Picking your composite architect

[Niall C]

Imagine if you could create your own architect using the best bits of individual architects (living or dead), who would you select for the following;


1 - routing


2 - par 3's


3 - par 4's


4 - par 5's


5 - green designs


6 - any other particular strength


Thoughts ?


Niall

[Mike_Trenham]

1 - routing - Colt
2 - par 3's - Flynn
3 - par 4's - Doak
4 - par 5's - Dye
5 - green designs - Maxwell
6 - any other particular - planned housing course site plan - Muirhead

[Niall C]

Mike


Interesting. I've only seen one of Tom D's courses and I don't think I've seen either a Pete Dye or a Flynn course so wonder what makes them stand out for you ? In particular it's interesting that you suggest Colt for routing. I thought he might be a stick-on for designing the par 3's but I guess the par 3's would be a function of the routing, more so than say the par 4's or par 5's.


Niall

[Andrew Harvie]

-Routing: Harry Colt
-Par 3's: Stanley Thompson
-Par 4's: William Flynn
-Par 5's: Tom Doak
-Green designs: Willie Park Jr. I think. Lots of good candidates
-Any other particularly strength: Alister Mackenzie courses look amazing. I'd want him constructing the bunkers and how they should look

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mike


Interesting. I've only seen one of Tom D's courses and I don't think I've seen either a Pete Dye or a Flynn course so wonder what makes them stand out for you ? In particular it's interesting that you suggest Colt for routing. I thought he might be a stick-on for designing the par 3's but I guess the par 3's would be a function of the routing, more so than say the par 4's or par 5's.


Niall

I guess we can all look at this differently but if pushed, I’d say that a varied set of 4’s is the closest clue to a good routing. Generally because 3’s can always be used for tight spaces or tough ground. And 5’s are often constrained to certain parts of a site, certainly if that site is in anyway compact.

[Tommy Williamsen]

1 - routing Fowler. He used the existing ground as well as anyone.[/size]2 - par 3's Tillinghast.  3 - par 4's Dye designed more different kinds of fours than most anyone.4 - par 5's C&C have designed some brilliant fives that work for all players.5 - green designs Ross. His strengths were on the greens and surrounds.[/size]

[David_Tepper]

I like James Braid for #2, the par-3's. I like that he had them each pointed in a different direction on the compass (although that may be more of a routing item). The par-3's I have seen at Golspie and Brora are a very good collection of holes.

[Garland Bayley]

Routing A. V. Macan never had a routing changed (at least during his lifetime)
Par 3's Harry Colt
Par 4's Eddie Hackett based on lay of the land par 4s at places like Carne, Strandhill, Enniscrone, and Murvagh
Par 5's Tom Doak based on work at Bandon
Green complexes A. V. Macan who designed to the budget of the client, and when the money was there designed superbly well.

[Mike_Trenham]

Mike


Interesting. I've only seen one of Tom D's courses and I don't think I've seen either a Pete Dye or a Flynn course so wonder what makes them stand out for you ? In particular it's interesting that you suggest Colt for routing. I thought he might be a stick-on for designing the par 3's but I guess the par 3's would be a function of the routing, more so than say the par 4's or par 5's.


Niall

On Colt I first learned about him with his involvement with finalizing the routing of Pine Valley Golf Club, and I also remember seeing a letter where the members of Philadelphia Country Club had him review Flynn’s plans for the Spring Mill Course.  I also seem to hear of fewer major changes to his designs than most.  Admittedly my direct exposure to his courses is woefully limited.  I also did not want all US architects.


On Flynn his par threes around Philadelphia are uniformly excellent, Philadelphia CC, Rolling Green, Lancaster Manufacturers.  Plus two of the par threes at Shinnecock (7 and 11) are two of the best in the US Open rota.


I’ve only played about 10 of Tom’s courses but the par 4s are always the highlight for me, varied lengths and challenges.


On Dye, most of his courses I’ve played are the ones on poor or at least flatter sites, so that may have allowed him the luxury of not needing to search to find enough land to create par fives that work.  Saying that, the ones I have played have all been really strategic and rarely over the top in difficulty if played with some care.  I also think Jack Nicklaus’ stand out strength is his par 5s, tee to green.

[Niall C]

Mike


I hear what you say about Tom D's par 4's. The ones at Renaissance are certainly varied and on the whole very very good. Of the others you mention, I'll need to find out for myself !


Ally


I think I was maybe thinking of Colt and how he based his routing round the par 3's (Adam - correct me if I'm wrong). I agree that par 4's are the backbone of any design or perhaps I should say, should be, given there tends to be more of them than par 3's and par 4's.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Imagine if you could create your own architect using the best bits of individual architects (living or dead), who would you select for the following;
1 - routing
2 - par 3's
3 - par 4's
4 - par 5's
5 - green designs
6 - any other particular strength
Thoughts ?
Niall

7 - Small budget and severe terrain
..... James Braid?
Atb

[Niall C]

David


Good point. Who did the most with little ? Braid has certainly got to be a candidate I'd have thought.


Niall

[Bill Brightly]

1. Routing: Coore & Crenshaw
2. Par 3's: CB Macdonald
3. Par 4's Doak
4. Par 5's Tillinghast
5. Green Complexes; (6 holes each) Tillinghast, Mackenzie and Doak

[Tim Martin]

Routing-Ross
3’s-Flynn
4’s-Raynor
5’s-Tillinghast
Greens-Travis

[Tom_Doak]

-Routing: Harry Colt
-Par 3's: Stanley Thompson
-Par 4's: William Flynn
-Par 5's: Tom Doak
-Green designs: Willie Park Jr. I think. Lots of good candidates
-Any other particularly strength: Alister Mackenzie courses look amazing. I'd want him constructing the bunkers and how they should look

I'm shocked anyone would pick me for the par-5's -- and yes I saw Garland did, too, but I assumed he was joking!


I think Mike Trenham is right that the par-4's are the strength of my designs.  It's not something deliberate - although, I guess I do have a bias toward making a hole a long 4 instead of a short 5 if I'm on the fence.  But I like building greens where the angle of approach matters, and par-4's are the best way to show that off.

[Ira Fishman]

Another vote for Doak for Par 5s (based on Pac Dunes, Old Mac, and SS Blue)


Routing--Ross (multiple courses)
Par 3s--Colt (Swinley Forest and St George's Hii)
Par 4s--C&C (Bandon Trails, SS Red, Kapalua)
Par 5s--Doak
Greens--Whoever gets credit for Woking
Other--Braid for quirk
             MacKenzie for individual brilliant holes


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Would this Frankenstein monster of a composite architect actually produce a golf course you'd want to play?

[Bill Brightly]

Would this Frankenstein monster of a composite architect actually produce a golf course you'd want to play?

I don't know but I hope they videotape the planning meetings! That would be worth watching!

[Niall C]

Would this Frankenstein monster of a composite architect actually produce a golf course you'd want to play?

Peter


Think how many of the top classic courses that have had several architects involved, all be it, not at the same time and not in the manner of this composite beast. Arguably it would be like the committee that set out to design a thorough-bred racehorse and ended up with a camel but I bet that "camel" would be fun to play.


Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Niall -
My thinking behind that question was two-fold:

1. Unless we embrace the use of massive earthmoving equipment and a wholly artificial golf course that's created from scratch, it probably doesn't matter much which/how many great architects we have designing our Par 3s, 4s and 5s. Any natural site, no matter how good, and a minimalist's approach to routing and designing a golf course, wouldn't likely result in a set of 18 golf holes any better than, say, a Tom D or Dr Mac would come up with on his own. No site is that ideal that it constrains/impinges not at all on the greatness & talents & potential genius of the architect(s) involved.

2. But even if we did embrace a wholly created/artificial design, I'm not sure what we'd be getting from each 'component' of our composite architect; indeed, we might be getting contributions/golf holes that are far from their best. What I mean is: what I think defines & characterizes a Colt or a Ross or a C&C or a Doak or a Mackenzie are their *choices* -- choices made so often & consistently that, examining their body of work over a lifetime, we can begin to identify-posit an individual style: a style that makes a Colt a Colt. And those choices have to do with how they use the land/site: e.g. where they 'see' the Par 3s, where they 'find' the Par 4s, how they 'identify' the green sites, and what 'compromises' they might make in order to get, say, an easy flowing walk and a compact routing, i.e would they tend to 'sacrifice' a great hole for it? would they introduce a transition hole or two? All of which is to say: I don't know what kind of Par 3 or 4 or 5 any of the architects named so far would come up with if they didn't (on their own) have to or get to make those same choices.

In short, I guess what I'm saying is: I'll take my chances with the devil I know instead of the one I don't!

[Thomas Dai]

Other--Braid for quirk

JB did wonders on poor terrain for little money but surely that’s not just quirk. Give him a decent site and he did terrific (non-quirky) work.
Atb


PS - another category - No8 - to Niall's OP ...
Use of the onsite natural landscape features - Herbert Fowler.

[Tim Martin]

Niall -
My thinking behind that question was two-fold:

1. Unless we embrace the use of massive earthmoving equipment and a wholly artificial golf course that's created from scratch, it probably doesn't matter much which/how many great architects we have designing our Par 3s, 4s and 5s. Any natural site, no matter how good, and a minimalist's approach to routing and designing a golf course, wouldn't likely result in a set of 18 golf holes any better than, say, a Tom D or Dr Mac would come up with on his own. No site is that ideal that it constrains/impinges not at all on the greatness & talents & potential genius of the architect(s) involved.

2. But even if we did embrace a wholly created/artificial design, I'm not sure what we'd be getting from each 'component' of our composite architect; indeed, we might be getting contributions/golf holes that are far from their best. What I mean is: what I think defines & characterizes a Colt or a Ross or a C&C or a Doak or a Mackenzie are their *choices* -- choices made so often & consistently that, examining their body of work over a lifetime, we can begin to identify-posit an individual style: a style that makes a Colt a Colt. And those choices have to do with how they use the land/site: e.g. where they 'see' the Par 3s, where they 'find' the Par 4s, how they 'identify' the green sites, and what 'compromises' they might make in order to get, say, an easy flowing walk and a compact routing, i.e would they tend to 'sacrifice' a great hole for it? would they introduce a transition hole or two? All of which is to say: I don't know what kind of Par 3 or 4 or 5 any of the architects named so far would come up with if they didn't (on their own) have to or get to make those same choices.

In short, I guess what I'm saying is: I'll take my chances with the devil I know instead of the one I don't!

Peter-Your overthinking it. It’s a hypothetical that can have a myriad of results if you let your mind wander.

[Ira Fishman]

Would this Frankenstein monster of a composite architect actually produce a golf course you'd want to play?

Probably not. But one never knows. Jazz at Massey Hall is one of the greatest recordings ever. There are also plenty of "super groups" of all genres that were less than stellar.


Ira

[Garland Bayley]

...
I'm shocked anyone would pick me for the par-5's -- and yes I saw Garland did, too, but I assumed he was joking!
...

I've only played your Bandon courses. Perhaps CB swayed my vote in your favor.

I do love PD 18, which I see gets a bit of disapproval here, much to my consternation. Of course Alex Miller loves PD 12, also much to my consternation.

[Garland Bayley]

Niall -
My thinking behind that question was two-fold:

1. Unless we embrace the use of massive earthmoving equipment and a wholly artificial golf course that's created from scratch, it probably doesn't matter much which/how many great architects we have designing our Par 3s, 4s and 5s. Any natural site, no matter how good, and a minimalist's approach to routing and designing a golf course, wouldn't likely result in a set of 18 golf holes any better than, say, a Tom D or Dr Mac would come up with on his own. No site is that ideal that it constrains/impinges not at all on the greatness & talents & potential genius of the architect(s) involved.

...

Doesn't it really primarily come down to the routing and green complexes. Let the designers of the par 3s (not much to do there if they are handed a routing and a green complex), par 4, and par 5s throw in a few bunkers and you are done.