What would be the Antithesis of the Great GCA Triumvirate's Golf Course Designs

[Ben Stephens]

Dear GCA,

The Current Great GCA Triumvirate - Coore + Crenshaw, Doak and Hanse Golf Course Designs over the last quarter of a century has been a big influence/huge trendsetters on many golf course designs and approaches especially on GCA.

Design styles evolves over time as you have seen in the past. I have been very fortunate to work in both Architecture (buildings) and Golf Course Architecture and the evolution of both are similar and opposite at times. In GCA for me there is quite a lack of the opposite of a popular design trend compared with buildings, products and cars etc where there is more variety in design styles.

My question what would you interpret as the Antithesis of the Great GCA Triumvirate's designs?

Cheers
Ben

[Simon Barrington]

In purely design terms (not beating on it as it potentially "grows the game") ...


Top Golf


Blatant, obvious, artificial, loud, brash, with prescribed targets.

[Ben Stephens]

In purely design terms (not beating on it as it potentially "grows the game") ...


Top Golf


Blatant, obvious, artificial, loud, brash, with prescribed targets.

Was looking from a physical golf course standpoint not a virtual one however you are right the golf course designs are much easier to be different in the virtual world.

Top Golf haven't created their version of a proper 'physical' full length golf course yet - one wonders what it will be like

However they have brought in a new generation of golfers and it will be interesting to see how the TGL venture goes whether they will pull it off or not. A friend of mine has raved about Top Tracer which was £12 for 100 balls they said it was worth it.

[Sean_A]

I have said this before, Doak is all over the map with his designs. The variety of styles and terrain is about as varied as one could hope for. Beyond Doak, there are all sorts of different size courses being built. Pay more attention to terrain and land use rather than bunker style.

I would also say that the Fazios and Nicklauses are still ploughing their trade. Dig deeper and you will find different styles out there.

So, I will push back against your premise. Why would I possibly want a design trend which focuses on good land (often sand based), attention to detail design and produces courses of all sizes to come to an end? My problem is more that a very small number of these designs are affordable or accessible.

Ciao

[Ben Stephens]

I have said this before, Doak is all over the map with his designs. The variety of styles and terrain is about as varied as one could hope for. Beyond Doak, there are all sorts of different size courses being built. Pay more attention to terrain and land use rather than bunker style.

I would also say that the Fazios and Nicklauses are still ploughing their trade. Dig deeper and you will find different styles out there.

So, I will push back against your premise. Why would I possibly want a design trend which focuses on good land (often sand based), attention to detail design and produces courses of all sizes to come to an end? My problem is more that a very small number of these designs are affordable or accessible.

Ciao

We may see things in a different way for me the 3vate GCA's work are very similar in terms of shaping across the spectrum some courses may look different from a wider eye however if you go closer down to the details it is similar.


I could name a few who have similar design approaches/trends in similar eras


Bob Cupp, Robert Von Hagge, Pete Dye and Desmond Muirhead have produced different ideas which are more out of the box compared with 'regular' golf course designs.

Trent Joneses, Fazio and Nicklaus are similar - 7000 yard tracks.

Colt, Simpson and Braid are similar

Ross and Flynn are similar

CBM and Mackenzie are polar opposites design wise and appearance of their courses are different.


Currently there is not one that stands out to be the polar opposite to the current Great 3vate GCAs (Andrew Green may be the nearest however some of his work is similar). I have not seen a golf course design that makes me jump out of my seat (a few buildings have) - I guess my standards may be too high.

[Sean_A]

I have said this before, Doak is all over the map with his designs. The variety of styles and terrain is about as varied as one could hope for. Beyond Doak, there are all sorts of different size courses being built. Pay more attention to terrain and land use rather than bunker style.

I would also say that the Fazios and Nicklauses are still ploughing their trade. Dig deeper and you will find different styles out there.

So, I will push back against your premise. Why would I possibly want a design trend which focuses on good land (often sand based), attention to detail design and produces courses of all sizes to come to an end? My problem is more that a very small number of these designs are affordable or accessible.

Ciao

We may see things in a different way for me the 3vate GCA's work are very similar in terms of shaping across the spectrum some courses may look different from a wider eye however if you go closer down to the details it is similar.


I could name a few who have similar design approaches/trends in similar eras


Bob Cupp, Robert Von Hagge, Pete Dye and Desmond Muirhead have produced different ideas which are more out of the box compared with 'regular' golf course designs.

Trent Joneses, Fazio and Nicklaus are similar - 7000 yard tracks.

Colt, Simpson and Braid are similar

Ross and Flynn are similar

CBM and Mackenzie are polar opposites design wise and appearance of their courses are different.


Currently there is not one that stands out to be the polar opposite to the current Great 3vate GCAs (Andrew Green may be the nearest however some of his work is similar). I have not seen a golf course design that makes me jump out of my seat (a few buildings have) - I guess my standards may be too high.

Well, I can’t agree that Colt, Simpson and Braid were similar.

Out of curiosity, what does an opposite design look like today?

Ciao

[Ronald Montesano]

I don't understand the purpose of this thread. Who are the worst teachers at your school? Who is the doctor that you wouldn't trust with a scalpel?

[Simon Barrington]

"Well, I can’t agree that Colt, Simpson and Braid were similar.

Out of curiosity, what does an opposite design look like today?
Ciao"

I agree Sean, this shows the folly of trying to categorise any GCA's (ODG or Present Day) work as synonymous.

That is part of the human condition to wish to order things, but when dealing with different sites, budgets, clients and time periods it's even harder to force similarity.

This is especially the case for under-appreciated Braid, who did great work on all terrains and budgets.

I think IMHO that in itself is reason that his reputation should be higher than some might acknowledge, regardless of the scale of his body of work (530+ design credits)

Braid worked on courses from 1896 (Romford) right up until his death in 1950 (Stranraer & Home Park) he also had progression/change and adjusted to the styles, fashions and best thought of the day. Just as his prolific peer Donald Ross did in the US.

He also collaborated, thus assimilating others inputs, as a previous thread I discovered (w. Adam L) he worked (Routing) with HS Colt (Bunkering) at Bishops Stortford (in order to help Douglas Rolland out at a point of need).

Across his work I have seen work that certainly could be described (by others) as akin to Colt's and/or Simpson's in style and quality.
Sometimes even mistaken for the others one way of the other (Sherwood Forest for instance).

I have also seen images of Braid bunkering that The Good Doctor would be extremely proud of too (Ryl. Blackheath).

But of course closer inspection by experts and fanatics (I count myself in that) of one designer or another might see (or seek exhaustively) the subtle differences...which of course are there...they are all artists of great skill who we should appreciate and celebrate and not strive so hard to differentiate or worse than that try and rank!

Cheers

[Ben Stephens]

I have said this before, Doak is all over the map with his designs. The variety of styles and terrain is about as varied as one could hope for. Beyond Doak, there are all sorts of different size courses being built. Pay more attention to terrain and land use rather than bunker style.

I would also say that the Fazios and Nicklauses are still ploughing their trade. Dig deeper and you will find different styles out there.

So, I will push back against your premise. Why would I possibly want a design trend which focuses on good land (often sand based), attention to detail design and produces courses of all sizes to come to an end? My problem is more that a very small number of these designs are affordable or accessible.

Ciao

We may see things in a different way for me the 3vate GCA's work are very similar in terms of shaping across the spectrum some courses may look different from a wider eye however if you go closer down to the details it is similar.


I could name a few who have similar design approaches/trends in similar eras


Bob Cupp, Robert Von Hagge, Pete Dye and Desmond Muirhead have produced different ideas which are more out of the box compared with 'regular' golf course designs.

Trent Joneses, Fazio and Nicklaus are similar - 7000 yard tracks.

Colt, Simpson and Braid are similar

Ross and Flynn are similar

CBM and Mackenzie are polar opposites design wise and appearance of their courses are different.


Currently there is not one that stands out to be the polar opposite to the current Great 3vate GCAs (Andrew Green may be the nearest however some of his work is similar). I have not seen a golf course design that makes me jump out of my seat (a few buildings have) - I guess my standards may be too high.

Well, I can’t agree that Colt, Simpson and Braid were similar.

Out of curiosity, what does an opposite design look like today?

Ciao

Colt Braid and Simpson courses look similar however play a bit different only a few of us will notice it not the everyday golfer - sometimes the similarity could be down to construction approaches that they had at the time working within their limitations. These days a lot more can be done construction wise.

The opposite - it probably would be artificial - look at the proposed buildings in Saudi Arabia - Gidori for one - building wise however the course is being done by Nicklaus which is not a golf course version of the proposed building

https://www.neom.com/en-us/regions/magna/gidori


This building proposal made me jump out of my seat as a student Peter Eisenman's Musee Du Quai Branly competition entry - it was 2nd in the competition which was won by Jean Nouvel that was built. However its forms created by computer and we do have construction techniques to form these shapes I have often though could this form create one or a few holes


https://eisenmanarchitects.com/Musee-du-quai-Branly-1999


There are other design ideas from Zaha Hadid, Charles Jencks, Piet Oudolf with nature and Enric Miralles with artistic land forms.


https://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/landesgardenschau-landscape-formation-one/


This may be far fetched for many on this site. There are other design influences like car bodywork and product designs.

[Sean_A]

Ben

The building architecture examples isn't giving me a sense of what you mean for golf architecture.

Ciao