Does Design Differentiation Matter ?

[Matt_Ward]

I have to wonder when architects are designing courses do they make it a point to feature designs that are different than what they have done previously.

No doubt future jobs are often based upon what they have done previously. That's what gets them the attention from prospective new employers.

Yet, in the span of a career I have seen more than a few architects who throw our the same tired and predictable formulas and I am not speaking alone of a favorite whipping boy on this site such as Tom Fazio.

I have to wonder does commercial success limit the range of what the top tier architects will do with future designs. For example, I really liked what Kidd did at Tetherow -- very much different than what he has done w earlier works.

Be curious to the comments from others.

[Matt_Ward]

Given the speed of responses to this thread thus far -  - I just wanted to point out that I have seen commercial success of architects who have followed with little real distinction the same general pattern of their designs -- whether it be in one state or another.

I just have to wonder if raters and those who follow such matters closely really see what takes place from the vantage point of true creativity or does that not matter if architect "X" really creates for the upteeeeenth time the same type of course.

I like architects that take risk with their work because it shows a desire not be seen as being a particular type of designer with the same formula time after time.

Frankly, that's why I wonder about the fanfare tied to Seth Raynor. In nearly all of his efforts you see the same tried and true formula at work. No doubt there are some really outstanding courses (e.g. Fisher's Island and Camargo come qucikly to mind for me) but for a number of others I see really no desire to break new ground -- just a repeat over and over again.

The same can be said for much of the body of work from Robert Trent Jones, Sr.

No doubt there's a risk in being truly different from the type of courses that generated the amount of fanfare from the get-go. But, if the art side of design bows every time, or nearly every time, to the commercial side than I often view such architects following such a pattern as being very limited in terms of breaking new ground with future efforts.

As I said before -- I see Tetherow, despite what some critics have said, as being exceptional because Kidd didn't mail it in with a similar pattern from other efforts he has created. Will everyone like it? No, but I found such a desire to go in a different direction as being extremely creative and certainly edgy in a positive way in much of what he created there in Bend.

[Anthony Gray]

  Matt,

  What do you think about The Castle Course?

[Matt_Ward]

Anthony:

I have not played it yet.

If you have what are your comments and how does it stack up against any other Kidd layout you have played ?

[Anthony Gray]

  Matt,

  In an earlier post I said I thought the greens were over done. The best wording would be too many undulations. And I believe it was Kidd's response to people saying the greens at Bandon Dunes were flat. He mentioned the criticism in the book Dream Golf. As for this thread The Castle Course is very different than Bandon Dunes.

[Matt_Ward]

Anthony:

Would you recommend people to play The Castle Course ?

I have read other reviews where people say the greens there are also quite severe.

Comments ?

One last question ... did your view of Kidd as an architect rise or fall given the nature of what he did at Bandon and then playing The Castle ?

[JNC Lyon]

It depends on how good the original formula is.  In the case of Raynor, his original formula holes yield great playing characteristics, and he repeats them with great success in their original settings.  How different are Yale, Yeamans Hall, and Fishers Island?  Surely the 'formula' is similar at all three courses, but the results are drastically different.  Why?  He uses the natural setting to great advantage.  Sure, Raynor blasted through Mt. Everest at Yale, but the current course reflects the ruggedness of the original property.  As far as being innovative, Raynor's engineering create uniqueness that remains some of the most groundbreaking architecture ever.

Fazio is quite the opposite.  It seems that the courses of his that are praised most on this site are the ones that deviate from his formula (Forest Creek, World Woods (PB)).  The reason his formula is not praised is because it requires changing the nature of the site to create similar holes that are good but not great.  A perfect example of this is Camp Creek in Panama City Beach, FL.  It is enjoyable, but it is not display of all-world architecture.  Furthermore, Fazio moved a lot of earth to achieve a look that is often unnatural and similar to his other efforts.

Ultimately, formula or not, a great architect will build courses that reflect the land on which it is built.  This does not mean not moving any earth.  It means making hand of man fitting in with the surrounds of nature.

[Tom Huckaby]

If one is to judge an architect's body of work, then the architect better have a damn good formula that produces great course after great course (Raynor?) or be judged harshly if he imposes a formula to the detriment of what might have produced a better result.  JNC sums it up well, I think.

But who really cares about an architect's body or work?  Future employers of said architect, yes.  Critics/assessors of "who is/was the greatest architect", yes.

But does a golfer really care?

I'm a golfer.  I tend to care first and foremost about the course I am playing.  Who the architect is matters little... what he's done elsewhere matters not at all.

TH

[Kirk Gill]

To what degree do you think Seth Raynor believed that there would be a lot of people who would play many of his designs? To what degree did the golfing public at that time "get around" to play numerous private clubs all over the country? Raynor may have felt relatively safe in replicating his tried-and-true hole designs at different courses because the number of folks who would have to deal with the repetitive nature of the designs would be very small. Or am I completely off-base here?

The modern architect certainly can't feel safe in that notion. People all over the country are going to at least see pictures of the new design, or travel to play it (at least before the current economic problems). Of course, if a client hires a designer based on previous designs, then that client might not be happy getting a course that deviates TOO much from the existing formula. So any sameness in design formula might not be the result of a lack of imagination from the architect as much as a desire on the part of the client to get a known quantity when they're pony-ing up the development costs.

Of course even designers who have an immediately identifiable style can create a lot of design differentiation, especially for the golfer who looks beyond bunker shaping to the actual qualities of the architecture itself.

[Matt_Ward]

Simple question ...

If you played a Doak course would you know it from one to the next ?

If you played a C&C course would you know if from one to the next ?

If you played a Nicklaus course would you know one from the next ?

Does this matter at all ?

I mean if the architect keeps producing layout after layout that offer the same predictable outcomes it may be commercially successful (the average Joe doesn't really care as Huck alluded to previously) but it does have the more difficult wherewithal to stand the test of time for being so utterly different from others.

I look at the career of Tillinghast and I see little in terms of similarity from project to project.

Kirk:

I think your point is well taken on Raynor's courses not being seen as courses are seen today. Yet, architects have a tendency to stay with the "tried and true" because it means more work and less uncertainty with breaking new ground that may not work as was has been done previously.

Give you one example -- I've played my share of C&C layouts and I am beginning to wonder if they've got more in the design bag than what they are constantly replicating.

[Michael Whitaker]

Matt - I don't think having favorite hole designs or template holes are a problem unless an archie forces them onto the property just for the sake of making sure the course contains certain types of holes.

Rumor has it that Robert Trent Jones had a notebook that contained various green designs... shapes, contours, etc... that he would pick from on his courses. If this is true, you know it encouraged forced repetition.

On the other hand... what's wrong with repetition? If something works and can be reproduced naturally in another location, what's the problem? The only people who know that it is a creative-repeat are folks like us who travel to various sites to compare courses.

[Anthony Gray]

Anthony:

Would you recommend people to play The Castle Course ?

I have read other reviews where people say the greens there are also quite severe.

Comments ?

One last question ... did your view of Kidd as an architect rise or fall given the nature of what he did at Bandon and then playing The Castle ?

  Matt,

 I would play the Castle Course again. It would take several tries to get a good appreciation for the course. I just did not understand it the first time around. People need to play it because it is unique.

 As far as Kidd I think the contrast of the two courses magnifies how difficult it is to build a course on land that is not ideal for golf. I think he wanted to give people something very different and he succeded.

 I think design differentiation shows the creativity and talent of the architect. But how often does one have the chance to build on different terrains and climates?

 

[Matt_Ward]

Michael W:

Let me try to answer your question ... "If something works and can be reproduced naturally in another location, what's the problem? The only people who know that it is a creative-repeat are folks like us who travel to various sites to compare courses."

The short answer is you're right -- it would only matter to those who have seen the other work.

But there is also the issue of an architect's legacy.

If I play a course and the same theme / style / hole concepts are literally dropped in from the last course that was done I don't see any expansion in terms of creativity. I see a fast run to use a past model that pleases the existing client and allows the architect to "hit and run" on to the next project with the check secured for services rendered.

I can see why architects want to avoid going in another direction. There's a good bit of uncertainty and the abandonment of previously successful course types does pose a risk that the "new" creation will not be seen as a positive development.

I agree w Huck the average Joe and Jane could care less. They are only playing the course at hand and don't have the eyes to see beyond the one course they are playing at that moment.

However, design differentiation does matter to me because I want to see if an architect can stretch themselves to do different conceptual elements that don't fall into their personal comfort zone.

[Tom Huckaby]

I agree w Huck the average Joe and Jane could care less. They are only playing the course at hand and don't have the eyes to see beyond the one course they are playing at that moment.

Just to be clear:  I include myself in this.  I too don't care much beyond what course I am playing, even though I do believe I have the eyes to see beyond that course if I choose to do so.

And while I respect that you do care, Matt - I don't see why many others should.  As I say, future employers, yes.  Students and assessors of the art of golf course design, yes (and you certainly fall in here).

But there are a lot more of us than there are of you - you get that, right?

So in the greater scheme of things.. isn't the simple anwer to the question in your topic line:

No?

Rephrase it to say "In an assessment of overall skill, does design differentiation matter" and the answer is certainly yes.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Architects don't design for just the simple schmooes out there. I agree 10000% the average Joe and Jane don't know much about Tom Fazio, Tom Doak or Tom Thumb for that matter.

However ...

Architects are trying to place something on the ground that will stand as a testament to their creativity by having such layouts that will live long beyond after they have departed.

For a total assessment of their ability level -- I think one way to define overall greatness is the notion of differentiation -- being able to go beyond a particular design style and having the skill to go against the grain when the moment is there for the taking.

If one simply repeats the same themes, styles, hole looks and strategic elements then frankly you have one trick pony show.

Some people like one trick pony shows and are easily satiated (you may be one of these types) -- I like to see a real three-ring circus show with plenty of varied acts. Architects remind me of baseball players -- some can hit and field, but there are very few who can hit, hit for power, run, catch and throw. The same applies to architects and candidly their overall placement in the pantheon of greats, I believe, is the wherewithal to incorporate as many different elements to show their total elasticity to the elements of pure art that is found in architecture.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

You crack me up.  You just can't do any of this without personal digs... I guess it's just beyond you.

Look, I meant no judgment when I included you in the "students and assessors of the art of golf course design." You would consider yourself such, right?  So of course this all matters to you.

I just do continue to fail to see why this should matter to me, as a golfer and non-student.  And it has nothing to do with liking one trick ponys or being easily satiated; it has everything to do with PLAYING the golf course rather than STUDYING DESIGN.  When playing one course, why should I give a rat's ass what's being done elsewhere?  If a course is fun, it's fun.  If it's not, it's not.

That's it.  And again, it is pretty clear to me that there are more golfers than there are students of the game.  Do you deny this?

So I do not mean to be argumentative - I mean to try to get to the gist of your question. 

You mean this as it pertains to study and assessment of design skill, don't you?

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

If it doesn't matter to you -- that's fine and dandy. One trick pony shows can satiate plenty of people. You might be one of them -- great, knock yourself out and enjoy yourself.

Yes, there are more golfers than there are students of the game just like there are more people who go to McDonald's and think what they are eating cuisine too.

The element of differentiation IS NOT simply about the one course you may be playing at that particular moment.

I've explained it quite fully -- truthfully, you are being argumentative.

Design skill alone is not the point -- it is about the overall capacity of an architect to incorporate a full array of different styles, looks and holes in the projects they undertake. Does an element of elasiticity really exist?

Let me point out as an example -- I've played roughly half a dozen C&C layouts and the more recent ones really are essentially a cut'n paste of earlier efforts. That doesn't mean they are not talented but if push comes to shove with another quality architect I will certainly assess if any real differentiation is apart of their overall portfolio.

[Anthony Gray]

   Matt and Huck,

  Please join me and Melvyn for a round of golf.... I think the point is that if an architect can build different types of courses it prooves his talents and skills. At Casa De Campo Pete Dye built 3 courses and they are all very different. This speaks highly of his abilities. But not many architects get that opertunity.

   If someone said What is the clasic Ross green an image would come in your head. If the same was asked about Dye one would not because of his diversity.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

You have not explained it well enough for me to understand.  

Why does what occurs at another course matter to the golfer in terms of how fun the course he is playing right now is?

Bear with me, please try again.  I don't get this from anything you've stated so far.  I don't get why it matters that an architect have the "overall capacity...to incorporate a full array of different styles, looks and holes in the projects they undertake."   If a course is fun, it's fun.  It don't get why it should matter to me if it has a similar style or look or holes at another course.  I really, honestly don't. It has nothing to do with Macdonalds and fine cuisine or any other analogy also....

Please do try to explain.

See, I played Colorado GC, and I could certainly see similarities to other C&C efforts.  They do tend to have a certain "style" they replicate.

But does that mean I can't like and enjoy Colorado GC.. or Cuscowilla... or Bandon Trails... each in their own right?

As a golfer, I enjoyed all of them.  If I were to try to assess design skill, or if I wanted to hire them for a future project, I might look differently at this.

That's all that I mean.  Please explain what part of this I have wrong.

And please do try to accept that I am not being argumentative at all.  I really do want to get to the gist of your question.  Note I have answers "yes" to it already... just trying to understand exactly what I am answering yes to, that's all!

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

   Matt and Huck,

  Please join me and Melvyn for a round of golf.... I think the point is that if an architect can build different types of courses it prooves his talents and skills. At Casa De Campo Pete Dye built 3 courses and they are all very different. This speaks highly of his abilities. But not many architects get that opertunity.

   If someone said What is the clasic Ross green an image would come in your head. If the same was asked about Dye one would not because of his diversity.

You make the tee time, I'll be there.

And I get that.  I see that this is evidence of talent and skill.

My questions to Matt remain, however.  I just don't see why it should matter to me as a golfer.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

You asked the question "Does Design differentiation Matter" and I think huck answered it pretty dang good.

I use the following cuisine example for say Thai food.  If one likes Thai food, then you try the different types of dishes.  They are all similar indeed, but each dish is judged on its own merits even though it has common themes.

If one like JNs, or Doaks, or C&C's, or whosever themes, then why not sample each dish and judge them individually instead of saying, "well he used furry bunkers on that other course too, I must mark this down two demerits". Hell I love hairy fuzzy bunkers and can't get enough of em, so stack my plate high with em.

The importants part for me usually are:

1)  Does the course fit well into its environs?
2)  Is it interesting to play?
3)  Are thier choices and strategy?
4)  Is there a good balance of holes short, long, medium?
5)  Is it a value, did I get my money's worth?
6)  Would I want to come back?

They are all independent of anything else really, even other works by the same archy.

[Matt_Ward]

Kalen:

You completely missed the point.

Allow me to try again ...

If you have 10 architects to assess over their careers and you want to provide some means of separating out the greats from the near greats to the ones that were above average -- you would need to look at their respective portfolios and then look at the top tier layouts they have created and from that you would review each of them for various strengths and weaknesses.

Why is that important?

Because architects are creature of habits and if an architect can only consistently design one particular style while another can do equally superlative work with a wider variety of styles then the latter should get the nod as being the more gifted.

Your last answer only speaks to one particular course that one will play. I've already admitted as such to Huck. You may have missed my acknowledgement.

The issue is not that particular one but when held against the totality of what an architect has created. Why is that important?

Simple.

Certain architects have clear limitations in what they view as quality design and it can be discerned if one keeps one's eyes open in seeing repetitive patterns over and over again. That doesn't mean that such courses with those same patterns are really bad per se, but it does demonstrate, at least for me, a limitation on the overall capacity for the architect to deliver a quality design with an entirely different presentation / result.

For some people -- they could care less because they think playing the same type of Raynor hole, or Fazio hole, or whoever, is really neat and interesting. I don't see it that way. I want to see an architect show the fullest range of their creativity -- and not just do the formulaic "here we go again" style that was likely done better at earlier designs. That's what I see happening with C&C -- I have played their earlier efforts -- most notably Sand Hills and they did hit some really solid home runs. However, the recent ones (e.g. Saguaro at We-Ko-Pa comes quickly to mind) are frankly boring for the most part -- save for the final third of the course which really shines). 

Architects are no different than other professions -- some think they can mail it in and use a previous layout scheme for the next design. In their minds if it worked previously and people liked it -- continue the same routine with the next one and the one after that and the one after that.

Think of golf courses like actors -- some actors can only play drama and not comedy. Some can only do films and not Broadway or live theater. The greatest actors can fit all the categories -- few can do that. The same applies to architects. I salute architects who challenge themselves to go beyond what they have done previously -- no doubt it's difficult to convince future employers because those employers wish to get a previous version of what made that respective architect noticeable from the get-go.

[John Moore II]

I haven't read the other posts, but I will say this: I think you must have at least some amount of design differentiation in order to remain in business. Even Fazio has differences in designs, at least among the ones I have played. If every course that Ross built resembled #2, we might not return to many of them because they were all the same. That goes for any designer. There has to be variety involved, otherwise, people will get bored of your layouts and stop coming to the new ones and returning to the old ones.

[Rob Rigg]

I would agree that design differentiation is hugely important in evaluating an architect's portfolio.

From the standpoint of playing a round, it may not matter as long as that particular course delivers what the golfer is looking for.

But in terms of evaluating an architect for their artistry, ability to adapt to surroundings and creativity we should look at their full portfolio of work. What is their legacy?

I think creativity is paramount. What does an architect do with each canvas? How do they adapt to their surroundings and challenge themselves? Do they always fall back on their "favorite" or "signature" element. If so, then they are not as talented as those who can shape each course based on the lay of the land.

However, should an architect be penalized for following their philosophy?

C&C create very natural looking courses, which I love. But from photos, I think their design elements can be fairly repetitive. ie) if you show me a few courses, I think I can pick out the C&Cs.

Does this mean they are less talented, or just adhere closely to their philosophy?
What about CBM? Did he not use a template of holes across most of his courses? (I have not studied MacDonald so I may be wrong)
If you see a Doak can you tell immediately? If so, is it because of repetition or is it because they are so unique so assume they are a Renaissance design?

[Matt_Ward]

Rob:

Good points.

To piggy back on what you said -- I often hear from people on this site and elsewhere that if they happen to be playing "x" course which is designed by "x" architect they automatically convey points BEFORE they have actually played the product.

I mention C&C layouts because in some circles on this board and elsewhere they are seen as the ultimate producers of top shelf courses. I don't doubt they have done excellent PAST WORK -- but the issue is can an architect accomplish what you said so well -- the ability to adapt to different situations, land sites and still deliver a product that PUSHES THEIR CAREER beyond what they have done to date.

It's been noted previously -- believe Doak has said this -- that often times the best work an architect can perform comes earlier in their careers before the rigid notion of what is unique is then contaminated by the strucutures of what the business necessitates. Conformity can be a most appealing virtue when people keep on asking for the same type of course time after time after time.

Rob, you asked a fair question, "However, should an architect be penalized for following their philosophy?"

I would answer it this way -- should the person playing that course be constrained to playing a replica or near similar course from earlier efforts? I used the actor analogy in my previous post -- some architects can create particular types of designs and frankly they are superior as far as the one trick pony show is concerned. Doing something different from what one has comfortably done in the past is never an easy proposition. In so many ways the architect's dilemma is the same one sees from Hollywood -- just spit out the same tired and predictable films and hope like hell the audiences just keep on coming. To venture outside the "sameness" syndrome requires a splash of confidence and a desire to not to just do what has been done but to break new ground and reinvent oneself with a much wider array of design styles and successes.

Rob, you are 1000% correct -- "creativity is paramount."

Those who are limited for whatever reasons may indeed be very talented -- but those who are capable in mixing a wider variety of styles and elements into their designs will no doubt create a long time legacy that few will be able to match.