What Alice might see when looking at Engh vs Doak.

[John Kavanaugh]

With respect, I don't think anybody would pick out my greens in a photo -- it's in 3-D where they have a different character than other designers' greens.  But, I don't think they're the same on every course, either.  I doubt that John would pick out the greens at Cape Kidnappers or St. Andrews Beach as being "Doak" greens.

I wish I could know why you would say that.  I see the greens at Quail Crossing and Pacific Dunes to be almost exact replicas of each other and very far from anything Fazio and Rees have ever done.  C&C are closer.

What is so different about your work at CK and SAB?

[Tim Bert]

John -

I've only played two Doak courses that I know you've played as well.  Do you really think the greens at Ballyneal and Pacific Dunes are 'replica' Doak greens?  I found them to be very different.  I don't recall anything like #7 or #8 at Ballyneal appearing at Pacific Dunes, to start the discussion with two specific greens.  I think I could cite others as well, but I'd like to get your take on how the greens at those two sites are the same.

[Mike Hendren]

But, I don't think its the edges that are different, although they are. I think its the middles.  JE seems to be into the clear cut/black/white definition of both main and alternate routes, where as I believe TD disguises and blends them a bit better.

I agree.  While I've only played the Creek Club and Fossil Trace, it seems that Engh calls for one dimensional approaches, i.e., you must get either the line or distance  correct but not necessarily both to access the pin.  Engh courses are surprisingly easy to figure out even with the occasional element of blindness.  

On the other hand, with greens like the 2nd and 17th at Doak's Tumble Creek it is critical to leave a putt from the correct spot, thus requiring command of both distance and accuracy.  

Many more three putts on Doak greens than Engh's in my limited experience.  Neither defends par on the tee box.

Mike  

[Dan Moore]

Alice Dye would prefer Doak.

Alice in Wonderland Engh.  

[Bob_Huntley]

Is it because I am of advancing years, that I think this parsing of microscopic differences of some particular surface of a golf course green is of some importance or is just a bullshit device to create a discussion? Who gives a chit?

Bob

[Jim Nugent]

John,

It is easy to love them both.

The above is the question I was asked today in real life.  How is it easy to love both when you think they are so different.  Does that mean you love everything?

I love Mozart and the Beatles.  Picasso and Michaelangelo.  Baseball and 9-ball (billiards).  

Can't stand Andy Warhol, though.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Is it because I am of advancing years, that I think this parsing of microscopic differences of some particular surface of a golf course green is of some importance or is just a bullshit device to create a discussion? Who gives a chit?

Bob

Bob,

It is a device to create discussion.

Jim,

I think you are a front runner.  I bet you also love your family.  

[George Pazin]

With respect, I don't think anybody would pick out my greens in a photo -- it's in 3-D where they have a different character than other designers' greens.  But, I don't think they're the same on every course, either.  I doubt that John would pick out the greens at Cape Kidnappers or St. Andrews Beach as being "Doak" greens.

I wish I could know why you would say that.  I see the greens at Quail Crossing and Pacific Dunes to be almost exact replicas of each other and very far from anything Fazio and Rees have ever done.  C&C are closer.

What is so different about your work at CK and SAB?

I was simply curious how many you had sampled. I'd have asked the same question of anyone making a blanket statement that they could pick out any architect's greens. This time, it wasn't about you, at least for me anyway.

At any rate, it's interesting to me that you feel QC's greens are the same as PD's. I think it's in Tom's interview on here, but I do recall him making a comment one time that PD and Riverfront in VA are essentially the same course, which I took to mean that he utilized the same principles when building each. It is only the surrounding elements that differ greatly. At least, that was my read of his comment, and reading comprehension is apparently something Pat M feels I struggle with.

It's also interesting to me that someone has criticised Tom in the past for not being as bold as he usually is at PD because Mr. Keiser felt severe greens on a resort course were not a good fit. Yet the implication seems to be that PD/s greens are the same as any others. Seems to be a bit of a paradox.

At any rate, I'm a little disappointed that if someone feels Tom's greens share something that would allow them to be picked out of a lineup, he wouldn't bother to share what those characteristics are.

Beyond the obvious - 18 holes, etc. - what are the similarities between Tom and Jim Engh? I haven't had the opportunity to sample an Engh course, probably won't for a long time, so I'm curious to learn the similarities. Heck, I've only had the chance to play one of Tom's, pretty weak for a DBB, so I can't even really comment on his work, either.

[John Kavanaugh]

At any rate, I'm a little disappointed that if someone feels Tom's greens share something that would allow them to be picked out of a lineup, he wouldn't bother to share what those characteristics are.

Why is it a bad thing that Doak has characteristics that are easy to know when you see one.  I'm having a little trouble thinking of a "name" architect or artist who does not have an identifiable style that can be seen by a trained eye.

I was lucky to play Quail Crossing right after having played Pacific Dunes with an email in hand from Tom describing some of his work at QC.  I was struck by the similarities between the two courses and in fact gained respect for Quail Crossing because of this fact.

I think it would be insulting to Doak for a guy like me not to be able to tell the difference between his and say a Fazio or Rees green.

[JC Jones]

I think it would be insulting to Doak for a guy like me not to be able to tell the difference between his and say a Fazio or Rees green.

I cant speak for Doak as I've never met him, but I would likely agree with that statement above.  

I've only played 2 Doak courses, Pacific Dunes and High Pointe (which I believe to be more severe than PD) and while I would argue that the greens are completely different from each other, I certainly could tell who designed them.

I can also state with certainty that I could tell the difference between his greens and say Arthur Hills, the Matthews boys, Nicklaus and Palmer.  The architects ive had the most exposure to.  And I would think he would want me to be able to make that distinction.

[George Pazin]

Why is it a bad thing that Doak has characteristics that are easy to know when you see one.  I'm having a little trouble thinking of a "name" architect or artist who does not have an identifiable style that can be seen by a trained eye.

I wrote that poorly. I did not mean it's disappointing for Tom's greens to have definable characteristics, I meant that it's disappointing someone would recognize shared characteristics and not share them with us. Maybe I'm not sharp enough to notice them myself, is all.

At any rate, I've played 4 Fazio courses and I don't think I could pick out a Fazio green at all. I mean this as neither a compliment, nor an insult, simply a statement of fact. If I said I never saw a Fazio green that didn't look like a Fazio green, I'd think you'd ask me the same questions I'm asking you, albeit likely in a different fashion.

Many have commented that Fazio's greens are among the strongest elements of his designs. I don't know that that means anyone could identify one.

-----

As an aside, John, I am publicly apologizing to you for ripping you a new one the other day. Not for what I said, just the fact that I said it at all. It simply concerns me that other posters would develop the attitude that they can dismiss content on here as herd mentality or groupthink, and I think your posts contribute to that. If I'm wrong on that and your criticism in whatever form is necessary for the site, I apologize; I don't have many pet peeves, but blanket criticism of this site and/or its members is definitely one of them.

[George Pazin]

JC -

I think you knew who designed HP's and PD's greens because you knew who designed the course.

Frankly, among the more traveled posters on the site - the Mike Cirbas, the Matt Wards, etc. - I'd be surprised if even they felt they could identify who did certain greens without knowing the course.

[Garland Bayley]

Alice Dye would prefer Doak.

Alice in Wonderland Engh.  

Bingo,

And it is certainly possible to love both Alices.

[Tim Pitner]

I still don't know what this thread is about.  Is the hypothesis that Doak's courses are similar to Engh's or that Doak's courses are similar to each other and, in that way, Doak is similar to Engh?

If the former, I see very little similarities between their courses.  The Doak courses I've played were on much better land than the Engh courses I've played so, consequently, Engh jazzed his courses up more than I would prefer (or maybe that's his tendency anyway).  I haven't seen an Engh hole as wonderfully low-key as something like #8 or #15 at Pacific Dunes.  Then again, good land goes a long way.  

If the latter, I probably haven't played a representative sample of either Doak or Engh courses.  I will say that Fossil Trace and Red Hawk Ridge have a lot of similarities, especially for two courses in the same general area.  

[JC Jones]

JC -

I think you knew who designed HP's and PD's greens because you knew who designed the course.

Frankly, among the more traveled posters on the site - the Mike Cirbas, the Matt Wards, etc. - I'd be surprised if even they felt they could identify who did certain greens without knowing the course.

Fair point.  

Stated in the alternative, however, if I showed up and played HP or PD and I wasnt told who designed the course, I could tell you that those greens were NOT designed by the 5 designers I named above, based on my experience with their courses.

Ive played several courses designed by those 5 guys and I could tell you that I have never seen a green like #8 at High Pointe on one of their courses.

[Jerry Kluger]

JK:  I have played 2 Doak and 2 Engh courses and clearly they both are familiar with the great classical designs but their approaches and execution are much different.  They both like to put significant contours in their greens and you will have to think hard about what line to hit your putt on if you are not close to the pin.  

Engh uses a tremendous variety of greens and is not afraid of repeating a successful design. His greens are often big, sometimes enormous, and have all kinds of shapes but they are often definable shapes.  A green might be T-shaped, it might be round, and with deep chipping areas around them.  The courses I've seen are in rough terrain - one is very hilly(Pradera) and one is desert(Blackstone) where he likes to keep the ball within a containment area as otherwise it could wind up somewhere hazardous to the player.  

I have played 2 Doak courses, Ballyneal and Stone Eagle and any similarities to Engh would be on the rocky hillside at Stone Eagle. The movement in the greens is present at both courses but the greensites at Ballyneal are far more natural.  When you look at Stone Eagle and compare it to Blackstone you see the chipping areas which had to be created because of the terrain.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Frankly, among the more traveled posters on the site - the Mike Cirbas, the Matt Wards, etc. - I'd be surprised if even they felt they could identify who did certain greens without knowing the course.

George,

Where the heck is Matt anyway?  

But, to your point, I'm betting that I could pick out a Doak green versus a Rees green probably about 90% of the time.

I'm betting I could pick out a Doak green versus a Hurdzan/Fry green about 95% of the time.

Art Hills...maybe only 75%

Nicklaus...probably 85%

And...I'd agree with Sean Berry who in another thread contended that Tom Fazio was getting better with his greens designs.   For instance, there are at least 4-5 greens at Trump in Bedminster that are bold enough to be Doak.

None of the other architects listed above dare to be anywhere near as bold.   Oh yes, they create tiers and sections and such, but it's in the micro-sculpting that the truth comes out.  

That doesn't always mean huge swales and severe slopes.   It only means that if you step on a green and can't immediately ascertain exactly what's going on, then you're much more likely to be playing on a Doak green than the others mentioned.

That's not butt boy praise...that's just reality.

btw...I'm still waiting to play my first Engh, so I can't compare there.

[Dan Kelly]

None of the other architects listed above dare to be anywhere near as bold.   Oh yes, they create tiers and sections and such, but it's in the micro-sculpting that the truth comes out.

In other words, as expressed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe: "God is in the details"?

Mike -- I'm curious. What does "bold" mean?

[JESII]

None of the other architects listed above dare to be anywhere near as bold.   Oh yes, they create tiers and sections and such, but it's in the micro-sculpting that the truth comes out.

In other words, as expressed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe: "God is in the details"?

Mike -- I'm curious. What does "bold" mean?

And I'm curious...does Doak's micro-sculpting have strategic implications prior to the putter being your hand?

[Mike_Cirba]

"Bold" means...

unexpected

imaginative

inconsistent

defying expectations

pushing the envelope

walking the edge of reasonability

defying convention

Let me give you a more specific example...

The original course at Stonewall has a number of greens that will summarily reject any shot played directly into them.   Instead, the ideal play (which frustrates the hell out of many top players) is to not only aim away from the flag, but sometimes, away from the green, and count on the terrain to bounce the ball into the green.

If you've ever seen the 5th at Merion, it's based on a similar premise.  Of course, at Merion the top players don't bitch because they already know it's supposed to be a "great course", and of course, it is.

At Stonewall, there are also sides to the green where you absolutely CANNOT miss there.   IF you do , there is no way in hell that Mickelson, or Woods, or anyone can get up and down without sinking a huge putt.   It's just reality.

NONE of the architects mentioned above would be so "bold", as to create that scenario, so that's as good a definition as I can find.

I'd only add to that the fact that Beechtree has about 5-6 greens that slope front-to-back.  

I can't think of many architects who would dare to do that, although I was recently really pleased to see that Lester George created a couple of really good front-to-back ones at DuPont during his recent renovation work there.

The second green there defines "bold", although I'd bet that the majority of golfers hate it.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Just saw your question.

I hope my previous answer addressed it.

[Dan Kelly]

The original course at Stonewall has a number of greens that will summarily reject any shot played directly into them.   Instead, the ideal play (which frustrates the hell out of many top players) is to not only aim away from the flag, but sometimes, away from the green, and count on the terrain to bounce the ball into the green.

I guess I don't understand the thinking there. They REJECT ANY SHOT played directly into them? ANY SHOT?

I would understand the thinking behind rejecting indifferent shots. But I don't understand rejecting ANY SHOT -- and REQUIRING a particular other shot.

What's "strategic" about that?

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think those greens at Stonewall reject every approach shot.  But, they do make it hard to stop the ball anywhere near the hole if you are approaching from anywhere but the proper side of the fairway, so I think they fit the definition of strategic.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

If I read what you are saying correctly, it's what others on this board would call "penal."  It sounds like at Stonewall you have only one landing area/angle from which the pin can be approached without significant penalty (rejection).  What is "strategic" (in the GCA.com sense of the word) about that?

Rich

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rich,

That's a legitimate question. Any time a designer starts looking at ways to challenge the best players, he punishes the others 4X, at least IMHO.

I would say it's strategic, but in grey shades, with an execution requirement that is pretty difficult.  Add in a harsh penalty for a near miss and some will question whether that combo is more penal than strategic, and in fact, at some point, its probably possible to create a strategic hole that becomes penal in fact, if not in theory.

I know Tom hates it when I speculate......  So to be fair,  I am speculating based on a par 3 at Rawls my son hates, mostly because its a crowned green with false front that takes a shot that hits the green, but about a yard short of where it needs to be, and rolls it back about 30 yards back towards the tee.  As you can imagine, he was not happy, feeling he is a scratch or plus player, and he hit it within a few yards of the flag, and.........but I saw Tom's strategy even as a less than neutral bystander!

In green design, the options are to conceptually to make a green that is:

All receptive from anywhere, perhaps even helping with concave slopes
Mostly receptive, but has one or two pin spots requiring specific shots or approach areas.  
Make an entire green that accepts only shots from a certain area or of certain trajectory.
Make a green that is just hard to hit from anywhere.

Its also possible to vary the penalty for an indifferent shot.  You can design false fronts and sides that kick shots far from the green or fw chipping areas near green level that are only a smidge harder than a putt.

Personally, it seems like the harder the entire green is to hit, generally the lesser the penalty ought to be.  If the green is somwhat receptive in some areas, then the Sunday pin areas can be tougher by virtue of size, slope and hazard.  As the chances of missing the entire green rise because of wind, contours, size, etc., it seems logical to mostly create an easy "leave" to compensate.  

Of course, there are always exceptions and a few spice up a course.  It just seems that really hard to hold greens aren't well recieved by the golfing public, at least until the course is as famous as Pinehurst No. 2.  I think that's what you do to create a great championship course, but most gca's get beaten down over time, and start accomodating more average players who think less on their one trip a year to the high dollar resort/upscale public.