Design Gut Check?

[Carl Nichols]

 .

[Tom_Doak]

No one has any guts around here anymore.

[Michael Chadwick]

No one has any guts around here anymore.

Pertaining to what? Design? Or talking about design? I never saw the OP.

[Simon Barrington]

No one has any guts around here anymore.

You just won GC Atlas!

[Ben Stephens]

No one has any guts around here anymore.

Well I had the guts to say that you haven't changed your design style much over the years a while ago which might have ruffled a few feathers on GCA however it came out wrong as I was trying to do the opposite to encourage something different the the shaping and look of the golf course.


I will probably put out a new thread could be what would be the Antithesis of the Current Great GCA Triumvirate (C+C, Doak and Hanse) golf course design approach wise


Variety is the spice of life   

[Tom_Doak]

No one has any guts around here anymore.

Well I had the guts to say that you haven't changed your design style much over the years a while ago which might have ruffled a few feathers on GCA however it came out wrong as I was trying to do the opposite to encourage something different the the shaping and look of the golf course.

I will probably put out a new thread could be what would be the Antithesis of the Current Great GCA Triumvirate (C+C, Doak and Hanse) golf course design approach wise

Variety is the spice of life

I can't think of anything more gutless than an architect standing on the sidelines and criticizing me for not being more varied.  If you think it's easy to build something different and better, you should go do it, or be more respectful.


I do have a coherent approach to design, which has not precluded me from taking on different sorts of projects and producing some pretty good variety over my career.  Do you think my work is less varied than that of Harry Colt or A. W. Tillinghast or Alister MacKenzie?  All of them were pretty good but they didn't resort to building anything like Jim Engh just to prove they could.

[Ben Stephens]

No one has any guts around here anymore.

Well I had the guts to say that you haven't changed your design style much over the years a while ago which might have ruffled a few feathers on GCA however it came out wrong as I was trying to do the opposite to encourage something different the the shaping and look of the golf course.

I will probably put out a new thread could be what would be the Antithesis of the Current Great GCA Triumvirate (C+C, Doak and Hanse) golf course design approach wise

Variety is the spice of life

I can't think of anything more gutless than an architect standing on the sidelines and criticizing me for not being more varied.  If you think it's easy to build something different and better, you should go do it, or be more respectful.


I do have a coherent approach to design, which has not precluded me from taking on different sorts of projects and producing some pretty good variety over my career.  Do you think my work is less varied than that of Harry Colt or A. W. Tillinghast or Alister MacKenzie?  All of them were pretty good but they didn't resort to building anything like Jim Engh just to prove they could.

Well it seems that you don't seem to take criticism very well I was making a point that you have a design style or approach that you are comfortable with and probably will never go out of the box it has worked well for you and you don't want to take the risk on doing something really different some would say 'stuck in your old ways' - some projects have been a huge success and others haven't


James Stirling a famous Modern British Architect evolved his designs a lot from the 1950s to the 1990s some people like the challenge to do something different over their career and others don't for example Robert Adam who has stuck to classical architecture because they were more comfortable with it. 


We are in an era where more things are possible to do with the technology that we have construction and design wise with use of computers and 3D technology. Colt Mackenzie and Tillinghast didn't and they were more limited to what they could do - one wonders what they could have done with the current equipment available. I do think you are 'old school' when it comes to golf course design and like to respect the elders (or influences) using a similar 'ethos' - (your word) however it seems that you are not a fan of modern technology - your comment of not wanting to see Harris Kalinka's fly through of Cabot Highlands course does show your view - how you approach things is your choice


However you are not choosing to use the technology which is available which others are using which could be the next popular design style or ethos. The danger is if that becomes popular and your ethos becomes less popular what would you do? stick to your ideals or evolve.


In the real world most designers have to evolve to enable them to generate income and a living. You are a rarity in the GCA world and very well known and will be ok. It is different for others. I am not a fan of traditional buildings however if a client wants it I do it because it's meeting their brief and brings me income. You are in a fortunate position not to have that and have more freedom towards designs than many others have.


I was testing the waters to see whether you will come up with something radically different and the conclusion is that it is very unlikely to happen however I do wish you every success for the future. We may agree or disagree on certain things plus we are different people I am more of a modernist and you are more of a traditionalist.


Jim Engh's work is interesting and you try and see where he is coming from - he is different - Variety is the spice of life. Mike Strantz is different which is shown in Robin Hiseman's work which I like more having played JCB with Robin it does punish the poor shot and has different variety some holes do make you uncomfortable having not played it before - it is a different style or 'ethos' that's is not seen in the UK before. I can imagine if JCB was designed by you it would have wide fairways and a more 'traditional' look.


Not many people have the guts to criticise a world renown designer however you may see it as gutless others may see it differently.


 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ben, I think you’re heading down the wrong path there. You’re also using “style” and “ethos” as one and the same whereas they are very different.

In my opinion, Tom has a strong design ethos that means he has some consistencies in his approach to design, some of which make their way into aesthetics.

That is very different to having an unwavering style. More so than the other two members of your modern Triumverate, the Doak / Renaissance stable has tried a lot of different things, both conceptually and in the detail.Part of their design ethos (playable width, hiding transitions, fairway lines following the land, use of micro-undulations) does provide a consistent aesthetic but it does not mean the style is the same.


I think your highlighting of technology is unfair. They have just been very forward thinking with their recreation of Lido. Choosing not to use fancy rendering for marketing purposes (for that is all it is) is not foregoing technology. And choosing not to build on a natural site directly from a 3D model is only common-sense to me.

Additionally - returning to style - one of the first tropes of becoming a true GCA nerd is to be able to notice the different design characteristics of the beloved designers. That is the same with MacKenzie or Tillinghast or Thomas… why pick on the moderns.Tom has only built 50 courses. If all of the other moderns had never been built, we’d still be celebrating his courses as something completely different. The fact that there are so few new courses being built and that most of them are not drastically breaking away from what has been a logical and successful movement in design adds to the feeling that there is nothing new being done.n

[Simon Barrington]

Hi Ben
Hope you don't mind, but I am afraid that "There is a narrow line between bravery & ...."

As someone who really gets your genuine enthusiasm (one resonant of a young man writing a Golf Course Guide that was for friends only...), I would suggest a pause here...

Your OP question, which is essentially "What's next?" is absolutely valid.

Especially, as those that mimic the perceived style and presentation of the 3 GCA's you cited, with far less talent and success are diluting their ethos. Such are notable periods in design challenged over time, ubiquity and pastiche brings these periods to a close, but that is not the fault of the leaders of such movements.

It also is the great challenge they face. 
Tom and the others grasp that better than anyone, hence their constant innovation/evolution/variety.

The problem is you picked on the wrong guy (and perhaps in enthusiasm too stridently, one of my traits hence my empathy here in reaching out) as Tom has shown himself to be the opposite of what you describe.

Tom's body of work stands for itself as varied and thought-leading, very few can do the range of design he has done so successfully.His mentor Pete Dye liked to turn the other way to surprise, and Tom has done the same.

I am no expert on all his work but it strikes me that Apache Stronghold is very different from The Loop and especially Sedge Valley.
Others more au fait with his work can no doubt give numerous other better examples of his "range".

From what I hear in recent podcasts Tom is about to share some pretty special work in the next few projects...
I have no doubt they will all be different in some way.
Why?
Because he works with the land, and pushes boundaries (but not just for the sake of it)

But the one thrust you are really wrong on is use of technology, have you not studied his Lido project?

This is potentially the most challenging and impressive use of the very things you throw the other way, in error I am afraid.
Yes it's CBM's original design, but few could lead such a project so well to bring out the talents of his team and CBM's genius so many years on and in a different location entirely.
Someone "stuck in the past" could not have succeeded. (Note: Lido "reduxes" have been done before far less successfully)

So I'd suggest focus on the key question "What's Next?", leverage your undoubted (Building) Architectural knowledge, and show us what you can do to push the art forward.

I'm very interested to see what it might be...

Cheers!

[Robin_Hiseman]

Jim Engh's work is interesting and you try and see where he is coming from - he is different - Variety is the spice of life. Mike Strantz is different which is shown in Robin Hiseman's work which I like more having played JCB with Robin it does punish the poor shot and has different variety some holes do make you uncomfortable having not played it before - it is a different style or 'ethos' that's is not seen in the UK before. I can imagine if JCB was designed by you it would have wide fairways and a more 'traditional' look.




Ben


Let me chip in here.


JCB does have wide fairways, but you played it shortly before the LIV event, when they had grown in the roughs.


A 'traditional' look at JCB would have been inappropriate. Firstly, it is the heaviest clay I have ever worked on. Not for nothing is this area of England is known as the Potteries. An hour of rain would shut us down for two days. I took a design lead from the likes of Oakmont, another clay site. Secondly, JCB is an engineering company and the course was built with JCB equipment. Accordingly, the golf course had to reflect the company ethos of design innovation, coupled with a sturdy build quality. It could not flake off or erode. As much as I like that style, it was not right for this site.


Despite the physical limitations, we came out very well. Being recently rated as the best true parkland course in England by Golf World and No.4 in GB&I is a proud accolade for a course created mostly from farm fields.

[Ben Stephens]

Hi Ben
Hope you don't mind, but I am afraid that "There is a narrow line between bravery & ...."

As someone who really gets your genuine enthusiasm (one resonant of a young man writing a Golf Course Guide that was for friends only...), I would suggest a pause here...

Your OP question, which is essentially "What's next?" is absolutely valid.

Especially, as those that mimic the perceived style and presentation of the 3 GCA's you cited, with far less talent and success are diluting their ethos. Such are notable periods in design challenged over time, ubiquity and pastiche brings these periods to a close, but that is not the fault of the leaders of such movements.

It also is the great challenge they face. 
Tom and the others grasp that better than anyone, hence their constant innovation/evolution/variety.

The problem is you picked on the wrong guy (and perhaps in enthusiasm too stridently, one of my traits hence my empathy here in reaching out) as Tom has shown himself to be the opposite of what you describe.

Tom's body of work stands for itself as varied and thought-leading, very few can do the range of design he has done so successfully.His mentor Pete Dye liked to turn the other way to surprise, and Tom has done the same.

I am no expert on all his work but it strikes me that Apache Stronghold is very different from The Loop and especially Sedge Valley.
Others more au fait with his work can no doubt give numerous other better examples of his "range".

From what I hear in recent podcasts Tom is about to share some pretty special work in the next few projects...
I have no doubt they will all be different in some way.
Why?
Because he works with the land, and pushes boundaries (but not just for the sake of it)

But the one thrust you are really wrong on is use of technology, have you not studied his Lido project?

This is potentially the most challenging and impressive use of the very things you throw the other way, in error I am afraid.
Yes it's CBM's original design, but few could lead such a project so well to bring out the talents of his team and CBM's genius so many years on and in a different location entirely.
Someone "stuck in the past" could not have succeeded. (Note: Lido "reduxes" have been done before far less successfully)

So I'd suggest focus on the key question "What's Next?", leverage your undoubted (Building) Architectural knowledge, and show us what you can do to push the art forward.

I'm very interested to see what it might be...

Cheers!

Hi Simon,

Thank you for your thread message.

Regarding innovation I don’t see it on Doak, Hanse or C+C courses I am afraid. I guess I see what is innovative differently to others.

Tom this is not directed at you personally. Having played a couple of your courses it doesn’t appeal to me however lot of GCAers do rave about it which I do understand why. I guess I see things differently to the others and know I am in a very small minority on GCA.

For me its like going to a Michelin Star restaurant with classic meals that everyone raves about – it doesn’t appeal to me. This appeals to me more – www.alchemist.dk

Will Alsop was an Architect that I looked up to he was radical and out of the box thinker. The press portrayed him like an ‘enfant terrible’ of Architecture. Fortunately, I have met him and he was the opposite and a one off. I liked his ideas many did not. I tend to like things that are different to the norm.

Having seen a lot of golf courses and buildings over my lifetime very few has given me the thrill and the emotion feeling wise that wow feeling.

Having had the opportunity to play JCB earlier this year with Robin Hiseman – following three site visits prior to playing it – twice during construction and one walking around it with other EIGCA Architects on a Study tour. Playing it was a different kettle and made you see things like for example the 5^th hole – I was questioning why Robin had designed a green that falls front to back right to left towards a water hazard at the rear of the green I thought it was odd having played it made me realise it was a great understated par 3 hole.

JCB is a course where there are times if you have played it for the first time it can make you uncomfortable and there are quite risky and blind shots it was a thrilling ride for me that I have not experienced on a golf course for a while post Covid.

There were a thrills and rollercoasters playing JCB how many courses in the world has a downhill hole with an island green using a three wood that is thrilling to me and a challenge.  Robin also gave me the tiger line to the lower fairway on 18^th over really high trees which I managed to get over and then saw a pond by the fairway which I also managed to get over to get onto the fairway – ‘why didn’t you tell me there was a pond there Robin!’ he just smiled. Cheeky Doc!

Every course had its strengths and weaknesses JCB was thrilling to play and challenging. This from the Doak courses I have played (and seen) doesn’t get the juices flowing for me. One first hole I played had the widest fairway I have seen, and I thought it was strange and too comfortable did I like it probably not because I feel the first hole should be a test not too hard to enable you to feel that you have had a good start.

Another hole had a bunker on a Doak course which was like 20-30 yards beyond the green I thought it was odd and a waste of money – it might be more aesthetic than in play – which is often seen at a number of Pete Dye courses.

The attention to detail on Doak course is of high standard with some great features. However there are few things that I don’t agree with Tom like for example removing the semi rough at Woodhall Spa Hotckin course and making fairways wider to the edge of the heather – I think its unfair and the semi rough gives you a 50% chance of stopping the ball rolling into the heather.

I felt disappointed having played my first Hanse course at Craighead most at BUDA preferred Craighead than Balcomie course. The greens were very interesting it was the other elements of the course which let it down and felt Hanse could have done better on a low budget. 

Don’t get me wrong Doak, Hanse and C+C are highly regarded golf course architects at the top of their game – does their courses and course design appeal to me. It did when I was younger however not now being on GCA for 20 years it feels all repetitive and lack innovation/new ideas for me – others may see it differently.

If Tom is comfortable in what he does and is doing well business wise kudos to him as there are still many clients out there that want a Doak course long that may continue. For me would I drop everything to play a Doak course probably not as there are lots of other golf courses I would like to see and play first. There seems to be too many of them around!!

However going back to JCB I do think that course will set a trend for golf course design in Europe in the next quarter of a century as the younger generation will want more wow factor which I can see that happening.

Also there is Trump 2 and Castle Stuart 2 on the way – the question is which course the majority will prefer to play. I can see most GCAers will plump for CS and the consumer golfer for Trump 2.

Trump 2 looks thrilling from the pictures, co designed by a EIGCA colleague Christian Lundin and their marketing has been quite good which makes it attractive for golfers. CS 2 is quite far behind so who knows.

Next year my expectations of playing Castle Stuart and Nairn is lower - Royal Dornoch, Golspie and Brora higher. It could change after playing all of them for the first time.

Simon you are a welcome addition to GCA forum and I look forward to future discussions whether we agree or not 

[Charlie Goerges]

I don't know Ben. This kind of sounds like criticizing the Beatles or the Stones for always sounding like themselves. Help, Sargeant Peppers, and Let it Be all sound like the Beatles and they all sound different too. Probably as alike/different as High Pointe, Pacific Dunes, and The Loop.


But it's fine, you like what you like. I have an uncle who despises the Beatles, his favorite band is Ratt! He likes what he likes, even if 98% of music lovers agree more with me. But he isn't courageous for saying he hates the Beatles, but cool, it's fine ya know.

[Kyle Harris]

Someone bringing receipts does not equal not taking criticism well.

I then got lost when some implied Tom Doak is eschewing technology.

[Tim_Weiman]

Ben,


I would recommend you delete language like “you don’t seem to take criticism very well”. Stick to architecture discussion.


Tim

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,

I'd tend to agree with others in terms of his ability to work in varied terrains/environments.  Whether its mountain golf (RCCC, Stone Eagle ), prairie style (Ballyneal), links (Pac Dunes, Tara Iti, etc), or even a humble muni (Common Ground, Memorial), Tom has proven to produce superb results again and again.  Whatever his methodology or secret sauce is, he'd be nuts to change it now.

And as far as looks, I would never have guessed for example that Renaissance was his.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Well it seems that you don't seem to take criticism very well I was making a point that you have a design style or approach that you are comfortable with and probably will never go out of the box it has worked well for you and you don't want to take the risk on doing something really different some would say 'stuck in your old ways' - some projects have been a huge success and others haven't

Tom is the last person here who needs anyone defending him, and I'm not aware of any history between you two or anything much beyond what was mentioned here… but to this and the rest of what you've written, wow. I don't remember the last time I read something that came off as so wildly off base.

How would you categorize Tom's "style or approach"? Would you rather he build a lousy, terrible golf course? Is not creating across multiple kinds of terrain and land a variance of "style or approach"? It's not like Tom's built only parkland golf courses. Or links courses. Or wide sandbelt-style golf courses.

Just because you don't like the few Doak courses you've played and seem to feel you have "different tastes" doesn't back the opinions you've shared here. At all.

Thanks for the chuckle, I guess.

[Tom_Doak]

Someone bringing receipts does not equal not taking criticism well.

I then got lost when some implied Tom Doak is eschewing technology.

Ha, yes, but Ben has less experience with my work than many people here.  The last time we had this same discussion, I think he had seen, what was it Ben, two of my 45 courses?  That's what ticks me off; I could not think of anyone here who is LESS qualified to judge the breadth of my work.


Ben, FYI, I've been employing Brian Zager the past 2 1/2 years to work on Lido and also on a new project in Florida.  The technology is interesting, and I know Brian believes that it has good application to a site with more complex interest, and I've been trying to let him show me what he can do on the computer.  But the idea that it's going to be BETTER off the computer than it would be if I went out there and worked on the ground with a great shaper . . . well, I'm just not convinced of that, yet, at least not for me.  The results might be more DIFFERENT and maybe it would make my work look more like Jim Engh's, but that's not a direction I'm looking to go.


Just today I was discussing with a client the possibility of building all of the conceptual designs I've got rattling around in my brain . . . if I do THAT deal I will invite you to come over and eat crow in person.

[Kalen Braley]

Someone bringing receipts does not equal not taking criticism well.

I then got lost when some implied Tom Doak is eschewing technology.

Just today I was discussing with a client the possibility of building all of the conceptual designs I've got rattling around in my brain . . . if I do THAT deal I will invite you to come over and eat crow in person.

Tom,

Per chance is this the one you may have alluded to a few years back on a TR thread? 

"I do hope to find a client someday who wants me to build something as out of the box as Tobacco Road.  I've got some ideas for that, which I can't really use anywhere else."

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67854.msg1623867.html#msg1623867

[Dan_Callahan]

Maybe I'm just getting old and grumpy, but I can't understand what seems to be the conventional belief that using cutting edge technology automatically makes something better. I have a former student who is in Milan right now and is texting me photos of the many extraordinary buildings built by hand, the detail in stained glass windows in the churches, etc., and they beat the bag out of what is built today with modern technology. As a writer, I feel the same way about AI. I disagree with colleagues about this all the time. I simply don't believe that the work that ChatGPT spits out is better than what the human brain can create when it is really focused and applied. The courses that Raynor and Ross and MacKenzie designed with rudimentary technology surpass most of what is constructed today. Newer technology is interesting, and maybe makes life more efficient, but I will never believe it automatically makes anything better. Hell, all things being equal, as much as I love being able to Google anything whenever I want, or watch a streaming broadcast of the Master's, my life was better/more enjoyable before cell phones existed. It just was.

[Ira Fishman]

Ben,


Plenty of people have made the point that your analysis of Doak and C&C is off base. But I am intrigued by your notion of golf design that could be radically different. So I propose that you take a site—Sheep Ranch—that both Doak and C&C designed courses on. I did not play Doak’s “free form” version; I have played the C&C version which I think is a good play because it is different even if not great. So take the site and design what you would have done with it; post it here so that we can get a real feeling for what you have asserted.


Thanks.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

Dan,

I appreciate the deeply delicious irony of your last post on a website of all places, even if I partially sympathize 

[Tim_Weiman]

Ben,


Plenty of people have made the point that your analysis of Doak and C&C is off base. But I am intrigued by your notion of golf design that could be radically different. So I propose that you take a site—Sheep Ranch—that both Doak and C&C designed courses on. I did not play Doak’s “free form” version; I have played the C&C version which I think is a good play because it is different even if not great. So take the site and design what you would have done with it; post it here so that we can get a real feeling for what you have asserted.


Thanks.


Ira

Ira,


Regarding Sheep Ranch, I played Tom’s version but haven’t been back to experience the C&C version. IMO, part of the charm of Tom’s version was how different it was. It truly was unique and a lot of fun to play.


Radically different? Yeah, it probably was.


Tim

[Ally Mcintosh]

Dan,

I appreciate the deeply delicious irony of your last post on a website of all places, even if I partially sympathize 

Kalen, I don’t think it’s even debatable. I wish I could kick the habit. It’s a horrible and unhealthy aspect of modern life.

[Tom_Doak]

My Instagram feed wastes a lot of my time, but it's also a lot of fun . . . for some reason it gives me lots of motivational and business advice from Steve Jobs et al.


Right now it's giving me Orson Welles:


Interviewer:  "What I'd like to know is where did you get the confidence from to innovate?"


Welles:  "Ignorance.  Sheer ignorance.  You know there's no confidence equal to it.  It's only when you know nothing about a profession I think that you're timid, and I didn't know there were things you couldn't do.  So anything I could think of in my dreams, I attempted to photograph."


Interviewer:  "You got away with enormous technical advances, didn't you?"


Welles:  "Simply by not knowing they were impossible."




Maybe that's where Ben is going with this, and it's quite likely that is where the next innovation will come from.  But there are lots of people who are ignorant, and only once in a great while does someone actually come up with an innovation.