[Ian Andrew]

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?”

…..it’s also a great way to tell when a trend has become old.

I really enjoyed the [Fazio] Pronghorn pictures posted by Michael Dugger. I also enjoyed many things that I saw at Erin Hills by Hurdzan/Fry/Whitten. But what I can’t get out of my head is the fact that this “look” is now appearing everywhere. I’m not questioning the use at either course but think about how often this is now being built. The new #7 course by David Kidd has rough edged fescue faces although simpler in form. The pictures I saw advertised [when in Scotland] of the renovation by Tim Liddy to the Dukes course has bunkers very reminiscent of the work of Coore and Crenshaw too. I even expect there will be a carry over of Sebonack to a new Nicklaus course. I’ve heard a dozen guys say this is where they want to go with their new courses.

I have even wondered [and expect criticism for this opinion] that it might be time for Coore and Doak to show us something new in the way of a style [not the playing characteristics - just the look and feel].

You know what I love these bunkers too, but for me enough is enough. Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and Friar’s Head blew me away. Erin Hills, Sutten Bay and Pronghorn do not. Not that the work isn’t as good, but I’ve seen it done and it’s too close to the original to have the same impact. I really thought the original work was innovative and creative and it pushed me [and other architects] to see more and try to be more creative in our detailing. But like the railroad ties of Pete Dye, once everyone starts to produce this look, the impact is gone. For me, [while I might have previously liked to have worked in this style] I know that I will build something completely different because of the popularity of this look.

I think it’s too bad for Doak and Coore, since just like Dye, once they get so regularly copied it actually takes away from the impact their work currently has. It’s never been good for golf architecture when a certain style becomes fashionable. I still get a joy from the variety found in the Golden Age architects. I should get the same joy from the creativity of this generation of architects too.

This is one case where I think the internet hurts golf design.

[Matt Kardash]

I pretty much came to this opinion a few years ago. It's gotten to the point where every architect has the same style. It's sort of depressing.

[Michael Dugger]

What doesn't work, in my opinion, is applying the scruffy bunkers on any and all pieces of property.  From day one I have loved the scruffy bunker look when it fits the property such at a place like Pine Valley, Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes.

The eroded edge look is consistant with wastelands and sand dunes, IMHO.  It is not on parkland, tree-lined or heathland.

The Ross grass faced bunker is still alive and kicking, doncha still think so, Ian?  

Same with the cape and bay or Mackenzie style white sand faces.

[Ian Andrew]

Michael,

Agree with you point about the many locations where this works really well, and Prarie Dunes springs to mind even before all the other examples.

The Trent Jones bunker and many others are still pretty common too. Who right now is doing work that compares to Tillinghast, Thompson or Thomas?

The great architects distinguish themselves not only through their knowledge of design, but the unique artistry that makes up their own unique style.

[Ron Farris]

I tried to make reference to this a while back when I started a thread about hiring the town idiot to build greens.  My  question then was wether it was good to have journeymen shapers who do similar work whereever they go.

I like the jagged edge look, especially on a very natural site and on a course without housing.

The success and brilliance behind the Sand Hills goes without question.  However, the look does not fit everywhere.  I personally liked the Pronghorn photos, but I would reserve judgement for a post vist.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ian,

That's a great post and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

It reminds me of the Beatles in the early/mid 60s and their example spinning off a host of imitative Dave Clark Fives.

My little saying on this thread talks about preferring "dirty bunkers", but to me, that means more about attitude, boldness, originality, pizazz, and thoughtful placement than it does about any particular style.  

It's about saying, "here's your chance to create a wholly man-made creative statement".  Except in certain dunesland, there is nothing natural about a bunker.   Instead, it's simply a palette for an architect and shaper to unleash their creativity in three dimensions, and there are no rules except that it should enhance your natural playing field and create some interest and drama for the person playing there.   I guess it should drain, well, too, but that's largely a matter of piping these days.

So, although I love the new predominant style, I do agree with you that it's worn its welcome.   And, while the pictures of Pronghorn look really appealing, they seem to come from the chameleon perspective of an artist who is ultimately a hack, because he can do anything yet seems content with whatever iimitation his clients want to pay for.   Personally, I'd love to see Tom Fazio take his enormous talent and figure out what HE wants to do, and what HE wants to build, and perhaps chart some new direction for golf course architecture.  

Because, right now, he seems as sincere as many of the backboneless politicians we're inundated with who speak to us in talking points that are neutered, sanitized, and compromised down to something that they think we all want to hear.

By offending no one, by staying safe within the convention envelope of popular taste, we are left with vanilla in an arena limited only by personal imagination and courage.  

[Adam Clayman]

Ian,
 Mimicing the randomness of nature should never go out of style.

Those designs utilizing the "look" without the brains behind it, should just go back to the lines found on most of the gems built between 1946 and 19, 19, 1985.

[Eric Franzen]

Ian wrote: "I know that I will build something completely different because of the popularity of this look."

So, then simply go back and change your statement to "This is one case where I think the internet helps golf design".
You admit that the widespread popularity of certain design elements inspires you to explore new creative ways.
Sounds excellent to me, as a golfer and prospective end user/consumer of your future work.

Thousands of bands have copied The Clash, but there is still only one "London Calling".

A bunch of architects may have been inspired by Coore/Crenshaw, but there is still only one Sand Hills.

In various aspects of popular culture, new and fascinating forms of expression (punk rock, rap etc.) have been born out of reactions towards the previous established big thing in the field.

[Brian_Ewen]

Ian
Thanks for saying this .

I tried , when I posted pics. of the "new" Dukes course , and a lot of people disagreed .

Brian

[Dan_Callahan]

I will give you a notable exception to this copycat trend: Jim Engh. His bunkers (at least the ones I have seen) and, in fact, the overall look of his courses is unique.

Some people might not like that look, but at least he is going in his own direction.

[wsmorrison]

Brilliant topic, Ian.  Thanks for bringing it to light.  This is a site where the overwhelming majority loves everything Macdonald/Raynor/Banks.  Only a few of us object to the limitations they imposed on themselves in replicating conceptual hole concepts (just so we're clear, I do not mean exclusively nor facsimiles) and/or the naturalism that was never incorporated in their designs.  

A similar systematic effort goes on today and that is the look of the bunker surrounds.  I have mentioned in the past that the Coore and Crenshaw designs are outstanding but the look of their bunkering is repetitive.  Certainly the architectural underpinnings of today's master architects are expansive, but it is all starting to look too much alike.  You're right that success breeds imitations and this is evident.  I'm glad you brought up this topic.  I hope a topic such as this leads us to want more variety, for that is the spice of life and of golf.  If we want it, they will build it.  That is a time-honored reality.  The ultimate influence lies in the consumer.  

Brian,

Your post on the changes at the Dukes Course (I played the old version) was an excellent one.  I'm sorry I didn't support your position then.

[paul cowley]

....having just looked at the fine photos of Pronghorn, and considering the high desert scrub and sage setting, my initial reaction is that Fazio and the boys visuals and contrasts would have been better served if they had used stacked sod bunkers throughout.......which is something that Bandon Trails or Ballyneal might want to consider as well. Natural looks in natural settings can get old.

Along the same vein, the semi grassed faces of the National are looking a little tired [read boring].....maybe adding a scruffy, puffy edged Merion look would provide some new interest....I'd combine that with expanding and extending out many of the outer bunker edges to create some semi waste areas similar to Pine Valley.......hey, if CBM was still around he would have punked them up years ago....IM .

[Ian Andrew]

Eric,

Half the architects in the society have a look at what's current using the internet. It's faster than Golf Digest, and the imitation is closer because we get a full set of photos of Friar's Head and Hidden Creek to look at. My statement about doing something else is actually pretty much a throw away statement explaining my own persona frustrtation knowing that I really shouldn't use this technique unless there is a perfect setting.

Paul,

I never know if your being sarcastic or serious. I like Proghorn and thought it fit, but I thought it looked just like Coore and Crenshaw bunkers to me. Too close for comfort.

Please explain your NLGA referece. I happen to think he was as bold as any architect and that's why that course is practically perfect including the bunkering.

Is your post sarcastic?

[Joe Hancock]

Paul,

I never know if your being sarcastic or serious. I like Proghorn and thought it fit, but I thought it looked just like Coore and Crenshaw bunkers to me. Too close for comfort.

Ian,

I would go on a 93% chance Paul is sarcastic......not just this time, but any time you have doubt!...

(statistically backed up by proofing Paul's previous posts, of course!)

Joe

[John Kavanaugh]

The de-bunking of the Bunkerhill Boys..

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

No need to feel sorry for us, really.  

But I do kind of agree with you.  For years I've said I don't want to get stuck in my own style, don't want to get typecast in what we do.  

That's why we built Tumble Creek in a much lower-key style ... but it doesn't have as many sexy bunkers, so it hasn't gotten much attention, here or in the rankings.  

And why we did small sod-wall bunkers at the Renaissance Club in Scotland.

And why we only built about 15 bunkers, and 3000 square foot greens, on our re-do of the nine-hole Aetna Springs golf course in California, which is almost done before I even mentioned it here.

And why our new course in Bend will be narrower than anything we've done lately, with a lot of native sandy waste areas instead of formal bunkers.  

That's also one reason I was intrigued about doing the course in Bandon in the Macdonald style.

As for other architects imitating our style, or Bill and Ben's, I think the main evidence would be that Hurdzan and Fry have hired Jeff Bradley to do bunkers on a couple of their courses, or that Tim Liddy hired several shapers who have worked on our courses to rework the Duke's Course.

I think Eric is ultimately right, though ... it takes some real copycatting to get to inspire a break into a new direction.  Harbour Town was a reaction to Palmetto Dunes and to the whole line of Trent Jones and Dick Wilson.  High Pointe was a reaction to The Bear at Grand Traverse, but also to PGA West and the whole line of modern earthmoving.

I wish you luck in coming up with a new direction.  I promise I won't copy you, unless it's really good.

[Joe Hancock]

That's why we built Tumble Creek in a much lower-key style ... but it doesn't have as many sexy bunkers, so it hasn't gotten much attention, here or in the rankings.  

And similarly, the Mines.....

No doubt that more bunkers get more attention....

Joe

[John Kirk]

Geez, Ian, I'm inclined to mildly disagree.

The ragged edge look is now 5-10 years old, and perhaps that look is getting a little tired for the educated architect.

But let's look at the finished product from the standpoint of the typical member of one of these courses.  He plays 80-90% of his golf at his home club, and doesn't study architecture on the Internet.  This is a very attractive style of bunkering, one that is back in vogue.  At Pronghorn, you now have two outstanding courses with distinctly different looks.  The Pronghorn member is probably very happy with his two beautiful and different courses.

Tom Fazio used this style at Forest Creek - North as well.  The primary difference between Pronghorn and the recent Doak/C&C courses I've seen is the area of sand bunkers employed.  Fazio uses huge areas of sand, many out of play for typical shots, for visual interest and beauty.  That's going to cost a ton of money to maintain.

[John Kirk]

Brian,

I agreed with you, but felt shy about criticizing the look.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I would disagree with your last assessment.  

Pronghorn is built on rock.  The areas which have been cleared to provide playability (fairway, rough, and bunkers) are probably what they felt minimally necessary to make the course fun and playable for the members.  Of the three choices, bunkers are by far the least expensive to build -- you don't have to cut irrigation lines into the rock.  And the bunkers pictured are probably just as inexpensive to maintain as irrigated turf would be.

We used more sand in out-of-the-way places at Barnbougle Dunes for the very same reason.

[Tim Bert]

What about the small islands of grass I saw in some of the big waste areas?  Do you need irrigation for that, do you hand water, or just let it go as it will?  Is it more expensive to make grass islands in the bunker areas than to just have the waste area?  Would you do this for any reason other than aesthetics?  

[John Kirk]

Thanks...that's interesting to know.

We have a few Pronghorn members here at Pumpkin Ridge, and the courses are a hot topic of conversation in the men's lounge.  It's a lovely looking place, and a great addition to Oregon golf.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim B:  If it's grass, in Bend, the islands are probably irrigated with little pop-up sprinklers.  Nearly every new course is over-irrigated to save the superintendent from worrying about hand watering.  So, yes, the islands add to the cost.

[Tim Bert]

Thanks Tom.  Re: my second question do you think the islands of grass in general (particularly on the holes where it looks like most of the waste area is a carry anyway) add strategic value, or are they for looks.  Is it to give the duffer hope that his ball comes to rest not in sand but in grass?

[Forrest Richardson]

Ian's thoughts are extensions and continuations of the post

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=25118

My feeling on this subject is that the architects we love to love probably have much more to offer in the way of breakthrough, creative ideas. Certainly, if trends continue, all these people will be old or dead...and then it will be the young man or woman who shows us something new and different.

So, what is sad about that? To know that great minds are focusing on continuing trends as opposed to opening new doors. And that we have to wait so long to see what's next.

Allow me one monent of context. I [do] think we have seen some great stuff. But not enough. And, second, my own work should take note of these comments.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()