[Ira Fishman]

A thought experiment: pick a course that you have played that you think looks too much like the others built since Sand Hills. Even better pick one built by C&C or Doak. What would you do different that you think would have made it a better course?


I am not a Doak acolyte as several of my posts have made clear so I am generally curious in seeing how the premise of the OP could be made more specific.


Thanks.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
Interesting question but not sure that is what the intent of this thread was?  I don’t think anyone is questioning the quality of the latest top designs - are they? 

A friend of mine who is well traveled just played Mid Pines, Southern Pines and Pinehurst #4 with me. He absolutely loved all three courses but his comment (take it how you want) was they all looked pretty much the same.  Maybe he is clueless as he is just a golfer and not an architecture snob.   He also played Tobacco Road and he said that course stood out to him as totally different/unique and was super fun to play.  He didn’t say it was better, just very different. 

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


Matt can speak for himself but I read his post to say that he thinks despite the high quality of the last thirty years of architecture, perhaps it is time for something different. I certainly am open to that but so far TR is the only real example of different that might be as good/better. So I am just proposing that people smarter than I become more concrete.


Ira


PS Tough to devine intent even reading a carefully stated OP.

[Tom_Doak]

A friend of mine who is well traveled just played Mid Pines, Southern Pines and Pinehurst #4 with me. He absolutely loved all three courses but his comment (take it how you want) was they all looked pretty much the same.  Maybe he is clueless as he is just a golfer and not an architecture snob.   He also played Tobacco Road and he said that course stood out to him as totally different/unique and was super fun to play.  He didn’t say it was better, just very different. 

Well the same guy just rebuilt the bunkers on all three of the courses you cited, so that mystery is not too hard to figure out, is it?

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
Agree.  Let Matt comment.


Tom,
I didn't say I argued with him but that is maybe proving the point; many things are starting to look the same even though it wasn't the same architect on all three courses.  Maybe that is not a bad thing it looks the same if it's all good. 

[Ira Fishman]

A friend of mine who is well traveled just played Mid Pines, Southern Pines and Pinehurst #4 with me. He absolutely loved all three courses but his comment (take it how you want) was they all looked pretty much the same.  Maybe he is clueless as he is just a golfer and not an architecture snob.   He also played Tobacco Road and he said that course stood out to him as totally different/unique and was super fun to play.  He didn’t say it was better, just very different. 

Well the same guy just rebuilt the bunkers on all three of the courses you cited, so that mystery is not too hard to figure out, is it?

We played all three courses two weeks ago. The bunkering does look similar probably for the reason Tom mentions. However, the three courses otherwise look and play quite differently from each other. Perhaps your friend's reaction is evidence that bunkering can have an outsized effect on impressions.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
In what way did you feel they played so differently?  The overseeing was a big factor but that is a maintenance issue vs a design issue impacting playability. 

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
In what way did you feel they played so differently?  The overseeing was a big factor but that is a maintenance issue vs a design issue impacting playability.

I am reluctant to distract from an interesting thread which I probably should not have done with my last post, but in summary: elevation changes, tightness off the tee, risk/reward shots off the tee, green contours, use (or lack) of cross bunkers, impact of water, cross course vistas (or not), boldness of features, plus a few other aspects.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I agree, it would be interesting to start another thread as to the differences.  It might make for good discussion especially if a number of people here have played them all. 

[Matt_Cohn]

Mark,


Matt can speak for himself but I read his post to say that he thinks despite the high quality of the last thirty years of architecture, perhaps it is time for something different. I certainly am open to that but so far TR is the only real example of different that might be as good/better. So I am just proposing that people smarter than I become more concrete.


Ira


PS Tough to devine intent even reading a carefully stated OP.

I think Jim Engh was a good example of someone who had a wildly different view of what golf could/should be like. It looked and played very different---not just different than other designs at the time, but also different than anything else that had come before. And a lot of people thought it was at least pretty good. Is there anyone like that now?

[Don Mahaffey]

The more golf construction I do the more I realize how much difference there is in the design work being done today. 
Compare Memorial Park in Houston with the other work done in the region in the last decade. It’s very different.


I just saw Meadowbrook CC by Andy Staples. I’m not seeing much work like that


We just finished a project with Tripp Davis. Best surface drainage approach I’ve seen, and he’s not a sexy name here.


Working on something with Jay Blasi that I believe is going to be very noteworthy if it happens, and it looks positive.


Mike Nuzzo’s Wolf Point hasn’t opened many doors for him, unfortunately, but it’s pretty damn good as evidenced by the auction price and golfer reviews.


Pay attention to how courses are drained. Checkout if the ball is reacting on mostly convex features or concave. Are bunkers up in the air or nested into the ground? Can you see tees from across the course or do they reveal themselves as you enter the teeing grounds?  Short grass around the greens is trendy, but is it smooth snow cone cup like, or fall offs with some edginess and wrinkles? Do the greens play larger or smaller based on how they fit in the green complex?


There are many examples of different approaches to golf architecture out there. Just look closer.

[Paul Jones]

Quite a few years ago it seemed all the new courses I was playing were designed by CC/Doak/Hanse.  I did get a little burned out, they were all fun, but were all very similar.  I began going out of my way to play Dick Wilson, Robert Trent Jones and Walter Travis courses.  It was a great experience and I had a lot of fun.  My point is, they have many courses that are very different, just try and pick different architects and different decades to play.  It does seem that UK has more variety than the US.

[Matt_Cohn]

The more golf construction I do the more I realize how much difference there is in the design work being done today. 
Compare Memorial Park in Houston with the other work done in the region in the last decade. It’s very different.


I just saw Meadowbrook CC by Andy Staples. I’m not seeing much work like that


We just finished a project with Tripp Davis. Best surface drainage approach I’ve seen, and he’s not a sexy name here.


Working on something with Jay Blasi that I believe is going to be very noteworthy if it happens, and it looks positive.


Mike Nuzzo’s Wolf Point hasn’t opened many doors for him, unfortunately, but it’s pretty damn good as evidenced by the auction price and golfer reviews.


Pay attention to how courses are drained. Checkout if the ball is reacting on mostly convex features or concave. Are bunkers up in the air or nested into the ground? Can you see tees from across the course or do they reveal themselves as you enter the teeing grounds?  Short grass around the greens is trendy, but is it smooth snow cone cup like, or fall offs with some edginess and wrinkles? Do the greens play larger or smaller based on how they fit in the green complex?


There are many examples of different approaches to golf architecture out there. Just look closer.

What’s one feature on one of those courses that hasn’t been done before in many places? I’m mostly just asking, but kind of challenging too.

[Don Mahaffey]

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.

[Peter Pallotta]

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.

Thanks, Don.
You're better than me both at building golf course and at writing good posts. You said (clearly) in two lines what it took me ten lines to say badly!

[Matt_Cohn]

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.

Thanks, Don.
You're better than me both at building golf course and at writing good posts. You said (clearly) in two lines what it took me ten lines to say badly!

That's literally not what I said.

What’s one feature on one of those courses that hasn’t been done before in many places?

I said, "done before in many places." In other words, what was done at any of those courses that wasn't already widespread as a design feature or technique? I'm sure they're fantastic—they look like it! But I'm wondering if anything is really that new about them.

[Mike Nuzzo]

What’s one feature on one of those courses that hasn’t been done before in many places? I’m mostly just asking, but kind of challenging too.

If Wolf Point were all maintained at one height of cut, something we did consider, it would be hard to tell where everything or even anything was, especially without a flag.
We brought a 20-year design veteran to the site during construction and they were very confused as to where all the features were located.
Even Fergal O'leary, who's played thousands of courses, didn't know where he was going on the finished product (per his review and he did play without a sherpa). And it had an affordable construction budget due to a great owner and design/build team.


At Memorial Park we converted a 100% city potable water irrigated golf course to one primarily irrigated with a rain catchment system.

Nine Grand has 3 different nine hole course types (big, par 3, putting) in 115 acres.

[Mike Nuzzo]

P.S.
The yardage chart on the Wolf Point course profile points to far more in-between yardages than normal.
https://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/wolf-point-ranch/

[Scott Warren]

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!

[Sean_A]

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!

I agree. I am not sure what folks expect. Which post 1945 archie has a resume as diverse as Doak's?

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Great list Scott.  I am excited about the shorter less than par 70 course.  I hope it starts a major movement in that direction.  I keep hearing from people that they have enjoyed playing golf during Covid but it takes so long and is very expensive.  We want these people to stay with the game.

[Kalen Braley]

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!

Completely agreed,

And you didn't even mention RCCC, as fantastic of a "mountain" style golf course that you will ever play...and very walkable to boot. 14-16 is nothing short of world class IMO.

My top 3 Doak courses are RCCC, Ballyneal, and Pacific Dunes.  They are all 9s on my personal DS and all very different from each other...and I couldn't possibly rank them except 1a, 1b, and 1c.

[Forrest Richardson]

A lot of the "modern" work that gets the most attention looks very much the same. Because I'm a student of GCA, I'm able to tell the difference between how Hanse approaches work compared to Coore & Crenshaw. Just one example. If I had played more Doak courses, I am sure I'd begin to appreciate how Tom goes about things versus _______. Most golfers, I will guess, see "about the same thing" in terms of looks. They will also appreciate the site — Ocean views, forests, dunes, etc.

If I were to coin a phrase of the most attention-getting modern work, I term it "Throw Back".

Stellar ideas in golf design are sorrowfully lacking. Not much excitement, which is depressing. The recent emphasis on alternative formats, short courses and play formats will — hopefully — have a positive and profound impact. In order to do something different, in my opinion, we need to be "designing" and re-thinking the format and play — not just the aesthetics, edges and "treatments" that get inflicted once the routing is set.

[archie_struthers]

 


Thoughtful, interesting


thanks Forrest

[Peter Pallotta]

We're using the word different differently.

There must be thousands of jazz tunes written over/based on the same ii-V-I chord progression, from the bouncy Honeysuckle Rose of Fats Waller to the sophisticated Satin Doll of Duke Ellington -- all of them different one from the other, and yet to a modestly astute ear not all that much different at all, given that they're all based on the exact same foundations/principles.

I don't think I have to mention the literally tens of thousands of rock and blues tunes that have been written over/based on the near-ubiquitous I-IV-V chord progression -- and for that reason, to my untrained ear, all sounding pretty much alike (or at least, sounding strangely familiar), despite their sometimes-many surface differences.

"Country music is three chords and the truth."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()