Is It Time to Move Beyond Minimalism?

00:00:00
Speaker 1: One of the primary trends in golf architecture over the past couple of decades has been so called minimalism. In basic terms, minimalism means using as much of the natural landscape as possible in a golf course, and it means trying to create compelling golf while moving as little earth as you can. Recently, though, some architects have started to push back against this philosophy or just resist the categories of minimalism and maximalism altogether. Today, I'm talking to two such architects. Tim Jackson and David Khan are the principles of the firm Jackson Kahn Design. Some of Jackson Kahn's notable solo designs include the Other Course at Scottsdale National and the reimagined Dunes Course at Monterey Peninsula Country Club. Tim and David have an interesting perspective on recent and current trends in golf architecture, mainly because they're looking to move beyond them. I'm Garrett Morrison, and this is designing golf. So starting with you, Tim, what do you understand the term minimalism to mean as it's usually applied to golf architecture.

00:01:15
Speaker 2: You know, I think that minimalism in golf course architecture is used as a term that generally describes architects obviously who quote unquote work with the land, you know, don't move a lot of dirt. I think that, you know, maximalism is you know, somewhat a derogatory term.

00:01:35
Speaker 1: It does seem to be that way most of the time. Yeah, minimalism is the positive term and maximalism is.

00:01:40
Speaker 2: The negative, right And you know, and I think a lot of that's driven by, you know, to some extent, the you know, the golf that's been designed over the last twenty five or thirty years. And you know, if you have a great site, you know, anybody can be minimalist. You know, if you have a less than great site and you still have you know, expectations as far as great golf, there's less guys that can be quote unquote maximalists. I think and actually execute, you know, based upon those those definitions in terminology. But you know, we you know, we just we strive to to to maximize what we feel the potential is of any site, you know, regardless from the starting condition.

00:02:17
Speaker 1: And David, from from your perspective when you hear about this, this kind of dichotomy between minimalism and maximalism. Is it something that you feel like you want to resist? Is it? Is it something that that makes you feel like maybe these aren't the most useful terms in the world.

00:02:35
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's counterproductive. Honestly, I think it's it's I know we're about to talk about it, so don't take this wrong way, But I really think it's a waste of time of a conversation, right, I mean, they're not they're not. They're not getting us any closer to really talking about the bones and the nuts of what is really, you know, considered great golf experiences. Right, it doesn't really matter in our opinion, if if the land was there and you just scratched it in or you had to create it from nothing because you started with a flat parking lot, what's that end result? Is it fun? Is it enjoyables or memorable? That's really what matters. And and both spectrums can get you there, both spectrums can make you fail also, right, I mean, ultimately it's on the it's on the shoulders of the architects to to make sure that it does result in something worthwhile and desirable. So, you know, I totally agree with Tim's definition. And and also it's you know, I think that there could sometimes be minimalism and maximalism design when you just talk about the actual golf features themselves or the lack thereof. And what I mean by that is kind of like the less is more mantra that you know, a lot of architecture professors preach, you know, just because you can doesn't mean you should kind of thing, and and that can that can also happen on a on a made for golf site, right, I mean a lot of time those are some of the most overly busy and bunkered experiences because while the land is is perfect for it, right, so you just have you feel like that need just just bunket bunker bunkers everywhere because it's a naturally sandy site with humps and hullocks and those are natural bunkers, right. And so you know, I could argue that that's maximalism in the a way it's it's just to me, it's just a it's just a circular conversation that really doesn't get us any any closer towards a you know, a better product at the end of the day. So I love debating and having the conversation. But I also don't you know, I don't feel like having that conversation moves us any closer to, you know, being better designers.

00:04:45
Speaker 1: So maybe they're not really terms that are on your mind when you're designing a golf course. They just kind of come maybe when you're talking about golf.

00:04:53
Speaker 3: Course are only when only when people bring it up to us quite honestly, yeah, right, I mean to us, we always look to me maximize the opportunity and potential of the site, whether it's scratching something in because it's already ideal for golf, or we've got to reinvent the wheel because there's nothing there to create something interesting from. So that's all we're focusing on, is really maximizing the experience and meeting the goals of the client.

00:05:22
Speaker 1: Well, part of this seems to be historical, I guess, and you both came up in the era when minimalism was becoming something that people discussed, and part of the original intention of talking about minimalism, as I understand it, is that it was opposed to a lot of what people thought was going on in golf architecture in the nineteen eighties. And nineties. There was a group of people in the mid nineties to late nineties or even a little bit before that, who were starting to say, let's pull back a little bit on building artificial features, and if we can avoid that artificiality, then let's do it. Let's make interesting golf, but let's build only as much as necessary to generate interesting golf. And I guess that stance had real meaning at a certain time. I wonder if that meaning has become diluted over time. Is this something tim that that you've noticed in during your time and in the profession, that that just kind of the the impact of that initial stance of minimalism has has decreased over time.

00:06:40
Speaker 2: You know, I think that the there's always areas in golf course architecture, and you can you know, starting back and you know, and mister McDonald brought over the template greens and you know, National Golf Links, and we were often running an American a little bit before that too. But that you know, there was a time and this is this is actually interesting conversation. I think there was a time when it was kind of one upsmanship. I think in golf course architecture and certainly many many courses that were designed and built in the nineteen eighties, you know, big earth moving projects, perhaps a lot of artificiality in the way that the courses were detailed and shaped.

00:07:14
Speaker 4: You know.

00:07:15
Speaker 2: I think that that that the return to a more naturalistic type or style of design, you know, starting maybe late eighties, early nineties, with guys reacting to what had been occurring and saying, hey, let's go a different direction. I think that's that's that's true. You know, again, the flow of of design a lot of times, I think follows trends, and you know, and again the big names in the industries, when they achieve a certain stature, a lot of times it's really interesting. It's almost like, you know, to some extent, the media tries to claw them back. You know, it's like, well they're at the top of the heap now, so let's let's break them down and let's you know, lift these others up. And I think the media has a role to play actually in both aspects. You know, when when Golf Digests came out with the America's one hundred Toughest Golf Courses in nineteen sixty six or wherever it was, George Pepper's list there were a lot of guys that wanted to be on that list, a lot of developers because it helped them sell real estate. And so as a result, some of the golf that was built in the seventies going into the nineteen eighties or these very difficult you know, overshaped you know, big contour type of features which created some very difficult golf, but it got them on the list, right. And now you know, the media kind of did you know, they rejected that because that's what was popular to a large.

00:08:28
Speaker 4: Extent, but he also created it.

00:08:34
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know, so the quote unquote you know, return to minimalism and the architects. You know, I think there are architects who that that fits their style certainly. And and David and Iland we don't you know, to speak for Dave, but you know we don't we don't.

00:08:48
Speaker 4: We appreciate what they do. We enjoy what they do.

00:08:52
Speaker 2: You know, again, if we had a site that we could just scratch golf in, that we could find it as opposed to have to create it, we would love that.

00:08:58
Speaker 4: You know.

00:08:59
Speaker 2: We haven't necessarily been presented with a lot of opportunities along those lines. We've we've been given sites both our time with Tom Fazio and as Jackson con design.

00:09:08
Speaker 4: Where we've had to create the golf.

00:09:09
Speaker 2: You know, we've had to kind of create the environment to some extent and put the golf in it. And we were we were fortunate that we were taught how to do that and do it, you know, to I think, you know a degree and a level when it all goes back together that you know, you can't tell where we cut twenty feet or where we filled seventy feet because it all looks like it's been there. You know. One of the greatest compliments we ever got. Scott Steell National Ran morrisse Att, who's a great guy, said, you guys will never get the credit that you deserve because people will think this was one of the best sites for golf that you know, you've ever had the opportunity to design on. And so much of that golf course, so much of that property had to be created because it was so flat. It had been graded for lot pads prior to us being given in the land to build golf on. So you know, the owner had high expectations. We knew how to execute it, and he had the resources to make it happen, and he's very happy with the result.

00:10:01
Speaker 1: At Scottsdale National, you took an approach that Tom Fazio, whom you both worked for at times in your career, that Tom Fazio occasionally took to his sites, which is that he would create structures that were so big that people could hardly believe that they weren't real. And at Scottsdale National there was a little bit of that going on, as I understand it, where you had a site that wasn't giving you much, but you were able to move so much earth that the artificiality of the environment is not immediately obvious. David, does that resonate with you as a description of that project.

00:10:44
Speaker 3: Absolutely. It was pretty much the number one overarching goal of everything that we do. It had to fit into that believability and natural end result. So as much as people may knock us for moving a lot of dirt and being quote unquote maximums, we still have that same goal that the minimalists have and to make it feel natural. But when you're starting with lot pads or a parking lot, natural is not a great you know, it was already unnatural. So we had to bring that back and you know, there were eighty acres of that property that were void of anything, and the remaining of the remaining you know, one hundred two hundred acres was ravished by a fire in the mid nineties, so even the Sonoran desert was hurting. So, you know, early on we knew that ownership and us wanted this project to be essentially a Sonoran desert restoration project, but not simply by just planting the right plants, but by creating a terrain that made it feel like really something special and that it had always been there. So it takes a lot of effort and thought to craft something to that scale where the human eye can't perceive what you didn't didn't do, and it's tim set. I mean, it's it really is a great, a great compliment for us to to hear when people just honestly can't believe what we did there. You know, it was it was a really fun project, and uh, you know, it's just it's just a different it's just different.

00:12:22
Speaker 4: It's just different.

00:12:23
Speaker 3: But we are always after naturalistic end results in everything we do. We love natural golf, we love natural sites. We just you know, hopefully one day we'll get to work on a little bit more that are that we don't have to move the world to make it. But that's our stance is when you have to move the dirt, make sure you move it as nature would move it. And sometimes it's got to be big.

00:12:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, we should know too, you know, it's not it's not just us like we We get to work with great teams of people on these projects, especially these large scale projects like Scotstone National. Pinnacle Design, who is a golf course specific landscape architecture firm based out of Palm Desert, California, are just amazing at what they do in restoring landscapes, and they do it across a wide spectrum of environments. So they were absolutely a huge part of why Scottsdale National was successful.

00:13:09
Speaker 4: The shapers that we get to work with.

00:13:11
Speaker 2: Scott Hoffman, who's a good friend of ours, was a huge part of Scottsdale National, and there's done some really incredible stuff on his own now, you know, after Scottsdale, and so you know, that's part of the fun for us is that it's you know, we get to work with some really talented people who make it make it successful.

00:13:27
Speaker 1: Ultimately, Tim, I'm going to frame this question to you in maybe a slightly odd way, but I want to put Scottsdale National within a trio of courses that were built from a desert environment that wasn't offering much in terms of good golfing terrain. One example of that is Shadow Creek, of course, that you both are quite familiar with, I assume from your Fazzio days. Shadow Creek was an entirely constructed environment. If you look at what that site was before, it was basically a blank canvas, and mister Fasio built built something very different from that site than what was there initially. Another example might be talking stick Corn. Crenshaw had a similarly featureless environment, but instead of building something really big, they went sort of smaller in scale. They moved plenty of dirt out there, but they also used things like a boundary fence that was pre existing and they incorporated that into their holes. And when you go to that course, it feels like it kind of sits naturally in the Sonoran Desert. Even though there's more contour there than there was obviously initially, it still feels like it belongs to that Sonoran Desert environment in a way that the Shadow Creek doesn't shadow Creek is kind of like an oasis. It is completely separate from its environment. So between those two polls, or between those two approaches to to kind of a featureless site, where would you put Scottsdale National? How how does that project fit into that dichotomy that I that I just set up there.

00:15:13
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think spot scots still National and kind of splits the gap quite.

00:15:16
Speaker 1: Honestly, that's kind of what I thought.

00:15:18
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, I don't know, you know, I don't know how much dirt mister Kort, mister Crunshaw actually moved on the what was the North Course, as I recall.

00:15:27
Speaker 1: At Yes, yeah, the North it was initially called the North Course.

00:15:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, so if you look at the peripheries of the golf holes, and you look at the tie in points right there, there's not a lot of up or down when you get to the edges, and and that kind of can be an indicator unless it was all revegetated, and you know how much dirt was or wasn't moved. And I played it, and I've enjoyed it, and I think it's a very interesting golf course, and and and I think it's great. You know, Shadow Creek is Las Vegas, and Steve Winn is Las Vegas, and you know, I think that directed a lot of what Shadow Creek became. And Tom actually gives design credit to Steve win. It's a Tom Fazzio and Steve wind Is. You know, the stories that came out of the development and construction of Shadow Creek, both public and private, being within the within the firm, are legendary. I mean, it really was groundbreaking. And you know, Tom never gave Steve a design fee when they started the project because Tom didn't know if he could execute truly what Steve Winn wanted. You know, they built the first four holes and then they used a hydro sater with different color mulch and they basically painted out fairways, roughs, creeks, greens, and then they put all the trees that were supposed to be on the plan in their boxes out on the golf holes and mister winsid I loved it. Just quadrupled the number of trees, right, and and so you know, when when they built it, and as successful as it was, I think a light bulb went off in Tom's head, where if you have an owner who has the resources and the desires, there's really not a bad site for golf. It just takes time and money. And I know that sounds trite, and I know a lot of people would push back on that and say, well, les's not what golf should be.

00:17:02
Speaker 4: You know. It's when we David and I.

00:17:04
Speaker 2: One of the first projects that we did was a was our only restoration project to date, and it was sunny Lands in Ranch Mirage, California, which Dick Wilson in nineteen sixty five designed a state course for Walter Annenberg.

00:17:18
Speaker 1: Yeah, interesting course, really interesting course in that area which has a lot of architecture that might be a little bit forgettable. But sonny Lands is pretty interesting.

00:17:26
Speaker 2: Okay, it's a fascinating property. I mean it's you know, the property may be more fascinating than the golf. But we were very faithful to try to do what the client wanted and restore Dick Wilson's design In one of the golf course architect critics, well known came out to walk with us and it was interesting. All he didn't really want to talk about sonny Lands, and he had put a list together of the top you know, call it ten twenty nine hole courses in America and had sunny Lands rated very highly and never stepped foot on property and admitted he had never stepped foot on property. And as he was walking, he's like, a maybe I got this rated a little bit higher than I should have. But all he wanted to talk about was how he had influenced Tom Fazio and how he designed golf right. And you know, did Tom read this article? Did Tom read that article? And we really burst his bubble to say that Tom didn't give a rip what you thought.

00:18:16
Speaker 4: He really didn't.

00:18:16
Speaker 2: All he cared about was the clients and if the client was happy at the end of the day, you know. And this kind of ties back into to Shadow Creek.

00:18:23
Speaker 4: Tom.

00:18:23
Speaker 2: Tom knew that Steve Whin wanted something completely over the top. He wanted something essentially that hadn't been done, you know, to that to that extent, I think to date when they built Shadow Creek, and a lot of people like to tear Shadow Creek down and say it's more of an engineering feet than it is really a great golf course. I've never stepped foot off a Shadow Creek after playing golf and been disappointed. And you know, David and ourfortunately we get to play a lot of great golf courses. You know, it's vastly different. Are there some things out there that we look at or like from a detail standpoint, you know that might be a little dated today, this that or the other. Sure, but you know, but to round back into your initial question, I saw a long way again there. You know, Scottsdale National, the impetus of it, as far as the earth moving comes from Shadow Creek. The environment that went back in comes from the Sonoran Desert more similar to talking Stick. So I do think it splits the gap, and I think it's kind of the mesh between those two different styles, you know, but applied specific to Scottsdale National. What mister Parsons desires were.

00:19:21
Speaker 1: That's really interesting. It's you sort of use the Shadow Creek method of earth moving, but then tied it back in, which takes a lot of a lot of effort and art and trying to make something that is massively artificial to seem like it like it flows back into into the landscape. This episode is brought to you by Club Champion. We're very excited to partner with Club Champion again in twenty twenty five, and if you're looking to improve your game this year, Champion has a lot for you. First of all, first and foremost, they have the most highly trained fitters in the world. They attend an in house university and they receive continued education from manufacturers to stay up to date on all the latest innovations in the world of golf equipment. These are career fitters who fit all day, every day. They have no distractions from accessories or lessons or anything else. They're just there to fit you to golf clubs. Every Club Champion store has sixty five brands, which equates to nearly seventy thousand different head and shaft combinations. This means that you'll be able to find equipment for every type of golfer and every type of swing. It doesn't matter if you're tall, short, if you have a fast swing, if you have a slow swing, if you're a junior, a senior, a beginner, or a pro. You will be able to find equipment at Club Champion that will bring the best out of your game. And that's what the fitters are there to do for you. You know, one of the biggest advancements in recent golf has been in fitting clubs. It hasn't necessarily been all technology. The fitting processes have gotten so much better, and I think amateurs can really benefit from that. Professionals are certainly going to that well every single day that they are professional golfers, but I think amateurs could generally take better advantage of it. So Club Champion is offering a great deal for designing golf listeners. You can get a free driver or iron fitting with a club purchase using the code fried Egg. That's one word fried Egg at Club champion dot com slash Frida Egg. All right, let's get back to the episode. So David, I want to get into some nitty gritty here shaping a bunker. I think that somebody who's really devoted to minimalism might say that the goal of shaping a bunker is to make it seem like it was pre existing in the site, or like it ties in to the surrounding landscape. When you shape a bunker, when you look at the the you know, finish work that you do on a bunker edge, or you know, whatever else goes into creating the esthetics of a bunker. Is your main intention to blend it in with the surrounding terrain or is there something else that also influences you in creating that final product.

00:22:36
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think there's more to it than just that, but absolutely that is one of the main goals is to make it sure, like, make it feel like it fits in and feels, you know, whatever we deem as natural to that site. You know. What we try hard not to do is just have a bunker that's just artificially popped up and ties down real quick and doesn't really relate to anything. So we always talk to the shapers about lines and flow and and it's super important and that goes from everything we're shaping bunkers included, especially like green side bunkers. If there's an eyebrow on it, making sure that eyebrow carries through into some feature on the green so it's bigger and and not just you know, just next to the green for next to the green sake. So obviously the math of where those bunkers go is is the first step, making sure it's it's where we want it, affecting the golfer the way we want it to. But after that, it is absolutely talking about how do we make this thing feel like it's always been here and it fits, you know, and it's it's It's not easy at times, sometimes it's it, it just falls into place, you know, a lot, a lot more clearly than others. But you know, there's also a challenge with multiple shapers on a project too, making sure that those those products are are coming out cohesively. And it feels like they all, you know, we're built by the same hands. A lot of times they're not, so that that's on us to make sure that, you know that those final products all kind of jive together. And yeah, so honestly everything we shape is with that naturalistic flow in mind.

00:24:12
Speaker 1: I've noticed this that the bunkering at your courses strikes me as being esthetically at least more similar to what Corn Crenshaw or Tom Doak might produce than what Tom Fazio was doing in the eighties and nineties, or what Jack Nicholas was doing in that same period, or what Tom Weiskoff was doing. There seemed to be some influences of the current trends in architecture on the way that your bunkers appear. Is that something tim that you've thought about consciously or is the process more organic than that, You're not necessarily thinking about stylistic influences.

00:24:56
Speaker 2: No, the process, I mean I hope it's more organic for us. You know, it's it's interesting people you know, define characteristics of designers and certainly bunkers can be part of that. And when we were with Tom, you know, Tom, Tom's a great guy. He gave us so much freedom once there was faith that we could execute a project and execute the goals of the project, and he allowed us to express what we saw from a design perspective. So you know, I know, you know, not to keep kind of coming back to Tom, but that's where we came from. If you look at the breath of Fassio courses and you look at them stylistically, I think they have the greatest amount of differentiation from any big name designer because he allowed the guys in the field the opportunity to do that. Conversely, you know there's architects who it's my way or the highway, big name guys that had a lot of projects going on and you know, thou shalt not deviate from the plan, right, And so you know, we we we like designing a lot of different bunker styles now and we've done you know, in in some of our current work, you know, the we've inherited some some Fazzio projects that we're now the consulting architects on and you know, the desert course at the Vintage Club in Indian Wells, California is diametrically opposed from a bunker style standpoint to Core Crenshaw and maybe some of the stuff that we're doing today and that was set before we got there. But you know, we have just as much fun taking the the that style of bunker and trying to either improve upon what's there or make it just as aesthetic as the type of bunkers that we have on other projects. You know, the bunkers when you stand on a tee, the bunkers are the contrasts that you see within that landscape many times or the most contrasts that you see. So the shape in the form that they take is very important. You know, your eye picks up every line. Dave's talking about lines. Your eye picks up every line when you're standing on the tee, whether you realize it or not. So we spend a lot of time on the bunkers, you know, regardless of what style we're trying to implement, and making sure that the flow oh is there that you know, strategically obviously we do the math, and that's that's super important. But you know, every golfer can appreciate beauty, not every golfer can appreciate strategy, and it's important to have both the form and the function. But yeah, you know, we spend a lot of time on bunker detail. Maybe too much time on bunker detail, I'm not sure, but it can add so much. You know, there's courses that are defined by the look and the style of their bunkering, and again, I think a big part of why that is is because of that contrast the shape and the movement. Get the math right from a strategy standpoint, but also make it as beautiful as it can be.

00:27:36
Speaker 1: There's something really interesting here that I'm not maybe I don't really have the vocabulary for, but I think there's something beyond just blending into the surrounding terrain and making it look natural that can make bunkers esthetically compelling. I'm thinking of Mike Strantz's bunkers. I'm thinking of Pete Dies bunkers. Sometimes those features not just bunkers, but also contours and green shapes and all sorts of golf features that those architects produced. They don't necessarily look natural, but they look cool. And that's and that's kind of the and that's that's such a sort of basic term, Oh wow, it looks cool. It's almost meaningless, it's not really that specific. But there's something about the work that those architects did that that goes beyond just feeling like it was already there. There's something kind of painterly about Mike Strants's bunkers, and there's there's something provocative and beyond naturalism about a lot of the stuff that Pete Died did in the field. And as you mentioned, Tim, you know, Mike Strands worked for Tom Fazio and the courses that he worked on have a kind of distinct flavor, just as the courses that you two worked on in Fasio's portfolio also have have something of your flavor in them, which which is really interesting to see. But David, when you think of Mike Strands's approach to building artificial features and Pete Dye's approach, is there is there something there that that goes just beyond we're trying to make it look like it's always been there, you know, beyond just blending it into the landscape that you aspire towards in your own work.

00:29:26
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, and I know, you know, we try to push each other all the time on every project and sometimes it doesn't come to fruition based on you know, whatever the specifics of that project are, but we're always kind of looking for, you know, new ways to do things and new ways to not really shock people but catch their eye. Right, Like you said, going back here, it's cool comment. You know, I remember vividly numerous times at Auburn during landscape architecture program that the professors would say, essentially, don't ever do something because it's cool. That's not a reason. And now you know, fast forward twenty five years, Like I very much disagree. I think, you know, if you get all the other things right that lead up to that, doing it because it looks cool in our world at least is a damn good reason. Because at the end of the day, I mean, most everybody experience golf visually, right, and if you can stand on a tee and just be blown away by what you're looking at, to your point, whether it's artificial or real or you know, natural looking, it shouldn't matter. And I don't think it does matter, and especially you know, whatever weight you want to hold into the rankings. You know, I don't know this off the top of my head, but there's a lot of manufactured golf courses that are highly ranked and highly loved. You know, if Pete de fell into the naturalistic minimalist category, would never know Pete Die and same with Strants, And they're two of the best golf course architect artists to ever live, for sure, So I I admire them slightly more than you know, the others that that take the minimalistic approach, even though I absolutely love playing their courses. I mean, a lot of Core Crenshaw courses are my favorite I've ever played, so you know, nothing but respect. But in terms of kind of setting yourself apart as an artist, setting a client apart from what they possess by creating something that is just, you know, unmistakably only there is something really important I think to strive from, for for for all parties involved in a project. And I agree, I think that you know, while we love that natural look, it is absolutely okay to go bold and do something strikingly, strikingly not not natural, assuming it's still you know, it still has to fit right, it still has to feel right, and I can be executed in unlimited amount of ways honestly with with you know, the right creative brains.

00:32:06
Speaker 1: Well, picking up on that latter point, when you build something tim that is overtly artificial or that's not necessarily trying to blend or tie in in a in a low profile way, how do you avoid making it look cheesy or maybe more to the point, how do you communicate to your shapers how to make something look cool as opposed to silly.

00:32:34
Speaker 4: Great question, I'm not sure we have the answer, you.

00:32:38
Speaker 1: Know, it's got to just be I mean, yeah, I don't know if there is an answer to this question, but it's something I've thought about all the time because there there is a difference between Pete Dye and Mike Strant's artificiality and the artificiality that lesser architects achieved. Yeah, but there's something about their artistry that's that is cool and but that's hard to define, isn't it.

00:33:02
Speaker 4: I maybe not so.

00:33:04
Speaker 2: I we tend to fall into the strands category of trying I think more than the die category stylistically, when we do something bold as far as how we then try to, you know, somewhat naturalize what we've done.

00:33:15
Speaker 4: You know, Pete Die, I was.

00:33:17
Speaker 2: I went to Purdue and just cheer, dumb luck and timing got to be a part of the construction career on the camping course when I was there and Pete Die was building straits at the.

00:33:24
Speaker 4: Same time, and I didn't know that.

00:33:26
Speaker 2: Yeah, it got to you know, be out there in the field when And I don't think people really appreciate every Die design as Pete analysis, not just not just Pete, you know, and Pete is Pete is to me one of the best designers in use of angles that that in his courses, you know, strategically really force you to make decisions. And I think, you know, there's so and he never drew a plan. I mean, it all just came out of his head standing out there in the field, you know, and we would you know, work on golf holes, you know, six seven, eight, nine times, you know, reshaping, reworking, doing whatever. But the end result was worth it, you know. I had the good fortune recently to play you know, PJA West Stadium course and in nineteen eighty five, eighty six, I think when he did that in laking To California. It's there's so many things out there that are just still so astounding. I mean to stand on sixteen Fairway and look at San Andreas and no Pete was standing somewhere close to there and just said, you know what, I got an idea, you know, let's let's do this. He and Strance, I think both had no fear. And I think that's the commonality between the two is that they were not afraid to do very big, bold things. How they applied their art was completely different. And you know, i'd like to think that, you know, David and I are not afraid, but our art definitely follows more of the Mike Strands lineage and the Pete Ie lineage.

00:34:47
Speaker 3: And I think you mentioned something about when Pete was was working on the course and he reshaped a whole, you know, eight or nine times. I think that's part of the two. Not as an artist, your eye knows when it's right. You may not be able to express why, but you just know, like the lines aren't working, the scales not work, and the perspective isn't working. It is something is not right, and so you just you know well enough to either start over or move things around, or try this or try that. And I think that's you know, that coupled with the artistic eye, get you somewhere. Whether you're trying something bold or trying to fit it in natural, it's the same technique. So not being scared to try something and not being scared to erase it and try again, you know, it's got still national. We struggled the hardest on number seventeen Green. Other course, what we built was nothing what we had on paper, and it actually came it evolved from a big earthwork in balance that came late in the game. The earth or contractor came to us to say, we had one hundred thousand extra yards that you know from rock expansion as they were digging, and there was nowhere on plan to put it. And and so we found a place that happened to be behind one green and left of seventeen Green, just spatially, and you know, through a lot of trial and error, it ended up making both of those holds better. But we completely rebuilt the seventeenth Green complex five different times, five different concepts, until that final one was like this, this just feels right. And we had arguments, you know, of version one, two, three, and four as they were as they were shaped in the dirt and just one of us or two of us or three of us, you know, would either agree or disagree, and it's like, all right, if we're not all in consensus, then we got to rebuild, we got to do it again. So you know, that's that's a that's a huge part is knowing knowing when to stop and knowing when you need to keep pushing forward to find to find what's right.

00:36:56
Speaker 1: Yeah, that that does seem to be the difference than the handmade quality of really good looking golf features. It's hard to do that without having the architect to be heavily involved and without these revisions occurring. And you know, when people talk about why Pete Die's courses still look good they don't look dated, I think it's partly because they do still feel handmade and there's a specificity of vision there that is tough to produce if you're just having shapers come in or contractors come in and build something and you don't then go back and revise it. And so that extra personal touch seems to be really important, even if it's hard to define the point at which something begins to begins to look cool or to feel right. Feel right is the is the phrase that I that I hear you using quite a bit, Tim. I wonder, you know, when you look at Mike Strantz's courses and just for contacts for people who maybe don't know much about Mike Strants, Tobacco Road as a popular Mike Strants course. There are a lot of Mike Strands courses in North and South Carolina that remain very popular today. And unfortunately he died when he was too young and didn't end up perhaps having the massive influence on golf architecture. His influence is still very large, but you just wonder how much more could have been done if he had lived to a ripe old age. When you look at Mike Strantz's worked him, what inspires you about his stylistic approach or his his aesthetic approach.

00:38:43
Speaker 2: You know, specifically his ability to create beautiful looking golf holes and spaces and kind of in different ways to my first experience with Mike Strants. You know, David and I had the amazing good fortune to redesign the Dunes course at Mounty Peninsula Country Club. Yes, and you know when in the whole way that came about was extraordinarily organic. Just shere dumb luck and timing. But when we first experienced the Dunes course, which was I think a nineteen ninety five nineteen ninety six Reech Jones design for the club. We played the Dune's course and David and I walked or were driving back to the clubhouse and you passed the first tee on the short course, which Mike Strants had done I think in two thousand and three, and we was like full stop. Just we were just sitting there staring at the first hole and just the lines that he created, the movement that he created, the way the fair way moved with the bunkering, and the bunkering nestled into the spaces.

00:39:43
Speaker 4: It was, it's just it's gorgeous. It is. It is truly gorgeous.

00:39:46
Speaker 2: And and you know, so when we were, you know, again given the opportunity on the Dunes course, you know, they said they wanted something as good or better than the short course, and we were like, we don't know if we can do that, because it's it is so very very very good. And and and so you know, the restraint that that Mike utilized on the shore course and still created a tremendous amount of beauty you can't. You can't move a lot of dirt on the minor rapidan, soa one, it's there's a lot of rock. So it gets expensive into you know, coastal California. The agencies get very very nervous when they see, you know, anything that we would consider a small earthwork number kind of coming in front of him. And and so looking at what he did in in the Carolinas, and I've been fortunate to play a couple of his courses to Backer Road included the scale that he created, the movement that he created. There's no way that he could have done that at NPCC on the shore course. Yet he created just as beautiful and just as interesting a golf course, but enough in a in a far different fashion. And I think that's just true recognition of how amazing an artist that he was. He was an artist who happened to be a golf course architect, and and you know, he was able to apply his art in many different ways and still create tremendous amount of beauty and interesting golf.

00:41:03
Speaker 1: So I want to end with a topic that maybe is a little bit tired at this point, but maybe we can go somewhere new with it and that is the question of what's next in golf architecture. Often the kind of cliche answer to that right now would be that what's next is something after minimalism. People say, minimalism has been the primary trend in golf architecture for the past thirty years, and so clearly what must be next is some form of maximalism or some form of pushback against minimalism. So, David, when you think of the future of golf architecture, what do you think of. Is it something along these lines, absorbing different influences from the past to go in a different direction from minimalism or is that not a useful frame of reference for you?

00:41:55
Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean I think that eras of any art or architecture or fashion. You know, after a certain point, it just gets redundant, and people quite honestly just not get sick of it, but they're tired of it, like, all right, we get that that's great, but kind of need something fresh. It's hard to really obviously predict where that's going to go. I hope it goes down the road of just more variety of stuff and not and not. This is probably ignorant to say, because it probably won't happen, but I would hope that another trend doesn't just get started and we just hashed that out for the next two decades and now we're in the same boat, right. But history it probably going to prevail and that will happen. But you know, I think more more non traditional golf is definitely a wave that will be ridden for quite a while. And by that I mean any anything that's not a you know, quote unquote part seventy two to seventy two hundred yard championship course stylistically, that could be anything. But I think I think more non traditional golf properties are really cool, faster, shorter experiences or definitely a trend just with all of our attention spans and.

00:43:13
Speaker 1: And other.

00:43:15
Speaker 3: You know, just our time in life is getting chopped up more than it used to be decades ago. I think the artificial aspect, artificial turf aspect of golf could be somewhat of a trend in a way with with you know, given to the right teams of people, I think could be executed into some really really cool projects, one of which we're about to hopefully open up later this year. You know, it's I just I just hope that we as an industry maximize the variety of products that are being put out there, because too much of the same, even if it's a good thing, is just not It's not great for users. At the end of the day. We have a lot of golf out there, a lot of golf, and I think that's some of the knock that I personally put on the minimalistic approach, which I love. Like I said earlier, I absolutely love it. But it's like, Okay, we get that, we know that is great, we have enough of it. Let's let's try something else. Let's try to find that next thing that other people want to emulate, and then try to find something else. So, you know, I'm excited about the future. I'm excited about, you know, our future projects, and I'm excited to see what other architects do because I think the more the more varied stuff that comes out and has proven to be successful, I think owners out there will have more or will feel less risk in doing something that kind of bucks the trend. And I think that's kind of where where you know, the tipping points at right now, it seems like owners are getting a little bit more open to trying something different that may may not quote unquote kind of fit the mold.

00:44:59
Speaker 4: Tim anything to add to you know, I think that there are.

00:45:04
Speaker 2: Many different types and styles of golf course architecture that are ongoing even when a certain type of golf maybe predominates, and a lot of it is driven by what the media chooses to focus on and say, you know, and there's so many more options and outlets for golf media now than there ever have been.

00:45:21
Speaker 4: Right, but if if the media.

00:45:24
Speaker 2: You know, in certain aspects of the golf media, say hey, this is how golf should be designed, this is what we're going to focus on, that's what people perceive to be you know, that that trend or that style or that movement in golf. And I think there's always guys who are, you know, either working against that trend or doing something different, but they may not get the you know, the recognition or the you know, highlight of their work other than what the you know, the media gain.

00:45:46
Speaker 4: Chooses to focus on.

00:45:47
Speaker 2: And I think part of it comes down to that, you know, there's certain perceptions that you're more golf savvy if you believe minimalism is how golf should be designed versus any other way and you know, guys sitting around and trying to discern, you know, which template greenness is. Is it a you know, is it a double plateau? But you know which, what's the angle? And no, it's more of a burritz and and so there's and those are you know, great conversations, and people are interested in that. I don't I don't certainly take away from them wanting to have those conversations. But like Dave said, I just hope that, you know, you know, the variety in golf continues. The bigger the tent is, the more variety there will be and hopefully the more enjoyment for the end user. If we all had to play the same golf course day in and out, day in and out, time and time again, we get pretty sick of it, regardless of how good it is, I think ultimately, so I think that that's important.

00:46:33
Speaker 1: All right, Well, Tim and David, thank you so much for coming on the podcast. Really interesting discussion and hope to have you guys back on at some point in the future.

00:46:41
Speaker 4: Thank you, Grett.

00:46:42
Speaker 3: We'd love to Thanks Garrett.

00:46:49
Speaker 1: This episode of Designing Golf was produced by PJ Clark. Thank you PJ. Speaking of PJ, he's going to be back on designing golf pretty soon. We're going to do a golf golf Architecture one oh one episode coming up here, so it'll be good to have Pja back on talking about some one oh one concepts in golf course design. Something new that you should keep an eye on from Friday Golf is that we have a new website, the Frida Egg dot com. We relaunched our website about a week and a half ago and we're really proud of it. It looks great and I think that you can explore our content at a more robust level now, especially the golf architecture section of our website is much more navigable, So go check that out the Frida Egg dot com if you haven't already, And to get the most out of our website, you should join Friday Golf Club. Yes, we did rename it from CLUBTFE to fridagg Golf Club. We thought that would make a little bit more sense, and we use the relaunch of the website as an opportunity to do that. But Friday Golf Club is one hundred and twenty dollars a year and you get a lot with it, especially the wonderful community that we're building within that website as well as at events that we're holding and everything like that. I think that's the best part of it. You just get to meet people who are avid golfers, who are really into the game, into the architecture, into the competitive golf side. So that's a lot of fun. Check out Friday Golf Club. All right, thank you for listening, and we'll be back again soon with another episode.