News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2005, 05:20:42 PM »
Interesting responses. I really doubt I could pick out Doak, DeVries, Hanse, or C&C from each other when it comes to greens or bunkering schemes based on what I have seen so far in person. I have only seen Sand Hills by C&C but know Axland and Proctor had a hand in that bunkering, and I don't know if they have worked on these more recent projects. I don't know what the distinguishing characteristics are between Axland and Proctor vs. Jeff Bradley, if any.
   I think C&C's greens are a little more subtle (again, SH is my only example), so if they were all like that I think I could pick them out.
   All these guys do such a great job tieing together the greens and surrounds, that I look forward to Tom D. telling us what the differences are.
   For bunkering I know Hanse built his bunkers using sod to give a more "mature" looking edge at Rustic Canyon, so I could pick that out in the early stages of a course's life. I once asked Mike D. if he did that at all and he wasn't familiar with what I was talking about. I don't know if Gil is still doing that technique.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2005, 06:02:53 PM »

I'd also say that Tom Doak creates the best, most interesting, and most demanding approach shots of the group and often the right place to aim is not only not the flagstick,

but sometimes not even the green.

Mike, it's time to lay off the medication and recommit yourself
[/color]  

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2005, 08:50:18 PM »
Very interesting discussion...I'd like to hear Tom Doak's take on this.

As far as the greens go, I think C & C greens are bumpier, harder to putt, whereas Doak's are smoother and if you're on the correct level, they reward the better putter.

I think they both do their best work with dramatic sites where there is natural eyecandy.
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2005, 09:12:54 PM »
ed, Gil is definitely using 'chunking' on his bunkers.  It's given us at French Creek bunkers that look like they've been there for 50 years.


Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2005, 10:11:58 PM »
I got the impression from Bill Coore's presentation at Hidden Creek that his man on site is left with a great deal of discretion in creating the undulations on the greens and he and Ben only make suggested changes at the very end.  If that is the case, I wonder if the others work the same way.  

I also recall that C & C do not make specific drawings of each hole and basically they are works in progress as the course develops.  Again, I wonder if the others draw specific plans or do they also work more on feel and make changes as the hole unfolds.  

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2005, 10:35:44 PM »
Dan,
   How have the bunker walls held up at your course? Some at Rustic seem to have eroded a bit and I don't know if that was the desired effect, or if it has been from the odd weather of the past couple of winters.

  One thing that I notice Mike DeVries seems to do more than the others is semi-blind shots off the tee. You can see some of what you are trying to get to, but not all of it and it makes committing to the tee shot more difficult. I don't know how much Mike did this, if at all, at Greywalls, but he has 4-5 holes at Kingsley Club and The Mines that have semi-blind tee shots.

 
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #31 on: May 25, 2005, 08:58:05 AM »

I'd also say that Tom Doak creates the best, most interesting, and most demanding approach shots of the group and often the right place to aim is not only not the flagstick,

but sometimes not even the green.

Mike, it's time to lay off the medication and recommit yourself
[/color]  

Patrick,

I suggest you might play Stonewall and Beechtree.  Afterwards, I'll share my medication with you.  ;D

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #32 on: May 25, 2005, 10:23:47 AM »
Well, we've had some ideas about the differences but I don't think that anyone has come up with something which they can point to as a consistent difference -- Tom Doak you said you would give us the answer after we made some attempts at it, what do you think?

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #33 on: May 25, 2005, 10:40:53 AM »
Some obvious differences:

Tom's hair is darker than Bill and Ben's.

Ben won 2 Masters.

Gil is a big strapping lad.


Important similarity:

I've really enjoyed the courses I've played by all 3 firms and greatly look forward to playing and studying more.


Disappointing similarity:

None have built courses in western PA....

 :)

I, too, look forward to Tom's response.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2005, 10:54:24 AM »
ed - the bunker faces have held up very well.  The only significant erosion we've seen is on the 'abruptment' bunker on #17 (Mr. Kittleman's baby).

Other than that, the chunks continue to grow in together very well, and most of the gaps are now gone or are significantly reduced.

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2005, 11:55:15 AM »
From what I have seen from the three architects in question, they are all very traditional and trying to build golf courses that are pure golf and not just tricked up water laden bunker enriched modern examples of overindulgence.

I admire all of them but to me the bigggest single difference is the tendency of C&C to create green complexes that are way more severe than the other two, for that reason, I actually prefer the work Of Mr Doak, who apperas to be the " fairest" of the three, in terms of green complexes.

Jason Mandel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #36 on: May 25, 2005, 12:27:54 PM »
Here's my take on it, I've only played a few courses from each architecht.

C&C does the best job of building the green into the existing environment.  When Bill Coore said that he wanted the greens to be an extension of the fairway he really isn't exagerating.

Hanse pushes the envelope tee to green, however I don't find his green complexes to be as compelling as Doak and C&C.

Hanse's bunkers are big and bold, and scare you enough to really make every effort to stay out of the,.

Doaks and C&C's bunkers are strategic, yet appear to be playable so your not worried as much as getting into them.

I have played the following courses of each archie.
1. Doak-Stonewall Original and Beechtree
2. C&C-Cusco. and HC
3. Hanse- French Creek, Applebrook and Inniscrone.

I would say I probably enjoyed Cuscowilla the most followed by Stonewall.  
You learn more about a man on a golf course than anywhere else

contact info: jasonymandel@gmail.com

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #37 on: May 25, 2005, 01:51:42 PM »
I'd personally like to see more randomness from all of them.  

Intriguing. What do you mean by this -- if it's even possible to say?
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Mike_Cirba

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #38 on: May 25, 2005, 02:38:46 PM »
I'd personally like to see more randomness from all of them.  

Intriguing. What do you mean by this -- if it's even possible to say?

Dan,

I think one of the advantages of reaching the level of success that both Doak & C&C have is simply that you've bottled some political leverage to be able to do some daring and different things.

Perhaps I'm fooling myself and they're still totally beholden to the "wishes of the client" and the expectations of the consumer, but it seems to me that they are both now in a position to stretch the boundaries of our expectations, and to take chances in terms of the realization of their own individual whims and thoughts of what golf course architecture can and possibly should be.  

When I use the term "random", I think one of the areas where this whole "minimalist" or "naturalistic" movement can and should go to sort of complete the logical progression is back to the lessons of The Old Course.  As someone said on another thread, it's a course that breaks all of the rules because man had no idea of what a golf course "should" be so it was created half by happenstance, and half by contrived intent, and that's the main reason it remains somewhat unique today.  

I don't claim to know what each of them would do given their heart of hearts desire, but I think that something completely "anti-formulaic" and non-standard might be the result.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2005, 03:07:06 PM by Mike_Cirba »

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #39 on: May 25, 2005, 03:02:09 PM »
Mike: I am beginning to question whether it may in fact be the minimalists who are following a formula more than some other architects because they share some basic core beliefs.  I am by no means implying that this is bad but could it be true.  Let me explain what I mean by that.  Bill Coore said he looks over the property and walks it many times trying to find a routing which the land provides and the holes which can be built within that routing -- I think that is a common view of minimalists and it is the natural feeling one gets from the routing which they come up with.  This to me is common and good -- but I am not saying that they would come up with the same routing, only that it would have the same natural feel.  

Bill Coore also said that he felt that fairways which are constantly rolling and causing many different types of lies are something that he feels gives the course character and variety each type it is played, and again, I believe most minimalists would agree with this although they might not employ that feature in every course they build.  

And how about the greens and green complexes.  I believe that the architects we are directing our attention to believe far more in how the greens putt and how recovery shots around the green play as opposed to how they look and whether they are "signature" holes.

I think that is why most of us look forward so much to playing a new course by a certain group of architects.  I think that the most obvious exception with respect to an architect we enjoy yet he isn't quite a miminalist to my mind is Pete Dye, but he has been so innovative that we want to see what he has come up with in each new course.  


Mike_Cirba

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #40 on: May 25, 2005, 03:12:50 PM »
Jerry,

That's an interesting point.

To continue on my theme a little more, on another thread Tom Doak talked about the pole in the landing zone, and how he wanted his people to look at what happens 20 yards left of that pole, and 20 yards right, etc., so that things like recovery shots could be properly understood and planned.

I'm thinking that a complete break with modern ideas of standards (the most obvious example being RTJ Sr.s flanking bunkers 250 yards off the tee in the desired "landing zone"), throwing out the rule book and their own subconcious influences concerning  landing zones, multiple tees, bunker looks & depths & placements, green sizes & shapes & internals & surrounds, and fairway width, placement, etc., might yield something boldly creative and original.  

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #41 on: May 25, 2005, 03:48:17 PM »
Mike Cirba,

You seem to be unaware that the unique creativity which manifests itself within each archtitect's product has a consistency and continuity associated with it, it's called style.

And now, you want architects to deviate from their inherent creative talents, their style, to design something counter to their instinctive creativity.

Would you want to be the first developer to roll the dice with your concept ?  

I wonder why Dick Youngscap, Ken Bakst and Roger Hansen selected C&C.
I wonder why Mike Keiser selected David Kidd, Tom Doak and C&C ?

Perhaps because they didn't want a course that resembled anyone else's style.

Did you ever notice how CBM, SR and CB courses have a theme or style ?

Just a theory  ;D
« Last Edit: May 25, 2005, 03:49:20 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #42 on: May 25, 2005, 03:59:40 PM »
Jerry:  This afternoon I'm out in Bandon with Bill Coore and David Kidd and Mike Keiser.  I'll get back to you in a couple of days.  I'm interested in the different takes on this topic (some of which I agree with, some of which I don't), but I also have to say that Bandon Trails is a little different than the stereotype I had of Bill and Ben's work, and I am very impressed by it.

DMoriarty

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #43 on: May 26, 2005, 03:12:08 AM »
Patrick,

I dont think Mike is saying that these guys should abandon their style or instincts at all.  Rather I think he is suggesting quite the opposite.  

In golf course design there seems to be a fundamental tension between convention and creativity, or to put it another way, between following and leading.  Fortunately for us, Doak and C&C have proven themselves to be leaders (as have Messrs. Youngsblood,Keiser, Bakst, etc.)   I read Mike as merely encouraging them to push the creative envelope even further.  
__________________________

As for the topic, I am certainly not the best person to comment as my experience is spotty at best--  For example, I've only seen one course from the "minimalists" with whom I feel most familiar (Hanse and Co.) and I a don't feel qualified to comment on C&C even after seeing four of their courses.   I'll have to leave Tom Doak completely aside, as I just havent seen enough.

I will say though that I find the Hanse Wagner Shackelford green complexes to be very different than those I've seen on the few C&C courses I have had the pleasure of playing.

Take Notre Dame for example.  Many of the C&C green complexes at ND seem to begin somewhere between 15 and 50 yards short of the green, depending on the topography.  From that point they seem to gradually and smoothly ramp up into a slightly elevated green, thus making the fairway-to-green transition along the line of play to be absolutely flawless.   This also creates some fairway elevation which provides some space for the beautiful below ground level bunkers, and which also creates a convex rather than concave feeling.  

Hidden Creek is another example.  While the approaches at Hidden Creek arent nearly as ramped, there still seem to be some ramping, and many of the HC greens were slightly elevated above the surrounds.  I found this to be true even where the greens generally followed the flow of the land.  Think of No. 10 for example, the ground has a terrific flow from the upper right corner down and left, and the green has the same flow.  Yet the right side has that wonderful shoulder (I presumed this was made) which effectively raises the high side a few feet higher..  If I recall correctly the left side is likewise raised a few feet above the natural flow of the land.  So while the green flows with the land it is actually floating a little above it.  

In contrast, many of the greens at Rustic feel pretty much like they just mowed the grass lower to make the green.   There are a few parts of greens that seem like they were probably built up, but these almost seem to of such a necessity that they may be exceptions which help prove the rule.  For examples, No. 6 has a lip at the back, and from behind one can imagine that it took some dirt to get No. 16 to near level, but I am not sure that one would ever be able to stop a ball without these unnatural features.  

I look forward to seeing Bandon Trails soon.  And maybe some day I'll get to see another Hanse et al creation.   Oh yeah and Doak's as well.  

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #44 on: May 26, 2005, 04:53:03 AM »
Dave Moriarty,

What does "pushing the envelope" mean in terms of golf  course architecture ?

How many developers want to roll the dice with "pushing the envelope" ?

Developers typically hire an architect because they want their  product, a recognizable product, borne of the architect's style.

DMoriarty

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #45 on: May 26, 2005, 12:15:02 PM »
Dave Moriarty,

What does "pushing the envelope" mean in terms of golf  course architecture ?

Surely you have some idea of what this means. . . .

Generally, I'd say 'pushing the envelope' in terms of golf course design means challenging and sometimes rejecting generally accepted contemporary conventions.   Designing outside the box, if you will.  

A few examples of pushing the limit?    
-- Building greens which do [NOT] conform with USGA specifications for green design and construction.  Building California greens or even native soil greens, where conditions allow for such greens.

-- Accepting quirks of native terrain when much of the rest of the industry is working the native ground extensively to hammer it into some preconceived notion of a good golf hole.

--  Building low profile features when most of the industry is building high profile features.

-- Bucking the trend of narrower and longer and trying wider and shorter.  

--  Rejecting framing when the rest of the industry is framing away.  

--  Returning to a style of architecture that has long been abandoned.
 
Quote
How many developers want to roll the dice with "pushing the envelope" ?

Not nearly enough.  But fortunately a few do, and you've named some of them.  

Quote
Developers typically hire an architect because they want their  product, a recognizable product, borne of the architect's style.

Worrying about what developers "typically" do is not really pushing the envelope is it.   Did Mr. Youngscap do what developers "typically"  do?   Did Mr. Kaiser?   My impression is that these guys were willing to take a chance on a guys that were far from in the mainstream.  Who was Kidd before Bandon?  For that matter, Doak may have been known here before Pacific, but he was far from the "typical" choice.
 
It is not typical to build an inaccessible resort in the middle of nowhere without a pool or even a sunny climate, ban the use of carts, and hope that people will show up for the golf experience alone.

It is not typical to reject the notion that there is a direct correlation between money spent and the quality of the product produced.  

Take Mr. Hansen or Mr. Bakst, for other examples.   Either one of them could have played it safe, picking up an industry magazine and going with the league leaders when it comes to return on investment for private clubs.  But they had a vision which went beyond the "typical" so they went with designers who they thought would give them something unique and special.  Something with "character," (Tom Doak's word from the one word thread.)

Sure the architect's "style" is important.  But so is his vision and creativity.  Great courses are far more than style.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2005, 02:17:07 PM by DMoriarty »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #46 on: May 26, 2005, 12:19:17 PM »
David,

I was going to respond to Patrick's last two questions but you're doing just fine in my stead.

Have at it, Counselor.  ;D
« Last Edit: May 26, 2005, 12:19:37 PM by Mike_Cirba »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #47 on: May 26, 2005, 01:30:12 PM »
 DMoriarty,
    Yes, well done-----I think you mean--" does NOT conform to USGA " Correct?
AKA Mayday

DMoriarty

Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #48 on: May 26, 2005, 02:16:16 PM »
Mike C.

Unfortunately I have pressing matters ::), so I'll hand it back over to you.  I hope I havent left you stymied.  We know how Pat likes the stymie.

Mike Malone.  Yes I meant "do NOT conform."   I'll edit it.  Thanks.  

I am surprised that I havent taken to task on my description of the C&C greens, as I dont think what I am describing fits into the stereotype of "minimalist," whatever that may be.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Minimalists -- Are there differences?
« Reply #49 on: May 26, 2005, 03:00:48 PM »
I can't take you to task, Dave, I lack the portfolio of experience.

But I will say I didn't think the greens at HC evinced anything remotely resembling ramp ups leading to the green. More than all the courses I've played, save one, they were simply extensions of the fairway.

If RC is more low profile, I look forward even more to playing it.

-----

As an aside, re: pushing the envelope -

I have read of several modern greens that are said to be fallaway greens - i.e. slope front to back. I haven't seen anything even remotely approaching Oakmont #1, 10, or 12. I'd like to see something like this from anyone, but especially a minimalist or naturalist, when the situation fits.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04