Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Dan Herrmann on August 10, 2010, 02:17:52 PM
-
Brian Slawnik of Renaissance Golf Design has a great quote on what he thinks is the most underrated part of golf course design:
-----------------
"The character actors. Greens and bunkers get all the attention and rightly so since they are the stars of the movie. But they don't shine as brightly if the rest of the work is indifferent. Tees, fairway contours, rough tie-ins and the general no- man's-land areas are just as important to the overall success of a design, intuitively affecting the players' experience. The best of this type of work is unnoticeable... because it just fits.
Our work tends to have a 'found' look, as though we just planted grass and nothing more. In fact, when we do our best work, it doesn't look like we worked very hard at all. I get great satisfaction from the anonymous work that covers the tracks."
-----------------
I really like where Brian is coming from here.
What do you feel are the most underrated parts of golf course design?
(PS - you can see more about Brian here: http://www.renaissancegolf.com/associates/brian_slawnik/)
-
Drainage.
Poorly done it can and will ruin the most beautiful design...
-
Philip is spot on - drainage. At 100% of our projects (all restoration/renovation work), drainage issues are always prevalent and must be addressed as they dramatically impact the rest of the "architecture".
-
Tee Shot Landing Areas.
-
Does routing not count in the equation in this respect? Because, I think, to most people, especially guys sprinting around in carts, that routing is not an obvious feature. Certainly guys like us notice the routing, but most people don't. They do notice the greens and such, but I think the vast majority of golfers fail to notice the routing, and as I said before, especially if they are riding carts. I noticed that Cahoon Plantation had some fairly large distances between green and tee and the routing was basically a double figure-eight. Sad thing is, this trend may not get any better. The 'cheapest' sites are likely to be on the worst ground, meaning the routing itself becomes less important because the designer can just run the holes in good spots and run cart paths for whatever inordinate distances might come up between holes. Not a great situation, but one that seems to happen more and more (forgot housing developments with huge distances between holes as well)
-
I think the owner's intentions and amount of leeway he gives the architect has to be HUGE!
-
The ordinary Golfer. The guys at the end of the money food chain who pay for all the courses, the Pros and the Tour Circus including keeping the equipment manufacturers in business.
The vast majority of golfers starting and finishing with Mr & Mrs Average Golfer.
Melvyn
-
Getting a good to great golf course to surface drain has to be one of the hardest and most obscure elements. So drainage and bunker placement (not bunker aesthetic) would be my answer.
Also, how much of and what is between the green and next tee.
-
Drainage is almost too obvious to be under rated.
I have always thought it was the fw approach areas to greens. With the advent of bulldozers and the aerial game, these areas got smoothed out and generally fell out of the main though process of many gca's for too many years.
-
Drainage is almost too obvious to be under rated.
I have always thought it was the fw approach areas to greens. With the advent of bulldozers and the aerial game, these areas got smoothed out and generally fell out of the main though process of many gca's for too many years.
Jeff,
Knowing how playable Wildhorse was even 20 minutes after a monsoon, yes, drainage is your thing. You're in the biz, so to the laymen and neophytes, drainage is more mystery to us than Mona Lisa's smile.
-
I would agree with John K. Moore -- everything else, esp. really important stuff like drainage, seems to flow from routing, in my view. Routing to me remains a mystery, and one of the hardest things for a non-architect like me to understand how it's done, and how it could be done better (or worse, in some cases...).
-
I really like the answers so far... I think catch basin design is what can make all the difference. But my real #1 answer would be labor quality.
The guys who push shovels, trim sod, rake out top soil, glue irrigation and all the other little things are what really make golf courses come together. In many cases, these guys could probably build an entire golf course by themselves without ever picking up a golf club, but in the world we live in, they do all the hard work and get none of the credit.
-
Perhaps the most underrated part of golf course design is actually landing a job and getting a signed contract. Just a guess, but that is generally the hardest part of any business.
-
Mac,
Specifically, getting the second signed contract has been a hindrance to many fine gca. Getting paid on a contract is sort of under rated by many, too.
-
Fairway contours!
On a recent tour of Somerset in Minneapolis/St. Paul the fairway contouring stood out as an aspect that those who chose to disfigure Mr. Raynor's work thankfully over looked. Not only were there the usual macro contours but even loads of micros.
-
Playability....it has to be fun to play.
Anthony
-
longevity....how many courses will make it as designed for more than 15 years?
-
I think it's the routing. If the routing is really good, most of the other stuff that's been mentioned will take care of itself. You'll avoid problem drainage issues. You'll avoid natural hazards that make it hard for the average player to finish every hole. The tee shot landing areas will fall in spots which have good micro-contours ... and so forth.
A really good routing sometimes even makes contract issues go away. The only thing it doesn't address is collecting on your fee.
-
Playability....it has to be fun to play.
Anthony
i agree totally. the most underated part for me is a establishing a layout that tests and is accessible to a broad scope of handicaps.
played at the highly rated Magenta shores on NSW central coast, and whilst a stunning layout thought it was definetly a course set up for a more established golfer (under 10 handicapper). landing zones were extremely unforgiving. at times felt defeated before i had hit my shot off the tee....
-
I think it's the routing. If the routing is really good, most of the other stuff that's been mentioned will take care of itself. You'll avoid problem drainage issues. You'll avoid natural hazards that make it hard for the average player to finish every hole. The tee shot landing areas will fall in spots which have good micro-contours ... and so forth.
A really good routing sometimes even makes contract issues go away. The only thing it doesn't address is collecting on your fee.
I agree with Tom in a way. I think folks instinctively know how important the routing is, but they don't have much of a clue on how a routing comes together. This isn't surprising though because to know this one must experience it.
On a more practical side and one which really isn't that important, BUT really bugs me, the transitions from from golf course or fairway to the edges of the property or rough. I don't think most people give this much thought, but this is an area I see archies consistently failing to address properly. Its a detail issue, but to me, when the details are all added up it could be the difference between greatness and good. I think heathland courses are so loved because they almost naturally have the transitions already in place. All it takes is for the carers to keep the heather heathy and accept that for bunkers to work on these courses, they need to tie in with the heather somehow. There is such a stark difference when the bunkering is left starnded from heather on heathland courses as to when they are properly tied in.
Ciao
-
Tom
My own opinion is that the routing is by far the most important part of the design. It is the course, it is the design, it for goodness sake defines who designed the course in the first place.
I would not IMHO call it underrated part of the design process.
As for contracts, sorry who start working on design before the contract are signed, so can that point be considered in this post?
Does the current design concepts split down into the type of games the course is required to host i.e. private club; for Tours or general public etc. My feeling is that courses today are constructed with the Pros in mind not the general golfing population.
Also regards the design does the existing land have any influence in the final design. Not having a moan about the Castle Course at St Andrews but that’s a classic example of the original land being totally terraformed leaving no resemblance of what was there in the first place. The pre ‘flat pack design’ or ‘have design will travel’ sort of design that can be plonked down on any land anywhere in the world.
Melvyn
-
Mac,
Specifically, getting the second signed contract has been a hindrance to many fine gca. Getting paid on a contract is sort of under rated by many, too.
....and the 3rd, and the 4th and 5th....
-
As for contracts, sorry who start working on design before the contract are signed, so can that point be considered in this post?
Melvyn
Oh, you would be surprised at how often we need to start the design pre-contract, just to get the contract. So maybe, its being able to paint a purty picture either on CAD, with markers, or with silver tongued words....
Brian,
Good to see you here!
-
Brian
I take your point that some preliminary work may need to be started to obtain the commission/contract but to proceed further without an instruction is just bad business practice and leaves ALL out on a limb.
I understand where you are coming from as I have had as Clients many Blue Chip Companies. They expect the earth on a nod, but refuse to release payment on a nod requiring all correct paperwork to be in place first. Yet on many sites we are not allowed access unless all insurance have been inspected. Some may say what damage can a designer do to an open fields, well just look to the Castle Course at St Andrews for the answer to that. ;)
The real question being, do you need the contract then of course you bend with the wind, but there are times that youmust standing as a designer, as your Company and employees are more important that a single contract no matter how lucrative it may initially appear. Reputations take years to build but can be lost overnight, get the paperwork signed before you realise you are in bed with the Devil
Melvyn
-
Here's RGD's Eric Iverson's answer to the question:
"Most golfers, even those keenly interested in architecture, don't fully understand the 'mental labor' we put into the final product. From Tom's first thoughts on a new site down to the intern grinding on the final edge of a bunker, the constant scrutiny we apply to our designs and each other sets our work apart. Right up until the seed hits the ground we never stop searching for something to add, or sometimes subtract, to make our work unique. We also try to get everyone involved in some way, sharing ideas and opinions that would otherwise go unheard if left to conventional means of construction. I enjoy and learn from the on-site debate and make every effort to help those less experienced realize their ideas in the ground. Sometimes these ideas work, other times not, but it is the process that matters."
---------------
http://www.renaissancegolf.com/associates/eric_iverson/
-
Drainage is almost too obvious to be under rated.
I have always thought it was the fw approach areas to greens. With the advent of bulldozers and the aerial game, these areas got smoothed out and generally fell out of the main though process of many gca's for too many years.
On a similar note, I'd also think the deicions surrounding quirky landforms/bumps/little hills/etc would be pretty interesting. On one of the course reviews that Ran did (I think for apache stronghold?), he spent some time discussing the architect's decision to leave a hill in tact instead of bulldozing it flat. The result was a blind teeshot, and I wonder how many golfers were bothered by the hill and the blind shot, and how many would appreciate that the feature was left in tact instead of plowed over.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm interested in the decision between bulldozing and leaving mother nature alone.
-
I think its restraint.
Some architects may look for the most extreme when walking a site, but I think trying to incorporate the most extreme part often leads to a poor routing. I find the “photo” hole has usually cost the routing three or fours crappy holes to incorporate. When I think of my favourites, I’m amazed how often they don’t go to the most dramatic spot on the property and stay down below where there is far better terrain to play over.
It continues on to features. I find a lot of courses have way too many bunkers, shapes, features….just too much to ever be called elegant. Everything is so in your face.
-
Ian - nicely said! It's what's NOT there that makes the difference...