ONE OF OUR FAVORITE aspects of golf – and the characteristic that in our opinion grants the game its unique allure – is the fact that the game is played upon a “field” with no rigid dimensions. The individuality and variability that result are further enhanced by fluctuations in weather and conditioning, to the point where a course experience can be dramatically altered from day to day, from moment to moment really.
This lack of rigid dimensions enables an understanding of and appreciation for the history of courses and their design. Architects of the early Scottish links period, and their American protegés from the early 20th Century, had great respect for both the game and the natural landforms around and over which they plied their trade.
As a result, we believe a majority of these vintage courses exhibited remarkably unique individual character — even where talented, more modern figures like Macdonald, Morris, Raynor, Colt, Ross and others riffed on classic hole “templates” first devised by these forebears.
Robert Hunter, a design Associate of Alister Mackenzie, who is best known for his classic design treatise, The Links, underlined the  importance of this variety: “These early layouts were characterized by ample fairways, entirely strategic as well as random bunkers that nestled comfortably into their surroundings and the spirited use of angles in design. The game was more frequently played ‘on the ground,’ as evidenced in 1895 by The Journal of St Andrews: “Read the terrain, particularly in front of the green. Let the ground by your ally. Be clever, use your imagination.
Donald Ross took such direction — if not course design — one step further: He wrote: “The golf holes on the best links have sufficient different ways of playing them and because they do not present just one and only one way to everybody, the interest in the game increases with the diversity of its problems.”
This forms the core of our firm’s design philosophy in the 21^st century, whether we’re creating original course architecture or transforming an existing course via renovation.
•••
WE ALSO BELIEVE IT’S CRITICAL to recognize why the American courses need transformation — and why original design inspired by the Golden Age remains so distinctive. Nearly a century ago, the Great Depression initiated a deterioration of these landmark courses, especially those in the United States. Folks may not realize that The PGA of America enlisted design great A.W. Tillinghast to help remove more than 7,000 “un-necessary” bunkers nationwide. (No wonder he was known as “The Terror.”) This “simplification” effort championed the removal of bunkers that punished those who, they reasoned, already had sufficient problems. Of course, this work did not consider the impact these hazards wielded on course strategy, texture and “feel”.
Sadly, many existing mid-century courses took their lead from Tillie and the PGA. The post-WWII course development boom furthered the deterioration of vintage architecture. Golf, like so many design pursuits, sought something “new and improved.” The resulting designs proved more standardized in form and function. These standards were applied to, among other things, hole lengths, course par, playing surface sizes, and the placement of bunkers. The emasculation of classic layouts continued as course features were “dumbed down” to the lowest common denominator – the worst player in a club – robbing layouts of their greatest charms. Amazingly, the race was fully on to make a storied course look just like the new XYZ Country Club (insert here a course designed by “contemporary” architect) that just opened up across town.
Early architects had cautioned us against such standardization. In Wethered and Simpson’s The Architectural Side of Golf, the authors suggest: “It must be kept in mind that the elusive charm of the game suffers as soon as any successful method of standardization is allowed to creep in.”
Charles Alison, accomplished architect and co-author with H.S. Colt of Some Essays on Golf Architecture, furthered this warning against  standardization in 1920: “In planning a course, there are no fixed rules to which it is compulsory to conform, and the variety that results is one of the greatest charms of the game.”
•••
AS A FIRM, TODAY, our original designs and much of our course renovation work pay homage to this earlier era of course design. We firmly believe there is not a single design style or motif that should be “cookie cut” into each course. The end result is nothing that should be mundanely repeated from project to project. The goal is a finished course with a look and “feel” that is unique to each site and each client’s requirements. Each layout should be fashioned to highlight vintage design strategies that, for more than 400 years, have made the game so enticing. Our courses stress fun and interest in the play of individual golf holes.
This is best accomplished by taking on a select number of projects per year and visiting each active project at least once per week during construction, working closely with the Owner, Contractor and Consultants to create the best possible layout the situation allows. The necessary man-made golf features are combined with the natural environment to form a seamlessly blended whole.
We believe that liberal fairway acreage, combined with both strategic and random bunkering, creates angles that allow golf holes to fulfill the old chestnut of being “challenging for the accomplished, manageable for the average – and most important – fun for all.”
We believe that esthetic appeal and environmental sensitivity work together to the advantage of all the key course characteristics that matter. For example, sound design provides alternative routes for the less accomplished without entirely robbing a course of its character. We can all work our way through a thoughtful design in a manner that allows us to play our best game. In fact, it is just this type of strategic design that inspires our best play.
We believe that Robert Hunter’s description of good strategic design still holds: “A golf hole should present some problem in vivid form, and even though that problem may be solved in two or three ways, it should be quite clear from the beginning that a choice must be made.”
We believe this game is best played thinking one shot ahead. Players are more capable of this “method” than they know — it’s just that they are rarely called upon to play a thoughtful round of golf on a well-designed course.
Following completion of a recent renovation directed by our firm, the club put out a members letter that made suggestions for play on each golf hole. One such tip cited the wise Journal of St Andrews counsel — about using the ground.
Here’s a letter we received in response: “A good friend of mine who is not a very good golfer came up to me at the club and said, How can I be clever and imaginative? I’m just trying to get the ball airborne! Well, I saw him several weeks ago and he said, You are not going to believe this. I am now clever and imaginative. I’ve been trying that stuff you wrote about and every once in a while I pull off something wonderful. I love the way I can use the ground on this course. I’m having more fun than I’ve ever had on a golf course.”
We believe that playing strategic, historically informed course designs requires thought. When players get used to a layout that is no longer run of the mill – one that actually requires thought – they greatly surprise themselves! When they start to work their way around the golf course, you know what? They play better.