GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
Mulligan Course update
Tom_Doak:
I just got back from hosting members of the private clubs we've built at Ballyneal, for the second Doak Cup.
On the afternoon of the first round, nearly everyone went out to play the Mulligan. I played in a fivesome with two 15-handicap ladies, and two other men, one of them a low handicapper and one about like me.
I've never played a round of golf where there was so much laughing or exhiliration. Many of the greens are in bowls, and there were a huge number of shots that looked like they might go in for an ace, most of them off a backboard or sideboard: it happened at the 1st hole [2x], the 3rd, the 4th, the 5th [3x], the 8th [3x], and the 10th [3x]. It probably happened at the 6th and 7th, too, since we had shots within five feet at each, but we couldn't see the bottom of the flag from the tee.
This is not to say that every one of the holes is easy, or set in a bowl. If you miss the green left at the 1st, short at the 10th, or anywhere at the 9th, you might have trouble finishing the hole. Meanwhile, the greens at the 2nd and 3rd and 6th are some of the most subtle we have built. The course seems to strike a very good balance.
If every town had a course like the Mulligan, golf would be 10x as popular as it is. But I honestly don't know if I could build anything half that good on a blank piece of ground. What makes the Mulligan so special is that it's a great little piece of dunesland, and we never would have come up with greens like the 5th or 7th if they weren't mostly laying there.
Peter Pallotta:
Tom, even the question itself might be anathema to you, but:
Now that you *have* come up with greens like the 5th and 7th, would you ever consider re-creating them on said 'blank piece of ground'?
Remember that thread from years and years ago, on the differences between naturalism and minimalism? Why not start moving tons of earth at this stage in your career?
I mean, you and your team can embody/make manifest a natural aesthetic, while at the same time creating something good (and popular) on poor sites.
I'm more of a stick in the mud when it comes to golf courses: 18 holes with a very large number of Par 4s is the kind of course for me. But, over and over and from so many different folks I keeping hearing about how fun these shorter/par 3 courses are -- and, selfishly, I'm thinking that any course/any kind of course that makes golf more popular in general will be good for me in particular, in the long run.
After all, what's the big deal about minimalism, anyway? :)
Peter
Stephen Davis:
Tom,
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you posted. The Mulligan Course is fantastic and I have yet to have a guest there that wasn't completely thrilled with it. It is such a wonderful place to spend an hour or two. In fact, time seems to not matter when you are in there, as we found out when my friends nearly missed their flight home because we were having so much fun in there. I love the balance of the subtle holes and the boldness of the wild greens. It is a wonderful place to just drop a few balls down a pitch and chip around too.
The biggest compliment I can give it is when I took two of my boys for a dad/son trip there, they wanted to spend all of our time in there and specifically at the 5th green. We probably spent 3-4 hours in there over two days. When we had to leave to go home, they cried (they are little) because they didn't want to leave. You are correct, if every town had a course like that, the game would definitely be in a better place. Thank you for the wonderful work you and your crew did there. I am honored to be a member.
Tom_Doak:
--- Quote from: Peter Pallotta on October 19, 2018, 05:15:35 PM ---Tom, even the question itself might be anathema to you, but:
Now that you *have* come up with greens like the 5th and 7th, would you ever consider re-creating them on said 'blank piece of ground'?
Remember that thread from years and years ago, on the differences between naturalism and minimalism? Why not start moving tons of earth at this stage in your career?
I mean, you and your team can embody/make manifest a natural aesthetic, while at the same time creating something good (and popular) on poor sites.
I'm more of a stick in the mud when it comes to golf courses: 18 holes with a very large number of Par 4s is the kind of course for me. But, over and over and from so many different folks I keeping hearing about how fun these shorter/par 3 courses are -- and, selfishly, I'm thinking that any course/any kind of course that makes golf more popular in general will be good for me in particular, in the long run.
After all, what's the big deal about minimalism, anyway? :)
Peter
--- End quote ---
Peter:
Interestingly, today I was trying to visualize moving a very big chunk of earth for a little project we are looking at close to home. It's not the sort of thing I would have considered ten or twenty years ago.
But I don't always feel the need to be bound by minimalism. There are some sites where it just won't work - either you couldn't build a course because it was too severe, or it would likely be boring because it was too flat. Usually, I'm happy just to let other designers take on projects like that, but it doesn't mean I would never try one myself.
In this case the land is REALLY severe and moving some earth like that is about the only way you can build the project. But I don't have much taste for the opposite - i.e., moving a lot of earth on a flat site to make it wild and woolly like the Mulligan. That would just feel completely unnatural, not to mention unoriginal. So maybe I am more of a naturalist than a minimalist. Or maybe I just don't like to be typecast !
Jim Hoak:
I guess that raises the obvious question--Since golf is a game, why shouldn't it be fun?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version