Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jeff Tang on March 29, 2011, 11:03:12 AM
-
One of the cooler things about making treks to the prairie courses in the US is the land that you travel through getting there. It’s been pointed out before on this site that it’s fun to try and find your own golf holes as you drive through the hills and dunes and I totally agree with this. One of the things I like most about GCA is the photos that are posted occasionally of before and after shots of golf holes (from pre-construction to final product). It’s always interesting to me to see land that was already there and how it was used to produce the end result. A while ago there was a picture of Erin Hills’ second green site that was posted in its original form and then also how it looks currently that I thought was very interesting.
What are the course sites you wish you could have seen before any work was done on them? I think it would have been cool to see Sand Hills before any construction and to see how some of the “holes” looked prior to them actually being made and to see how much dirt was actually moved.
Another question I have is does a course that exists in its final state that did not have a lot of earthmoving done to it deserve more accolades than a course that did have a significant amount of earthmoving? Or is it the other way around? Personally I’m of the opinion that it’s just the final product that matters and that while minimal earthmoving is cool what really matters is what ends up on the ground. I think it’s possible that in the quest for “minimalism” that too little dirt can be moved which would otherwise sacrifice a better golf hole.
-
Jeff,
I am no acclaimed architect, nor writer, but I agree with most of how you put it in your final paragraph. Minimalism shouldn't be restricted to a simple definition of the amount (or lack thereof) of earthmoving. You may need to move a total of 5,000 cubic meters of earth on 14 of the 18 holes, but in order to sequence that routing together, you may need to move 15,000 more cubic meters on those 4 other holes. In that case, it's how well the architect/shapers camouflage their handywork.
I am not there yet with my untrained eye, but I am sure one who is more experienced can walk a site and realize mis-routed holes, meaning that holes could have been routed another way so that either a better sequence of holes could be produced or less earthwork was needed...all for the better of the whole.
-
Jefe -
I remember seeing some pictures of the land at Ballyneal before construction began and that was pretty cool. I just don't know how those architect guys do it.
Erin Hills is a good example where they tried to move as little dirt as possible and screwed up some of the holes as a result, all in the name of minimalism. My idea of how it shold be done = move as little dirt as possible, but make sure you're creating great golf holes in the process.
-
I thought this is one cool looking site for a golf course. In fact, there is a world-famous course nearby, but it is not nearly as interesting as this landform suggests (care to guess where)?
(http://fxpppa.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pJOhkg6pR1h-cGr51YnAYEg8I1b_dhPWVpVxxAVbMsXhtPWxDZt_FP-0Zy5x0eqVSaKhvR1rsgKdGm-4S7e3vR41S1s5Iv9CK/BigIsland.jpg)
-
Rich,
That looks like Apache Stronghold land!!
As for a great drive where there are endless areas for great golf courses. The drive to Ballyneal from Denver produced a ton of epic looking terrain. And here in the Spokane area that is lots of undulating land that could have epic golf courses. Its not sandy based land, but the movement in the landscape due to the glacial flooding is beyond epic in spots.
-
Kalen, good to have you back. I hope to get out to Spokane area this year. I hope you are free :)
-
Kalen, good to have you back. I hope to get out to Spokane area this year. I hope you are free :)
Thanks Richard,
I'm trying to check in more often. And yes we're now playing golf in Spokane as most of the courses are back open.
P.S. Was I correct about the photo? : :)
-
This thread reminds me of somebody telling me last year about their experience playing one of the new courses at the Prairie Club (likely the Dunes course). I'm not sure of the hole, but the one that was built was nothing special. But standing on the tee, if you looked about 15 degrees to the right, was a potentially all-world hole just sitting there.
I have ultimate respect for those that can discover and see these things, especially when the ground nuances are masked by vegetation, trees, etc. And connect the dots on top of that. How do these guys do it? Maybe Tom D really does see greensites like Neo?
Kalen...what great circle route are you taking to Ballyneal from Denver? It's pretty flat for the first 98% of that trip, then BAM!
-
Kalen...what great circle route are you taking to Ballyneal from Denver? It's pretty flat for the first 98% of that trip, then BAM!
Hey Jim,
If you look at my prior post, I actually attributed the "undulating" type of land to the Spokane area. While the drive out to Ballyneal is pretty flat as a general rule, I think the sandy low dunes could make for some terrific golf courses.
But alas, I won't be quitting my day job anytime soon in favor of being a land scout!! :)
-
What are the course sites you wish you could have seen before any work was done on them? I think it would have been cool to see Sand Hills before any construction and to see how some of the “holes” looked prior to them actually being made and to see how much dirt was actually moved.
Another question I have is does a course that exists in its final state that did not have a lot of earthmoving done to it deserve more accolades than a course that did have a significant amount of earthmoving? Or is it the other way around? Personally I’m of the opinion that it’s just the final product that matters and that while minimal earthmoving is cool what really matters is what ends up on the ground. I think it’s possible that in the quest for “minimalism” that too little dirt can be moved which would otherwise sacrifice a better golf hole.
Jeff:
I did get to walk the routing for Sand Hills before anything was built; in fact Jim Urbina and I hit balls around some of the back nine, which was one of the cooler experiences I've had. VERY LITTLE was moved from that point to the finished course. They tacked the green up onto the side of the hill on #4, they did some creative stuff with a very severe site for #2 green, they moved a bit of earth in the fairway on #12 where it was just too severely crowned right in the middle. That's about all I noticed, other than digging 90% of the bunkers.
In regard to your last paragraph, you should check out the argument on the "genius routing" thread.
-
Jeff Tang,
Right now on the front page of this DG there is a contest about selecting the best Alps hole.
My question to you and all others is, would anyone build a course with holes like that at Prestwick, not a copy or rendition or inspired by, but actually build a course routed across the land that played in a similar way to Prestwick? Outside of the nostalgia factor and the commercial desire to cash in on that, I don't think anyone would. Do you?
If not why? To move more earth and build better holes? Says who?
-
Don - that is EXACTLY it.
I paused for a second before I started typing this because my praise of your post won't help you much, and in fact it will probably HURT your case -- i.e. if I myself get tired of myself and my 'theoretical' musings, I'm sure everyone else long ago has.
But that's the thing - I don't really believe a post like yours IS theoretical. I think it is instead wholly PRACTICAL. It asks a simple but very important question:
Why has every architect for the past 80 years built basically the SAME KIND of golf holes, the same 'forms"?
Peter
-
Why has every architect for the past 80 years built basically the SAME KIND of golf holes, the same 'forms"?
I don't know, Peter...maybe because they don't want the liability issues of taking the cart path up and over the Alps? Just a thought.
Don you've asked a really great question. You too, Peter!
-
Don:
Excellent post.
When we took George Bahto to Scotland a few years back, prior to building Old Macdonald, Prestwick was (deliberately) first up on the itinerary. After playing 18 holes, George sat down on the bench by the clubhouse while Don went in to buy some gifts from the pro shop. And his first question to me was "How did we screw things up so bad?" He meant golf, in general.
-
I should put in the caveat that not many American architects have built a course on land anything like Prestwick. We might have had something like it at Old Macdonald -- if Mr. Keiser had insisted that we build our course on half as much property, so he could build a fifth course on what was left!
Which ties back to Eric's post, actually. I think that for safety and other reasons, we are generally given so much land that we can work around our blind-shot problems. If you wanted to see more courses like Prestwick, you should give your architects 120 acres and tell them to not worry about safety. Necessity IS the mother of invention, and of holes like the last four at Prestwick.
-
I understand the need for safety only I believe true safety rests in the hands of golfers, not archies. I wonder how much "safety" has impacted design and how much of it was actually necessary.
Don - I believe archies have completely bought into safety design whether they admit it or not. Plus, golfers have become conditioned against extreme architecture OR choose to define extreme in modern terms. For example, an island green isn't extreme, but an Alps is. It is no coincidence that the rise and passion for measuring yardage has coincided with the decline of blindness. Blindness doesn't lend itself to measurement or quantification very well. I would also say that definition in design (probablly keyed by safety concerns as well) is paramount for many archies; a road map must exist. However, to be fair to archies, it becomes pointless to design wily holes when a guy can whip out a gun and measure what the archie tried to conceal.
It has forever been a mystery to me that folks visit GB&I, love the courses, love the conditions, love how clubs are run and the connection many have to the local town(s), then go home and completely forget all these things in favour of the routine experience.
Ciao
-
I understand the need for safety only I believe true safety rests in the hands of golfers, not archies. I wonder how much "safety" has impacted design and how much of it was actually necessary.
You can say the same about speeding on our roads Sean. Or about most things. If it was left solely with the participants to police themselves, then a few bad eggs would cause havoc for all.
I happen to think that an obvious blind shot is not the biggest safety hazard in a design though... As long as the architect understands how to provide mitigating circumstances, most golfers treat blind shots fairly sensibly...
The biggest internal safety hazards are usually to do with separation between holes, dog legs facing in to each other or weak attempts to provide barriers for safety reasons which reduce visibilty and create more problems than they save.... These are less obvious to the golfer and therefore they do not act with caution...
-
eLts face it, even with 100% drivers on the road driving legally, my safety is in the hands of drivers, not rules. Sure, rules mitigate the hazardous situations, but they are nowhere near a substitute for good and well aware drivers. Its the same with trees on a course. I would much rather have the opportunity to see what is going on around me then I would having to depend on trees to keep me safe.
However, Bahto's and Tom's comments speak to space dividing holes as much as reducing blindness. This space causes longer walks which in turn disrupts the flow of a game. I can't deny that space is the ultimate in keeping the golfer as safe as is reasonably possible, but at what cost especially when we consider that we all trust strangers in much more dangerous situations? That said, I am more favourable to the idea of space on a public course where it is far more likely that yahoos will be playing than on a private course. Honestly, in all my years of golf I have only encontered a few spots which I think are needless dangers and making alterations wouldn't effect the quality of the hole(s). Without doubt, Painswick's 8-9 combo is plainly stupid. Sharing a fairway which is blind from either direction is totally unacceptable and I would have no problem seeing the owners sued if a serious injury occured. Another situation is the 9th at Leven. The tee for the 10th requires a lookout BACKWARDS toward the 9th tee - the par 3 green is that close to the tee - crazy set-up.
Ciao
-
eLts face it, even with 100% drivers on the road driving legally, my safety is in the hands of drivers, not rules. Sure, rules mitigate the hazardous situations, but they are nowhere near a substitute for good and well aware drivers.
I agree entirely... But it's the yahoos that kill you... All you can do is make it more difficult for their unsafe actions to result in unsafe consequences.... Get rid of a blind corner for example...
The layout of Prestwick and other older courses has as much to do with balls that travelled less distance, courses that were far less busy, a bigger general awareness of surroundings, a weaker attitude towards safety across all walks of life and a less litigious society.
I do not disagree that the change in these aspects have had a detrimental affect on the way we enjoy golf. In fact, I again agree entirely.
But you can't build a course like Prestwick any more for these reasons far more than because it is against a Client's normal expectations to see a hole like The Alps.
-
Ally
I agree with everything you wrote except for "can't build". I would change that to "won't build" and therein lies on of the major differences between classic and modern architecture.
Ciao
-
Ally
I agree with everything you wrote except for "can't build". I would change that to "won't build" and therein lies on of the major differences between classic and modern architecture.
Ciao
I'll go with that...
Although the classic era guys wouldn't have built those courses either given today's set of parameters.... So I'd say therin lies the difference between classic and modern golf courses... But not architecture...
-
Tom, Eric and PPollotta,
it seems we are drawn back to a metaphor Shackelford uses alot tying 'old school' golf design to traditional baseball stadium architecture. The site restricted the architect, eventually leading to a design solution that is now viewed as quirky.
-
Tom, Eric and PPollotta,
it seems we are drawn back to a metaphor Shackelford uses alot tying 'old school' golf design to traditional baseball stadium architecture. The site restricted the architect, eventually leading to a design solution that is now viewed as quirky.
Michael:
Geoff grew up watching games at Dodger Stadium ... I saw a bunch of games live at the old Yankee Stadium, Fenway, Forbes Field, etc. So he cannot tell me much about old baseball stadiums!
But it's a good metaphor. To extend it a bit further, a lot of modern baseball stadiums try to imitate some of those old quirks, and most of them fail miserably because there is NO GOOD REASON to justify the ramp in centerfield in Houston, or all the quirky corners of the outfield walls at other stadiums. They are just random elements introduced by the designer, and at that level, no one wants to accept them. It's the same in golf architecture ... modern courses get less of a pass for quirk, but they should, because we have lots of ways to avoid it.
-
Kalen, that is actually the land around Mauna Kea on Big Island. The course is actually much less interesting than the landform surroundiing it - which I found quite interesting.
-
Well - to use another metaphor. You can look at most modern films with a magnifying glass and still not get a hint of any shadows, any play of light and shadows. That's because they light the f--k out of the whole damn set and then add even more (spot) lights to make sure the audience never forgets for one second who the star is of the movie -- and then, just for good measure, in post production they drench/pump up the whole ugly unnatural thing in neon colours (because, "after all, the kids today are used to playing video games, and so they want that high-definition look"). Compare that to a film like the Maltese Falcon (I think it was) -- where the cinematographer had the set decorator put wall sconce lighting fixtures all around Bogie's apartment (to serve as the notional 'light sources') so that the various and varied shadows produced by the human beings moving and interacting with eachother that enrichen the scene would 'make sense' to the viewer's eye. In short, they wanted the shadows back then -- and so found a way to make them work. So, yeah, we have a lot of ways to avoid quirk these days and there are always ways to tweak the land 'just a little' to make for a'better golf hole' and for 'safety reasons'. But what the hell is wrong with shadows?! Where is the 'humaness'? (Or do we really want to agree with the film producers and say "after all, the young golfers today have grown up playing EA Golf on high-definition monitors and expect pristine conditions and Augusta-like forms"?) To paraphrase Don's post "Who says shadows aren't great?". They built Fenway the way they did because they had to, yes -- but it was allowed to be built that way in the first place because they weren't afraid of 'casting shadows'. Maybe it's because they weren't afraid of their own shadows. Hey - call it what you will; believe me, I understand the concept of working/creating within the 'conventional norms of the day', and of being creative within acceptable/traditional limits, and of giving people something that is within their 'comfort zone'. But I think it's important to be clear about the fact that this is what we're doing, i.e. we are working within conventions, and enforcing acceptable limits, so that the customer can be comfortable. Good - that's good. It's a good and valuable thing, worthy of respect. But it isn't transcendent, and will never be -- because we have set our sights too low; we have chosen to 'play in someone else's ball park' as it were, and to honour the collective taste and ideal instead of our own. How often in the last 80 years has a Marion Hollins-type driven a ball 220 yards over the ocean and had a golf courser architect say, "Yup, that's going to be a fine par 3"?. If you want to have the 16th at Cypress Point, you have to break a few eggs/forms.
End of rant and ramble.
Peter
-
I always like your metaphor's Peter, I treat them as learning experiences.
Regarding Don's question...why wouldn't an architect build a course like Prestwick? In my own opinion, a shot with some (or total) visual obstruction is inherently better than one without any.
I haven't played Prestwick so I don't know how "quirky" these features are compared to courses I have played. Tom D's comment along the lines of..."we are generally given enough land to avoid the blind shots" is distressing. Is that really a goal?
-
Jim:
It's good that you are distressed. Maybe you should go visit Rees Jones or Tom Fazio and explain it to them.
As I said before, necessity is the mother of invention. I am not at all sure that Old Tom Morris really thought the Alps and the Narrows and the Cardinal's Back were really among the best holes he had designed -- it's too bad he never wrote anything (that I know of) to that effect. They were just the best he could come up with considering the restrictions of a very tight property. My guess is, if he'd had 200 acres to work with, there would be less quirk at Prestwick, too.
[And Prestwick's quirkiness is about far more than blind shots, incidentally. You have never seen a green like the Sea Headrig in your life.]
A lot has been made on this thread about safety, but I don't think it's really about safety. Safety is important in the modern world, but in this discussion, it is often used as an excuse for architects or clients to steer clear of building some types of holes they really dislike for other reasons. It's more about today's norms. There are surely some architects who are all about "fairness" to the point that their work fits Peter's comparison with movie lighting just perfectly. There are others of us who are not afraid to have a bit of quirk in our designs, yet, we have clients to answer to and it helps us to make our case if there aren't many obvious alternatives for avoiding it [i.e., "Why don't you just put the green over THERE?"]. There has not been an architect immune from that issue since golf architecture started being a profession instead of a hobby, and that right there is probably the biggest difference between then and now.
-
Ally
I agree with everything you wrote except for "can't build". I would change that to "won't build" and therein lies on of the major differences between classic and modern architecture.
Ciao
I'll go with that...
Although the classic era guys wouldn't have built those courses either given today's set of parameters.... So I'd say therin lies the difference between classic and modern golf courses... But not architecture...
Ally
You could be right, but we will never know. As an interesting exercise we could talk about Prestwick as it has space issues (still today) and blindness/funk issues. I am curious, with the obvious limitation of land as teh many cross-over holes seem to indicate, why Old Tom went with 12 holes instead of say 9 - which would have involved less cross-over golf? He didn't seem to have an issue about the lack of space and jammed the holes in.
Tom
Yes, that is what I have been saying. Safety is used as an excuse not to create more courses like 100 or so years ago. That and no matter how much people fawn over funk and intimacy of design, most don't really want to play that week in and week out or so it would seem judging by what has been built.
I don't know who made the decision to approach Sea Headrig from the "wrong" direction, but it was one of the most creative architectural decisions ever made. For all intents and purposes, that green was land in an original state and nowadays, that green would have been totally revamped (if kept at all) to "face" the "correct" direction and of course that would ruin the hole.
Ciao
-
Sean:
I seriously doubt any practicing architect today would recognize the landform of Sea Headrig as a green site and use it. If anyone would, it would probably have been me, and I doubt I'd have identified it. And if I had, I wouldn't have reshaped it, but I probably would have looked for a hole that started from further to the left!
-
Peter,
I like your metaphor. I'm not a good writer and I have a problem communicating my thoughts as well as I'd like, but you really nailed it. Thank you.
Tom,
I had a nice long response typed out, but I reconsidered as I was lecturing again, and you don't deserve that from me. I do think you're right with your comment about the norms. But I think your wrong about another architect using a land form like Sea Headrig. Probably not one of your contemporaries, but I think there may be one or two out there who just might surprise you.
-
Sean:
I seriously doubt any practicing architect today would recognize the landform of Sea Headrig as a green site and use it. If anyone would, it would probably have been me, and I doubt I'd have identified it. And if I had, I wouldn't have reshaped it, but I probably would have looked for a hole that started from further to the left!
Tom
What I meant was that Sea Headrig was an original hole, but the green was probably much smaller to include only the left side. Using that plateau to the right at a later date (don't know who expanded the green) was a brilliant idea even if outrageous. I too wondered why the hole didn't come from the left, but perhaps that was a consequence of jamming 12 holes onto the property.
Ciao
-
Does anyone have a picture of the Sea Headrig green?
I would be interested to see it having not had the pleasure of playing the course.
I know I have posted this before, but for those interested in a course with land in its original state check out this thread.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34305.msg688470.html#msg688470
-
But it's a good metaphor. To extend it a bit further, a lot of modern baseball stadiums try to imitate some of those old quirks, and most of them fail miserably because there is NO GOOD REASON to justify the ramp in centerfield in Houston, or all the quirky corners of the outfield walls at other stadiums. They are just random elements introduced by the designer, and at that level, no one wants to accept them. It's the same in golf architecture ... modern courses get less of a pass for quirk, but they should, because we have lots of ways to avoid it.
If quirk is (or can be) good, why must it be created only out of necessity?
-
A lot has been made on this thread about safety, but I don't think it's really about safety. Safety is important in the modern world, but in this discussion, it is often used as an excuse for architects or clients to steer clear of building some types of holes they really dislike for other reasons. It's more about today's norms.
I hadn't thought about the safety angle in that way before. Perhaps you are right but it's certainly something that never crossed my mind.
I do agree that today's norms have a lot to do with it though... Going back to what Peter et al said... I've lost count of the number of master plans I've looked at that look so "normal" that I have no interest in seeing the course on the ground - no bunker in an unusual place, no green site placed where you might not expect it, no up and over when you can go through...
-
But it's a good metaphor. To extend it a bit further, a lot of modern baseball stadiums try to imitate some of those old quirks, and most of them fail miserably because there is NO GOOD REASON to justify the ramp in centerfield in Houston, or all the quirky corners of the outfield walls at other stadiums. They are just random elements introduced by the designer, and at that level, no one wants to accept them. It's the same in golf architecture ... modern courses get less of a pass for quirk, but they should, because we have lots of ways to avoid it.
If quirk is (or can be) good, why must it be created only out of necessity?
Quirk is just not that popular among the average golfer population. It could easily be created without necessity, but a lot of it would be changed by management, due to golfer complaint, if there was an easy solution to be found.
Just one example would be my 18th green at Cape Kidnappers. It's in a punchbowl, unlike any of the other greens on the course, and I thought it was really cool for the sake of variety. But you'll only see the top of the flag if you drive it left of center. It is a natural feature, but still, the partial blindness [and the fact that you might get a GOOD bounce, of all things] has always befuddled Mr. Robertson, and he's suggested a dozen times that we move the green up to the left where it is more visible and where it would be harder and more straightforward. And every time some golfer comes along and agrees with Julian, I get another note about it. If the course were not so highly ranked, I'm sure he would have changed it by now.
-
Sean:
I seriously doubt any practicing architect today would recognize the landform of Sea Headrig as a green site and use it. If anyone would, it would probably have been me, and I doubt I'd have identified it. And if I had, I wouldn't have reshaped it, but I probably would have looked for a hole that started from further to the left!
Maybe it's because I was brought up as a Catholic, or that the Irish as a people were endowed with a slight inferiority complex, but when I read a bold statement such as the one above, I can't help but cringe a bit. I come from a generation that reluctantly accepted praise with a shy and embarassed "thank you", but never indulged in the practice of self praise or made boastful statements. We were reminded that "self praise is no praise".
I have no doubt you believe what you wrote, but don't you think it's a very bold statement to make, and one that would better be kept to yourself? I don't know whether to interpret it as a statement of your supreme confidence in your own ability, or as a sign of your lack of appreciation of the skills of your peers withing the industry, or a bit of both.
Or perhaps you just omitted the smileys? :)
I believe the Sea Hedrig hole did play a little more from the left, as it was originally played from the present 3rd green.
-
Donal
Yes, the current SH tee is further right, but the approach is the same as originally.
Ciao