[Steve Burrows]

“There is no game that strips the soul so naked.” 

Can the same be said of the profession of golf course design?  Very few seem to get into the business because of the money or fame (neither seem readily available!!!), but rather, because of a profound love of the game.  This has been true since golf course design found its footing as a profession.  But, since they put so much of themselves into their work, how much of their SELF (deliberate emphasis) is actually visible in the design(s)?  What do their designs say about them?

For example, Jack Nicklaus has been accused of having too many holes (or at least green sites) that flow from left to right, which matches his typical ball flight (Muirfield Village is the obvious test of this theory).   Of course, this may not tell us much about the man himself, simply his game.  But, as another example, Seth Raynor courses can often seem visually engineered, but this was his first profession, so it's at least a reasonable judgement.  Furthermore, his skill at routing a golf course (which can be compared to solving a puzzle) is noteworthy, which may also be a by-product of being an engineer, a problem-solver. 

How else might the “soul” of a golf course designer be revealed in his/her work?  Is it revealed at all?  Can anyone think of examples?  Are the participating designers willing to reveal anything?

[Peter Pallotta]

Wonderful way to ask the question, Steve. I hope others jump in.

There's the land, of course, but through that does the designer's spirit still shine through? Yes, I think so. There's the artist, the craftsman, the populist, the romantic, the elitist (not many of those left, I'd imagine), the improviser, the planner, the businessman, the shot-tester, and the poet...among others. And while there's the land and the client to deal with, I think architects still have (some) freedom to choose which of those hats they'd like to wear, or at least to emphasize (if they are so blessed as to have a menu to choose from)

Peter

[Garland Bayley]

Examples? Donald Trump - all substanceless glitz and glitter.
 

[BCrosby]

A good question.

Courses exhibit the personalities of their designers. Maybe a better word is "mind-set," because some architects past and current don't exhibit much "personality". There sometimes ain't much flair there.   

We can fuss about what exactly the mind-set is for a particular designer, but the the notion itself is pretty non-controversial. The style of a golf architect stays remarkably stable over time. The proof is in the pudding. If you have a reasonably good background in gca, you stand a pretty good chance of guessing the designer of a course just from it's look and feel. 

Certainly the work of an architect evolves. Sometimes for the better (whatever the heck that means). Like Mozart or Joyce or Matisse, their early work is different from their later work. But the work is still identifiably theirs. You don't have trouble naming the creator.

Why a personal style persists over time and through changes (whether in gca or music or wherever) is one of the great mysteries. I don't pretend to understand it.   

Bob

 

 

 

[Adam Clayman]

Bob's personality observation rings true. The sport stripping naked the soul is another matter. I doubt it reveals the designers unless every detail of The PROCESS is known.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()