The sole reason I was hesitant to get involved with Old Macdonald was that I understood it was only one step away from this, although it was one very big step, in my opinion. (cause that hole at yeaman's doesn't even sniff the same topography)
I would call this project "non-architecture". It may be exactly what the client wants and what the people of Thailand want [or deserve]. And Ron Garl may or may not be a nice guy. But is it really architecture at all if you just take a plan from somewhere else and lay it over your site and make no attempt to improve upon it or even adapt it to the terrain you have to work with? As far as I can tell, all that's been done is to pick some famous holes and build something that looks like them ... and so far, all we've heard is that the course looks like these holes in two dimensions. It would be more impressive if he actually managed to reproduce the third dimension, but even so, it still wouldn't be architecture, in my book.
It's interesting that the line is always drawn (in all industries)....... just above where someone is standing.
Is a template any different than "building a hole that looks like them"
If we build it perfectly in three dimensions it's a copy that no on respects (well maybe Tom Doak), if it's in two dimensions it's no good according to Tom Doak, but how is that different than a template?
I mean is the Alps hole at Yeamans (one of my favorite courses) any more than a two dimensional (flat) hole with an elevated green?
I didn't state that very well, but what I'm saying is , is the copy of 13 at augusta, even without the exact same topography, no worse than comparing the Alps at Yeamans to the original?
Obviously Tom Doak spent a lot of years grinding it out and sticking to his ideals while getting minimal prime opportunities (which is incredibly commendable) and ultimately it paid off to the point where he is the premier architect out there, and even in a nasty golf depression is able to get and do high quality work on prime sites. I'm guessing the other 95% are doing what it takes to keep the doors open and their associates fed.
With all the "original" crap that's been built in the last 40 years, I'd say an unoriginal copy of a great course isn't the end of the world.
I just wish he'd built the front nine from ANGC instead of the tribute to Florida.
Edit:If the general concensus in Thailand is that it's a fun and enjoyable course, and the course is a financial success due to its' popularity with players, does it matter that it's not considered "architecture" by some beard pullers.
And if I build a colonial home, is it not "architecture" if someone spots a very similar design in Boston?
Cause last I checked, people always tell me they love the architecture style of my house, yet I had an architect copy the exterior out of a magazine (he must've needed the work too). Who knew i didn't need an architect (cause it's not architecture)