related to golf design would have to be desert golf.....where it was once not possible it has now taken completely worthless land and transformed areas into thriving communities....now some may say that is not about the golf...but it was the catalyst....JMO

Forrest,
The reclamation of toxic sites for golf courses is notable, IMO. Also, aren't there a few courses that are self contained, where no water runs off the property, or at least not until it's been collected and treated. Isn't Old Marsh built that way, and also one in Oregon? The self-contained island green at Couer d'Alene is another example. Improving golf's image as it relates to the environment is an important contribution to this era.



p.s.Cupp's course, the one with the sharply defined geometric shapes, deserves a nod.






 

As some of you know, Forrest and I are working on several projects together around the country.  Most know that I am pretty much a purist or what I would call a lover of the best of classic architecture (mnay of my favorite courses are the old links in the British Isles).  So you can imagine Forrest and I going back and forth about how we want to design our golf holes.  But that is what makes it fun and we really have a good time kicking different ideas around.  I've learned a lot working with him and we find we agree on more things than one might expect.  Furthermore, when he flys off on some wild tangent, I just let him wave his hands and yap and then reel him back in     And everyone once in awhile (just to keep him grounded) I have to take him out to play and see what great golf is all about like we did this past week in CA  

MikeY:

I'm not judging Stone Harbor's "Jaws" hole from an aerial. I've known the course well all the way from the year it opened to now. The "Jaws" hole was changed a number of years ago. That photo posted is what it was like originally. I really do think that hole should be restored to original, if for no other reason it may've been the only hole in history where any greenside bunker shot had to carry water. It was probably in the top five most radical golf holes ever built. If the club really wanted something like that originally, and they did, I think they should've preserved it.

The real knock I had with that hole was it was just too long for what it was. How would you like to play #17 TPC from a raised tee and about 190 yards?