Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Michael Dugger on September 04, 2002, 03:43:53 PM
-
In light on the most recent post by Tom Doak regarding waterfalls, I think it might be a good time to address some of the important issues surrounding golf architecture and ‘minimalism’
Those who have read the ‘Confidential Guide’ know that Tom gives nice, if not spectacular, marks to Shadow Creek. He also mentions that with an unlimited budget he hopes that he could match, if not exceed, what Fazio did there.
Those who have read Mackenzie know that one of the tenets he based his golf course design philosophy on was ‘to make man made creations that are indistinguishable from nature herself’ (more or less)
Are we not sometimes a little too idealistic when it comes to a minimalist design? Do we wish that Pete Dye had used the existing terrain and material to sculpt Whistling Straits? Not every course that is going to be built in the future is going to be built over land like Sand Hills is laid upon. As the ‘inventor’, or sort of ‘reinventor’, of minimalism in golf course architecture, are we expecting too much from Tom Doak? Do we hold him (and all minimalists for that matter) up to unrealistic expectations??
Is there something anti minimalist about building a course in the desert?
-
Don't know if using the phrase "minimalism" is all that apropos if some of us just think a "minimalist" is an architect who doesn't move much earth!
If a good architect who is truly interested in adhering to MacKenzie's tenet--"to make man-made creations that are indistinguishable from nature herself" is really interested in doing just that he may have to move a considerable amount of earth.
In fact that's about the only way to make some architecture look like it blends into what really is nature or what it really looks like. Some of the very old guys who could probably be considered "minimalists", in that definition, didn't move much earth--mostly because they couldn't, I'm sure. But what they did architecturally often didn't blend very well with nature nor did it make those archtiectural creations look much like nature herself!
-
All minimalist talk aside, do you think it is possible to make a golf course appear to "blend" with a desert landscape? Is it even appropriate to discuss minimalism and desert golf in the same breath? I venture to say no.
-
"Blending" with nature is not the same as being "indistinguisable" from nature. Sometimes nature has elements that stand out from the general landscape and look totally "natural". MacKenzie's bunkers around the 13th at Cypress Point, c.1930, do not blend at all, but are heroic "eye catchers", and yet, appear natural to the landscape. Therein lies a hint of the genius to be found in a "Master." I would venture to say that blending is to be avoided, if "nature in its variety", is to be preserved.
-
"Blending" with nature is not the same as being "indistinguisable" from nature. Sometimes nature has elements that stand out from the general landscape and look totally "natural". MacKenzie's bunkers around the 13th at Cypress Point, c.1930, do not blend at all, but are heroic "eye catchers", and yet, appear natural to the landscape. Therein lies a hint of the genius to be found in a "Master." I would venture to say that blending is to be avoided, if "nature in its variety", is to be preserved.
-
TEP,
That last paragraph of yours is near heresy. While Tom Doak gets a lot of mileage out of the minimalist label, there were many practioners of that style in the past and a number of them today, primarily because of budgetary constraints. I tend to believe that if the old guys had the money and the equipment, they would have moved a lot more dirt and eliminated some of the quirk that we find so endearing on this site. I can't imagine what Dr. MacKenzie would have done with a generous budget and unlimited time at Cypress Point, but I suspect that holes 15 - 18 would have been done quite differently.
After moving over 1mm cy of dirt, installing a wall-to-wall irrigation system with nearly 2,000 heads, and building circuitous concrete cart paths on a budget of $8mm+, can TD still be considered a "Minimalist"? BTW, having seen the course under constructgion, I predict that it will be a resounding success. It will certainly look more "natural" than anything out there in that part of Texas.
-
BTW, TD's course that I was referring to above, is Red Raider for Texas Tech U. in Lubbock.
-
What in the wide wide world of sports would anyone who has ever walked on this earth do differently with CP 15-17 if given a little more money? Or even a lot more money?
-
George - They would mess them up.
-
Lou:
I can't tell in your post if you're being serious or not.
mgm:
I guess everything is certainly in the eye of the beholder. You said; "MacKenzie's bunkers around #13 at Cypress Point, circa 1930, do not blend (with nature--tp) at all..."
To my mind there is hardly a better example anywhere in golf architecture of clever blending with nature than the bunkering he cut into the natural dunes surrounding #13 Cypress!
-
I question the sentence that Tom Doak is the inventor or reinventor of minimalism in golf course architecture. I'll overlook it however as the title of your post is Tom Doak and minimalism. I've posted here before on the work that we (Dan Maples Design) do. "minimalism" for the purpose of discussion here, seems to center around the amount of dirt one moves. It all starts with the routing. We route or at least begin the routing with the premiss that we aren't going to move any dirt at all. How's that for minimalism? But if we in fact do move alot of dirt (without really knowing the amount of "alot") but make it look like we didn't move any is that still minimalism?
As I have said before, a golf course is an obvious manipulation of nature. Our philosophy is to minimalize the impact of that manipulation. You can call that minimalism, low impact design or whatever you like. It has worked for the Maples family for about 100 years.
-
Rick Noyes:
Yes, your definition certainly is a definition of "minimalism"! However, in the collective opinions on things that makes up the dictionary of terms on GOlFCLUBATLAS that definition is probably "definition B"!
But I would say on the strength of this thread and the info on it the collective opinions just might change your definition to "definition A"!
And that's the way it should be if the collective opinions on GOLFCLUBATLAS are to think seriously and realistically about this matter!
-
TEpaul - That is my point. "Blend" really means to "mix different characteristics into a harmonious whole". This would eliminate specific features. Nature is not blended but comprised of variety. The bunkering at #13 at CP, does not blend into the landscape, is very "attention getting", but appears natural. If it blended in, would it be noticeable, or be camoulflaged? "Indistinguishable" from nature, in my view, does not mean to be hidden in it. It means to be so skillfully crafted, regardless of its individual characteristics, as to be undiscernable from nature itself. Said differently, does the Grand Canyon blend into the landscape? No. It stands out distinctly from the surrounding topography. Does it appear natural? Absolutely.
-
Michael,
I love your thoughts on blending and such. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to comprehend them. Your Grand Canyon analogy helps a lot. Keep typing. Maybe I'll understand it.
On the concept of minimalism - everyone can claim every project used minimalism principles. All it means is that in their opinion they did the least amount of work to accomplish the project's goals. Yes, this includes moving obscene amounts of dirt and planting a forest in the desert to create a North Carolina setting.
Minimalism is a nice thought and a nice theory that puts modern course construction in historical perspective, but defining it or labeling courses and architects as minimalist gets tricky.
-
It is silly to judge the virtues of a course or an architect based upon how much dirt they moved. Many architects inject into the promo article or marketing piece a comment about how little dirt they moved as if this lends credibility to their work. Moving less dirt could mean an excellent routing plan was achieved, or the budget was tight, or the amount of dirt moved is relative (moving less dirt by Fazio might mean 600,000 CY). But, to move less dirt and have a course devoid of strategy and excitement achieves nothing other than to have wasted another opportunity. The dead masters probably would not move much dirt today. I would assume that their experiences in producing outstanding routing plans, and incorporating unusual natural features into their designs would inoculate them from relying on the big machines we have today. However, no architect should be hanged for either purposely exploring design ideas or being forced to incorporate design ideas that seem to compromise their label. I am not certain if sticking to the same design philosophy for 100 years is any better than exploring the possibilities of one’s own creativity, even if that means abandoning some of the tenets of their label or their belief system. Creative exploration is necessary, and much more likely to produce lively work that excites people. It does not require abandoning your own beliefs, but it does provide the opportunity to question your beliefs, to introduce creative tension, and ultimately to come through the process with a much deeper understanding of your own beliefs. That seems better than sleepwalking through life with someone else’s beliefs, or with hollow beliefs planted in your head.
-
Kelly:
There's a lot of interesting info in what you said about the vagaries of moving dirt or not on various sites.
And there's really a lot of interest, I find, in what the older architects did and didn't do regarding earth moving! Obviously we know that generally they weren't able to move massive amounts of earth with the ease it can be done today!
One of the things I feel I've been picking up on with the older architecture is that basically it was the tee and green-end where most all their earth moving was done and sometime even there so minimally that the divisions between their architecture and nature (or natural grade) really does become very defined and obvious.
Certainly we might say today that they didn't "blend" that well because of this and consequently that might show off a more manufactured look in some of their work!
On the other hand, I also find with the older work and the much older work that the overall "mid-bodies" of the golf holes (that other than the tee and green-end areas) really was natural to a degree far greater than today simply because they left those areas alone (didn't move earth there) or they tried a lot harder to use what they found with the site without changing it.
Sometimes, on some courses that might make some of their holes look a bit more bland in their mid-body sections and sometimes it might make it look more natural--there's always differences. But I think, for obvious reasons, the older architects left the "mid-bodies" of the holes alone far more than they do today.
That's the reason that things like massive amounts of earth moving along the entire sides of holes that some do so much of today I really don't like. It just doesn't seem necessary and occasionally doesn't just not look particularly natural but downright artifical and obnoxious sometimes--if one likes a natural look! I think things like that kind of massive "mid-body" earth moving very much unbalances hole after hole away from the overall flow (the overall natural "lines") of many sites.
The old guys didn't do stuff like that because they obviously couldn't (too much earth moving for them) but maybe they wouldn't have done it for those other reasons too!
-
I'm thinking this thread is really about site specific design. That is to say an architect designs a course or hole that can only be designed for that site. The golf holes on the Monterrey Pennisula are what they are because of where they are. You can't re-create that anywhere else. Therefore, those holes are "natural" in appearance. Regardless of the amount of dirt used to create them.
That being said, the creative exploration happens everytime you go out. Every site is different. Requiring different design solutions, whether they are 100 years old or you thought it up yesterday.
Yes, architects do market themselves as minimalist or low impact or whatever. And that does catch the eye of clients under tight budgetary constraints. And I'm sure there has been a thread on this but I'll ask anyway: What's the difference between a $15 millon golf course and a $5 million golf course? (please refrain from saying $10 million :))
-
Outside of some of the obvious differences like costs associated with land, permits, materials, design fees, clubhouse, amount of earthmoving and waterfall building, etc., I suspect much is related to who the end users are.
I wonder how many courses advertised as costing $20 mil. to build ever come close to that number.
-
TEP,
I was being facetious; too much to do, a little bit of time, and a need to procrastinate.
What I was referring to was your comment or insinuation that the "old guys" didn't move much dirt because they couldn't. The prevailing opinion on this site appears to be that quirk was part of the genius of these guys. Personally, I believe that if they had the budgets and the equipment, their courses would probably look and play much differently. I think that gone would be many of the blind shots, "intimate" but rather dangerous routings, and bland, unexciting connecting holes. Would Macdonald with Lido or Thompson on a number of his courses be considered "minimalists"? Certainly not when the definition is based on volume of earth moved. I haven't seen NGLA, but does it really "blend" with the natural surroundings? Pictures that I have seen seem to indicate otherwise.
George and MGM,
CP is my favorite course that I have played. I like all the holes 15 - 18, but I know that MacKenzie had other concepts for at least #16 and 18, and this site's second most beloved figure doesn't much care for the last two holes.
#15 is dramatic photogenically. If you could only elevate the tee and move it to the right (the ocean), then you would experience life what one sees in the picture. A 9 or wedge, though possibly much more depending on the wind, the hole didn't have the same impact on me as its more famous neighbor, #16, or #7 at PB.
The Doctor's thoughts about 16 are well documented. I am not sure that it would not be a better par 4 with the tees moved back, and the green pushed further toward the ocean on the point. Would I change this hole? Absolutely not.
I like #17 a lot, but if they had had the money to protect the shoreline to the right of the trees on the left, the strategy on that hole would have remained more rich. As it is now, one would be nuts to play to the little sliver of land on the right side to get a closer, clear shot to the green.
I also like #18 though fully understand the problems cited by many who play the course. Had the money, equipment, engineering, etc. been available, I wonder whether the Doctor would not have built a bridge or connected that point some how.
To suggest that Dr. MacKenzie would have messed-up CP had he had more money and better equipment does not speak well of the Doctor's abilities. I would hate to think that his creativity and artistry were enhanced by a limitation of resources.
-
Some heady stuff here thus far. The direction I initially intended for this to go was in answering whether or not we hold our 'minimalist' architects up to unrealistic standards. Obviously the varying definitions of 'minimalism' create problems in doing this, yet there seems to be a popular opinion that says, "Yes we do, but we shouldn't."
One more question. If the essence of minimalism is to 'minimize' the impact that a golf course has on the native landscape, are some projects doomed to failure? What ever looks natural about a desert course???
-
Lou - The question, I believe, is not what would MacKenzie do with more resources, but what would "anyone" do? If you include him in "anyone", I think that misses the point submitted that "no else one is going to improve on MacKenzie, regardless of resources". Therfore, it could only be messed up. Although "necessity is the mother of invention", and that led the "limited earth movers" to some ingenious creations, if "Mac" had everything he wanted, I do think he might have done even better. He did have plans for an "ocean setting" for the 18th tee. It involved a bridge extending some forty yards into the Pacific. #16 is really a coin flip. I think it would be sensational either way, Par 3 or a exquisedly tempting short par 4.
-
Lou
American Contruction, which rebuilt Pebble Beach and built CPC, had heavy equipment at their disposal (and used it). Based on that, I don't believe you can attribute the quirk of #8 and #9 (or #15 and #16) to an inablity to move dirt.
ANGC was contructed with an army of heavy machines. Banff and Yale - in the early to mid-20s - cost $1 million each to build. Is there a modern equivalent to those results?
Timber Point and Tokyo were largely man-made. The same with Lido which was completed in 1917. Ross's Oyster Harbors had a single hole that cost over $100,000 to build. Walton Heath and other heathland courses utilized heavy machinery before 1910.
They moved dirt and in some cases plenty of it. I do not believe that most of the courses of the most noted architects would appear different today. They understood Nature (minmalists or non-minimalist, whatever that is), and that Nature is much more interesting than anything man can create, then or now. Their focus was maximizing the use of interesting natural features. Do you think most modern architects have the same attitude regarding natural features?
Since you believe the older courses would look differently (if they were able to move more dirt), is it your opinion that many older courses would have been improved - any specific or general examples?
Or are you saying modern architects are cursed by modern technology? That the men of today have, more or less, the same talent, intellect, and experience of those older guys -- unfortunately they are cursed. It seems to me there is huge difference in philosophies.
-
Michael,
I understand that you were joining George in his comments about how "anyone" could improve CP if they had more resourses. I think that George was directing his comments at my response to TEP, i.e. that MacKenzie would have done some very different things had he had more money and equipment. I do believe that the Golden Age architects were utilitarian more as a result of necessity than philosophically.
For the most part, they were designing within the financial and technological constraints of the time. While I have done no research on this, it seems that those who had access to more money, and later in the era, with the proliferation of more advanced construction and golf equipment, built less "minimalist", longer courses, possibly with fewer quirks.
Of course, I could be totally wrong.
-
Tom - Yale cost $425,000 (1926 exchange rate) NOT $1,000,000. Still the most expensive course ever built up until that time.
-
Lou,
In support of your last paragraph, I would refer people to the book, "The Course Beautiful" by A.W.Tillinghast, pages 37-38. It is an article written by Tillinghast about a course he designed over a swamp that was mostly water. The swamp was drained flat, landforms were manufactured by building large Forms (similar to concrete forms) and pumping in river bottom to fill these forms. Once he created an interesting landscape, he designed the course to fit naturally with it.
I would like to see a project like that get permitted in today's world.
-
Assuming that there are architects who want to be labeled "minimalists," I don't think they can be held to too high a standard.
As it stands now the word "minimalism" is already becoming a catch-phrase that any architect, no matter his methods, can find a way to use. The fact that there might be a definition A and a definition B for minimalsim, to use Tom Paul's words, indicates that it's already become multiple, subject to bastardization and popularization. Minimalism is losing whatever meaning it had to begin with.
But there should be a word or category to identify those who truly strive to build golf courses in the high, old way (with a few "modern" twists such as underground irrigation). Whether an architect choses to identify himself as such is up to him, but the standard for that concept ought to be kept pure and recognized when not fully achieved.
-
TMac,
As always, you make some keen observations and raise interesting points. We've had some discussion previously on the use of heavy equipment in course construction through the first quarter of the 20th century. While some machines were used during this time, it is my understanding that they were extremely primitive, difficult to operate, costly and more useful for very large scale projects. I do not have much interest in equipment (construction, golf, or otherwise), so I am willing to concede your superior knowledge in this area.
In reading much of the same books you have on golf architecture, I got the general impression that course construction back then was pretty much a labor-intensive, back-breaking process. I learned through my own conversations with two engineering professors at OSU who worked on a WPA crew to build the courses there that much of the work was done by hand. They remembered hauling-off clay material from the lake by wheel barrow and building the greens. Perhaps their recollections were fuzzy, but they seemed very credible to me.
In any event, courses during this period were routinely built for under $100,000, including the land, and money was definitely an issue at most places. I would not consider Macdonald and Thompson to be "Minimalists" in any definition of the word. Both had access to considerable money and built to a more manufactured standard.
This past June, I had the opportunity to observe some construction on the Red Raider course at Texas Tech. I watched one of Doak's and Urbina's expert shapers create the last bunker on the course with a piece of equipment that, under the operator's control, was like a surgical instrument. The agility of this machine and the way the shaper handled it was just short of amazing. The "old guys" couldn't even dream of this capability. I also observed several huge earth movers and assorted other pieces performing like a symphony orchestra. The volume and detail of the earth work was unreal.
As noted earlier, there was some movement of earth at that time, but much of it was in the areas of the greens and the tees. I do believe strongly that "Golden Age" architecture, as good as it is in the top tier, could have been better on a wider, more consistent basis. Specific and general examples: CPC #18; several of the par 4s at PB; the ridges or humps in fairways which make for blind tee shots; highly elevated, built-up grees with relatively flat surrounds (e.g. Naval Academy course); extremely compact, dangerous routings.
On balance, I think that equipment and money have been a blessing to modern architects. Despite much stronger environmental constraints and higher land prices in metropolitan areas, some very good courses are being built that would not have been attempted during the earlier time. It is very likely that new construction technology has resulted in numerous excesses, but for most competent, artistically oriented golf architects, this must be a very exciting time to be working (notwithstanding the current shape of the golf economy).
-
Michael Miller:
I think this is a totally fasinating thread!
There appears to be some interesting differences of opinion but probably as much because of differences of opinion on the MEANINGS of the words we're using on this thread to possible explain the same things--words like; minimalism, blending, indistinguishable, natural!
I'm sure there are differences of opinion on some architectural aspects of this thread but the words seem to be confusing the issue somewhat.
Your take on these things, particularly regarding what surrounds #13 green CPC, is very interesting to me, very fascinating--obviously an "artist's eye view" in a way.
And I see why you'd take exception to what I said about "blending", and I can also see how the word meant something different to you than it does to me.
When I used the word "blend" I meant man-made architectural work which is indistinguishable (to a large degree) from what's natural on the site or what was there before the architects began to build.
I believe what you thought I meant by "blending" is that those natural features are changed and compromised, wiped away, altered somehow to make way for the architecture or more particularly to "make the architecture fit". That is not what I meant by "blend".
I believe what I meant by "blend" was to make the man-made architectural features fit indistinguishably with natural features without compromising or altering those natural features or at least to a "minimalist" degree--and I think that's what you're talking about too although you may be using different words to describe the same thing!
I'm really not thinking of the "homogenizing" of natural features with the man-made although clearly none of us can deny that is necessary in golf architecture to a greater or lesser degree simply to make necessary golf features that are never going to be completely natural or natural looking (tees, fairways, greens and occasionally bunkering) fit into what's found on the site that's natural and useful for golf.
But still, I must say, I'm still confused about the way you use the term "noticeable"! It really doesn't much matter to me if whatever is "noticeable" is natural or man-made as long as it looks natural and fits naturally into the broad scheme of things (lines, dunes, topography, whatever) of the site as it was before an architect starts to build.
As an example of that the bunkering in the natural dunes around #13 were simply cut into those enormous natural dunes! The bunkering that MacKenzie cut into those natural dunes looks remarkably natural to me (although clearly if you really analyzed them you probably can tell that he either made them or cleaned and clearly some areas of those natural dunes to make them.
But whether he cut those bunkers into that natural dune or not the dunes with (or without) the bunkering is definitely "noticeable".
The same could very much be said for the massive natural dune behind both #9 and #11 but in those cases they are completely natural and untouched and also far more "noticeable" than what's around #13.
Matter of fact, I would call what's behind #9 and #11 as to be so "noticeable" as to be almost astounding! But nevertheless, those two formations are the natural site and completely unaltered, unhomogenized or unenhanced!
So if anything happens to be "noticeable" I can't see that it makes much difference if it is natural or man-made as long as it looks natural and fits into the scheme of things about the site that is natural.
And overall, again, I think whatever is natural about Cypress and whatever is man-made, regardless of how "noticeable" it may be is about as indistinguishable from real nature as a course could ever be!
-
Since this thread is named after me I feel obliged to comment.
As I've said before, all credit goes to Ron Whitten for inventing the phrase "minimalism" as it applies to golf architecture, and to my own work. I've always been slightly uneasy with the term because it means different things to different people, and because I knew that sometimes we would have sites which required earthmoving.
Ten of the fifteen golf courses I've built so far were built with less than 100,000 cubic yards of earthmoving, and several of the sites we're currently looking at would be done with less, too. I don't think anyone should say we've abandoned our principles!
Moreover, even though the project in the desert we have been discussing is a rocky, mountainous, barren site, we've taken great pains in the design to try and incorporate as much natural feature as the clients (or future golfers) could stand. I think this is eminently worth trying, even if most people wouldn't call it "minimalism."
Texas Tech, as Lou indicates, was not and is not a "minimalist" project at all. Trying something like that doesn't mean we've sold out: it means it was the most interesting project we had on the table at that time, and we wanted to see what we could do. I guarantee you it's not quite like anyone else would have done -- and that we're not likely to do it again ourselves. I also guarantee you that if someone gave us the land for Cypress Point tomorrow, we wouldn't apply many lessons from Texas Tech.
However, I can say that one of the reasons Pacific Dunes turned out so well is that we moved dirt in a couple of places. Ten years ago I would have left those spots alone in the name of "minimalism," and had a more natural golf course that wasn't quite as good. I'm glad I'm still learning, and that I'm more confident to make the right calls regardless of my image or what my fans (or foes) think.
-
Lou
Minimalism is a new term in regards to golf - you won't read any of the old guys calling themselves minimalist. And based on its present definition, I question how many would consider themselves minimalists. They were maximists - if that is a word - maximizing the use natural features and maximizing interesting golf.
What I object to is your idea - which is promoted in Fazio's book - is that these old courses would be much different if they had the ability to move dirt. I think it is based on faulty assumptions - that these guys couldn't move dirt. They could and did. Ohio State GC's dam and lake were constructed with the use of 'power shovels' and hauled by 'WPA trucks.'
The only blind drive I recall at PBGL is on the 8th along with the second on the 6th - I'm not sure how moving dirst would improve either hole. The same with the 18th at CPC, I can't think of how dirt moving might change that hole. And CPC had plenty of heavy equipment at their disposal.
I think the idea - which Fazio promotes - that these guys more or less lucked into a naturalistic direction because of technical limitations is not historically accurate. They had that tendency because the links courses they admired were natural and it also that tendency was a reflection of modern aesthetic tastes.
I think you are in the majority in your belief that modern equipment has been an improvement. My view is it has produced a sameness in courses with their soft flowing curves and regular grading and over use of water features.
-
As to making CPC better if MacKenzie could have moved more earth, that's fairly ridiculous in my opinion.
Frankly, we're quite lucky to have the photographic progression on that in GeoffShac's book on Cypress, with photos of most of the holes before construction compared to hole photographs immediately following construction.
It's very interesting to compare them and if with that useful comparison anyone has a better idea of what should have been done please be our guest and explain what that would have been!
-
TMac & TEP,
I am not of the opinion that there is a direct relationship- one way or the other- between volume of earth moved and the quality of the course. I would not even suggest that if the "old guys" had more money and today's equipment that their courses would look or play entirely different. After all, they were designing to that day's golfing population and their clubs and balls. I do believe that if they had a wider range of options and capabilities at their disposal, that they would have readily taken advantage of them.
I don't see the sameness and apparent blandness that you (TMac) complain about. Quite the opposite, I find more courses throughout the country at all price points which challenge my game and hold my interest. It may not be a good analogy, but do you think the work of today's surgeon with the advantage of considerable advancements in science and technology not to be superior to his counterpart at the turn of last century? I understand the artistic elements of golf architecture, but the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of the profession are significant as well. My bottom line opinion: the average course being built today compares very favorably to those of prior periods. The creme-de-la-creme may not, but that maybe as much a function of site selection and regulatory constraints as the artistry of the architects. Of course, I've been told in another thread that I am not too swift, so it is possible that I am all wet.
Concernig CPC, I never said that CP would be greatly improved by moving alot more dirt. I do believe that if MacKenzie had the money and equipment, he may have done something different on 16, might have protected the shoreline on 17, and would have found a way to build a back tee on 18, thus enabling the removal of the trees that protecting the driving area at its current shortish length. From what I saw from two visits to the course and one round of play, the site has so many wonderful natural features that no matter what he could have done, it is difficult to envision anything much better. But knowing that the Doctor was an advocate of labor saving devices, had he had a Fazio budget and some of today's earth moving and shaping equipment, he probably would have had a blast. Does anyone out there know if MacKenzie ever had a job where money was not a restraint?
-
Lou:
Your questions and points are tough to field! You suggest that with advance earth-moving capabilities MacK would have moved more earth and done something different and possibly even better at CPC.
None of us have any possible way of knowing that, however. What is it that suggests to you that something different should have been done there? We can also conjecture that the site of CPC had great potential to him and that he found on it the best he felt he could find whether in 1927 or 2002. Unless some significant improvement to the course can be suggested seriously we should assume he was able to do what he wanted to do totally even if in 1927 with the earthmoving capability available to him then or to us now!
-
Lou
I don't think most on this site are focused on the average and what exactly holds your interest?
ANGC was a fairly large budget. Why would you want an unlimited budget if mother nature left you something special? I would guess Sharp Park was pretty expensive since he reclaimed a section of the property.
In the past you claimed to be an admirer of MacKenzie. What is it that you admire about his designs?
-
TEP,
One last attempt to explain myself about CPC. Would #15 not have benefited from a tee closer to the ocean and back another 10 - 20 yards? (I don't recall if there is room there now or before).
Would 16 be a better short par 4 with the tees closer to 15 green and the green pushed back further into the point? If you recall, the Doctor had plans there for a par 4. It is a great heroic hole as is, but perhaps it could be more strategic as a two shotter.
On #17, the option right of the trees against the ocean is all but gone. If the money and equipment had been available to protect the shoreline, that hole too would offer more options.
The often maligned #18 would have benefited from the back tee which the Doctor had planned. Money was probably the critical issue here, because I suspect that if they could build the Golden Gate bridge, the engineering was probably there for a smaller version which could withstand the elements. Adding the length would have negated the need for the trees guarding the fairway which many golfers can't carry.
Do you for a moment believe that Doctor MacKenzie with his active imagination and penchant for visual trickery would not have utilized advanced tools if they were available? It seems to me that a man who studied the military application of camflouging techniques would have been like a kid at a candy store if he was given access to money and modern construction equipment. Maybe CPC would not have been better, but I seriously doubt that it would have been the same. As you say, we will never know.
-
Excuse if this has already been stated in previous posts (I only read the last page...)
But, most of these issues seem to be addressed by MacKenzie in "The Spirit..." pages 110-115. From what I am reading, here and how I interpret MacKenzie's remarks, Lou comes the closest to what he said about earthmoving, minimalism's merits VS machinery's capabilities. And, contained there in, Dr Mac., speaks about the inverse relationship with the contrasting project results of his heavily utilised heavy machinery project at Bayside with the one down the road that used 200 laborers. There he cites the irony of how his project with the largest mobilization of heavy machinery to that date, came out looking natural (though he didn't use the word minimal) and the big hand labor project looked devistated and overly worked and graded out to appear unnatural and boring. So when I find time, I have to go back through TDs book and see if he picked up on that passage in "The Spirit..." and no doubt none of that escaped him, and probably is one of his underlying concepts on the Lubbock project. It is almost as if Mac was setting the stage in explaining TDs departure from previous tendancies not to over grade or work the land with a lot of machinery to his methods at Lubbock. But, of course I speculate... ::)
-
Lou:
You make some interesting points about CPC and if and how it might be even a bit better in certain spots and certain holes.
But for me, unfortunately, I just would not be able to tell--not at this point anyway.
I've only been there one time, maybe fifteen years ago and to be honest my recollection (I basically knew nothing about architecture then) of it was not all that favorable on a hole by hole basis until I reached near the end of the course (13-17). Frankly, I hardly remember playing the first twelve holes which is unusual for me.
More of what I know about it now comes from intricately studying GeoffShac's book and applying that to what little I do remember (13-17 are still very clear to me)!
But GeoffShac's book is put together in an interesting and very valuable way for architectural enthusiats such as us, and that because of the photography included in the book from so many vantages before the construction and then immediately following it! That before and after photography is incredibly valuable, I think!
If you study the course that way and think about it, in a way you're almost placing yourself in MacKenzie's own eyes as he conceived of and constructed the course.
But the little tweaks you speak of I have very little way of evalutating like if the 15th tee would be better off to the right more.
I think #16 might also be interesting as a very short even more optional par 4 (maybe something in playability like NGLA's original "cape hole" but a California coast version). However, I don't think at all that I would recommend that the green be cited farther right, but again I'd have to really go out there and look very closely. If #16 had a tee closer to #15 and played as a short par 4 alternately only, I see nothing wrong with that provided that it also alternately played exactly like it is now, the par 3 from its present tees! And we also know that MacKenzie thought seriously about this iteration until persuaded otherwise (likely by Marion Hollins).
I have no particular architectural reason to say that alterations shouldn't have been made there except that if a golf hole becomes as famous and revered as that one is I see no real reason to even speculate on how to improve it.
Again, I'd love to go there and look but if the tees were nearer #15 and the green was cited more to the right and the hole played as a short par 4 I would think the entire orientation of the hole might get a bit weird!
Sure it might offer the heroic option of driving the ball onto the green (much like the original cape hole at NGLA) but the safer option of playing around to the left might become a bit bizarre as it would seem you'd have to play out to the left and then almost back the other way! The hole then might turn into sort of an enormous "hook" in playability and then again I have no real idea how that might mix with players coming off #17 tee and such. But who knows, anything is possible.
#17's drive is very unique, a bit of an enigma, for sure, with the center fairway trees and the bunkering amongst them and apparently very little option to go right of them.
But again, I just don't know the hole that well in playability. I do think, however, in principle (architectural) that an option that appears to be there but really doesn't work or is never used is not a very good option (going right of the tree).
#18 and Morse's refusal to have a rock tee and the bridge to it is fairly well documented and the reasons he refused. The same is true with his refusal to allow MacKenzie to route #14 the way he wanted to.
But I don't know either if MacKenzie felt he was in need of more money to do things differently. I've never read or heard that--so it's hard to speculate that conceptually, creatively or in construction he felt he was short-changed at CPC!
-
Lou
Have you read Shackelford's Cypress Point book?
Interesting thought on #16, the current shot is probably considered the most spectacular stroke ever created in golf. Raynor wanted #16 to be a par-4, not MacKenzie, and Hollins is given credit for making it a long par-3. The options presented now are awfuly good. What would have prevented him from physically building your hole? Nothing that I can see, the choice was simply made from a golf stand point.
Not a fan of the short par-3? And a lovely one at that - the 15th. You don't think it helps create one-shotters of various lenghts? Many believe it is the best short par-3 in the world or least one of them. What would have physically prevented him from building your tee? Did he design it as he did because he couldn't move dirt? Another case where your disagreement is with his golfing choice and nothing to do with some limitation. Perhaps yours would be the better hole, I don't know.
What are you talking about protecting the shoreline of the 17th? Isn't the tee and green against the shoreline? Did he protect the shoreline on the 15th and 16th? I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
Have you seen the engineering blue prints of the suspension bridge on #18? I don't think you understand how advanced MacKenzie and his collegues were - they were not living in the dark ages. How many suspension bridges have you seen built to island tees since in 1927? If anything in this case he was pushing the envelope further in 1927 than anyone since.
I think you are missing the point, he had advanced tools and he used them. The difference is he used them correctly, temporing their use, optimally with artificial work subordinate to natural features. And look at what we now have to enjoy. CPC is a pretty good course, I'm sure it could be better, but not because of earth moving.
What is you admire about MacKenzie's architecture?
-
RJ
You might want to read through the whole thing.
-
TMac,
I've read Shackelford's "Cypress Point Club" cover to cover twice, and specific chapters numerous other times. In fact, I have it here on my table, and the second paragraph on page 163, the chapter devoted to #16, it clearly states that MacKenzie initially considered this as a "do-or-die" par 4. Hollins convinced him otherwise, but the matter was unsettled until the course opened.
#16 is a most spectacular hole and one that I would not change today because of its history and reputation. #16 is CPC. But that was not my point. Would the Doctor have gone on with his initial plan if he had a larger budget and an easier way to manipulate the land? We will never know. As you say the current shot is probably considered the most spectacular stroke ever created in golf, but this is so largely because of the setting. Does the hole fit the rest of the course? How playable is it in comparison to the rest of the course? If it was built inland on a Fazio course, all the Fazio bashers would be having a field day with it.
I am a big fan of the short par-3? 15 is "lovier" in pictures than it is live because the Pacific is not that all visible. Could the Doctor have created a point further out to bring the ocean more into the visual line? I am speculating that perhaps. Was money an issue? As you probably know, Morse did not seem to have abundant resources.
"What are you talking about protecting the shoreline of the 17th? Isn't the tee and green against the shoreline? Did he protect the shoreline on the 15th and 16th?" The fairway to the right of the trees is nothing but a sliver. It is my impression that the shoreline has eroded, negating what used to be a realistic, though risky option. The trees in the middle of the fairway are no longer in the middle, but now guard the right side of the fairway. To have a clear view of the green from the way the hole now plays, the drive has to be nearly 300 yards. #16's shoreline has been walled in areas post-MacKenzie, and my point is that had the money and cost-saving equipment been available, perhaps the always enterprising MacKenzie would have protected the right side of the hole.
It is my impression also that the bridge on 18 was not built because of money and safety considerations.
I won't argue that equipment existed back then. It was just not as advanced, agile, and cost-effective.
I enjoy MacKenzie's architecture because his courses are challenging, but playable. They offer variety and hold my interest. They are visually appealing (Scarlet in a fall late afternoon can be breathtaking). And when I play one of his courses, I know the level of thought and commitment that went into building it.
-
In regards to the 16th hole, in The Spirit of St.Andrews MacKenzie contradicts the idea that he planned it as a heroic par-4. Giving credit to Raynor and Hollins regarding its present length.
The 15th is lovelier in pictures? It seemed pretty lovely to me. Pacific not visible? Forgive me, but do you play golf in blinders?
I know were the trees on the 17th are, its an awkward hole. I don't know aything about the shoreline eroding when MacKenzie designed the 17th. Thats the first I've heard of it - can modern golf architecture prevent coastlines from eroding?
-
"I guarantee you it's not quite like anyone else would have done -- and that we're not likely to do it again ourselves. I also guarantee you that if someone gave us the land for Cypress Point tomorrow, we wouldn't apply many lessons from Texas Tech."
Tom Doak, If you're happy with the results at Red Raider, regardless of method, why wouldn't you want to incorporate what you've learned in future designs?
-
Lou,
Last I heard, CPC was shoring up the shoreline on #17 and trying to add back at least a sliver of land to the right of the trees so that it plays more like it used to.
-
Tom Mac., actually, I have read the whole thing. While you chastise me to read the whole thing, you yourself infact pick up on the very thing that most of the golf architectural books present as an inconsistency. That is that many of the statements of principles and ideals of these old masters were regularly contradicted by theselves a few pages further on. The only thing I infer in that is that there are no absolutes, and great architects can easily justify contradicting themselves from time to time, inorder to achieve their purpose. Tom Doak, while perhaps staking out a bit of reputation as a "minimalist" as described by a third party, is in fact willing to step out of the perceived nature of minimalist or naturalistically conservative mode and mass excavate to create an impression of nature with golf strategy as the goal. MacKenzie also seems to have these same tendencies of proclaiming an affinity to designing within natural terrain and beauty, and if neccessary, mass excavate alongside that naturalness or within it to achieve his golf course vision. i.e. Bayside...
But, when it comes to creating water features in the desert (later refined in definition to waterfalls) requiring massive earthworks construction as TD originally positted, that goes beyond just the philisophical extensive use of machinery as a contradiction to the concept of minimalism. That has nothing to do with the golf strategy, just eye candy. That strikes at the philisophical pedigree of the naturalistic construction conservatism to achieve a golf course, described by TD or Dr. Mac., as I interpret them.
I'd ask you to give me a pass if I misused some of the words above, since I am not a writer, and barely literate. I hope I conveyed my ideas efficiently. :-[
-
Slag,
The biggest lesson of Texas Tech, though it was a remedial lesson, is just how hard it is to be as creative as Mother Nature. Mother Nature had a bad week in Lubbock, which we spent $7.5 million correcting, but she had a really good week on the Monterey Peninsula!
RJ,
If you're going back to look at The Anatomy of a Golf Course, don't forget that it was written three years BEFORE the manuscript of The Spirit of St. Andrews had seen the light of day!
-
RJ
Are sure you read it? I've been saying for about two years that those architectects were not mimimalist and that is what I said in this thread. And they did not contradict themselves, because they never claimed they were minimalists. I think they were extremely consistant in their philosophies. And hopefully I've been also.
-
For the love of John Kavanaugh on a Friday,
For the love of my Red Raiders in Lubbock,
And for the curiosity from our fellow architects on the board, I'm bumping this minimalist conversation; 1. because I think it was a fascinating conversation
2. Would you other architects on the board take a piece of ground such as the Rawls course was built on and try to leave your mark (in this economy of less work) or continue to search elsewhere. The assumption obviously being that the funds/owner are in place to get the job done. Or is property that uninteresting just too uninteresting to you?
-
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/8a1a21fc.jpg)
I'd like to see The Rawls Course.
Southwest flies to Lubbock. + + +
-
Eric,
It is a blast. I'll see it again in October.
In many ways, it had to be one of the most challenging Mr. Doak et al, have had to work with.
Although I loved going to school at Tech, I was golf depressed/deprived as I was there before the course was built.