notions of genius

[willhammer (Guest)]

I am a relative newcomer to the site and usually just read the posts. One thing that has amused me is the references of some golf course architects as genius. Such as the discussion regarding Dr. McKenzie. Do some of you sincerely believe that a golf course design could achieve that level of brilliance? Or are the so-called genius efforts achieved in comparison to the many pedestrian efforts the golf world is full of? As someone who has worked on the construction end of the golf business for some time, I would say most projects success or failure are dictated by ownership, not the architect's level of genius. Most architects are very competent, the ones whose courses stand out as special these days are the ones who pay extra attention to the shaping details and to the grassing/landscaping plans and put extra effort in obtaining and convincing clients who will trust and listen to them. Comments?

[RJ_Daley]

Will, it sounds like you are speaking of competent technicians.  But, don't you think that it takes more than a competent technician to be a design genius.  Do you feel that there is no such thing as a golf design genius?  The concept of an artist and a genius in my mind follow eachother.  

We have had several threads over the years that speak about the routing and that aspect of laying the golf course naturally upon the land, using every bit of it's unique qualities to meld the design for maximum golf enjoyment with utilizing that land to its highest potential, including aesthetic appeal.  Technicians that are competent to grade and shape and drain the site etc., aren't necessarily genius.  It is all mighty subjective.  But, I think I have seen golf design genius on a few occasions.  

[willhammer (Guest)]

RJ

I really could not come to call a golf course designer a genius regardless of how well the project may come off. There are too many factors outside the designers control such as site limitations or attributes, construction budgets, and meddlesome owners. Certainly some designers are better than others and I believe I listed my reasons in my initial post. The irony of your post to me is that I would not consider many of the golf course designers out there to be good technicians in the field of drainage, grading plans, shaping and the like. But most have a great feel for stategy and field instructions. It is just that there are few projects out there with a good site, adequate budget, good owner, and a strong personality designing it. Any one of those four factors not present will banish a project to mediocrity. When all four are present, you have a chance to build a great course, not for genius though. I suppose it may just be a matter of semantics.

Humbly offered,

Will

[TEPaul]

Will:

Some of this very well may be subjective or semantics, no doubt. What you describe from your posts and experiences in architecture is no doubt summed up accurately indeed! But you do describe your experiences and those you've worked with and whose design contributions you're aware of as "competent". Other architectural efforts "out there" as you say, are "mediocre" in your description. That's surely true too.

And surely some necessary factors have to be in place to build a truly great course like an accomodating or visionary owner, a great site and land, good labor etc. If those things are present in the hands of a "competent" designer the course is likely to be "competent", in my opinion.

There are a some courses in the world, however, that appear to be far more than "competent" though. How they came to be visualized, routed, designed, and completed far more than "competently" probably leads some of us to call their designers "geniuses" whether or not that's a completely accepted term.

And MacKenzie appears to have been far more than "competent". Actually Bob Huntley just supplied some of us with some interesting documentation of how Alister MacKenzie felt about the details of some courses he was building and the work (in detail) of the men building the course for him. The strength and detail of his opinion in the documentation (to the developer btw) would lead me to believe that he probably was a "genius" and a course like Cypress would seem to support that fact.

[willhammer (Guest)]

Tepaul,

I would suggest that though Cypress is undoubtedly one the greatest golf courses in the world, the "genius" of Cypress is found in arguably the most perfect and scenic site on the face of the earth. Though it is certainly a well routed and executed construction.

I would further argue that there are more than a handfull of other designers who could have produced a golf course equal to or better than currently exists at Cypress if given the same opportunity.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

What is your definition of genius? Is it your contention that any activity that relies upon a group effort or upon a number of variables - golf architecture, architecture, coaching, teaching, conductor, military leader, political leader - can not possibly reach the level of genius? What are examples of genius?

[Ed_Baker]

Willhammer,

"...More than a handful of designers that could have produced a course equal to or better than...Cypress."

Who are they?

What could make Cypress better?

Could they improve on a less scenic site, say... Pine valley?

[Anthony_Nysse]

"Will Hammer",
   You write how that you'd argue that there are more than a handful of other designers that could  have done as good or a better job at Cypress Point. I would have to think that a course as amazing as Cypress, one that is always ranked in the Top 5 in the world and has stood the test of time, has to pay alot of tribute to it's routing and design, something not just anyone can do. You write about the land being one of the most perfect and ideal site for a golf course. I would have to say that National wasn't built on perfect land, but it was the genius of CB MacDonald and Seth Raynor that has preduced a golf course that EVERY archy junky craves to see, one that Tom Doak says that he learns something new about everytime he's out there. Garden City wasn't on ideal land, but yet it was the genius efforts of Emmet that produced and amazing, old style golf course. C&C's Chechessee Creek Club is on a flat piece of ground, but it was the insight and amazing ability that "The Boys" have to produce an amazing golf course, one with unique green contours, amazing bunkering and a great routing. Chicago Golf Club is on a flatter site, but because of Seth Raynor's ability to to produce a great routing, with unique bunkers and interesting greens, we now have a course that all designers must see to believe. I don't understand how you can look at courses like Sand Hills, Cypress Point, Pine Valley, Crystal Downs, Yale, Yeaman's Hall, Winged Foot, Pac Dunes Talking Stick and say that there is not genius there.......They wouldn't be great if it wasn't for the geniuses that designed them.

[JakaB]

I don't think there is any question that Flynn could have designed a course at Cypress that would have been the greatest championship layout ever built.   Sadly this would have been to Pebble's demise...in that a west coast Shinnecock on an even greater site would have stolen all the great championship moments from Pebble forcing it to become another private course unable to generate the green fees as a public entity.   Once again proving the best architect is not always the best choice.

[Okula]

My Webster's dictionary defines "genius" as:

1. an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in art, music, etc. 2. a person having such capacity.

It seems reasonable that Dr. McKenzie, among a very few other golf architects, could fit the definition.

[Rick Shefchik]

The courses Anthony Nysse mentiones are surely great tributes to the artists who created them, but looking strictly at Cypress Point, one does have to wonder how lousy a job an architect would have had to do there for golf lovers not to revere it today.

How many cliffside Pacific Coast golf courses are there? How many bad ones are there?

Rick

[Craig Van Egmond]

Rick,

       How do you feel about Torrey Pines?

[Rick Shefchik]

I think Torrey Pines is too far from the ocean in too many places to really compare it to Cypress or Pebble.

Rick

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rick
How many cliffside holes are there at CPC? And how many oceanside courses are there from Bandon to Cabo to Hawa'ii to NZ to Japan - quite a few with a longer expanses of cliffs? Hell you can add the entire world if wish - Caribean, South America, Africa, Europe. And how many are even in the same league?

[wsmorrison]

Willhammer:

Perhaps as someone who has worked on the construction side of the development of a golf course, you may not see the forest for the trees (or the course at any rate).  Golf course architecture is a combination of art and science on the grandest scale.  Is the Chrysler Building a work of art as well as a monumental achievement in construction?  Is there genius in the development of such projects?  Of course there is.  

Golf is another form of architecture that is an artful blend of disciplines with its roots in the science of agronomy and engineering in construction, game theory and strategy in design and layout, aesthetics in its natural beauty and harmony with nature, and elements of economics including cost management and real estate development.  The genius lies in an original combination of all these disciplines to coordinate the building of such an art form on such a massive scale.  

There is a wide range of competency and originality in all areas of endeavor.  Where there is a confluence of originality, playability, and aesthetics, there is opportunity for genius to express itself in golf design.  When considered over time and the breadth of their body of work, great architects pass such a standard for genius.  

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom,

The league is obviously quite small. I just don't know if that's because the few cliffside holes at CPC are so superbly designed that nothing else can truly compare to them, or if some of the other oceanside course around the world are less romanticized or less skillfully designed. Your point is well taken -- Cypress is in a very small league, indeed. But to allude to Mark Fine's thread about aesthetics, can we be sure it would be at the head of that league without the ocean holes -- or that it would not be at the head of that league if someone other than Mackenzie had designed it?

Rick

[Dan Kelly]

Everyone here, I think, would agree that some courses are great, and others aren't.

We'd mostly agree on which courses are indisputably great -- and, from all the evidence I've ever seen, we'd unanimously agree that Cypress Point is one of those indisputably great courses.

What I don't think we'd all agree about is whether a great golf course (or even a thousand great golf courses) is -- or even can be -- evidence of "genius." In other words: whether golf-course architecture is a pursuit in which it is POSSIBLE to exhibit "genius" ... or whether golf-course architecture is, by contrast, capable of displaying only some arguably lesser (note: ARGUABLY lesser) attribute such as "artistry."

Is every artist a genius? No. I don't think so. And I guess that I'd fall into the camp of those who would say: [Name an architect] is an artist ... and, for all we know, he may have been a genius -- but his golf courses don't prove it, because GOLF COURSES CAN'T PROVE GENIUS. They can prove ingenuity, and imagination, and artistry, and inspiration, and all sorts of other things -- but not Genius.

I'd say: Let's reserve genius for an elite few. Mozart. Einstein. Churchill. Tiger Woods.

[TEPaul]

Perhaps if Flynn had designed and built a championship course at Cypress Point it would have become known as the "West Coast Shinnecock" and put its nearby brethen to shame--I don't know.

That may happen anyway because just recently Cypress has been called, in the East anyway, the "West Coast Friar's Head".

.....or was it Friar's Head that's recently been called the "East Coast Cypress Point"?

Well, who cares which it is---it's the same thing, right?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rick
There are 3 cliffside holes at CPC, two par-3s and a shortish par-4. There is no dispute that these holes are spectacular, but what puts CPC in a league by itself are the superb quality of the other 15 holes. Is there a course in the world with a greater collection of golf holes? And to prove that there is no guarantee for greatness when given a special property one need only go next door at Spyglass.

Dan
Why can't a golf course prove genius?

I assume Mozart's music was proof that he was ingenius and that he had imagination and artistry and inspiration - but evidenty he had something more, what is it that sets him apart in your mind from a virtuoso golf architect. And can't the same could be said for Wright and Olmsted and Calder and Picasso and Frost and Tiffany - what sets these creative geniuses apart from a Stanley Thompson or a Harry Colt.

[willhammer (Guest)]

My apologies up front if I fail to respond to some queries directed toward me, there are many and I don't intend to ignore any.

Tom M.

My definition of genuis is someone whose brilliant work leads to breaking new ground in a serious pursuit such as physics, mathematics, medicine, art, etc. where the work successfully challenges preconcieved notions and standards of limits, excellence, or even existence itself. Most of the admired golf designers today are those who claim to respect and model their work after dead guys whose work is already done. The vocation of golf designer is so limited by the function of a golf course that even if a genius were practicing it, you would never know. (Is that what Dan K was saying?)

Ed

I used the Cypress example to support my ealier claims that other factors were more important than a golf designers level of "genius". I suppose now that I am pressed to come up with some names, I see no reason why demonstrably talented and dedicated folks such as Tillie, Raynor, Thomas or Dye could not have come with something equal to or better than what Mac produced. One other example for me would be Bandon Dunes, the owner hired a very young man (Kidd I think?) who produced an outstanding golf course (I was lucky to play there this winter). I would certainly not say he is a genius. Though good at his chosen, yet limited profession

wsm

You may well be correct in your statement that I can't appreciate the artistry involved in the process. From my point of view so many of the aspects of a project are limited by things the designer can never control; from the drain point of a property, soil types, climate, plant materials, construction budget, the function of golf, it leaves so little wiggle worm and most times the choices left are so obvious it leave no room for a supposed genius to operate. Though the designer may be a very good artist, genius cannot be achieved by laying out a golf course. (Buildings on the other hand, such as the Chrysler building, I would agree with you on.)

Wishing you all friendly bounces during your next round,

Willhammer

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Is music serious pursuit? Is acting? Painting? Dance? Poetry?

Was Frank L Wright a genius? CB Macdonald? Ansel Adams?

Kauffman hired Wright to build his home Fallingwater, is it your opinion that a lesser or younger architect could have done equally well? Do you think there were many aspects that went into that project? Why is that different?

Based on what RTJ did at Spyglass is your opinion he could have done equally well at CPC?

[willhammer (Guest)]

Tom,

I did not mean to suggest that designing golf courses was not a serious pursuit, though reviewing what I wrote it does appear I implied it.

FLW genius? absolutely
CBM? no
AA? no

I cannot imagine another architect coming up with a better product than FLW at Fallingwater (though the roof leaks there, not uncommom for a FLW building). The difference is there is more room for expression in building architecture and more engineering considerations.

It is doubtful that RTJ could have done better at Cypress based on his body of work. His forte' seemed to be more of golf for the masses rather than quality private courses.

will

[willhammer (Guest)]

Tom,

I did not mean to suggest that designing golf courses was not a serious pursuit, though reviewing what I wrote it does appear I implied it.

FLW genius? absolutely
CBM? no
AA? no

I cannot imagine another architect coming up with a better product than FLW at Fallingwater (though the roof leaks there, not uncommom for a FLW building). The difference is there is more room for expression in building architecture and more engineering considerations.

It is doubtful that RTJ could have done better at Cypress based on his body of work. His forte' seemed to be more of golf for the masses rather than quality private courses.

will

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

WH
I’m having difficulty following the logic of your argument.

Originally you wrote, “I really could not come to call a golf course designer a genius regardless of how well the project may come off. There are too many factors outside the designers control such as site limitations or attributes, construction budgets, and meddlesome owners”. Wouldn’t those same factors effect a FLW at Fallingwater who in your mind is a genius?  You go on to write, “It is just that there are few projects out there with a good site, adequate budget, good owner, and a strong personality designing it. Any one of those four factors not present will banish a project to mediocrity. When all four are present, you have a chance to build a great course, not for genius though.” Isn’t the same statement true for a project like Fallingwater? What allows the architect of a house to be elevated to genius?

You wrote that the genius of Cypress Point is found in the perfect and scenic site and that an equal design could have been achieved by talented and dedicated folk. But yet at the spectacular and scenic site found at Fallingwater you can not imagine another architect coming up with a better product. Why?  You claim the difference between architecture and golf design is there are more room for expression and more engineering considerations (and didn’t you say that golf design was the artful blend of agronomy and engineering?). What differentiates engineering as an expression of genius from agronomy or hydrology or botany? You also wrote, “the vocation of golf designer is so limited by the function of a golf course that even if a genius were practicing it, you would never know.” Fallingwater was designed as a summer home for the Kauffman family, why itsn’t its function limiting? All artistic pursuits which are also designed fulfil a function have limitations. Designing a home and designing a golf courses would both fall into that category, but despite their limitations they both provide ample opportunity for great expression and opportunity for expressions of genius.

You define genius as “someone whose brilliant work leads to breaking new ground in a serious pursuit …. where the work successfully challenges preconcieved notions and standards of limits, excellence, or even existence itself.” Why does FLW fall under this definition but not Ansel Adams?

[willhammer (Guest)]

Tom M,

I will try my best to answer your questions, though it is quite obvious to me that I will fall short of convincing you as we obviously do not agree.

The main distinction between building/home architect and golf designer that could elevate the building architect to genius is that there is more room for expression in building architecture. More materials to choose from, a wider range of scales to work with, greater engineering knowledge and concerns to consider, and a more public forum for judgement. This statement does not conflict with my earlier arguement that the reason a golf designer cannot achieve "genius status" because there are too many other factors out of his control. The factors out of the golf designers control are more weighted to the success, beauty, and enjoyment of a golf course, than who in particular happens to design said golf course. This is not true with building construction.

Additionally, the engineering done on a golf course is rather simple and can be done quite easily. The plant material selections are limited by climate and function.

I cannot imagine someone other than FLW doing better with FW for the same reason the beautiful Imperial Hotel in Japan was the only structure to survive the disasterous earthquake. There was never another architect to combine his understanding of engineering, aesthetics, lighting, and function. If there were, you may have used him as your example rather than FLW.

Specifically regarding FW and as to why its function was not limiting. The world is littered with summer homes and obviously this one stands out. Not many summer homes have books written about them or television shows made about them. The function of a summer home did not limit FLW to one story. Or use of native wood. Or use of native rock. Or choice of furniture, or orientation of the decks, or use of cantlevers, or number of windows or on and on.

On the other hand, golf designers must design 18 holes, par 70 to 72, yardage about 7000 yds, greens about 7000sf, fwys certain width, the owner tells them where the clubhouse will be, must have returning nines, has just a handfull of plant materials to choose from, etc.

Ansel Adams does not qualify as a genius to me because I personally do not see a anything groundbreaking or inspirational from the work. It may well be personal taste.

This is the best I can explain myself and my views on this Tom, I have answered and reanswered your questions. I am sorry if I have not explained myself well enough. My arguements are logical from my perspective and I appreciate you trying to draw more out of me, but I am just a simple construction worker (rained out today).

It seems you feel strongly that there is substantial genius to be found in golf designs and I would appreciate you explaining to me why you believe this so. You prefaced many of your questions to me with some of these reasons. Could you compare and contrast golf design equally or favorably with some of the other professions we have discussed?

will