[Jordan Wall]

One thing different from a Fazio course and a Doak course were the holes I seemed to like.

At Tumble Creek, the holes I liked were the holes which were not contrived so much.  I seemed to like the holes best which fit almost perfectly with the environment.
What I found surprising was, at Aldarra, the holes which I liked best were the holes which were seemingly more contrived then the others.  I noticed that the holes which were contrived did not really seem contrived, as it was hidden quite well.

This was interesting to me because it showed to me two different skills of architects.
It seemed to me that Doak has quite a knack for making holes that are on superb terrain look perfectly natural.  On the contrary, however, the holes in which were contrived were very blatent and not nearly as well done as the more natural holes.  You could really tell that the holes were contrived, and there was nothing to hide it.

At Aldarra, it was funny because the environment given was used well but the holes routed where the terrain wasn't quite as good were still superb.  It seemed to me when there was a contrived part of a hole, it was well hidden and that made the hole very enjoyable.  How some of these contrived parts were hidden, like by tactics such as subtle containment, were very good and not as blatent as that on TC.

I found this very interesting.
Most people on this site would anyday take Doak over Fazio.
I am not saying I would, or wouldn't, a I think they are both genius's, but they are very different.
Seems kind of cool to me.

[Tom_Doak]

Jordan:

Since you notice them so easily, would you mind sharing which holes at Tumble Creek are contrived?  I don't remember how much I said to you about any of them which might have caused you to judge them that way, but I am curious if you can really tell or not.

Exactly what is your definition of contrived, anyway?

I would agree with the second half of your point, though ... I think Tom Fazio and crew are much better when they are rebuilding every part of a hole, than when trying to leave certain parts alone.  That's why I think Shadow Creek is their best work.

[Sean Leary]

Tom,

Not to speak for Jordan, but what I think is that his vision of contrived was what he saw at Sandpines with mounding. Yesterday, I pointed out to him some more subtle containment and since he was expecting big, fake looking mounds, he was OK with it more than he was expecting.  

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan:

Since you notice them so easily, would you mind sharing which holes at Tumble Creek are contrived?  I don't remember how much I said to you about any of them which might have caused you to judge them that way, but I am curious if you can really tell or not.

Exactly what is your definition of contrived, anyway?

I would agree with the second half of your point, though ... I think Tom Fazio and crew are much better when they are rebuilding every part of a hole, than when trying to leave certain parts alone.  That's why I think Shadow Creek is their best work.

See what I did not want was for any offense to be taken.
I am not saying I would prefer you to Fazio, or the other way around.

I am also not saying that many of the hole at Tumble are contrived, and almost none of which I could tell on the front nine.
The holes that really stuck out to me were the holes with the water hazrds.  Obviously it is hard to hide a water hazard, and #1 at Aldarra had a water hazard as well.  I feel that if the trend of holes with no water, that IMO fit better better with the setting, would have made a better fit then consecutive holes with water.
Other then the blatent holes I would maybe say #3 could be a bit contrived, and possibly #13, plus maybe #12.
These holes may not be.
I may be 100% wrong.  But that is what it seemed like to me.
I thought I heard  that #4 was a bit contrived as well because the big ridge was so severe but how can you really deal with things like that?
I am not saying a bad job was done of hiding the parts of the course that were a bit contrived, I am just saying that IMO is a stronger suit of Fazios.

One thing I really liked more at TC was the bunkers.  Those to me looked completey natural and awesome.
At AD, it was a bit funny, because on 17 holes the bunkers were nice looking with the native grasses above them, and on one other hole the bunkers had sod face.  That is one thing I really did not like, though Sean pretty much explained to me there was nothing Aldarra could do about it as Fazio wanted that done.

Mr. Doak, my intent in posting this was not to downgrade your course or you as an architect, but rather to share what I have learned in my first couple experiences with famous architects courses.  I really liked some parts of the Faz. design and I really liked a lot about your design.  It is nothing personal or against the course, I am simply sharing my feelings and what I have gathered in my head.
 

[Tom_Doak]

Jordan:

I am not taking offense, and I didn't ask you to pick between me and Tom Fazio.  However, I AM putting you on the spot because you made a distinction between the holes at Tumble Creek which are "contrived" and those which are not, and I still can't tell if you know what you are talking about.

"Contrived" means different things to different people.  To some it would mean unnatural-looking, to others, man-made whether it looks natural or not.

So, no apologies necessary, but which holes did you mean?  Apart from the man-made water hazards, what struck you as contrived anywhere on the course?

[Tim Pitner]

Jordan, Jordan, Jordan . . .

I can't imagine a descriptor that would raise Mr. Doak's ire more than "contrived"--perhaps "vapid."

Sorry to butt in here, but I actually started laughing when I read about the, paraphrasing here, blatantly contrived holes at Tumble Creek.  

This may be a tar baby for you.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jordan,
Other then a hole that was developer induced, I have never seen Tom Doak create a single-contrived thing in my life. Other then his taste in Ice Cream (31 Flavors World Class Chocolate) I don't know of a single thing I could come up with where Tom hasn't pushed the envelope of creativity and hasn't done it successfully.

I can't say that about Tom Fazio--Just way too much repetition and as John Connelly has accurately described, it's your first Fazio. You rbound to be impressed. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure both courses are great and have a lot of merits.

But back to you:

Your young and not all that experienced, and I know you know that. Even if it was your opinion, you have to be able to back it all up and stand-up for what you believe in. Make a stand for the very principles you believe in or the very least what you think is absolutely the very best something can be--even though you have yet so much more to learn. That's why I love being a student of this God-forsaken Sport and Art.

So, instead of spending so much time on Golf Club Atlas, I suggest picking up some really good golf books or even books on other subjects like math, science and english. Try studying them instead. Their educational value is far more important then internet time.

[Ryan Farrow]

Tom, correct me if I am wrong but I believe I heard you comment on how little earth was moved at Tumble Creek compared to some of your other recent projects.


Jordan, one thing I have learned quite early was to never assume a feature is contrived, especially on your first visit to a course. Unless you were working at the course during construction it is almost impossible to distinguish between natural and contrived features once the course is in playable condition. You are lucky enough to have constant contact with some of the architects that designed the courses you play, ask them questions about the course and how a certain feature came to be, I’m sure they will be happy to let you know.

[Brian Cenci]

In reference to "contrived"....isn't the whole point of a golf course is that it is contrived from something and in some manner?  Unless the glacier's formed flat greens and squared tee box...every course is contrived to some degree..corect?  I get a kick out of the word....everything is contrived on a course, just the degree or level at which it is, sepperates each course.

In reference to Doak and Fazio's differences.  I've found that Fazio's courses, as someone mentioned, are a little repetitous....buthe still puts together a solid course.  I think that Tom D's courses and holes are a little more unique because he uses more natural featues and leaves a lot of the undjulations and bumps in the fairways...which Fazio tends to smooth over and smooth out.

[Jordan Wall]

I felt the lakes were a bit weird...
that was contrived to me..

But I think Fazio does a better job at hiding the parts of the course that are contrived.
On every hole at Tumble there is a cartpath.  Obviously cartpath's are contrived (I know Tom did not have a choice with the cartpath issue, the site was too severe) but I felt that Fazio did a better job of hiding the cartpaths at AD.

I could tell Tom tried to block out the cartpath with trees and nature at TC but on some holes it didnt work out perfect.  This is where I feel Fazio does a better job at hiding an (IMO) ugly feature, though the path's were a must for both courses due to the severity of te site.  I do not think Tom would ever use subtle contaiment due to his love of minimalism but I think Tom uses the subtle containment to let the golfer see the course instead of the cartpath.  That was something I like.

I think a big thing I learned from playing AD, is that minimalism is not overrated, but at times I think the contrary is underrated.
Thats all.
And I still loved TC, btw..

[Dan_Callahan]

Jordan,

Although you seem to be getting a hard time for this post, I agree with you completely. I prefer a natural, not "contrived" look. However, two of my favorite courses—Yale and Fisher's Island—have some of the most in-your-face, man-made Raynor features imaginable. When the engineered look (Raynor) or so-perfect-it-is-artificial look (Fazio) is done well, it is every bit the equal of a minimalist design.

[Tom_Doak]

Jordan:

So it's the ponds, plus the holes where you can see the cart path?  That is your idea of contrived?

If you want to be a student of mine you have to do better than that on the occasional pop quiz, especially when you bring it upon yourself.  I put you on the spot because the job was run by my associate Brian Slawnik, and no one on this earth is more concerned with concealing any evidence of our work than Brian.

The holes at Tumble Creek where any earth was moved:

#4 -- more was moved here than most of the balance of the course put together.  I thought it turned out quite well, after we kept going back again and moving a bit more.  (Or maybe people are so enamored with the view from the top of the fairway that they aren't looking for telltale signs of work.)

#5 -- some fill in the dip in the landing area, which you hit it over

#10 -- some cut at the top of the hill by the landing area

#14 -- dug pond, filled fairway landing area a bit to get positive drainage

#15 -- streams and pond; fill at tee and green sites

#17 -- created swales to get drainage away from green; fill at green

#18 -- fill for tees; a lot of fill in the landing area (tacked into the side of the hill) so that the second shot was not so much uphill; cut and fill to make green and hollow to right of green

One other thing:  Tumble Creek is extremely walkable, despite some elevation changes.  I would want a ride back up to the clubhouse from #18 green when I finished, but otherwise it is an easy walk.

[Anthony Butler]

Jordan:

So it's the ponds, plus the holes where you can see the cart path?  That is your idea of contrived?

If you want to be a student of mine you have to do better than that on the occasional pop quiz, especially when you bring it upon yourself.  I put you on the spot because the job was run by my associate Brian Slawnik, and no one on this earth is more concerned with concealing any evidence of our work than Brian.

The holes at Tumble Creek where any earth was moved:

#4 -- more was moved here than most of the balance of the course put together.  I thought it turned out quite well, after we kept going back again and moving a bit more.  (Or maybe people are so enamored with the view from the top of the fairway that they aren't looking for telltale signs of work.)

#5 -- some fill in the dip in the landing area, which you hit it over

#10 -- some cut at the top of the hill by the landing area

#14 -- dug pond, filled fairway landing area a bit to get positive drainage

#15 -- streams and pond; fill at tee and green sites

#17 -- created swales to get drainage away from green; fill at green

#18 -- fill for tees; a lot of fill in the landing area (tacked into the side of the hill) so that the second shot was not so much uphill; cut and fill to make green and hollow to right of green

One other thing:  Tumble Creek is extremely walkable, despite some elevation changes.  I would want a ride back up to the clubhouse from #18 green when I finished, but otherwise it is an easy walk.

Jordan, from your posts on this thread, I don't think you understand the meaning of contrived. Cartpaths are either hidden from the players viewpoint or not depending on the routing of the hole, the surrounding land + gradients + costs of available routing for cartpaths. To attempt to 'hide' the paths by either regrading the available land or actually changing the routing of the hole, while admirable in certain aspects, would actually be an example of something that is contrived.

In fact, you could also argue that the above example of Renaissance Design concealing evidence of their work is also contrived. What Tom Doak said is that he attempts to maintain the naturalistic aspect of his work even with the add-ons required by course owners by doing some extra work to lessen their presence and impact on your playing experience... you are saying that in the case of Tumble Creek, the presence of cart paths shows they have not achieved their goal.

Is that correct?

 

[Kyle Henderson]

Jordan:

I am not taking offense, and I didn't ask you to pick between me and Tom Fazio.  However, I AM putting you on the spot because you made a distinction between the holes at Tumble Creek which are "contrived" and those which are not, and I still can't tell if you know what you are talking about.

"Contrived" means different things to different people.  To some it would mean unnatural-looking, to others, man-made whether it looks natural or not.

So, no apologies necessary, but which holes did you mean?  Apart from the man-made water hazards, what struck you as contrived anywhere on the course?

Mr. Doak,

Perhaps if you were a little more direct, Jordan might have an easier time responding to your line of questioning.  

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle:  No piling on.

Anthony:  I have no doubt that Tom Fazio does a better job of hiding cart paths than we do.  I had asked Jordan which holes he felt were more contrived, and I thought he started to say the holes where we had not hid cart paths so well were "contrived".  I guess what he is saying is that cart paths themselves are contrived and so when you have cart paths it's important to make every hole MORE contrived to hide them.  Which is probably true, but I still bristle as him saying that he didn't like our "more contrived" holes when he's really only talking about cart paths.

Hope you had a better day at school, Jordan.

[Chris Kane]

Jordan,
Other then a hole that was developer induced, I have never seen Tom Doak create a single-contrived thing in my life.

Go to the 16th at St Andrews Beach Tommy.  Its actually one the better holes there, for mine!

[Jordan Wall]

I think a big thing I learned from playing AD, is that minimalism is not overrated, but at times I think the contrary is underrated.

I have played only one Fazio course and one Doak course.

For those who have played more course is this a valid statement or am I crazy?

[Tim Pitner]

I think a big thing I learned from playing AD, is that minimalism is not overrated, but at times I think the contrary is underrated.

I have played only one Fazio course and one Doak course.

For those who have played more course is this a valid statement or am I crazy?

Jordan,

If by contrary to minimalism, you mean Fazio, he's not underrated outside of GCA.  I recall that Shadow Creek and Victoria National were both recently rated above Pacific Dunes in one magazine.  Is Fazio underrated here?  Maybe, but it seems like there are some valid criticisms of his work too.  I've only played one Fazio course that I can think of so I can't really say.  

I'd recommend not dividing the universe of architects into two camps of minimalism and non-minimalism, respectively.  There really aren't many true minimalists out there, the term "minimalist" is subject to varying definitions, and there are many distinguishing characteristics among those who would be labeled as non-minimalists.  Think of Fazio versus Engh versus Hurdzan/Fry--all very different.  Once you scratch the surface, labels aren't very useful.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()