[JakaB]

Is there any question that if you were to compile tours of each of the leading architects best five projects C&C would be the easiest to indentify through style...If you can think of any five courses more enveloped in the same formula than Sand Hills, Friars Head, Cuscowilla, Hidden Creek and Bandon Trails...please tell me...the simpleist of any architectural pundit could be dropped in the middle of any of the above and know the architect within seconds...not that that is a bad thing...

If anyone can name a more simple test please do...It will shut me up..hey...Tommy..how do you know I havn't been to Frairs Head...did I make another list..

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John, Just from the normal conversation with you. Plus, I think you would have told me. In fact you probably wouldn't want to stop talking about it!

List?  The only list I know of is the one that forbids me from attending the Rees Jones Christmas party.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Is there any question that if you were to compile tours of each of the leading architects best five projects C&C would be the easiest to indentify through style...

John, Are you trying to say that with C&C, its a "Visual" thing? You better not let Matt Ward hear you!

If you can think of any five courses more enveloped in the same formula than Sand Hills, Friars Head, Cuscowilla, Hidden Creek and Bandon Trails...please tell me...the simpleist of any architectural pundit could be dropped in the middle of any of the above and know the architect within seconds...not that that is a bad thing...

-Shadow Creek
-Pelican Hill-North
-Pelican Hill-South
-The Meadows at Del Mar
-The Quarry At La Quinta

Each of these courses you could put in any atmosphere and they would look as if it belonged, the same proclamation you make about Coore & Crenshaw, only there are mirrored holes and strategies, as well as similar greens at all of these. Calling them creative is simply wrong. in Comparison to what you claim are similarities in Coore & Crenshaw, I'll ask you to prove to me in both photos and descriptions, the same![/color]

If anyone can name a more simple test please do...It will shut me up.

John, Nothing with you is simple, other then proving you wrong!

[Matt_Ward]

Hey Tommy:

Glad to see you've finally seen the light in using the key argument with John on "how many" C&C courses he has actually played before taking such a cement like position. That's a major positive step and I applaud you for it.

Now, I imagine you'll practice what you're preaching before the next diatribe on TF or RJ designed layouts given your limited personal sampling size.

Tis the season for miracles -- right?

[JakaB]

Tommy,

I named five courses that span the country and are the best representation of an architects work....You name four also rans and Shadow Creek.....hell, Shadow Creek and World Woods alone are worlds apart....your biases are showing..

[Dan_Callahan]

What is being described as formulaic I would characterize as evidence of a design philosophy. I have no problem with an architect who has a philosophy of how a course should look and play imposing that vision on a multitude of layouts. So long as the design fits the land and isn't forced, it shows a level of architectural discipline that I think is admirable.

[ian]

Tommy,

But I'll stand by my statement because I do know for a fact that all of the above go to great lengths to get their greens right
Do you not think that other architects don't - when we only have one or two projects on the go where the hell do you think we spend our time? Other than a couple of large companies, we all work primarily on one new project at a time. So our heart and soul goes into the course. There is no fun or fulfilment found inside an office.
 
You can't tell me that you can sit in an office and get your greens right.
Well I was in one full day over the last three months, so I must have approved a lot of greens on that day. You really think we spend our days in the office because we have one?


But I do know that showing up for one or two days every 2-3 weeks
Almost all work is local which means you can go there as often as you want to or need to. Doug goes alternate weeks to Scotland for the whole week. Is that what you are refering to? Is Tom Doak, for eaxmple, on site every day with his workload? Has it comprimised the work, or have others assisted to produce great work?

and directing some tobacco-chewing operator over the loud noise of a running dozer isn't going to produce very good greens either.
Can not a shaper assist to produce great work? If we are there he has our ideas, and the great part is he has the talent to create it in the ground for us. Is this arrangement harmfull if he can get exactly the slopes and contours that I ask for?

We're talking greens that WORK with the golf holes and their strategies and are the products--the passions for those who take pride in them--and how they are getting it done.
You suggest that myself and other architects who use shapers are all without passion for golf architecture. You are so wrong, this is not an emotion that is exclusive to you.

That being Ian, Have you shaped your own putting surfaces before?
Yes I have (suprised) and I am very slow with a dozer, I cost everyone money when I run a dozer. But I am very good on a viking (box blade equivilent). I used to always float greens off when I could, but the busier I get the less opportunity I have.
And when I say busier, I refer to my kids and coaching, not work busy.

Tell everyone here the difference in doing so compared handing the chore over to someone, walking away and hoping they get it right.
First they are better at what they do than I am, so I think they do a better job of getting the idea or shape from my head into the ground. Since they are fast, we can adjust the contours and surrounds till I am happy. Where's the difference?

walking away and hoping they get it right.
I leave when the contour is approved, just like all the other architects that I personally know

Tom, I used to enjoy a wonderful architectural banter with you. I found you insightful and funny. Right now I don't know what to think, your certainly not the least bit open to alternative ideas anymore.

[Joe Hancock]

Ian,

You have every right to have a different opinion of Mr. Naccarato after those comments. You are in the profession, and are professional. End of commentary.

Joe

[Brian_Gracely]

I've only seen two of their courses (Cuscowilla, Warren @ ND), but I'd agree that they use many of the same techniques on those courses.  I'd say those include:

- Larger greens when long approaches are required, smaller for shorter approaches

- Rolling, humpy, contoured greens

- Bunkering along the directly line from tee to green, or along the path where the approach to the green is most open.

- Good use of "short" bunkers to create visual disception

- Excellent job of tying the golf course into the surrounding land

If the new-age minimalists want to get upset because someone calls this formulaic, then get over yourselves.  These are the same fundamentals that the favored Golden Age architects used.  

Think of them as the fundamentals of design.  Every sport and profession has them, it's just that not everyone in that sport or industry follows them as well as others.  

[Joe Hancock]

Brian,

Your post, coupled with Dan Callahan's is pretty much on the mark, I believe.

Joe

[Tommy_Naccarato]

[quote author=Ian Andrew link=board=1;threadid=15697;start=25#msg269401 date=1101520527
Tom, I used to enjoy a wonderful architectural banter with you. I found you insightful and funny. Right now I don't know what to think, your certainly not the least bit open to alternative ideas anymore.

Ian, Your taking it all way too personal.  Go back and re-read it and see what I'm saying.

[A_Clay_Man]

If formula-matic is easier to pronounce, by all means.

If taking Coore Principles into account, on all aspects, is Formula-whatever, I'd say "go boy". If respecting the craddle is formula, I say bring it on.

Has routing been considered? Do they(c&c) route their order of par, the same? same direction?

I've only golfed two, SH and TSN. Can one find other courses like those two? If so please tell me, I'll move there.

[John Gosselin]

If CC are consistently unformula-matic, does that make them formula-matic?

[JakaB]

Could anyone with the resources post the par per hole routing of the C&C courses you may be familiar with...Please hold the Warren Course jokes no matter how clever...A little bird told me some people are calling Bandon Trails.. "Friars Head West"...if possible... a comparison of those cards would be interesting....

[RJ_Daley]

Barney is the best fisherman I know.  What ever bait he puts out, he hooks a whole stringer of fish.

The whole provocative question as stated, couched to make the term "formulaic" a negative concept is a non-issue.  

Why not ask; do Coore and Crenshaw have the best recipe for success?  How about; does the C&C construction team consistently craft the most interesting greens or bunkers?  Or, does C&C route and shape the best fairways?  

The answer to me is, it depends.  It depends on your taste for certain styles and frequency of features.  It depends on what you like to see in the aesthetic for how a golf course relates to its natural surrounds.  Some folks like more heat in their sauces.  Some like plenty of garlic.  Yet, every chef has a recipe or formula.  So what?  Is that an automatic bad thing to have a recipe, perhaps one that was handed down by tradition?

C&C have a formula or recipe they developed, not in isolation or strictly on their own.  They are part of a continuing tradition of principles and techniques.  I think most of their recipe and formula are derivitive of Perry Maxwell and the Good Dr.  

While I haven't seen either, for those who have, would you say that the same formula was used to design Prairie Dunes with Austin CC or perhaps Hidden Creek and TSN?  

And, take away all the boys, and force C&C (or Doak for that matter) to hire a whole new crew, and my quess is that the tell tale characteristics that identify your so called formula would alter drastically.

[Lou_Duran]

By definition, all architects are formulaic- 18 holes with one, two, and three shotters; most often the par 4s are much greater in number, while the par 5s are relatively few.  All courses have tees and greens; most have water, sand, and rough as hazards.  Custom, regulations, and safety place numerous constraints on the archies.

The real question should be are C & C courses generally good tests of golf and entertaining.  I've only played two, and while they have many similarities, they meet my criteria and are not repetitive.

Fazio is taken to the woodshed on this site regarding the similarity of his courses.  I've had considerably more experience with his work, and have not found that to be the case.  If the quality of the work is very high, being a bit formulaic or repetitive wouldn't be a bad thing.

BTW, what architect, past or present, is/was the least formulaic?  I was under the impression that most architects have a style or brand, and isn't that what their clients look for when hiring one?  

[JakaB]

I think JohnK is suggesting that they use features for features sake which is certainly more interesting than framing for framing's sake. Their formulaicism may be in how they present the package but once again whether such an M.O. is good or bad depends on "how wide is you definition of good"?

So, I suppose another question is wht is the range of these M. O.'s?

All I'm really suggesting is that if all their courses are the same is it really worth the effort to play more than one...As a student of architecture that is...

[TEPaul]

"If anyone can name a more simple test please do..."

John B:

You're probably right, it is a simple test to identify what they do. The reason being, it's all so good!  

It'd be real interesting to see how well even those experts on here would do if they were shown a sampling of C&C, Doak, Hanse and DeVries bunkering  (it'd have to be photos up close and personal on the bunkers so noone could identify the actual hole!). All of them do by far and away the best natural looking, rugged bunkering out there, in my opinion. But it'd be interesting to see if the experts on here could tell which was whose!    

[JakaB]

"If anyone can name a more simple test please do..."

John B:

You're probably right, it is a simple test to identify what they do. The reason being, it's all so good!  

It'd be real interesting to see how well even those experts on here would do if they were shown a sampling of C&C, Doak, Hanse and DeVries bunkering  (it'd have to be photos up close and personal on the bunkers so noone could identify the actual hole!). All of them do by far and away the best natural looking, rugged bunkering out there, in my opinion. But it'd be interesting to see if the experts on here could tell which was whose!    

Tom....don't you think that proves this formula of a modern strategic template laid on a natural site for natures sake is old and worn out.....at least our grandchildren will have an easy time being restoration experts when even the people living today can't tell the difference between one great architect and the next...

[TEPaul]

"Tom....don't you think that proves this formula of a modern strategic template laid on a natural site for natures sake is old and worn out....."

John B:

You're probably right that there's a template here albeit a rugged and natural looking one. Do I think it's old and worn out? No, I don't! What are you proposing that types and styles of architecture should change ever ten years? Perhaps they should but if they do I'd prefer to see that rugged and natural template left alone. That's most of the problem we faced in the second half of the last century---everybody wanted to change existing architecure. I say leave it alone and if you want to do something different go out and build something different that's new, on a new golf course!

In a general sense I call all that "The Big World" theory of golf course architecture!

[TEPaul]

"This connotes a rather narrow definition of "good" rather than endorsing any "Big World", does it not?"

redanman:

Not in the slightest! But what your remark does connote is why you're such a narrow minded idiot and obviously completely incapable of comprehending the true meaning and effect of my "Big World" theory of golf course architecture.

What I might describe as "good" is nothing more than what I personally might prefer. On the other hand, I recognize and am completely comfortable with the fact that there may be millions of others out there who do not like what I like and frankly may love something in golf architecture that I don't like at all. Nevertheless, I believe they should have what they like and I should be something less than critical of them and what they do like!

The fact is, in my opinion, the "ART" of golf architecture is best if it offers all of that---all of that perhaps very wide spectrum of types and styles and looks and playabilities.

The thing I resist and also believe people like you propose is that there is perhaps a fairly narrow band of what is good in golf archtiecture and the rest is so bad it should not exist or should not be built! I underscore those last few words---eg "should not exist or be built!"

If you do not believe that then we probably agree but if you do believe that I think it's you and not me that's narrow minded and I also think you have no real idea what the meaning of the "Big World" theory of golf architecture is.

Difference is good--because "golf and golf architecture is a great big thing and there's room in it for everyone".

That, of course, presupposes numerous and vastly different tastes that require vastly different types and styles of golf course architecture.

What I'm trying to do is make these differences and distinctions clearer than they ever have been for the simple reason that those DIFFERENCES and DISTINCTIONS between types and styles and looks and playabilites should be very carefully MAINTAINED!

The real problem arises when practioners on either side of the spectrum try to proselytize one another or even worse try in any way to homogenize these types and styles and looks and playabilities into one (even the mere attempt is dangerous)---because they think that's all that's "good" and they apparently want to browbeat others into believing the same thing while at the same time basically forceing them to repent and give up what they do like!

I do have my own personal preferences in golf architecture and a type and style and look and playbility while at the same time not only recognizing but endorsing the theory that difference, even extreme difference, is probably the life's blood of not only golf architecture but golf itself!

[TEPaul]

Here's another way to look at the true meaning of the "Big World" theory, redanman!

In my opinion, Charles Blair Macdonald was wholly wrong in his pronouncement that the most obnoxious of the geometric architecture 'makes the very soul of golf shriek'!

It doesn't make the very soul of golf shriek at all although it may've made his idea of the very soul of golf shriek. And consequently had he not felt that way he obviously would not have done what he did---build NGLA and set American architecture off on and entirely different and separate path which did nothing more than completely enrich the entire fabric of the art and evolution of golf architecture.

I'm the one who's said on here a number of times that Stone Harbor should be completely restored to its original glory despite how completely obnoxious some thought it was. At first I was joking about that but I'm not joking any more.

Perhaps it was the Edsel of golf architecture! I also think the Edsel was probably necessary--at least it was a good thing---at the very least it showed us the spectrum of ideas and innovations and creativity even if we must all look at all of this as a constant "Good, Bad and Ugly" with no consensus at all about which is which!

If geometric architecture, the Edsel or Stone Harbor become, for whatever reason, not interesting to anyone then they will all die and go away of natural accord. But if anyone does want them they should have them along with the Ferrari, ultra natual architecture and Sand Hills G.C.

Difference is good and extreme difference is even better! Do you understand the "Big World" theory of golf architecture now, you lunkhead?  

[TEPaul]

redanman:

If you really mean what you said in post #48 then I think that's a good thing--a wonderful thing and we probably do agree on this and what the "Big World" theory of golf architecture is.

I'm glad of that--but don't think I'm not going to be watching you VERY CAREFULLY and what you say in the future about any of this or all of this!    

[tlavin]

I'm hardly an expert on golf course architecture, but it seems to me that C&C is developing a consistent style that can best be described as "naturalistic".  Many of the old-time architects adopted this style out of necessity due to the difficulty of moving dirt around in the old days, but modern equipment and construction techniques certainly opened up options for architects and developers.  This pendulum-like effect is not unique to golf course design, but it certainly is refreshing to walk onto a golf course and think to yourself that it seems like the course has been there forever, even though you know that it was built a few short years ago.  In short, I think that "formulaic" is too much like "cookie cutter" and much too pejorative a term for such simple, pleasant and visually appealing work.

[blasbe1]

But, as I pointed out in the Bandon Trails thread, I think they do risk becoming a stereotyped "look" and not every site is as rugged and raw as that look suggests.  Personally, I would like to see them try something really different, or daring, or evolve into whatever direction the next artistic phase of their careers might take if they are willing to stretch the envelope.

Mike:

Have you played the Plantation Course?  The bunkering there looks nothing like Bandon Trails, Friar's Head, Cuscowilla, Hidden Creek, etc.?  

In fact, I'm surprised that nobody really mentioned this before, that site has likely got the most elevation changes of any of their projects but the size and style of the bunkering is certainly understated (IMO) in relation to the scale of the site.  

While they certainly have an identifiable style, the Plantation Course stands in stark contrast, anyone know why?  

JKB

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()