[Josh Tarble]

The internet golf course critic seems to forget the local golfer who is surely playing something unique to the area that these big sandy golf courses are located. Grab your favorite foursome and go to these places and try not to have fun. Its impossible.


PLEASE Tom Doak, come build one in middle Tennessee. Bring sand.

I agree with you, but these places aren't targeting local golfers. They're almost all destinations.


I also completely understand the danger of evaluating a course by pictures.  But when deciding upon a destination trip, no one (at least no one I know) decides without research.  The fact is much of the research is accompanied by pictures.


Pictures are also a huge reason why this style of course has become so popular.

[Eric Smith]

Josh,


By local I mean within driving distance. From my desk in Tennessee, I'd guess there will be more rounds from Wisconsin golfers than Texas golfers at Sand Valley. Maybe harder to gauge for Florida and Streamsong since the state is one big vacation destination.

[Josh Tarble]

Eric,
You're definitely right on that example.  But will there be more golfers from Wisconsin than all other states combined? 


I'm being a bit critical with these courses, because for the general player (the retail golfer, to use that term) none of this matters.  The courses are fun to play and excellent architecture, far better than 95% of all other offerings.  But for us on this site, for the aficionados, I want to continue to see architecture evolve and I personally think that means into new styles and construction methods as well as new strategic concepts.

[Peter Pallotta]

But is it really a stretch to suggest that, for many economic, social and technological reasons, never before in golf course architecture has the prevailing ethos/style/approach been as dominant and unquestioned as it is today? Is it really a stretch to suggest that the conventional wisdom and consensus opinion about quality golf course architecture so consistently espoused and defended and promoted in the golfing media has led to less variety and to less chances being taken by developers and architects alike?

It's the way of the world, I know. The great saxophonist Lester Young was saddened and dismayed near the end of his life to find he was getting less and less work/gigs precisely because a whole next generation of sax players were now playing exactly like Lester Young! And of course, there's how actor Glen Ford once described the arc of his movie career:
1 - Who's Glen Ford?
2 - Get me Glen Ford!
3 - Let's find a Glen Ford type
4 - I want a young Glen Ford
5 - Who's Glen Ford?

If you replace "Glen Ford" with, say, "width" and "turf" and "sand" you get the picture. Except also, you have to imagine that, before Glen Ford's newest picture was even released, as it was still being filmed, Variety was claiming that it was one of the top 10 motion pictures ever made!

Hey, maybe that's it. Maybe that's the analogy -- we're currently, in golf, where the movies were during the great Hollywood Studio Days, when everyone knew the drill and each had their role/duty to fulfill, and character actors and movie stars alike understood that the best way to succeed was to give the public exactly what you'd given them before. I'm not knocking it -- I mean, a lot of fantastic movies were made back then; and it was useful for an audience to know that, when they felt like watching a John Ford western, John Ford was always going to give them a John Ford western.   



 
 

[John Kavanaugh]

Peter,


The author of the linked article on which this thread is based graduated High School in 2010. Maybe we quit giving a shit about the opinions of every PSD.

[Peter Pallotta]

JK - usually, and like Jim S, you're able to say more in one sentence than I can in 5 paragraphs. But on that post, I'm being hampered by your use of the acronym.  I went straight to the urban dictionary, but they've got like 6 or 7 definitions for "PSD"...and only a couple can I associate at all with gca

Peter


PS - Thanks, I got it now. Yes, you're right!

[Randy Thompson]

sounds and looks like the best at Streamsong for sure, thanks David

I spoke with an industry executive yesterday who played it last week.  He felt it was the best course at Streamsong which would make him the 2nd person I've spoken with to voice this opinion.

The article is only the start of marketing with more to come and if I were the owner I would focus on creating and fuel any debates to which is the best. What a great form of free indirect marketing. I have a few comments on the subject matter and only glanced at the article and the pictures.
First, do you really think you can properly evaluate what is the best from one or two rounds on each course, let`s not even mention pictures. Most courses in the top 100 seem to have in common that it`s not all right there in front of you and spelled out in black and white, it has more to do with you never stop learning through repeated rounds.
Second, the first two courses were done by two very qualified Architects with strong proven organizational teams and both have several courses in the top 100. To date Mr. Hanse and his organizational team has not crossed the top 100 barrier, but, the signs or perspectives seems to be evident they are strong and getting stronger. Strong enough to surpass the red and blue, I will leave that for ya all to debate during the next five years.
Third, golf course architecture is highly subjective and between the two present courses the debate continues which is the best and I imagine the numbers could go 55% to 45% in favor of one course and the next day could be reversed. If the black course with time gets the nod as Steamsongs best in the 30 to 40 percent range, the accomplishment will be huge and any percentage higher than that highly unrealistic. Golf at this level is kind of like five star hotels, say comparing a Four Seasons to a Ritz Carlton, it comes down to the details and Joe Average golfer is not educated enough to recognize these details in golf design, so it becomes subjective.
I have never played either course but was fortunate enough to spend four or five hours touring and studying and I was highly impressed with both courses. Couldn`t leave without buying a shirt and heard the pro shop attendant taking reservations and he seemed to always get asked but which one is better. Correctly he stated, both are great and it depends on what flips your switch. If you like greens that are more creative and challenging that test your putting skills, then play the Doak course. If more subtle greens are your cup of tea, then play the C&C course.
 

[Sean_A]

Eric,
You're definitely right on that example.  But will there be more golfers from Wisconsin than all other states combined? 


I'm being a bit critical with these courses, because for the general player (the retail golfer, to use that term) none of this matters.  The courses are fun to play and excellent architecture, far better than 95% of all other offerings.  But for us on this site, for the aficionados, I want to continue to see architecture evolve and I personally think that means into new styles and construction methods as well as new strategic concepts.

Josh...its difficult to escape that many new courses look similar when the big splash examples are built on sand and expouse the natural look.  It would take a brave archie to go off the charts with a sandy site at hand, especially one near the sea.  I am not sure I have ever seen a course on sand which is radically different from the norm in how it looks.  The difference usually comes down to how bunkers and rough are used, but the norm there is so wide that it would take something wild to break the mold. With everything from 200+ bunkers at Lytham to perfectly revetted bunkers at Muirfield to blow out style bunkers of Sandhills...its all within the norm.  The real test is how a course plays.  How a course looks is very secondary even if it seems photo shoots are deciding best of these days.  That said, like you seem to be wishing, I too long to see an archie take a real chance on a great site. Just about the most out of the box example I know is Castle Stuart with its different styles of bunkers and that is not really pushing the boat out.

Ciao

[George Pazin]

I am not sure I have ever seen a course on sand which is radically different from the norm in how it looks. 

I'm not sure I want to.


I had a discussion with a couple guitar geek friends the other day that touched on the "everything's the same" topic. It's my belief that the more educated and experienced you are with anything, the more likely you are to see the differences that everyone else misses. This certainly isn't an earth shattering insight, but it is one that people need to constantly think about.


I can't really tell the difference between Eddie Van Halen's guitar playing and my friend's imitation of it - but I'm guessing both of them could in about a half second.


Likewise, I can't see the differences between a lot of golf courses, in photos or in real life. But I'm damn sure that Tom D and other architects can.


To me, being different for the sake of being different is highly and hugely overrated. But then, maybe if I played around the country and world as much as others on here, I'd change my thinking on that.


But I doubt it.

[Sean_A]

I am not sure I have ever seen a course on sand which is radically different from the norm in how it looks. 

I'm not sure I want to.


I had a discussion with a couple guitar geek friends the other day that touched on the "everything's the same" topic. It's my belief that the more educated and experienced you are with anything, the more likely you are to see the differences that everyone else misses. This certainly isn't an earth shattering insight, but it is one that people need to constantly think about.


I can't really tell the difference between Eddie Van Halen's guitar playing and my friend's imitation of it - but I'm guessing both of them could in about a half second.


Likewise, I can't see the differences between a lot of golf courses, in photos or in real life. But I'm damn sure that Tom D and other architects can.


To me, being different for the sake of being different is highly and hugely overrated. But then, maybe if I played around the country and world as much as others on here, I'd change my thinking on that.


But I doubt it.

George


Without trying to be different it's hard for innovation to take place.


Ciao

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Unless you say otherwise, I plan on stealing the following:

"There's how actor Glen Ford once described the arc of his movie career:

1 - Who's Glen Ford?
2 - Get me Glen Ford!
3 - Let's find a Glen Ford type
4 - I want a young Glen Ford
5 - Who's Glen Ford?"

  Bob

[Josh Tarble]

To me, being different for the sake of being different is highly and hugely overrated.

To continue the guitar reference, tell that to Jimi Hendrix.




I'm with Sean, I'm sure a lot of it is because almost all new high profile designs are in exotic locations on sand based terrain.  But I'd like to see a few more chances taken.  Again, it all revolves around how well or poorly a design plays but I wish there were a few more chances taken in design and aesthetics.

[Joe Zucker]

I lean towards Josh with this one.  I think I've asked this question in the past, but have any of the recently built courses on sand been anything but uniformly praised?  I'm not saying I want a bad course to be built or that any of these courses are anything less than great, but the fact that none have ruffled any feathers suggests that they are pretty similar to already existing courses.


Courses that receive positive AND negative reactions probably tried something new and different.  To take an obvious example,  Tobacco Road is divisive and some people love it while others think it's a joke.   In my book, that is a success (regardless if the "something different" is actually good) because trying something that wildly diverges from the status quo is the only way to make real progress. Innovation and change are unlikely to come from people already in the business or golf junkies like us because our connotation of "good" is so worn into our views.  Henry Ford said something to this effect, "If I asked customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse".  If you ask most of us what we want in a golf course, we will give slight variations on the already existing template.  Horses are scientific marvels and the best courses of the last 20 years are amazing, but the next big idea like minimalism is probably growing in the head of some kid out there.  He or she probably has to wait for all of the great architects of today to die for the chance.


In an effort to explain why the best courses of today are similar to the sandy ones we have already seen, Derek Thompson's new book Hit Makers outlines why some things are popular and others not.  In the book, he talks about the MAYA principle (most advanced yet acceptable), which basically says that we like things that are similar to what we already know, but have a slight improvement.  I think this idea captures why we love Streamsong Black, it's similar to the others but has a different take with Gil Hanse's touch.  By being so similar to commonly accepted standards for quality, it is almost guaranteed to be good.  With this approach, we get a lot of really good courses that I love playing, but we are unlikely to get the Model T.  The next question would be, does golf need a Model T?  I don't know the answer to that, but it would be interesting to see what golf's version might be.  It could be Top Golf, but I hope it's something different...

[BCowan]

How about Greywalls with rock out croppings?  I need to head to the northeast for a few tracks built on rocky surfaces!  New Brunswick is suppose to be rocky, a Doak 10 could be waiting to be build there.  Badlands?  I have been railing against the sand elitist for a few years now. Good to see people following my lead. 

[Jason Thurman]

I've been following Ben's lead for years. Sand elitists are on notice.


It's true that most of the heralded "destination" courses of the last few years are pretty good.


It's true that most of the heralded "destination" courses of the last few years all kinda look alike. You know, the way snowflakes do - they're all different, but they pretty much look the same if you look at a bunch of them.


Maybe golf just goes through booms - the country club boom, the resort golf boom, the real estate golf boom, and now the destination golf boom. I know at least one of those four things was a real thing that people have talked about before. Are any of the others?


Yes, I would be very happy if I heard that a course by one of the Streamsong architects was coming to within 100 miles of me, even if the course looked a lot like a bunch of other heralded "destination" courses.


I would probably like it more if that course looked like a stylistic departure from other heralded "destination" courses.


I wonder what the inevitable Jimi Hendrix stylistic departure would have sounded like. I think he'd have had a Robert Johnson-inspired phase and become the only undisputed GOAT besides Michael Jordan and William Shakespeare, probably.


What would Tom Doak's version of a Robert Johnson Phase be like?

[Tim Gavrich]

I'd be interested to hear people's suggestions as to what these "chances" would look like. Are you thinking of specific features? Obviously artificial shaping and earthworks?


One idea that comes to mind would be for an architect to wilfully deny himself/herself use of golf course building technology from, say, the last 50 or 75 years. There are a lot of otherwise-excellent modern courses out there where I find myself looking at the shaping and wondering if it's too "perfect," somehow. If a mound had been created using, say, horses and a plow rather than a bulldozer, would there be a different texture to that particular feature?



Given the near-universal acclaim for the emergent type of "destination golf course" architecture, what would be the main motivating factor for taking these chances? Have we really reached critical mass of these sorts of courses?


And in an art form whose oldest piece - The Old Course - is widely seen as something to be strived for by new courses, isn't it a little dissonant to argue that GCA needs to somehow "move forward"?

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,


I would agree with you about the shaping on modern courses. It would be nice if occasionally some shaping happened which was not so smooth in character.


Jon

[Joe Zucker]

I'm sympathetic to your point, Tim.  I mentioned that I'm not sure golf course design really does need a "breakthrough" innovation.  I love many of the new courses that have been built with a similar look and I agree that we probably haven't reached saturation with them yet.  The majority of us live hundreds of miles from the nearest one. However, even if golf doesn't "need" some big change, I still think it would be fun to see what people could come up with when constraints were ignored.  You're also right that the motivation to try something different is minimal since the new courses are so well received and so costly to build.  If golf course design were purely art, I think we would see more chances taken (and many fewer courses created).  But the practical reality of running a course as a business gives us the midpoint we have between beautiful courses and functional properties.


To answer your question on what chances I would like to see. What about bringing back roads and walls into design?  Or maybe collection areas so severe that they move your ball 50 yards closer to the hole if you can hit the right spot.  Maybe these would be gimmicky jokes, but maybe they would be cool to play here and there.

[John McCarthy]

Josh,


By local I mean within driving distance. From my desk in Tennessee, I'd guess there will be more rounds from Wisconsin golfers than Texas golfers at Sand Valley. Maybe harder to gauge for Florida and Streamsong since the state is one big vacation destination.

Eric:.


In my one trip to Sand Valley last summer there was a group of Wisconsin club pros, a group of Louisiana golf course degenerates plus our group of Illinois Flatlanders enjoying brats and Spotted Cows at the halfway house.  It will be a destination​.  Book a flight to Chicago and I will drive you up.

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim,


I would agree with you about the shaping on modern courses. It would be nice if occasionally some shaping happened which was not so smooth in character.


Jon

FWIW, every Pete Dye course I've played has what I would describe as "not so smooth" shaping. And actually, two earlyish Fazio courses I've seen - Wachesaw Plantation and Black Diamond Ranch's Quarry Course - would fall into this category as well. I've never played a David Kidd course, but photos of some of his work appear to fit here, too.


Which is to say that it seems a number of architects are doing this nowadays, but they seem to be outside the top tier of GCA love.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,


only played the one Dye and that was not flat but very smooth. I have not played a course construct in the last 60 years that was not smooth except the odd very low budget one.


Jon

[Ian Andrew]

That windmill looks super tacky and the 3rd hole looks like something out of Harborside on the southside of Chicago...

Hi Pat,


They couldn't have made that hole look worse with a picture if they tried....
Made me laugh when I saw it.

[Tom_Doak]

 I have not played a course construct in the last 60 years that was not smooth except the odd very low budget one.

You would have liked High Pointe.  The fairways were very rugged, to the point where it was hard to ride over some of them in a golf cart.

[Don Mahaffey]

 I have not played a course construct in the last 60 years that was not smooth except the odd very low budget one.

You would have liked High Pointe.  The fairways were very rugged, to the point where it was hard to ride over some of them in a golf cart.

Or Wolf Point

[Jon Wiggett]

 I have not played a course construct in the last 60 years that was not smooth except the odd very low budget one.

You would have liked High Pointe.  The fairways were very rugged, to the point where it was hard to ride over some of them in a golf cart.

If it was so I am sure I would have liked it.


I think if there was one big negative influence that has come out of the last 60 years in regards to the game of golf it is the focus on over manicuring and homogenisation of courses in the misguided 'name of fairness' with absolutely no regard to cost. This has led to a lack of genuine variety and choice.


Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()