McDonald’s Philosophy of Design?

[Mark_Fine]

No, not Charles Blair Macdonald’s philosophy, but Ray Kroc’s who founded McDonald’s fast food restaurants.  Kroc’s philosophy for McDonalds was essentially, “copy exact, everywhere”.  No matter where you go, when you visit a McDonald’s, except for maybe some cosmetic differences to the outside building, everything else is essentially the same.

I happen to believe that many, if not most golf architects, follow this same philosophy with their designs.  There might be some cosmetic (or aesthetic) differences from one course to the next, but everything else is essentially the same.  But so what, who really cares?  Who is going to know?  I think golf architects realize that 99% of all golfers are probably never going to play more than one or two of their designs anyway.  And even if some do, most of them won’t see through the cosmetic differences.  

So can you blame someone for example like Smyers or Fazio or Rees or Raynor or “name your architect” for building essentially the same courses over and over again?  Take for the sake of an example, Old Memorial in Tampa FL.  Who is going to know it’s really just the private version of Southern Dunes or Blue Heron Pines?  Heck I bet there are only a handful of us even on this site that have played more than one of his courses.  

So maybe once an architect finds something that works, the McDonalds philosophy of copy exact with a few cosmetic changes is a pretty good bet for their continued success!  Only a few of us are ever going to know!

Mark  

[TEPaul]

Maybe many, if not most do that! And maybe that's why those that don't do that are some of my favorites.

If Pacific Dunes is essentially a copy of Stonewall, if Rustic Canyon is essentially a copy of Applebrook, if Hidden Creek is essentially a copy of Friar's Head and if Friar's Head is essentially a copy of Sand Hills and if Sand Hills is essentially a copy of Kapalua then I'm sure not smart enough to figure out how!

[Mark_Fine]

I really do think many do that and to some extent I can't blame them.  They've found something that works and they just duplicate it.  But every once in a while even these guys come up with something unique but generally that is because the site might have had something special about it or they just decided to spend some extra time.  

  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark;

Are you talking about MacDonald and Co.'s ubiquitous, unusually stereotypical bunkering style, which is so admired by east and west coast rappers everywhere for their "puffy", machine-melded, mechanized, mass-produced, sterile, soul-less style that consistently come out like cookie cutter creations of flaccid, flawless, flowing fluff of efficiently effusive, elaborately egalitarian effluence?

Yeah...I've seen them.  And seen them.  And seen them, again and again.  

It's amazing to me that most of them are called "restorations".  I had no idea that every single one of the Golden Age architects had the exact same style.

It's been quite the education for me, and I'm sure we'll see more of them in the future.  No need for variety in this game, apparently, when we can all have perfectly consistent bunkers created by machine.  

Perhaps they can further make their mark by installing "golden arches" next to each clubhouse, if their tell-tale presence wasn't already obvious enough on the golf course!  

[Dave_Miller]

Mike:

Sounds like the cookie cutter approach

Cheers,
Dave

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

I basically agree with your premise, but perhaps not the negative tone of some responses.  The owner of a new golf course wants to hear the architect say "Fasten Your seatbelts, I want to try something new" as much as you want to hear that from your airline pilot!

And I will admit to saying, mostly in jest, while designing my one course in the Far East, "Let's Use Number 6 at Tiddly Links here, since I doubt any of these members will come to Texas to Play!"  

This is not new.  Ron Whitten, in researching Golf Has Never Failed Me, found about 75 versions of the same Donald Ross par 3.  Of course, an architect has to adapt his style to special sites, like RTJ on the first five holes of Spyglass, Fazio at VN on a quarry, C and C at Sand Hills, Doak at TT (going from minimalism to really having to create, etc)  But for each of these, there are stylistic similarities for each architect.

They occur because architects usually set "rules" for themselves, based on what they like as golfers, architects, etc. and what others have liked about their work - or not liked.  Call this MacDonalds Philosophy, or call it (as a football coach might) dancing with who brung ya.

My mentors always said your design rules were meant to be broken, but if you do it too often, you just get a goofy golf course!  They used 15 familiar concepts, adaped to site specifics, and with small cosmetic changes to avoid exact copies, and tried three new on each course.  They kept their basic premises of visibility, receptivety, etc. in tact as often as they could - about 99% of the time.

I usually do the same, plus or minus a few new concepts.  I was always a bit more willing to take chances than they were.  Still am, even though I now also take the blame when it doesn't work!

Taken not only over geography, but over time, this idea promotes consistency, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but also allows and leads to an orderly evolution of design philosophy.  That is important, because even if I came up with or copied a concept I liked, I wouldn't use it "wholesale" until I had a chance to evaluate it over a year or so of play, just to make sure it worked like I thought it would work.

BTW, I like both Smyers OM and SD!

[Mike_Cirba]

Dave Miller/Jeff Brauer;

Have I become a nattering nabob of negativity?  

I guess my point is that I have less of a problem with the cookie-cutter approach in different geographical locations by the same architect on new designs that Mark describes than I do with "restoration" work that takes the disparate works of different golden age architects and changes them to a new, similar, stereotypical style.  

[Dave_Miller]

Mike:

A nattering nabob of negativity  

I don't think so.  Just keep nattering it is very much enjoyed and appreciated.

Gosh that's a sentence to rival TEPaul.

Best,
Dave

[RJ_Daley]

Next you'll be telling us that "A spirit of GCA masochism prevails, encouraged by an impudent core of effete snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals"  

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Seems like we are on the same page.  As I said to start, who really cares if an architect's designs are mostly the same!  Only a very small percentage of golfers will ever really know!

I do have to laugh though when I see an architect stand up in front of a group and say he's never built the same hole twice!  I guess he's just playing the odds that 99% or more of the audience just doesn't know any better.
Mark

[TEPaul]

What's this sudden outbreak of rampant alliteration and biting conservative slogans all about?

I thought Spiro Agnew and all his speech writers were dead by now!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

I just thought with it being election week, and all.  

However, after getting two incredibly plugged lies on the upslopes, under the lips of the aforementioned company's bunkers at Rolling Green today, I might have to change my alliterative ways to much shorter words....none longer than four letters, in fact!  

[TEPaul]

Plugged lies under upslopes and lips of the aforementioned company's bunkers at Rolling Green......!?

What's the problem and what's the complaint Mike?

You're the one who hit it there!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I swear those pr*@ks are out to get me!!  

Can't say I blame them one bit!  And yes, both shots deserved some serious punishment, although in both cases, it was impossible to advance the ball.  

If nothing else, Wayne had a good laugh at my predicament(s).  Perhaps I'll start a new thread...

Macdonald & Co - The new Medusas - Building the most penal bunkers in the world...just don't look at them!!

[wsmorrison]

Mike,
You certainly were stymied under those bunker lips, even being left handed wouldn't help you where you were.  BTW, when you mentioned putting off the green from the back of 15 at Rolling Green on another thread, you forgot to mention that the pin was on the back tier as well, not on the lower tier front!  Just thought I'd remind you  .  

It was lots of fun, and don't get rid of that hot putter of yours just because you got custom fitted for a new Ping.  Your putting was consistantly terrific!
Regards,
Wayne

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

You said it was impossible to 'advance' the ball!

First rule of golf troubleshooting! If you find yourself in a predicament where it appears impossible to "advance" your ball take out the necessary impliment and "retreat" your ball!

Must I tell you everything?

Oh Jesus, you're lefthanded! OK, just belay all that and let me rethink this situation!

I'll get back to you in a couple weeks.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I tried that...honestly I did....

But in both cases, my ball was securely lodged just under the thick, steep, vertical, fleshy, GRASS FACED WALL and sideways and backwards weren't options at all.....multiple whiffs would have surely ensued!

So, my only options were to try to hit the ball into the face, hoping that the rebound would send the ball back to a better predicament inside the bunker.

In both cases, I got up, up, and down.  

[Dan Kelly]

What's this sudden outbreak of rampant alliteration and biting conservative slogans all about?

I thought Spiro Agnew and all his speech writers were dead by now!

Tom I --

Agnew is dead -- but, as Mr. Schmidt alludes, the guy who wrote the nattering-nabobs-of-negativism line is very much alive.

You'll find him on the New York Times' editorial page (and in the pages of the New York Times Magazine, "On Language" -- a gem of a column).

He goes by the name of William Safire.

[TEPaul]

Oh that guy, who after all these years is still trying to be Dan kelly!

[Mitch Hantman]

Mark,

Interesting post.  I agree with most of what you said, but
I personally enjoy seeing a Raynor design for the first
time, to see how he fit his "copycat" holes into the
existing terrain he had to work with.  Whether it is a
Redan hole,  Road Hole, or Punchbowl, etc., they are
all different to me.  The strategy may be the same, but
the excitement is still there, as each version of Redan
differs a little from the last.

It could be said that those architects from the Golden
Age would "fit" their holes to the existing terrain, while
the current modern courses move so much earth that
they aren't really fitting the hole to the surrounds, but
are just creating the same hole in another location.

Mitch