Do you feel that a course has been over-designed or trying too hard to impress?

[Ben Stephens]

Dear GCA


I have been catching up with the GCA news via magazine, social media etc over New Year.


The more I see things now am getting the feeling that recent new courses or course improvements have been 'over-designed' and the architect (or owner's brief that architect is working to) is trying 'too hard' to impress.


Have been seeing plans, aerial images and fly-throughs of the new courses and iconic ones. For me it seems like that new courses are trying to 'Trump' the iconic ones.


Do any of you get that feeling.


'Less is more'


Cheers
B

[Tim_Weiman]

Dear GCA




I have been catching up with the GCA news via magazine, social media etc over New Year.


The more I see things now am getting the feeling that recent new courses or course improvements have been 'over-designed' and the architect (or owner's brief that architect is working to) is trying 'too hard' to impress.


Have been seeing plans, aerial images and fly-throughs of the new courses and iconic ones. For me it seems like that new courses are trying to 'Trump' the iconic ones.


Do any of you get that feeling.


'Less is more'


Cheers
B

Ben,


I imagine it would probably help if you provided some specific examples.


For instance, from what I understand, the three courses that were built at Sand Valley after the original, were each an attempt to build something different, not to “trump” the original course.


Sure, golf architects are competitive like other professions, but, to me at least, the real pressure is to keep building something that is original, something that makes it feel worthwhile to make the journey.

[Tommy Williamsen]

When I played Pacific Dunes I thought that TD showed great restraint. It would have been easy to make every hole a "signature hole." If I ever got a chance to design a course, I think I might "Overdesign it."
An example for me is Sweetens Cove. It just tried to do too much.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Different courses can and should serve different audiences. Some people like Vince Guaraldi, some people like Dio. I know plenty of young guys for whom "over the top" is exactly the course they want to play.

[Ben Stephens]

Dear GCA




I have been catching up with the GCA news via magazine, social media etc over New Year.


The more I see things now am getting the feeling that recent new courses or course improvements have been 'over-designed' and the architect (or owner's brief that architect is working to) is trying 'too hard' to impress.


Have been seeing plans, aerial images and fly-throughs of the new courses and iconic ones. For me it seems like that new courses are trying to 'Trump' the iconic ones.


Do any of you get that feeling.


'Less is more'


Cheers
B

Ben,


I imagine it would probably help if you provided some specific examples.


For instance, from what I understand, the three courses that were built at Sand Valley after the original, were each an attempt to build something different, not to “trump” the original course.


Sure, golf architects are competitive like other professions, but, to me at least, the real pressure is to keep building something that is original, something that makes it feel worthwhile to make the journey.

Hi Tim,


I would prefer to keep it to myself in regards to specific examples. Some recent ones or proposed courses to me are OTT and can be unplayable to certain type of golfers. There are others that I am impressed with and say - thats where i would like to go to and hopefully play it.


Its a matter of personal taste and courses to me that are over-designed could be a bad influence to future GCA's and clients - where they think they can do this and that with a likely lesser budget and 'poorer'/smaller site. The same goes with other elements of design throughout the world. 


I wonder are the over designed courses the new 'maximalism'


Cheers
Ben

[Tim_Weiman]

Ben,


Imagine if someone started a thread with the suggestion that “seaside golf courses are never about good architecture. They just were built to sell real estate”.


Then further imagine two posters came on saying they agreed while two others said they disagreed but NONE provided any examples to make their case either way.


How satisfying would that be for a discussion group?


Wouldn’t it be better if someone came on and said “it’s true, Marion Hollins was hired by the Del Monte Company to sell real estate, but that hardly means Cypress Point is not good golf architecture”?


This may seem like an absurdly obvious example, but the point is that meaningful golf architecture discussion does have to include examining specific examples. General comments without specific examples don’t contribute much.


Two people who understood this point are Tom Doak (The Confidential Guide) and Tommy Naccarato with his early writing to distinguish between what he considered good and really bad bunker work (remember “”Rees pieces”?). One could argue that Tom Doak displayed more courage. By publishing The Confidential Guide he took the risk of turning off potential clients; Tommy was just writing with passion about his hobby not his profession. Both, however, contributed to discussion of the golf architecture art form.


If you truly believe there are architects trying “too hard to impress”, then you should probably follow the example set by Tom Doak and identify examples where you think this is true. Otherwise, the thread isn’t likely to have much discussion value, IMO.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I can name names. I went to Jay Blasi’s GGPGC renovation, and it’s very in your face. It has very unsubtle features, and given that I was a regular there before it’s quite obvious where he touched the course.


At the same time, the course is targeted at beginners, young people and casual players, and I think it’s going to work perfectly. Beginners and casual players don’t need the subtle contours. They need big, signs waving at them saying “hit it here.” When they see Blasi's big features, they'll say wow, and that's exactly what you want people learning golf to say. And as an architecture fan, I can also see where he added complexity and made pin positions that give the course some teeth for more advanced players.


Minimal and maximal design can both work fine depending on the audience. Not every course is designed with GCA belt notchers in mind.

[Ben Stephens]

Hi Tim,




I can name a few recent courses will not name them publicly due to conflict of interest . Its good to see other GCA members raising their opinions on this - I'm glad I am not the only one.


Have just done an Initial Concept Routing Masterplan on one project. Its a nine hole course and there are 3 x 3 hole loops inspired by Flempton Golf Club however have added spice to it that there is a reverse routing for each loop.


This has created 8 different variations - 9 holes wise - is this over designing?? I would probably say yes in some ways however can be a good marketing ploy to attract younger golfers so that they are playing a different course each day or so.




Cheers
Ben

[Ally Mcintosh]

Various ways to over design:


1. Route a course that requires huge earthworks when an alternative could have been routed that didn’t


2. Add and shape too many “features”


3. Technically specify too much or oversized drainage, irrigation etc… Or higher spec materials than are needed.


And no Tim, I’m not going to give examples either. I’ve got ‘em but the best examples are courses you don’t know. The most relevant point to a lot of the current crop of darlings is probably No.2.

[Ben Stephens]

If it was over designed surely it would be too much overload in the golfers brain trying to work their way round the course while there are visual and shaping overloads. It can be like playing 3D chess rather than standard chess.


Golf is normally a much simpler sport for most to enjoy.

[Tim_Weiman]

Various ways to over design:


1. Route a course that requires huge earthworks when an alternative could have been routed that didn’t


2. Add and shape too many “features”


3. Technically specify too much or oversized drainage, irrigation etc… Or higher spec materials than are needed.


And no Tim, I’m not going to give examples either. I’ve got ‘em but the best examples are courses you don’t know. The most relevant point to a lot of the current crop of darlings is probably No.2.

Ally,


IMO, worthwhile discussion of almost any golf course concept is served by providing examples. Indeed, I would suggest it is usually required.


If your examples are courses I or other GCA members aren’t familiar with, all the better. Rather than assuming readers will understand your point, such examples might well sharpen your focus when it comes to explaining your perspective.

[Tim_Weiman]

Hi Tim,




I can name a few recent courses will not name them publicly due to conflict of interest . Its good to see other GCA members raising their opinions on this - I'm glad I am not the only one.


Have just done an Initial Concept Routing Masterplan on one project. Its a nine hole course and there are 3 x 3 hole loops inspired by Flempton Golf Club however have added spice to it that there is a reverse routing for each loop.


This has created 8 different variations - 9 holes wise - is this over designing?? I would probably say yes in some ways however can be a good marketing ploy to attract younger golfers so that they are playing a different course each day or so.




Cheers
Ben

Ben,


If that concept appeals to your client, no problem. I wouldn’t worry about whether the concept is “over designing”.

[Ronald Montesano]

This is a loaded threstion (thread question) that has no placification of 100% of the gentry.

Does over-design mean bad design?

I enjoy all sorts of design. I'm not a once-size-fits-all type of golfer. I can't imagine that any golf course would not be enjoyable by some. I've played one of the Doak Zero courses in Charlotte, and I had a great time.

When I was deep in graduate study for Spanish, en otra epoca, I ran into a guy who was involved in a study on the difference between quizá and quizás. It's splitting hairs. My inclination is that concern over over-design is splitting hairs.

[Tim Martin]

I’ve seen some restoration efforts on Golden Age courses where top shot bunkers were reintroduced to the design and I wonder with modern irrigation practices if they serve the original intent? Certainly they penalize the lesser player(short off the tee) and often mete out a double penalty where the only hope is just to come out sideways. Cold topping a drive will usually not result in the runout a player may have gotten originally with modern irrigation heads everywhere and I wonder if these hazards should be reimagined(on a case by case basis) for purposes of allowing a reasonable second shot or even eliminated entirely? By reimagined I mean shape, size and depth of said bunkers. Sometimes the idea of a sympathetic restoration can be antithetical to original design intent.

[Joe Hancock]

This is a loaded threstion (thread question) that has no placification of 100% of the gentry.

This sentence is the perfect example of *over-designed*…..

[V_Halyard]

Interesting categorization, “over designed”.
If you look at the history of renovations, frequently the addition of trees, and ill designed bunkers of the dark ages were smaller in scale than the originals. For example, Oakland Hills restores the true scale of the original which in comparison would feel “over designed”.

It is spectacular.
I guess in this market rich with the energy of new and renewed respect for golf architecture, one can choose their own level of GCA.

[Mike Hendren]

Tim, click the first link on the El Boqueron thread and scroll to the second and third images. Exhibit A for the premise of this thread - the Good Doctor notwithstanding.


Perhaps someone could post them here.  Hope you’re well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think many, if not most, courses are probably over designed from the perspective of players who pay the bills.  Perhaps if only 10% of players have low handicaps, maybe only 10% of courses really need all those bells and whistles.  I think part of it is we are all more visually oriented than earlier generations, and over designing the wow factor can drive rounds.


On another thread, someone mentioned that of the 24 new courses this year, most are built as ego or dream projects of the owners, and of course, they can do what they want, even knowing the adage that the third owner is the only one to make money does apply to golf courses.


I tend to think this gen of gca's is making the same mistake as my generation - designing for awards and publicity for themselves, not for the end user.  The other side of that is the theory that all golfers can enjoy the aesthetics, regardless of handicap.....as long as care is taken to make sure they don't affect play as much as they look good.  However, there is also an old saying that good design is apparent, but great design is transparent, i.e., you can make a pleasing golf course without a lot of ornamentation.


In speaking with a well known architect in my age group the other day, he mentioned (and I touched on it in a post here) that a great design will survive the next recession fairly intact.  I think we can count on logical owners and supers to reduce the fluff to what is really necessary when money gets tight.


It may be that a detailed look at market factors would reveal something.  A bit out there, but I am interested in model railroading, which has kept steady in spending, but they worry that only old guys with a lot of money are keeping it afloat, so they make high tech and expensive stuff so we replace stuff with better stuff, not new hobbyists buying new.  I wonder if the biz side guys see the same in golf - there is no money in munis to be had because that group will not likely spend more, so they go after the high end of the market where there is a chance to make some coin?

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff,


What are the “bells and whistles” that you believe signify a course being over designed?


Also, if I am not mistaken, wasn’t a large portion of Tillinghast’s consulting work about removing bunkers which he believed added nothing but cost? If so, was this just about fixing earlier mistakes of over design?

[Ronald Montesano]

Thank you, Big Joe. I'll take that as a compliment. #LifeGoals

This is a loaded threstion (thread question) that has no placification of 100% of the gentry.

This sentence is the perfect example of *over-designed*…..

[Ian Andrew]

The more I see things now am getting the feeling that recent new courses or course improvements have been 'over-designed' and the architect (or owner's brief that architect is working to) is trying 'too hard' to impress.

Ben,


It's really hard to break through all the noise surrounding the main players in the business. You tell me what choice any designer has if they want to break through. You either try and upstage what's current, or do what you do and understand your chances of being more than a regional architect are really, really slim.


When you think about how much money is involved, it only makes sense. You have to impress to get someone to invest that much in what you do. The advantage of the past, when golf was being built around housing developments, is the developer could take more of a risk on the designer. The money was in the housing. When its just golf, the money is in the golf. People tend to choose what has worked in the past ... or the next big thing. If you can impress someone enough, you might be called the next big thing.


That's my take from inside the ropes ...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,


What are the “bells and whistles” that you believe signify a course being over designed?


Also, if I am not mistaken, wasn’t a large portion of Tillinghast’s consulting work about removing bunkers which he believed added nothing but cost? If so, was this just about fixing earlier mistakes of over design?

Over contouring - fw contours and mounds that serve little purpose, wild greens that average golfers don't like (not to say that gently rolling greens of 2-3% vs. 1.5% for tour players' tastes, which are very interesting are bad.  However, no matter how artistic, random contours and wild contours get tiring to most....including the superintendent)


Over bunkering, where many never come into play, or for that matter, don't serve multiple purposes to justify their existence, and


Overly wide courses where the turf is over 100 acres, max, maybe 110.


Obviously, destination resort courses are probably under the most pressure to do something that the once-a-year buddies trip golfer doesn't see at home.  I am amazed that the Sand Hills, Pac Dunes type destinations are still being built, but I guess it is a bigger market than I can see.

[Steve Lapper]

Thinking about this thread and its' sister "The Death of Minimalism," brings to mind Dana Fry and Jason Straka's work at the Union League National Club in Southern New Jersey. GD called this complete revamping of the old Sand Barrens a "Super Maximalist" course. That's not an overstatement by any means.


If there is a poster boy for a contemporary over-design (post Whistling Straights), it is Union League National. Just google some of the pictures and it won't take long to see what is near visually over-the-top and almost eye-popping and shocking. It makes Lido or Landman GC look sedate. Fry & Straka moved 1.6 million cubic yards of dirt to sculpt Sand Barrens into Union League.


All of this said, the 27holes there are marvelous fun and eminently enjoyable. Like any minimalist gem, it take multiple plays to recognize the lines of charm, and they are there across most of the property. Low scoring here requires both precise aerial carries, and sublime ground game approaches.


Anxiety may exist at every exit of the fairway or edge of the green, but the course does indeed possess a balance of strategic fun and difficulty. It's visual mayhem at times, yet its maintenance is mostly pristine, has an overflowing tee sheet every day, and the club's membership list is now years long. It is a wild success by any measure.


Did the architects over-design this and try too hard to impress? Perhaps, but they would have to personally opine on their own motivations. From a players perspective the course and its terrain is a boisterous and joyous place to play. Whatever you want to say, the place works and works well. Being a long-time fan of old school architecture and the graceful Golden Age, it might be easy to dismiss this kind of big, maximalist work, yet I can't say that's the case. It's way too much fun and feels instead a well-appointed arcade vs. the lower-key neighborhood playground. Golf, IMO has plenty of room for both.

[Tom_Doak]

There is a quote from Tom Simpson I used in The Anatomy of A Golf Course:


"The educated taste admires simplicity of design and sound workmanship for their own sake rather than over-decoration and the crowding of artificial hazards."


I shudder to think what he would have said about many of our modern courses.  It's all a matter of taste, and of course there are lots of people who have no taste; but "over-decoration" sounds very spot on.

[Ben Sims]

There is a quote from Tom Simpson I used in The Anatomy of A Golf Course:


"The educated taste admires simplicity of design and sound workmanship for their own sake rather than over-decoration and the crowding of artificial hazards."


I shudder to think what he would have said about many of our modern courses.  It's all a matter of taste, and of course there are lots of people who have no taste; but "over-decoration" sounds very spot on.

Im genuinely interested and don’t mean this contentiously, what do we think Tom Simpson would think of Lido, Lawsonia, Garden City, or Tamarack?


I think there’s a simplicity in building what’s required to provide interest for the golfer. Some sites clearly require more than others.


I’m not smart enough to differentiate between adornment and doing what’s required for good golf on this chat board. But I do know it when I see it.