Most overrated big name architect is ???

[LICC]

> @MaxBuck said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > I personally believe Bill Coore and Mike Strantz are overrated. Like everyone else's, this is purely opinion based on subjective reactions to their work.

> >

> > What about their courses underwhelms you?

>

> Strantz's courses to me are deliberately artificial and unnatural, and frankly the bogus "fish camp" stuff at Caledonia rubs me the wrong way. Coore's efforts that I've played have been aggressively the opposite, favoring "nature" over sensibility.

>

> Again, just one man's opinion.

 

I haven't played a Strantz course but hope to try one in the future. I've played two Coore/Crenshaw courses and I disagree, they were both splendid. The routings to maximize the features of the property, the wonderful incorporation of risk/reward strategy, and the subtle challenging greens were excellent.

[CMCSGolf]

> @LICC said:

> > @MaxBuck said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > I personally believe Bill Coore and Mike Strantz are overrated. Like everyone else's, this is purely opinion based on subjective reactions to their work.

> > >

> > > What about their courses underwhelms you?

> >

> > Strantz's courses to me are deliberately artificial and unnatural, and frankly the bogus "fish camp" stuff at Caledonia rubs me the wrong way. Coore's efforts that I've played have been aggressively the opposite, favoring "nature" over sensibility.

> >

> > Again, just one man's opinion.

>

> I haven't played a Strantz course but hope to try one in the future. I've played two Coore/Crenshaw courses and I disagree, they were both splendid. The routings to maximize the features of the property, the wonderful incorporation of risk/reward strategy, and the subtle challenging greens were excellent.

 

Regardless if you like or dislike Stranz courses, I really hope everyone can appreciate that he built something different. All the great minimalist courses have a similar look and the dozens of Nicklaus courses all have a similar look. I'll bet my right arm Coore and Crenshaw's new course at Bandon will be really good. But I'm almost certain it will look something like Cabot cliffs, Sand Valley, or even Doak's courses. They are all very good so it's hard to fault them, but going out on a limb and building something that looks/feels/plays different is admirable and should be valued.

 

We can debate if he pulled it off, but he should be commended for trying. I'm excited to see what King/Collins can do, because everyone else is building more of the same.

[smashdn]

Well put.

[smashdn]

> @MaxBuck said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > I personally believe Bill Coore and Mike Strantz are overrated. Like everyone else's, this is purely opinion based on subjective reactions to their work.

> >

> > What about their courses underwhelms you?

>

> Strantz's courses to me are deliberately artificial and unnatural, and frankly the bogus "fish camp" stuff at Caledonia rubs me the wrong way. Coore's efforts that I've played have been aggressively the opposite, favoring "nature" over sensibility.

>

> Again, just one man's opinion.

 

Were they meant to appear natural?

 

At any rate, guy was an artist first (check his artwork and course drawings as evidence) who happened to work in the medium of golf course [far too] occasionally.

[LICC]

> @CMCSGolf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > > I personally believe Bill Coore and Mike Strantz are overrated. Like everyone else's, this is purely opinion based on subjective reactions to their work.

> > > >

> > > > What about their courses underwhelms you?

> > >

> > > Strantz's courses to me are deliberately artificial and unnatural, and frankly the bogus "fish camp" stuff at Caledonia rubs me the wrong way. Coore's efforts that I've played have been aggressively the opposite, favoring "nature" over sensibility.

> > >

> > > Again, just one man's opinion.

> >

> > I haven't played a Strantz course but hope to try one in the future. I've played two Coore/Crenshaw courses and I disagree, they were both splendid. The routings to maximize the features of the property, the wonderful incorporation of risk/reward strategy, and the subtle challenging greens were excellent.

>

> Regardless if you like or dislike Stranz courses, I really hope everyone can appreciate that he built something different. All the great minimalist courses have a similar look and the dozens of Nicklaus courses all have a similar look. I'll bet my right arm Coore and Crenshaw's new course at Bandon will be really good. But I'm almost certain it will look something like Cabot cliffs, Sand Valley, or even Doak's courses. They are all very good so it's hard to fault them, but going out on a limb and building something that looks/feels/plays different is admirable and should be valued.

>

> We can debate if he pulled it off, but he should be commended for trying. I'm excited to see what King/Collins can do, because everyone else is building more of the same.

 

I wouldn't say Nicklaus courses all have a similar look. His courses are built into their environments. Punta Espada doesn't look like Muirfield Village which doesn't look like Ferry Point which doesn't look like Mayacama. Give any one designer two similar sites and you will get two similar looks, wouldn't you think?

[CMCSGolf]

> @LICC said:

> > @CMCSGolf said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > > > I personally believe Bill Coore and Mike Strantz are overrated. Like everyone else's, this is purely opinion based on subjective reactions to their work.

> > > > >

> > > > > What about their courses underwhelms you?

> > > >

> > > > Strantz's courses to me are deliberately artificial and unnatural, and frankly the bogus "fish camp" stuff at Caledonia rubs me the wrong way. Coore's efforts that I've played have been aggressively the opposite, favoring "nature" over sensibility.

> > > >

> > > > Again, just one man's opinion.

> > >

> > > I haven't played a Strantz course but hope to try one in the future. I've played two Coore/Crenshaw courses and I disagree, they were both splendid. The routings to maximize the features of the property, the wonderful incorporation of risk/reward strategy, and the subtle challenging greens were excellent.

> >

> > Regardless if you like or dislike Stranz courses, I really hope everyone can appreciate that he built something different. All the great minimalist courses have a similar look and the dozens of Nicklaus courses all have a similar look. I'll bet my right arm Coore and Crenshaw's new course at Bandon will be really good. But I'm almost certain it will look something like Cabot cliffs, Sand Valley, or even Doak's courses. They are all very good so it's hard to fault them, but going out on a limb and building something that looks/feels/plays different is admirable and should be valued.

> >

> > We can debate if he pulled it off, but he should be commended for trying. I'm excited to see what King/Collins can do, because everyone else is building more of the same.

>

> I wouldn't say Nicklaus courses all have a similar look. His courses are built into their environments. Punta Espada doesn't look like Muirfield Village which doesn't look like Ferry Point which doesn't look like Mayacama. Give any one designer two similar sites and you will get two similar looks, wouldn't you think?

 

Yeah I broadly agree there is only so much you can do to change a look, especially once you have a style that a client is expecting. I love all the great modern courses I've played, but at this point, I kind of feel like I've seen what they have to offer. I've never been to Cabot, but I bet it feels a lot like Streamsong, Bandon, Sand Valley, Barnbougle.

 

As for Nicklaus, I think he has a predictable look. Sure those sites you listed are very different, but the courses of his I have played (Muirfield, Pronghorn, the Bull, and a few lesser ones) all felt similar to me. An interesting thought is what would Nicklaus have done with a site like Bandon? I have no idea, but I doubt it would look like what is currently there.

[LICC]

> @CMCSGolf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @CMCSGolf said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > > > > I personally believe Bill Coore and Mike Strantz are overrated. Like everyone else's, this is purely opinion based on subjective reactions to their work.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What about their courses underwhelms you?

> > > > >

> > > > > Strantz's courses to me are deliberately artificial and unnatural, and frankly the bogus "fish camp" stuff at Caledonia rubs me the wrong way. Coore's efforts that I've played have been aggressively the opposite, favoring "nature" over sensibility.

> > > > >

> > > > > Again, just one man's opinion.

> > > >

> > > > I haven't played a Strantz course but hope to try one in the future. I've played two Coore/Crenshaw courses and I disagree, they were both splendid. The routings to maximize the features of the property, the wonderful incorporation of risk/reward strategy, and the subtle challenging greens were excellent.

> > >

> > > Regardless if you like or dislike Stranz courses, I really hope everyone can appreciate that he built something different. All the great minimalist courses have a similar look and the dozens of Nicklaus courses all have a similar look. I'll bet my right arm Coore and Crenshaw's new course at Bandon will be really good. But I'm almost certain it will look something like Cabot cliffs, Sand Valley, or even Doak's courses. They are all very good so it's hard to fault them, but going out on a limb and building something that looks/feels/plays different is admirable and should be valued.

> > >

> > > We can debate if he pulled it off, but he should be commended for trying. I'm excited to see what King/Collins can do, because everyone else is building more of the same.

> >

> > I wouldn't say Nicklaus courses all have a similar look. His courses are built into their environments. Punta Espada doesn't look like Muirfield Village which doesn't look like Ferry Point which doesn't look like Mayacama. Give any one designer two similar sites and you will get two similar looks, wouldn't you think?

>

> Yeah I broadly agree there is only so much you can do to change a look, especially once you have a style that a client is expecting. I love all the great modern courses I've played, but at this point, I kind of feel like I've seen what they have to offer. I've never been to Cabot, but I bet it feels a lot like Streamsong, Bandon, Sand Valley, Barnbougle.

>

> As for Nicklaus, I think he has a predictable look. Sure those sites you listed are very different, but the courses of his I have played (Muirfield, Pronghorn, the Bull, and a few lesser ones) all felt similar to me. An interesting thought is what would Nicklaus have done with a site like Bandon? I have no idea, but I doubt it would look like what is currently there.

 

Like Dismal River?

[pinhigh27]

> @LICC said:

> > @hollabachgt said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > It doesn’t stand to reason that not one designer in 80 years is as good as the 5 top designers from the 30 year prior period.

> >

> > I don't think the sentiment is no one from today is as good as the ODG's. But there have been a couple of large industry shifts that have dramatically changed how courses are constructed that has allowed older courses to continue to outshine newer ones.

> >

> > First off, the equipment and style of play used during the original golden age had a very large positive impact on the design of courses. Over time the movement away from a more ground based game to the mostly aerial game played today has forced designers to change how they build their courses. Often times the new designs are less dimensional and and lacking the interest found in older designs.

> >

> > Secondly, the intent of the course's construction and the timeline of maturation has also impacted design quality. 100 years ago courses were often built in stages and for the first 10 years constantly tweaked by the architect, allowing the initial design to mature into a better course gradually. Today, there is too much publicity and hype around a new course that an architect does not have the luxury of releasing an unfinished course onto the public. The need to get it right the first time is very high and if an architect has to come back to make changed in the first few years, that means they failed to do their job right the first time. Think about the changes made to Chambers Bay or Erin Hills by the USGA, the public did not react well to that work, saying that these courses are too new to need work and clearly if they need fixing they can't be that good to begin with.

> >

> >

>

> That's a respectable view but it still is basically a nostalgia-based, "things were better in the old days" rationale with a number of conclusory statements. Do you have examples of the greater dimension and interest found in older designs that aren't in newer ones? Granted, from the Trent Jones post-WWII era through the 1970s there was a simplification of course design, but then Pete Dye came around in the late 1960s and we have seen sound design principles and modern technology combine to make great courses. I think some of the old classics are overrated simply due to history and that the best courses of the last 50-60 years are just as good or better, if one forgets the history and just evaluates the courses themselves.

 

That is what I meant when I said apples to oranges. It's easier to move dirt now and easier to hit ball high and far so there are way more forced carries over hazards and bunkers now, which generally people don't love, especially as players are less skilled.

 

I don't understand need to compare who is best or whatever. At end of day does it matter? If someone doesn't like nicklaus or Doak or whatever just don't play those courses. It's like the guys who debate for hours if mj or LeBron are greatest. Who cares

[LICC]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @hollabachgt said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > It doesn’t stand to reason that not one designer in 80 years is as good as the 5 top designers from the 30 year prior period.

> > >

> > > I don't think the sentiment is no one from today is as good as the ODG's. But there have been a couple of large industry shifts that have dramatically changed how courses are constructed that has allowed older courses to continue to outshine newer ones.

> > >

> > > First off, the equipment and style of play used during the original golden age had a very large positive impact on the design of courses. Over time the movement away from a more ground based game to the mostly aerial game played today has forced designers to change how they build their courses. Often times the new designs are less dimensional and and lacking the interest found in older designs.

> > >

> > > Secondly, the intent of the course's construction and the timeline of maturation has also impacted design quality. 100 years ago courses were often built in stages and for the first 10 years constantly tweaked by the architect, allowing the initial design to mature into a better course gradually. Today, there is too much publicity and hype around a new course that an architect does not have the luxury of releasing an unfinished course onto the public. The need to get it right the first time is very high and if an architect has to come back to make changed in the first few years, that means they failed to do their job right the first time. Think about the changes made to Chambers Bay or Erin Hills by the USGA, the public did not react well to that work, saying that these courses are too new to need work and clearly if they need fixing they can't be that good to begin with.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > That's a respectable view but it still is basically a nostalgia-based, "things were better in the old days" rationale with a number of conclusory statements. Do you have examples of the greater dimension and interest found in older designs that aren't in newer ones? Granted, from the Trent Jones post-WWII era through the 1970s there was a simplification of course design, but then Pete Dye came around in the late 1960s and we have seen sound design principles and modern technology combine to make great courses. I think some of the old classics are overrated simply due to history and that the best courses of the last 50-60 years are just as good or better, if one forgets the history and just evaluates the courses themselves.

>

> That is what I meant when I said apples to oranges. It's easier to move dirt now and easier to hit ball high and far so there are way more forced carries over hazards and bunkers now, which generally people don't love, especially as players are less skilled.

>

> I don't understand need to compare who is best or whatever. At end of day does it matter? If someone doesn't like nicklaus or Doak or whatever just don't play those courses. It's like the guys who debate for hours if mj or LeBron are greatest. Who cares

 

I don’t think that is accurate. Decades ago when more ground shots were common, designers still put hazards in the direct line of play to the hole. They still would design greens with false fronts or for landing the ball with a wedge. Look at Pine Valley as a prime example. Tillinghast was famous for oblique hazards as he called them. Then in modern times you have someone like a Fazio who generally avoids carry hazards directly over the line of play. Dye would mix it up but commonly used parallel hazards instead of carry hazards. I don’t think you are right on this.

[pinhigh27]

A false front isn't a forced carry. An unskilled golfer can still roll the ball up it. Unless it's like one where the ball would roll 40 yards away.

 

Im not saying there weren't carries before just that forced carries are less common with older designs. I haven't heard many people debate that sentiment.

[LICC]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> A false front isn't a forced carry. An unskilled golfer can still roll the ball up it. Unless it's like one where the ball would roll 40 yards away.

>

> Im not saying there weren't carries before just that forced carries are less common with older designs. I haven't heard many people debate that sentiment.

 

I don’t think that is correct. Tillinghast sure used them. Mackenzie too. Ross definitely used them. Macdonald without a doubt. And I’m including risk reward carries.

[raynorfan1]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> A false front isn't a forced carry. An unskilled golfer can still roll the ball up it. Unless it's like one where the ball would roll 40 yards away.

>

> Im not saying there weren't carries before just that forced carries are less common with older designs. I haven't heard many people debate that sentiment.

 

I think that's some misplaced romantic revisionist history, mostly led by the GCA crowd. I've had four courses (all very well regarded by same GCA crowd) that I have played a lot in my life - all of them were built in the "golden age". All of them require, in many places, you to put the ball in the air to avoid a hazard (sometimes a bunker, sometimes a pond, sometimes just a row of fescue.

[raynorfan1]

> @CMCSGolf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > > I personally believe Bill Coore and Mike Strantz are overrated. Like everyone else's, this is purely opinion based on subjective reactions to their work.

> > > >

> > > > What about their courses underwhelms you?

> > >

> > > Strantz's courses to me are deliberately artificial and unnatural, and frankly the bogus "fish camp" stuff at Caledonia rubs me the wrong way. Coore's efforts that I've played have been aggressively the opposite, favoring "nature" over sensibility.

> > >

> > > Again, just one man's opinion.

> >

> > I haven't played a Strantz course but hope to try one in the future. I've played two Coore/Crenshaw courses and I disagree, they were both splendid. The routings to maximize the features of the property, the wonderful incorporation of risk/reward strategy, and the subtle challenging greens were excellent.

> But I'm almost certain it will look something like Cabot cliffs, Sand Valley, or even Doak's courses. They are all very good so it's hard to fault them, but going out on a limb and building something that looks/feels/plays different is admirable and should be valued.

 

It must be gratifying as an artist (Coore/Crenshaw) when the school that you invented (minimalist design) becomes so mainstream that you get criticized for being so square.

[DoubleorQuits]

> @LICC said:

> > @DoubleorQuits said:

> > Doak

>

> Why? Do you think he gets more credit for having great sites than the courses really are worth?

 

Just basing on my views of his courses I have played.

[DoubleorQuits]

No worries.  

Edited September 2, 2023 by DoubleorQuits

[CMCSGolf]

> @raynorfan1 said:

> > @CMCSGolf said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > > > I personally believe Bill Coore and Mike Strantz are overrated. Like everyone else's, this is purely opinion based on subjective reactions to their work.

> > > > >

> > > > > What about their courses underwhelms you?

> > > >

> > > > Strantz's courses to me are deliberately artificial and unnatural, and frankly the bogus "fish camp" stuff at Caledonia rubs me the wrong way. Coore's efforts that I've played have been aggressively the opposite, favoring "nature" over sensibility.

> > > >

> > > > Again, just one man's opinion.

> > >

> > > I haven't played a Strantz course but hope to try one in the future. I've played two Coore/Crenshaw courses and I disagree, they were both splendid. The routings to maximize the features of the property, the wonderful incorporation of risk/reward strategy, and the subtle challenging greens were excellent.

> > But I'm almost certain it will look something like Cabot cliffs, Sand Valley, or even Doak's courses. They are all very good so it's hard to fault them, but going out on a limb and building something that looks/feels/plays different is admirable and should be valued.

>

> It must be gratifying as an artist (Coore/Crenshaw) when the school that you invented (minimalist design) becomes so mainstream that you get criticized for being so square.

 

Mimicry is the best form of flattery right? Every one of their courses is so good. There really aren't that many of them most people don't live within 500 miles of one, so I'm not completely sincere when I hint that there may be enough of them. But with limited new builds out there and most of them being destination courses, I would be more intrigued to take a destination trip to see something different.

[DoubleorQuits]

> @CMCSGolf said:

> > @raynorfan1 said:

> > > @CMCSGolf said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > > > > I personally believe Bill Coore and Mike Strantz are overrated. Like everyone else's, this is purely opinion based on subjective reactions to their work.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What about their courses underwhelms you?

> > > > >

> > > > > Strantz's courses to me are deliberately artificial and unnatural, and frankly the bogus "fish camp" stuff at Caledonia rubs me the wrong way. Coore's efforts that I've played have been aggressively the opposite, favoring "nature" over sensibility.

> > > > >

> > > > > Again, just one man's opinion.

> > > >

> > > > I haven't played a Strantz course but hope to try one in the future. I've played two Coore/Crenshaw courses and I disagree, they were both splendid. The routings to maximize the features of the property, the wonderful incorporation of risk/reward strategy, and the subtle challenging greens were excellent.

> > > But I'm almost certain it will look something like Cabot cliffs, Sand Valley, or even Doak's courses. They are all very good so it's hard to fault them, but going out on a limb and building something that looks/feels/plays different is admirable and should be valued.

> >

> > It must be gratifying as an artist (Coore/Crenshaw) when the school that you invented (minimalist design) becomes so mainstream that you get criticized for being so square.

>

> Mimicry is the best form of flattery right? Every one of their courses is so good. There really aren't that many of them most people don't live within 500 miles of one, so I'm not completely sincere when I hint that there may be enough of them. But with limited new builds out there and most of them being destination courses, I would be more intrigued to take a destination trip to see something different.

 

Both good points! Crazy as it sounds, the architecture of the "dark age" will become en vogue again and people will be lamenting how Doak C&C and Hanse did ill advised renovations of classic courses in the early 2,000's.

[raynorfan1]

> @DoubleorQuits said:

> Rob Collins might be, as Sweeten's Cove has to be the most overrated course in existence.

 

For Rob Collins to be in the conversation, he would have to be a "big name" architect. It strains credulity to believe that a guy with a single nine hole redesign to his credit could be considered "big name". We might as well include Zac Blair while we're at it.

[raynorfan1]

> @DoubleorQuits said:

> > @CMCSGolf said:

> > > @raynorfan1 said:

> > > > @CMCSGolf said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @MaxBuck said:

> > > > > > > > I personally believe Bill Coore and Mike Strantz are overrated. Like everyone else's, this is purely opinion based on subjective reactions to their work.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What about their courses underwhelms you?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Strantz's courses to me are deliberately artificial and unnatural, and frankly the bogus "fish camp" stuff at Caledonia rubs me the wrong way. Coore's efforts that I've played have been aggressively the opposite, favoring "nature" over sensibility.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Again, just one man's opinion.

> > > > >

> > > > > I haven't played a Strantz course but hope to try one in the future. I've played two Coore/Crenshaw courses and I disagree, they were both splendid. The routings to maximize the features of the property, the wonderful incorporation of risk/reward strategy, and the subtle challenging greens were excellent.

> > > > But I'm almost certain it will look something like Cabot cliffs, Sand Valley, or even Doak's courses. They are all very good so it's hard to fault them, but going out on a limb and building something that looks/feels/plays different is admirable and should be valued.

> > >

> > > It must be gratifying as an artist (Coore/Crenshaw) when the school that you invented (minimalist design) becomes so mainstream that you get criticized for being so square.

> >

> > Mimicry is the best form of flattery right? Every one of their courses is so good. There really aren't that many of them most people don't live within 500 miles of one, so I'm not completely sincere when I hint that there may be enough of them. But with limited new builds out there and most of them being destination courses, I would be more intrigued to take a destination trip to see something different.

>

> Both good points! Crazy as it sounds, the architecture of the "dark age" will become en vogue again and people will be lamenting how Doak C&C and Hanse did ill advised renovations of classic courses in the early 2,000's.

 

I sincerely doubt that anybody will lament the renovations done by the current crop of architects. The 'dark age' style may come back again (I fully believe that it will); but I don't think the big old courses will feel sorry that they went with the trend.

 

I do sincerely believe that many people (not everybody) will regret the zeal for tree removal that has taken the architectural world. I'm mostly for tree removal, but I think we're going ~20% too far in the clearcutting. No shade on the course might be good for the grass...but it's hard on the golfers.

[FairwayFred]

> @raynorfan1 said:

> > @DoubleorQuits said:

> > Rob Collins might be, as Sweeten's Cove has to be the most overrated course in existence.

>

> For Rob Collins to be in the conversation, he would have to be a "big name" architect. It strains credulity to believe that a guy with a single nine hole redesign to his credit could be considered "big name". We might as well include Zac Blair while we're at it.

 

King Collins just announced a brand new 18 hole course job in Nebraska so soon you will have 200% more Rob Collins than you have now......

 

Personally Im really excited to see what they can do w a really good site which Sweetens Cove most certainly was not.

 

And to be fair Zac Blair is not an architect like Rob Collins he is a tour player w alot of interest in architecture but that's not even close to the same thing. Rob might only have 9 original holes built so far but he also worked for Gary Player Design and for Coore/Crenshaw before going out on his own and seems to have a very solid future in the business. Not a big name yet but certainly an up and comer.

[Schley]

> @raynorfan1 said:

 

> I do sincerely believe that many people (not everybody) will regret the zeal for tree removal that has taken the architectural world. I'm mostly for tree removal, but I think we're going ~20% too far in the clearcutting. No shade on the course might be good for the grass...but it's hard on the golfers.

For restorations removing trees brings back the original fairway widths as per photo evidence typically and isn't just some summer help intern going crazy with a chainsaw. The photos are studied meticulously, probably ad nausem to debate which trees need to be removed to bring back original lines of play; however also as you mentioned grass needs sun and air, both of which are in shorter supply when choked out by trees.

 

I love trees and there are some original very heavily wooded courses, but many trees are cut from restorations are to bring it back to what was originally there.

 

[raynorfan1]

> @"Schley " said:

> > @raynorfan1 said:

>

> > I do sincerely believe that many people (not everybody) will regret the zeal for tree removal that has taken the architectural world. I'm mostly for tree removal, but I think we're going ~20% too far in the clearcutting. No shade on the course might be good for the grass...but it's hard on the golfers.

> For restorations removing trees brings back the original fairway widths as per photo evidence typically and isn't just some summer help intern going crazy with a chainsaw. The photos are studied meticulously, probably ad nausem to debate which trees need to be removed to bring back original lines of play; however also as you mentioned grass needs sun and air, both of which are in shorter supply when choked out by trees.

>

> I love trees and there are some original very heavily wooded courses, but many trees are cut from restorations are to bring it back to what was originally there.

>

 

This is the party line of the chainsaw gang, and in some cases (Oakmont) it is undeniably true.

 

A great many of the trees removed from my home course were older than the course (100+ years). The uncomfortable truth is that trees could easily co-exist with the agronomic standard of the era that these courses were built in. But it's really damn hard to have Augusta-perfect turf conditions when the grass has to compete with trees.

[TravelingGolfSticks]

Pete Dye without a doubt. If you have played a couple of his courses then you have played them all. Same finishes for TPC Sawgrass, Stonebridge Ranch, PGA West Stadium. Par 5, then par 3 with water surrounding (not all the way at StoneBridge Ranch), and a par 4 with water on the left. Too many of the holes feel the same. I can't remember the holes off hand but I remember looking at the first par 3 at the La Quinta Mountain course and was wondering if I was play the first par 3 on the back at PGA West Stadium. The only one I felt was different was the Dye Club in North Myrtle Beach but then it ended with a par 5 (large trap on left like PGA West, not as deep obviously), par 3 and then a par 4 with water on the left.

[MaxBuck]

> @defnotapro said:

> Pete Dye without a doubt. If you have played a couple of his courses then you have played them all.

 

Oh, wow, interesting perspective. I don't agree at all; think Pete Dye courses are excellent and distinct one from the other, but interesting to see someone who thinks this way. Fazio is the guy whose courses, to me, generally seem entirely alike.

[TravelingGolfSticks]

> @MaxBuck said:

> > @defnotapro said:

> > Pete Dye without a doubt. If you have played a couple of his courses then you have played them all.

>

> Oh, wow, interesting perspective. I don't agree at all; think Pete Dye courses are excellent and distinct one from the other, but interesting to see someone who thinks this way. Fazio is the guy whose courses, to me, generally seem entirely alike.

 

I won't disagree that they each have a few unique holes, but there seem to be more holes alike than not for me. If you look at his designs previous to TPC Sawgrass Stadium, they are much different. After that, you can almost always find the par 5, near island or island green, par 4 water on the left. Brickyard Crossing has this inside the track (par 5 outside, then par 3 par 4 in) rather than at the end. Trump National LA has it at the end of the first 9 (maybe they have been switched at some point).

 

I think Fazio has a lot of similar design quirks too, but different at the same time. I've played some of Fazio and thought, this isn't as tough of a golf course, and then I've played other that have beat me up.

 

Obviously, each architect has their own quirks that make courses their distinct style, but Without Allison, and the island green, Pete wouldn't be known as much as he is.

[TravelingGolfSticks]

> @MaxBuck said:

> > @defnotapro said:

> > Pete Dye without a doubt. If you have played a couple of his courses then you have played them all.

>

> Oh, wow, interesting perspective. I don't agree at all; think Pete Dye courses are excellent and distinct one from the other, but interesting to see someone who thinks this way. Fazio is the guy whose courses, to me, generally seem entirely alike.

 

I won't disagree that they each have a few unique holes, but there seem to be more holes alike than not for me. If you look at his designs previous to TPC Sawgrass Stadium, they are much different. After that, you can almost always find the par 5, near island or island green, par 4 water on the left. Brickyard Crossing has this inside the track (par 5 outside, then par 3 par 4 in) rather than at the end. Trump National LA has it at the end of the first 9 (maybe they have been switched at some point).

 

I think Fazio has a lot of similar design quirks too, but different at the same time.

 

Obviously, each architect has their own quirks that make courses their distinct style, but Without Allison, and the island green, Pete wouldn't be known as much as he is.