Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Cliff Hamm on December 07, 2011, 11:35:26 AM
-
Quick read on golfweek.com where in Brad's words: "The 10 courses listed here represent a sample of some of the most important works in U.S. design." The choices are interesting as by and large they are not the usual suspects:
http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/dec/06/klein-crash-course-great-architecture/
-
Thanks, Cliff. Very nicely done, Brad - you have a real knack for getting to the heart of the matter without dumbing it down. I've been on this site for years, and yet found myself thinking "Oh, so THAT'S why architecture matters".
Peter
-
All courses with public access.
Good job Brad.
-
They comprise a curriculum that will provide a better understanding of architecture
Excellent!!!
-
+1 on the public access angle. And, yes, good job.
-
A really nice read. Thanks.
-
Garland - A+ that they are all public access. Did not catch that...
-
Thanks for posting the link to the article Cliff.
I also like the focus on public courses, if good architecture is going to be appreciated by a wider audience they ought to know where it can be found.
-
I'd add:
Blackwolf Run River Course
Whistling Straits-Dye
Cog Hill #4-Wilson
Spyglass
Pebble Beach
Lakota Canyon or Redlands Mesa
The Quarry at Giants Ridge
Bethpage Black
-
Bethpage Black is listed
-
I would have put Wine Valley in the original list of 10.
-
I'd be curious what other courses were considered. I like how the list comprises modern and classic along with different styles. You could make an argument for other courses, but it seems like there is one from every genre. I'd have liked to have seen Black Mesa included, but its hard to argue with what's there. I like the inclusion of Tobacco Road--its not for everyone but should be seen.
-
fellas who wish to make a replacement
please explain why and how they are a better sample
-
Really nice article and analysis.
Good to see the inclusion of Lawsonia, which often doesn't see much play in the golf press.
-
Quick read on golfweek.com where in Brad's words: "The 10 courses listed here represent a sample of some of the most important works in U.S. design." The choices are interesting as by and large they are not the usual suspects:
http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/dec/06/klein-crash-course-great-architecture/
we will have truly entered a Golden Age when an article is written profiling these same 10 places that doesn't have a qualifier that they are "important works in US Design", but rather that they are "10 great places to play golf"
-
Brad:
Great work. I loved how you chose different architects at all public courses so that anyone could experience the designs from great and differing architects. Especially liked the inclusion of Tobacco Road, Lawsonia Links and Wild Horse, instead of just listing a Nicklaus or Fazio design.
I do have a couple of questions:
1. How close were you to including Pacific Dunes over Old Macdonald for viewing a Doak design. While I love Old Mac, you are almost including 2 Macdonald courses by listing Greenbrier and Old Macdonald?
2. Did you consider listing a RTJ design just so someone could see the difference between strategic and penal designs? I don't know if there is a great public design to show this - but Firestone would certainly highlight the differences.
3. I don't know what public course would qualify, but I would have loved to see a Colt/Alison design in the list, as I think their style is different than the others listed and maybe as good as any architects ever.
-
Well worth reading, I agree, but...
... it's not a Crash Course in Great Architecture.
It's "10 Well-Designed Courses You Can Play," with dollops of architectural instruction here and there.
A crash course in golf-course architecture would take one (or, better yet, several) of these courses and walk a reader through, shot by shot, hole by hole, showing what the architect was attempting to achieve.
Seems to me, anyway.
And, yes, I'd much prefer, personally, to read that other story. I'm sure Brad could write it well.
-
Well worth reading, I agree, but...
... it's not a Crash Course in Great Architecture.
It's "10 Well-Designed Courses You Can Play," with dollops of architectural instruction here and there.
A crash course in golf-course architecture would take one (or, better yet, several) of these courses and walk a reader through, shot by shot, hole by hole, showing what the architect was attempting to achieve.
Seems to me, anyway.
And, yes, I'd much prefer, personally, to read that other story. I'm sure Brad could write it well.
Dan,
While you make a good technical point, I am just thrilled that many golfers (outside of GCA.com) will read the words "Great Architecture" and perhaps contemplate what they mean...
-
I guess I would take issue with two of the courses on the list....
...if a key component of good architecture is building minimalistic courses with reasonable budgets, then how does Chambers or PGA West - Stadium course make it in here? In this day and age when budgets have become tighter than a frogs spinkster, how could undertaking projects like this be responsible in any way, shape, manner, or form? I think Chambers is a fantastic course, but it sure was a massive price tag. Especially given that they still aren't done making changes and spending money. Perhaps they got lucky in landing a US Open which could mean a massive financial windfall and long-term viability, but how about the other guys who try and fail.
A course like Wine Valley was likely built at a teeny fraction of the price of Chambers, and is almost every bit as good in my opinion. These are the kinds of examples that should be highlighted.
P.S. I'm thrilled to see WildHorse on the list and very much look forward to giving it a play next summer!
-
I too was surprised to see Old MacDonald instead of Pacific Dunes because, as mentioned, a MacDonald course was already included and Pacific Dunes is representative of the original work of Tom Doak, an important modern architect.
-
Kalen,
I think the point of something like this would be to highlight all the different styles of architecture...not a bunch of the same thing. I also think its written for somebody who isn't well read or traveled on architecture, not somebody who has already played 7 of them and wants to debate whether Black Mesa would have been a better inclusion than Wild Horse or whatever.
You might come to the conclusion from the exercise that "a key component of good architecture is building minimalistic courses with reasonable budgets," but I think this is more about the journey than the results. I think a reasonable budget is a good business practice, by the way, but not necessarily a component of good architecture. One can spend a lot of money to build a great course, and I'd still be excited to play those courses. If it were my money being spent to build a course, that minimalist guy would be high on the priority list though!
-
Well it is Brad's list of which he thinks is illustrative of diverse architecture. His qualifier is that the examples should be 'accessible'. Otherwise, he may have been more able to demonstrate an obligatory example of diverse great architecture by MacKenzie, and substitute Crystal Downs for Pasa. But, Pasa fits the accessible bill better, and it is still a good MacKenzie example.
One might think of substituting Sawgrass for PGA West, to demonstrate similar design principles that Brad calls attention to, with regard to Dye's long lateral hazards of sand or water, tempting but deceptively difficult carries, etc.
Why wouldn't Brad nominate Old Mac, which his input gives him much credential to discuss the exemplary nature of demonstrating diverse and significant classically traditional architectural features of an earlier genre, easy to play upon, confounding and challenging to try many types of shots, and skills.
I like how Brad gets the notion of restoration architecture in the mix of considerations, with C&C's Pinehurst2, Lester's Greenbrier, and Renaissance's Pasa. If we are to think in terms of the art and craft of great architecture, examples of restoring great architecture should also be considered along with new original significant designs that exemplify GGCA.
-
I love it how, when someone asks me for my five favorite golf courses and I name five, they immediately argue with me for leaving one out. My snarky answer is always that if you wanted ten maybe I would have included the one you were looking for.
So as with any piece, here I was operating under constraints, mainly it all had to be around 1,700 words or so to fit the original print space. Added constraints, self-imposed, were that they all had to be public access, equally divided between Classic (pre-1960) and Modern (1960+), from ten different design shops and geographically diverse.
Kalen Braley’s assumption (Reply #18) that “minimalism” is some sort of standard worth emulating as an inherent virtue makes no sense to me; it’s certainly not one I have ever committed to.
Cary Lichtenstein’s list of additions (Reply #8) suggests some interesting courses but – outside of Bethpage-Black (which I include) do not convey designs that in my estimate are distinctive enough embodiments of styles worth studying, even if they have some considerable virtues – like Pebble Beach’s figure 8 routing. If I were teaching an ethics course, I’d focus on Plato, Aristotle, Kant, et al and not Dilthey, Bergson and Rawls, even if the latter are worthy later on.
Andy Troeger (Reply #11) asks which courses I considered. All I can say is that I have seen thousands of them, have a huge collection of scorecards and books, and I flip through my mental roll-a-dex each time I write such an article and sort through very unsystematically to come up with such a list.
Michael George (Reply #15) asks a great question of whether, in choosing Old Macdonald, I committed a mistake by basically including two Macdonald’s, since I already had Greenbrier-Old White. But of course Old Macdonald is a Doak-Urbina design, not a Macdonald, it’s their version, I know that course as well as almost any other, and it’s much easier for me to explain its distinctive features than just about any other since I was witness to its genesis. I’m big believer in being didactic, or as I often say, it’s more important to be effective than to be right.
As for a Colt-Alison, well, something had to give and I'd be hard pressed to name a quality public course they did; I also left out Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus. Had I room for 20 I would not have.
R.J. Daley (Reply #21) asks about TPC Sawgrass-Stadium over PGA West as the paradigm for Pete Dye. All I can say is that PGA West is a starker embodiment of his visual genius, though TPC Sawgrass is more sophisticated strategically. But it would take longer to explain it whereas there’s nothing subtle and everything is in front of you (or on the side for smart players) out at PGA West.
-
RJ, Brad is both effective and correct in mentioning PGA West. It's just unique enough to provide a crash course in gca. Sawgrass, and Hilton Head might be better courses, but as he said, would take too long to explain to a relative novice.
At first I was surprised to see Chambers Bay, but after listing the constraints, it's perfect.
For someone who wants a crash course, this article should pique their interest. Well Done!
-
well done, +1 on Chambers Bay as a Trent Jones insertion in the Crash course...what's next? lol
-
This is great, a two for one job - we get a crash course on architecture AND a crash course on responding to criticism!! The touch of genius, of course, comes in mentioning Kant as part of the defence. Even run of the mill egg-heads can dabble in Plato, but it takes a PUBLISHED egg-head to raise the daunting spectre of Kant!! :) :)
-
Bradley, I mistakenly tweeted "crash course on gca", instead of "great", while wearing my nifty Sandpines, long sleeve tee, in black. Which begged the question, would a great sequel be? "A crash course in bad/poor golf architecture". Or would that be too frank for mainstream media?
-
I truly think an on-going article series about architectural education would be a great idea. Build on this crash course idea and make it an educational series. I have high hopes!!
-
Adam,
I am seriously thinking of doing a parallel piece on ten architectural disasters -- or at least on the ten most wasted sites. My father was an engineer who was fascinated by the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and instilled in me a basic lesson that there's more to be learned from structural failure than from success.
Peter,
Before Golfweek I was a professor of political theory and taught your standard intro courses of Aristotle-Rousseau and then the occasional upper level classes in Marx-Weber-Habermas.
-
I am seriously thinking of doing a parallel piece on ten architectural disasters -- or at least on the ten most wasted sites
Care to offer any sneak peaks as to what might be on that list?
-
Galloping Gertie has to be #1.... Unless you can come up with something better... I would be interested to see a sneak peak, too.
-
Mac, Sandpines is the poster child for wasted ops.
Brad, If the crits were technical in nature, that would be even handed. (dare I say fair?) i.e. Pointing out how a fairway graded too high, didn't work with a green site bordered by water on 3 sides. I always liked that observation.
My entry would be the addition of the fairway bunker to the far side of the fairway, on the 3rd at Pebble. But, I can also appreciate how tough it must be to criticize an existing, or potential, advertiser's course.
Here's another thought... Especially leading up to the 2014 open and the recent make over at Pinehurst #2. Sophisticated Maintenance melds.
-
Peter,
Before Golfweek I was a professor of political theory and taught your standard intro courses of Aristotle-Rousseau and then the occasional upper level classes in Marx-Weber-Habermas.
As Peter said,thanks for the explanation.
Brad,maybe you should jump into the PV discussions.Your philosophy background would be helpful.Didn't I. Kant say something like if you can't prove something is true or untrue,it's acceptable to believe either side of the proposition?
-
I guess I would take issue with two of the courses on the list....ng minimalistic courses with reasonable budgets, then how does Chambers or PGA West - Stadium course make it in here? In this day and age when budgets have become tighter than a frogs spinkster, how could undertaking projects like this be responsible in any way, shape, manner, or form? I think Chambers is a fantastic course, but it sure was a massive price tag. Especially given that they still aren't done making changes and spending money. Perhaps they got lucky in landing a US Open which could mean a massive financial windfall and long-term viability, but how about the other guys who try and fail.
When the USGA awards the US Open to a Wild Horse, or a Common Ground, or one of 100's of public access couses that go about their business in a responsible frugal way, then we'll have something.
For the moment the "model" is Chamber's Bay for Municipalities.
Erin Hills owner went broke trying.
I'd love to see the USGA show up at a minimalistic design or even a classic old muni or private and say "here's an advance payment of XXXX to spruce up the place you get to keep whatever you don't spend.
We'll be here next summer"
Of course that's totally unrealistic, but after the plinko debacles at Shinnecock and Pebble,could they do any worse?
-
My father was an engineer who was fascinated by the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and instilled in me a basic lesson that there's more to be learned from structural failure than from success.
4.6 million people have watched this already -- but in case you're one of the billions who haven't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw).
-
Brad,
I too would be very interested in seeing the 10 biggest golf course disasters as well. Sand Pines comes to mind...I wonder if Torrey Pines would qualify too?
-
For those who don't know, Galloping Gertie was the name given to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge that collapsed so spectacularly in 1940 because of an inherent design flaw - the instability caused in high winds. As this thread has contemplated design disasters, one aspect of what separates the good from the great designs is the ability of the course to adapt - not only to player abilities, but also to changing conditions.
One aspect at my home course - Suncadia Resort in WA - is that the Arnold Palmer designed Prospector Course can become semi-unplayable in the prevailing 15+ mph winds that blow in the Spring and early Summer. The course plays predominantly against and into the wind. With nearly every whole fronted with a lake or large, deep bunker, the average player cannot keep the ball on the green going downwind when it is blowing, assuming they carry the hazard - not even with a wedge in your hand. In the dead of summer, when the winds are around 10, it is a non-issue.
My son and I have redesigned many of the holes (in our minds) and the changes are almost exclusively behind the green, and the simple change would be to cut the 3 inch rough down to something that doesn't require a sand wedge from a downhill lie to a downhill landing area, to a pin three paces on. Mr. Palmer failed to get up and down 7 times in 9 holes (if my memory serves me) when he played the course, and I was praying he would make suggestions to the resort owners on how to fix what should have been an obvious issue.
I conclusion, I would love to see an article that not only highlights the problems or issues with a design, but also one that offers reasonable solutions or alternatives, as a way of illustrating the differences between a bad and good design. Maybe even an article focusing on how Chambers Bay is dealing with their issues. They made multiple changes to Chambers Bay in anticipation of last year's US Am, and after seeing how it played (or more accurately how unplayable some holes were), and as a result they are making more in prep for the US Open. Cheers.
-
Michael,
I was out that way a few months ago, but didn't have a chance to stop in at the Palmer Course. I did drive around and take a look thou.
I also noticed that the new Rope Rider course is now open. Have you had a chance to play it yet, and if so what are you thoughts in how it compares to the Palmer Course or other courses in the PNW in general?
Thanks,
Kalen
-
Kalen, I have played Rope Rider about a dozen times; Prospector about 100 times, along with Tumble Creek a few times. The contrast between the two Suncadia courses, architectually speaking, are rather significant. As Peter Jacobson and Tom Hardy described their philosphy when they came to the course, the hazards are at the side of the course, not in front of the player. Hit is sideways, and you will be punished, but hit it straight and you will be rewarded. That is not to say that there aren't numerous hazards pinching the driving areas or located greenside that you effectively must play over when the pin is on one-half of the green, but there is almost always a way to get to the green and find the putting surface without carrying some danger. For a resort course, I understand that design thought.
In contrast, on seemingly every hole at Prospector except #1, you must carry a hazard to get to the green. In the wind, of which we have plenty, that is a problem for the average golfer. And as I said earlier, the way the back of the greens are so severly sloped and mounded, recovery can be impossible - and I play to a 6! On Rope Rider, the green entries are basically flat and instead of mounding behind greens, the greens fall off.
Although the greens at Rope Rider appear less severe, they are just as difficult based on my experience. One of the reasons is that they are more rounded in their shape - as opposed to the crescent shape at Prospector. Therefore, I find that you hit more greens at RR but the putts are longer. At Prospector, the putts are shorter and severe, and therefore when you miss the green, getting up and down is very difficult.
-
Mike,
Thanks for the write up. How would you compare Rope Rider to Seattle's best courses?
-
Without stirring the "opening up private golf courses" discussion, I have to admit I have played almost none of the private courses in Seattle, so I can't make a comparison to Seattle CC, Aldarra, Sahalee, etc. I am strictly, not by choice, a public and resort player. So, compared to Chambers Bay, I would take Chambers. Compared to WA Na, I would take Rope Rider. A wash with Trophy Lake and the Home Course.
The one thing about RR is that it doesn't look dramatic, it is straight forward and simple looking, but scoring is difficult for some reason. I have played Chambers twice and shot 78 and 79; I have not broken 80 at RR in 12 rounds. The greens are deceptively hard to putt, and they have not fully matured yet. If I had to make a general comment, the hazards on the course are used effectively, despite their limited numbers. You won't find big, long bunkers extending to areas of the course you are never going to hit to. More likely, there is one a 250 yard carry off a tee box, not a series of three. If the hole doglegs, then you better move the ball left or right, because if you hit it straight with a driver you are in trouble. So the course lulls you into making bad decisions becuase it looks like you can't make a mistake, but when you do, it is severe. The bunkers tend to be fairly deep, so hitting greens from fairway bunkers is difficult because you must use too lofted a club to get it to the green.
Of the handful of friends and family members that have played with me, they all enjoyed it. It will be interesting to see how it changes with the softening and maturing of the greens.
-
Micheal,
Interesting thoughts, thanks for your input. I'll definitely be sure to include RR in my next visit over to the west side. I hadn't played the Palmer course because I had heard so many mixed reviews on it.
P.S. I wouldn't have thought the wind would be a huge game changer as the Palmer course seems to be mostly routed thru the forest.
-
Along those lines, I should probably task my architect inspiring son to write an essay on that very subject for this site - one piece of land, two very different courses. Tom Doak had a very different piece of land at Tumble Creek - it had much more dramatic elevation changes. What is so interesting at TC is that he only moved dirt on, I believe, 3 holes. In contrast, Palmer moved dirt on every hole - hence the mounding along the fairways and behind the greens, and virtually every green is raised. I originally thought this was to get water away from the greens, but that is not an issue once I understood the climate of the Cle Elum area - very little rain or snow. So, why do it? I would love to hear Tom's comments about Prospector, because Palmer's design is the antithesis of Tom's - not better or worse, just different.
RR, to me, is more like TC - with the green shapes and slopes like TC, but without Tom's more natural looking bunkers, but with the ability to keep the ball closer to the ground and run it onto a green. In contrast, Prospector reminds me of a desert course design in a mountain location, and must be played through the air.
-
Because Prospector plays into and down wind, the wind is very much in play as the trees funnel it down the fairways. Trying to keep the ball below the treeline is always on my mind, but a 250 yard stinger is not in my bag. Without the ability to run the ball onto the green, hitting it low means you bring bunkers and water into play on nearly every hole. By taking it into the air, at least you eliminate the bunkers, but it means you are over the back of a lot of greens, with little chance recovery. So, even though the drive may not be effected on a number of holes by the wind, long shots into greens won't hold down wind, and short irons get above tree line and lose their spin and won't hold.
-
Brad,
I too would be very interested in seeing the 10 biggest golf course disasters as well. Sand Pines comes to mind...I wonder if Torrey Pines would qualify too?
I agree with the concept of looking at failures and learning from them...it is always popular and safe to show success...eg..lots of show and tell about Dormie while skipping ove the show of #13, the most difficult par 4 on the course.
all architects know what is a failure whether for golf/bridge/building etc...
maybe there is a thread already on this
like worst clubhouse or biggest waste of money on a clubhouse, lol