Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Don_Mahaffey on March 21, 2011, 10:51:54 PM
-
'...I do think there is genius in golf course design but it is in the "finding the course" or routing as we describe it. And it is in finding the natural routing with tee sites flowing from green sites and then in placing a simple strategy upon such. It is not in finding 16 or 17 holes and tying them together with earthmoving....that doesn't take genius..."
Above is a quote from Mike Young from ealier on the "genius" thread.
It seems like Mike is saying that for an architect to do something really special, something worthy of "genius" he should be able to connect the dots without doing serious earthmoving. I find it ironic that while Mike has cautioned us about taking the ODG too serious, it seems to be, to me at least, this ability to route without blowing through ridges, making huge cuts and fills, or connecting through the use of long cart paths which draws us to so many of the great old courses.
Many modern architects will defend their need to blow through a land form and put it back pretty as being a case of, "all the good sites are gone". I don't believe this and in this case I agree with Mike and think it is genius when one can route a course, a good course mind you, without the need to move dirt so the connections work. I know its not that easy and some sites do have good natural holes that require extensive earthwork to make the connections work, but I wonder if we really know how many of the modern gems worshiped here were really more a matter of clever construction as opposed to "genius" minimalist routing.
And before anyone says what difference does it make, I say it makes a difference because a well routed course will cost less to build, probably less to maintain, and has a better chance of survival in these tough times due to less debt and overhead.
-
it makes a difference because a well routed course will cost less to build, probably less to maintain, and has a better chance of survival in these tough times due to less debt and overhead.
Excellent point. Sustainable golf.
-
The Big R is the winner every time in my book. A good course is subject to
Location, Location, Location
&
ROUTING, ROUTING, ROUTING
&
I will leave that to others to fill in, well those who may agree with me so far
Melvyn
-
It seems to be, to me at least, this ability to route without blowing through ridges, making huge cuts and fills, or connecting through the use of long cart paths which draws us to so many of the great old courses.
One of the reasons that some of the old courses are so revered is that they've had time to evolve over the years often with many changes to make the course better than it was when first opened. Also I think in this group as a whole we have a tendency to value old things more simply because...... they're old.
Whether an old course was 'found' by a great routing or whether the routing was aided by significant skilful earthmoving, shouldn't really matter as long as the end result makes for great golf.
I completely agree with you on the cost factor for new courses although even then would you settle for routing a course over the existing terrain knowing that with some earth moving it could be a whole lot better?
-
Mike
When we consider or think about the old courses, certainly in Scotland, we must remember that choice was not high on the agenda.
The Farmer or Landed Gentry had this or that section which they were not using, usually the poorest part of their farm/property only frequented by sheep and rabbits, however over the years the dropping from the sheep feed the turf to a standard that was acceptable for golf. The only choices that were available back in those early days was how many Hole could be squeezed into the land by having crisscross over fairways. Many clubs shared a course and it was normal to see some courses with two three and even four club. Other courses lasted just a few years to establish a club and allow it to generate numbers which equalled revenue, thus allowing them to lease more land from the farmer or if not available moving to a new site which allows expansion to certainly 9 holes sometimes but not always 18 holes.
Those courses that have not moved from their original site, did not necessary undergo modification for many years. If we look again at the Scottish record many a course survived unchanged for some 30- 40 years. Certainly more numbers forced the issue but not as much as the ball. The Gutty ball gave nearly 60 years of stability to the game allowing it to grow, become popular and most importantly not forgetting more affordable to play. That stability was changed with the introduction of the Haskell which gave again more reliability than the Gutty. It’s this definition of reliability that I believe is at the heart of controlling technology, with a rolling back of the ball as distances in golf are in real term ambiguous when set against the need for more money to purchase land and its on-going maintenance. Not to mention the destruction of the great old courses by adding length, due to the modifications.
So, courses were designed in those early days not just gifted by God, their only advantage being Scotland (GB) only had 30 courses around the middle of the 1800’s compared to 2500 (total in the UK) by the turn of the new Century. With popularity came Members, with Members came Money with money came the ability to start to be more selective. Hence why I believe the early designers created and lived through the really only Golden Age we have had so far in Golf.
Melvyn
-
... although even then would you settle for routing a course over the existing terrain knowing that with some earth moving it could be a whole lot better?
In looking at the top 25 or so courses in the world, what earth moving resulted in courses that are a whole lot better?
-
Don - In this case, I think bravery (or clout) is the greater part of genius. Yes, routing a course wholly in tune and in line with the natural site does take vision and imagination (two other elements that all genuises have in common). But given that, the kind of golf course you're describing and the kind of choices it would require have more to do with an architect being brave enough (or important enough, in his client's eyes) to build exactly the course he wants to build. I think in their heart of hearts, gifted architects would know very well if a potentially great golf course was lying there right front of them; but very few of those would likely have the clout/bravery to resist that voice in their head that whispered "Yes, sure it's great, but the average golfer and the average rater will not see what you're seeing, and will not love what you love, and so you had better add some bells and whistles and give them a 'form' that they already know and appreciate". Nothing wrong with that -- it's the way of all flesh, and besides, I'm told that at least a dozen or so truly wonderful/great golf courses have been built just like that; and as well, it is appropriate that the creator keep his audience in mind, so as to serve it better. But let's not forget that the road less travelled -- the narrow gate -- is always there, waiting for the right person and the right time and the right client to see it come to life. Your posts in recent weeks are very good reminders that this road exists, and that we shouldn't forget it (even if no one ever walks it).
Peter
-
... although even then would you settle for routing a course over the existing terrain knowing that with some earth moving it could be a whole lot better?
In looking at the top 25 or so courses in the world, what earth moving resulted in courses that are a whole lot better?
George I'm not a fan of ranking courses as I think it's extremely subjective as to what the top 25 course might be. Leaving that to one side for a moment, you would probably need documented plans of the construction to see exactly what earth was moved and why. It would also depend very much on how good the land was to start with because as we all know, not all plots are created equal when it comes to laying a golf course out on them. It stands to reason that some of the very best courses would have been laid out on some of the very best land.
Is the creation of a good golf course an art form or an engineering exercise or both? While I have no doubt that creating a great routing over suitable terrain is a fantastic skill, is it any more skilful than an architect that starts off with very little to work with and still manages to create a wonderful golf course? They say that creating something from nothing is the hardest thing to do.
Melvyn thanks for your insight. I'm sure that many of the early courses fell by the wayside when as you point out, golfers became more selective on where they chose to play. Darwen's theory would suggest that the best courses survived and that's why in places like Scotland there is an abundance of riches when it comes to golf courses.
-
George I'm not a fan of ranking courses as I think it's extremely subjective as to what the top 25 course might be. Leaving that to one side for a moment, you would probably need documented plans of the construction to see exactly what earth was moved and why. It would also depend very much on how good the land was to start with because as we all know, not all plots are created equal when it comes to laying a golf course out on them. It stands to reason that some of the very best courses would have been laid out on some of the very best land.
A clever response! It does stand to reason that the best courses would be on the best land, so I'll widen my question: what man made features result in courses that make the top 100?
Fwiw, I'm not a fan of the ranking process either, with its many inherent flaws, so feel free to use any man made features on any courses that are better than what would exist if the existing landforms were simply utilized.
-
Peter,
I understand what you’re saying.
I see it a little differently.
I see too many attempts at "greatness" that require more work, and expense, when what was right there was just fine. I see too many attempts, to use Mike's words, to make something out of nothing when what was there was useable if the architect had enough vision to see what is possible. I believe we are too quick to go the easy way out which is to build something in an attempt at greatness. How often does that work? Swinging for the fences results in a ton of KOs. As I’ve often said and written, restraint is what is missing in most modern golf architecture.
We need fewer attempts at greatness and more good golf courses that are sustainable. However, good doesn't make one famous so I’m not expecting to see anyone pushing for good. But I guarantee you I can pay the bills and make a nice living operating a good golf course.
-
We need fewer attempts at greatness and more good golf courses that are sustainable. However, good doesn't make one famous so I’m not expecting to see anyone pushing for good. ...
Does Muirfiled Village fall into this category?
-
Don,
In order to achieve great reward you must take some risk.
Just finding the best holes with the least amount of disturbance is only a small portion of the overal task which is to create YOUR product as an architect WHILE achieving the clients goals. What an architect should strive to do is inspire the owners imagination with the possibilities of the site, then approach the routing that best reaches his goals.
I interviewed for a job one time where the client wanted "the best use of minimilism" I could produce. Minimilism, minimilism, minimilism.....thats all he could come up with (probably because he read it in Golf Digest). I routed what many who saw it considered one of the best courses they had ever seen, I thought it was pretty strong as well. Long story short.....he hired Tom Fazio.
If you are going to be in this business long as an architect, you better learn quickly that what works for one client may not work for another. As long as you INSPIRE thought and IMAGINATION, while demonstrating genius in routing, you should be able to navigate from job to job. Otherwise you may be one and done.
Lester
-
Carl
No Murfield Village does not - it is overly maintained and over shaped.
The current bunkers are numerous and high maintenance.
A golf course built in the manner Don is describing is easier to maintain.
Building/Routing a great golf course with little earth moving is far more compelling to me than making something out of nothing.
The best holes on our golf course are the ones we did the least - 5, 6, 15 & 16 - it was the routing that enabled them.
Lester
Do think you did too much at Ballyhack?
A definition of minimalism - the best golf course possible for the minimalist budget.
Cheers
-
Mike,
I only move 200,000 yards at Ballyhack. Given the severity of the site, I think the routing is the reason we moved so little.
Lester
-
Lester, wasn't a sizable portion of earth moving at Ballyhack on the 11th hole?
Also, Scott Weersing & I appreciated that on the front nine, you routed the majority of the holes more on the side of the hills rather than up and down the hills.
-
Don,
In order to achieve great reward you must take some risk.
Lester,
I'm not sure your point here. If great reward a highly ranked course...no matter the financial situation after extensive construction? Is great reward a satisfying career where you worked hard to make every client happy, but never really made golf better or more sustainable? Is taking risk building something that does not need to be built, but built anyhow so the course has the right look? Or is great reward more of an internal thing where you know you've always done your best?
Risk is not only about how much dirt to move, its also about how little. I firmly believe that we can build very good golf courses without all the over the top golfy features most have come to associate with "quality architecture". Building something different is taking a risk. Building something where you are not swayed by all the "experts" to make it look golfy and play like some famous hole from another course. That's taking risk. Laying a course along the ground with just a few stakes to mark tees and greens and then doing all you possibly can to do as little as possible, that's taking a risk. Anyone can build a copy, build me a nice course for less then 2 million that a working guy can play for 30 bucks and an owner can operate for a modest profit and you've got my attention.
-
Don - this last post and your post #9 help me understand a lot better what you're suggesting...and it is even more radical (for lack of a better word) than I first thought -- in part because it comes from a working professional -- you -- who knows both the business/career realities and the aspirations of craft equally well. As I said, I think it very good that you keep pointing out the road less travelled....even if just to remind folks that it's there.
Peter
-
Don,
You sound like you are trying to justify something or defend something. One thing is certain, you did miss my point. Feel free to call me to discuss if you like, but you really should listen to the tenor of your last remark.
Lester
-
In order to achieve great reward you must take some risk.
Lester,
I don't want to get in the middle between you and Don, but, I did want to say that your above comment is not always true. Sometimes great reward is just laying there in the open, for the person who is smart enough to recognize it.
-
Tom,
Smart enough to recognize it....and act on it. I would agree.
Lester
-
Risk is not only about how much dirt to move, its also about how little. I firmly believe that we can build very good golf courses without all the over the top golfy features most have come to associate with "quality architecture". Building something different is taking a risk. Building something where you are not swayed by all the "experts" to make it look golfy and play like some famous hole from another course. That's taking risk. Laying a course along the ground with just a few stakes to mark tees and greens and then doing all you possibly can to do as little as possible, that's taking a risk. Anyone can build a copy, build me a nice course for less then 2 million that a working guy can play for 30 bucks and an owner can operate for a modest profit and you've got my attention.
Don:
Thanks for this post. It reminds me of what I was thinking 25 years ago, when we were starting on High Pointe. I did not know exactly what my "style" was going to be, but I thought it was a beautiful piece of land, and my mantra was that I would prefer to err on the side of doing too little, instead of doing too much.
It is very hard to keep to that ethos in this business. 99% of people who come out to see what we're building [and 99% of my clients, too, even though I've been pretty selective about them] will suggest something MORE -- a bunker here or a green contour there or another tee. Hardly anybody ever suggests doing something less; off the top of my head, Mike Keiser and Ben Crenshaw are the only guys I can think of who suggested taking a bunker out.
It's the American way: the more the client is paying you, the more he thinks you ought to be doing something! And that's compounded by the fact that the bigger you get and the more talent you have around you, the more guys there are to suggest things, and the more confidence you have that you can pull them off. I was just getting updated by Eric last night on the progress in Florida, and he told me that he thinks the best hole on the course now is #13 ... the short 4 where we had to whittle away a block of about 20 feet of sand in the fairway [20 feet times 50 yards wide times 100 yards long!] in order to turn a "nothingburger" [Jim Urbina term] transition hole into something special. The hole was only half done the last time I saw it, so it's hard for me to believe Eric yet, but I do know that there was no simple, minimalist way that hole was going to stand proudly with all the holes that surrounded it, and I knew that putting Eric and Brian on it for two weeks with a reasonable idea was probably going to result in something pretty good. [Besides, Bill Coore needed all that dirt for his 14th tee, and it was better than building another pond to get it.]
It was easier to stick to my old ethos at High Pointe, where nearly all of the shaping was done with a D-3, and if I wanted to do something more I had to get on that little dozer and do it myself. Those two nasty crowned greens (#3 and #14) were like nothing I've built since, and I've never wanted to copy that 13th green, which was truly one of a kind. That's why it's such a bummer for me the place is going back to nature ... I can't imagine a current client being happy with some of it, but I sure was.
-
Tom - I think that's not just the American way, it really is the way of all flesh. Maybe 'ego' is a negative -- or at least confusing way -- to put it; but basically I think most of us, most of the time, equate being in charge with "controlling" something and "doing" something and "changing" something -- and the more money we have or the more talent we think we possess or the more dues we think we've paid, the harder it is for us to even conceive of "stepping back" and letting nature or the process or intuition (or, god forbid, someone else) take over.
And then there is someone like Itzak Perlman, who when asked by a young violinist how she could get to where he was, answered; "I have the talent that God gave me. I have this wonderful instrument, a Stradaverius, and I have the magnificent music of Beethoven or Mozart in front of me -- and I see my task as simply bringing those three things together, and then getting myself out of the way".
Peter
-
Tom,
I simply don't type fast enough to relate many of my experiences as you just did. I will say that I agree with very much of it and have had ridiculously similar thoughts and circumstances.
I have renctly gone back to my first course and it is less than good condition and I hope one day it changes hands. I was so compelled to build a course that had all of the tennants of minimilism. The routing (which is what I thought we were taliking about in the first place) was predicated on exactly that, how much (little) dirt could I move and leave an efficient, "sustaining" product that would serve the owner for years to come. Same owner to this day (in spite of himself) and the only reason the place is still in business is BECAUSE of its architectural efficientcy, ease of maintenance, popularity with those who play it, and, i am happy to say, its ROUTING.
So in essence, I am agreeing with Don that it is important for a course to have those things, but it is not a new theory. Nor is it crime against golf for a client to want something different or an experienced architect to provide it. His comments sounded a bit like a lecture to me.
Lester
-
Don,
In order to achieve great reward you must take some risk.
Lester,
I'm not sure your point here. If great reward a highly ranked course...no matter the financial situation after extensive construction? Is great reward a satisfying career where you worked hard to make every client happy, but never really made golf better or more sustainable? Is taking risk building something that does not need to be built, but built anyhow so the course has the right look? Or is great reward more of an internal thing where you know you've always done your best?
Risk is not only about how much dirt to move, its also about how little. I firmly believe that we can build very good golf courses without all the over the top golfy features most have come to associate with "quality architecture". Building something different is taking a risk. Building something where you are not swayed by all the "experts" to make it look golfy and play like some famous hole from another course. That's taking risk. Laying a course along the ground with just a few stakes to mark tees and greens and then doing all you possibly can to do as little as possible, that's taking a risk. Anyone can build a copy, build me a nice course for less then 2 million that a working guy can play for 30 bucks and an owner can operate for a modest profit and you've got my attention.
Great statement Don.
-
Heckuva post, Kelly.
-
I'm glad I started this thread.
Tom Doak, your obviously a very successful architect with many great projects under your belt and many more to come, but you were damn good 25 years ago as well.
Kelly, thank you. I enjoyed our ride together and I hope we get a chance to do something together in the future. I liked what you wrote about being amazed at what you have done in the past. I think sometimes it makes us feel good to think we get better with age, but that's only truly possible with an honest evaluation of our past. Sometimes we need that kid to kick us in the ass.
George, come visit.
Peter, I love that quote by Perlman. I think he and John Wooden were cut from the same cloth. I wonder if sometime true genius isn't grounded in grasping a hold of basic fundamentals and then using that framework to showcase our talents.
-
Kelly
Not to put you on the spot, but I always feel these more esoteric conversations would have a more meaningful impact if brought down to the level of real circumstances. I recall you saying at Lederach that if you had #9 to do again you would have mellowed on the shaping (I seem to recall the big shaped hill to the left of the fairway which blocks the view of the car park when on the fairway). I would be grateful if you could point to a place or two on the course that you would do differently this many years down the line in your career.
Ciao
-
One of my favorite routings in the Philly area:
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/lehigh/Lehigh_routing.jpg)
-
Kelly
Thank you. As you know I like Lederach a lot in the main because of the shaping which creates a lot of hidden surprises/obscurity of the target/danger in going directly at the target.
I figured the shaping around 9 & 18 was because of the pond and I must say that it isn't a bad idea to hide the parking lot even if things are a bit wild on the 9th. The 18th though is well done. Bold for sure, but in your face bold which is the best kind (rather than containment/view blocking bold).
Yes, the third was an area I wondered about. I can see the thinking in trying to create some visual interest in what would have been a pretty wide flatish area. Unfortunately for me anyway, I like a wide expanse on a hole or two because its difficult for many golfers to focus on a desired line. Let me ask, were the second shot centreline bunker and the mounding off the tee meant originally or did it just happen after fooling around a bit?
Between the 4th & 5th is neither here nor there - I can't see a problem with huge mounding so long as you got something for it.
Ciao
-
I guess much has to do with who you learned from. I have always be proud of our routings because they were the premise of the design. Much can be derived from pouring over a 2' topo map. It doesn't lie. I know many on this board get all misty-eyed at the idea of tromping around a couple hundred acres and "finding" all the "really cool" features/golf holes. But, in my experience, this is harder done than said. It is very easy to mis-judge scale. It's the GOLDY LOCKS syndrome. Flat land looks smaller than it really is, hilly/forested land looks/feels bigger than it really is. And when you go through the various stages of construction, these "feelings" will change. But if you plan it right and hold to that plan, in the end it will come out "just right".
I think it is the underlying desire for most architects to do as much with as little as possible. But there are always trade-offs so I don't think a blanket statement is very useful. Never deal in generalities when you have to work in specifics. Just look at Tom Doak's post where he stated he had his guys spend a couple of weeks moving a huge amount of material off just 1 fairway (probably more material than he moved in total at some courses) but, in his vision, it was what was needed in order for the course to be all it could be. Will, as Don states, this large amount of earthwork make the course more expensive to maintain? I doubt it, Heck, it might even end up being cheaper. In many instances, maintenance's common denometer is a function of area. followed by drainage. Luckily, this excess material had a home on C&C's course so the expenditure was shared and the benefit was by both courses. Not bad for 2 firms that are held up on this board as minimalists extrodinair. And my guess is, when done, no one will be able to guess what was there before.
As to the orignial question. I would be amazed if anyone knew of a high-caliber course that didn't have extensive earthwork done around the green complexes. And for sites that didn't already contain a 2+ acre lake for irrigation, we were using 300,000 cy of excavation and 100,0000 cy of topsoil strip and replace when I first got into this business 35 yrs ago. Bear in mind that most of our site were flat farm fields. As the sites got smaller, the earthwork went up, mostly for separtion and safety reasons. But, like I said earlier, this didn't really expand the maintenance requirement, (in fact, many areas were planted in Fescue rather than the bluegree they would have been id left flat. Then trees would have been planted and those, my friends, would have really driven up the maintenance costs.
Irrespective of the nature of the earthwork on a course, it is the ease of the routing in both crculation and use of the natural lay of the land that can make or break s design.
-
Mike,
I only move 200,000 yards at Ballyhack. Given the severity of the site, I think the routing is the reason we moved so little.
Lester
Thank you Lester
I was asking about more than the earthwork
The greens, bunkers, shaping, irrigation, tees, grassing, expense...
Do you think if you had eliminated one square foot or one dollar spent the course wouldn't have been as good?
Cheers
Tim
I don't think anyone ever said one shouldn't use a topo map
-
Mike,
I only move 200,000 yards at Ballyhack. Given the severity of the site, I think the routing is the reason we moved so little.
Lester
Thank you Lester
I was asking about more than the earthwork
The greens, bunkers, shaping, irrigation, tees, grassing, expense...
Do you think if you had eliminated one square foot or one dollar spent the course wouldn't have been as good?
Cheers
Tim
I don't think anyone ever said one shouldn't use a topo map
Mike, what? Where did you get that? I was referring to the use of topo maps as a tool to get a good routing.
-
Tim - thanks, good and interesting post.
Peter
-
I may have just completed a new genius routing in the past 2-3 days, and re-learned an old lesson in the process.
We went out to the site with a series of overlapping routings on paper, and it only took one day to whittle down those possibilities and decide upon the one with the best potential holes. We felt pretty good about it; there were clearly some awesome holes to be had.
But when we woke up the next morning, my associate and I both picked the same three holes [from two different parts of the course] as being the three weakest holes ... so we knew we still had work to do. We met with the client, and asked him what was really important to him. He said he didn't care whether par was 70 or 72, and he didn't need the course to be really long ... and he didn't even mention whether returning nines were important or not, which makes sense considering the location.
Our first-day routing had two loops of nine. But, relieved of the need to make changes to both nines work out evenly, the number of possible solutions was far greater. We quickly eliminated the two worst holes from the front nine, and split up a par-5 hole into a strong par-4 and a par-3, to wind up with eight holes on the front. Then, we eliminated a par-3 on the back nine that ran east-west, and replaced it with two par-4 holes running north and south on some land we hadn't utilized before, and voila! We're down to NO ordinary holes, all because we could go down to a par-70 and because it didn't matter if the loops were eight holes and ten.
Hopefully, it won't be too long before I can tell you where this one is ... or before they pull the trigger on building it.
-
A genius routing? How about this. Something imaginative which identifies what golf's mysteries suggest and all the while acting like 18 chapters of a great page turning novel. It might open gently, then shock and end with clout. If it stimulates the golfer's senses at the same time, it may even challenge sex!
-
Tom
Its probably just me, but I prefer a short and long loop back to the house rather than 9 and 9. I think 5/6 and 12/13 is ideal.
Ciao
-
Tom,
Interesting insight into some of the process, thanks.
Out of curiosity, was the primary determining factor during that whittling down the number of routings to find the one that will deliver the most high level holes? This makes sense in that you can bring some lesser holes up to par as you build them but the killer holes will lift the entire level.
-
What Jim asks, Tom, but also:
you describe the inherent "balancing act" between the routing (easy and natural flow) and the quality of individual holes (with, ideally, no ordinary holes and many awesome ones).
In this particular case, a great solution presented itself because of the client's wants/flexibility; but in general every golf course you or anyone else builds is an expression of the choices made re this balancing. For example, with some courses I've played, it is clear that the architect chose (or felt compelled) to give very little weight to an easy and flowing routing in order to achieve as many good holes as possible.
I assume that you too put the emphasis on finding as many great holes as you can (and those golf holes on your various courses get praised often here) -- and yet I don't think I have ever read on here a negative comment about any of your routings in terms of easy and natural flow.
As I type this, I realize it sounds kissy-kissy and overly praising -- but from the outside and without having played any of your courses, it does seem that you have consistently been able to find the absolute right balance between the two elements.
Do you think you have?
Is my assumption correct that you put the mosty weight on fidning great holes; and if so, do you think any of the final routings you've done lack something/could have been better in terms of easy and natural flow because of it?
Thanks
Peter
-
Carl,
Yes the 11th hole at Ballyhack was the lions share of the earth moving on the back. In fact, I was very concerned early on that we would hit rock there even though our tests indicated it was average and moveable. I was prepared to shorten number 11 to a par 3 if need be.
Your question brings up another consideration that was the dominant factor in my thinking. Since this conversation started about ROUTING, here goes.....In the numerous routings I did, the 10th kept emerging as one of the holes I would not abandon because of its sheer beauty. It set the tone for the back nine as well as used the existing land form as well as any on the course. That set the stage for the criss cross in the routing knowing I wanted to finish on the existing 18th. Because of that, I needed to find and efficient way to get to 12 tee and then to 17 green. It was clear that the connection had to go through 11 and the cross over would happen at 12. So, had 11 become to cost prohibitive (rock) to build, I would have come off of the back of 10 green to the right, built a par 3 11th acoss the ravine and the move to the 12th tee up the hill. This would have yielded par of 71 which was okay. Thankfully, we got 11 in the way it is and it worked out.
Mike,
I really want you to try to come to Ballyhack this year and please bring Don. It is really hard to get the scale and drama of the site from pictures. I dont think I would have saved much buy making the greens, tees, and bunkers less dramatic. Because of the slopes I was dealing with, the speed and volume of water moving towards all of our features was a determining factor in how we deflected and arrested water and dealt with erosion. With the exception of greens on numbers 2 and 12, we really had a major slope factoring into most green sites. So, in essence, those areas were going to get shaped anyway. Because of the size and frequency of the terrain, anything less than a minimal routing would have corrupted the site even more and caused more earthmoving and more expense. That is partly why Carl (above) says he liked the way the holes on the front were routed along the sides of the ridges and not up, down and over. I was not interested in busting a bunch of ridges and blowing up a bunch terrain to force something on that site, which would have cost alot more. By the way, unless you already know, I would be interested in you trying to determine what the total construction budget was after you go around the property.
Best,
Lester
-
I guess much has to do with who you learned from. I have always be proud of our routings because they were the premise of the design. Much can be derived from pouring over a 2' topo map. It doesn't lie. I know many on this board get all misty-eyed at the idea of tromping around a couple hundred acres and "finding" all the "really cool" features/golf holes. But, in my experience, this is harder done than said. It is very easy to mis-judge scale. It's the GOLDY LOCKS syndrome. Flat land looks smaller than it really is, hilly/forested land looks/feels bigger than it really is. And when you go through the various stages of construction, these "feelings" will change. But if you plan it right and hold to that plan, in the end it will come out "just right".
I think it is the underlying desire for most architects to do as much with as little as possible. But there are always trade-offs so I don't think a blanket statement is very useful. Never deal in generalities when you have to work in specifics. Just look at Tom Doak's post where he stated he had his guys spend a couple of weeks moving a huge amount of material off just 1 fairway (probably more material than he moved in total at some courses) but, in his vision, it was what was needed in order for the course to be all it could be. Will, as Don states, this large amount of earthwork make the course more expensive to maintain? I doubt it, Heck, it might even end up being cheaper. In many instances, maintenance's common denometer is a function of area. followed by drainage. Luckily, this excess material had a home on C&C's course so the expenditure was shared and the benefit was by both courses. Not bad for 2 firms that are held up on this board as minimalists extrodinair. And my guess is, when done, no one will be able to guess what was there before.
As to the orignial question. I would be amazed if anyone knew of a high-caliber course that didn't have extensive earthwork done around the green complexes. And for sites that didn't already contain a 2+ acre lake for irrigation, we were using 300,000 cy of excavation and 100,0000 cy of topsoil strip and replace when I first got into this business 35 yrs ago. Bear in mind that most of our site were flat farm fields. As the sites got smaller, the earthwork went up, mostly for separtion and safety reasons. But, like I said earlier, this didn't really expand the maintenance requirement, (in fact, many areas were planted in Fescue rather than the bluegree they would have been id left flat. Then trees would have been planted and those, my friends, would have really driven up the maintenance costs.
Irrespective of the nature of the earthwork on a course, it is the ease of the routing in both crculation and use of the natural lay of the land that can make or break s design.
Tim,
I believe the ideal routing method is using the topo as a foundation or base to the process, combined with all that misty eyed tromping around as fine tuning. You mock that phase, I see that phase as every bit as important as the first phase where one studies the topo and begins to note the routing possibilities.
I’ve had the opportunity to work and visit with a number of golf architects. I can say that without a doubt not all are trying to do as little as possible. And, I do believe that extra earth work can create more maintenance. My experience has been growing turf on native, untouched, non-machine compacted earth is less expensive then growing grass on “manufactured” ground.
One of the biggest myths in all of golf is that all these out of play areas are low maintenance. Done right, they can be, but way too often a certain look is desired and that look is often not indigenous to that area. So, just like with creation of the golf course playing areas, you’ve created a landscape that needs to be maintained. There is not much maintenance involved in dragging a huge gang or pull behind rotary over some scraggly rough that needs to be cut once a month. But take that same area, convert it to some low maintenance plant material, but maintain it so its playable, and attractive, and tell me that’s low maintenance. If the architect uses native plant material and if ownership will accept that native look, even if that look means lost balls, then it can work. However, try to make the southwest look like Scotland or the high plains and then tell me its low maintenance. I’ve been there done that and it was a major pain in my side. Would have been much easier and less expensive to maintain as a scraggly Bermuda rough that was irrigated only when on the verge of death. Not to mention it would have played a whole lot better as well. I will say we seem to be getting better in this area, but without a doubt, if you want your native areas to look native and be legitimately low maintenance, don’t screw with them in the first place.
BTW, how you like them ‘Cats. Bear Down.
-
I thought Bill Coore's quote on the GD website pertains to this thread.
"It's no contest: Mother Nature is a far better golf architect than any man. I mean, what are golf architects trying to do? We're trying to imitate nature. The variables in nature are never-ending. The ideas of any architect, of all architects combined, are finite."
Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2011-03/photos-golf-world-backspin#ixzz1HdR1RNQw
-
What Jim asks, Tom, but also:
you describe the inherent "balancing act" between the routing (easy and natural flow) and the quality of individual holes (with, ideally, no ordinary holes and many awesome ones).
In this particular case, a great solution presented itself because of the client's wants/flexibility; but in general every golf course you or anyone else builds is an expression of the choices made re this balancing. For example, with some courses I've played, it is clear that the architect chose (or felt compelled) to give very little weight to an easy and flowing routing in order to achieve as many good holes as possible.
I assume that you too put the emphasis on finding as many great holes as you can (and those golf holes on your various courses get praised often here) -- and yet I don't think I have ever read on here a negative comment about any of your routings in terms of easy and natural flow.
As I type this, I realize it sounds kissy-kissy and overly praising -- but from the outside and without having played any of your courses, it does seem that you have consistently been able to find the absolute right balance between the two elements.
Do you think you have?
Is my assumption correct that you put the mosty weight on fidning great holes; and if so, do you think any of the final routings you've done lack something/could have been better in terms of easy and natural flow because of it?
Thanks
Peter
Peter,
You are correct that there is always a balance between trying to find great holes and trying to keep the flow of a routing intact. You can't concentrate all on one to the exclusion of the other. I would say that early in my career, I put 80% of my focus on finding the great holes, but now it's closer to 50-50. High Pointe was too tough a walk, and that's probably one reason it's no longer open.
The main thing, really, is to just be stubborn and to keep fighting for a perfect solution. Most architects would have been very happy with the routing I'd come up with on Tuesday night -- most of the very best holes in the final version were already there, and the green to tee connections were pretty good, too. In fact, I was very tempted to think that I was done and to show my work to the client. But, I brought Eric along to keep me honest, and when we both agreed there were 2-3 weak holes, instead of just deciding we could fix them with earthmoving, we kept at it another day and found some better replacements.
Balancing the pull of a potential great hole is a difficult process. Pretty much all of us, after working on a plan for a bit, get locked into thinking that there are certain holes which HAVE to make the final cut. And of course, you want to include those holes if there's any way to make them work ... but when the plan as a whole is struggling, sometimes you have to cut one of your favorites in order to make everything else work out. For instance, on the site I've been describing, there was a great green site for a drop shot par-3 hole, but it has wound up being the tee shot on a par-5 instead ... because even though the client was willing to give up a par-5 or two for the best routing, he didn't want to give up the BEST par-5 along with that.
-
Rereading Brad Klein's book, Desert Forest Golf Club. Interesting observation here:
"With only a few projects at the time keeping him busy, Lawrence was able to throw himself into the project extensively. He spent a solid month on site in early 1961 formulating a plan, walking the site for hours at a time to get the lay of the land. It is one thing to have a topographic plan, quite another to feel the contours and flow of the natural features so that the design would ultimately work with, not against, the site's existing contours.
Kelly:
Do you really think the above is true?
I can see how it would have helped immensely to have a month walking the site, but not for the reason Brad stated. If you can read a topo well, you ought to have a pretty good feel for the contours and flow of the ground. However, there are 1,000 little visuals about how things overlap -- and, at Desert Forest, about what vegetation to save and work around -- that could have had a big impact on the routing plan.
-
I have heard that Bill Coore spent a very long time walking the terrain at Friars Head looking foir the best holes. Anyone know more about this?
-
A routing plan dated May 4, 1961, shows the plan of the course exactly as it would subsequently develop. There were no bunkers on the site map-they would be built later, located in the field as needed."
The bunkering comment is interesting. I really liked Desert Forest and I thought it was extremely interesting. However, in my opinion, one of the main items that is a major detractor is the bunkering around the greens. It seemed like every bunker was at 4 and 8 o'clock and I don't remember any fairway bunkers, just the natural areas. (A quite glance at the aerial seems to support my memory).
-
In order to achieve great reward you must take some risk.
Lester,
I don't want to get in the middle between you and Don, but, I did want to say that your above comment is not always true. Sometimes great reward is just laying there in the open, for the person who is smart enough to recognize it.
And therein lies the risk... expecting the average golfer to recognize greatness. H.L. Mencken may have been a golferl?
-
If Mencken had been a golf architect, I doubt he would have cared what the magazines, or the average golfer thought about his work.
We are excessively quick to call something great, or claim to strive for something great, or market something as great. Great is the new mediocre in golf architecture slang.
-
I have heard that Bill Coore spent a very long time walking the terrain at Friars Head looking foir the best holes. Anyone know more about this?
Perhaps Ran's review can help you on that.
-
I have heard that Bill Coore spent a very long time walking the terrain at Friars Head looking foir the best holes. Anyone know more about this?
Perhaps Ran's review can help you on that.
That's most likely where I heard it. Thanks.
-
Tom D: Re Post #36 - my guess is course #2 at Dismal River.
-
Tom D: Re Post #36 - my guess is course #2 at Dismal River.
Was it a guessing game?
If you're right, I think the result will be the greatest course since WW2 and Top 10 all time. Doak is hands down the greatest architect of the modern era and a piece of property like that would combine world class property with world class design. I'm drooling at the thought.
-
A genius routing ultimately will see the designer find the number of required holes out of a stock of potentials. From there it takes pure genius to not only route it but blend it within what the sport requires.
After that, the real trick is to offer complete, and unobstructed individuality to each hole and create a consistency in them all without creating boredom. For instance....
Generally, while I truly appreciate the work of AW Tillinghast, I have always believed Winged Foot and Baltusrol were far overrated simply because all the holes tend to "look alike". His work at San Francisco GC on the contrary is memorable on each hole. You can not find boredom at Cypress Point either! I also find much of Donald Ross's work is not as memorable as many claim. Pinehurst #2 and Seminole excepted. Southern Hills has a distinct flavour, and yet all the holes look and feel alike. They are well designed in themselves, but not memorable. Give me a designer with a commitment to the game and the mind of Salvadore Dali anytime. (I didn't say Andy Warhol!)
:-*
-
Patrick
We must remember that sometimes good drainage is paramount in a design and this may help to explain the similar look of holes on some classic courses. Its a tradeoff which in the long run serves the club better. I have said it before, but I also think that ability of people to travel and see large percentages of designers' work may work against the legacy of some designers...especially those who were prodigious in their output. Without a doubt after a while some designers there is a sense of been there done that...victims of their own success.
Ciao
-
Tom D: Re Post #36 - my guess is course #2 at Dismal River.
Perhaps now Scott will have an answer to his question!
-
I often looked at Tom quote here as we navigated the process. I recall him saying at one point..."this course has to be built". Anything that important to Tom is important.
-
A wise designer once commented: "Not many people are able to get more than one golf hole in their head at a time..." I think that is the crux of the routing "genius" — as designers we are expected to keep a lot of balls in the air all at once, and this is not easy.
It is made even more complex when you are walking at the same scale as the land, across the terrain, unable to transport yourself high up into the sky and look down on the possibilities left, right and below. This is why the topo map becomes important — on sites where you cannot see X from Y you often need a map to show you where you are, and to keep things in perspective.