News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #25 on: February 23, 2013, 09:49:44 PM »
Mark, where did I say he did?

Do you not see the following as "geometric"? It looks pretty conical to me:



Arcs are geometric too. I don't recall anything like this in nature:



I can think of a few places where Dye's "railroad tied" water hazards create some pretty straight lines and sharp angled hazards. But mostly, I see a lot of curved but still pronouncedly geometric and decidedly unnatural features on his courses that still create interesting golf. Do you use a different term than "geometric" for those features?
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #26 on: February 23, 2013, 10:28:07 PM »

Whaddya mean, so what? 
Almost every architect had left the geometric school behind, that's what. 

So what ?   ......... again. 

That's neither the issue nor the topic of this thread.

It must be past your bedtime, go back and have someone read you the opening post on this thread




Patrick_Mucci

Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #27 on: February 23, 2013, 10:29:54 PM »
What's wrong with Geometric architecture if it functions to perfection in challenging the golfer ?

Can't be anything wrong with it, if Chicago Golf Club is good.  And I think it is much better than good.

Mac,

I"ve never played Chicago, but have seen numerous pictures, and liked every one.

I'm hoping to get to play it this summer.





Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2013, 10:47:08 PM »
The geometric design style has been left behind in favor of the naturalistic/minimalist style because it's what the customers have wanted since the mid '20's, not because it's more penal.  Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2013, 11:06:33 PM »
The geometric design style has been left behind in favor of the naturalistic/minimalist style because it's what the customers have wanted since the mid '20's, not because it's more penal.  Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Bill,

You're obviously confused.

Did you forget your meds ?

You still don't understand the question.
Go back and reread it before you lose focus for the day.


Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2013, 11:17:42 PM »
The geometric design style has been left behind in favor of the naturalistic/minimalist style because it's what the customers have wanted since the mid '20's, not because it's more penal.  Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Bill,

You're obviously confused.

Did you forget your meds ?

You still don't understand the question.
Go back and reread it before you lose focus for the day.


Your question:  did the geometric design lose favor as a concession to the less penal natural style?

My response:  no, the customers (owners) preferred the natural style for aesthetic reasons, not for issues of which was more penal.

Was that too complicated?

FWIW I love playing NGLA, Yale, the Creek, Mountain Lake, etc.  but the market spoke and courses in the style of Mackenzie, Ross, Thompson, Thomas are in vogue while courses in the style of MacDonald and Raynor are not. 

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2013, 04:09:11 PM »
The geometric design style has been left behind in favor of the naturalistic/minimalist style because it's what the customers have wanted since the mid '20's, not because it's more penal.  Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Bill,

You're obviously confused.

Did you forget your meds ?

You still don't understand the question.
Go back and reread it before you lose focus for the day.


Your question:  did the geometric design lose favor as a concession to the less penal natural style?

That was just ONE of the questions, evidently you fell asleep before you could read the others.


My response:  no, the customers (owners) preferred the natural style for aesthetic reasons, not for issues of which was more penal.

Was that too complicated?

FWIW I love playing NGLA, Yale, the Creek, Mountain Lake, etc.  but the market spoke and courses in the style of Mackenzie, Ross, Thompson, Thomas are in vogue while courses in the style of MacDonald and Raynor are not. 

That must explain Mike Keiser's motivation for his most recent course at Bandon.

I forget the name of the course, perhaps you or others could remind me what it's called.

I understand it's quite popular.


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #32 on: February 24, 2013, 04:12:53 PM »
Photo tour of Chicago...

http://theitinerantgolfer.com/chicago-golf-club/

the most geometric course I may have ever seen.  And, WOW, it is good.

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2013, 08:16:28 PM »
The geometric design style has been left behind in favor of the naturalistic/minimalist style because it's what the customers have wanted since the mid '20's, not because it's more penal.  Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Bill,

You're obviously confused.

Did you forget your meds ?

You still don't understand the question.
Go back and reread it before you lose focus for the day.


Your question:  did the geometric design lose favor as a concession to the less penal natural style?

That was just ONE of the questions, evidently you fell asleep before you could read the others.


My response:  no, the customers (owners) preferred the natural style for aesthetic reasons, not for issues of which was more penal.

Was that too complicated?

FWIW I love playing NGLA, Yale, the Creek, Mountain Lake, etc.  but the market spoke and courses in the style of Mackenzie, Ross, Thompson, Thomas are in vogue while courses in the style of MacDonald and Raynor are not. 

That must explain Mike Keiser's motivation for his most recent course at Bandon.

I forget the name of the course, perhaps you or others could remind me what it's called.

I understand it's quite popular.


One of how many courses built in the past 20 years?   Please list as many other MacDonald-Raynor courses as you can built in those two decades.   I really enjoyed that course, but I saw few of the truly geometric features of the originals.  It is much more about making the templates fit the available terrain and create the strategic challenges of those templates.   Have you played that course so you'll comprehend what I'm saying?   You won't if you haven't. 

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #34 on: February 24, 2013, 08:43:26 PM »
Bill,

Golf goes through phases, so when you say that golfers were the driving force that caused architects to turn away from geometric architecture, was it those same golfers who influenced Robert Trent Jones to initiate his style ?

Fazio his style ?

Which comes first ?  The golfer or the architect ?

Cost to construct may have been a factor in the move away from the geometric style.
Cost to maintain may have been another.

But in the era of constructed/manufactured courses, if the geometric style functioned superbly, why not reintroduce elements of it it ?

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2013, 09:28:19 PM »
Bill,

Golf goes through phases, so when you say that golfers were the driving force that caused architects to turn away from geometric architecture, was it those same golfers who influenced Robert Trent Jones to initiate his style ?

Fazio his style ?

Which comes first ?  The golfer or the architect ?

Cost to construct may have been a factor in the move away from the geometric style.
Cost to maintain may have been another.

But in the era of constructed/manufactured courses, if the geometric style functioned superbly, why not reintroduce elements of it it ?

I actually clarified that to say that owners were making the decision.

There were changes in design preference between geometric and RTJ, the "naturalistic" Golden Age designers in the '20's and '30's.   Pete Dye built off that and cleverly reintroduced formal geometric elements.  Today it's fun to play a hole like the 3rd or 4th at Rivermont, one of the best Redans you'll ever see.  But is a Redan "geometric?"

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2013, 09:46:55 PM »
While it is a tribute to Raynor/MacDonald, Black Creek is a modern day development where Doug Stein and the folks behind the project embraced the geometric genre, and gave the architectural mission to Brian Silva.  Did you all forget this course, reviewed here on GCA and quite a darling of our little treehouse when it first came on line a decade ago?

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/black-creek/
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #37 on: February 24, 2013, 10:05:49 PM »
While it is a tribute to Raynor/MacDonald, Black Creek is a modern day development where Doug Stein and the folks behind the project embraced the geometric genre, and gave the architectural mission to Brian Silva.  Did you all forget this course, reviewed here on GCA and quite a darling of our little treehouse when it first came on line a decade ago?

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/black-creek/

Good call Mr Daley.  Where else?

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #38 on: February 25, 2013, 01:20:47 PM »
River Hall in Florida is a modern DLIII course with a geometric look.

I agree that Dye's courses tend to be geometric - primarily with respect to the fairways which frequently have pretty straight angles for the draw/fade or fade/draw type holes he has often designed.  TPC Sawgrass, PGA West and The Ocean Course are three examples I would put in that category.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What's wrong with
« Reply #39 on: February 25, 2013, 05:06:41 PM »
Let's not forget that many, if not most tees remain square or rectangular.

But, what would be wrong with a square/rectangular green, surrounded by a deep moat bunker ?

How would that be deemed bad or inappropriate architecture ?