[Ian Andrew]

Name ONE Tom Fazio course that has a great routing where it is easy to walk.

The National Golf Club of Canada is an easy walk over very hilly terrain. While I think the architecture is a little too one dimensional for my taste, the routing is excellent.

Has Criticism of Modern Architecture Been Stifled? 

I don't think the criticism is stifled. I think there is far too much consensus of opinion right now.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I don't think the criticism is stifled. I think there is far too much consensus of opinion right now.

Consensus in the golf world or on golf club atlas?
Please expand a bit.
Cheers

[Gary Daughters]

AG,

My criterion for wonderful as it applies to a golf course, wonderful being a pretty elastic word, is did I leave the course with a smile on my face or at least in my heart.  As this applies to Crapapple, the answer is an emphatic yes.

I love the huge scale of the course and the understated elegance of the property.  As those are your stomping grounds, you are well aware that they are truly grounds for golf.  The architecture is fittingly restrained.  At #3 I got a quirky, unexpected bounce (usually a good sign in my book) and at #4 I noticed myself going back and forth to my bag for just the right club (another good sign).  The 8-9-10 loop is where the course finally had me, and maybe I should note I had just made hash of #7, which is not something would that would generally pre-dispose me toward over-niceness.  To me #8 was the highlight of the course, a long par 4 to a bunkerless green sitting up Raynor style.  How fun it was to punch a 4-iron and watch the ball barely conquer the hill.  #9 gave me Augusta National flashbacks when I a got down into a holler and momentarily lost track of where I was.  #10.. another difficult par 4 that offers some fairly well dilineated options off the tee and challenging angles into the green.  #12.. still down there in the bowl.. just gorgeous with an elegant sweep around the one lonely hardwood.  There were plenty of other holes that stood out but this is getting wordy, and yet #14 was really cool the way you really do need to land the ball short of the green and watch it trickle down, and windy #15 (another Raynoresque green) is a real gem.

I think you are onto something about bunkers not being in play.  Maybe more of them should be;  I did find one (#17, tried to cut a corner) to my considerable regret.

You know better than I do how big the property is and what went unused.  If there's more out there, then maybe he could have found a way to keep the walk from #2 to #3 from crossing the road.  I found the linksish bowl to be spectacular.

As relates to this thread.. given my time on this site I was ready for a real dud.  I played White Columns some years back and remember really nothing of it.  This one is seared in my memory and that's something else that usually tells me something.

Out of curiosity, AG, do you have much recollection of #8 and if so what did you think of the hole?

[JNC Lyon]

I don't think the criticism is stifled. I think there is far too much consensus of opinion right now.

Consensus in the golf world or on golf club atlas?
Please expand a bit.
Cheers

I agree with Mike.  I would like to hear what you think that consensus is.

[John Moore II]

I don't think the criticism has been stifled as much as the people on this site have much more information at their disposal to determine whether or not they even want to bother with a course. With websites posting fairly detailed photo tours of the courses, full routings available online, either at the website or an aerial on Google, and so forth, the courses which might be disliked by the guys here just aren't visited to start with. I know this is the case with me personally, I just don't go to courses that I even think will be boring. I think this may be the case for other people on this site as well.

[Eric Smith]

Hi John. Great thread and thank you for sharing your opinions. They have caused me to do some thinking, probably more along the lines of aesthetics so please bear with me - I'm hoping to learn something from your response to my questions...

I'm of the opinion there are a few different ways to present great gca and just because Diamond Creek looks pretty, this doesn't necessarily equate to being a dumb blonde in regards to gca.

You wrote in a couple different posts in reference to Fazio & other modern gcas and/or Diamond Creek:

- architectural features that aimed for artificial perfection rather than ruggedness or strategy.

- earthmoving to create a contrived look with no regard for natural features is not good.



I think if someone wanted to get creative and had plenty of money to try it, why not turn a few hundred acres in the Nebraska sand hills into a couple of prairie links courses in the style of a UK links like, say, Royal St. Georges, shown in the picture above? With perfect revetted bunkering, laid out in minimalist fashion over the natural dunescape.

Seeing the many deep, perfectly rounded, revetted bunkers on each of the three links courses I played while in Wales was a real eye opener for me - I loved them! I haven't played DM Kidd's Bandon Dunes yet, so these were a first for me. I don't recall them at Heathland, but maybe they are there too.  These bunkers are pretty awesome in appearance, and the way that they play, particularly when you find your ball close to the wall of the bunker, but these are not really natural in their presentation, are they?

I also loved all three of the Prairie links courses I played in CO and NE this summer. These all had the rugged blowout bunkering that you mentioned liking in your posts above.

Here's what I'm really getting at --  looking at your signature line, I think 4 of the 5 courses you list as your favorites have circular revetted bunkering?  Please help me to understand the difference in their crisp, neat presentation and those you are criticizing?

Finally, are these good mountain bunkers?


I look forward to your comments, thanks.

Eric

[Mike Sweeney]

If every opinion is EQUALLY valid then there is no point to having a Discussion Group at all, so if I don't win thi,s argument, maybe it's time to turn out the lights.

It is clear to me that you win this argument not because of your opinions, right or wrong, but rather you have positioned yourself as Opinion Leader in the golf architecture market. First you were able to do this with the golf nerds like myself who bought and read The Confidential Guide, and then you were able to take it to a wider audience here at Golf Club Atlas. Tom Doak was the first Feature Interview at GCA way back in June of 1999.

If you look back at that interview it really is interesting as you had many list as answers, some could say it was almost Wardian!!   However, your one prediction is pretty interesting. You stated:

http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/tom-doak

"Fifty years from now, we’ll look back on this period of golf architecture as a manic free for all, with some excellent work, some horrible atrocities, and a lot of quality-built high end projects which never paid off. Hopefully, it won’t be the last hurrah -ten years ago, I remember saying that I hoped my career wouldn’t consist of trying to fix Tour pros’ design mistakes."

Not sure if you were thinking of yourself in that answer but obviously, you have had a few that have had some financial issues. Not sure I can think of any atrocities for you or anyone.

Now you will say that is was a lucky byproduct of your writing, but the facts are that "inbound marketing" is now being examined and has been developed at MIT as an algorithm that is being used and measured everyday by Google and the other search engines. I personally believe your true genius was as a Thought Leader in GCA both here and elsewhere. This allowed more and more people to discover and create buzz about you, which in turn gave you greater access to:

1. Great land,

2. Great talent to work on your team.

Back in 1999, you opened Lost Dunes, Apache, and Riverfront. Clearly your ranking of your last three courses would blow those courses away. So the questions are:

If Tom Doak represents the Great Modern Architect, could he have received the same acclaim without access to great talent and great land?

My updated question for 50 years from now when someone writes about you and your courses is - "Is Tom Doak a great Thought Leader in golf architecture who was able to harness the power of the Internet, a great Architect or both?

[Tom_Doak]

Now you will say that is was a lucky byproduct of your writing, but the facts are that "inbound marketing" is now being examined and has been developed at MIT as an algorithm that is being used and measured everyday by Google and the other search engines. I personally believe your true genius was as a Thought Leader in GCA both here and elsewhere. This allowed more and more people to discover and create buzz about you, which in turn gave you greater access to:
1. Great land,

2. Great talent to work on your team.

If Tom Doak represents the Great Modern Architect, could he have received the same acclaim without access to great talent and great land?

My updated question for 50 years from now when someone writes about you and your courses is - "Is Tom Doak a great Thought Leader in golf architecture who was able to harness the power of the Internet, a great Architect or both?

Mike,

A lot of what you speak of WAS an accident.  When I wrote for GOLF Magazine throughout the 1980's and early 90's that the highest ranked courses were mostly the result of giving great architects the best sites they ever had, I didn't have a secret plan, I was just being observant.  But the fact that Mike Keiser and Herb Kohler and Dick Youngscap were reading that and thinking the same thing proved to be the most fortuitous break of my career, and that worldview continues to pave the way for good things.  But it would not have opened the doors for us if when I did get the great piece of land to work with, we hadn't made the most of it.

The priority of putting together a great team was equally important, but also an outlier.  I learned it from working for Mr Dye at Long Cove, but there weren't many other architects trying to do the same thing, or willing to maintain a payroll when business was slow, which is one reason I was able to attract so much talented help.  A lot of the guys who have worked for me came from somewhere else ... Bruce worked for Ron Forse, Jim and Don and Eric for Perry Dye, and Brian Schneider for Kye Goalby ... but how many great courses did Perry Dye get out of them?  None, because he wasn't interested in that measure of success.

[Peter Pallotta]

Duke Ellington.

Why all that great music, over so many decades? Why the legacy of so many great compositions of his own, many of which rank amongst the very best of the American song-book? Why the time-less quality of his creative output?

Because unlike Shaw or Goodman or Kenton or any other bandleader from his generation, and before or since, Ellington kept his band together (and paid them) 12 months a year, year in and year out.

He paid them out of his own pocket whether the band was touring or not, whether it was recording music or not. All because he was inspired by them as much as they were by him, and wanted them around when an idea hit him.  

And he knew exactly what each of them could provide, through their musical talents, to the finished whole. He composed with his band in mind. As he once famously said, "no musician plays 100% of his instrument." Some, like Barney Bigard, played 80% of their horn; but others, like Bubber Miley, might play only 20% of their horn, but played that 20% perfectly and like no one else. The trick for the composer was writing the music in such a way as to maximize both Bigard's 80% and Miley's 20%.

Ellington was a modestly wealthy man. He would've been enormously wealthy if he had kept his money in his pocket and only hired his band-members when it was time to tour, or to record an album.  But the money was of secondary, no, tertiary importance.  As he once said: "Music is my mistress, and she plays second fiddle to no one.”

[Andrew Summerell]

After reading the two recent photo threads on Fazio courses, I was very surprised that there was more or less universal praise for the two golf courses.  Nobody stepped up to criticize these Fazio layouts or point out that the courses might have been better if they were built by a different architect.  From what I saw in these photos, these courses appeared overproduced and over-manicured, with architectural features that aimed for artificial perfection rather than ruggedness or strategy.

Have you played these two courses?

I’ve only played a few Fazio courses & a few Nicklaus courses. I didn’t like them that much, so now I mostly avoid courses designed by those architects (and others I haven’t liked).

I don’t comment on courses I haven’t played.

Possibly, people on this site are being more circumspect with the courses they choose to play, avoiding the architects they don’t like & therefore not commenting on their courses.

[PThomas]

If every opinion is EQUALLY valid then there is no point to having a Discussion Group at all, so if I don't win thi,s argument, maybe it's time to turn out the lights.

lets see, one one side of the scale we have a guy who's been studing gca since he was a boy, has played most of the best courses in the world, and has designed some of the best courses of the world...

on the other had, at best, we have people who have played many of the worlds best courses

gee, i know whose opnion gets more weight with me

[Mike Sweeney]

The priority of putting together a great team was equally important, but also an outlier.  I learned it from working for Mr Dye at Long Cove, but there weren't many other architects trying to do the same thing, or willing to maintain a payroll when business was slow, which is one reason I was able to attract so much talented help.  A lot of the guys who have worked for me came from somewhere else ... Bruce worked for Ron Forse, Jim and Don and Eric for Perry Dye, and Brian Schneider for Kye Goalby ... but how many great courses did Perry Dye get out of them?  None, because he wasn't interested in that measure of success.

I am finally making a point of playing two "great" Pete Dye courses (Kiawah and TPC Sawgrass) on the way to Florida for the holiday break. To date, I have only played good ones. One of these days, I will make it to Ballyneal and Bandon too.

The problem with having this conversation with you is - well - you are still alive rather than an Old Dead Guy.  History is really the one that will determine what were the ingredients for your success. It takes time for all the other assistants and workers to start to distance themselves from a project before they speak about it. See your work at Long Cove, we certainly are not going to learn much about it from Pete Dye - http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/pete-dye

I got a few IM's and emails last night about this conversation. It really is nothing more than me being curious about the elements, in and out of your control, that made up your success as a "Modern Architect". 

[Melvyn Morrow]

As we are talking about GCA can someone please tell me where is the architecture in the following photo.



I do not see much, strip the abundance of bunkers out of the picture and you have a lawn out of place in a dry and rocky environment. Architecture let alone design seem to have packed its bags and gone home in this picture

Has criticism of modern architecture been stifled – sorry but do we not need to see architecture before we make a comment. Modern design is all about overkill,  starting with poor location, to many bunkers or the need for island feature and of course the ever need to design a Championship course. If I did not better I would say that some architects need to be taught the principle of the Game of Golf as their designs sometimes convey the message that they do not know what they are doing. 

Please look at the above photo that Eric posted earlier and tell me where you see the architecture, then perhaps you can answer the original question on this thread.

Sorry guys I see nothing to be complacent about, nothing that shouts design and very little that would attract me to play this hole.  That my friends is an honest opinion of what I have observed now can we have your real opinions.

Melvyn
 

[Dan Herrmann]

Peter P - Once again, two wonderful posts from which I've learned new information and new ideas.  Thank you!

[TEPaul]

"Has this site stifled criticism of architects like Fazio, Rees Jones, Jack Nicklaus, and Arthur Hills in recent years?"


John:

I don't think this site has stifled criticism of those architects you mentioned, it's just that those on here who criticized those architects the most (it seemed almost on principle) are pretty much gone from this website now.

[BCrosby]

"Has this site stifled criticism of architects like Fazio, Rees Jones, Jack Nicklaus, and Arthur Hills in recent years?"

Nothing has been stifled. It's more a matter of fatigue.

I've expressed my reservations about the foregoing architects many times here. Those reservations were based partly on courses I've played. They were also based on what Fazio et al. say about their design philosophies in their books, articles and interviews.

Whether it is a failure on my part or not, I simply don't have the energy to retread that ground for the umpteenth time. Especially with regard to new courses I've never played.

As for the wide berth given to Tom Doak here, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he is really perceptive, is a superb writer, has vast experience in the discipline and has actually built some of the greatest courses in the world, would it?

Or are there a lot of other contributors here with similar CV's that I don't know about?


Bob 







 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bob

Just Blog it Bob, say it how you see it, after all its your opinion that matters to you, so share it with others 

Its not a question of right or wrong but of feelings and that is what matters.

Melvyn

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,

My criterion for wonderful as it applies to a golf course, wonderful being a pretty elastic word, is did I leave the course with a smile on my face or at least in my heart.  As this applies to Crapapple, the answer is an emphatic yes.

I love the huge scale of the course and the understated elegance of the property.  As those are your stomping grounds, you are well aware that they are truly grounds for golf.  The architecture is fittingly restrained.  At #3 I got a quirky, unexpected bounce (usually a good sign in my book) and at #4 I noticed myself going back and forth to my bag for just the right club (another good sign).  The 8-9-10 loop is where the course finally had me, and maybe I should note I had just made hash of #7, which is not something would that would generally pre-dispose me toward over-niceness.  To me #8 was the highlight of the course, a long par 4 to a bunkerless green sitting up Raynor style.  How fun it was to punch a 4-iron and watch the ball barely conquer the hill.  #9 gave me Augusta National flashbacks when I a got down into a holler and momentarily lost track of where I was.  #10.. another difficult par 4 that offers some fairly well dilineated options off the tee and challenging angles into the green.  #12.. still down there in the bowl.. just gorgeous with an elegant sweep around the one lonely hardwood.  There were plenty of other holes that stood out but this is getting wordy, and yet #14 was really cool the way you really do need to land the ball short of the green and watch it trickle down, and windy #15 (another Raynoresque green) is a real gem.

I think you are onto something about bunkers not being in play.  Maybe more of them should be;  I did find one (#17, tried to cut a corner) to my considerable regret.

You know better than I do how big the property is and what went unused.  If there's more out there, then maybe he could have found a way to keep the walk from #2 to #3 from crossing the road.  I found the linksish bowl to be spectacular.

As relates to this thread.. given my time on this site I was ready for a real dud.  I played White Columns some years back and remember really nothing of it.  This one is seared in my memory and that's something else that usually tells me something.

Out of curiosity, AG, do you have much recollection of #8 and if so what did you think of the hole?

Gary,
I don't remember #8, though that may not make my point about the lack of memorable/stirring holes at Crabapple.   I played the course three times, but haven't been out there in over 5 yrs. now.  I drive by Crabapple probably three times a week; I never particularly long to play the golf course, which for me is unusual.

I've played White Columns probably a dozen times and relatively recently, and feel the same way.  Can't remember many specific holes, etc.  White Columns is worse, though, because it is almost an unwalkable routing, and needlessly so, IMO.

An to the original question of the thread:  No, I don't think that criticism has been stifled.  But it has been MUCH less interesting than in days gone by, and much more strident in tone with individuals who believe that it's o.k. to shout others down.

[Tom_Doak]

In re-reading this thread, the one line I missed in JNC Lyon's original post which has been singled out -- with good reason -- is the one about "what if a different architect had built these courses".  To me, criticism should stick to what the architect built and what he might have done differently.  If it goes further then you are just playing favorites and showing your bias.  One reason it's hard for me to critique others' work anymore is that I can't help but violate this rule; anytime I question any feature I am implying what I would have done.  That was less implicit twenty years ago when I wrote The Confidential Guide.

[Tom_Doak]

I am finally making a point of playing two "great" Pete Dye courses (Kiawah and TPC Sawgrass) on the way to Florida for the holiday break. To date, I have only played good ones. One of these days, I will make it to Ballyneal and Bandon too.

The problem with having this conversation with you is - well - you are still alive rather than an Old Dead Guy.  History is really the one that will determine what were the ingredients for your success. It takes time for all the other assistants and workers to start to distance themselves from a project before they speak about it. See your work at Long Cove, we certainly are not going to learn much about it from Pete Dye - http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/pete-dye

I got a few IM's and emails last night about this conversation. It really is nothing more than me being curious about the elements, in and out of your control, that made up your success as a "Modern Architect".
 

Mike,

Personally, I don't think those are the two best Pete Dye courses you could see, either, but they'll have to do.

Mr Dye doesn't say much about my work at Long Cove because I didn't do much there.  I was a skinny, green 20-year-old on his first real job and just trying to figure out what we were doing.  Apart from getting to listen to Pete talk about what we were doing, and measuring the slopes on the greens (because I was the best at math), my only contribution was to take the first try at shaping the fourth green.  It was the Saturday morning after a crew party on Friday night, and Mr Dye and I were the only two who showed up on time that morning!  But I only had a tractor and box blade to do the work, and I'd never done that before, so I'm sure P.B. Dye fixed it for me after my attempt.

[Tom_Doak]

As we are talking about GCA can someone please tell me where is the architecture in the following photo.



I do not see much, strip the abundance of bunkers out of the picture and you have a lawn out of place in a dry and rocky environment. Architecture let alone design seem to have packed its bags and gone home in this picture

Has criticism of modern architecture been stifled – sorry but do we not need to see architecture before we make a comment. Modern design is all about overkill,  starting with poor location, to many bunkers or the need for island feature and of course the ever need to design a Championship course. If I did not better I would say that some architects need to be taught the principle of the Game of Golf as their designs sometimes convey the message that they do not know what they are doing. 

Please look at the above photo that Eric posted earlier and tell me where you see the architecture, then perhaps you can answer the original question on this thread.

Sorry guys I see nothing to be complacent about, nothing that shouts design and very little that would attract me to play this hole.  That my friends is an honest opinion of what I have observed now can we have your real opinions.

Melvyn
 

Melvyn:

Rubbish posts like that will get you nowhere.  First off, you are criticizing a picture of a place 5000 miles from where you have ever been.  And second, a lot of good architecture hides itself from immediate view.

This course was built in Montana on a VERY rocky site.  You might say that no one should spend the money to build on such a site, and that would be your opinion ... though in that case golf would pretty much be ruled out for Montana.  However, if you had walked this piece of ground with me before construction, I do not believe you would have come to that conclusion.  This ground had some of the most beautiful natural contours for fairways I have ever seen ... very links-like in fact.  You just happen to have chosen the rockiest hole on the property to make your example of.

We built more bunkers around this green than any other because it was so rocky. figuring it was fairer to the golfers to make them recover out of sand instead of rock for a near miss.  We also designed a bigger green than normal for a relatively short par 3, to give fair latitude for misses and to see if players had the nerve to play toward one corner of the green (and closer to the rocks) instead of safely to the middle.  As for the green itself, to me the shape of it is remarkably similar to a certain par 3 green on The Old Course, but I didn't think of that while we were building it.

If none of that constitutes architecture to you, well, perhaps you don't really know what architecture is, since you come from a place where you can just go out and cut 18 holes in the ground and you've got a reasonable course.  You should feel blessed that is the case, but it's no reason to criticize everwhere else that isn't so blessed.

[Ryan Farrow]

JNC. No, it has not been stifled.

People are allowed to agree, agree that a course built by Tom Fazio is good. Just because you don't like a course by a certain architect and others do, doesn't mean you have free rein to put it down.

YOU GOT CALLED OUT ON IT!  Just like you should. The point of a discussion board is to generate frank discussion, backed up by facts, or in this case consensus opinion.

Just because you didn't like it does not give you the right to pop off about how this architect or that architect would have been a better choice. Look,   Frank Lloyd Wright couldn't design every home in the world, he was only 1 man. If he did, every home would have a leaky roof and you would have to duck to get into every room. And because he didn't design every home, we get to cherish the homes he did build. And some of them are preserved, turned into museum pieces were the public will get to enjoy them for ages to come.


Why can't golf course architecture be the same? Why does every course need to be a monument? why do only a handful of architects get your approval to design golf courses? Wouldn't that make things a little plain? Can't we just enjoy the few great courses that get built every year, regardless of who designed them?

When a bad course is designed, fine, go out and tell the world, I'm sure most of us will agree with you, but don't expect to to pop off about a course you never saw and  be disappointed when nobody takes your side. GCA is better then that.




Melvyn,

That course, in Deer Lodge, Montana, HAS CART PATHS!!!!   

Get on Tom Doak......

[Richard Choi]

No, I don't think we have been stifled. To demonstrate that fact, I will call BS on this thread.

There is nothing that is more stifling than automatically praising/denigrating a course just because who the architect is. A course should stand on its own. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut and "even" Fazio and Jones (II) can build fantastic courses (World Woods, Chambers Bay) can build fantastic modern courses. And Arthur Hills did a pretty fine job with renovating the University of Michigan course.

To advocate a view that we should automatically shout down any course not designed by Doak and C&C is the most ridiculous thing I have heard around here. It is pretty pathetic, frankly.

Is that none-stifling enough?

[John Kirk]

This is a very good thread.  Thanks to JNC Lyon for starting it.

I've been spending some of my time over the last few years writing a few essays on modern golf courses, in hopes of putting together a book on the subject.  It's very slow going for me; I'm not the most disciplined man and I tend to prioritize other activities.

All of the essays I have written are glowing, positive reviews of the subject courses.  When I approach a new course, and ask if I may visit and write an essay, many times they pause before allowing or denying me the privelege of visiting and studying their club.  Many of these clubs are brand new, and struggling to find members and make ends meet.  Negative publicity can be very painful for these clubs.  There is an overbundance of high-end clubs in America, and if you haven't figured it out yet, the real-estate "bubble" is an enormous financial problem, and will take years or decades to sort out.  Many clubs, even the best America has to to offer, are in deep trouble.

For the time being, I have become less willing to offer a negative opinion, unless I feel a club and its course are financially stable.  I don't want to discourage clubs from allowing me the pleasure to visit.  Even though I am writing essays on first class modern courses, where there's less to criticize, and analysis is more a matter of evaluating different styles, I feel my public commentary may be evaluated before being allowed to visit the courses I want to profile.

By the way, saying a course is good, or a course is crap, doesn't really qualify as criticism in my opinion.  Pointed criticism...why is this bunker here, or why does this green tilt away from the player...things like that, are the type of analysis required when offering a true evaluation.  It all has to do with asking why.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

I am not rubbishing any post; I am as I made clear submitting my honest opinion on a photo. I did not know nor did I look up the designers name, it was s comment straight from the heart as I looked upon the photo.

I do not know what the clients brief or his budgets requirements, but I will reiterate I see not architecture, in fact I must say from what I see I even questioned design intent.

Imagine my surprise to learn that you were responsible as the actual designer, its quite shocking as I do rate you highly. In fact I would say that you are one of a hand full of goog designers since the Golden Age.

For the record I am not into modern golfing Champions turning into designers, because do we know that they did get involved or just signed some ones else design off. Golf and golf course design is a serious business and if the large design companies do not warrant naming the designer then quite frankly why employ them. I want the flare, the knowledge of the individual not the watered down effort of a corporate free for all. It serious so name the designer, give him credit , if he is not good enough to design the whole course the he is not good enough to design a Hole lets alone Greens or bunkers.

I am not getting involved with company operations but I expect to know the designer. If I commission Faldo, Nicklaus I expect their name and their design, not that of an associate. Sell the name then the name is what I would be buying. Why would I go to Tiger or Faldo if I knew that neither of them would do my design, leaving it to some I may have never heard of. Perhaps it’s a question of also respecting the clients, if they deserve to be respected.

Getting back to the photo, yes I accept my comment was based upon one photo, but one photo can sell the course, alas this one did not in my case. I kept asking myself, why no dry stone walls made from the surrounding rock, sorry I just see no imagination, no design flare in that photo that conveys this guy is going to test my skills.

AS a golfer I would not normally accompany a designer around a course, so you comment is not really fair or appropriate. I made a simple statement on a site related to GCA, based upon a photo another member posted and I feel my comments does have merit. I have only reacted to the scene before me in the photo and yes IMHO it is totally devoid of any architecture, its shows very little flair. Where are say the dry stone walls (require less maintenance than a bunker and cheaper) the other hazards, I understand Sean moaning about to many bunkers on courses today.

Tom I would expect that the rest of the course is spectacular but from the image posted I have tried to be honest, give a straight opinion stating that yes I am extremely disappointed from the lack or architecture.

Surely this is one of the reasons why Ran started this site to understand the opinions of others.

In closing I have a high regard for your work and your opinions Tom, but that does not mean you are always correct or remove my right to submit an opinion.

The location of a golf course is paramount; it actually dictates the game that’s played. That I feel is extremely important and Clients should be made aware of that fact. Of course there will be places not fit to play golf, to say so is not a sign of failure but shows strength and knowledge of ones subject.


Melvyn   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()