Two separate talents, or one in the same?

[Joe Hancock]

I've been pondering this for some time, and maybe it has been discussed here. But if I throw out the premise

A) TPC Sawgrass is an example of a course that was architected

and

B) The Old Course is an example of a course that was found

do you find the terms appropriate? Is there other, better examples? And, to my main question.....are the two completely different talents that architects(can/ should) display?

Would NGLA be the poster child of both talents coming together in the best possible way?

And finally...Peter Pallotta, could you please explain better what I'm trying to ask/ convey?

Maybe to clarify, I would put it this way: routing vs. strategic manipulation.....?

[Phil Young]

The 16th hole at Cypress Point was FOUND... The features of it were ARCHITECTED...

[Bill_McBride]

Even the Old Course was "architected" in the old days.  It was widened by removing gorse, which allowed for parallel out and in fairways, and Old Tom built the existing 18th hole on the graveyard of old bones.   The course was reduced from 22 to 18 holes.  None of that was "found."

[Bill Brightly]

The 16th hole at Cypress Point was FOUND (By Seth Raynor)... The features of it were ARCHITECTED (By MacKenzie)...

[Phil Young]

Bill,

  +1

[Jeff Bergeron]

Even the Old Course was "architected" in the old days.  It was widened by removing gorse, which allowed for parallel out and in fairways, and Old Tom built the existing 18th hole on the graveyard of old bones.   The course was reduced from 22 to 18 holes.  None of that was "found."

I would consider the changes you referenced found.

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe - I'd be happy to tell you what you mean!

To answer your question: I think it's the same talent at work in both cases, although channelled through two different methods. One method is to "incorporate" a field of play (on a given site), while the other is to "envision" a field of play. Both require an understanding of architectural principles,  the ability to visualize the site's potential in this regard, and the skill to make manifest what is seen and known. (That's the talent.) But from there on in, I think it's more a matter of technique than it is of talent, i.e. one technique akin to sculpting away the marble until a seemingly living statue emerges (i.e. an incorporated design, as is The Old Course), the other akin to building up layers of paint until the impression comes to life (i.e. an envisioned design, as is TPC Sawgrass). The very talented architects can incorporate and/or envision both, for it is the same talent. 

Peter

[Mike_Young]

Peter,
I'm not sure it is the same talent.  I think it is two entirely different schools with one looking to add layers and one looking to remove layers.  You are the wordsmith so maybe you can write a better explanation. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

The funny thing about your examples is that they are both basically flat sites (TOC and TPC). For the most part, routing is finding, features are architecting, with some emphasizing finding features a bit more than others.

As the CP example, they found a great natural hole, but then added Mac Style bunkers that he used across the rest of the course (and most of his courses)  I know I can find great natural holes, at least in my definition of broad natural contours providing a nice hole.  I don't worry about a lot of the micro contours (and really, they are rarely present on the typical site, or I would) but then design the features according to what I think is good design for modern golf, more than worrying about protecting contours in any exact fashion.  I do limit construction by letting the contours suggest a general design pattern, but would never leave, say a 6% sloped green if that was natural.

Most architects probably have a bit of both, along a continuum.  And many are better at routing than feature design, or vice versa.  Even the good ones, who have talent in both areas lean one way or the other, from perhaps a CC to a Fazio, who corrects anything he doesn't like. 

I am guessing the Mike Young's, Ian Andrew, and Jeff Brauer's of the world all lie in the middle of that continuum somewhere, closer to the middle, but maybe somewhat separated.  And, due to construction technology, all us moderns would be further to the construction side than the finding side from Old Tom.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
If I had to try and explain it in the most simle way I can think it would be that some like to "carve" for "their look" whileothers would rather " fill"...does that make any sense?

[Adam Lawrence]

'architect' is not a verb. Try 'designed'.

[paul cowley]

Thanks Peter and Jeff...my thoughts exactly...and I didn't have to write anything...well, except this. Good posts!

[Tom_Doak]

Peter,
I'm not sure it is the same talent.  I think it is two entirely different schools with one looking to add layers and one looking to remove layers.  You are the wordsmith so maybe you can write a better explanation.

I agree with Mike's take on that.  If I have to build a feature, I'm much better doing it by cutting rather than filling.  Bill Coore, from my observation, works better with fill than with cut [although Jeff Bradley seems to build all his bunkers by cut].


I'm certainly more of a proponent of finding holes rather than doing earthwork to create them, but who wouldn't be, if there were plenty of features to be found?  [I ask that facetiously, because it's clear that a lot of guys would rather build their own idea than look for one.]

[George Pazin]

It's not one, or two, or however many one wishes to speculate upon. It's a grayscale, a continuum. Some people are better at one thing, others are better at another - but neither wins the debate 10 to 0. And no one practices one thing to the complete exclusion of the other.

I will expand on these thoughts and others in my ongoing 237 part series, "Golf: Why Non-Discrete Solutions Are Best For a Discrete Game".

It will be beard pulling in the extreme.


----

And the expression is "one AND the same" not "in".

 

[MCirba]

Really great thread and some terrific observations.

How about courses that look to have been found but were heavily architected?   Not a word, I know, but we all know what it means...sort of.   

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike (Young), Tom - I'm not surprised that architects themselves say it's two talent; but from the outside it looks to be (and I believe it is) one and the same talent.

I mean, none of you does impressions of Jimmy Cagney for a living, or sings the best of Cole Porter on cruise-ships, or stars as MacBeth on Broadway, or dazzles us with a pair of figure skates on ice. What you all do is create golf courses -- that's what your talent is.

Now, sure, some use one technique (Bill Coore fills) and some another (Tom D cuts) and some yet another (Pete Dye fills and fills and cuts and cuts); and some have a predisposition towards "incorporated architecture" and some towards "envisioned architecture".  (One day, and that day may never come, those terms will be the dominant ones!)

But all of you know the principles of good gca, understand how to design golf holes so as to bring those principles to life, and have the skill to create a field of play. That's the talent. If there is a distinction, I don't see it in terms of talent, but of technique (as noted) and of temperament. As per my threads of months ago, some are "Romantics", some are "Logicians", and many are Hybrids (leaning towards Logicians) -- and that last group includes the likes of Dr Mac and Tom D and Jeff B and Colt and Mike Y and Macdonald and Ian A and Donald Ross and C&C.

Peter

[Joe Hancock]

First, I should address the grammar issues, as they seem to be a distraction; I make up words....sometimes on purpose(as was the case with architected). I also butcher and abuse the English language. I move dirt and grow grass more than I write, so that gets in the way of my editorial function at times. 

Moving on.....thank you, Peter, for the help in expression of ideas. And to the others who are discussing the ideas.(Not a proper sentence, right?) I hope the discussion continues.

I wonder how Langford and Moreau's work fits in with what we are discussing. Were they bent on making sure they encapsulated a certain number of types of shots? Or did they just look for 18(or 9) very good holes on a given property and went about their methodology? I love what I remember of Lawsonia, in that they manufactured/ designed/ architected while still fitting in quite naturally.

I should state that my learned preference would likely be close to what Tom described....finding cool features rather than building them. But, I can appreciate the fact that really cool features can, and have been, built. And that is, perhaps, what's at the heart of my inquiry.

[RJ_Daley]

I get most of the distinctions and the tendency for some archies to be cutters more than fillers, the envisioned or incorporated, etc.   

But, the talent that the archie also must demonstrate is 'engineering' the site from drainage to routing efficiency, to environmental influences like wind and climate trends.  Whether the course is found or constructed to fit upon the terrain that is given, if the archie doesn't understand the engineering, it can end up a clunker. 

I think in the modern era, due to the many miscues of engineering over earlier decades, where courses had to be redone, rerouted, and a lot of infrastructure added after the originals, our modern archies tend to have more of these engineering skills and know-how than 'some' of the earlier mid-level archies.  The really good ones of the earlier time were either engineeers themselves, had a good one as a regular associate, or just had more sense about these matters than others who opened a golf design biz as a pro golfer, or just a guy who fell into the career. 

Not to mention that many mid-level earlier archies didn't seem to demonstrate too much sense about turf management and maintenance issues that ultimately required wholesale changes in everything from irrigation planning to reworking features that didn't drain, or turf selection not suited to the climate, soils, terrain or talent of greenkeepers.