An architect's porfolio - The Differences

[Tim Gallant]

Following a few comments made on other threads I wanted to ask:


Looking at the courses attributed to some of the most prolific names in golf course architecture & design, what ONE or TWO features / elements of each course do you feel make it distinct and unique from the other courses in his or her respective portfolios?


I don't ask this to attempt to define who was more or less diverse in the courses that they built, but rather, I ask in an attempt to raise awareness for what we should be looking for when we go to a given course where the architect tried to do something different / unique in relation to the other courses they built.


For example, what one or two things did Colt do at Royal Portrush that was different from any other links course that he built? If there are no differences, then that's fine, but it would be good to build up an understanding for what we should be looking at / celebrating as it relates to diversity within a portfolio.


________


Responses so far:


General


- Look for original holes, holes that take advantage of something particular on the site
- How the architect has responded to the soil - is it different for different soil structures, or is it all the same?
- Observe if the principles of the course go against how the architect normally works: is it shorter when the architect usually builds longer courses? Is it more playable, when most courses he/she builds are demanding?


Colt


Royal Portrush
- Look for pacing of routing - two 'big' moments happen in the middle of each nine. Different for Colt?
- Watch how he emphasized cross-wind driving
- No gentle handshake at the first, which could be different from other Colt courses


Eden Course @ St Andrews
- More profound greens than at other Colt courses (Sean to elaborate)


AW Tillinghast


Somerset Hills
- Look for more contour on the greens in relation to other Tilly designs
- Look at Redan, which is the only Redan that he built
- Greens are not pushed up like at other courses he designed in the NY/NJ area


Raynor


- In general, look at how his later adaptations incorporate multiple templates within one hole


Shoreacres
- Study the tilt on the Redan green at #14; different from any other Redan that Raynor built


Creek Club
- Look at the double punchbowl at #5

[Tom_Doak]

First and foremost, I look for original golf holes -- holes that take advantage of something particular on the site, or at least don't employ carbon copies of greens they've built many times elsewhere.


As opposed to, say, templates.


From that perspective it would be really instructive to get all the Seth Raynor fans together and have them try to explain what makes some of his courses more special than others.  From all accounts he was trying to build the same holes in different places, and there is not one quote from him anywhere about trying to do something different on any of his courses.  But we can agree that some courses are better than others ... so, is that all about some sites being better than others, or is it something he did?


Bunker styles come and go ... anybody can change if they want to, and if the client is okay with a different look. 


When we move from sandy sites to clay, such as in St. Emilion, the look and style of the course are bound to change because of the ground.  That's one Difference you should be able to find in any architect's work - whether they have responded to the soils in different ways.  A counter-example would be the Ocean course at The National, which I'm about to re-do:  the greens there are unnecessarily convoluted, and I would say it looks like a bunch of shapers who'd been working in Asia came in, and didn't realize all the things they didn't have to do on a sandy site.




The other major Difference would be for an architect to go against the grain of what he's done before:  build a short course if he's known for long ones, or a long demanding course when he's known for playable ones.  That's one reason Harbour Town was so surprising:  Mr. Dye had been building longer and longer courses in the 1960's, until he decided he just couldn't.  [That decision may have been prompted by inheriting a routing from George Cobb that didn't give him room for a long course, but it caused him to completely re-think what he'd been doing, instead of just shrugging and building a smaller version of the same thing.]

[Tom_Doak]

As to your questions about Portrush:


I'd say one Difference is in the pacing of the routing.  There are two big "moments," which fall in the middle of each nine, and the original finishing holes were some of the weakest on the course.  That may owe partly to the chosen location for the clubhouse, but even so, it's an excellent solution to the problem.


The other is that there are far fewer bunkers at Dunluce than most Colt courses I'm aware of, and a little more sophisticated contour in the greens than on most links courses I've seen, whether they were built by Colt or someone else.

[David Cronheim]

First and foremost, I look for original golf holes -- holes that take advantage of something particular on the site, or at least don't employ carbon copies of greens they've built many times elsewhere.


As opposed to, say, templates.


From that perspective it would be really instructive to get all the Seth Raynor fans together and have them try to explain what makes some of his courses more special than others.  From all accounts he was trying to build the same holes in different places, and there is not one quote from him anywhere about trying to do something different on any of his courses.  But we can agree that some courses are better than others ... so, is that all about some sites being better than others, or is it something he did?


Bunker styles come and go ... anybody can change if they want to, and if the client is okay with a different look. 


When we move from sandy sites to clay, such as in St. Emilion, the look and style of the course are bound to change because of the ground.  That's one Difference you should be able to find in any architect's work - whether they have responded to the soils in different ways.  A counter-example would be the Ocean course at The National, which I'm about to re-do:  the greens there are unnecessarily convoluted, and I would say it looks like a bunch of shapers who'd been working in Asia came in, and didn't realize all the things they didn't have to do on a sandy site.




The other major Difference would be for an architect to go against the grain of what he's done before:  build a short course if he's known for long ones, or a long demanding course when he's known for playable ones.  That's one reason Harbour Town was so surprising:  Mr. Dye had been building longer and longer courses in the 1960's, until he decided he just couldn't.  [That decision may have been prompted by inheriting a routing from George Cobb that didn't give him room for a long course, but it caused him to completely re-think what he'd been doing, instead of just shrugging and building a smaller version of the same thing.]

Tom,


My short answer to your question about Raynor would be that the skill he possessed that outshone his peers was as a surveyor and topographical engineer. The holes may have been the same (though Bahto would be rolling over in his grave to hear that...), but picking the "right" place for each hole was certainly a skill Raynor possessed. His skill in selecting the land for a particular hole is what stands out to me.


I think the templates work better when the land provides a novel quirk. For example, take the double-punchbowl the Creek (#5 I think?). I think that was a very clever way to handle a difficult part of the routing where the land fell away sharply. He took up the difference in the grade by pushing up the back to create the bowl then stepping the punchbowl down to further pick up the grade without having a steep green. That's a very smart engineering solution to a topographic problem, but it yields a unique and fun hole.


His better courses are full of such good routing decisions, except for him the routing also implied a selection of a template. The short and reverse redan at Sleepy Hollow, the Alps hole at Camargo, the Biarritz at Yale, the Eden at Fishers. All of those sites would've led to interesting holes, but I think his best courses are the one where he picked the right hole in the right spot. That's a key reason why Raynor's courses (in my opinion) far outshine Banks' - Banks often forced the hole on the land, whereas I think Raynor (especially at his best) found unique ways to use the land to ensure precisely that the holes weren't the "same."


What do you think?

[Tim Gallant]

First and foremost, I look for original golf holes -- holes that take advantage of something particular on the site, or at least don't employ carbon copies of greens they've built many times elsewhere.


As opposed to, say, templates.


From that perspective it would be really instructive to get all the Seth Raynor fans together and have them try to explain what makes some of his courses more special than others.  From all accounts he was trying to build the same holes in different places, and there is not one quote from him anywhere about trying to do something different on any of his courses.  But we can agree that some courses are better than others ... so, is that all about some sites being better than others, or is it something he did?


Bunker styles come and go ... anybody can change if they want to, and if the client is okay with a different look. 


When we move from sandy sites to clay, such as in St. Emilion, the look and style of the course are bound to change because of the ground.  That's one Difference you should be able to find in any architect's work - whether they have responded to the soils in different ways.  A counter-example would be the Ocean course at The National, which I'm about to re-do:  the greens there are unnecessarily convoluted, and I would say it looks like a bunch of shapers who'd been working in Asia came in, and didn't realize all the things they didn't have to do on a sandy site.




The other major Difference would be for an architect to go against the grain of what he's done before:  build a short course if he's known for long ones, or a long demanding course when he's known for playable ones.  That's one reason Harbour Town was so surprising:  Mr. Dye had been building longer and longer courses in the 1960's, until he decided he just couldn't.  [That decision may have been prompted by inheriting a routing from George Cobb that didn't give him room for a long course, but it caused him to completely re-think what he'd been doing, instead of just shrugging and building a smaller version of the same thing.]

Tom,


My short answer to your question about Raynor would be that the skill he possessed that outshone his peers was as a surveyor and topographical engineer. The holes may have been the same (though Bahto would be rolling over in his grave to hear that...), but picking the "right" place for each hole was certainly a skill Raynor possessed. His skill in selecting the land for a particular hole is what stands out to me.


I think the templates work better when the land provides a novel quirk. For example, take the double-punchbowl the Creek (#5 I think?). I think that was a very clever way to handle a difficult part of the routing where the land fell away sharply. He took up the difference in the grade by pushing up the back to create the bowl then stepping the punchbowl down to further pick up the grade without having a steep green. That's a very smart engineering solution to a topographic problem, but it yields a unique and fun hole.


His better courses are full of such good routing decisions, except for him the routing also implied a selection of a template. The short and reverse redan at Sleepy Hollow, the Alps hole at Camargo, the Biarritz at Yale, the Eden at Fishers. All of those sites would've led to interesting holes, but I think his best courses are the one where he picked the right hole in the right spot. That's a key reason why Raynor's courses (in my opinion) far outshine Banks' - Banks often forced the hole on the land, whereas I think Raynor (especially at his best) found unique ways to use the land to ensure precisely that the holes weren't the "same."


What do you think?

David,


I like the idea of judging Raynor against his ability to route his templates across the property in ways that were unique rather than him actually employing diverse architectural ideas if that makes sense. I pretty much agree with your post, and see that you've answered Tom's question, but in my mind, his portfolio is still fairly one-dimensional. It's just that it's a GREAT one-dimension - ie. he was the best at applying templates on a variety of sites.


By this logic, Raynor might score down when someone is considering originality (like Tom), but might score higher when you consider how he seamlessly weaved his templates onto almost any property.

[Tom_Doak]

David:


I agree completely that Raynor's primary strength as an architect was routing.  My experience is that people with good engineering / math brains tend to be best at that part of design, and Raynor certainly fits the mold there.


But, you could say that for his best courses AND equally for his worst courses, so it's meaningless to this discussion as to why some of his courses are superior or different.  So I go back to my previous question about whether the differences come from the general quality of the site itself, or from certain existing features that led a particular Redan to be better than the others, or whether it's something else that Raynor actually did.


A great example of my question is the Redan hole at Shoreacres - #14.  It's a great setting for the hole, alongside the ravine, but the unique part of it is the weird tilt on the right side of the green, which is differently done than any other Redan I've seen.  But I have no clue as to WHY it's so different.

[David Cronheim]

Tom,


I guess I'd hedge my response (surprising for me a lawyer, I know...). He built better courses on better sites, but then again who wouldn't. Though I've always contended that what makes Shoreacres maybe his best course is that it was a site where a lesser architect could've built a really, really bad golf course that just played back and forth across the ravines all day.


We also tend to look at Raynor's work as somewhat static - that he built the same hole over and over again. In my hours with Bahto, he used to say he thought that was an unfair critique because the holes were variations on a theme, not pure replicas (even though the newspapers used that term a lot to describe his work). I think that's fair to an extent. He was certainly still constrained by wanting to put a certain number of templates on every course and his creativity could be bounded by the desire to fit the hole into a certain template box. But his variation within each template is certainly what intrigues a lot of us. We love comparing the nuances - the spine in the redan at Camargo, the angle of the thumbprint, whether an Alps is totally blind like Sleepy Hollow or you can see the top of the flag (Camargo) or whether only one side is hidden (Old White). He also built some damn good original holes (15 at Shoreacres may be my favorite)


Uniquely, Raynor's work is always going to be measured against his own other work because so much of it is so similar. I'm tempted to say that his work is better on bolder sites (Fishers, Yale, Camargo) than on flatter ones (Blue Mound springs to mind), but some of his best holes are on flattish sites (the Lion's Mouth at CC of Charleston or the Redan at Camargo)


If you look at the courses built right at the end of his life (for example, Yale and Essex County) you see a lot of creativity in the presentation of the templates and combination holes. Think of the Alps/Lionsmouth/Punchbowl at Essex or even something like the 1st green at Yale, half road/half punchbowl. I think the Raynor of 1935 (if there were jobs to have) would've produced some very quirky and cool stuff. I've always thought Pete Dye in many ways became (on steroids) what Raynor might've ended up as. 18 at Harbor Town a channel hole with the 2 fairways connected, 16 at TPC Sawgrass a short surrounded by water, Short at Chicago Golf Club having 2 thumb prints - very clever adaptations.


That said, I do think it's too narrow to say the quality of his courses depended entirely on the site. A crappy site isn't usual a recipe for a great course. But he built some excellent courses on courses with only average movement. Yeaman's Hall and Chicago Golf Club spring to mind. That said, he built some not great courses (or holes) on flattish ground. No one is jumping to play the Creek for the first couple holes and I think Blue Mound is generally pretty dull.


A good way to judge your specific questions about whether his best holes came from great land or nuances in the templates might be to find his best flattish templates (or without strong backdrop). I tend to think his best holes are the result of nuance, not land, but his exceptional holes are the mix of both good land, used well with a clever twist (again, citing my double punchbowl at the Creek as a good example or the Alps at Fishers).

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
I am sure this is obvious but the more courses of architect that you see and study and the more you read his/her writings, etc, the more you will appreciate their design philosophies and preferences.  I spent a lot of time studying an architect like Colt and we outlined some of his design concepts/preferences in our book on hazards.  One thing for me that distinguishes a course like Colt's Royal Portrush (just played there last week) is the site itself.  It is an amazing piece of property and that alone gives it advantages over other Colt sites.  As Tom pointed out, the two closing holes were weak (very flat somewhat featureless ground).  The two new holes are a vast improvement.  I might have made the huge blowout bunker on the new #7 par five hole look more natural but overtime is will blend in (or they will tweak it).  Overall it is an amazing golf course which accentuates many of the philosophies Colt promoted such as driving accuracy, distinctive natural features, diagonal carries, non-bunkers as hazards, ... It is close to a Doak 10 for me.
Mark

[David Davis]

Tim,


Interesting and quite complex question.




Tom,


I'm sure you try to make all your courses different and they are for sure even though your style is certainly recognizable at least on the sandy courses which I have seen. It would be really interesting to hear your answer for Tim's question with regards to a few of your courses. Like take Pacific Dunes, Tara Iti and Barnbougle. What two points (realizing that might be rather limiting) would you most want people trying to learn from your work to pay attention to, take away from those courses that makes the uniquely different from the other?


Likewise for anyone that could do something similar for Colt for example that would be very interesting to hear. If you took say Portrush, Sunnindale and Saint Germain. 3 courses that have excellent architecture on completely different surfaces/environments.


Or perhaps Pasatiempo, Royal Melbourne and Valley Club from Mackenzie.


Honestly, I don't think I can answer this so very curious what others come up with.

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


Interesting and quite complex question.




Tom,


I'm sure you try to make all your courses different and they are for sure even though your style is certainly recognizable at least on the sandy courses which I have seen. It would be really interesting to hear your answer for Tim's question with regards to a few of your courses. Like take Pacific Dunes, Tara Iti and Barnbougle. What two points (realizing that might be rather limiting) would you most want people trying to learn from your work to pay attention to, take away from those courses that makes the uniquely different from the other?


Likewise for anyone that could do something similar for Colt for example that would be very interesting to hear. If you took say Portrush, Sunnindale and Saint Germain. 3 courses that have excellent architecture on completely different surfaces/environments.


Or perhaps Pasatiempo, Royal Melbourne and Valley Club from Mackenzie.


Honestly, I don't think I can answer this so very curious what others come up with.

David,


You hit at exactly what I hope this thread will teach - mainly, if we have a broad understanding of a certain architect, then what is the one or two differentiating features of a course in relation to the portfolio that we should concentrate on.


I don't know and am curious as well. I will try to put answers in the OP so that people can get a guide without having to read this, hopefully, bountiful thread of information


Tom,


I agree about the originality of holes as something that is worth looking for in relation to the other courses that an architect builds. In this respect, I have always thought of Somerset Hills as the best (read favourite) Tillinghast course in the NY/NJ area of the courses I have seen because in my mind, it doesn't resemble any other Tillinghast course. Sure, there are still a lot of back to front slopes on the greens, but equally, there are a lot of holes where the green is flat from the approach (ie not raised). Holes like 2 (the only Redan he built), 4, 5, 7, 11 and 12 all have unique elements that I haven't seen on any other Tillinghast course.


I appreciate I am not a Tilly expert, and if there are others who want to shine light on AW, that would be incredible!

[Peter Pallotta]

"But I have no clue as to WHY it's so different".
That really is fascinating, coming from Tom - and precisely because it does comes from Tom, an earnest student & excellent practitioner both.
It opens up into a discussion of all aspects of gca - both theoretical and practical, I think, including restorations/original design intent.
"Why"? An accident, or even a mistake? A particular member of the construction crew, on a good/bad day? A remarkably deep and nuanced understanding of design principles on the part of the architect, but one that was never articulated and/or was mostly instinctual?
Sure, such discussions would probably wander into the realm of speculation -- but I hope the experts/well informed will continue to mull it over.
(My own uniformed guess leans towards the notion of an unintended consequence that, upon reflection, was allowed to stand.)     

[Tom_Doak]

Tim,


Interesting and quite complex question.




Tom,


I'm sure you try to make all your courses different and they are for sure even though your style is certainly recognizable at least on the sandy courses which I have seen. It would be really interesting to hear your answer for Tim's question with regards to a few of your courses. Like take Pacific Dunes, Tara Iti and Barnbougle. What two points (realizing that might be rather limiting) would you most want people trying to learn from your work to pay attention to, take away from those courses that makes the uniquely different from the other?


Likewise for anyone that could do something similar for Colt for example that would be very interesting to hear. If you took say Portrush, Sunnindale and Saint Germain. 3 courses that have excellent architecture on completely different surfaces/environments.


Or perhaps Pasatiempo, Royal Melbourne and Valley Club from Mackenzie.


Honestly, I don't think I can answer this so very curious what others come up with.

I'm probably a reasonable source for this since I've consulted at all three of the MacKenzie courses you named, and of course designed the first three.  But it will have to wait as I can't type that much on my phone!

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:  I'm the consultant to Somerset Hills, too, and feel about it much the same as you stated you do.


Consider that it's one of Tillinghast's earlier designs (1918, before he got really busy), and I think you'll see that explains a lot of your questions.  He built a Redan - a great one - and then decided not to keep doing it, perhaps a reaction to Raynor's contemporary work.  And there is way more contour in those greens than his later work, either because he got more conservative later on, realized it wasn't all necessary, or just got busy and didn't have so much time to keep embellishing.

[Mike_Young]

Following a few comments made on other threads I wanted to ask:


Looking at the courses attributed to some of the most prolific names in golf course architecture & design, what ONE or TWO features / elements of each course do you feel make it distinct and unique from the other courses in his or her respective portfolios?

Do you think the architect was aware of these "ONE or TWO features" that would make it different as he was designing the course?  I'm not sure we don't often over think some of this...I think a guy like Raynor was just trying to make sure it fit in his mind and did not realize it was a distinct or unique item or hole....JMO...

[Tim Gallant]

Following a few comments made on other threads I wanted to ask:


Looking at the courses attributed to some of the most prolific names in golf course architecture & design, what ONE or TWO features / elements of each course do you feel make it distinct and unique from the other courses in his or her respective portfolios?

Do you think the architect was aware of these "ONE or TWO features" that would make it different as he was designing the course?  I'm not sure we don't often over think some of this...I think a guy like Raynor was just trying to make sure it fit in his mind and did not realize it was a distinct or unique item or hole....JMO...

Mike,


I think it depends. With someone like DMK, who admitted that he went OTT on a few designs after Bandon, I think he could likely tell me one or two differentiating features / elements to look for at Gambling Straits or Mammoth that makes them distinct from, say, The Castle Course or Mach Dunes. It might have to do with green undulations, or width, or it might just be stylistic presentation, but I think he had a certain intention with all of his courses.


With someone like Raynor, you're probably correct. I don't think he set out to develop something different, but I suppose intent is only half the answer. As Tom notes with AW, there may be a variety of reasons why one course turned out different from another, but I suppose I'd like to know what those elements are in relation to the other designs within a portfolio that make that one course different. Hopefully then I (we) can know what to look for and what makes that one particular Ross unique to others, as an example...

[Sean_A]

As to your questions about Portrush:
The other is that there are far fewer bunkers at Dunluce than most Colt courses I'm aware of, and a little more sophisticated contour in the greens than on most links courses I've seen, whether they were built by Colt or someone else.

Colt is a difficult subject because he didn't build many links from scratch.  His other high profile original links is Eden and it has some profound greens. 

I might stick my head above the parapet and say Colt emphasized cross wind driving (and dare I say obscured!) at Portrush.  This is an element of design which I haven't experienced coming to the fore on other Colt originals, links or not.  Of course, so many of his courses are now filled with trees that it is hard to know for certain.

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

Re Portrush.


And the first is no typical gentle handshake. I wonder with 36 holes there if he didnt feel any need to holdback. This was to be a test, from the beginning all the way though to the........ 16th!

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder with 36 holes there if he didnt feel any need to holdback. This was to be a test, from the beginning all the way though to the........ 16th!

That's a very good point.  Anytime one designs multiple courses at the same site, there is a very conscious effort to make them different from one another.  Pacific Dunes was a reaction to Bandon Dunes, and Old Macdonald a reaction to Pacific (and also to Seth Raynor).

[Tim Gallant]

I have updated the OP with bullets of the points made so far. As people keep adding things in, I will keep updating the OP so that it can be a bit of a guide for those who are heading to these courses

[V. Kmetz]

His better courses are full of such good routing decisions, except for him the routing also implied a selection of a template. The short and reverse redan at Sleepy Hollow, the Alps hole at Camargo, the Biarritz at Yale, the Eden at Fishers. All of those sites would've led to interesting holes, but I think his best courses are the one where he picked the right hole in the right spot. That's a key reason why Raynor's courses (in my opinion) far outshine Banks' - Banks often forced the hole on the land, whereas I think Raynor (especially at his best) found unique ways to use the land to ensure precisely that the holes weren't the "same."

What do you think?

With all of your post, but especially this...absolutely agree... The experience of Banks' author credits at Tamarack and Whippoorwill can cast this in full relief...many of the templates therein are imposed on the route he could find.  That's not to say its all a lesser thing ...sometimes it yields a refreshing, original execution for a hole/shot style...Tamarack's Biarritz 12th is a real chance to play that low-flighted , accurate, long skipping shot...that for all their terror and heroic eye candy, Yale's 9th and Fishers 5th do not truly afford.


On the larger question of making these comparisons and examinations (I think they are worthy and valid), and "getting Raynor fans together"... I re-state my affinity to look at this cluster:


Blind Brook (1917-18) - Commissioned as an elderly gentleman's walking course, Raynor was spurred to locate shorter, flatter and novel takes on template holes...a 275 yard uphill Cape....a cross valley Short fronted by Spectacle bunkers...a true switchback Road that sweeps dramatically downhill...a unique Biarritz, with the front slinging pad set an oblique angle, never maintained as putting surface... a very gentle Alps...


CC of Fairfield (var. ) - Here you get a great mix of Raynor originals, some Raynor route, but the hands of hurricane and other designers to mix and match... it's a detailed history, and I haven't referenced it in awhile, but the choices made by hands after Raynor are interesting when you apprehend what's left of his original route and presentation...the 7th Drive and Pitch may be one of the most pleasing sea side holes in America (and it used to be the 1st hole!!!)


Fishers Island (1923?) -  I've had the odd good fortune to have many plays there and I think it's Raynor's most "Raynor" course (beauty marks, warts and all)...here he had a blank page of immense but hard opportunity to tease out such memorable golf. I've never been an ardent fan of the final stretch from 12 - 18...but the 1st 11 holes are as strong an experience as golf offers and perfectly demonstrative of the qualities David C. was indicating.


cheers  vk

[Tom_Doak]

I'm sure you try to make all your courses different and they are for sure even though your style is certainly recognizable at least on the sandy courses which I have seen. It would be really interesting to hear your answer for Tim's question with regards to a few of your courses. Like take Pacific Dunes, Tara Iti and Barnbougle. What two points (realizing that might be rather limiting) would you most want people trying to learn from your work to pay attention to, take away from those courses that makes the uniquely different from the other?

Or perhaps Pasatiempo, Royal Melbourne and Valley Club from Mackenzie.

Okay, for MacKenzie:


First of all, each of the three was built by a different guy.  MacKenzie was around himself for a lot of the Pasatiempo construction, which was very rare for him.  Alex Russell and Mick Morcom built Royal Melbourne long after the Dr.'s one and only visit to Australia was complete.  And Robert Hunter went off to supervise The Valley Club, which was pretty much the last project on which he and MacKenzie collaborated; I don't think Dr. M. was there more than once or twice.


Both Pasatiempo and The Valley Club have ravines going through them, but they are used in much different ways.  At The Valley Club they are simply used like any stream would be - as a water hazard, sometimes running across the line of play [9th, 10th, 14th] and sometimes parallel [3rd, 11th, 12th].  But at Pasatiempo MacKenzie actually grassed [and probably partially filled] some of the feeder arms to the ravines to produce the contour in the 14th fairway, and the cross bunkers at the 12th and 13th.  I would cite this as a much more sophisticated way of using the ravines that was unique to MacKenzie being on site a lot.


Royal Melbourne West is best appreciated as a redesign job ... MacKenzie managed to use a lot of fairways from the original course, but attack them on the diagonal.  Only the first six holes were created from scratch, and those are arguably the best of the lot.

[David Davis]

I'm sure you try to make all your courses different and they are for sure even though your style is certainly recognizable at least on the sandy courses which I have seen. It would be really interesting to hear your answer for Tim's question with regards to a few of your courses. Like take Pacific Dunes, Tara Iti and Barnbougle. What two points (realizing that might be rather limiting) would you most want people trying to learn from your work to pay attention to, take away from those courses that makes the uniquely different from the other?

Or perhaps Pasatiempo, Royal Melbourne and Valley Club from Mackenzie.

Okay, for MacKenzie:


First of all, each of the three was built by a different guy.  MacKenzie was around himself for a lot of the Pasatiempo construction, which was very rare for him.  Alex Russell and Mick Morcom built Royal Melbourne long after the Dr.'s one and only visit to Australia was complete.  And Robert Hunter went off to supervise The Valley Club, which was pretty much the last project on which he and MacKenzie collaborated; I don't think Dr. M. was there more than once or twice.


Both Pasatiempo and The Valley Club have ravines going through them, but they are used in much different ways.  At The Valley Club they are simply used like any stream would be - as a water hazard, sometimes running across the line of play [9th, 10th, 14th] and sometimes parallel [3rd, 11th, 12th].  But at Pasatiempo MacKenzie actually grassed [and probably partially filled] some of the feeder arms to the ravines to produce the contour in the 14th fairway, and the cross bunkers at the 12th and 13th.  I would cite this as a much more sophisticated way of using the ravines that was unique to MacKenzie being on site a lot.


Royal Melbourne West is best appreciated as a redesign job ... MacKenzie managed to use a lot of fairways from the original course, but attack them on the diagonal.  Only the first six holes were created from scratch, and those are arguably the best of the lot.

Tom,


Thanks for the answer and insights there. No doubt the fact that three different people oversaw the building of courses would do a lot to insure there were plenty of differences. It would be hard to imagine a situation where 3 different people interpreted drawings in the same way anywhere unless they were so extremely detailed that following them to the tee resulted in the exact same product. You could answer this for sure but would it be realistic to even have the same product on the same site with 3 different people overseeing the construction?


It also for me strengthens the belief that some of these guys are receiving almost too much credit, if Mackenzie show up for one day to walk and create a quick sketch and then left and years later out popped one of the best courses in the world that would be largely if not wholly attributed to him then there are some serious unsung heros that we overlook. When has a modern architect spent only a day at a site that resulted in a great end result. Has that even happenend? Not to my knowledge at least.


You suggested you were in a good place to be able to answer for Mackenzie which I definitely agree with however, you are in an even better position to answer with regards to yourself and Barnbougle, Tara Iti and Pacific Dunes. All wonderful sandbased sites, rugged dunes, links golf, excellent walkable routings, great mix of short and long holes and variation. What two differences would you most want the lucky people that are privelidged enough to see them to take away?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


Thanks for the answer and insights there. No doubt the fact that three different people oversaw the building of courses would do a lot to insure there were plenty of differences. It would be hard to imagine a situation where 3 different people interpreted drawings in the same way anywhere unless they were so extremely detailed that following them to the tee resulted in the exact same product. You could answer this for sure but would it be realistic to even have the same product on the same site with 3 different people overseeing the construction?


It also for me strengthens the belief that some of these guys are receiving almost too much credit, if Mackenzie show up for one day to walk and create a quick sketch and then left and years later out popped one of the best courses in the world that would be largely if not wholly attributed to him then there are some serious unsung heros that we overlook. When has a modern architect spent only a day at a site that resulted in a great end result. Has that even happenend? Not to my knowledge at least.


You suggested you were in a good place to be able to answer for Mackenzie which I definitely agree with however, you are in an even better position to answer with regards to yourself and Barnbougle, Tara Iti and Pacific Dunes. All wonderful sandbased sites, rugged dunes, links golf, excellent walkable routings, great mix of short and long holes and variation. What two differences would you most want the lucky people that are privelidged enough to see them to take away?

David:


Of course I could write a book on the differences between my own courses [and, in fact, I'm working on one], but if I had to summarize them into two or three key points it would be:


1.  Like Dr. MacKenzie's, my work is enhanced by my associates' contributions, and I see that as a feature not a bug.  I also like to keep rotating different people into those roles so that my courses DO have differences.


2.  Also, like any artist, every new piece of work is a reaction to what's come before it and all the other influences on me personally at any given time.  Occasionally you will find an homage to a hole from some other course that hosted a major event the year we were building ours, because it got me thinking about that course again.  My mood changes, and so do my courses.


3.  For the three courses you named, each had a different client and a different lead associate for starters, but these are other individual differences:


a.  At Pacific Dunes, we had a client who'd expressed real concern over "severe greens", even though I'd played enough golf with him to know that he liked some greens I'd consider severe.  My response was to start slowly on the first few greens, make them smaller, and put the contour on the exterior edges, where it would still come into play but not lead to a dreaded "three-putt" even though you might well be using your putter for the shot from off the green.  I also was conscious about playing with the sizes of greens [they are between 4,000 and 9,000 square feet] to contrast with the large greens at Bandon Dunes.


b.  At Barnbougle, we had a client who wasn't really a golfer, and we were far from civilization, so I reasoned that we could get away with bolder, wilder ideas - which fit the nature of the ground we had to work with.  I remember joking with Richard Sattler that if my 13th green didn't work out, it wouldn't matter because few of my critics would see it anyway.  That freedom to be more creative shows itself throughout the course.  Our one restriction there was budget ... the course is narrower as a result, and we used areas of open sand to compensate and try to minimize lost balls in the marram.


c.  For Tara Iti, I once again had free reign from the client, but he was a well-traveled golfer so it wasn't quite as free-flowing as Barnbougle.  Tara Iti was MUCH harder to build than the other two courses because all the contours had to be rebuilt following clearing and root grubbing, and all of the site had to be revegetated, if not with grass than with native plants in the dune areas.  This leads to the course being wider in spots than absolutely necessary for golf, just to break up the monotony of the revegetated areas.   Design-wise, the greens are more like Pacific Dunes', but there are several with large areas that aren't pinnable ... steep natural slopes that can be used as backstops or feeders.  We don't use such features on most of our courses, because it can be seen as a waste of space, but here again, it helped to give the course more shape and form instead of having a sandy perimeter right close to the hole locations on every green.

[Mark_Fine]

I was in Vienna, Austria in May and got to see the Keith Haring art exhibit which was on display at the famous Albertina Museum.  My wife had worked with his father at AT&T which our Austrian friends found fascinating.  The reason I bring this up is I have always believed golf architects have design preferences just like most artists.  While every painting and piece of work done by Keith Haring is/was unique, it is pretty easy to tell with almost all of them that he did it. 

I believe every noted architect had/has certain styles and preferences which is what makes them great and distinguishes them in the first place. 


There are exceptions; Tom Bendelow for example was a noted and very prolific architect but I am hard pressed to say what distinguished him from others with his designs?   He was all about quantity vs quality which was great for the game of golf but it rarely resulted in what most would call distinctive golf courses. 


I am sure some here will debate me on this but Tom Doak of all people knows what I am talking about.  Just like identifying a Keith Haring painting, if you see and study enough of an artist’s/architect’s collection, you can tell if it is their work most of the time. 

[Niall C]

Tom D highlighted the difference a different site foreman can make on a job which is true. It's also true I think, particularly of UK courses, that it very hard to spot the differences now as the courses have generally evolved over time in terms of rerouting, tweaking of designs, changed strategy due to bunker work etc. Basically, are you able to spot what was done by the original architect ? Any perceived difference might be down to someone else at a later date.

That said, generally I think these guys tended to push the envelope and then toned it down later on, in much the same way some architects are doing now eg DMK.

Niall