[Patrick_Mucci]

I think in principle you are right. I kinda think good shaping or bad shaping is not really about cost and green construction costs if you are going to build them just normally are not that variable to do well or bad though size may be a factor.

What you can factor is the hand you get dealt.

Some courses that back onto factorys or airports can never be better than 4/10 so in that respect it may be the mediocre is the highest bar.

Adrian,

The runway for the Camden County Airport is 1,400 yards from the 14th tee at Pine Valley.

The 2nd tee is 1,460 yards from an amusement park

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

I think you have to consider the target market.

Some courses are designed with views in mind, and not just views of the golf course, but scenic views beyond the boundaries of the golf course.

Other courses are designed with internal views in mind and the desire for homes to be on or looking over waterways.

Not all golf courses are designed with the golf course being the first/primary focus.

I believe that there are a number of sites where the best land for golf was designated "off limits" to the architect as it was reserved for home sites.

The siting of the parking lot and cabins has always intriqued me at Sebonack

[Carl Rogers]

If the purpose of a short small course in an urban-suburban setting is to provide a basic close-by course for to neighborhood youngsters or seniors without a lot of disposaable $$, then that course cannot be compared to the courses the courses under discussion here.  There are different realities.

This thread is another of the "big tent vs little tent" interface.  As I have done both and like both, I am not conflicted by the contrast.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents.

Carl, others -- I think many of you have posed a false dichotomy, one that is often raised around here.  I think this dichotomy is an example of mistaken thinking, and of how developers and architects and writers over the decades have (consciously or not) shaped the narrative and thereby justified sloppy work and/or a lack of talent and/or a complete lack of appreciation for the value of golf courses AS golf courses. For me, this thread isn't a 'class' issue or a matter of 'prestige' -- in my entire golfing life I have played only one top-100 course and maybe two  private courses, and I have been happy and grateful to have local publics and municipal and modest courses to play on. This thread is about what is actually possible (as it seems to me), and why this possibility isn't being realized. Most of you will have many more example than I do for this, but wouldn't we all agree that many VERY GOOD courses have been built that a) are only 9 holes, and/or b) were designed on fairly flat and uninteresting land, and/or c) were made manifest with only smallish budgets at the builder's disposal, and/or d) moved some dirt to recreate/honour traditional 'templates' based on sound architectural principles, and/or e) had to incorporate in some form or other rooms for housing, and/or f) manage to be playable and enjoyable for a wide range of golfers without resorting to 6 sets of tees, and/or g) were built under some firm environmental/permitting restrictions but that found imaginative ways to cope with that such that a golfer would never notice.  In short, there are dozens of very good courses and hundreds of hundreds of very good golf holes that have been created under a variety of less than ideal conditions. They can -- and should -- serve as models and inspiration for any would-be developer or architect who wants to create/design a golf course they can be proud of. And since, all else being equal (and as Ally I believe it was suggested) it takes no more money to design/build an interesting golf hole and green than it does an average one, there is no excuse at all for anyone not to embrace the hundreds of models he/she has at their disposal and find a way -- ever time out -- to design and build a stellar golf course. Everything else, it seems to me, is b.s. -- and it's developers and architects foisting on others (e.g. the 'average golfer') their own limitations.

Peter 

[BCrosby]

Peter raises an interesting issue.  Us moderns have had the benefit of a couple of centuries of people thinking and writing about golf courses, of debates about principles of golf architecture, and of playing the courses built over those many decades. After all that knowledge, what forgiveness is possible for a poorly designed golf course?

Certainly limited budgets will affect what can be built. But even in those cases, can there be any excuse when the bones of a golf course (however humble) don't offer some measure of interesting golf? Put differently, don't we have a right to expect that a golf architect has an understanding of  the long, storied tradition in which he practices his profession?

Having some grasp of that tradition does not mean the designer is automatically capable of building great golf courses. It should mean at a minimum, however, that he knows enough about his craft not to build dull ones.

Bob    

[Jon Wiggett]

Even on a small budget it is possible to create interesting golfing challenges. Indeed, it takes perhaps more skill as a GCA to produce relevant features that will both challenge the golfer and yet are low cost to produce and maintain. Neither does a course have to be championship standard (whatever that means) to be considered excellent. It is possible to produce a great course even when it is a pitch & putt.

Jon

[Jud_T]

Peter raises an interesting issue.  Us moderns have had the benefit of a couple of centuries of people thinking and writing about golf courses, of debates about principles of golf architecture, and of playing the courses built over those many decades. After all that knowledge, what forgiveness is possible for a poorly designed golf course?

Certainly limited budgets will affect what can be built. But even in those cases, can there be any excuse when the bones of a golf course (however humble) don't offer some measure of interesting golf? Put differently, don't we have a right to expect that a golf architect has an understanding of long. storied tradition in which he practices his profession?

Having some grasp of that tradition does not mean the designer is automatically capable of designing great golf courses. It should mean, however, he would be able to avoid building dull ones.

BC,

That is assuming that providing the most fun and interesting course for the most players is the primary motivation for building it and not say selling Condos, placating some rich clown's ego or getting a Championship event.
   

[BCrosby]

Jud T -

Building golf courses for those reasons does not obligate the architect to build dull/mediocre ones.

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - indeed.

Here's an example I just thought of.  There's a municipal course to be built. The budget is small. The land is bland. It's going to be 9 holes. The whole site is surrounded by a new development of cookie-cutter homes. The architect is currently thinking about/planning one 3 hole stretch, let's say the last 3 holes of the course. He has enough in his budget to create two bunkers per hole. Now, to me: there is little excuse for that architect to choose to put two bunkers on each of those last 3 holes, and even less excuse to place those bunkers on the left and right sides of the landing zone, and no excuse at all to repeat that pattern of bunker use 3 times in a row. And there is little excuse for the architect not to be thinking about designing a very long/very short Par 3, and even less excuse for forcing a Par 36 onto the layout, and no excuse at all for choosing to end the course with a done-to-death standard Par 4 followed by a Par 3 followed by a cape style Par 5.  The list of 'no excuses' -- under any circumstances and/or constraints -- is almost endless....but so too apparently is the tendency of many to make the most banal choice over and over again, and then blame the client, or the site, or the budget, or the 'average golfer' for his/her, what, laziness, cynicism, and/or ineptitude? The final course may not in the end (given the biases and tastes of the rating/ranking classes) be classified as a world-beater. But there is no excuse for it not to be stellar.

Peter

[Carl Rogers]

Peter & et ai,

Please remeber that the client/owner has to be willing to pay the fees for the better talent to design and build the lower initial construction cost & the lower maintenance cost course.  This is a real issue for the client/owner out there whose perception is that a golf course is a golf course is a golf course and everything associated with it is just a cost.

Not an excuse, but an explanation.

[Gib_Papazian]

I am with Peter 100% here; there are all sorts of examples demonstrating that even on a limited budget, a golf course of real strategic interest can be designed and constructed - even by a relatively unknown designer. David Druzisky comes to mind. Who the hell is *that* guy? Yet, one of my favorite golf courses is The Duke at Rancho El Dorado outside Phoenix.

It is on a dead flat piece of land, set in the middle of one of those hideous desert retirement type communities. I promise you the budget was modest at best - and yet the course is one interesting hole after another. Why? Because instead of creating interest on a macro scale - massive earth movement, endless waterscapes and pointless eye candy for nitwits - the golf course is full of little swales, kick points, falloffs and strategic geometries providing an easy path to the green for the chop, but a great variety of options for the skilled player.

He could have mailed it in, but it is clear a great deal of thought was put into the last 10% during construction - a commitment that transformed an otherwise faceless desert housing track to a cool little gem that goes completely unrecognized. It was like coming across an incredibly well done low budget Indie film. He did not need Jack Nicholson or Nicole Kidman to create a terrific narrative, all it took was some imagination.

Another that comes to mind (also in a desert setting) is Boulder Creek in Boulder City (not the city course next door). Mark Rathert had a very limited budget on a marginal piece of ground, but every single hole has something of interest to me. In other words, low-profile architecture that nevertheless reveals something new every time I go out there.

Rees Jones had wildly dramatic ground to work with at Cascata - less than two miles away up the hillside - and the result is a pile of shit. A thoughtless, poorly routed, cookie cutter yawn where massive amounts of money was spent to create something of little value. If I had spent $350 to play it, I'd have demanded my money back. If you're going to spend casino jing, at least give us something on par with Shadow Creek.

I suppose the ultimate example is Chechessee Creek in South Carolina - where a couple big name guys created what is IMNSHO - might be the best golf course I have ever played on dead flat ground. It would have been easy to force a bunch of ideas on the dirt or spend an insane amount of money - but they didn't. Peter is right, with examples like that, there is no excuse because spending intellectual energy is often more important than shelling out dollars; it does not cost any more money for an architect to take 30 minutes and hand rake a little swale into the approach area than turn a dozer operator loose and go to lunch. Neal Meagher does the fine tuning himself on every single hole - and I imagine Doak, Urbina and Bill Coore do the same.        

[Mike_Young]

Peter,
I can agree with your thoughts after reading your post #29.  I would add that often it is critical that a golf course be built that will allow people to learn to play golf and still be a very good golf course.  Golden Age design allowed for such and now days courses are often built that will not allow a youngster or a lady to enjoy learning the game. 

Carl,
The higher design fee doesn't necessarily mean the better talent.  IMHO...it often means the better marketing potential to the unwashed masses...

Jeff,
In your reply #24 you mention the below:
I have told the story before, but I spoke with one architect (not well liked here) whose prime design thought was to finish it in the three days he had allotted for the design.  Another (not well known here, except to one poster) said it was too much work to avoid a few bad holes.  A third kept making the same dull mistakes over and over.  All the ASGCA meetings in the world, playing the best courses when he could, somehow, he could never translate good design over into his work, for reasons I couldn't understand.
hmmmm.....interesting....did his sponsors miss this initially and since "he could never translate good design over into his work"  is he reviewed or dismissed ....  I had to ask...

[Tom_Doak]

Peter is right, with examples like that, there is no excuse because spending intellectual energy is often more important than shelling out dollars; it does not cost any more money for an architect to take 30 minutes and hand rake a little swale into the approach area than turn a dozer operator loose and go to lunch. Neal Meagher does the fine tuning himself on every single hole - and I imagine Doak, Urbina and Bill Coore do the same.        

Gib:

Good on you for mentioning a bunch of young guys who are doing excellent work and paying attention to the details.

However, in the interest of myth-busting, I will say that it's been a while since I had to hand rake a swale.  On a typical job we've got a half-dozen people on the construction crew who have the brains and the talent to fix anything I want fixed, but they have usually gone over everything three times with each other, and they don't leave me too many details that need fixing. 

Often, it's the least-known of them that does the most of that stuff, and that is how they eventually work their way up to being somebody you've heard of.  [For example, George Waters and Kyle Franz and Philippe Binette were all unknowns when they were the finish crew under Brian Schneider at Barnbougle Dunes.]  Now, it DID cost a bit more to bring down those guys instead of just using the guys out of the pub in Bridport, but I think it was worth it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Gib - thank you, not so much for agreeing with me as for making this thread a worthwhile one. I was hoping that someone who knew more than me would post concrete examples that grounded/supported my airy musings and theorizing. You did that, but also drew out the meanings/lessons of those examples. As I've mentioned before, I think that is the main good that gca.com can do re the public discourse on golf, ie offer a forum to thoughtful and well travelled golfers to promote courses like those you mention.
Peter

[Sven Nilsen]

How are we defining "stellar" here?  Is it simply architectural interest?  Does it include an element of difficulty?

Or is it what the owner/members/clients want out of their particular course?

Back in 1914 The Philadelphia Record ran a series of articles asking prominent players to define what they look for in a golf hole.  One response astutely pointed out that different golfers look for different things in the courses they seek out to play.  The two courses used as examples were Pine Valley and Philadelphia CC, the former being the course preferred by those who looked for an exacting test of their game, the latter being the choice for those that were indifferent to the challenge presented.  These were the guys who knew a round at Pine Valley would be a death march for them, who preferred a wide open field with enough room for their often errant shots and a course short enough for par to be an option.

Sometimes, and for some people, just good enough is just that, good enough.

Sven

[Peter Pallotta]

Sven - you ask what makes for a stellar course, but then seem to answer your own question by reference to Pine Valley and the challenges it poses. At any rate, the 2nd line of Mike Young's post no. 37 seems to serve as a very good definition.
Peter

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven - you ask what makes for a stellar course, but then seem to answer your own question by reference to Pine Valley and the challenges it poses. At any rate, the 2nd line of Mike Young's post no. 37 seems to serve as a very good definition.
Peter

Peter:

I don't think I answered any questions.  I simply pointed out that "stellar" or "above average" is merely a matter of perspective.

What a belt-notching scratch might consider below average might be perfect for a 20 handicap only looking for a little peace and quiet.

Sven

[Paul Gray]

As is frequently the case, Peter has successfully cut through the nonsense and dispelled the myth that excellent golf is only achieved via a huge budget. Where I would however wish to add one proviso is over the issue of turf. Where nature does not provide the right soil, cheap and quality are unlikely to be bedfellows. You can't build quality on a rice field, far as I know. And whilst attempting to do so wouldn't qualify as an excuse in my book, it would be an explanation for indifferent, inefficient results.

[Gib_Papazian]

Sven,

I think you’re missing the point of the thread. There is an enormous difference between “stellar” and “good enough.” Yet describing a golf course as "good enough” does not preclude it from possessing clever feature work. Peter is referring to those horrible “over-watered, bunker left, bunker right, guarding an elevated green, sloped like a pancake, 3 degrees back-to-front overandoverandoverandover like the movie Groundhog Day, except with an overweight beer wench. You know, the sort of course so bereft of interest it eventually attracts douchebags who wear their hats on backwards that drag their pull carts onto the putting surface.

Again, it is the little things that count - the sort of details that only become apparent to those of us who keep our eyes open. The average punter - even those with reverence for the game - only understand key features on a vague, visceral level. They know it is cool, but can rarely articulate why. It is a bit like an unsophisticated person wandering around the Musee d’Orsay for the first time. Trying to describe the underpinnings and philosophy of aesthetics takes a lot more thought than the vast majority of people are willing to put in - and not everybody is born with the raw sensibilities to ever fully absorb great art, music or architecture.

That stated, you do not have to be painting a van Gogh to observe some classical rules of line, texture and composition - or at least know them well enough to intentionally break them for effect (see the original Stone Harbor or the Dadaism movement). Mediocre golf courses - like mediocre films - are mechanically constructed to appeal to the lowest vibratory denominator, with little thought or aspiration to cater to the small percentage of us who pay attention and actually notice what Neal and I refer to as “the last 10%.”

Maybe a better question any architect ought to ask is if they are willing to go the extra mile to get all the niggling details up to their standard - even if 99.9% of the players will never notice the difference. Do I take photos or shoot movies to please others or myself? If you practice your art for the sole purpose of feeding your ego in the form of awards or perceived greatness, that is one thing. Specifically, I am thinking of great artists who toiled in obscurity, only to be recognized in death - which is a cruel irony. I’m not sure William Langford got the appropriate amount of ‘dap in his era given the relative unsophistication of his audience.

If you ask me - having enough practical field experience to hold a reasonably informed opinion - the dividing line is those who, whether they can compose quickly or at a tortured pace, refuse to walk away from an expression until it looks and smells like the vision they composed in their head.      

  

[Gib_Papazian]

A really fine example just occurred to me (and no, I am not slurping my friend Tom, who knows I am an equal opportunity, opinionated twat) would be #15 at Pac Dunes. This little stretch of land could have been a fairly nondescript par-5, maybe reachable for the bigger hitter, but a piece of ground that is not particularly inspiring - especially when book-ended between that rabid little terrier after #13 and that 300 yard par-6, bitch-slap afterwards.

So, you hit a little cut-slider off the tee on #15 and find yourself choosing between flirting with bunkers in front and left, going for the green, or playing El Pollo - with the safety shot to the right into what looks like an innocuous little depression. For a short knock like me, the choice seems easy - followed by a harmless pitch up the hill and a quick birdie 4.

There is nothing about that hole that would seem particularly salient on most decently conceived golf courses in America - until you discover that gal you took home has broken glass in her who-hoo. You see, that little swale to the right is actually a deep catch-basin, inviting you to lay the turf over your ball or skull it to the 17th tee.

Why you ask? Because Tom understands the dark fears lurking in the minds of idiots like me. It is one thing to whack a ball at full steam over Klondike Hill, content to accept the whim and fate of providence. But no, he cannot resist putting a mound that resembles a witches tit at the top of the swale, turning a relaxed pitch into a blind, constricted swipe; a bit too little and the ball kicks off the back side of Agatha's mammary and runs off the green, a bit too much and that easy-peasy tap-in tweet is now a 30-foot, downhill cliffhanger, inevitably followed by a fucking knee-knocker than has less chance of hitting the hole than I do of waking up with Amy Adams tomorrow morning.

One little feature nobody would ever notice, until that steel-toed boot kicks your juevos back to your rancheros. By then, it is always too late.  

          

[Peter Pallotta]

 

Fun to watch you warming up with couple of soft tosses, and then hitting your stride and bringing the heat!

We'll have to ask Tom (off line) if he was actually thinking about 'witches' there....

[Sven Nilsen]

Gib:

I don't think I missed anything.  

When I said "good enough" it was in the eyes of those playing it, not in our eyes.  And with respect to the types of courses I was talking about it was more the plain jane type than dolled up disco girl (or more oval green parallel fairway midwestern muni than trumped up target golf fiasco).  

There will always be a set of golfers that don't care one iota about clever feature work, angles or anything else that we hold dear and hope to enlighten the world to on this site, no matter how much or little it cost to build.  They have as much of a place in the world of golf as any of the illuminati.

Sven

PS - I think 12 at Pac is a better example for the point you're trying to get across.  It does more with less.

[Colin Macqueen]

Peter,

Your ideas made me think of Tom Doaks' Common Ground.  Do you think this is an in the ground example or have I already over-stepped the mark? It obviously isn't as low key as  Gib's examples.

I have paraphrased the "blurb" from Renaissance's web page.

"…a project that would allow us to give something back to the community and that was accessible to the average golfer…….  to create a course that is accessible and fun for all ranges of abilities... from beginners to competitors in the state championships.  We designed it to be easily walkable, to promote health and exercise, and to be affordable to all ….like the great courses .. which are the foundation of the game …."

There seems to be "common ground" between this and your thoughts don't you think?

I wonder if TD is able to adequately "cost" this effort as it was a state enterprise with his professional input very much discounted professionally ( I think I read that somewhere?). Nonetheless I wonder, Tom, if you have a gut-feeling with regards to per hole cost of Common Ground compared to other courses being built?

A very neat thread Peter, thank you.

Cheers Colin

[Peter Pallotta]

Sven - now I think I understand our differences on this. You wrote (with my bolding): "There will always be a set of golfers that don't care one iota about clever feature work, angles or anything else that we hold dear and hope to enlighten the world to on this site, no matter how much or little it cost to build."

To that I say: What do golfers have to do with anything? Or you or Gib or me for that matter? Or clients?

It is architects who design and oversee the building of golf courses. Do you think there are any architects worthy of the name who don't care about angles and good feature work and interesting greens and all the other things we hold dear?

If you think that there are such architects, then you have inadvertently addressed my original post, i.e. the reason that there are blah courses being designed and built is that there are still hacks designing and building them.  (And lest anyone think I'm being too harsh, sorry - I don't know any other term for someone who has chosen to work in a long and storied profession but who doesn't think the fundamental principles/concerns of that profession worth attending to.)

If you think there aren't such hacks around, then I'm again back to my OP, i.e. since any committed architect can know and understand the time tested and proven qualities and principles of interesting and engaging architecture (and can borrow from the literally hundreds of examples of very good holes/courses), what is his/her excuse for designing mediocrity?

And before you say 'golfers/clients don't care about those qualities' note the other side of that equation - i.e. since they don't care, then there is presumably nothing stopping an architect from doing the work he thinks best (since presumably these imagined golfers/clients won't notice either way)

Peter

Colin - thanks; and 'common ground' is a very good term/metaphor.

[DMoriarty]

On a more practical note, I think Macdonald is instructive on what to do with a an uninteresting piece of land and/or a limited budget.

     It is true that a group of golfers cannot always find an ideal terrain where they can build a fine golf course, but let the property be ever so flat,  one may contract an interesting course.
      The right length of holes can always be adopted [by which he mainly meant a variety of lengths]; after that the character of the course depends upon the putting-greens.  Putting-greens to a golf course are what the face is to a portrait.  The clothes the subject wears, the background, whether scenery or whether draperies --are simply accessories; the face tells the story and determines the character and quality of the portrait --whether it is good or bad.   So it is in golf; you can always build a putting green.  Teeing grounds, hazards, the fairway, rough, etc., are accessories.

As for what constitutes good putting greens, again CBM emphasized variety, the emulation of nature, and modeling after the great putting greens already in existence.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()