Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ian Andrew on November 03, 2010, 06:30:13 PM
-
Ron Whitten talked about the lack of innovation in golf design theory and the notion that too much of the recent work is rooted too deeply in the Golden Age period. Geoff Shackelford suggested that we are trying to find our footing by embracing the high point in golf architectural history before trying to push out the envelope once again. CB Macdonald believed that there were no more original ideas to be introduced and it was simply up to architects to adapt the best ones.
I think part of the problem we have is the internet. I think it’s too easy to learn what others are doing and far too easy to lift those ideas and present them as your own. It’s almost as if we are entering a copycat era where each “aesthetic” is lifted immediately after being developed and used on the next project by someone who has never done that before. I think what’s really bugging Ron is the work is all looking the same. Rather than a lack of innovation, it’s a lack of imagination.
So who’s going to break the pattern and the million dollar question is how? Are there new theories and themes that have yet to be explored? Has it all been done and therefore is there nothing left but adaptations on old ideas? What would be completely “out of the box” architecturally - ignoring whether it would be accepted or not?
So to get you started I point to concepts in the land that are out of the box in golf architecture, but fascinating all the same. Robert Smithson’s brilliant Spiral Jetty is likely the most famous pieces of landscape art in the world. I’ve been to see it and was as impressed. The recent work by Maya Lin called “Storm King Wavefield” was one of the provocative ideas I’ve seen in some time - and one with more potential in golf.
So what out of the box ideas are there to try?
-
It will probably take some like a Salvadore Dali to make the break thru you are talking about. Someone brillanty creative and an artist as well. Mike Strands was the closest we had to that and he didn't live long enuf to be allowed to do enuf out of the box design.
-
Ian - I have never bought the template thing, I never ever thought of copying another green and felt that others who designed courses that have a dozen or so greenplans that they just rotated were not being creative at all. Talking to a few GCAs and reading posts, much is about copying. Whilst I agree there are principles of whats great for maintaining the turf and principles of strategy and defence, its quite hard to reinvent the wheel and where some have tried to put bunkers within greens, waterfall backdrops they tend to get mocked
-
Ian,
What a great question. I was just reading Geoff Shackelford's post on his blog regarding Whitten's article and was wandering what "new" architecture might look like. What would punk, house or rap architecture feature? I don't think of myself as creative so I'm not surprised that I don't have an idea but I'd love to hear what others think could be done that would still be good architecture but also be new. I guess that anything new will be controversial and not universally liked. Does that mean we're unlikely to see it in a time where the market is as constrained by the economy as it is now? Or will the recession create the ground for a new form of architecture to grow in the way that Punk grew from the recession of the early '70s?
-
"What would be completely “out of the box” architecturally - ignoring whether it would be accepted or not?"
Ian:
I've mentioned it before on here but some years ago; to me one of the most interesting "out of the box" applications architecturally would be to go completely without sand bunkers on sites that have no natural sand. That idea occured to me years ago when I read Max Behr who described sand bunkers as that odd vestige of original linksland golf that just completely hung on when golf emigrated to areas with no natural sand extant.
I think golf courses and architecture that does not have that stark visual distinction and demarcation between sand and grass would actually serve to force golfers to engage more with the land and its architecture just to figure out what really is going on out there in front of them.
-
Ian - my honest answers, straight from the gut:
1) Re what Whitten has written: That's a classic case of pyschological PROJECTION. That is, HE has no new IDEAS to WRITE about, but instead of recognizing that fact he projects the problem onto ARCHITECTS and suggests that DESIGNERS have no new CONCEPTS.
BUT:
2) Re architects: There ARE new areas to explore, but NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU have ever had or have now or will have the clout and/or independence of mind and/or stupidity to try them (and please, no more mentions of Mike Strantz; his is totally conventional work)-- eg. Make a 400 yard Par 4 that is as WIDE AS IT IS LONG, with a green as wide as the widest part of the fairway and without a bunker in sight. (Now THAT's a new idea - why hasn't THAT ever been tried before?). Or, make a Par 3 that CANNOT ever possibly be birdied save for a miracle, in that it is 380 yards long and has a green that is 4,500 square feet. (How about THAT - a hole where one TRULY must scramble for PAR, EVERY SINGLE TIME).
SO:
3) You want something NEW, a truly new design? Then hire as your architect a NON-GOLFING, NATURE-LOVING, 85 YEAR OLD SPINSTER LIBRARIAN WITH A PEG LEG, ONE BAD EYE, AND A DRINKING PROBLEM. THEN GIVE HER AN UNLIMITED BUDGET AND A CREW OF TWO: A DRYWALLER FROM IRAN AND A TILE-SETTER FROM PAKISTAN.
-
Then how does one evaluate the late Mike Strantz's work?
-
My point: I'm very tired tonight of hearing over and over again, about movies and books and music and golf course architecture, that what we need is something new and innovative.
How about doing what's old and common, but doing it more often, and better?
Or maybe I'm missing something. Maybe there are already too many movies that enlighten and elucidate and entertain all at once. Maybe there is already too much music that soothes and charms and insipires. Maybe there are too many books out there today that engage and enoble and challenge and heal. Maybe the world is already full of golf courses that are fun and challenging and that are affordable to play and inexpensive to maintain -- yes, maybe the world is much too full of those great old average English courses that have served their communities and members for decades and decades in a quiet and unobtrusive way.
No, I don't think so. Not yet.
-
How about someone builds a truly engaging course on a flat site without creating a different landscape by moving a ton of dirt around for no reason - Has that been done a million times before? No.
I agree with Peter.
There are a lot of crap golf courses out there - how about the industry just starts by building enjoyable and FUN golf courses that will bring people to the game. Those are NOT in overabundance.
-
Ian,
A thought-provoking post to be sure. I would think the sheer cost and time to create anything design-wise makes it difficult to really push what one might put on the canvas. Courses with better, interesting ground, might offer the golf architect some advantages, but they could get ripped for "not delivering" on a quality site if they went for something provocative.
Many of us would like to see some bolder work, but where does it begin to venture into the bizarre, or worse? That process leads to an expensive proposition, and few can afford to lose an economic debate with their golf facility. It's tough enough for strong, quality facilities right now to make a go of it.
A wild card entry would take some major brass in what appears to be austere times for golf in the near term. Of course, if you pull it off, you 're a hot item. 8)
Tom,
You make an interesting observation with your thoughts on bunkerless design. I 've read some of Gil Hanse's thoughts on use of very subtle features...creases and folds on certain ground to create strategic options around greens. Others no doubt look for similar opportunites. It would seem to be a significant factor, in challenging architects to keep the visual excitement for golfers, while providing the mystery and uncertainty, when designing holes devoid of bunkers.
Cobbs Creek Old has some superb natural holes with little or no bunkering. Are there other noteworthy examples of tracks that use minimal bunkering, yet provide sporty play?
-
I am with Pietro. Partly because I don't think there is much under the sun archies haven't done and partly because a lot of good stuff under the sun hasn't nearly been exhausted yet.
Personally, as a fan of affordable, grade level architecture with wow factor slapped in here and there, I would like to see a vast reduction in bunker numbers and an vast increase in centreline hollows, humps (and bunkers) with sloping greens (rather than contoured) and the odd wild green. I can't see why a course combo of say Huntercombe, Kington, New Zealand, Wolf Point and Lederach can't be employed more to great effect. Essentially, throw out the "natural" playbook and just create fun golf shots that are easy to maintain and are cheap to play. This sort of design can be done anywhere.
The other idea I would love to see is using the above principles on a site blown to smithereens then a course laid on top of the mess. Create wierd terrain without the obvious shaping to look natural. Essentially, I think archies are to caught up in the natural look and not enough caught up in making cool courses. Of course, it takes an oddball client to allow an archie to run free with this sort of thing, but I am sure there are guys out there who can pull off this sort of thing if given the opportunity.
Ciao
-
When I think of innovative design, I think of the greens at Lost Dunes, particularly the fourth hole. I'm not sure it's what Doak had mind when he designed it, but I look at that hole not as a "get in there in three and two putt" par five, but rather a "get there or real close in two, and good luck getting it down in three". It's 511 yards from the blue tees, and if you take the right line off the tee, it can play a fair amount shorter than that. Normally par fives of that length are easy birdie holes, but once you get there, you face arguably the most difficult green I've ever seen. I've played it twice, been on or very near the green both times, and felt very lucky to escape with par both times.
Regardless, the problem is that artists can afford to be innovative. They sit down in front of a canvas and paint what they want to paint. Musicians play what they want to play. If they've got the creativity, they are at their own liberty to forge new ground. Golf course architects, on the other hand, have bosses. They invest a lot of money into building a facility. I don't care how creative or innovative an architect may be, at the end of the day, he has to provide the product he was commissioned to provide. A course owner who lets an architect run with his own ideas isn't at risk of losing some canvas or some studio time. He's at risk of losing a lot of money.
-
With Old McDonald jumping to the head of the class in all the recent polls and garnering the most effusive praise imaginable why do we need new design principles just for the sake of newness? Is different better? Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery and Doak and Urbina seem to get that without worrying if anyone is going to question their lack of design innovation. Isn`t Lester George involved in a project that also pays homage to C.B. McDonald? There is a reason why so many of the ODG`s courses are on all the Top 100 lists, that is because they are that good. Being different just to be different does not ensure a winner.
-
Ian,
Why can't we go to a goodly number of nine hole courses. Wherever an 18-hole course is going under GCAs could propose that a 9-holer be created out of a portion of the existing terrain. Short courses with wide gently undulating fairways and fun greens could well attract the swathe of baby-boomers now turning sixty who had never entertained the idea of playing gowf. Clubs would not have to worry so much about solely attracting the younger generation. There is a whole world of chaps and girls who have the time and probably the dosh to play this sort of golf.
Cheers Col
-
I'm with Peter and don't agree with Whitten.
What principle is going to risk pushing the envelope, that far, to appease Mr. Whitten's whim?
Desmond went off the deep end, in response to his dealings with a certain big name.
It doesn't take a genius to understand what Mr. Whitten is reacting to.
-
So who’s going to break the pattern and the million dollar question is how? Are there new theories and themes that have yet to be explored? Has it all been done and therefore is there nothing left but adaptations on old ideas? What would be completely “out of the box” architecturally - ignoring whether it would be accepted or not?
12 hole courses where you can repeat 6 holes to get to 18 when you have time.
-
No one seems to agree with Ron Whitten that some new ideas need to be injected in the arm of golf, but you all have been trying to suggest them.
Seems to me that Whitten knew the condition of the patient.
-
I think you will see some new ideas and I think it will evolve just like automobile design...where it goes from fenders and flash to a very subtle streamlined look....maybe invisible tees with no defined shape merging from greens complexes and greens complexes merging from approaches etc....flow will be smooth and IMHO possibly one HOC thru out the course except for greens....will be efficiently maintained....sort of a "melted" look....
I do think Jim Engh has tried one type of look....it might not be my thing but you have to credit the guy with getting out of the box...
-
The most imaginative course I have played over the last dozen years would be The Sheep Ranch in Bandon. I'm guessing Whitten would not agree, since it is a throwback and not something new.
Cross-country golf is also imaginative, but the problem is nobody gets rich specifying where the tee and hole are and leaving the rest up to the golfer.
Cheers,
Dan King
It's hard to describe how liberating it is to play golf without par, without distances, without people, without any expectations for an 18-hole round because you don't even know how many holes you've played or might play.
--Blaine Newnham (on playing the Sheep Ranch)
-
Ian:
I'm not so sure where Ron Whitten was going with his comments in GD but in my opinion Geoff Shackelford's comments on Whitten's comments may be a whole lot more thought provoking. I have no real idea where Geoff Shackelford is going with his comments either (or do I? ;) ) but I think they may be far more worthy of discussion than Whitten's.
Shackelford's comments:
"'If phone engineers thought like golf architects, our cell phones would still be attached to the wall."
It's a slow time for golf news, so let's dine on Ron Whitten's provocative "rant" from the November Golf Digest. Tom Dunne read it a few weeks ago and went all Benihana chef on it in one post.
The premise is spot-on: golf architects have shown almost no daring or creativity since the Golden Age of the 1920's. Ron is correct. The art has been wallowing for a long time. So for today's discussion, let's look at this graph:
The problem is, every architect worships the past -- the 1920s or teens or even earlier -- and molds designs to those ancient templates. Nobody has an original thought. As Pete Dye says, every hole's a copy of some other hole. There is no hip-hop, rap or even jazz in golf architecture; it's all Stephen Foster and John Philip Sousa. Which means modern-day courses are gussied-up reproductions, with strategies conjured up by Old Tom Morris or Old Macdonald, bunkers styled after Alister Mackenzie or George Thomas, and greens patterned on relics like the Redan, Biarritz and Eden. In 150 years, nobody has been able to come up with a new concept for a green? If phone engineers thought like golf architects, our cell phones would still be attached to the wall.'"
"He's right. Thomas and MacKenzie both said they were at the beginning of a new era and that their designs would look primitive some day. Both hinted--and Thomas executed the beginnings of his vision with his LA North redo in 1928--a vision for course designs invoking all sorts of strategic possibilities in the vein of the Old Course. That didn't happen because of the Great Depression and the succession of architects like Trent Jones, Dick Wilson, Joe Lee and others who failed to build on the ingenious work of the 1920s.
So Whitten may be correct that there is too much worship of the past, but much of that worship stems from a desire to merely get architecture back to the level that we saw with those great old guys. Once order is restored, then you progress.
But his argument doesn't hold water when you consider he's been a huge proponent of many of the game's most mediocre practitioners. Even as recently as this week, he is celebrating Old Macdonald, a collection of holes culled from CB Macdonald and Seth Raynor's playbook of concepts culled from the best courses of Europe. Whitten raves about the design in the new Digest. Everyone I know who has played it has loved it. And I have no doubt the architects involved injected all sorts of original flourishes. Yet, on the basis of Whitten's November rant, this statement seems contradictory:
The genius of Doak and Urbina was to create gentle seaside sand-dune versions, instead of steep-sloped geometric ones, of Macdonald's favorite holes, like the Eden, Road, Redan, Short and Biarritz. So Old Macdonald is C.B.'s greatest hits, without the harsh edges.
I'm not seeing the ingeniousness of taking concept holes and putting in a different bunker style, and it certainly isn't vaulting architecture to a higher level. That doesn't mean it's not fantastic fun to play nor anything but world class, but based on Whitten's seeming disdain for another Macdonald tribute course on the way by Lester George and Tom Lehman, is it consistent to be suggesting architects are lacking innovative thinking while praising what amounts to be yet another cover of an old standard?"
-
"No one seems to agree with Ron Whitten that some new ideas need to be injected in the arm of golf, but you all have been trying to suggest them."
Jim Kennedy:
I'm not sure why you said no one (on here?) seems to agree with Ron Whitten or that no one agrees that some new ideas need to be injected in the arm of golf.
-
ColinM:
I just don't see more nine hole golf courses being the answer to anything. Maybe they were more common years ago and particularly in this country when golf was getting going but it seems in almost all cases the idea for clubs that had them was to get to 18 holes as soon as they could.
And I sure don't buy the time constraints of golfers getting into the game today as a reason to have more nine hole courses. If golfers getting into the game today feel they don't have time to play 18 holes they certainly can just play nine holes of any 18 hole golf course.
-
TEPaul,
I read the thread on Whitten, most thought he was wrong. On this thread he's accused of 'psychological projection', or whimsical behavior.
Geoff Shackelford's piece accuses him of being inconsistent because he can find things to like about work that's being done at this moment in time while also expressing a desire to see some architecture that employs new ideas.
p.s. there aren't as many 18 hole courses that sell 9 hole rates as you might think there are.
-
"TEPaul,
I read the thread on Whitten, most thought he was wrong. On this thread he's accused of 'psychological projection', or whimsical behavior."
Jim Kennedy:
I just read through this thread again and I can't say I can see that most thought he was wrong or at least that most said they thought he was wrong.
I can certainly see that Adam Clayman and Peter Pallotta seemed to say they thought he might be wrong but earlier in this thread (Post #16) you said no one agreed with Ron Whitten and then later as reflected by your quote in this thread you said 'most thought he was wrong.'
I'm not sure you're right in either case. But perhaps some or most don't even understand the issue or the question proposed by Ron Whitten or even Geoff Shackelford's comments on Whitten's remarks in GD.
PS:
Many years ago Shackelford mentioned to me that he felt that some of the best of the ODGs (presumably as late as the late 1920s) felt that when technology (I think he meant construction technology and such) reached another or more modern or more advanced level that they (or golf architecture) would then have the ability to do things that were really imaginative and advanced and adventurous and perhaps far better than anything that had ever done before!
And I remember my response to that comment of his----eg it was: "Don't you think that they should've perhaps realized that the likes of PV, CPC, ANGC, NGLA et al are about as good as it can ever get?"
My recollection was his response was silence!
-
Ian
When are you coming to visit?
Our course has some of everything mentioned above - in spades.
The magazines don't care to see because it won't sell magazines.
It was built new and old
It is maintained new and old
The design has new and old
I do agree about everyone saying the same thing and trying to build the same bunkers and same replica courses.
Cheers
-
I disagreed because I think I see new things all the time. i.e. Doak's E green. C&C's 7th green at Friars Head, DeVries 5th green that was recently blown up at Sunningdale. They might be subtle, or just newer forms of older principles, but they are still new twists.
Perhaps they are just new to me, and seeing everything, like Mr. Whitten apparently has, in order to make such a statement, has it's downside. ;)
Which means there's a slew of people who have never seen anything past their own county's course. When they finally see some of the great concepts and applications, aren't they new again, to somebody?
-
Mike Young,
I didn't post it, but I was thinking along the same lines. Why does there need to be grass height differences in so many instances? It's not necessary quite often and would save countless man hours and resource dollars. Some architects and facilities have already dipped their collective toes in this direction! Bring it on I say... and so do you from what I've read.
-
Ian,
I am not sure people would think these ideas are "Out of the Box" but they do solve some issues that due arise from time to time.
A few ideas I would like to try if new golf courses start up again and an owner as Free thinking as Keiser hires me.
A Bunker for all players.
Base Camp golf.
Triangle golf.
A few other ideas but I will leave it at that.
Each requires a certain type of topography to pull off but someday I hope.
I do think that Old Macdonald used inspiration from Macdonald and his ideal holes , # 6 Long is an example of how we used ideas
to create our version of a three shot hole that allowed different angles of attack. It just happened to have a Hell Bunker a version of the Alysian fields and a green you won't see everyday. Was it thinking outside of the box, that's for others to decide but the hole does provide ample strategies and fun for most all golfers no matter the skill level. Isn't that the goal of every golf course design.
-
Ian---You are the Post-Master---are you a Virgo by chance?
I have always belived good architects copy good and bad architects copy bad. This can be more generalized to concept in golf architecture. Coore´s and Doak are currently hailed as the best but are not a lot of their concepts from the past, things they saw in courses from the past and than tweaked a little bit or quite a bit. I love their works and more inportantly have the utmost respect for them but if one wanted to critize, one could say, they seem to have left the door open and they lack originality. I am not making or supporting this statement because I have seen a ton of thier work on photo´s only! But if you want to only catagorize originality, Dye seems to be ahead of the rest of the field in pulling it off right and Desmond for just doing it! My point is this, the current fad of postage stamp greens, surrounded by three feet native grasses and natural mounding, and ripped bunker edges are gorgeous and fun to play but their is a limited market for these courses. Kisser found a niche and is doing great courses around the world and producing profitable numbers by focusing on quality product and value. But his target market also has a limit.
Why worry about the next fad or what will be next in originality. Lets worry about something really important like signed checks as Mike Young states so often and so brilliantly. If you think by discovering the above mentioned will get you just that, 99 out of one hundred of you will go hungry! Here are the facts of GA as I see them now and in the incoming years.
1. We live in a more and more branded society. Branding will continue, that market is currently saturated with Pro named design firms charging ridicuousl prices and requiring out of range construction cost. Prices will come down in their fees as they compete more and more with each other and the suopply and demand drops. These projects like to surface fish and their targeted market are the big fish and there are less and less big fish on the surface thus the relation to drop in overall market supply and demand and the eventual downfall of the design fees.
2. So if you want to survive and your not connected with a big name branding pro, better let out some more line and start looking for some fish deeper down. Couple that with we have become a more and more time oriented society than you will need to start thinking in nine holes that play like eighteen or twelve holes like previously mentioned that play like eighteen. In order to hook a fish in the middle depth or bottom depth you will need to also be extremely value oriented. The above scenario fits this by reducing initial land cost. Throw in some environmental concerns and the budget starts to drop. Perfect day to day, green, wall to wall conditions are for the big fish, the medium and smaller fish will accept less if you give them a memorable experience at a fair price. Look for the routing in the valleys to leave residential or hotels high so not to ruin the golfing experience but allow for other sources of income because stand alone profitable facilities are still and will be in the future, the exception. So my advice, let Ron Witten worry about fads and originality, I am sure he makes more money writing than he does designing, so get focused and try to see where the next signed check can be generated. And as Forrest Gump always said,”That’s all I have to say bout that!”
-
The traditions of golf are important to the game, and as many have said, building golf courses is expensive, and those courses usually need to be operated as businesses.
And for those who love and participate in those traditions, is there going to be a difference between something truly new, and "goofy golf?"
That said, what kinds of things would truly represent something new? I like the notion of expanding on the Sheep Ranch concept, where a course could be played completely differently from one day to another. How to mark the course so that the players would know where to go, and how to play......I'd have to think about that. And I like Sean's idea to somehow introduce more randomness to the design - whether it's by blowing something up and laying a course on it, or.....?
-
Ian,
My first thought was to think about my favourite landscape artist (as you had mentioned Smithson and Maya Lin) Andy Goldsworthy, and his ephemeral works with leaves. Perhaps we could go further back in time to courses a lot rougher around the edges as they were originally, letting them change over time, much as the dunes in which the game originally developed, changed over time. It would certainly need a change in attitudes towards conditioning...
But this got me thinking that maybe this would need a grass type that didn't last to long. Maybe it wasn't perrennial but annual, only lasted one year and then dies off allowing the sands to shift, so to speak and then be reseeded. But this is costly, and a bit radical, as well as being reliant on developments in agronomy more than architecture.
This then got me thinking that most of the large changes in style of building architcture have been dependant upon changes in technology outside of the buildings style. For instance, the development of metal structural elements allowed the modern movement to open up fully glazed facades rather than just a masonry wall with a few smaller windows.
So maybe the next change, or direction that golf course architecture can go, is waiting for or discovering a change in an outside but still related factor such as agronomy, drainage, economy (nows the chance!), or some other such outside influence, rather than just a case of can we make the fairways a bit wider, bunkers look different or replicate classic holes?
Cheers,
James
-
Castle Stuart is a well thought out course.Refreshing.
Anthony
-
I love when threads turn into art history lessons!
James - My favorite Goldsworthy piece was the wall he built at Storm King in NY. Having been there and experienced this thing in person, you can feel the energy radiating off of the thing. Something only the best architecture does. I guarantee that feeling could not have been achieved had he not taken the time to lay those stones himself. The leaf pieces are a huge function of time as well. Imagine the time it took to gather them, then arrange them, wait for the optimum time to photograph them, let alone the time of year that this piece could only have been achieved in.
I believe the key ingredient in all of this is time (one of Goldsworthy's favorite terms). To be innovative and develop new ideas huge amounts of experimentation and failures to get to where you want to be.
I don't see people willing to let go of the standard 9 / 18 golf at least as a standalone facility. I think we need to take a step back, and really figure out what are the most fun aspects of the game, and develop a new process for putting those ideas in the ground. How can we expect to evolve our game if we continue to use the same tools and have relatively the same process?
-
Define the audience, first and foremost: Are we building something new for us, for municipal golfers, for nongolfers?
Define the physical and temporal parameters: Time of round, space of course.
Define the restrictions: drainage, environmental, fiduciary
People who propose out-strantzing Strantz forget that many of his courses have multiple areas of poor grass growth, overly thick rough vegetation and drainage issues. Water runs where it runs and the sun can't shine where it ain't.
I suspect that Whitten has old-man's disease, is frustrated with being old and has decided to bitch about something that ain't there. Golf archies and supers are on the cutting edge; competition demands that they be there. I think that his claims are baseless.
That said, I love Horse Course and Sheep Ranch (why the farm animals?) concepts. I want to develop a course in Buffalo's Delaware Park called the Cow Tipper, using the same premise. Who's in?
-
Ian
Interesting observations. I've been reading a lot of old golf articles and it is clear that back in the golden age and before that there was perhaps a lot more copying and use of templates than there is now, and not just by the run of the mill GCA's. MacKenzie used it a lot for instance.
That was at the start of GCA, now over a hundred years down the line architects have the advantage of larger back catalogues and different genres to pick and mix from. I would say it should be an exciting time if people can learn to be tolerant of different design concepts.
Niall
-
Cobbs Creek Old has some superb natural holes with little or no bunkering. Are there other noteworthy examples of tracks that use minimal bunkering, yet provide sporty play?
I worked for a year at Pioneers GC in Nebraska. It is an old muni that plays about 6500 yards to a par 71 and is completely bunkerless. Most of the greensites are pressed into mounds or hollows. There is one large water hazard guarding a par 3.
It's fun but not necessarily challenging; I was regularly breaking 80 there before I did at a lot of other places.
In the late 1980s, they redid all the greens and I've only played it after that point, so I don't recall if there were bunkers there previously.
-
Matt,
Thanks for that insight. I'll see if I can find any pics. Do you have any you could post. If you need help with that, I'm clueless, but a shout out usually get a helpful hand from on of our gang!
Cheers,
Kris 8)
-
I'm going to flip my switch from curmudgeonly 27 year old to hopeless idealistic 27 year old for this post.
I don't believe we've even begun to broach the surface of possibility as it pertains to golf architecture. Golf has, and will always have, the advantage that it is one of the most rudimentary simple games devised by man at its axiomatic level; Basically, start at Point A, stroke ball until reaching Point B.
For the golf architect, all that is needed is a Point A and Point B.
Thought #1: The Golfer's imagination is both his best and worst enemy. How can the golf course influence this duality?)
Thought #2: Economy of Hazards (how many shots can one bunker influence?)
Thought #3: Economy of Space (Is there any course in the world with more golf per unit area than St. Andrews? What lessons remain to be learned from "the mothership?").
Thought #4: Framing, and the treachery of the heights of cut.
Thought #5: The treachery of perspective
Thought #6: Discontinuity and the golf hole, using null space
If there's sufficient interest I'll take the time to explain my thoughts on the above further. I see plenty of fertile ground.
I think the stagnation comes from the art being set to one paradigm for a century or so and perhaps the art has reached a critical sample size of minds.
-
Cobbs Creek Old has some superb natural holes with little or no bunkering. Are there other noteworthy examples of tracks that use minimal bunkering, yet provide sporty play?
I worked for a year at Pioneers GC in Nebraska. It is an old muni that plays about 6500 yards to a par 71 and is completely bunkerless. Most of the greensites are pressed into mounds or hollows. There is one large water hazard guarding a par 3.
It's fun but not necessarily challenging; I was regularly breaking 80 there before I did at a lot of other places.
In the late 1980s, they redid all the greens and I've only played it after that point, so I don't recall if there were bunkers there previously.
I grew up playing at the munis in Lincoln, Nebraska, including Pioneers. I don't have references, but from being around the place for 10 years, I am almost certain there was never any sand on the course. It was the first municipal course in Lincoln and was built in the 20's or 30's.
There are a few photos on the website and a virtual tour that I cannot get to work. :)
http://pioneersgolf.com/ (http://pioneersgolf.com/)
-
That said, I love Horse Course and Sheep Ranch (why the farm animals?) concepts. I want to develop a course in Buffalo's Delaware Park called the Cow Tipper, using the same premise. Who's in?
I am. Where do I send the check?
-
Where can we go – hard one that, yet its rather simple, we look back to the core business of golf. We try to understand what made golf explode into a worldwide game.
In fact we need to define the core business, as I believe we have moved away from it. Until we know what game we are playing how can we do anything. From understand the game we can look to sites for courses. As for each hole, yes many ideas have been tried but not all, Also many hole designs today are not popular i.e. blind holes but why – it limits the long shot? Could it be that it’s because we have accepted that the modern game has changed and that the real error is eliminating many old hole designs. Gentlemen designers are not there to give the golfer an easy life, but to challenge him and in so doing give him options equivalent to his skill levels.
The designers should not waste time with cart tracks but concentrate on the design of the course. As I said at the start we need to define what we mean by golf, if it’s still that Walking and Thinking game then I do not believe we need to worry too much, but what is certain is that we cannot mix and match our golf. The non-Walking option costs more take-up more design time and generally create the biggest headaches and compromised a course has to face. In this time of cutbacks and environmental concerns we need to address the issue, until then we cannot move forward.
We need our designers to lead, to strongly voice their opinions and preferences and to design golf courses
that gives the golfer value for money while testing his resolve to be a Golfer. The game is suffering not just because of designers or lack of good locations but because of poorly informed developers who are short term dreamers and quite frankly a large number of current players who consider themselves as golfers without committing to the game
This one needs the Architects and Designers to lead the way.
Melvyn
-
Ian,
I missed this thread while traveling, but Peter Pallotta's response was the funniest I have seen in some time.
To me, trying to reinvent golf is not the goal. Golf is so far removed from its roots that we are better off trying to recapture a bit of what has been lost. Making that perspective work in the new paradigm is challenging enough for me. Anything you can come up with, anything that Urbina can come up with, I have already seen overseas in some form or another.
At the end of the day it's all about making the most of the land you've got, and the Scots were pretty good at that long before we ever heard the word golf.
-
The concept of landscape art married with golf design at Dunkerque - love it or hate it - it's unique
(http://www.uk.golfencotedopale.com/images/galerie-photos-golfs/dunkerque/big/Dunkerque3.jpg)
Maya Lin's Wavefield
(http://truthinart.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/wavefield-maya-lin.jpg)
Serpent Mounds
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2611/3984192535_1567f82b3e_z.jpg?zz=1)
-
Ian
Nothing new in those bumps here is a photo I posted months ago of the remains of the flint open mines in East Anglia called Grimes Graves
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/grimes_graves_2.jpg)
Comparing with Maya Lin's Wavefield, the Grimes Graves, seems to offer the better option for golf giving some chance for the ball to roll.
The following is a cross section of the original working and give a scale of the actual site and diameter of each hole or bump.
(http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p421/Melvyn_Hunter/grimes-graves-orBuildingearlyBunker.jpg)
What was that about Natural & Nature and perhaps Land fit for purpose
Melvyn
-
I come down on the side of the pointof view that in one of the few places that innovation might occur is in maintenance and pressentation. I think Kyle gets at this in one of his points of variance or randomness of HOC. Shivas posed this years ago in his idea of "a flyer strip" of rough right in the middle or within the lines of play.
I think Mike Sweeney broaches a point with a 12 hole or 24 hole course with concepts that one can stop in mulltiples of 6 holes played, and lengthen or shorten the standard game.
I don't think innovation can flurish too much more unless there would be some desire to change the criteria or rules and object of the game. As long as the rules define proper play, then only a range of designed fields of play with an array of hazards or challenges can be designed.
The Sheep Ranch and to a lesser degree the Horse course are novel. The Sheep ranch is more attune with the real game, where you can make up real golf, with multiple shots and distances. But the HOrse is just a novelty and dalliance where one can go for a little bat-around, fun but not golf per se, in my mind.
I think innovation only comes in modern efficiencies to construct and maintain. the game rules confine the field to the extent most everything has been designed tried or presented.
-
Ian,
I think that innovation will come when we have clients with a different perspective.
Among my clients right now are a Chinese painter and a 35 year old woman who is not a golfer. They are both fascinating people with MUCH different perspectives about golf and its place in the world and its place in their projects, and I suspect those projects will be very innovative as a result.
A successful woman golf course architect will also change the game. Alice Dye certainly had an impact, but none has yet taken it to a new level.
-
"So what out of the box ideas are there to try?"
Ian:
Here's another out of the box idea I've mentioned on here at some length some years ago------a concept I referred to as "courses within a course."
That is essentially an arrangement where the holes of a course could be played in various different sequences and perhaps even arranged in such a way that while playing one of many golfers may not even be that aware of the others.
Obviously to do that effectively and successfully you would need a certain type of site (probably few to no trees) and some pretty adaptable ground. I feel I saw a site like this once.
But to do this and do it effectively and successfully in up to perhaps 3-5 different sequences would be to me the ultimate golf architectural expression and application. It would obviously take a ton of routing and planning work.
It seems to me the one from the past who may've been the most imaginative and perhaps the best at this kind of thing was George Thomas---an architect who definitely had a very active imagination in a number of ways.
-
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Nicklaus' Renegade Course at Desert Mountain in Scottsdale, AZ:
"...Opened in 1986, ...Golf Digest once called Renegade, "The most versatile course in the world." The 7,443-yard Desert Mountain golf course was carefully designed to let players vary the course's set-up. Members can choose the degree of difficulty they would like to play. The combination of tee and pin positions offers players of varied skill levels a truly unique test. The Renegade course features two flags on each hole with some holes having two greens. "
-
It's an interesting topic, and I am not sure that we necessarily need to go anywhere for lack of creativity, but I truly believe that its more "sincere" design wise to design something new, and to design to current conditions than try to replicate the past.
Things do constantly change, often for unexpected reasons. As TD says, necessity is the mother of invention, and maybe the need to build golf inexpensively, the need to find ways to bring folks into the game, etc. will drive some real change. As TePaul notes, maybe breaking the old 18 (and 9) hole conventions will yield something bright and creative. In many ways, gca is an "established" field with far too many knowns and givens to really break out of the mold without some major rules or perception change.
Change just for the sake of style change probably isn't sustainable. That said, both Pete Dye and TD, CC ,etc have been successful by looking back to the future. It just feels like the next wave would have to be some really futuristic style to counteract and highlight the differences.
-
Tom,
OK, tell me where I can go see the Base Camp Golf theory. Which golf course and what country?
-
You find what you're looking for.
-
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Nicklaus' Renegade Course at Desert Mountain in Scottsdale, AZ:
"...Opened in 1986, ...Golf Digest once called Renegade, "The most versatile course in the world." The 7,443-yard Desert Mountain golf course was carefully designed to let players vary the course's set-up. Members can choose the degree of difficulty they would like to play. The combination of tee and pin positions offers players of varied skill levels a truly unique test. The Renegade course features two flags on each hole with some holes having two greens. "
The original nine holes at Thornberry Creek in Green Bay, Wisconsin features a nine-hole, two flag course. I believe that Rick Jacobson (Nicklaus associate) did both courses. Some of the holes have two greens with one flag and some of the holes have one very large green with two flags.
They later built a regulation 18, but they still use this nine for leagues. They will alternate flag placements and tees used, so you end up with four combinations (blue tee-white flag, blue tee-red flag, white tee-white flag, white tee-red flag). It's a fun little layout built in an old quarry with three par-3s and three par-fives and a couple of the par fours are driveable.
I lived and worked on this course as well. Wow, two anecdotes in one thread.... I'm on a roll.
-
Ian,
I think that innovation will come when we have clients with a different perspective.
Among my clients right now are a Chinese painter and a 35 year old woman who is not a golfer. They are both fascinating people with MUCH different perspectives about golf and its place in the world and its place in their projects, and I suspect those projects will be very innovative as a result.
A successful woman golf course architect will also change the game. Alice Dye certainly had an impact, but none has yet taken it to a new level.
Tom touches on it here, but I don't think anything about golf design will ever change as long as the owners who commission them and the architects who build them are white, American-British-European-Australian men.
Argue whether or not golf architecture needs to be innovated, but there will be hip-hop and jazz innovation until the point of view of the art is changed.
-
Tom,
OK, tell me where I can go see the Base Camp Golf theory. Which golf course and what country?
Jim,
The closest thing I have seen to that is at Boyne Mountain in Michigan ... Starting at the top of a ski hill and working its way down to the bottom. But as I said above, it is going to take a different sort of client to want to build the course we talked about years ago, and I would guess it's more likely to happen in a faraway land.
-
Steve S,
I played Renegade right after it opened, with Ron Whitten and Lyke Anderson and Joe Black. It was different, but I really thought it was just a gimmick, and the course never proved popular at all.
That is the problem with innovation, most people try too hard and just don't pull it off. And there is always the sense that they are only trying innovation because they don't have a great site for a real golf course. To be truly innovative you would have to be willing to roll the dice on a great site, or else try to build something u usual on a spectacular site that just wouldn't work for a normal course, such as the base camp golf idea Jim and I discussed.
-
Interesting thread. I've played and seen golf courses all around the world and frankly in my experience, CB Macdonald's comment is not too far from the truth ;) There are some (but not a lot) of new "innovative" concepts in golf. 99%+ of at least what I have seen is some modified version of something I've already seen elsewhere. There are many variations of original ideas and some are just presented better and/or different then others.
So to answer the question - Where can we go? - My feeling is to leave that to all the new course designers. And while they are trying to figure out something unique and clever to design, some of us are just going to continue to focus on doing their best to enhance what is already out there today. The innovation in that comes from figuring out ways to do this in a cost effective and efficient way (to keep golf affordable) while at the same time educating golfers/committee members about golf architecture in the process. The better they understand design, the more they will appreciate it. That is good for golf.
-
Wow, Base Camp Golf, a facinating idea.
The idea of playing out to a far point has always intrigued me. I love to walk and I walk three miles every day. I always wished that I could walk out to a point rather than always needing to complete a loop.
Where the idea gets more interesting is in the long run. If the course begins at 18 holes that finish at a far point, the course can be extended slowly over time to an infinite number of holes. The player then simply plays as far as they want to, finishing up their round with a call to be retrieved from that location.
Of course the logistics of servicing and maintenance ruin my little fantasy, but the experience would be pretty cool.
I’ve hiked, paddled and rode using this idea and it does make me wonder if the notion of playing out to the middle of no where appeals.
Taking the idea one step further, would we like to play out to a point in the wilderness where we eat and stay for the night and play our way back to civilization the next day with the isolation of the night before leaving us refreshed. That notion involves cabins in the woods or even a lodge in the distance.
There are hiking examples of this in numerous places where you have to walk to your accommodation. You are met with an excellent meal, stellar accommodations, but have had an outstanding nature experience getting too and from that location. The current idea is geared around families, but other more serious kikes are planned around shelters in the mountains.
I certainly loved hiking up to the Plain of 5 Glaciers this year and finding the tea house open near the end of the trail.
-
I just saw this thread. Interesting.
Whitten has it exactly backwards. The problem isn't that there are no new ideas. The problem is there aren't enough designers who understand and can apply classic ideas in a modern context.
Which puts me in the Pallotta/Arble/Doak camp, I guess.
Bob
-
I just saw this thread. Interesting.
Whitten has it exactly backwards. The problem isn't that there are no new ideas. The problem is there aren't enough designers who understand and can apply classic ideas in a modern context.
Which puts me in the Pallotta/Arble/Doak camp, I guess.
Bob
Bob
What classic ideas are you thinking of ? The classic ideas of say the golden age have surely become the conventional. Thinking of MacKenzies 13 rules, how many are now applied as standard by modern GCA's ? (serious question for those GCA's reading this)
Perhaps a little less rigidity in sticking to these classic ideas might produce something different.
Niall
-
Niall notes:
"Perhaps a little less rigidity in sticking to these classic ideas might produce something different."
A couple of thoughts.
There was nothing "rigid" about classic design ideas, whether during the GA or thereafter. Such ideas constituted a loosely bundled set of basic design principles that were and are now applied in an infinite number of ways.
At the heart of that bundle of ideas was a fairly simple notion. The arrangement of architectural features should promote strategic playing choices. About that core idea there was something like unanimity during the GA. How you implemented that core idea, however, was open to all sorts of interpretations. Still is.
Where I think Whitten goes off the rails - he is, ironically, profoundly wrong - is that this supposed 'failure of new ideas' is better seen as a failure of modern golf architects to take that core GA concept seriously. Better put, the failure of modern gca Whitten complains about is really about a failure to appreciate the radical nature of core GA ideas. For example, in its GA variant, there was little hesitation in building dramatic holes, ones with catastrophic consequences for shots that are nearly perfect, holes that are often thought today to be "unfair" or over the top. There are lots of other examples.
Much of that drama has been drained from modern golf courses. Misplaced concerns about "fairness", an emphasis on landscaping over holes that create real golfing interest, a desire to achieve the 'wow' factor (think 'Signature Holes') over more understated features with real design teeth, an emphasis on aesthetics and 'framing', water issues, and so forth.
Some of those constraints come from outside the profession. From the developers who hire architects, from the economics of building courses as part of a housing development, from having to sell a golf course as a resort destination, etc.
Those and other factors have had the effect of preventing architects from using their full bag of tricks, virtually all of which are still derived from the GA. A Mike Young operates under more design constraints in 2010 than a Harry Colt did in 1927. To be clear, constraining Mike today is not at lack of ideas. His constraints are imposed on him externally.
It seems to me to follow that the best architects today are not the ones with truly original ideas (whatever the heck that means). The best designers are those able to implement core GA concepts given modern economic, environmental and cultural limitations.
That explains, I think, the contradiction between Whitten barking about no new ideas and in the same breath exclaiming his love for OM and Sand Hills, both courses that are about, if anything, tried and true GA ideas.
Peter -
As my music man, this Whitten thing raises an interesting parallel. The harmonic rules worked out by Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven have been tinkered with, expanded and satirized. But as a core structure around which music is still written they remain largely unchanged. The harmonics they developed are as relevant as ever. One might dare to say, like GA ideas, they are timeless.
When people tried to come with 'new' musical ideas - I am thinking of the atonal composers of the 20th century - their new ideas were deeply unpopular. Symphonies can't eliminate them from their programs fast enough.
Which is to say that there is nothing inherently superior about 'new' ideas in music. Or, for that matter, in golf architecture. Thoughts?
Bob
-
Dunkerque Golf Club
(http://www.agolfingexperience.com/uploadphoto/060-1-WSGolfDunkerque.jpg)
Designed by Robert Berthet in the 1990's
Ian, the photo you presented intrigued me to imagine that perhaps the designer was giving some homage to World War II fortresses and defense battlements, but upon seeing the rest, methinks his brain is wired with Brillo pads. It is provocative, though.
I've always wanted to play the courses of Normandy where D-Day commenced and when I do, I will definitely make the side trip to play Dunkerque.
-
Ian,
I wrote a long response to your post, how I came up with the theory on Base camp golf in early 2000 but when I hit post it disappeared. I will try again tonight, hopefully having the same inspiration.
BCrosby,
Dare to dream about something different.
Tom,
I have not seen Boyne Mountain but playing down a ski hill is not what Base Camp golf was formulated on.
-
TD said innovation will come from the clients - and in order to be successful in the future clients need to build more courses that are fun and take less time to play. The bunkerless idea is great. I'd prefer minimal bunkering and instead of bunkers on both sides of a fairway, why not one in the middle?
I'd like to be able to play a course with 3 loops of six holes all available from the clubhouse. Toronto Ladies Club has members who can play 3,6, 9, 12 or 18 holes (choice is usually age related but they can still golf and others understand).
Anthony mentioned Castle Stuart - friends tell me it looks tougher than Kingsbarns but the ball ends up in play more often so it's more fun (and they score better). Now if only it was cheaper.....
Many dislike RTJ runway type tees - I like them for easier maintenance, faster access for mixed groups playing different markers, safety, and the fact all golfers face the same looking challenge.
I am sure Ian and the other designers will come up with something great for generations to enjoy. In the meantime, I love replays of old favourites - which have all changed over the years with different mowers, etc.
-
Why do we insist in trying to overcomplicate the game of Golf, same applies to design. The best and most enjoyable courses over here are the least complicated and in general certainly not the most expensive to build or maintain.
Gentlemen, there is nothing wrong with the Game or a 9 of 18 hole course. Look at the numbers flocking to Hickory and how that has blossomed. There is a message there if only our Lords & Masters were bother to look. The Game is fun but the lack of serious foresight into the balance between equipment and land has never been understood, certainly by the R&A – they do not believe there is even a problem.
To throw the whole principles of the game out the window because some have no vision, or at least can’t get past counting the money, does not mean the game is terminally ill. Its has a bad cold but the quacks that control the medication still believe in bloodletting than seeking the source of the problem in the first place. Enough money has been thrown at causing the problem, it’s time to redirect that money to correct the balance, starting with the ball and standardising both ball and clubs.
Its not complicated it just requires an open mind and a commitment to our Game with our existing clubs and courses. IF the Government can’t govern then we need a way to change the Government and its Members, not for Christ sake to keep changing our courses.
But do remember that very few people care let alone understand golf, its rules or have any idea what we are talking about when we mention GCA. Time for action, certainly but of just continuing trying to make pointless suggestions or comments that will never see the real light of day, no. – But then we are only a blog site which believes we know a little more than out fellow golfers or after all, is the List of the Top 100 courses in the world or in the UK or America far more important. Moan and do something about it or just stop moaning.
Ask yourselves what are you will to do for the sport you say you love and enjoy – if push came to shove I expect the majority choice would stop moaning. Then That’s your right, see its not complicated we just make its so.
Melvyn
-
Ian, a little suggestion of a DVD to rent if you're into natural arts . . .
http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/r/rivers-and-tides-dvd.shtml
Rivers and Tides
It's a documentary of some of Andy Goldsworthy's works. Bake up a batch of brownies and drag out the beanbag chair.
Melvyn, you make a fine point of not trying to outclever the game.
-
BCrosby,
Dare to dream about something different.
I would sincerely like to hear you expand on this a bit.
-
I just returned from the Mission Hills Star Trophy that was played at Mission Hills new resort in Haikou, on Hainan Island China. Brian Curley is designing all of the courses there, with the first 5-6 open for play. Needless to say, he was given a very large property and the freedom to do some different things. I had the good fortune of playing 4 of the courses. Though I enjoyed the tournament course, Blackstone, which hosted the event and will host the World Cup next year, the most interesting course to me was the Vintage. Brian says this course was inspired by many of the classic design features of the late 19th and early 20th century. While he gives credit to others for the inspiration for this course, I really found it to be one of the most innovative modern courses I have ever played. Perhaps the key to innovative design moving forward is combining the best of what 400 years of course design has taught us with the advances in technology (both from a construction standpoint as well as an equipment standpoint) to provide golfers with a challenging, enjoyable and inspiring experience.
See Pics below:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0Zj9N7iVXLQ/TNcuXYXzMaI/AAAAAAAAKZI/pVEDvJnil6M/s1600/DSC_0646.JPG)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0Zj9N7iVXLQ/TNcuQN7BfBI/AAAAAAAAKZA/eKn0poRAVH4/s1600/DSC_0621.JPG)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0Zj9N7iVXLQ/TNcuJAfVWfI/AAAAAAAAKY4/NctyYW0kvJo/s1600/DSC_0602.JPG)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0Zj9N7iVXLQ/TNcuCy-QE2I/AAAAAAAAKYw/Ryu23T22pFE/s1600/DSC_0593.JPG)(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0Zj9N7iVXLQ/TNct7zXdhWI/AAAAAAAAKYo/TqP25g60BsU/s1600/DSC_0592.JPG)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0Zj9N7iVXLQ/TNctudwVR8I/AAAAAAAAKYY/9zIIrTO_RMs/s1600/DSC_0586.JPG)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0Zj9N7iVXLQ/TNctm0FQqfI/AAAAAAAAKYQ/DcT5P8ZhfGc/s1600/DSC_0573.JPG)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0Zj9N7iVXLQ/TNctgCOOz9I/AAAAAAAAKYI/kIoM0-cIle0/s1600/DSC_0559.JPG)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0Zj9N7iVXLQ/TNctWwN8c1I/AAAAAAAAKYA/LYcma0-Dy54/s1600/DSC_0555.JPG)
-
Ian,
I wrote a long response to your post, how I came up with the theory on Base camp golf in early 2000 but when I hit post it disappeared.
Tom,
I have not seen Boyne Mountain but playing down a ski hill is not what Base Camp golf was formulated on.
Jim,
I remember talking a long time about a course strung out on a line while driving through northern AZ to Apache Stronghold ... I thought it was before 2000. I used to think about the same idea on NY route 17 driving through the Catskills and along a river on my way to and from Cornell.
-
Bob - I would be very proud just to be a junior staffer at the firm of Crosby, Arble & Doak. (Maybe I can one day marry into a partnership).
I think the musical analogy is a very good one. It seems to me that the fundamental 'structures' of western music developed as such (I might even say, were discovered and recognized as such) because they flow out of, or are expressions of, our western psyches, the patterns of sound that are most amenable to our deepest natures. When composers -- talented and knowlegable -- chose consciously to work outside of those fundamental structures, they made music that was more about them (and their Art, as a profession) than it was about the listener. And so, naturally, the music they made was the darling of other artists, but of very few listeners. "Decadence' is too strong a word for the decline in an ethos by which the artist serves the audience; but something of the kind is at work there. I will leave the obvious analogy to innovation in golf course architecture unsaid....
Hope you and the family are well.
Peter
-
Where do we go from here? - do work that matters.
Tom D:
’A successful woman golf course architect will also change the game. Alice Dye certainly had an impact, but none has yet taken it to a new level.’
That is an intriguing comment - could you expand a little?
What influence do you feel a successful female course architect might bring to the game?
How would she best effect change? What would be required to take things to a new level?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Lyne
-
Lyne
The most destructive part of the modern game is the appetite for distance, pushing for longer courses. The Governing Body does not accept that ball travel is the problem and have done the usual hid behind denial.
Owners and some clubs believe that long hitters need to be pampered, so are willing to provide longer courses in the hope of chasing the money. The majority of architects or designers go along with this because they do not want to rock the boat or be seen not supporting the programme.
Those whose who have a duty to look after the Game of Golf are slowly stripping the game of its great assets (the courses) and selling everything else to the highest bidders, all in the belief that golf is about hitting the long ball. How many matches have we seen or read about that have been lost on The Greens. The long ball is just part of the game not the whole bloody game. Old Tom lost out to Young Tommy many times and was teased by Young Tommy as being known the miser of the putting Green (why sink it in one when two or three will do).
Let’s look at the game, it’s not length that matters, it’s the accuracy of the shot, be it 160yards or just 4 feet, distance is the modern sickness that have spread over golf like the Black Death, its first numbs the mind before all the toys come into place to try to compensate. Alas leaving the golfer even more at odds with him/herself.
Before you can go forward you need to reassess what it is we are seeking or for that matter playing, until we all decide on the game we will remain divided. To try to inject variety to a game that is in itself totally confused will result in further breakup of the game once known as Golf. We must go back to core values to actually consider if there is an actual problem in the first place. My feeling is no the core values are there, mothballed perhaps, maybe side lined but they are there.
WE need to look at a worldwide game based upon the same requirements and laws. I will not go into it in any detail but what sort of message do we sent out when our Majors are all walking matches yet we allow carts sometimes numbering over 200 to be on any one course at a time. The Governing Body sends out the message endorsed by the TV and the greats in our Game that Golf is Waling Game, but its OK to rest between shots by riding. That gives the rider an advantage over the walker, why are we openly allowing cheating. The message being pumped out is just confusing at worst totally wrong because Golf has always been based upon skill, skill to navigate the course, to rise to a challenge or the difficult shot in the hope of clawing a stroke back. It’s a test yet what image is being sent by watching golfers on carts. Half the fun and experience of playing golf has disappeared once you step onto a cart. We are back to core values that I believe only comes from being in contact with the course, feeling every little bit of her shape, contours and curves allowing for a basic understanding in GCA
But the powers that be do not see a problem, but they never have, they never understood technology and its effect upon our great old courses. Even to this day they believe they know best, yet I clearly see the rapid build-up of interest in the Hickory Game, which tells me I am not alone. Why play Hickory when we have such high levels of technology in our game. Could it be that the Hickory Game is becoming more fun more enjoyable and keeping us in closed contact with the game we most enjoy.
Golfers will play just about any course, the professionals will also play any course if the money is there. I feel it’s not a male or female thing but a simple act of determination to stand up and be counted on the merits of ones designs. The long hitters can be compensated by proper ball, club control and clever placement of hazards, courses can be designed to limit the long ball but offer more than one option, then we have the site selection of the course which gives the designer the opportunity to rise to the occasions
I believe that golfers are getting bored as the equipment decides the score these days, want to drop a shot or two, so buy some new clubs, but golfers at heart are honest and want to rise to the challenge by them selves , hence many do not ride, use aids or even caddies, they push their trollies and face the course unaided. Most on this site from my understand fell the same about the game as I do, yet here we are GCA.com with famous designers and architects yet we have not moved the debate on, not raised the stakes or pushed for change. When Tony last summer want help on ball roll back this site suddenly fell silent apart from a hand full. I understand you guys not supporting me but Tony, come on his is one of you he is always there to help, but still his cause (a good start and a bloody good cause was smashed on the rocks of GCA apathy)
Where can we go – nowhere unless we start to support the game and send our displeasure to those that currently have the power. But like golf that takes commitment.
Melvyn
-
Bob:
Your #59 is excellent, as are most all your thoughtful contributions to this website (I bet that post is the one you wanted to hit the submit button on when I called you yesterday. ;) ).
As I read it the idea of the infusion of Landscape Architecture principles or even just Art Principles into golf course architecture just kept occurring to me. In the last decade or so this infusion of LA or Art ideas and principles into golf architecture has been on my mind. Of the LA or Art principles as articulated by Cornish and Whitten; they labeled them as Art Principles----eg Harmony, Proportion, Balance, Rhythm and Emphasis, the one that has potentially troubled me the most as applied to golf course architecture is Emphasis. They defined that art principle as: the eye is carried to the most important part of the arrangement and then to other details.
I'm OK with that idea and principle in golf course architecture unless it becomes something of an accepted or required standard in golf architecture for where golfers are supposed to hit the ball. If and when that happens, in my opinion, it essentially guts most of the visual, psychological and intellectual curiosity and mystery from the arrangement.
On this general issue and subject of a liberal and standard infusion of Art Principles and particularly Landscape Architecture principles into golf course architecture, even including some of the classic expressions of landscape architecture, some years ago Tom MacWood mentioned that essentially most all of the fundamental ideas and principles of landscape architecture are intended to produce an “idealized” form and presentation of Nature by dedicatedly removing from the presentation those things that may be in some way visually unappealing or perhaps unsettling and disturbing. I believe he continued that in his opinion this is essentially wrong for golf course architecture.
I have never agreed with much that Tom MacWood has said on this website but that particular thought, in my opinion, may have been one of the best and most thought provoking I have ever seen on GOLFCLUBALTAS.com since it began.
I believe in it as far as I understand it and consequently I think I have come to believe that since earth is essentially the medium of golf course architecture and the golf architect, and that unlike the mediums of other art forms, the architect is not the master of that medium----Nature and her forces (generally wind and water) are! (this is one of the primary themes of Max Behr’s writing on golf architecture).
Therefore, it is becoming my distinct feeling that one place where golf architecture can go in the future is back towards the principle that golf should be fit more into what Nature gives it on any site in the way of it natural unadulterated landforms (architecture?) rather than the other way around.
Would that be considered radical and confusing by some, at this point? Would that piss off some? Of course it would; so what? Golf and golf architecture has always confused and pissed off some, perhaps many from time to time; it’s probably supposed to do that to survive and prosper. It’s always done that and particularly in the old days, probably far more in the old days than now, and therefore I might even term this as going BACK to the future. But did that fact ever really stop its increasing popularity in the old days?
I don’t think so.
-
Design so the only frame is the golfer's field of vision.
-
Just one side comment, studies have shown that sand bunkers DO NOT always slow up play. In fact in some ways it has been found that they speed up play as there are less decisions to make about what club to use if you are in a bunker. If you are in a grass hollow or in a closely mown area around a green, options are more plentiful and club selection and shot type adds time. Bunkerless courses have been designed before e.g. Royal Ashdown Forest. Trust me, that course would be easier if it had bunkers ;) If you don't believe me, play it a few times and then comment.
-
Base Camp Golf,
I remember driving through the Prairies and went... you could tee it up just outside saskatoon and play all the ways to calgary... no problem
-
Jim U. -
Isn't Base Camp golf more about a new way to hike than it is about a new way to design a golf hole?
I am all for new architectural ideas. I just haven't seen many that are very good. I don't think that is because the current crop of golf architects is any less imaginative than their predecessors. Other things are going on. That was the point of my post above.
TEP -
Years ago I remember looking at Cornish's outline for the course he gave at the HSD on golf architecture. He seemed to be concerned to present golf architecture as a creditable academic subject. He thought he was doing so by making gca subsidiary to landscape architecture, an established academic subject.
I have always thought that was a bad way to approach gca. It is a unhelpful way for a golf architect to deal with the issues raised in designing a golf course. When approached from Cornish's perspective, there is an almost irresistable temptation to stress the visual wow over the golfing wow.
The very best golf architects can pull off both kinds of wow. But if you can't pull off both, the golfing wow should take precedence. The golfing wow, however, doesn't sell as many lots, etc. (See my post above.)
The tendency in recent decades has been to stress the look of a bunker, a green or a tee over the golfing qualities they engender. There is a good deal of that sort of talk here at GCA. Several modern architects have garned fame and fortune taking that approach. They view the design of a hole as being mostly about painting an appealing picture as seen from the tee. And some of that might be new in a purely aesthetic sense. Lord knows they have more and better machines to paint that picture.
The basic GA notion that the best courses are the most strategic courses seems to have been subordinated to all that. But if that notion was subordinated in recent decades, it nonetheless remains the timeless bedrock of great golf architecture. Not unlike classical harmonics in music. Dismiss it at your peril. More importantly, it is still a deep, rich vein of architectural ideas yet to be fully exploited.
Bob
-
"...it is still a deep, rich vein of architectural ideas yet to be fully exploited."
I gotta believe Bob is right. Otherwise why do I get so thrilled by design simplicity itself? I reckon its because I don't get enough of it and I play mainly classic era courses. Yepper, we still have a ways to go before that original vein of architectural genius is tapped out. Lord knows Doak, C&C and others have been chipping away at the offshoots for many a year and they have done alright. Its a source of irritation to me that I haven't seen a course from either of these two firms or that Nuzzo may get stalled because of the current economic climate.
Ciao
-
. . . In (America) we have done a terrible job of planning communities.
The development would not be the mess we have made in the past where holes are isolated and surrounded by homes on large lots but rather the courses would be a core layout surrounded by a well planned community that mixes residential, commercial, and other uses within the development. The golf course within the fabric of the community . . . based upon more traditional planning values could be a good way for golf to flourish and be more MEANINGFUL. (Emphasis mine)
So, my hope in the future . . . by making (golf courses)more into traditional communities golf can fit into the program and become an integral part of the solution rather than being isolated off into gated communities. This way golf becomes a part of daily life, even the clubhouse can be a landmark building and serve several uses for the community. . . .
KBM makes excellent points. A couple of items stand out to me.
Meaningful golf
Community
Economics
With the hyperhype of corporate golf, I suspect the suspicious nature of "20 somethings" are derailed from the auld "meaning" of golf. I've had my own inner yin/yang battles with golf and its potential egotistic escapism combatting its Old World charms and lore. Quite possibly strong reasons why I read Darwin and Wodehouse and went to Ireland and Scotland. There's got to be some further meaning for the expense and effort if youths are to take this game up.
The Scottish ideal of community-owned golf courses got morphed in America into capitalistic and elitist values and speculations of profits. Thus, the motivation was changed from a recreational/social ideal to that of status and monetary potentials.
We've probably all heard that forward-looking economists believe that the next generation will have less than their parents did and certainly youths are heeding some of that warning, though they don't seem to be cutting back on tattoos and body piercings, in that they are pursuing other recreational opportunities. Disc golf is virtually free to play with the same kind of excercise without the baggage or pro hero hype. Video game golf can be played without getting off the couch.
As far as "Where Can We Go" . . . creatively ? Doggedly imagining how the round ball can be played with emphasis on consistancy of fast and firm design, keeping honest with the land, and the idea that WE are NOT the ultimate judge of golf design and construction --- time is.
-
Kelly Blake,
Pursuant to your post, Bob Dylan's influences are readily traceable--it was how he translated (or appropriated) them that made his music different and important. I was reading a pretty interesting article last night by an English professor at West Point. She teaches Sherlock Holmes to the cadets as a way of discussing the practical application of wisdom.
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/78939/sherlock-holmes-the-superhero
Among the many assertions I disagreed with in Whitten's recent "Critic's Rant" was this line: "Architects embrace the past because it has been safe, marketable and easy to produce." Easy to produce? I don't think so. Have we seen a modern Redan that rivals National's? I very much agree with you that seeking the wisdom of the past "is the ultimate prize for the real architect", but I think some architects' application of that wisdom falls too much on the side of superficiality.
Old Macdonald comes up a lot in this kind of conversation because it is considered a "marketable thing", but that doesn't preclude the work from being thoughtful, and I hope people don't confuse that aspect with the work itself. I think that in the Sherlock Holmesian sense, Tom Doak is one of the very best at both applying his knowledge of architectural history and interpreting it to make it his own. But that doesn't make it "easy", as some might have us believe.
Anyway, good post.
-
Kelly Blake,
We're now getting into matters of architectural intent, and that isn't always something that is readily discerned by the golfer or the critic. I don't think that always represents a failure on their part--if you're out there referencing Woking on a new course in Ohio, not everyone is going to pick that up without a tip. Like artists, building architects, writers, and so on, the ability to communicate the ideas behind the product in written or spoken form is a part of the golf architect's skill set.
As a blanket statement, I disagree that critics don't understand the distinction between originals and "reproduced versions", but again, intent. Macdonald didn't just want to reproduce the classic holes of Britain, he wanted to make them better than the originals. If I play a modern "Redan" that I think falls flat, it might be hard to say if the architect was going for a "classic" Redan and just botched it, or shooting for some kind of creative infusion. Depending on the stakes--the overall significance and public profile of the course--this distinction may or may not matter.
I started writing a response to your last handful of lines, regarding raters and magazines, but deleted it as moving in the direction of yet another Rater Thread probably doesn't advance the topic that Ian started. Where architecture goes next is much more interesting to discuss.
-
Where do we go from here? - do work that matters.
Tom D:
’A successful woman golf course architect will also change the game. Alice Dye certainly had an impact, but none has yet taken it to a new level.’
That is an intriguing comment - could you expand a little?
What influence do you feel a successful female course architect might bring to the game?
How would she best effect change? What would be required to take things to a new level?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Lyne
Lyne,
It was meant to be a general comment. Women have drastically different viewpoints in many areas, and can express themselves in ways that are different to men. Just think about their impact on politics ... especially in those systems where their campaign does not have to be controlled by men.
Perhaps women architects would focus on making the game more social. Perhaps they would reward straight hitting more than power, and put more emphasis on strategy since the less powerful player cannot so easily redeem their mistakes. Perhaps they would be more visual in their designs. I really don't know, except to know that none has had a real impact yet. But I did ask a brilliant landscape architect friend what landscape architect was the most innovative and would be the most interesting to collaborate with on a project, and he named two women ... Maya Lin and Martha Schwartz.
-
P.S. I do think collaboration is the most likely source of innovation. But I think the key to it will be for a great golf architect to collaborate with someone from another field, who doesn't understand golf well enough to mute themselves from suggesting something that the golf course architect could run with.
-
Dunkerque Golf Club
(http://www.agolfingexperience.com/uploadphoto/060-1-WSGolfDunkerque.jpg)
Designed by Robert Berthet in the 1990's
Ian, the photo you presented intrigued me to imagine that perhaps the designer was giving some homage to World War II fortresses and defense battlements, but upon seeing the rest, methinks his brain is wired with Brillo pads. It is provocative, though.
I've always wanted to play the courses of Normandy where D-Day commenced and when I do, I will definitely make the side trip to play Dunkerque.
Slag - it's not WW2 but seventeenth century. Dunkerque was where Sebastien de Vauban, the great fortress designer of Louis XIV's reign, did some of his most important work. Berthet - who is a very interesting guy - said he felt that, since the course was built on the former municipal dump, it would be dishonest to design a course to look 'natural', and that a Vauban-themed course was relevant to golf anyway, since so much of the vocabulary of golf is military in its origin (he's right on this one, the Redan just for starters).
I did a piece with Robert several years ago - it's here http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Golf-de-Dunkerque/1052/Default.aspx (http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Golf-de-Dunkerque/1052/Default.aspx) if anyone's interested.
Adam
-
Thanks Adam, I guess this illustrates that I should trust my instincts and shelve my judgements. The seemingly "thin limb" he ventured out on was rooted in rationality and respect, which is enviable and, with his reasons sound, make for a compelling architectural statement. One that could knee-jerkedly be condemned, as I did, but could steadfastly be defended by its creator as proper use of an opportunity to leave a human statement within the land without destroying it.
-
Has anyone ever played the Dunkerque course? Adam?
I agree with Kelly's assessment of the aerial view, however I would note that Cape Kidnappers from the golfer's eye view looks nothing like the aerial photos we have all seen.
-
I haven't, I'm afraid. I'm in France quite a lot, but normally I drive through the Pas de Calais as quickly as possible, either heading for 'la France profonde' or back to the Channel ports.
-
. . . Visually it is horrid.
As most battlefields are.
I wonder if the problem with creating new stuff that hasn't been seen before isn't that concepts are redundant but that the lexicon of golf is limiting itself to its own past creations. Instead of relying on successes of golf architecture recognition, perhaps we should look to other fields with different vernaculars. Dornoch's 14th, Foxey, is a "bastion" of sorts if we look to military fortress architecture terms.
Pick a field of sciences and steal the words and shift the meanings. Like Mr. Doak has said recently, "it's mostly marketing".
Like Rocky VII, Redan CXXXVI is sure to be forgotten.
-
Golf course architectue is a subjective subject.
-
But it's a golf course! A golf course should look like a golf course.
Kelly,
I have agreed with most of what you have posted on this thread, but not with the above. I would be fine with a golf course that didn't look like a golf course as long as it PLAYED like a golf course. The thing I didn't like Stone Harbor for was that the playability and shot values were horrid.
-
Just because something looks "horrid" to this generation does not mean it will not appeal to future generations.
Every new major art movement was considered "horrid" to the previous purveyors. Only history can judge whether or not a new style has real merit.
Who cares what it looks like if it is fun to play?
-
Richard,
I care a lot what it looks like. Aesthetics are important when you are spending four hours somewhere.
-
(http://www.hiltonheadgolf.com/hilton-head-golf-courses/images/scorecards/palmetto-hall-resort-robert.jpg)
The Cupp Course on Hilton Head was considered pretty radical when it debuted in the early 90's.
-
Tom, people's perception of aesthetics change with time (acutally, with generations). When first impressionist paintings were unveiled, the classicists thought they were horrible. When cubist paintings were first introduced, people thought it was a joke.
The same goes with music (our grandparents thought rock-n-roll was unlistenable), science (Einstein thought Quantum Mechanics was distasteful), you name it, people's taste change all the time. What is aesthetically pleasing does not stay the same, it is always evolving. There is no reason to believe that a very geometric golf courses could not appeal to brand new generation of golfers in the future.
-
Eric,
So was Hollywood Golf Club by Travis in Deal New Jersey rebuilt around 1916 (I think). The bunker shapes were also very geometric, although the shapes on the ground seemed to come off a little more natural than the Cupp course did.
To all,
I'm enjoying the discussion.
There have been many wonderful things said that have caught my attention and I appreciate the insights.
-
Richard,
A golf course requires a lot of expensive upkeep. If people don't like it, the next generation will only read about it in a coffee table book. Stone Harbor is an example of that ... it was so bad that people today are interested to hear about it, but it has been significantly changed.
Eric,
Does the Cupp course still look that way? Does anyone play it? I remember it generated a lot of attention but not much praise when it opened, so I am curious what has happened.
-
I dread the day when this urban dweller shows up at what should be one of his rare refuges of nature in this concrete world to discover a golf course that is as manufactured -- and looks as manufactured -- as the strip mall down the street. And if that day ever comes, it will be doubly annoying to me to realize that the only reason I'm now at what looks more like an amusement park than a golf course is because some architect just couldn't resist having his "Look at Me!" moment in the sun. Others might (and are free to) reward him for his 'bold innovation' by playing his courses, hiring him to design more, and profiling him in major national magazines that tout his 'cutting edge creativity' ....but I won't be among them.
Peter
-
2 Thoughts.
1. Reading about his basecamp golf concept... wasn't this partially achieved with the "worlds longest golf course" in australia, that plays over a ton of miles next to a highway? that being said this idea seems to be closely related to skiing, and whats better than skiing? heli-skiing! the goal being to make pictures of cape kidnappers look tame!
2. Going back to the WHERE CAN WE GO question. It occurred to me while thinking about this thread over the last few days, there is one area where golf is so close, but our courses fall short to capture the huge amount of people who go to the driving range, but never take it to the course. There are so many people out there who are more than happy to rent a club and grab large bucket and make up their own games like hitting the cart guy or who can slice it over fence better. Hell, I still do it too. There is definitely something to be said about this sort of raw, imaginative, fun.
-
2. Going back to the WHERE CAN WE GO question. It occurred to me while thinking about this thread over the last few days, there is one area where golf is so close, but our courses fall short to capture the huge amount of people who go to the driving range, but never take it to the course. There are so many people out there who are more than happy to rent a club and grab large bucket and make up their own games like hitting the cart guy or who can slice it over fence better. Hell, I still do it too. There is definitely something to be said about this sort of raw, imaginative, fun.
Sure is something to be said:
It's cheaper.
It's less time consuming.
-
I'm no big fan of Nietzche, but I've always been intrigued by his assessment of Socrates as embodying not the zenith/best of Greek philosophy but its nadir/worst; I think the madman saw the Socratic method/dialogue as a symbol of decadence and decay, i.e. an example of the bankruptcy of Greek ideas and ideals during Socrates' times. But hey, it was new and innovative, and caught on....
"Why are you worried about dying, Socrates? Didn't you say that everything is eternal?"
"No, no, I said heavy things - rocks, and statues"
-
Eric,
Does the Cupp course still look that way? Does anyone play it? I remember it generated a lot of attention but not much praise when it opened, so I am curious what has happened.
Tom,
Yes, it does still look that way. One of the early criticisms of the course was the 2nd hole. The tee shot was terrible. There wasn't enough room before the water hazard to play with a driver and it was too narrow of a landing area. Worse, there was a shelf dividing the landing area with a drop off down the middle into thick bermuda rough, leaving the player a difficult second shot with a forced carry over a diagonal water hazard. It was poorly thought out imo. They did end up reworking the area and expanding the landing zone and it plays fine now.
Someone once told me that some of the linear features at the Cupp had been softened, but when I flew over the course earlier this year there was no mistaking the geometric shaped bunkering on holes 13 & 14. I'm planning a trip in January and we're playing the Cupp so I'll be sure to report back along with some pics.
-
Even from the aerial picture of Dunkerque, most of the holes there look like they would appear and play like fairly normal golf holes from ground level. It doesn't strike me as all that out of line with the course that keep a cluster of bunkers in a shape that suggests a bear's paw, or a letter, or have tees in the shapes of card suits. It's a little gimmicky, but it adds visual interest without bothering the golf, really.
-
P.S. I do think collaboration is the most likely source of innovation. But I think the key to it will be for a great golf architect to collaborate with someone from another field, who doesn't understand golf well enough to mute themselves from suggesting something that the golf course architect could run with.
Tom,
off the top of your head, what professions do you have in mind? Have you ever heard of James Corner (LA) by chance?
-
P.S. I do think collaboration is the most likely source of innovation. But I think the key to it will be for a great golf architect to collaborate with someone from another field, who doesn't understand golf well enough to mute themselves from suggesting something that the golf course architect could run with.
Tom,
off the top of your head, what professions do you have in mind? Have you ever heard of James Corner (LA) by chance?
Michael,
Is that COMER or CORNER ? My eyes aren't what they used to be. But I have not heard of him before now, either way.
As to your other question, a landscape architect or planner would probably be the most likely, as they are often involved with other parts of a large project which includes a golf course. In fact, there is a landscape architect involved in our project in Spain, who showed me drawings of a project he is doing with Kyle Phillips in Morocco, which might fit the profile ... he insisted that the water features on the course be shaped like those in a formal Moroccan garden. I'm not sure if the finished project is going to be cool or crazy, but it's sure outside the box.
-
P.S. I do think collaboration is the most likely source of innovation. But I think the key to it will be for a great golf architect to collaborate with someone from another field, who doesn't understand golf well enough to mute themselves from suggesting something that the golf course architect could run with.
Tom,
off the top of your head, what professions do you have in mind? Have you ever heard of James Corner (LA) by chance?
Michael,
Is that COMER or CORNER ? My eyes aren't what they used to be. But I have not heard of him before now, either way.
As to your other question, a landscape architect or planner would probably be the most likely, as they are often involved with other parts of a large project which includes a golf course. In fact, there is a landscape architect involved in our project in Spain, who showed me drawings of a project he is doing with Kyle Phillips in Morocco, which might fit the profile ... he insisted that the water features on the course be shaped like those in a formal Moroccan garden. I'm not sure if the finished project is going to be cool or crazy, but it's sure outside the box.
CORNER. He has his own, firm Field Operations and has (co)written a couple books.
-
(http://www.hiltonheadgolf.com/hilton-head-golf-courses/images/scorecards/palmetto-hall-resort-robert.jpg)
The Cupp Course on Hilton Head was considered pretty radical when it debuted in the early 90's.
So how come this Cupp Course's lines/features look absurd with their square geometry while Raynor's look/play fantastic?
-
I'm going to flip my switch from curmudgeonly 27 year old to hopeless idealistic 27 year old for this post.
I don't believe we've even begun to broach the surface of possibility as it pertains to golf architecture. Golf has, and will always have, the advantage that it is one of the most rudimentary simple games devised by man at its axiomatic level; Basically, start at Point A, stroke ball until reaching Point B.
For the golf architect, all that is needed is a Point A and Point B.
Thought #1: The Golfer's imagination is both his best and worst enemy. How can the golf course influence this duality?)
Thought #2: Economy of Hazards (how many shots can one bunker influence?)
Thought #3: Economy of Space (Is there any course in the world with more golf per unit area than St. Andrews? What lessons remain to be learned from "the mothership?").
Thought #4: Framing, and the treachery of the heights of cut.
Thought #5: The treachery of perspective
Thought #6: Discontinuity and the golf hole, using null space
If there's sufficient interest I'll take the time to explain my thoughts on the above further. I see plenty of fertile ground.
I think the stagnation comes from the art being set to one paradigm for a century or so and perhaps the art has reached a critical sample size of minds.
Kyle, I'd like to hear you expound on these principles.