Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jon Wiggett on March 02, 2010, 05:30:53 PM
-
On another thread it was mentioned that the site at KB was so flat that a GCA would have to move a lot of dirt in order to make it an interesting course.
Although I appreciate that ground movement is a desirable feature couldn't a course be interesting with very subtle movement and well placed hazards?
-
What does KB stand for? I agree that well placed hazards that force the player to think make a course almost as compelling as a course a course with good ground movement. I would almost go as far as saying that I would find a course without hazards boring no matter how undulating the ground is.
-
Jon,
Not sure it would have worked at the KB site but it certainly does here:
http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/talkingstick
Highly recommend you check it out if you haven't....
-
No, the advocates of Kingsbarns are right. You've got to make the ground be great. Winged Foot West sucks!
-
Although I appreciate that ground movement is a desirable feature couldn't a course be interesting with very subtle movement and well placed hazards?
John,
Talking Stick in Scottsdale is a good example.
EDIT - Tigerman beat me to it. That's twice for me today. :)
-
Talking stick is a great example and so was that Australian course that was profiled on the discussion group a while back. I can't remember what it was called, I think it was Royal New Queensland or something. Although I'm leaving myself open to criticism from lovers of Royal Ashdown Forest.
-
Thomas,
Royal Queensland is correct.
Pup's thread about Mike Clayton's recent work is below.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42747.0/
-
Although I appreciate that ground movement is a desirable feature couldn't a course be interesting with very subtle movement and well placed hazards?
C&C do exactly that. Utilizing the subtle movements inherent in the specific site.
Some of their critics fail to recognize how well they do that, or just don't view it as quality. I disagree with those critics.
After playing Bandon Trails, and Sugarloaf recently, I'm convinced their approach accentuates what playing golf in a natural setting really means.
-
:D ;) ;D
Remember that flat sites tend to be difficult because in routing the course, it's hard to layer holes in close proximity....elevation gives you not only variety but safety in design...new standards to avoid litigation ( yep hear it is again) are inherent in golf course design...lots of older courses would not be able to be built for fear of overzealous litigators....Jeff Brauer , Tom Doak and others can expand on this with some personal experiences I'm sure
On a very small site ( 117 acres + - ) Merion plays big and the routing is phenomenal....this is in great part because some of the fairways are pancaked above others ...you would never ever think the site was so small ....on a flat site this would be impossible to achieve ....check out the aerials of Merion and it really is quite amazing
A little bump and roll in golf is pretty fun , flattish sites tend to be a little repetivtive , no matter how good the architecture
-
Master Jon Wiggett:
You wrote the title of this thread---"Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?"
Take that title home with you tonight and work on it. If it is not repaired by class tomorrow you will be given 110 demerits and made to stay after class and write "being," "Being," "BEING" no less than 1,029 times.
You must realize this is a world-wide website populated by the architectural intelligentsia and numerous other intellectuals. Such grammatical catastrophe as that title is highly offensive to the razor thin sensibilites of many others on here such as I. What could you have been thinking about when you wrote a title that grammatically crass? Could you have been thinking about pussy?
-
Master Jon Wiggett:
You wrote the title of this thread---"Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?"
Take that title home with you tonight and work on it. If it is not repaired by class tomorrow you will be given 110 demerits and made to stay after class and write "being," "Being," "BEING" no less than 1,029 times.
You must realize this is a world-wide website populated by the architectural intelligentsia and numerous other intellectuals. Such grammatical catastrophe as that title is highly offensive to the razor thin sensibilites of many others on here such as I. What could you have been thinking about when you wrote a title that grammatically crass? Could you have been thinking about pussy?
TEP Esq.
thank you for the correction and it is now corrected ;D
p.s. Z is for zebra ;)
-
Just go to south Florida and you'll see why flat land is difficult to work with. Flat land has very little drainage and its hard to make features look natural. Designers wind up having to dig ponds in order to allow for water to drain and move around enough dirt to make land features. Pan flat land just isn't much to work with because there is nothing there, everything must be constructed by the designer.
-
If Talking Stick North is among the best courses that can be presented, then in my mind that answers the question. I know some of you really like it and I would admit it is well designed, but I still don't think its among the best in Arizona let alone on a larger scale. The difference between what C & C did at Saguaro versus TSN shows very well how much good land contributes to a good course.
-
8) ;D :D ;) :)
John Moore hit it.....flat is tough. Interesting enough if you can cut away from flat you can make it quite dramatic and fun...moving and building up is much more difficult , and expensive....it doesn't look like it happened in nature, whether it was by wind , water or ice ...
-
8) ;D :D ;) :)
John Moore hit it.....flat is tough. Interesting enough if you can cut away from flat you can make it quite dramatic and fun...moving and building up is much more difficult , and expensive....it doesn't look like it happened in nature, whether it was by wind , water or ice ...
You could make it look natural, I mean, doesn't Rawls at Texas Tech look somewhat natural? I honestly don't know, I've never been near it. But the only way that was possible was to move a large amount of dirt, and that wouldn't be possible on a flat site with a low water table (accurately describes just about all the remaining land in Florida, and the Gulf and Southeastern coasts). Most of the time there just isn't much you can do with flat land.
-
...
You could make it look natural, I mean, doesn't Rawls at Texas Tech look somewhat natural? ...
Have you even seen pictures of it? From the pictures, I think Tom should have done a recall ala Toyota variety. Recall everything! Even Jawbone Creek Country Club is better.
But then, I have only seen pictures, so I know my opinion is illegitimate. Thank you Patrick Mucci and Matt Ward.
-
...
You could make it look natural, I mean, doesn't Rawls at Texas Tech look somewhat natural? ...
Have you even seen pictures of it? From the pictures, I think Tom should have done a recall ala Toyota variety. Recall everything! Even Jawbone Creek Country Club is better.
But then, I have only seen pictures, so I know my opinion is illegitimate. Thank you Patrick Mucci and Matt Ward.
Yes, I have seen pictures and I think it looks reasonably natural. I mean, to me it doesn't look obviously manufactured. I don't see any waterfalls, rock walls and the like. Sure, it was produced and manufactured, but it doesn't look terrible.
-
Master Wiggett:
We are impressed with the alacrity of your grammatical fix. Consequently, a 54.5 demerit credit will be awarded to you post haste. Z may be for Zebra if you are in the former Anglo-African (often pronounced at the home club "afreeakian") colonies but at home Zed is generally for Z. I'm sorry, it would be the perverse of the latter. Drat, belay that too, the RE-verse of the ladder---I mean latter.
-
Yes, I have seen pictures and I think it looks reasonably natural. ...
???
Natural? My thoughts were, ... that looks awful.
After that, I guess I won't get invited by any of the members to play there. ;D
-
Yes, I have seen pictures and I think it looks reasonably natural. ...
???
Natural? My thoughts were, ... that looks awful.
After that, I guess I won't get invited by any of the members to play there. ;D
What do you want the course to look like? I mean, really. Tell me (and Tom) what he could have done to make it better. I'm sure Mr. Doak will take all your suggestions to heart and go back and ask TT if he can rebuild the course at no cost to them. Or maybe, he built a good course that has good strategy, is fun to play and looks as natural as possible. Every course can't be built on the same land as Cypress Point or Sand Hills, my friend.
-
Sure, if you want world class golf you have to have a bit of movement in the land or at least some funky rolls ala TOC. BUT, I don't see why one can't build a very good course on flat land - so what if some stuff doesn't look natural? What matters most is how the course plays. The older I get the more I appreciate this more subtle (and easy to walk) architecture. Have a look at New Zealand and then see if flat golf can't work.
Ciao
-
Chicago GC seemed to be pretty flat as I saw - under a blanket of snow. I keep commending Royal Antwerp as an excellent flat course.
-
If Talking Stick North is among the best courses that can be presented, then in my mind that answers the question. I know some of you really like it and I would admit it is well designed, but I still don't think its among the best in Arizona let alone on a larger scale. The difference between what C & C did at Saguaro versus TSN shows very well how much good land contributes to a good course.
This is the point I was going to make, but you beat me to it. :)
I have played Talking Stick North and it is a good course with several really excellent holes, but generally it's not very memorable and virtually non-GCA afficianados thinks it's a boring course and would rather play the parkland-style South course there. I suppose it proves that interesting architecture is possible on flat land. But as you point out, WeKoPa Saguaro just a short drive from Talking Stick shows what the same design philosophy can produce on more interesting land.
-
Thanks for the replies guys :)
Firstly, I don't believe that good golf course design means that the course needs to look natural. Take a look at Sean A's threads on Kington Golf Club which has modelling that is most obviously man made but looks right. For that matter any bunker on an inland course (with very few exceptions) is an obvious man made feature but this does not stop many people enthusing about it. Even on links courses the bunkering is often very obviously artificial with its sod walls.
I think the drainage issue is probably the biggest problem though flat does not mean completely level. What has always suprised me is that the main drainage on courses are not set at 4 to 6 feet of depth. Most drainage at course is set in the first couple of feet when really it would be better laid much deeper as this would drain the general ground and not just the very top surface. On a flat site the use of deep drainage ditchs is something that used to be used in the past but are very rarely seen these days.
I do believe that it should be possible to work with a flat piece of land and produce a great course without moving vast amounts of soil. Even placing a small mound in front of the green such as that on the 4th green TOC and the clever placing of bunkers or ridges around the green can make for a very challenging holes. I do think that width (wide fairways) is very important on a flat course.
Lastly, I find that it is the options and the challenges created by those options that make for a good design. The focus should be more on the substance of the course and not so much the look or surrounds.
-
The sheer number of threads proclaiming how bad Florida golf courses are is a perfect testimony as to why flat is so difficult
-
But Jon, the key is what kind of flat land are we talking about, and how flat? Flat on sandy soil, like the links courses, is fine, it will naturally drain easily and it has a little bit of roll. But the kind of flat like you see at PGA National in this weeks tournament, you have to do some big work to get that place to drain at all, and that type of land is almost pan flat all around. Take the 3 courses at PGA Golf Club (and at whatever private club that is back there sharing the same property). I'd bet that before the designers got on site, those places didn't have more than 2 feet of elevation change through the whole site, with poor drainage because the soil is thick dark stuff. Flat can work OK, but it depends on the soil and just how flat we're talking about.
-
Cary,
it might confirm the difficulty but not the reason. Also, the Florida problem is not so much that the land is flat but rather submerged ;)
John,
you make a very valid point about soil type. Though poorly draining ground is often no easier to drain on a hilly property as on a flat property. I still stongly believe that the main drains should be laid as deeply a possible.
-
John,
you make a very valid point about soil type. Though poorly draining ground is often no easier to drain on a hilly property as on a flat property. I still stongly believe that the main drains should be laid as deeply a possible.
In all seriousness, do most golf courses have full drainage installed in the fairways and such? I have worked at places where certain holes had installed drainage, and I know Tobacco Road has drainage installed in hollows where water would tend to accumulate, but is it normal to have full course installed drainage? I was not aware of that to be the case normally.
-
Is Kingsbarns better than Muirfield ? I think you would find the golfing public would laugh at that idea yet Muirfield is a relatively flat site with some features but a lot of the course is fairly subtle in terms of ground movement whereas KB is anything but. BTW, who says Kingsbarns was ever a flat site in any case. It might not have had the dunes but there were some big elevational changes on the site.
Niall
-
I think Talking Stick North perfectly illustrates why a flat site is difficult.
Bucking the trend of building courses on flat sites by moving millions of cubic yards of dirt, C&C built a wonderful course with a minimalist touch that is virtually ignored by the regular golfing public and in fact, generates widely polarized reviews from the GCA crowd.
Like many, the first time I played it, I shrugged my shoulders and wondered what is the big deal. But after a half dozen more plays, TSN has really grown on me.
I wouldn't call it a destination by any means, but I think it stands as a very strong example of what can be done on a dead flat site and offers a unique contrast to the typical highly engineered flat site offerings found everywhere in the greater Phoenix area.
-
In all seriousness, do most golf courses have full drainage installed in the fairways and such? I have worked at places where certain holes had installed drainage, and I know Tobacco Road has drainage installed in hollows where water would tend to accumulate, but is it normal to have full course installed drainage? I was not aware of that to be the case normally.
John,
most courses I have worked at have not had full drainage installed but even where you are just laying a dedicated drain it would be advisable to lay it as deep as possible.
-
Master Jon Wiggett:
You wrote the title of this thread---"Re: Why is flat seen as been so difficult?"
Take that title home with you tonight and work on it. If it is not repaired by class tomorrow you will be given 110 demerits and made to stay after class and write "being," "Being," "BEING" no less than 1,029 times.
Tom, 'No fewer', please, not 'no less'.
Four of us played Formby today and the flat holes entertained us every bit as well the undulating holes.
-
Yes, I have seen pictures and I think it looks reasonably natural. ...
???
Natural? My thoughts were, ... that looks awful.
After that, I guess I won't get invited by any of the members to play there. ;D
Garland....with all due respect, you seem at times a pompous fool seeking attention while clinging to the pant legs of those you deride....a know nothing negative when it comes to understanding what it takes to design.
What the f*** have you done that makes you so special?