Saturday
Oct062007
"Architects like Robert Trent Jones and his regrettably prolific scions dotted the American landscape..."
Thanks to reader Mark for Dean Barnett's wonderful look at the rise of the minimalist movement in architecture, highlighted by his look at Sand Hills, Bandon Dunes and Ballyneal. But it's the setup and conclusion that prove just as entertaining:
But there followed several decades of golf architecture dreck. Architects like Robert Trent Jones and his regrettably prolific scions dotted the American landscape with courses that were difficult and unpleasant to play--largely because they deviated from the tradition born in St. Andrews. Instead of letting each player figure out his own route from hole to hole, they funnelled all into a single narrow path.And the conclusion to the piece...
Rees Jones, Robert Trent Jones's son, is still one of golf's most prominent architects. He describes his theory of golf architecture as follows: "My style emphasizes definition. I work hard at giving the golfer a concept as he stands over the ball. I want him to see the intended target and be able to visualize the shot." What Rees Jones omits from his reckoning is that some golfers, indeed most golfers, may be incapable of pulling off the shot that he compels them to see. Golfers have enjoyed finding their own way around St. Andrews for over 500 years. Speaking on behalf of the modern golf architecture establishment, Rees Jones in essence insists that he has discovered a better way: He will officiously preside over each and every golfer's each and every shot.
Jones family members haven't been the only architects guilty of committing affronts to golf history and ignoring the imperative that the game be fun. Perhaps the most serious offender has been Jack Nicklaus, arguably the greatest golfer ever. Nicklaus has had a hand in designing 207 courses. While some of his courses are picturesque, few are fun unless you're able to play golf as well as Jack Nicklaus. On many of his courses, the average player will lose half a dozen balls a round, many of them having found a watery grave in one of the man-made water-hazards of which Nicklaus is so fond. As a player, Nicklaus probably wouldn't even notice many of the water hazards that litter his courses. But the typical golfer does.
There remains the pressing question of what long-term impact places like Sand Hills, Bandon Dunes, and Ballyneal will have on golf architecture and the game itself. The early attempts at golf-course design by Jack Nicklaus's successor as king of golf, Tiger Woods, may offer a clue.
For his first project, announced in 2006, Woods took a commission to build a course on a piece of flat desert in Dubai. It was a move right out of the Nicklaus school: Put a golf course where nature didn't intend there to be one, substituting one man's limited imagination for nature's infinite variety. The "Tiger Woods, Dubai," its website says, "will feature 20 palaces, 75 mansions and 190 luxury villas that offer the perfect blend of exclusivity and luxurious community living"--about as far as conceivable from the austere fun to be had at a place like Sand Hills.
For his second commission, Woods undertook to build a golf course on a piece of rolling terrain outside of Asheville called the Carolina Preserve. When the project was announced a few months back, Woods insisted that the land is perfect for golf, and that no man-made lakes or waterfalls will blight his first American design. The course will be walking only.
So has Tiger undergone a conversion? Only the finished product will tell. But this much we know: When someone asked him to describe his design philosophy, Tiger Woods used the magic word: "I'm more of a minimalist," he said.
Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Reader Comments (26)
You might be surprised how accessible these courses are with a well placed letter asking for a 1 time look see, much like it is with most of the grand clubs in the British Isles. Or sometimes with the right detective work, one can find the email of a member who just might help as well.
Regarding the exclusivity of the private clubs mentioned, I strongly suggest if you want to tee it up at Ballyneal, give them a call. If they can accomodate you, they will.
Thanks for writing it and apologies for the typo on your name!
While I have no doubt that a well placed letter might result in a "one time look see" at these courses, and many others, doesn't that confirm my point about their exclusivity? If these golf courses are the true works of art that Geoff and Dean maintain that they are (I believe them), why would a "one time look see" be enough for any serious golfer? One time through the Uffizi is not nearly enough. One time around Sand Hills wouldn't be, either. I don't expect these courses to be as available as my local municipal course, where patrons might be seen in jeans and a tee shirt (eek!), but the game would be healthier for all concerned if these golf courses made themselves accessible to all serious golfers through some reasonable mechanism.
Seems like a letter of introduction to clubs like these is a reasonable mechanism. If you are looking for return trips, then you need a member or you need to join. Ballyneal is quite affordable still.:
Really enjoyed your article, and you really captured the spirit of Ballyneal. I think you are spot on with all of your assessments in the piece.
Nice work.
Mr. Neal sat with us at dinner (which was fabulous btw), telling us how they got Doak to come, and how they only water their greens every three days -- making fixing ball marks an unnecesary art, and requiring thought and imagination on approach shots into the greens. And what greens. I could write for an hour about how much fun it is to hit a chip or little pitch from a shortsided pin past the hole, up a slope, only to have it roll back down to tap-in range.
If I had the spare 50k, I'd join in a heartbeat. As for our Kentucky friend's criticism of the exclusivity of Ballyneal, Sand Hills and the like, here in Chicago we have at least 20 very private clubs that I work extraordinarily hard to get on. I too consider myself a "true" golfer -- whatever the heck that is --and when I do get the opportunity to play at Onwentsia or Beverly I certainly don't begrudge those lucky enough to be members of courses like these from their largesse. I just wish I had more of them as my friends.
P.S. If there's a member at Shoreacres out there who needs someone to fill a foursome, I am available.
The architects, it seems to me, are part drivers of taste and part reflectors of taste.
Doak and Coore & Crenshaw, on the other hand, are very unlikely to work with a developer who wants man-made waterfalls and 210 yard forced carries.
If a developer wants a minimalist design, something like what he has seen Tom Doak create, he's most likely to hire Tom Doak or someone like him. Not Pete Dye.
Developers do that (a) when their own egos and personal tastes dicatate that kind of design or (b) when markets dictate that kind of design.
I'm not so sure what to make of Rick Smith as a designer, but it would appear that he designed the Rick Smith Signature course at Treetops for one kind of market (or set of tastes) and he designed Arcadia Bluffs for another. (Two very different pieces of property, too, of course.) But Arcadia was done after it was seen what a big success Bandon was. In other words, it might be that "demand" and not "architectural style" drove that particular development.
What do you think?
You can, however, build and maintain an outstanding course that is open to the public and affordable. The proprietor of this site has done so.
You are right about The Weekly Standard: Not a power to the people kind of magazine. Unless we're talking Ahmed Chalabi, anyway. Let's just say that I think Fred Barnes has been in a downward spiral since he asked Ronald Reagan in his debate with Jimmy Carter, "If you're so religious, how come you hardly ever go to church?" Kristol? Not my cup of tea? Rupert Murdoch? I've heard that one of his papers in Great Britain has an interesting page 3. But your writing on golf? Outstanding! Keep up the good work. I just might have to pay more attention to TWS.
And we absolutely do need Geoff if golf in America is to have a future worth having.
Now, I really need to get back to work.
I love my muni but I hate (as a non member) living next to Merion.
Exclusive private golf clubs are a necessary evil in the US. Unlike Scotland, there are too mnay people who play the game but are not serious golfers (e.g. cell phones, golf carts, beer carts, five-hour rounds) that opening up a course like Merion or Oakmont to the masses would ruin it. I think we have to be content with the occassional invitation.
If you need information on how a visitor can play Muirfield, go to the website.
There is no question one reason clubs in GB&I allow vistors to play is because this revenue keeps the subs affordable. However, there is a long tradition of visitor play in GB&I which dates back to a time when the green fees were so low that it is difficult to argue this "extra income" was an important source of revenue. It is my opinion that many members of GB&I clubs are proud to showcase their club and course and feel they have an obligation to golfers and the game to allow visitors.