[Kalen Braley]

Peter,

There is a quote from the latest version of "A Star is Born".  It certainly resonated with me and supports your understanding too.

“Music is essentially 12 notes between any octave...Twelve notes, and the octave repeats. It’s the same story told over and over, forever. All any artist can offer the world is how they see those 12 notes. That’s it.”

Safe to say, I really like how some arrange those notes...

[Kevin_Reilly]

Matt,
One feature that hasn't ever been built? Ever? If that's your bar for something different then I cry uncle.
That's like asking a guitarist to play a new note. Designing is about organizing the features like composing is about arranging the notes. A never been done before single feature is out of my realm.

Your post reminded me of a recent Youtube from Rick Beato.  He explained why he believed that "Never Going to Let You Go", the #1 song from 1983, was "the most complex pop song of all time".


https://youtu.be/ZnRxTW8GxT8


Anyone who heard the song (most of us) back then had no idea of the underlying complexities (outlined in RB's video).


For GCA, coming up with something like this....complex to knowledgeable GCA aficionados, but just "a good course" to 99% of people that play it... is undoubtedly a bridge too far. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks for that Kalen, I hadn't read that before.

I want to be clear, though: in all this I'm not trying to minimize or downplay any architect's talent or originality, I'm just suggesting that these don't lie in being 'different' -- especially if 'different' implies not utilizing the same principles and materials as everyone else does.

If you get a chance (and I'm pretty sure you've already heard this), give a listen to Ella Fitzgerald singing "How High the Moon" (in its original Swing style) and then at about the half way point starting to scat/improvise over the same tune-chord progression using Bird's "Ornithology", the very epitome of the Bop style.

Three and a half minutes of absolute mastery. And no matter how 'different' Ornithology is/gets here, How High the Moon is always firmly present there, right underneath/in the background.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf_yECTnuko

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,

Agreed on the clarification...

P.S.  Not sure if you've heard of these guys, but pretty much validates your prior post! Just 4 chords is all you need! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I

[Peter Pallotta]

   Never get tired of that clip, thanks Kalen.
That says it all.
Especially funny/fitting near the beginning, when Benny starts playing and Jordan says "Yeah, that's Don't Stop Believing by Journey -- great song, very original...."

[Mark Stewart]

Many people confuse different with good.

Actually most people associate “different “ with “bad”.




In his book “ The Creative Curve” , Allen Gannett demonstrates that most successful products are a mix of old and new. That’s why we have 25 James Bond movies, 10 Fast/Furious movies, the Marvel Universe, and Tiger King 2-it’s just safer than something “different “.


The trick is to combine the familiar with the new. There’s a reason “ The Godfather 2” wasn’t titled“Young Don Corleone”- it’s safer to highlight the similarities than the differences.


In golf, we have template holes and our favorite designers, old and new. While some of their designs may seem superficially similar to us golfers, I’m sure a lot of that is our own confirmation biases.


When an old course like Baltusrol or Oakland Hills gets “restovated” it checks a lot of boxes and evokes nostalgia for comfortable, familiar things with a side of redemption.


The Lido is the Holy Grail-a mythical NLE old course, constructed using cutting edge technology, executed under the watchful eye of Tom Doak. It will be wildly successful.


I know TD has mentioned resurrecting High Pointe in some fashion. If he does, the new version won’t be the same but the storyline is infinitely better this time!

[Ben Stephens]

In the past decade or so, Tom Doak and Renaissance Golf Design have done or are currently delivering:

• A super-low budget public course (Common Ground)
• A CB Macdonald tribute course (Old Macdonald)
• A freestyle golf park (the original Sheep Ranch)
• A reversible course (The Loop)
• Reuse of a remediated phosphate mine (Streamsong)
• A reproduction of The Lido course near Sand Valley
• A par 68 sub-6000-yard course (Sedge Valley)
• A course that begins and ends in different places (Dismal River)

That seems to me like quite a lot of "something different" from one principal designer and associates!

Scott,


Different in type of golf courses produce however similar in appearance, shaping and style


Cheers Ben

[SL_Solow]

I have read this post with interest.  From the start I have had issues with its basic premise.  Putting aside the issue of whether "different is good", I think the timing of the question is important.  When Trent Jones refined his style which departed in meaningful ways from the leading architects (I suspect there was a little Joshua Crane mixed in) he was different,  How long did it take before those who adopted his style were "copycats" as opposed to those who were trying to refine that style.  Would it have been fair to expect Trent to change his style so that he could remain "different.  (Aside to my friend Peter Pallotta; not all artists can be Miles Davis).  Similarly, when the likes of Tom Doak, C&C and the like, abandoned the Trent style, influenced no doubt by Pete Dye and the old masters, this was deemed different; a departure from the prevailing norm.  Is it fair to expect them to find a new style in an effort to be "different" years later? Are those who adopt the core principles of this style to be downgraded for lack of creativity regardless of the merit of their work or their own stylistic changes to the "model"? For me, adapting to different terrain, prevailing weather conditions, surrounding developments and the like are far more important than achieving novelty. Finally, since perhaps the most important factor is routing, that skill translates across all styles regardless of the current fashion

[Bruce Katona]

Sometimes it takes 1 play, sometimes more than one play (due to wind, wet/dry conditions, the operator not hitting the ball where it appears to should go etc.), but there are times I'll mention to a playing partner " I don't get this", or "That doesn't belong here".


Sometimes the answer reveals itself on a replay or a view from the intended target and I'll say " Now I get it - should have been _____ and played only a _____ yard shot".


Other times it's "WTF was he/she thinking and if that's what they were thinking someone had sh!t for brains on this hole"


The last comment is usually reserved for trees in the middle of fairways or completely overhanging greens with the room to hit a low run up and play the ground game.

[Ira Fishman]

I have read this post with interest.  From the start I have had issues with its basic premise.  Putting aside the issue of whether "different is good", I think the timing of the question is important.  When Trent Jones refined his style which departed in meaningful ways from the leading architects (I suspect there was a little Joshua Crane mixed in) he was different,  How long did it take before those who adopted his style were "copycats" as opposed to those who were trying to refine that style.  Would it have been fair to expect Trent to change his style so that he could remain "different.  (Aside to my friend Peter Pallotta; not all artists can be Miles Davis).  Similarly, when the likes of Tom Doak, C&C and the like, abandoned the Trent style, influenced no doubt by Pete Dye and the old masters, this was deemed different; a departure from the prevailing norm.  Is it fair to expect them to find a new style in an effort to be "different" years later? Are those who adopt the core principles of this style to be downgraded for lack of creativity regardless of the merit of their work or their own stylistic changes to the "model"? For me, adapting to different terrain, prevailing weather conditions, surrounding developments and the like are far more important than achieving novelty. Finally, since perhaps the most important factor is routing, that skill translates across all styles regardless of the current fashion

This is a very astute post. I would add only the following:


Not all artists are Picasso.


Very few golfers will get to play more than a couple of the post Sand Hills courses so being different not particularly relevant for most of us.


Ira

[Sean_A]

I have read this post with interest.  From the start I have had issues with its basic premise.  Putting aside the issue of whether "different is good", I think the timing of the question is important.  When Trent Jones refined his style which departed in meaningful ways from the leading architects (I suspect there was a little Joshua Crane mixed in) he was different,  How long did it take before those who adopted his style were "copycats" as opposed to those who were trying to refine that style.  Would it have been fair to expect Trent to change his style so that he could remain "different.  (Aside to my friend Peter Pallotta; not all artists can be Miles Davis).  Similarly, when the likes of Tom Doak, C&C and the like, abandoned the Trent style, influenced no doubt by Pete Dye and the old masters, this was deemed different; a departure from the prevailing norm.  Is it fair to expect them to find a new style in an effort to be "different" years later? Are those who adopt the core principles of this style to be downgraded for lack of creativity regardless of the merit of their work or their own stylistic changes to the "model"? For me, adapting to different terrain, prevailing weather conditions, surrounding developments and the like are far more important than achieving novelty. Finally, since perhaps the most important factor is routing, that skill translates across all styles regardless of the current fashion

Nothing changes until different intervenes, but I get yer point.

I often think the issue of similarity in design is only a problem for those who travel a ton and pay loads of attention to social media. In other words, it's not a problem.

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

I have read this post with interest.  From the start I have had issues with its basic premise.  Putting aside the issue of whether "different is good", I think the timing of the question is important.  When Trent Jones refined his style which departed in meaningful ways from the leading architects (I suspect there was a little Joshua Crane mixed in) he was different,  How long did it take before those who adopted his style were "copycats" as opposed to those who were trying to refine that style.  Would it have been fair to expect Trent to change his style so that he could remain "different.  (Aside to my friend Peter Pallotta; not all artists can be Miles Davis).  Similarly, when the likes of Tom Doak, C&C and the like, abandoned the Trent style, influenced no doubt by Pete Dye and the old masters, this was deemed different; a departure from the prevailing norm.  Is it fair to expect them to find a new style in an effort to be "different" years later? Are those who adopt the core principles of this style to be downgraded for lack of creativity regardless of the merit of their work or their own stylistic changes to the "model"? For me, adapting to different terrain, prevailing weather conditions, surrounding developments and the like are far more important than achieving novelty. Finally, since perhaps the most important factor is routing, that skill translates across all styles regardless of the current fashion

Good comparisons and analogies Shel.

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
Good point about those who travel.  I remember Tom Fazio stating that he never built the same hole twice.  Really???  Who is he kidding.  If you only ever play one or two Fazio courses in your lifetime which is probably more than most, you would never know and agree with him, but if you have played 50 you might beg to differ  [size=78%] [/size]


I still consult in the semiconductor industry and the company Intel has a philosophy called, “Copy Exact”.  Once they get a process that works, they don’t change anything until the next generation of chips.  I don’t think any of us feel there are architects out there who copy exact, they don’t, but there are some where if many of us who [/size]are well traveled were blindfolded and taken to a golf course, we would have a good idea who designed the golf course.  Some will take this as a negative, others would be proud.  Pete Dye immediately comes to mind and he is one of my favorites.  [size=78%]

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think we look at bigger picture items when saying doing something different.  I believe the real genius of the Golden Age guys was moving away from the Victorian geometric style then prevalent because apparently, no one thought to do it differently.  Even more important was their adaption of design from seaside links courses to other types of sites, climates, etc.


Allowing par to be 69 to 73 rather than par 72, which had become standard, putting the occasional bunker away from the main landing zone, or putting small interior contours back in greens, etc. are smaller innovations or departures than the grand scheme of changing from stiff to natural design elements and adapting as needed.


I tend to see Pete Dye as the only guy who substantially changed gca in the second half of the 20th century.  He went to Scotland, like so many others, but didn't come back with a truly Scottish style, but rather some combination of things that did turn out to be unique, different, and good.  Can we say that architects who mimic the Golden Age style are really doing something different?

[BCrosby]

In the past decade or so, Tom Doak and Renaissance Golf Design have done or are currently delivering:

• A super-low budget public course (Common Ground)
• A CB Macdonald tribute course (Old Macdonald)
• A freestyle golf park (the original Sheep Ranch)
• A reversible course (The Loop)
• Reuse of a remediated phosphate mine (Streamsong)
• A reproduction of The Lido course near Sand Valley
• A par 68 sub-6000-yard course (Sedge Valley)
• A course that begins and ends in different places (Dismal River)

That seems to me like quite a lot of "something different" from one principal designer and associates!

Good list. You might add:


- Redesign of a municipal course that is popular with everyday golfers, is easy to maintain and hosts a PGA Tour event (Memorial Park).

[Scott Warren]

That one did come to mind after I had posted, Bob. I think I saw Brian Schneider Tweet that it has only 17 bunkers. Now that’s something different!

[Ronald Montesano]

I'm going to lead with two contrasting terms that double as buzz words: exclusive and inclusive.


As points of departure, course designs and builds can be viewed as one or the other, based on a variety of factors. Some that come to my mind are: equipment of the era, skill level of players, intent of owner, intent of architect, severity of land.


At some point in time (probably space-race era), golf builds and re-dos strayed into the territory of exclusive. Challenge and difficulty (at the expense of other factors) were the operating principles. Monsters and mayhem won the day.


Little by little, perhaps because fewer people measured enjoyment by number of balls lost, clubs broken and tossed, and strokes added to handicap, the value of inclusive began to reach the golfing masses. Architects were aware of it, but not all were able to commit to it (perhaps because the owners were unwilling to commit to it.) Even a course as challenging as the Black at Streamsong is inclusive. You may leave with 45 putts, but none crosses a hazard.


The notion of different for me, begins with distinguishing between inclusive and exclusive. Michael Strantz work was discussed earlier in this thread. I found Stonehouse to be very golf-exclusive, Tot Hill Farm to be mildly exclusive but fun, and the others to be inclusive.


Who is doing something different and inclusive?

[Rick Sides]

Just getting back from Connecticut where I played Fenwick Golf Club.  I shorter 9 hole walking course that is a gem.  I would love to see more 9 hole fun walking courses where the architect does not need a standard par 35 or 36.  Let the land dictate what holes should be created.  An 18 hole round with par 72 is sometimes a very long day with redundant holes.

[Thomas Dai]

I would love to see more 9 hole fun walking courses where the architect does not need a standard par 35 or 36.  Let the land dictate what holes should be created.  An 18 hole round with par 72 is sometimes a very long day with redundant holes.

+1
atb

[Rob Nydick]

Just getting back from Connecticut where I played Fenwick Golf Club.  I shorter 9 hole walking course that is a gem.  I would love to see more 9 hole fun walking courses where the architect does not need a standard par 35 or 36.  Let the land dictate what holes should be created.  An 18 hole round with par 72 is sometimes a very long day with redundant holes.

I had a similar thought after reflecting on a recent day at Wykagyl.  While the course carries a par of 72, it achieves it with five par 5’s and five par 3’s.  I found that playing two less par fours provided additional interest and excitement throughout the round

Could this "new" thing we seek be as simple as less adherence to a "traditional" routing that features ten par fours and a par of 72?  Does increasing the number of par three and par five holes provide the average golfer more opportunities for excitement in the form of birdie and eagle putts?  It would certainly provide more variety throughout the round.

[Tom_Doak]

Could this "new" thing we seek be as simple as less adherence to a "traditional" routing that features ten par fours and a par of 72?  Does increasing the number of par three and par five holes provide the average golfer more opportunities for excitement in the form of birdie and eagle putts?  It would certainly provide more variety throughout the round.

I will differ with this because I think it's easier to design an interesting par-4 than an interesting par-5.


How many courses can you name that have five or more par-5 holes that are different and memorable?  The Berkshire (Red) famously has six 3's and six 5's, and while I can remember all of the short holes 35+ years later, I cannot remember a single one of the par-5's.


One of the reasons I think Muirfield has the best set of par-5's in the world is because they had the sense to stop at three of them.

[Rob Nydick]

Could this "new" thing we seek be as simple as less adherence to a "traditional" routing that features ten par fours and a par of 72?  Does increasing the number of par three and par five holes provide the average golfer more opportunities for excitement in the form of birdie and eagle putts?  It would certainly provide more variety throughout the round.

I will differ with this because I think it's easier to design an interesting par-4 than an interesting par-5.


How many courses can you name that have five or more par-5 holes that are different and memorable?  The Berkshire (Red) famously has six 3's and six 5's, and while I can remember all of the short holes 35+ years later, I cannot remember a single one of the par-5's.


One of the reasons I think Muirfield has the best set of par-5's in the world is because they had the sense to stop at three of them.

And thus we return to the fact "different" doesn't always translate to "good"!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Maybe that is your challenge, do something no one has done, design a course with five great par fives.  I agree with you I can’t think of any (with five great par fives or even four). I can think of some with three out of four great par fives but as you said, the par fives are many times the least memorable holes.  The four at Tobacco Road are pretty darn fun and memorable.  But many golfers like par fives because they can score well on them and many of the good ones present high risk high reward options. 

[Sean_A]

Tom,
Maybe that is your challenge, do something no one has done, design a course with five great par fives.  I agree with you I can’t think of any (with five great par fives or even four). I can think of some with three out of four great par fives but as you said, the par fives are many times the least memorable holes.  The four at Tobacco Road are pretty darn fun and memorable.  But many golfers like par fives because they can score well on them and many of the good ones present high risk high reward options.

If its a great hole I don't care what par is. But I find many par 5s to be far short of great and essentially adding nothing to the game but a longer walk. I just played Berkshire Red and without question the drawback of the course is the par 5s. I am not convinced four long holes is a sound design concept let alone five.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Designed/intended as ‘par-5s’ or as ‘Bogey-5s’?
Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()