[Jud_T]

While obviously great news, does the announcement of Gil Hanse being awarded the Olympic commission truly herald a watershed moment in GCA?  Is all the stuff we obsess about here about to burst upon the broader public's golf psyche?  Is there a real passing of the baton from the older generation and the player/designer to the young, or middle aged, real GCA turks?  Is minimalism going mainstream? Will Golf Digest have to change their ratings criteria as a result to avoid becoming the buggywhip of lists? While we may not truly know the answers for a generation, these are some random thoughts worth pondering....

[RJ_Daley]

I don't know about a watershed moment.  I see what you are getting at in the shift by big developers or entities seeming to be more willing to go with a bonafide and legitimate career professional architect over a name player/designer.  But, all of those player/designers do have legitimate career professional archies doing the heavy lifting. 

I don't automatically put Gil Hanse or Tom Doak in some box of 'minimalist'.  I've seen Gil's work at Rustic during construction and played it a few times.  I think it definitely is a minimalistic approach.  And, I've been with Gil and Geoff on the ground to see and hear their ideas and explore the routing of the never completed course at Prairie Club and that was quite minimalist.  But, I'm not sure how you'd get to minimalist with the Castle Stuart or this concept presentation at the Oly's.  I guess these talented archies can go minimalist when they want and the land gives that to them, and maybe when they have a choice, they'll approach things with a less is more philosophy.  But, this Oly deal that Gil will commence, hardly seems like a watershed moment of minimalism.  Just a possible general recognition by those that develop and put up the $$$ that it doesn't take a pro player/designer to insure a great golf course design; it takes career professional talent of an architect with a repetoire of design/construction techniques learned from doing the profession from the dirt-up, and depth of imagination.

[JSlonis]

Jud,

I think the choice of Hanse design is a big deal for the small contingent of golf course architecture buffs that participate on this site and for the small group of golfers that have a keen interest in this type of stuff but it's only a blip on the radar screen for Joe Average Golfer.

Since Gil's selection was the lead story last night on the Golf Channel and Phil Mickelson followed yesterday's announcement with glowing praise, perhaps this Olympic story will be big enough to push the golf course architecture story to a different level for the mainstream golfer. Personally, I don't think in the immediate future we'll see any significant impact but as the project progresses and more people are exposed to the topic of golf architecture and the discussion of strategy and options, it's got to have some lasting value.

I thought Gil did a great job in his press conference yesterday conveying his philosphy and what he hopes to accomplish on this job as well as others.

[Jud_T]

  But, this Oly deal that Gil will commence, hardly seems like a watershed moment of minimalism.  Just a possible general recognition by those that develop and put up the $$$ that it doesn't take a pro player/designer to insure a great golf course design; it takes career professional talent of an architect with a repetoire of design/construction techniques learned from doing the profession from the dirt-up, and depth of imagination.

RJ,

Wouldn't this in and of itself be a watershed moment?

[ward peyronnin]

Maybe one reason this will be a watershed moment is that Intl golf will take notice of these designers to a much greater degree.

This is an Olympic venue.. Asia exposure is huge and that is where the new courses will be built

[JESII]

Ward touches on it but I think it's more than that. Every developer (not just in Asia) for years to come will know that this project went to someone from the "minimalist school". This is a great thing because they'll ask why and the conversation will move away from mainstream name recognition back to where it belongs...the golf course...it's viability and sustainability.

[Terry Lavin]

Let's hope it's a watershed moment for Gil and his crew.  I wouldn't afflict him with more than that at this point in time.

[RJ_Daley]

Watershed moment implies to me that there is a sweeping revelation, and a widespread shift of what constitutes general principles or conventional approaches to issues or ways of doing things.  

I think the recognition by those who have the primary influence in the golf course development arena are those that make the money decisions.  In that regard, there seems to me to be generally two types of entities.  The corporate approach that develops courses as part of large RE and resort complexes, tourist destinations, etc.  They still tend to go with the big name player/designers, or the archies that got into the arena 30 years ago and made a splash with the anti-minimalist, move the earth and heavens to create courses of idealistic showy bombastic visuals, to sell, sell, sell the overall projects.  

But in my mind, the second kind of developer is the well heeled individual, lover of golf, visionary, who knows what great golf entails, and is keen on putting their name and reputation on creation of a new classic golf course, and those individual wealthy individuals have put in the time and passion to seek out talent, not names.  But, those individuals have been in the arena now for several decades.  Kohler bridges the gap of corporate big project, looking for big name designer, with his BWR and WS projects, where mininalism isn't even a consideration at all, and the name and talent of Dye was what counted.  But, Youngscapp, Keiser, Robertson, O'Neils, and now put C. Johnston on the list, (and the guy who hired Nuzzo) as people that are hiring talent, and boutique design/build.  Shockingly, Trump has entered the arena with a change of perception, hiring Gil for Doral.

I think a change is underway, and a recognition as Sully says- that sustainability, environmental care and naturalism is underway with these movers and shakers, both domestically and internationally.  But, I see it more as a watershed era than moment.  It has already been a process.  Tom Doak is getting grey, and Gil is middleaged at best.    Their time isn't a moment, it is already a very mature career of an era, IMHO.

[JESII]

What's the famous entertainer's line about taking 20 years to become and overnight success?

Maybe Tipping Point as opposed to Watershed moment is a better term...regardless, it's significant in my eyes.

[BCrosby]

Ward touches on it but I think it's more than that. Every developer (not just in Asia) for years to come will know that this project went to someone from the "minimalist school". This is a great thing because they'll ask why and the conversation will move away from mainstream name recognition back to where it belongs...the golf course...it's viability and sustainability.

That sounds right. A great deal of gca over the last two decades was driven by real estate development. That meant golf courses with lots of eye candy built by architects with household names.

The minimalism thing has been going on for a while, but always as second fiddle to a front rank of big names. Without having to carry the load of selling residential lots, perhaps the profession can reset its priorites. Though it will be from a much smaller base of projects.

Bob

  

[Bill Brightly]

What's the famous entertainer's line about taking 20 years to become and overnight success?

Maybe Tipping Point as opposed to Watershed moment is a better term...regardless, it's significant in my eyes.

"Tipping point" might be a good phrase. I think Gil's choice is far more important to those of us on GCA than the golfing community as a whole. I suppose it would be far more impactful IF the TV coverage of the actual invent really stressed how this type of course was different and how it is a great model for future new courses and renovations. And I wonder how large the TV audience will be for Olympic golf. Clearly, the selection of Hanse gives golf writers like Brad and others the opportunity to explain why the choice was a good one, and THAT may have more positive effect to "mainstream" minmalism. 

If your goal is to have a "minimalist" approach take a firmer hold in the US, I honestly think Trump hiring Gil is a far bigger deal, especially if Donald suddendly "gets it."

[Kalen Braley]

RJ,

While minimalism is great, and utlimately that would be the end goal of every project, I think almost as important is the concept of naturalism.  IMO, if you have to move a bit a dirt around to create interest...if you can do it in a natural looking way, this is just as big a victory.

I recall back to the epic Pacific Dunes thread where Tom asked us as a group if we could point out where he moved a significant amount of dirt or not on that course.  As I recall, only one person was maybe 40% correct in his guesses, with most of being maybe only 20-25% correct in where we thought he had done so.  That is a nice indication of good architecture in my book.

So as we look to the recent Rio decision...its a big win for naturalism on the golf course!!!!

[JESII]

I agree that we on GCA are a minute outlier in the world of golf in that this stuff is interesting to us. I don't think this decision matters right now to the great majority of other golfers...my interest is in the very small number of people that may realistically put their money together and start a golf project in the next 10 years. Everyone of them will now have to ask why the Olympics AND Donald Trump chose Gil Hanse...I guarantee Gil and every one of his peers would love the opportunity to answer that question because it is about the golf course...and The Emporer!

[Adam Clayman]

Does anyone know why Phil keeps dissing Tom?

[JESII]

Does anyone know why Phil keeps dissing Tom?

I must be out of touch...what did he do?

[Anthony Gray]

  It does show a recognition of the non-golfer turned architect. Nice to see.  And surprised they did not go with the global name recognition. How much did Castle Stuart play in the decision I wonder?

  Anthony

[Melvyn Morrow]

It may well be a shed moment as the designer is governed by the land available, equipment in clubs/balls and location.

As it’s the Olympics, I trust that we will see the game in its full glory but I have that sinking feeling that we are about to see another Castle Course where money was the guiding light behind that enterprise.

Will we see the odd fake items to enhance age, as Castle Stuart or will we see a 21st Century impression of what some consider is the game of Golf and that includes pressure from our Governing Bodies.

More importantly the challenge is now with the designer to produce a testing and enjoyable course totally fit for the purpose of playing that Royal & Ancient Game of Golf. What an opportunity.

Good luck Gil & Co, show the world that golf in both the game and design is not dead or dying and that again playing golf makes the golfer think while walking as this is not the paraplegic games, so no need for carts. Let’s really hope that this will be the walking thinking Olympic Games of golf.

Here’s hoping for the sake of the game.

Melvyn   

[PCCraig]

Does anyone know why Phil keeps dissing Tom?

Probably because Phil doesn't know what the hell he's talking about ~99.99999999% of the time.

[Tim Pitner]

Does anyone know why Phil keeps dissing Tom?

I must be out of touch...what did he do?

Phil mentioned (and has previously mentioned) Hanse and Coore/Crenshaw as great, modern architects and has not mentioned Doak.  I don't know if that qualifies as dissing.  I'm guessing Mickelson is more familiar with Hanse and C&C because of their work on tour courses, e.g., TPC Boston, Castle Stuart and Plantation.  But I could be wrong. 

[Howard Riefs]

Does anyone know why Phil keeps dissing Tom?

I must be out of touch...what did he do?

Phil mentioned (and has previously mentioned) Hanse and Coore/Crenshaw as great, modern architects and has not mentioned Doak.  I don't know if that qualifies as dissing.  I'm guessing Mickelson is more familiar with Hanse and C&C because of their work on tour courses, e.g., TPC Boston, Castle Stuart and Plantation.  But I could be wrong.  

I agree with that. Here's Mickelson's direct comments from Doral yesterday:

Q.  Today the Olympic Committee announced that Gil Hanse would be the designer for 2016 over Hall of Famers like Nicklaus, Player, Norman.  You've been complimentary of his design styles in the past.  Curious your thoughts that he'll be designing?

PHIL MICKELSON:  I'm a big fan of Gil Hanse.  I think he's one of the best architects in the business.  He understands how to make a golf course playable for the average player but challenging for the good player.  He does it better than probably anyone, Crenshaw and Coore maybe being the exception.

For him to get the Olympic job, I give the Olympic Committee a real credit, a lot of credit, because, it would have been easier to go with a big name.  And instead, they went with the best.  I thought that was pretty cool.
 

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=78005

  It does show a recognition of the non-golfer turned architect. Nice to see.  And surprised they did not go with the global name recognition. How much did Castle Stuart play in the decision I wonder?

  Anthony

Shackelford on the influence of Castle Stuart:

A number of factors aided Hanse’s bid even as he was arguably the least well-known finalist. The International Golf Federation’s lone jury panel voter, R&A Chief Officer Peter Dawson, publicly praised the 48-year-old designer's work at Scottish Open host Castle Stuart.


http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2012/3/7/gil-hanse-wins-olympic-course-design-competition.html

[PCCraig]

Does anyone know why Phil keeps dissing Tom?

I must be out of touch...what did he do?

Phil mentioned (and has previously mentioned) Hanse and Coore/Crenshaw as great, modern architects and has not mentioned Doak.  I don't know if that qualifies as dissing.  I'm guessing Mickelson is more familiar with Hanse and C&C because of their work on tour courses, e.g., TPC Boston, Castle Stuart and Plantation.  But I could be wrong.  

From Tom:

I was speaking to someone today about the Olympic course, and he mentioned how important it was for whomever the architect is to build something that is generally popular among the players ... because if the players pan the course and make a public fuss of it, it increases the odds that golf will be quickly dispensed from the Olympic realm.  I confess I hadn't thought of that angle before.  I haven't heard Rees Jones' name in the hopper for that job, but based on that comment it's probably just as well.

I wonder why Mickelson is promoting particular architect's names?  ["A Coore-Crenshaw"?]  I don't know if he has actually seen any of my work or not, but I know why he isn't mentioning me ... because I didn't want Phil and Rick Smith as co-designers on something a few years back [which never got built anyway].  Hopefully someday I'll get to build a course he hates. 

[Mike_Young]

Let's hope it's a watershed moment for Gil and his crew.  I wouldn't afflict him with more than that at this point in time.

Agree.

I mentioned this to some guys eating lunch in the grill today.  The attention span was about 10 seconds.  So I don't think it will be that big a deal for Joe Golfer.  Where I truly see it being a big deal is with the methodology.   Think about how golf courses have come to be in the last 25 years.  Most developers and clubs have been sold on seeing huge sets of plans with 10 "certified" builders bidding the plans and change orders and bonds on top of many other soft course.  My instinct says this is going to be a much more simple build with out all of the hype etc.  This and this alone can do more to bring cost back into line than any other thing.  Now by saying this I have immediately pissed off builders and guys that do huge plans...but how are they going to ague with it?

[Mike_Young]

Does anyone know why Phil keeps dissing Tom?

I must be out of touch...what did he do?

Phil mentioned (and has previously mentioned) Hanse and Coore/Crenshaw as great, modern architects and has not mentioned Doak.  I don't know if that qualifies as dissing.  I'm guessing Mickelson is more familiar with Hanse and C&C because of their work on tour courses, e.g., TPC Boston, Castle Stuart and Plantation.  But I could be wrong.  

From Tom:

I wonder why Mickelson is promoting particular architect's names?  ["A Coore-Crenshaw"?]  I don't know if he has actually seen any of my work or not, but I know why he isn't mentioning me ... because I didn't want Phil and Rick Smith as co-designers on something a few years back [which never got built anyway].  Hopefully someday I'll get to build a course he hates. 

One of my favorite green templates has been the Maiden but I hear modern architecture calls it the Phil.

[JC Urbina]

Adam,

Why would you care that Phil is dissing Tom?

Do you really think Tom's next job will hinge on Phil's recommendation.

[David Kelly]

I doubt Hanse would want to be put into a box that says, "minimalist".  Like Doak he is talented and versatile enough to do anything the job requires.  Look at the Rio site and look at his winning course proposal and tell me that what he will be doing is minimalism.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()