[Chip Gaskins]

I played a course a few days ago by one this site's favorite architects.  The natural features were used to their fullest and bunkers were used sparsely.  I thoroughly enjoyed every yard of the course, but I could easily see how some may think it is potentially "too simple".  Question for the treehouse, can a course ever be too simple, with simple being defined as no artificial mounding, no artificial water, no cutting or filling that is remotely noticeable, push up greens, etc...

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think so. To most, minimal means small, round greens at grade level without much interest.  The minimalist gca's who do it well are still very artistic - in a subtle way and their greens are anything but simple. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Simple...but not simplistic?

[Matt_Ward]

Chip:

If the natural character of the site was THAT good then the need for additional lipstick / make-up to supposedly enhance the course would not be needed.

The key for me would be whether the course really is able to differentiate between different levels of shotmaking. If the course did not really break down the excellent from the good to the so-so to the marginal and to the worst of plays -- then it could be easily seen as too simple, or even worse, rather limited in terms of what it does do.

A great site is no less than 60% of the total equation for me. Start with a great site and you don't need the so-called "extras" to make for a grand time when playing.

Be very much interested if you could name the course at some point on this thread.

[Chip Gaskins]

Yes, to be clear, the green complexes were far from simple.  Absolutely fantastic.

The site in some spots was interesting, in some not so much.

Again, I thought is was great, but could easily see other points of view, which lead me to this topic....when is simple too simple (and I suppose it depends on the audience)

[paul cowley]

Chip....at the risk of seeming too simplistic....its an eye of the beholder kind of thing.

[Mike_Young]

Chip ,
I think acheiving really simple but good s very difficult.....   But I like that much....

[Peter Pallotta]

Chip - you mentioned that the site was interesting in some spots and not so much in others, and that the natural features were used to their full extent.  So I take it that the architect made the most he could out of the site while still honouring that site. From what I've read here, you're a good player who's played some great golf courses, so what's your personal take/preference on this, i.e. Would you have preferred that the architect had done "more" with the site's less interesting spots? Did you find any portions of the course boring, either from an aesthetic or shot-testing/making perspective?

Thanks

Peter   

[Lloyd_Cole]

Chip ,
I think acheiving really simple but good s very difficult.....   But I like that much....

Mike

Same in my job. I'm still trying to get there...

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jack Welch, when he ran GE, used to instruct jr execs about to give a presentation, "Don't be afraid to keep it simple."

Writing a speech is a progressive exercise of paring, paring, paring.  Some call it honing but honing is just turning 3 sentences into 2, 3 words into 2.

Simple is the last mile, the last 5 percent.  Simple is hard -- hey, Lloyd, my 11-year-old has spent this afternoon and evening trying to lay down the "simple" baseline to "She's a Girl..."

Mark

[Chip Gaskins]

Chip - you mentioned that the site was interesting in some spots and not so much in others, and that the natural features were used to their full extent.  So I take it that the architect made the most he could out of the site while still honouring that site. From what I've read here, you're a good player who's played some great golf courses, so what's your personal take/preference on this, i.e. Would you have preferred that the architect had done "more" with the site's less interesting spots? Did you find any portions of the course boring, either from an aesthetic or shot-testing/making perspective?

Thanks

Peter   

Peter-

I think you have me over a barrel.  I think I am in the seminal spot where the student goes "oh, wow, you could have, but you didn't....and I like it just as much". As the architect (snicker, snicker) I honestly would have reached a little farther and built some of the nonsense (mainly mounding) we all seem to loathe, but I would have screwed up a perfectly good site and an exceptional routing....so in this case, I feel the beauty is in the restraint.  I found none of the course boring, I could easily see that if the architect had added almost anything it would have been blatantly obvious and out of place.  I think it did play easier from tee to green because of the site and lack of alteration, but the difficulty of the green complexes easily made up for it.  Sorry for the rambling but I think I am just seeing that "restraint" is a key architectural tool.

Chip

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks much, Chip - no, no ramble, that was perfectly clear and makes a lot of sense.  I tend to find the 'restraint' (and even the 'boring') pleasing to my eye; but as an average golfer, I might be accused of not paying enough attention to a golf course's shot-testing strengths and weaknesses. 

Peter

[Sean_A]

Chip....at the risk of seeming too simplistic....its an eye of the beholder kind of thing.

Paul

I don't think it is an eye of the beholder deal - at least not for me.  I see so much in architecture which doesn't add value to golf and clutters the landscape.  Its most alarming on those courses which will never be used for championships - presumably the last bastion of why... or wannabe why....

When I see something like this I have to wonder what has happened to the original idea of blending nature with the course.  Perhaps a great  thing was just made too complicated to really be maintainable, I can't say as I know the answer, but clearly, and I really believe this, folks create strategic reasons why these are great bunkers when Dr Mac meant to use those bunkers as a tie into nature.  Once the tie in is lost, any value these bunkers added was lost.  This is an extreme example, but I think it relevant to demonstrate how simpler may have been better.


I am not saying that simple is better, but it is always point worth considering.  I get great joy from playing the down to earth basics with the odd twist and turn, but I understand that this is a hard sell for archies without the right clients.

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

Chip, what course, what architect? 

[Tom_Doak]

Chip:

Simple can be too simple for some people ... but they're probably simpletons.

Restraint is what's been missing from a lot of modern golf architecture, and lack of restraint is what holds a lot of architects back from doing something really great.  They are trying too hard, and they can't conceal it.

[Joel_Stewart]

Simple vs. boring.   Here is a 3 par hole that is flat and boring.

[David Stamm]

Chip....at the risk of seeming too simplistic....its an eye of the beholder kind of thing.

Paul

I don't think it is an eye of the beholder deal - at least not for me.  I see so much in architecture which doesn't add value to golf and clutters the landscape.  Its most alarming on those courses which will never be used for championships - presumably the last bastion of why... or wannabe why....

When I see something like this I have to wonder what has happened to the original idea of blending nature with the course.  Perhaps a great  thing was just made too complicated to really be maintainable, I can't say as I know the answer, but clearly, and I really believe this, folks create strategic reasons why these are great bunkers when Dr Mac meant to use those bunkers as a tie into nature.  Once the tie in is lost, any value these bunkers added was lost.  This is an extreme example, but I think it relevant to demonstrate how simpler may have been better.


I am not saying that simple is better, but it is always point worth considering.  I get great joy from playing the down to earth basics with the odd twist and turn, but I understand that this is a hard sell for archies without the right clients.

Ciao

So what would you have now, Sean? As you know and mentioned, those bunkers were designed in such a way as to tie into the natural sand dunes in that spot. Now that the surrounds are much different (read less raw and natural), would you want the bunkers redone or removed?

[Sean_A]

Chip....at the risk of seeming too simplistic....its an eye of the beholder kind of thing.

Paul

I don't think it is an eye of the beholder deal - at least not for me.  I see so much in architecture which doesn't add value to golf and clutters the landscape.  Its most alarming on those courses which will never be used for championships - presumably the last bastion of why... or wannabe why....

When I see something like this I have to wonder what has happened to the original idea of blending nature with the course.  Perhaps a great  thing was just made too complicated to really be maintainable, I can't say as I know the answer, but clearly, and I really believe this, folks create strategic reasons why these are great bunkers when Dr Mac meant to use those bunkers as a tie into nature.  Once the tie in is lost, any value these bunkers added was lost.  This is an extreme example, but I think it relevant to demonstrate how simpler may have been better.


I am not saying that simple is better, but it is always point worth considering.  I get great joy from playing the down to earth basics with the odd twist and turn, but I understand that this is a hard sell for archies without the right clients.

Ciao

So what would you have now, Sean? As you know and mentioned, those bunkers were designed in such a way as to tie into the natural sand dunes in that spot. Now that the surrounds are much different (read less raw and natural), would you want the bunkers redone or removed?

David

For my eye, what was intended and what is there now is such a disconnect.  I don't know how many times I looked at this pic and was ever so taken with the look of the foreground and background (that reddish looking vegetation).  I would be more than happy to have that red stuff flow in what looks like the sea and creep down toward the green with perhaps some of that scrubby sand hanging about.  Of course, there has to be a way to stabilize the sand so it isn't constantly blowing over the greens and fairways - which is why I suspect the original dune bunkers were altered in the first place.

Ciao
   

[Rob Rigg]

I think it depends significantly on the site.

If you have a flat field of 300 acres with little to no movement it will be difficult to build a minimalistic course and make it interesting.

I think the challenge is finding the optimal routing based on what the land gives you, and then deciding how much dirt needs to be moved to make something that is interesting and challenging for every level of golfer withouth making it look like you moved a million tons of dirt (unless it is unavoidable).

I think a lot of GCAs get a decent piece of land, but decide to create a lot of bunkering, water hazards, etc. so they can show their client that they "put a lot of work" into it which is garbage. The truly artistic and talented GCA can add subtle strategy to the course through superior routing and restraint which should allow the course to be "as simple as possible".

[Norbert P]

As the loquaicious Joe Biden once said in a debate, "Yes."

[Lou_Duran]

"I would be more than happy to have that red stuff flow in what looks like the sea and creep down toward the green with perhaps some of that scrubby sand hanging about." Sean Arble

Keep the man on the other side of the pond!  Just what the world needs, iceplant for fringes!

I am not sure how much that dune has been changed over the years by man's hand.  If sand gets a little water and some nutrients, stuff will grow in it.  Personally, the evolution that has taken place there is most acceptable .  The amount of work that it would take to keep it as it was during MacKenzie's time would be considerable.  I think that the membership and the list of wannabes like it just fine the way it is.

The subject of this thread is a departure of sorts for the architects, which though sometimes described as "minimalists", are really not.  Simplicity without sacrificing interest and challenge was a strength of Ralph Plummer who designed or worked on nearly 100 courses, mostly in Texas.

With the expanding national economy post 1982, money was available to dress up otherwise non-descript sites.  Fazio, Jones, Nicklaus and others designed strong, beautiful courses in similar terrain.   The course Chip is alluding to resisted the lipstick and, in my opinion, it works just fine.         

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean, David - this is not the thread for it, but David's question, ie "...Now that the surrounds are much different (read less raw and natural), would you want the bunkers redone or removed?" seems to me to be THE question when it comes to renovations and restorations and simplicity and natural asthetics etc, etc. 

Peter

[Chip Gaskins]

Austin Golf Club, Coore & Crenshaw, circa 1998ish....25 miles west of Austin, Texas.  450 acres with a great new homemade par-3 course with the world's hardest Redan.

[Joe Hancock]

Austin Golf Club, Coore & Crenshaw, circa 1998ish....25 miles west of Austin, Texas.  450 acres with a great new homemade par-3 course with the world's hardest Redan.

Chip,

That redan is like a one quarter scale redan...wow! I didn't get to play it, but it looked very cool. The other green nearby that is somewhere in the neighborhood of 13,000 sq. ft. was very cool as well. The zoysia green surfaces on the par 3 course are very intriguing....

Joe

[Joe Hancock]

Here's a par 3, no bunkers. The green is a saddle...it flows inward from the sides, but falls off both the front and the back. The back third if the green isn't visible from the tee. I always thought it a wonderful example of simplicity that worked.

Joe

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()