Is the Doak visual template becoming too consistent..

[A_Clay_Man]

Thats some great observational skills, Dick.

I do believe the art of the design by the designer, needs to be difierentiated from the art of those skilled working in the dirt.

One of my new favorite images came to me second hand, when Rupert O'neal was describing how one of Doaks crew (and I apoligze for not knowig the exact persons name) was creating the bunker above the seventh teeing ground at Ballyneal. Yes, thats right folks, a bunker above a teeing ground. Completly unnecessary for the sport, but, integral to the visual art that is Ballyneal. The image I refer to is similar to that of a painter who is looking at his subject, then back to his canvas, back again to the subject, back to the canvas. Only in this instance, the subject is how the natural distribution of native plants occurs on a hillside in the not so distant distance.

[Jason Topp]

I have thought about this topic as well, although not with respect to one designer.  In the last year, I was struck by the similarities in appearance of Sand Hills, Wild Horse and Sutton Bay.  To me, the pictures of Barnbougle also look very similar.  

I really like the courses I have played so far, but wonder if it could get repetitive at some point (that point is a long ways off).  I will be very interested to see if Barnbougle looks and feels like the same thing exported to a different location or whether it is something completely different.

[Jerry Kluger]

Adam: I think that your comparison to an artist is as close as one can get when trying to explain what a golf course architect is trying to achieve.  The analogy is far from perfect but the essentials are very similar.  The architect studies and learns from the past and develops his own style based upon that knowledge.  That does not mean that his style is stagnant or boring - it evolves.  He looks back at his own work and decides what is good and what can he do better when faced with a similar circumstance.  It isn't that the past isn't good rather its what he feels he should change for whatever reason he, and only he, wants to.  

When one looks at some of the great artists of the last hundred years you see that their style evolved and rarely was there a radical change in style. Tom Doak's work has evolved and should he simply drop a feature or technique for the sake of change - I think not.  Perhaps that means that he will not accept certain offers because he would have to compromise his values but it doesn't mean that if he doesn't want to build waterfalls on at least two holes that he is being left behind.

[Tim Gavrich]

With regards to the feeling that there's too much sameness coming from Mr. Doak's recent work (I haven't seen/played any of his more recent projects, so this is based on pictures):

I'd have to say that I agree that there are numerous similarities in the pictures I've seen, and there is no doubt in my mind that the holes are in fact very similar.  Is this a bad thing?  I say NO, because if such courses as Stone Eagle and BallyNeal emerge as classics, more people will want to play such imaginative holes.  Of course, few will have that opportunity, given the private nature of these two clubs.  But, if more, similar courses and holes start popping up, their merit will be realized by more of the golfing public.  Isn't that what it's all about?  We all want the lay-golfers to realize what great course design is,  so isn't the emergence of more new-school, but perhaps similar courses the best way to accomplish this?

Chances are, I'll never play some courses on a level with Pine Valley, Augusta National, or Sand Hills.  But if more similar (to these) courses emerged, I may have such an opportunity, albeit on a lower level.  And that's beter than not experiencing anything like it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Sorry to sound like Chauncey Gardner, but lapels get wide, then narrow, then wide again.

Shivas,

If the above is true isn't a progression back to geometric design natural and unavoidable.  I'm not talking about square greens and bunkers found in the Rossnor attempts...I'm talking cubes, cones and pyramids..

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I take great pride in being the person to drag you back from oblivion ... and only through building courses, not by calling you out on this web site!

I would be pleased to see you or others articulate exactly what it is that I'm doing so consistently, so I can see if I want to change it, or simply teach it to my associates and then let them do all the traveling and application.

I think there are certain things that we do visually [which you might call framing, I would call removing distractions and clutter] which are pretty consistent from course to course because we like it that way.

We try to come up with different bunkering strategies and looks for every course, but sometimes it is hard to get the shapers to deliberately hold back on what they consider their best stuff.  I would respectfully submit that some of that difficulty stems from the icon status given to Jeff Bradley on this very board.  (Which is not to say that I don't admire and respect Jeff's work ... it's just that he is in danger of becoming a "signature" bunker guy independent of the design of the golf course.)  

We have, however, done some bunkering on recent courses that isn't like our others.  Tumble Creek's bunkers are deliberately subdued, which seems to be why no one posts many pictures of it here.  And of course The Sheep Ranch has almost no bunkers at all.  However, I don't see how copying Raynor's style for a course [instead of copying my "own" style] would be a sign of artistic improvement ... we save that for its proper place, when we work on Raynor courses.

And I do NOT think we are building the same holes from one course to the next ... not at all.  I'll be damned if there is a golf hole at Stone Eagle anything like one at Ballyneal.  And the only two things at Ballyneal which are anything like Sebonack are improvements on holes which Jack would not have agreed to.  [No details about those will be forthcoming, though if you play both courses a dedicated observer ought to be able to figure them out.]  

The trouble is that nothing on GOLF CLUB ATLAS actually shows these golf holes, now that Ran and John have retired and stopped traveling and writing reviews of great courses.  Much of this DG has devolved into pictures of bunkers.

Welcome back!

Tom D


P.S.  I hope John Kirk sees this thread and replies to it.  He is a member of both Stone Eagle and Ballyneal, and so far as I know, the only person besides me to have played them both to date.  If he thought they were the same course I would wonder why he would plunk down his own money to join them both.

P.P.S.  Rich is getting me "millions" for design fees, so he's my new agent.  Whoever offered $750K must go to the back of the line.

[John Kavanaugh]

I would be pleased to see you or others articulate exactly what it is that I'm doing so consistently, so I can see if I want to change it, or simply teach it to my associates and then let them do all the traveling and application.

Tom,

Thank you for your generous response...I don't have anything intelligent to add at this time.

[Lou_Duran]

TD,

What is wrong with having a style if it is one appreciated by the playing public?

How many trully different holes are there?  Doesn't the varying terrain, weather, climate, soils, vegetation, etc. ensure sufficiently large permutations for the thoughtful designer?

In approaching a new project, is your desire to be new, fresh, and different a primary objective?  Is it really bad that one of your courses might have strong similarities to another as long as the quality is high?  Are there many members who join multiple Doak (or Fazio) courses where this might make a difference?
 

[John Kavanaugh]

TD,

What is wrong with having a style if it is one appreciated by the playing public?

How many trully different holes are there?  Doesn't the varying terrain, weather, climate, soils, vegetation, etc. ensure sufficiently large permutations for the thoughtful designer?

In approaching a new project, is your desire to be new, fresh, and different a primary objective?  Is it really bad that one of your courses might have strong similarities to another as long as the quality is high?  Are there many members who join multiple Doak (or Fazio) courses where this might make a difference?
 

Lou,

If what you say is true, why did so many people get their skirts in a pinch when they found out Nicklaus didn't go to Sand Hills...

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:

The answers to your questions:

1)  I'd get bored doing the same thing over and over.
2)  I think there are holes out there you haven't seen yet, and I hope to find some of them.  I don't want to ever get to the point of using Hole #29 with green K on a new course, as some modern architects do.
3)  All those variations you talk about are important, and I'm trying to use them to the degree possible, instead of just building a Redan.
4)  Yes, doing something different is a primary objective on each new course.  At Ballyneal I did not want there to be any holes that were obviously reminiscent of Sand Hills.  At Sebonack we purposely avoided building a Redan at the fourth hole [which I might have done on that green setting in another time and place] precisely because there are two pretty good Redans in the neighborhood already.
5)  No it's not really bad if my courses turn out similar as long as I'm trying my best to be original and to work with each piece of land.
6)  To date there is only one "multiple member," and it's not a factor in my wanting to be original ... that is a matter of personal and professional pride.

[Michael Moore]

I think this issue, as usual, boils down to the appearance of the bunkers.

As I am generally unwilling to travel beyond Massachusetts for a game of golf, I have never come anywhere near a Tom Doak course. However, I do think I could identify one by the following characteristics -

The fairway connects directly and seamlessly to the bunker, creating a very sharp, steep and clean edge. Although this edge is sharp, it also has a fairly irregular and natural shape, as if it were the bank of a stream. In fact, the whole edge looks like it was created by erosion.

[RJ_Daley]

MM, that is quite identifable as the Aussie style.  I don't know where that photo is taken, but it is along the line of what I have been talking about as an alternative look for our sand hill courses.  The bunkers along fairways are cut sharp and deep into the bowels of maintained-mowed turf on the inside edges.  The outboard and backsides tend to be native.  Where bunkers occur within the total surrounds of FWs, sharp edges, deep and cut 8-12inches straight are found.  The same holds for the greenside Bs.  They are cut into the bowels of the putting surface.  

PS: the question that needs answering for this style in the sand hills, is whether the sharp straight edges can be maintained crisp and not crumble in.  The edges that approach this style at Wild Horse, for instance on the greenside Bs of 9,14, 15, 18 have crumbled and caved in, at certain places. I don't know if it is a matter of some sort of maintenance approach where root systems of the turf adjacent can be used to knit the soil together without crumbling.  The sands of the sand hills may be more prone to the crumbling as it may be more friable that the Aussie soil.  Or the couch-bermuda sort of turf there may be the rooting characteristic difference.  This would be an area where a good turf science man needs to consult closely with a good archie desiring to present this style here in the U.S.  

[Lou_Duran]

JK,

IMO, skirts are bunched up because it is Jack Nicklaus.  Tom Fazio and Rees Jones would generate similar but not as strong reaction.

In his 50+ years in the game with his sharp, discerning mind, I wonder how many archies have "seen" more.  And if being fresh and new is so important, why would we want Nicklaus to go around the corner and influence his mind's eye with what has already been done?

TD,

All great responses.  Thanks.

Do you have any thoughts on some of the characteristics of the holes not yet found?  Have you not seen a fair representation of land forms to be found in nature?

As to Sebonack, if you had a natural site for a redan, could choosing not to do it because it's already been done by Shinny and the National not short the members and their guests?  Such a green site is hardly unique in golf, yet when it is well done it is so much fun (I've yet to par #17 at PD in my 6-7 attempts).

I don't know, but it just seems that being different and new in a game predicated by tradition seems to have a lot of downside risk.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

I think this issue, as usual, boils down to the appearance of the bunkers.

As I am generally unwilling to travel beyond Massachusetts for a game of golf, I have never come anywhere near a Tom Doak course. However, I do think I could identify one by the following characteristics -

The fairway connects directly and seamlessly to the bunker, creating a very sharp, steep and clean edge. Although this edge is sharp, it also has a fairly irregular and natural shape, as if it were the bank of a stream. In fact, the whole edge looks like it was created by erosion.

Mr. Moore,

You dont have to go past your computer to see variety in Doak's work:

Beechtree:



Ballyneal



Stone Eagle


I don't see the formula and Stonewall and Sebonack (through the trees) don't fit a formula either.

Tom,

I did not offer you $750,000!

Jaka,

It is too bad that you will not be funding this Geometric Design experiment for Tom. Have higher gas prices hurt the asphault business?

[Mike Hendren]

Okay, I must confess:  I've only played Quail Crossing.  That admission out of the way, I see no single photograph on this thread that is as appealing as this one:



Maybe Tom needs to quit chasing The Good Doctor and try to tag Donald J. Ross every once in a while.  Who knows - he might be good enough to catch them both.

Mike

[Jim Nugent]

Well this is a truly momentous day in the annals of golfclubatlas.com... the same day as our FatBaldyDrummer (Martin Bonnar) gets to live his dream at Cypress Point, we see the return of prodigal son John Kavanaugh - and with a damn provocative Topic, also.

Tom, thanks for this post.  I always wondered what FBD stands for.  The correct answer never occurrred to me in my many guesses.

[Tom_Doak]

Ick, I see more consistency in those pictures above, than I want to see.  The long grass at Beechtree is the clincher ... I'd rather it wasn't long.

One thing we do a lot is to use bunkers to break up the long lines of transition between mowed grass and unmaintained "native" area, whether that native stuff is rocks or long grass or something else.  This results in the look of bunkers that's maintained on one side and not the other ... MacKenzie did it a lot, too.  We prefer to break this up with bunkers instead of having an obvious mowing line where the maintenance stops and native begins; as I've said before, we try to hide mowing lines.

However, in modern design, as you space holes further apart, there are these strips of land in between the holes that the owner doesn't want to maintain, so they become long grass areas.  Beechtree could easily be a parkland course with all of the long grass mowed to short rough [Mike H.'s photo above is actually the 10th green at Beechtree, not Quail Crossing], but it isn't that way throughout because the course takes up too much land and nobody would want to mow all of that land.  This is one of the similarities which creates the "modern" look, and at the end of the day it goes back to issues like technology [golfers spray their drives over wider areas] and to liability.

Where possible, we try to tie together greens and tees with short grass instead of separating the course into 18 separate mowed areas ... we did this very well at Sebonack, and in a completely different way at Stone Eagle.

[A_Clay_Man]

Bogey, The principles are the same, especially if that fillpad were extended closer to the bunker's edge, and the cut of rough was indistinguishable.

[John Kavanaugh]

A friend sent me the following email that I produce for your inspection with his/her permission:

Agree with you that the aerials (in the magazines) make Sebonack, Cape
Kidnappers and Stone Eagle look very similar. The rumbled fairways
look similar, the bunkering looks similar, and the green placements
look similar.

Doak doesn't seem to do very interesting things with bunkers. His
bunkers seem to be more about asthetics than strategy. Of the
hairy-bunker crowd, the C&C guys seem to do a better job, at least on
the Par3s and 5s. Neither of them do Par4s as well as Flynn, Ross or
Raynor. They have become fixated on the short-4 or the ultra-long 4.

[Mike_Sweeney]

A friend sent me the following email that I produce for your inspection with his/her permission:

Jaka,

I had no idea you were that close with Jack Nicklaus!

[Tom_Doak]

John:

Your friend doesn't seem to do very interesting things with verbs and nouns, and he doesn't use any good adjectives at all.

Some bunkers ARE for esthetics; strategy comes more from the greens and the "rumbles" in the fairways.  If your friend had played any of these courses instead of just looking at aerial pictures he might understand this.

Bill Coore and I both got our philosophy on short and long par-4's from Pete Dye, who probably stole it from Alister MacKenzie.  I'll stick with them instead of the other guys.

[wsmorrison]

John,

How about giving us YOUR take on the visual templates that you think exist (although I fail to grasp) rather than some friend of yours?  That is pretty lame.

[Tom_Doak]

It's not lame, and John probably really has a friend or two who might post such stuff [though not under their own name].  Still, they're just saying they think my stuff LOOKS THE SAME from looking at aerial photos, and they're not providing any details at how it IS the same.

[wsmorrison]

That is lamer.

[John Kavanaugh]

Wayne,

I simple reprinted an email from a lurker who does not have the privilage of being one of the posters on this site..it was an interesting take that showed some thought and knowledge of architectual history...be it on the side of hyper-critical if it may be.

I think I have said that I find the visual templates to be very pleasing.  My concern was only if they were or going to be repeated on too consistent of a basis.  If I have a lasting problem it is the search for nature for natures sake.  When looking at rumpled fairway after rumpled fairway Tom seems to ignore the natural flat planes often found because of either wind or water erosion.  I would like to see a naturally flat piece of land left flat just for the hell of it once.