[Ran Morrissett]

By the end of this year, Doak's group and Coore's group may each have ~ five courses in the world top fifty.

No other architect firm has any (other than Pete Dye but he hasn't made one in twenty years so I don't count him going forward).

Why the huge gap? Clearly, other architects need to be given great sites but then they also must produce work that is as enduring as Cape Kidnappers or Sand Hills. Can they? Will they? And why don't they? What is missing from their work?

In the other Golden Age, MacKenzie had Macdonald/Raynor, Colt, Flynn, Travis, Thomas, Ross, Tillinghast, et al nipping at his heels. This Golden Age is shaping up differently, despite the fact that there are a lot of talented architects out there. Why is that?

Cheers,

[Rick Shefchik]

First guess: The number of projects has dropped so severely that any developer who still has enough money to shoot for the moon can pick either Coore or Doak. In the Golden Age, there were new courses going up everywhere, leaving plenty of work for a dozen top-end craftsmen.

[Anthony Gray]

  They definately are getting the great land to work with. That would be a start. And I would think that their target golfer would be one that has a greater appreciation for the game. I just played Punta Espada and that land is great but the course looks like it was built for the resort golfer.

  Anthony

[Jud_T]

Anthony,

It was...

[BCrosby]

Ran -

Good question. I wonder if it isn't a perception thing caused by the proliferation of rankings. Rankings tend to elevate very minor differences between courses into differences that are perceived to be far more significant than they really are. And for that reason modern rankings tend to understate (sometimes egregiously) the quality of courses that don't make the rankings cut-off.    

That wasn't a problem in the first GA. The only rankings then were Crane's. But his covered very few courses and were pretty idiosyncratic.

These days rankings are everywhere. They get a lot of pub. People live and die by them. But they give a distorted picture of the overall state of gca at any given time.

Bob

 

[Sean_A]

Ran -

Good question. I wonder if it isn't a perception thing caused by the proliferation of rankings. Rankings tend to elevate very minor differences between courses into differences that are perceived to be far more significant than they really are. And for that reason modern rankings tend to understate (sometimes egregiously) the quality of courses that don't make the rankings cut-off.    

That wasn't a problem in the first GA. The only rankings then were Crane's. But his covered very few courses and were pretty idiosyncratic.

These days rankings are everywhere. They get a lot of pub. People live and die by them. But they give a distorted picture of the overall state of gca at any given time.

Bob

 

Bob

I think you are spot on.  The top courses are often perceived as head and shoulders above the others, but in reality, this just isn't the case. 

Ciao

[Rory Connaughton]

At least in the Us isn't one of the reasons the relatively wide range of courses the purchasers of design services are seeking and, indeed, the expansion of design purchaser universe from the traditional golf/country club and resorts in the golden age, to real estate developers, municipalities etc?

[Sean Leary]

Isn't one reason that other architects have been mainly doing courses tied to real estate where as those two firms are mainly looking for the best projects.

[Anthony Gray]

Isn't one reason that other architects have been mainly doing courses tied to real estate where as those two firms are mainly looking for the best projects.

  Exactly.

 

[Jim Nugent]

By the end of this year, Doak's group and Coore's group may each have ~ five courses in the world top fifty.

Doak:  Pacific Dunes....Barnbougle Dunes...Cape Kidnappers...Ballyneal....Old Mac.  (And it sounds like RCCC could make the list as well.)

C&C:  Sand Hills...Friars Head...Lost Farm (?)...Dormie Club (?)...plus what else?  

As for Ran's main question, I have a few ideas, but want to think them through a bit more.  It's interesting to me that the two groups who tower over the rest in the rankings -- Doak and C&C -- are both minimalists who, more than other modern archies, reflect the design qualities of the old-timers.  

[Kalen Braley]

Ran,

Great question.  Here is my speculative two cents:

1)  Being selective who they work with in terms of the owner and not just taking the low dangling fruit.
2)  Truly putting in the mental effort beforehand as Dr. MacK has said in figuring out a superb routing.
3)  Spending lots of time on site and working the land to figure out the small kinks that add loads of character.
4)  Getting quality sites to work with....at some point isn't it past just dumb luck that these guys keep getting great sites?
5)  Having quality guys to work for them and giving them some freedom to show thier stuff and not having a "just follow the plans" attitude.
6)  Naturalism....as opposed to minimalism.

[Mike Sweeney]

C&C have a formula that I personally love. However it is no coincidence that their best courses are on the best pieces of land. Just got this slide show:

http://linksmagazine.com/golf_courses/features/best_coore_crenshaw_courses.aspx

I have not played enough of Tom's courses to comment. Stonewall used to be a fan favorite around here:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,6402.0/

Well since Stonewall, Tom has figured out how to market himself for these great sites with C&C and now nobody, including Tom, talks about Stonewall anymore.

[Don_Mahaffey]

It would appear that both Tom and Bill are very good at deciding which commissions to accept. They’ve both done a very good job with great sites and that has helped them get more great pieces of land.

Most of the other points I would make have already been noted above but I do have one more thought. In Kelly’s reply he uses the word ‘firms”. Is one of the keys to their success that they have kept their “firms” very small? I know they both have talented people they work with but aren’t most of these folks actually independent contractors? Can the business model also be a key to success? Low overhead allows more freedom and gives them the flexibility to walk away from a project or renovation that doesn’t fit their style? Fewer mouths to feed means less pressure to take on the stinkers. When I think of the major players like Nicklaus, Fazio, Jones,…during the height of the golf building boom didn’t all these firms go big while Tom and Bill still kept things fairly simple…personal?
Maybe Ross had an office staff with employees, but didn’t most of the golden age experts operate very small firms? 

[Kyle Henderson]

By the end of this year, Doak's group and Coore's group may each have ~ five courses in the world top fifty.

C&C:  Sand Hills...Friars Head...Lost Farm (?)...Dormie Club (?)...plus what else?  

Old Sandwich or Clear Creek Tahoe

[jeffwarne]

It would appear that both Tom and Bill are very good at deciding which commissions to accept. They’ve both done a very good job with great sites and that has helped them get more great pieces of land.

 Low overhead allows more freedom and gives them the flexibility to walk away from a project or renovation that doesn’t fit their style? Fewer mouths to feed means less pressure to take on the stinkers. When I think of the major players like Nicklaus, Fazio, Jones,…during the height of the golf building boom didn’t all these firms go big while Tom and Bill still kept things fairly simple…personal?
 

Ding ding ding we have a winner.
Once you grow staff and overhead you must take projects that may not enhance your legacy.

And they're really good and have paid their dues.
and hit their stride in an unparralled era of wealth and golf awareness

[Jud_T]

We all know & love the great work done by Monsieur Doak, Coore & Crenshaw.  They will be rightly seen to have been the stars of the new golden age of GCA.  The question to me is how do the next tier of up and coming minimalist archies get work in this economy?

[Rob Rigg]

Won't Castle Stuart have a chance to be Top 50? So Hanse will have one.

What about Kingsbarns for Phillips? Nanea and Mac Dunes for Kidd? Sagebrush for Whitman?

At least there are some others knocking - or maybe just tapping - on the door.

Seems like Doak and C&C are such a proven commodity that if you have an incredible site then you go with one firm or the other and they give you a Top 50 course that is also a lot of fun to play at a very economical price as well.

The philosophy of these two firms is also more craftsmanlike than most of the others - spending time on the property, getting insight from their skilled and trusted associates, building the course based on what is offered not what can be created. When you build one or two courses a year instead of trying to cash in on a boom by building 10 to 20 then your work will be better. Right?

I think Gil Hanse is on deck to "challenge" the two big guns - and Rod Whitman is doing some fantastic work as well - on great/interesting sites with no housing.

[Mac Plumart]

Well, in the middle of my post Rob Rigg stole some of my thunder.  So, I had to amend my post...nevertheless...

I don't think it is right to simply gloss over Pete Dye.  He will go down as an all-time great.

Art Hills shows up on the Top 100, Nicklaus sneaks in there from time to time, RTJ II, and a few others also are in there.

These are the types of questions I love because right now we value courses x, y, and z.  But some don't last (see The Lido) and some fall from their lofty perch over time and of course others which will be deemed to be great have yet to be built.

Perhaps some of these courses/designers are the flavor of the day, but will all of these courses remain as highly regarded over time?

That will be interesting to observe.

[Michael Dugger]

Doak and C & C get good sites because they want good sites.

Not so sure the same could be said for a lot of other designers....

[Tom_Doak]

I think Bob Crosby is closest to the right answer.

Ten to fifteen years ago, the business was completely dominated by Fazio and Nicklaus.  Despite the diversity of GOLF DIGEST "Best New" winners [some deserving, some not], the rankings machine only allows for a couple of architects at a time to get most of the limelight.

The other main difference between the 1920's and today is that clients are more interested in COMMERCIAL success, as opposed to just building a great course.  Nearly every project being developed these past twenty years was a resort or a high-end housing development -- there are almost NO stand-alone membership clubs, except those in remote locations where name appeal is also critical to selling memberships, and the daily-fee market is dead.  So, if you are that client in Florida, and you are investing $50 million in your project, and you hope to entice people to have medium-sized corporate meetings there, you are not so likely to hire a young architect without a name reputation.

To those on the outside looking in, I would just say that ten years ago I was as frustrated by the state of the business as you are today.  It took one great break [to get the job at Pacific Dunes] to lead to a second [Cape Kidnappers] to change the equation completely.  You have to be doing everything you can to be prepared for that special opportunity when it comes along.

Plus, I doubt that in twenty years' time those top 50 rankings will look the same as they do today.  What's in fashion tends to fall out a bit -- although exceptional sites certainly help avoid that fate.

[Adam Clayman]

One possible reason could be that up until 15 years ago most architects would have said that all the good sites were taken. Since they obviously wrong about that they were obviously wrong about other aspects fundamental to the sport. They don't call it the Dark age because they were enlightened, do they?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Time to make it right
I don't think Doak's and C&C's clients tend to rush them
Don's points about firms also utilized builders with tight production schedules

And they really are better than the others because of their vision, convictions and processes
It is very hard to become a designer
The limited amount of projects is and was too small to develop more world class talent
...
Every kid gets to play little league --- leads to lots of great talent in MLB
Not everyone gets to design a golf course

p.s. the gap may be small, and it appears to be real

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

As usual, you just don't get it.

It's not the architects, it's the developer, the visionary who has a dream that he sees best fulfilled through the work of Doak and/or C&C.

That developer knows, in general, what he wants, and who can produce it for him.

Roger Hansen and C&C are a perfect example.

Roger was/is a visionary, he's been around golf and golf course architecture at the highest level.

He had a vision for..... for lack of a better term,...... a certain "style" golf course.

If he didn't know exactly what he wanted, he certainly knew what he DIDN'T want.

And, he wanted C&C to fulfill his vision.

I suspect that Mike Keiser isn't too different from Roger in his quest to produce a great golf course.

So, while the architects, Doak and C&C have produced an abundance of great work in recent years, it's the developers who don't get enough credit for the finished product

[Mac Plumart]

Patrick...

Now that is a very, very interesting post!!

Aside from the ones you mention, who are other developers who get it?

[Philippe Binette]

The difference: the 3 T's

Time spent on site
Talent in their construction teams
Trust from their developers

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()