Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Brian Phillips on January 30, 2003, 04:07:53 PM
-
I promised a few weeks ago that I would post pictures of Kingsbarns before construction started and now here are some of them. I hope this dispels any more thoughts that the developer Mark Parsinen had a great site to work with because he didn't.
From what I have learnt he put together a great team of people to 'create' Kingsbarns which as you can see was a lot of agricutural land. Underneath this was a table os sand which was used to build the course.
This is the 10th hole
(http://home.c2i.net/pgd/kingsbarns/10thbeforeweb.jpg)
This is the first fairway.
(http://home.c2i.net/pgd/kingsbarns/1stfwbeforeweb.jpg)
This is the site of the 1st green looking south.
(http://home.c2i.net/pgd/kingsbarns/1stgreenlookingsouthweb.jpg)
This is the site on the upper level looking north.
(http://home.c2i.net/pgd/kingsbarns/lookingnorthweb.jpg)
Here is the 17th green on the lower level of the course.
(http://home.c2i.net/pgd/kingsbarns/17thgreenbeforeweb.jpg)
I will explain about what I have learnt from people like Stuart McColm and Dr. Paul Miller who were both involved in the site tomorrow.
All pictures were donated by Dr. Paul Miller who I will try to get to jump in with comments about the project.
Cheers
Brian.
-
Wow, is all I can say. And here we are fighting over whether or not Rees Jones did a nice job taking advantage of what the land had to offer on Sandpines in Florence Oregon!
Could that farmland possibly be any more flat and featureless? What a fantastic wonderful out of this world job those guys did in building the golf course.
If you haven't viewed the finished product you must go and check it out. Here it is...
http://www.kylephillips.com/linksmag/gallery/kbgallery.htm
-
Brian:
Thank you very much for posting these pictures. Much appreciated. Very interesting.
-
Thank you, Brian, for posting these pictures. They are testament to what genius and imagination can do. I'm crazy about Kingsbarns and can't wait for the next opportunity I have to play there (this summer, I hope).
I hope these pictures don't fire up the "boo birds" who can't abide anything that isn't "natural." I have read comments here complaining about Kingsbarns being "manufactured." Duh! It's still a beautiful course and will mature into one the GREAT courses of the world.
And, by the way, I vote for Kingsbarn's Ian as the best bar manager in all of Scotland. (Sorry, Ian, I'm embarassed to say that I don't remember your last name due to all the pints!) He is BY FAR the most congenial and funloving person I've met working at any club. If you visit make sure you introduce yourself... you'll be glad you did!
-
Brian,
Did they have to put "catch basins" all over the place to handle the drainage or will the sandy soil there drain fairly quickly? I'm not too familar with their climate, but can't they get some pretty good rains there at times?
Gary
-
Brian:
Thanks for those pictures. It truly is amazing to see that that was what Kingsbarns looked like before because seeing it for yourself today, it sure looks like its been there for a long, long time!
-
Very interesting. I think that if one could marry Whistling Straits with Arcadia Bluffs, you might get an offspring that looks something like Kingsbarns. At any rate, the artistic interpretation of links like features, manufactered as they are at Kingsbarns, is quite admirable in my estimation.
-
Gee, I wonder what Rees Jones would have built on this site? ;)
-
If Ress were the architect and he had used containment mounding, as Phillips and Parsinen did at Kingsbarns (to the benefit of this great golf course) would we have reacted differently? Just wondering.......
-
If they looked uniform and fake....yes
If they looked like what it there now.....no
-
Rich has a point here -- If Rees Jones (or the owner) had decreed that native grasses should grow on his mounds at Sandpines, wouldn't that course look a lot more like Kingsbarns? And wouldn't it have found more favor here? I agree that the Sandpines mounds are more uniform than those in the photos of the finished Kingsbarns (following the link in mdugger's post), but those long native grasses have a huge positive effect on a course that otherwise might have looked far more artificial. Maybe Rees Jones' problem is not his mounding, but his grassing.
-
I think that is a very fair and accurate was of looking at things, Rick. Good job. While of the subject, however, I'll add that it might possibly be more than just the grass, although it may help considerably.
In keeping with the Dr. Mackenzie philosophy of making artifical features which are indistinguishible from nature herself, it is more than the grass. It is the shape. It is the varying distances between each of the mounds. It is in EMULATING nature, which is random and rugged, not 'tiding it up' or 'organizing it'. I guess it's just where the artistry is IMHO.
Some people find Rees' ameoba bunkers artistic. Some like nice, even and gently curving lines. I, personally, never see that sort of order in nature, but whatever floats your boat.
-
I was most interested to see the discussion on Kingsbarns. I was called in as golf consultant by Fife Enterprise Board and Walter Woods, Keeper of the Greens at St Andrews. The Project was going nowhere and I gave my opinion that the existing plans and routing were doing nothing for this truly Outstanding site, the finest I had seen in over 1,000 I had examined during my time with Trent Jones II.
I called in Kyle Phillips and the rest is history!
The magic moment for me was asking the developer whether the site extended past the trees to the east. He replied that some land could be acquired form a friendly neighbouring farmer. This permitted the creation of the 12th which compares favourabaly with 18 at Pebble Beach. This is a wonderful testimony to Kyle's creativity and is appreciated by all who play.
Errnie Els told me after the Dunhill that the course is "phenomenal" and I have had feedback from long handicappers who say they've had the most enjoyable round of their golfing lives around the Kingsabarns Links.
-
Brian:
Are you sure the first two photos aren't some you may have taken in Kansas? I was looking closely at those first two and I thought I saw Dorothy and Toto!
-
Richard Wax:
As someone who has not yet seen Kingsbarns, I am curious about your comment that it was an "outstanding site".
It appears you meant outstanding prior to construction?
If that is the case, how so? What positive qualities did it have?
How do you reconcile the description of the site as outstanding before construction and the pre construction photos Brian shared with us?
-
Tim,
I was also surprised by that statement and I have heard rumours that 4 other architects had turned the site down before Kyle Phillips.
I have always been under the impression that Mark Parsinen and Co. brought in Phillips themselves as well as all the others that were involved to create such a great course.
Brian
-
Brian:
The more I look at what Richard Wax said, the more I hope he will come on and clarify.
Notice Richard said that Kingsbarns was the best site he had seen out of 1,000 examined will consulting for RTJ II.
Based on your pictures I find that amazing. I'm not in the golf business, but have seen numerous properties better than what the pictures show.
Have I misundestood Richard? Or did the Kinngsbarn site have qualities not shown in your group of photos?
-
Tim Weiman;
You asked a good question when you asked what 'positive qualities' did the Kingsbarn site preconstruction possess?
It's often not easy to pick out interesting landforms, certainly small ones, when viewing photos but even if there really weren't any on the Kingsbarn preconstruction site, there could be the possibility of another very interesting aspect.
Certainly, the overall atmosphere of the area might have something to do with the aesthetics of the golf course's general area but that really doesn't exactly involve the ramifications of golf architecture and the details of it per se, in my mind.
But when most of us think of positve things for golf on raw sites we almost always seem to be talking about topography in one sense or another even if it's small in scale (as actually so much of TOC is).
And when we think of topography (contours) we almost always think of it in the vertical dimension in one way or another (perpindicular to the horizon, again no matter how small).
But it occurs to me that Kingsbarn could have done something else we may never think of. Possibly they have done two things with it that is rare today if done really well. First, perhaps they simply maximized their use of the HORIZONTAL! That to me would be maximinize the use of available WIDTH, in scale, in architecture and for golf. Width to me is one of the most valuable commodities available to any architect to make clever and interesting use of for golf.
So I certainly hope they did that as it would seem to be a tragedy not to if real width was available to them for routing. And if they could use real width in routing certainly they could design into that width and flattish scale anything they wanted to.
Then of course that would get to the second thing--what did they do to enhance the vertical dimension as that site certainly does appear to be sort of a flat blank canvas?
Imagine what a clever architect and really accomplished shapers could do there by producing a multitude of random small scale vertical features everywhere not unlike what TOC is naturally. That would seem to take a huge amount of creative work but it certainly could be done.
I was very surprised watching Gil Hanse shape some lovely little random contours on a green he did at Gulph Mills with what I thought seemed to be a pretty large blade so I know how it can be done. It took him awhile on a 5,000 sf green but just imagine if shapers who are as accomplished as Gil taking that basic look clear across a flattish site no matter how large.
Of course if it was done like some of the poor art and unnatural shapes that we see used in some architecture with parallel mounding and such with unnatural looking "lines" it would probably be a disaster aesthetically in relation to the overall "lines" of the kingsbarn area.
But maybe that's what they did there on a sort of blank canvas site--shape in a multitude of small scale random verticality and used some real width with it. If they did and really made it look to fit naturally to that preconstruction land somehow that would be really significant.
Whatever they did I hope they used the available width they had--the horizonal--to the maximum and for the sake of golf I hope it would be really wide. Width in golf and architecture is so valuable, in my book--not many have it anymore and even if they do they never think to use it, it seems.
Modern "shot dictating" architecture and "shot dictating" strategies in architecture really don't even seem to think width is necessary anymore as some architecture is so center line or middle oriented, so strategically one dimensional why would they even think width was necessary?
I've never seen Kingsbarn but I hope they have and also use real width on the holes and have a lot of interesting features and hazards going on inside that width to play around, short of, over, whatever.
-
Tom Paul:
The Kingsbarns site may have had some positive qualities prior to construction, but I'm still wondering how a professional in the golf industry would have found it to be the best of some 1000 sites he ever saw.
I'm still hoping Richard Wax will explain that statement.
A few years back Art Dunkley asked me to join him for a tour of the finished course. He spoke with great enthusiam about the course. However, he never even mentioned the raw land. His emphasis was was all about the work done by his business partner Mark Parsinen and Kyle Philips.
Can anyone else speak to Richard Wax's comment?
Was Kingsbarns one of the very best pieces of land available?
Brian Phillips:
Are the pictures you posted misleading in any way?
-
Gentlemen:
I would like to offer my impression that perhaps we are too focused on site values as related to physical landforms; rolling natural topography, intriguing horizons and appealing distant vistas while the true site values may lie in the described sandy soils, superb drainage, convenient grading, etc.
It stands to reason that with such conditions, a cut and fill exercise can be performed over the entire site to create the appeal of the rolling, undulating surface, whereas lesser quality, tighter soils would not permit this degree of grading without major drainage problems. To take this issue further, one must think in terms of elevation change. Three feet of cut pushed up in the form of three feet of adjacent fill quite naturally results in six feet of grade change with the most economical fill imaginable. Tight, unyielding soils will not permit this form of site gradiing as a general rule, but sand is another matter entirely. I am compelled to think this had a lot to do with the stated value pf the site. This is the dirt business in concert with intelligent design and a creative eye, folks. It all can be made to work very well indeed, even given a very flat, uninteresting site if one has proper values to aid in the application.
-
Bill Overdorf:
I would think that the best site out of 1,000 considered would be strong in both physical landforms and soil conditions.
Brian Phillips:
Bill appears to be speculating ("I am compelled to think...")about the soil, drainage an grading conditions at the Kingsbarns. Can you comment on these factors as they pertain to the site?
-
Tim and Bill
From some previous conversations with one of the developers, my understanding is that the soil which was underneath Brian's pictures was not sandy "linksland" soil, but soil more characteristic of farmland, which it had been for many generaitons. A fascinating part of the construction process at Kingsbarns involved the stripping of most of the topsoil, mixing it with sand to a desired consistency, and then spreading it back over the landform before seeding.
Hopefully Brian can confirm this and describe this proceess in more detail than my memory and layman's knowledge allows.
I too am sceptical of Richard Wax's comments knowing what I do about the property and the development process.
-
Rich:
Thanks for your comments. I always get frustrated when someone weighs in with a very strong statement (e.g., best site out of 1,000) and then goes away.
-
Rich,
The artificial containment mounding that is used by many golf architects today is a blight on the Game of Golf. It serves little purpose other then to control play which removes options, and in more times then less, provokes the golfer to hit the ball in one specific place.
The mounds that Rees Jones designs are not only artificial looking, they are also costly to build because there are so many of them.
The mounds that Tom Fazio designs are mass volumes of earthmovemnt that do tie-in with the fairways, but ultimately produce the same result--"HIT IT HERE."
The mounds that Ted Robinson produces are usually nothing more the mass land movements for housing tract pads that elevate those pads above the action, (You know, like a luxury box at a football stadium) and push the ball to the point of which the golfer was SUPPOSED to hit it at.
I haven't seen any of Kyle Phillips and Mark Parsinen's work other then pictures, and of those images, I didn't see a whole lot of containment in them--THANKFULLY!
But now you have to go ruin it by saying they are in fact there.
My heart swims in blood.............
-
Tommy,
There are contaiment mounding at Kingsbarns but they are shaped to perfection. Some were put in to hide fews of farmland like on the left of fairway one but you don't notice them.
Tim,
I will start another thread called construction of Kingsbarns today to show the process they went through. This course is a combination of many people:
Mark Parsinen and his partner - who turned a reasonable site with FANTASTIC views into a fantastic course with even better views.
Kyle Phillips - I don't know much about the process that was used with the brief and how many times he was on site. However I have seen one of his construction sketches and it is detailed and matches what was built on site.
Suart McColm - Project Manager of Southern Golf (now head greenkeeper at Kingsbarns) who loves his work and you see that in his passion for the job and the way he explains the job. He says the job nearly broke him but look what at what he achieved. Stuart and Co. are using hardly any fertiliser on the course which is giving nearly pure fescue greens. No other course in the area can claim that.
Mick McShane - the stroppy shaper but he is gifted. Do not walk on his topsoil if it has just been spread!! Probably not that well know but he is the boss on site most of the time. He was also the shaper at K2 in Ireland.
Dr. Robert Price - He was called in to advise on the mounding. Apparently (correct me if I am wrong Paul) the team had shaped up mounding but it didn't look right. It didn't look like dunes. There are many types of dune formation but the ones that are normal for that area are sharp edged dunes where the sand builds up and then just drops off to create what looks like a very steep cliff. This is what Price taught the team.
Dr. Paul Miller - He was asked to walk the site with Mark and teach him about grass. Paul helped him understand basic grass theory and Mark is now pretty switched on when it comes to types of grass.
I hope Paul chimes in today and if any of you would like to meet him he will be in Atlanta from the middle of February at the GCSAA conference.
Brian.
-
Brian:
I think that would be most interesting. Tom Paul and I have talked about how we can take Golfclubatlas "to the next level". It sounds like you will making a fine contribution.
Thanks very much.
Where is Richard Wax? Don't people feel if they make a strong statement they should stick around and answer questions about it?
-
Tim,
I just went onto Kyle Phillips' website and found an interview he did for a magazine and here is a quote from it:
My good friend, Richard Wax, with whom I had worked closely during our years with RTJII, introduced me to the site. The original developers were looking to sell. I was then able to bring together an American developer for whom I had already designed a course, his financial partner and Southern Golf, the contractor with whom I had an excellent relationship during the construction of the Wisley Golf Club. This formed a solid team.
Interesting.
Brian.
-
MDugger - Tim Weiman,
Brian Philips offers a logical reason for the existance of containment mounds, and you accept it, carte blanche.
They were used to hide something and therefore you accept them at Kingsbarn.
But, when Rees Jones or Tom Fazio uses them to hide something at one of their courses they are unacceptable.
Tommy Naccarato is correct, containment mounds are artificial, and saying that they look like they fit in is a copout.
Pat Mucci, Rich Goodale and JakaB are correct, objectivity, is not one of the strong suits of this site.
Intellectual honesty would be appreciated.
-
Observer,
If your going to classify the landforms at Kingsbarns as containment mounding, then you better include the winding ridge that runs along the right side of the foxy hole at Dornoch in the same category. The difference is that one is created by nature and one by machinery, but they are both a far cry from the bumpy mounding that you see on nearly every golf course off the side of the road. I hate the fact that I can immediately recognize a site as a golf course when I drive by because the shaping always looks the same.
Observer 2
-
Observer:
My only input on this thread has been about Brian's preconstruction photos. Mostly, I'm shocked that a professional in the golf business such as Richard Wax would call the site the very best out of 1,000 he has seen.
That's why I asked Wax - several times - to explain his statement.
As for the finished product, Kyle Phillips' work and any containment mounding, I haven't seen it. So, what do you want me to say?
I was of the view that it is "intellectually honest" to refrain from commenting when I have neither seen the course or even seen photographic documentation.
Do you have different perspective? Should I comment when I haven't seen Kingsbarns?
I noticed you made reference to Pat Mucci. I am not aware that he has seen Kingsbarns either. Maybe he has. Maybe he hasn't. But, I think Pat would agree that refraining from commenting on a course one hasn't seen, hardly represents being less than "intellectually honest".
One more thing: why in the world did you feel a need to post anonymously just to ask me to comment on a course I haven't seen?
-
What are the most interesting features that the architects incorporated into their design at Kingsbarn?
How does it compare to Whistling Straits--another mock-links course? Similarities and differences?
What do the Scots make of it? Is it accepted as the genuine article or are their some anti-American criticisms about some aspects of the course? Are there carts or cart paths?
-
Tom
The Scots love it. I played it with Walter Woods and when I questioned whether it was in fact a "real links", he quickly asserted it is, and shut me up! I love the course but I still think it's different from a true links.
No cart paths.
I believe that St Andrews Bay is a different story, it's just down the road.
-
Hi to all of you,
This is my first contribution so I trust the etiquette is right.
Brian Phillips has said some kind words relating to my photos and to my teaching in reference to golfing soils and grasses. I encountered him on the Edinburgh College of Art MSc Golf Architecture where I provide some input on appropriate subjects. We had a site visit to Kingsbarns with this group and followed up with some discussion and classroom input, mainly relating to the creation of soil profiles that would create the right pore distribution in the rootzone for fine turf to flourish. This was despite the natural soils being far from suitable in large areas of the site. I also see many contributions relating to Mark Parsinen, his vision and confidence to put Kingsbarns in place. I think relating to the site the main attraction is the long sea-front, about two miles. This enabled the design to allow sea views from every hole, which while we expect this of links golf it is not always provided (Old Course, Muirfield). Golfers expectations are thus, to some extent, realised.
Another aspect of the development was the way in which Mark Parsinen assembles teams of people who see problems with the backgrounds of different experiences. Discussion and debate allows consensus to be reached. This was certainly the case with soils management plans; there were about 8 to 10 of us on site and sitting around for hours exploring every avenue. Whilst there are probably things that would be done differently if the project were to be repeated (aren't there always!?) the finished job has been well received and has made its way into golf's collective conscience very quickly.
If there are specifics on this, or I can put in more pictures,please let me know.
Paul Miller
-
Has that old stone wall survived? There's one down the boundary of the second, but I can't remember a wall that's perpendicular to the shore.
-
re containment mounding
At Kingsbarns this looks right because Scotlands Golfing Geomorphologist, Robert Price, gave advice. Compare to that on the 16th on the Eden, St Andrews, and you see a poor, unimaginative 'dune ridge', running both sides of a flat and featureless fairway. (Brian will like this comment). Mark Parsinen was absolutely determined to understand what a links environment truly looks like (not what we think it looks like) prior to building one.
Paul Miller
If Ress were the architect and he had used containment mounding, as Phillips and Parsinen did at Kingsbarns (to the benefit of this great golf course) would we have reacted differently? Just wondering.......
-
Now Paul you don't mean my favourite fairway in Fife do you? Or even my favourite re-design ever?
Here is the fairway Paul was talking about
(http://home.c2i.net/pgd/Eden/eden16thfw.jpg)
Thank you Paul for jumping in. There is also another thread about that is 'construction photos of Kingsbarns'.
Paul, I think you will enjoy Robert Price's interview in 'feature interview' on the side bar.
Brian.
-
With the understanding that it is a picture, and I haven't seen this fairway in person, and I am guessing there is more contour on the fairway than the picture shows; I do not think this looks natural, and find it appears of the same objectionable ilk as the containment mounding found on other courses we have been bashing. It appears uniform in height, length, and regularly spaced and conveniently graded down at the right side of the fairway. :-[
-
RJ,
There is not any movement in that fairway at all. I promise. This is the 16th fairway on the Eden course after Mr. Steel was finished with it.
No wonder the locals walk off after 9 holes.
Brian
-
Observer:
My we are bitter this morning. I haven't bothered reading past your post for obvious reasons.
What is your deal????
For one, you are obviously someone "real" posting under a fake name. What is disturbing about this is you appear to have a bone-to-pick. You're dragging three or four threads together and picking a fight.
We are you doing this?
It is merely turning GCA into a "pissing contest", again, like so many, including myself, don't want to continue with.
BURY THE HATCHET.
-
I was just thinking about some of our most frequent posters that often take great offense at some of us who criticise this sort of unimaginative golf course design and construction. They say we are bias and unfair and don't appreciate strategy and that strategy is the most important thing, etc. But, I'll bet that no matter how ardent of an apologist any of those frequent posters are for architects who create such schlock as above 16th Eden or some of the Sandpines stuff, those same people could themselves both design and with a few days practice on a dozer, build anything better than that which we see above.
This has the same humorous flavor as the link provided to the "creations of friends and loved ones" thread
http://maddox.xmission.com/irule.html. I think anyone that would defend this unimaginative stuff is comparable to the parents putting their kids work on the wall of the office cubicle. It is self dillusional... :-/
I thought it was so funny, I posted the link here again. That picture of the 16th Eden could be posted on Homer Simpson's cubicle office wall, and called HOTD... ;D
-
Observer,
Now that I've read everything that has been written beyond your pile of #*$^ post, it seems that you are wrong, again, or smoking crack.
1. We have an expert who was a part of the project saying...
"At Kingsbarns this (Kingsbarns mounds) LOOK(S) RIGHT because Scotlands Golfing Geomorphologist, Robert Price, gave advice. Compare(d) to that on the 16th on the Eden, St Andrews, and you see a POOR, UNIMAGINATIVE 'dune ridge', running both sides of a flat and featureless fairway. (Brian will like this comment). Mark Parsinen was ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED to understand what a LINKS ENVIRONMENT truly looks like (not what we think it looks like) prior to building one."
2. We have a nice picture of the mounds at EDEN in St. Andrew's DISPLAYING, as Mr. Price put it, "a poor, unimaginative 'dune ridge'"
3. Brian Phillips appears to have no opinion of the 'containment mounds' at Eden, per se, but does back Mr. Daley's assertion that the said 'containment mounds', in question, do indeed SUCK.
Quoting Brian Phillips:
"This is the 16th fairway on the Eden course after Mr. Steel was FINISHED (note the disgust?) with IT (won't even acknowledge it as a 'dune ridge'.
No wonder the locals walk off after 9 holes." (ouch)
IMHO, this type of damning evidence is good enough to put to rest this notion that we are biased or "NON-objective" in our thinking about containment mounds, natural vs un-natural, etc.
I don't care if I come across as the a-hole here. We are always talking about the GCA discussion forum being a place to come and learn and talk about stuff, and so on.
If OBSERVER can't understand what I've just put down here there is no hope of OBSERVER ever 'getting it'.
IMHO, Kingsbarns looks very, very much, based on the pictures I've seen (I haven't been there, yet) like an authentic links. "Carved by nature, holes routed "naturally", 118 golf holes waiting to be discovered," pick you own cliche.
Even though this wasn't the case, as Brian's original pictures clearly show (the place was as flat as a pancake), IMHO it is a testament to the AWESOME work of Kyle Phillips and everyone else involved, that Kingsbarns LOOKS like a course that was always there, waiting to be discovered. It doesn't matter if it wasn't, it LOOKS like it, and from what it sounds like, it plays like it. To me there is something to this notion of "golf as it was in the beginning". Sandpines doesn't evoke this same spirit.
I just don't know how else to put it than that. What is interesting to me about the Kingsbarns project is this question that can be derived from our conversation here:
What is more difficult? Creating a great course like Kingsbarns or Whistling Straits (a blank canvas, so to speak)
versus
DISCOVERING a great course like Pac Dunes or Friar's Head.
In one case we must create our 'natural looking golf features', in the other, we strive to not SCREW-UP what is already there for us.
IMHO, the second is more difficult, and it is what separates the good from the best.
-
MDugger
I think you'll find that the majority of the holes at Friar's Head were "manufactured" rather than found. Very elegantly, of course.
-
I think I need some help in understanding manafactured as it pertains to FH ;) What is the most manufactured element of the course?
-
corey
My impression when I walked the course about 15 months ago was that the majority of the holes (i.e. those south of the dunes) were built on an old potato field/grass farm which did not have any significant "architectural" features. I do know that C&C incorporated admirably well what small elevation changes there were on the flat part of the original site, but I assumed (and perhaps was told, can't remember) that the finished product involved a significant amount of "creation" as well as "discovery." If I am wrong, I would be pleased to have anybody who knows the project better than I to put me right.
-
Of course Coore and Crenshaw created the golf architecture on the very flat farmland portion of Friar's Head and of course they had to "tone down" the unimaginable rugged terrain in the dunes section of the golf course.
I saw photos of the course before construction, I walked the course before construction, during construction and after construction was finished.
The extraordinary thing about their work on that site and course is to see particularly the dunes section before construction as it was hard to imagine how they could ever get golf holes in there (I think Coore was somewhat concerned about their ability to do that too). But walking slowly through that section after construction it's just amazing to me how they did it.
It's so hard to see at this point what they did exactly but there are some great holes in there now. They tied in so well with some of that radical topography that it's just amazing to imagine how they could have done it so well. There's very little in that dune section that looks man-made to me.