Is the Doak visual template becoming too consistent..

[Sean Leary]

Tom D,

Does the type of site you are working with dictate the type of visuals you create with the golf course? Are these so called "signature" bunkers fit better in a links style format, rather than say at Stonewall, Beechtree or Tumble Creek? ...

[George Pazin]

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.

This says more about your friend's eye than it does about Tom's style.

[wsmorrison]

"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."

I think a template is by definition something that establishes or serves as a pattern.  I can't think of too may inconsistent patterns.

As for Sebonack, I find it to be very original in places and groundbreaking in many ways.  The tees are like nothing ever done before...or at least in my experience.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

Let's talk about Cape Kidnappers.

Those dramatic fingers of ground which stick out toward the cliffs are all on a very consistent plane, with between a 3% and 6% tilt toward the ocean.

If you'll look at the pictures carefully I would defy you to see where we added any bumps to those fingers at all.  We couldn't, because it would have instantly looked unnatural and stupid from the player's eye view.  The only contouring we did to the fairways was to make some little cuts at the edges of those fingers to take the drainage in a different direction and to create a bit more interest.  100% of the bunkers are hanging off the side of the holes and down below, not built up above the plane.  The only fills on the property are filling the big valleys between the fingers so the course would be easier to walk (and to get rid of the earth from our various excavations).

We understood how to do this because we had the same problem when we had built Riverfront a year before ... an extremely flat site.  The original grades of the holes were between 12 and 23 feet above sea level ... and they still are.

Sean:  The answer to your question is, which Stonewall are you talking about?  The two courses have very different bunkering.

[George Pazin]

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...

People got their panties in a bunch because:

1) It shows a certain lack of curiosity and desire to learn;

and

2) It's golf at Sand Hills, which is apparently right in the neighborhood. That doesn't exactly qualify as hard labor. Most of us would not view playing a round of golf as a hardship, but I guess some do.

 

[Philippe Binette]

About flat planes (or not-rumpled fairways) go see Stonewall old and north, a lot of long slopes, some flat planes too...

[Sean Leary]

Tom D,

I meant the old course at Stonewall..I have only seen the North from 3 teebox of the old, but it did look more linksy from that vantagepoint..

[Andy Hughes]

All those links courses in Scotland/Ireland have such a similar visual template. Sod-walled bunkers, gray skies, rumpled fairways, numerous open approaches, it all gets to be a bit too consistent...

[John Kavanaugh]

John:

Let's talk about Cape Kidnappers.

Those dramatic fingers of ground which stick out toward the cliffs are all on a very consistent plane, with between a 3% and 6% tilt toward the ocean.

If you'll look at the pictures carefully I would defy you to see where we added any bumps to those fingers at all.  We couldn't, because it would have instantly looked unnatural and stupid from the player's eye view.  The only contouring we did to the fairways was to make some little cuts at the edges of those fingers to take the drainage in a different direction and to create a bit more interest.  100% of the bunkers are hanging off the side of the holes and down below, not built up above the plane.  The only fills on the property are filling the big valleys between the fingers so the course would be easier to walk (and to get rid of the earth from our various excavations).

We understood how to do this because we had the same problem when we had built Riverfront a year before ... an extremely flat site.  The original grades of the holes were between 12 and 23 feet above sea level ... and they still are.

Sean:  The answer to your question is, which Stonewall are you talking about?  The two courses have very different bunkering.

Did you ever reveal where your major dirt movement occurred at Cape Kidnappers.  I remember you once challenged the board to find where..

[ChipOat]

John K:

I haven't personally experienced enough of TD's work to agree/disagree.

But I WAS immediately struck that you were looking at aerials.  What detail can you see from aerials??

Pat Mucci is going to get his hackles up over this, I'm sure.

[Larry_Keltto]

>>Did you ever reveal where your major dirt movement occurred at Cape Kidnappers.  I remember you once challenged the board to find where.<<

I'm certain that Tom issued this challenge, re:Ballyneal. Nobody will ever get it on the first guess.

I'm not sure if he issued this challenge for CK, too.

[Ian Andrew]

John,

I've only seen Pacific Dunes, Sebonic and High Pointe, but I stuggle to find much of a similarities between all three.

The routing technique is different at each. Some great ridgelines are featured at High Pointe, The natural valleys at Pacific Dunes set the tone and the use of the plateaus at Sebonic was a nice touch.

The bunkering at High Pointe is very subtle in both pottish look and position. Pacific is more of a blow out swept look that mixes framing and challenge. Many even feature major elevation. The bunkers at Sebonic are most often set in the ground, with only occasional flashed bunkers. Think scouped out rather than dug and flared up and you get the idea of the look. They are also much more in play and often forcng the nature of the approach.

So where does this come from John, provide some direct examples of holes that are common, or bunkering techniques that are common ?

[John Kavanaugh]

Ian,

It appears it comes from the horses mouth if you read the posts of Tom Doak in this thread....It is just one hell of a lot more subtle than I orignially thought.   I admit I may have been slightly off base in my original assumption...but why wait until the guy has 200 courses on the board before posing the question.

[ForkaB]

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.

I meant to say "Brazilians" Tom.  Sorry for the tyop.

[Dan Smoot]

Rawls Course doesn't look anything like anything else I've seen of Doaks - in part because of the huge containment berm that focuses your eye inward. Water hole par-3 10th and par-5 18th are conventional in many ways, yet the long par-4s on far side of property are unlike anything found inland in the south. Bunkers have greater delineation than at Pacific Dunes or Sebonack. Greens have less kick than Lost Dunes.

My only point of comparison is Pacific and Rawls.  They certainly don't look anything alike.  Rawls is amazing considering what he started with.  Pacific is a place where I remembered every hole in pretty good detail from the first time I stepped on it.  But they are completely different worlds.  Even the bunkering has a significantly different look.

[Don_Mahaffey]

 I've played 4 Doak courses-Apache Stronghold, Pacific Dunes, The Rawls Course, and High Point.
What all those courses have in common is they are very good, challenging golf courses, which for the most part blend in well with their surroundings. If there is sameness to their look it's an attempt to fit with in the surroundings, not stand out. That's more style (and good architecture in my book) then some sort of template.

[Tim_Weiman]

John,

My recent exposure to Tom Doak's courses includes playing Cape Kidnappers, St Andrews Beach, Barnbougle, the revision at Atlantic City and the new course at Stonewall. In addition, this past summer I walked Sebonack.

Going further back, I've played Pacific Dunes, Lost Dunes, High Pointe, Black Forest and the original course at Stonewall.

On this basis, I'd half to say the answer to your question is clearly "no".

Take the three efforts Down Under. Cape Kidnappers is nothing like either St Andrews Beach or Barnbougle. Indeed, the best reason to visit all three is that they are all so different, in my opinion.

Truthfully, I'd rate architects like Ross, Tillinghast or Pete Dye as having a lot more similiarity in their work than Tom Doak has.

Several years ago Tom told me he didn't want there to be a "Tom Doak course". So far Tom is doing pretty well on that score, I believe.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I did reveal where the earth movement was at Cape Kidnappers, though I have no better idea than you do how to dig up that thread.  So here goes:

Hole 1:  filled across the dip between the landing area and the green, about 20 feet of fill.

Hole 4:  cut on approach to green, filled between there and landing area to soften the steepness of the step up.

Hole 5:  cut down the green and filled in the landing area and approach, so you could see the ocean behind the green and so there wasn't a 25-foot bank if you didn't reach the putting surface.

Hole 6:  cut green a bit.

Hole 7:  cut green 20+ feet; filled dip in front of the green at least that much, all the way over to in front of the ninth green to do the same thing.

Hole 9:  see above

Hole 10:  filled dip in landing area a bit.

Hole 12:  cut bridge to green so we could reduce the 5% fallaway slope of the green to 2% and keep it looking natural on back into the fairway.

Hole 16:  cut fairway and filled dips in first and second landing areas.

The rest of the course is pretty much as we found it as far as the grades of the fairways.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I haven't seen enough of Tom's work to know what looks like what.  From pictures, I suspect his courses are starting to look more "finished" just like Pete Dye's started to look that way.  Not meant to be an insult to either, but both (I think) are getting a bit more expansive in scale, and more refined, which really isn't unusual for a gca progressing through his career.

It also wouldn't be too unexpected if even someone as passionate as Tom and his crew started getting into at least a few patterns as they take on more work.  As Tom noted in another thread, sometimes you try an idea, but aren't 100% happy with it.  The next time the op presents itself, you take a mulligan to perfect it.  In writing, its a first draft - in architecture you got to keep that draft around.

If I noticed anything (again from pictures, so this may just be the holes the photographer chooses to show) its that "cluster bunkers" are getting to be slightly favored idea with Tom.

I once had an associate design a green with a kangaroo pouch bunker (like Muirfield Village 10) for a different look.  By the next day, he liked it so well, he had another 5 greens with similar bunker complexes!  So, it happens. We latch on to what we like.

The oddity is that sometimes we become repetitive while trying to be different!  Is C and C getting repetitive in doing a lot of the "random bunkering" that they started to get away from the mentality and repetition of bunkers only at a certain distance from the tee?  They have few holes with say, four dozen pot bunkers, or a single ultra big bunker, which would break their courses bunkering template, to use John  K's words.  Why?

Tom could probably answer better, but I'll bet they think they don't fit in the natural landscape, but dominate it, so they sort of wipe it off their slate of "tricks" being the minimalists that they are.  

JN on the other hand, not so much of a minimalist, had no qualms about inserting a huge waste bunker at Dismal River.  He has done them before, but it should work best of all in the Sand Hills, no?  Even if JN didn't go see SH, I bet his associates did, and noticed that big fw bunkers weren't part of the C and C thinking, and probably consciously inserted it JUST to make the course different.  I think it works.

Only examples of the fact that anyone who develops any strong belief about gca, whether minimalism, easy maintenance, creating certain shot values, or whatever, tends to box themselves in to less variety over time!  Attaining true variety means consiously going against your personal grain sometimes.  But then, the debate is, do I use an architectural feature I don't like, just to make it different from my previous course?

Its a great topic to discuss, with no disrespect intended for Tom or anyone else as to why things get more alike over time, and not more different.  Most GCA's wish they had the big name architect problem of doing so many highly scrutinized courses that people start to look for flaws, repetitiveness, etc.

[Doug Siebert]

John K,

Ignoring for a moment the question of whether a consistent look is a bad thing -- after all, people seem to think that's OK for a Ross and knowledgeable people here could identify a Ross they'd never seen pretty quickly!

Anyway, ignoring that, I fail to see why a consistent look in aerial photos is a bad thing.  Dunno about you, but I don't pilot a Met Life blimp from shot to shot, so its really not an issue with me.  If you say it looks similar enough that you can play all of the "suspect" courses and then be dropped onto a random spot on one of them and not be able to tell which one, then maybe you'd have something.  But even if there was some similarity in a photo-op view back over the course from its highest point its no big deal.

Look at it this way, if you've got a guy who is really hitting his stride in the GCA game and getting the opportunity to pick and choose his projects on some world-class land that probably has all but a handful of architects wishing they could be in his shoes and also believes in not messing with the natural landforms much, what do you get?  Well, I'd think you'd get natural looking courses on some great land the blend in so well you can't tell what he got from nature and what he had to bend to his vision, so if they all look similar in that respect then I guess you think Tom is ending up with exactly what he wants to end up with visually.

PS - glad to have you back, you've got a way of starting threads that generate a lot of interesting discussion!

[Mike Hendren]

Ignoring for a moment the question of whether a consistent look is a bad thing -- after all, people seem to think that's OK for a Ross and knowledgeable people here could identify a Ross they'd never seen pretty quickly!

Really?

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=20348

[Tom_Doak]

Instead of defending me so vigorously, I wish someone besides Jeff would actually point out some details of what we're doing over and over again ...

Jeff you are exactly right in your points about our "style".  Actually I wouldn't mind doing a course which had just a few big bunkers [that was the original idea at Apache Stronghold, which has only 40], or a course with a lot of little pot bunkers.  The only thing I don't like is when architects try to throw in all of those different ideas into the same course, because at that point it starts to look like a grab bag with NO style at all.  And many do!  [See my earlier comments about Devil's Paintbrush.]  I just can't think of a course I would rate as "great" that doesn't seem to have a style of its own.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Tom
I dont think it is a case of delibrately defending you as much as realising that your work is simply.....good..as far as the folks on this site are concerned.
I do not see a problem with a model of consistency, and I believe all artists have a style of their own.
When I have finished an orthodontic case, I finish the teeth in a certain manner that I feel is esthetically pleasing...do all of my patient's smiles look alike..no..but they are all finished with a certain baseline criteria that over the yeras I feel have presented with the best long term results.
Occasionally I get thrown a different canvas to work on that is more complicated and the end result is less resembling of the others....similar to a different piece of land..but even in that case my own personal spin or style would be evident.

Mackenzie, from the 8 or so of his courses I have played had simliar characteristic...his courses are not cookie cutter or samey but they are all undoubtably Mackenzie courses.....and yes very consistent...consistently good that is...I see no problem, with a style,  or a level of certain criteria that an individual may have...I think the work you have left us with so far is also consistently good, varied in site presentation, green complexity and in the style the courses play.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Instead of defending me so vigorously, I wish someone besides Jeff would actually point out some details of what we're doing over and over again ...

Jeff you are exactly right in your points about our "style".  Actually I wouldn't mind doing a course which had just a few big bunkers [that was the original idea at Apache Stronghold, which has only 40], or a course with a lot of little pot bunkers.  The only thing I don't like is when architects try to throw in all of those different ideas into the same course, because at that point it starts to look like a grab bag with NO style at all.  And many do!  [See my earlier comments about Devil's Paintbrush.]  I just can't think of a course I would rate as "great" that doesn't seem to have a style of its own.

Whew!  I was hoping I didn't get a negative reaction!  

I am not sure I agree completely about having, say one (or probably two) big waste bunkers mixed with others on a course.  I still think that more holes on any given course look too much alike than too much different.......but having a big bunker in the wrong place just to have one sometimes looks weird.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the least glaring repetitive design feature would be "random bunkering" assuming the gca was really good at making them random, since each pattern would be different.  Certainly more different than the TRJ or DWilson bunkers at each dogleg pattern.  However, I bet most of us would get into arranging them similarly over time, perhaps using the 5/8 ratio, or whatever.

As to Doak or MacKenzies pattern, I think the variety of truly great sites they have gotten would be enough to distinguish courses - the Cypress Point bunkers, melding back into the dunes are similar, and yet different to RM because of site differences.

It just goes to show that you might have to attack every course with a different starting point, whether directed by site quality, owners wishes, or perhaps internal desire for a different look.  For example, as a kid dreaming about being a gca, I once thought that I would have a style of very few bunkers, but where each one would truly be a signfigant hazard, perhaps 10 feet deep.  Over the years, I got into the more looks better theme, as did most of us, and got away from that.  Perhaps my next course will consciously follow that theme to avoid repeating my "Look."

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Evaluating a golf course from looking at some random photos, usually of bunkers, is a waste of time.

Only by playing the golf courses could one make an in-depth evaluation of whether or not there's a repetitive style that presents itself to the golfer.[/color]