Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tim_Weiman on March 24, 2015, 02:51:57 PM
-
Surely, every participant at GolfClubAtlas has a great love for golf architecture and also has appreciation for the professionals - both "old dead guys" and modern architects - who created the courses and holes we hold in such high esteem.
But, I'm wondering: are there truly great golf holes where the architect really didn't do anything noteworthy?
Certain criteria would have to met to meet this standard, including:
1) the site and layout for the golf hole was so compelling that virtually any architect would have included it in the course routing
2) there was minimal to no earth moving for the fairway or to establish the green or tee location
3) any bunkers built were built without disturbing the surrounding contour
4) no artificial water hazards were created
5) the green complex naturally fit into surrounding contour
6) there was minimal effort made to contour the green
7) any credit given to the architect should only be for the good sense to leave well enough alone and/or, possibly, for the discovery of the hole
-
Tim,
I don't know about great holes but there are a number of holes at Elie that fit most of you criteria. 1, 3-12, and 14-18 all fit most of them.
-
Tim,
I don't know about great holes but there are a number of holes at Elie that fit most of you criteria. 1, 3-12, and 14-18 all fit most of them.
Mark,
I have only been the Elie on a couple occasions and never played the course, but always had the impression the place was part of heaven.
-
Foxy
-
but it took a great architect to NOT do anything
-
Does TOC qualify? I think that hits most of the criteria for most of its holes.
-
13 at Pacific Dunes
-
but it took a great architect to NOT do anything
Jeff,
Precisely! Do any examples come to mind for you?
-
but it took a great architect to NOT do anything
Jeff,
Precisely! Do any examples come to mind for you?
Tim,
to answer that you'd have to have been on site or have great pictures of it before it was built.
Often times it LOOKS like a hole is completely natural and that they didn't do anything, but that's what makes the greats great.
-
You've got to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a guy burning down a bar for the insurance money (if he makes it look like an electrical thing). If you do it right, they'll never know you've done anything at all.
Bonus points to anyone who identifies the source of this (paraphrased) quotation.
-
The best courses always have been and will continue to be "found" not built. Not everyone can "find" one. ALSO, not every client ask for a course to be "found" due to other issues that eliminate that luxury.
-
but it took a great architect to NOT do anything
Jeff,
Precisely! Do any examples come to mind for you?
Tim,
to answer that you'd have to have been on site or have great pictures of it before it was built.
Often times it LOOKS like a hole is completely natural and that they didn't do anything, but that's what makes the greats great.
Jeff,
Of course. The whole point of this thread is to identify holes that would meet the criteria I outlined above and see if people can confirm or refute the suggested hole.
Take #8 at Pebble Beach. To my knowledge, it would meet the test. I'm thinking #11 at Ballybunion would as well.
-
The best courses always have been and will continue to be "found" not built. Not everyone can "find" one. ALSO, not every client ask for a course to be "found" due to other issues that eliminate that luxury.
Mike,
Do you have three examples of "found" holes that stand out for you and meet the criteria cited above?
-
Does TOC qualify? I think that hits most of the criteria for most of its holes.
Michael,
I struggle when it comes to the Road Hole. Did the architect do anything? Well, perhaps not much. But, someone created the Road Hole bunker and that seems to me so critical to the golf hole that I just can't credit God for the design. Ditto for Tom Doak's Road Hole at Cape Kidnappers. I'm not sure every architect would have seen the CK Road Hole and understood how just building a little bunker would create a terrific hole. God doesn't get credit there either.
-
The best courses always have been and will continue to be "found" not built. Not everyone can "find" one. ALSO, not every client ask for a course to be "found" due to other issues that eliminate that luxury.
Mike,
Do you have three examples of "found" holes that stand out for you and meet the criteria cited above?
#2 ANGC
#1 Crystal Downs
#2 Merion
Those were the first to come to mind....probably better ones if had more time to think...
-
Does TOC qualify? I think that hits most of the criteria for most of its holes.
Michael,
I struggle when it comes to the Road Hole. Did the architect do anything? Well, perhaps not much. But, someone created the Road Hole bunker and that seems to me so critical to the golf hole that I just can't credit God for the design. Ditto for Tom Doak's Road Hole at Cape Kidnappers. I'm not sure every architect would have seen the CK Road Hole and understood how just building a little bunker would create a terrific hole. God doesn't get credit there either.
I don't know exactly how the hole came about, but I can easily imagine that it started out as a natural depression where the base wore away and left sand behind, then decades of golfers playing out of it piling sand up on the front lip created the bank that runs down onto the green away from that bunker. Then someone decided that they liked it like that and rebuilt it to be more consistent and enduring. I doubt if it was revetted back in the 18th century (though I may certainly be wrong).
Now, I'm fairly sure God doesn't get credit for the hotel, or the Swilcan Burn as it is these days either. There's a whole lot out there that he does though.
-
Tim - I think your point no. 2 is critical. I remember reading Tom D on here writing about Pacific Dunes, and noting that if golfers say it looks like it's been there a hundred years it's because much of the earth/soil *has* been there, un-moved and untouched, for at least that long. Whether or not that applies to the whole course, I think when minimal earth-moving predominates it does more than any other element/aspect you list to support the impression that the architect didn't do anything.
Peter
-
Peter,
There is also a little of the "chicken or egg" syndrome with earthmoving. When there were no large earhmoving machines available land that would be used today would not have been considered. I feel lack of fairway shaping was the largest distinction between the classics and the moderns. JMO
-
:) I notice you've dropped the "H"
I think you're right, IMHO. There seems to be much made here of the many differences between classic and modern courses (by me too!), but more and more I have come to believe that it's the lack of fairway shaping -- and not greens or bunker shapes/placements or strategy/options and or even width -- that is the main (and even only key) difference.
Peter
-
The best courses always have been and will continue to be "found" not built. Not everyone can "find" one. ALSO, not every client ask for a course to be "found" due to other issues that eliminate that luxury.
Mike,
Do you have three examples of "found" holes that stand out for you and meet the criteria cited above?
#2 ANGC
#1 Crystal Downs
#2 Merion
Those were the first to come to mind....probably better ones if had more time to think...
Mike,
I'm no expert, but I am thinking Crystal Downs may have quite a few hole where "the architect didn't do anything". I will suggest the following:
1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,18
I disqualified:
7 - green just seems too obviously the architect not God
13 - ditto
16 - tough call, but I think the green is debatable. Could be persuaded God gets the credit
17- again a tough call with question mark at the green
Maybe I am being naive about Crystal Downs and paying too much attention to the legend of how little time Mackenzie spent on the design. Don't know.
-
Does TOC qualify? I think that hits most of the criteria for most of its holes.
Michael,
I struggle when it comes to the Road Hole. Did the architect do anything? Well, perhaps not much. But, someone created the Road Hole bunker and that seems to me so critical to the golf hole that I just can't credit God for the design. Ditto for Tom Doak's Road Hole at Cape Kidnappers. I'm not sure every architect would have seen the CK Road Hole and understood how just building a little bunker would create a terrific hole. God doesn't get credit there either.
I don't know exactly how the hole came about, but I can easily imagine that it started out as a natural depression where the base wore away and left sand behind, then decades of golfers playing out of it piling sand up on the front lip created the bank that runs down onto the green away from that bunker. Then someone decided that they liked it like that and rebuilt it to be more consistent and enduring. I doubt if it was revetted back in the 18th century (though I may certainly be wrong).
Now, I'm fairly sure God doesn't get credit for the hotel, or the Swilcan Burn as it is these days either. There's a whole lot out there that he does though.
Allan Robertson built the green in 1832.
-
The best courses always have been and will continue to be "found" not built. Not everyone can "find" one. ALSO, not every client ask for a course to be "found" due to other issues that eliminate that luxury.
Mike,
Do you have three examples of "found" holes that stand out for you and meet the criteria cited above?
#2 ANGC
#1 Crystal Downs
#2 Merion
Those were the first to come to mind....probably better ones if had more time to think...
Mike,
I'm no expert, but I am thinking Crystal Downs may have quite a few hole where "the architect didn't do anything". I will suggest the following:
1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,18
I disqualified:
7 - green just seems too obviously the architect not God
13 - ditto
16 - tough call, but I think the green is debatable. Could be persuaded God gets the credit
17- again a tough call with question mark at the green
Maybe I am being naive about Crystal Downs and paying too much attention to the legend of how little time Mackenzie spent on the design. Don't know.
I agree with you on CD but I don't consider it earthmoving if the designer gathers dirt for his green complex from the immediate area. And I think that is how CD was built. As for #7 green, I think it was built from dirt in that area that was moved around. I'm not sure, and TD could probably answer this, but I sense that if dirt was needed on that site it would have been easy to scrape it from #8 fairway. I sort of think the middle of that fairway may have been higher than the finished product.
-
Par-3 5th at Painswick?
atb
-
I don't really agree with the premise here. On any such hole, the architect did one, utterly crucial thing: he decided to put the golf hole there.
-
The obvious hole for me in this regard is the 13th at Nefyn. The site is so narrow that you really do go out one side of the peninsula and back the other. This is the end of the peninsula but just before you get there the peninsula narrows in a way that meant golf holes had to start and stop at this point. The site for the tee here is therefore the first available in that section. The green site cries out in amongst the rocks and there are no bunkers. It certainly isn't a great course but this certainly is a great hole.
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i101/edtilley/wales/P1020019.jpg)
View to the right of the tee
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i101/edtilley/wales/P1020020.jpg)
Approach
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i101/edtilley/wales/P1020021.jpg)
Green from the side
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i101/edtilley/wales/P1020024.jpg)
-
Pete Dye has said that he only had to design 11 holes at Teeth of the Dog. "The Big Guy" built the other 7.
-
I don't really agree with the premise here. On any such hole, the architect did one, utterly crucial thing: he decided to put the golf hole there.
Exactly.
What is important is 'seeing' a golf hole. If that requires no earth-moving or if that requires extensive earth-moving, it doesn't matter. What matters is the ability to envision the hole. That is the value-add of an architect.
Bob
-
I don't really agree with the premise here. On any such hole, the architect did one, utterly crucial thing: he decided to put the golf hole there.
also agree....never thought of it that way...
-
Wasn't the original pitch for Erin Hills that they only moved more than a teaspoon of dirt on two holes? Funny that they're on what, their fourth iteration?
-
There's this old saw:
“In every block of marble I see a statue as plain as though it stood before me, shaped and perfect in attitude and action. I have only to hew away the rough walls that imprison the lovely apparition to reveal it to the other eyes as mine see it.”
-Michelangelo
-
You've got to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a guy burning down a bar for the insurance money (if he makes it look like an electrical thing). If you do it right, they'll never know you've done anything at all.
Bonus points to anyone who identifies the source of this (paraphrased) quotation.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756880/quotes
-
You've got to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a guy burning down a bar for the insurance money (if he makes it look like an electrical thing). If you do it right, they'll never know you've done anything at all.
Bonus points to anyone who identifies the source of this (paraphrased) quotation.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756880/quotes
There it is!
-
The 5th at Beverly is a straight away mid-length par-4 hole that has OB at the back of the tee and OB the along the right side for the entire length of the hole. The architect HAD to put a hole here. At 415 yards from the hemmed-in tee box is the top of horizontally moving ridge that cuts across the front nine, leaving the architect a perfect site for a plateau green. He HAD to put the green there. Having said all that, the hole just might be the best on the property, especially after Ron Prichard put some angles back in the hole which had been reduced to a bowling alley like corridor due to overplanting of trees. So, I guess the second architect did something!
-
I'd certainly list Lahinch Holes #4 (Klondyke) and #5 (Dell).
-
I guess I have a hard time with this part of the premise:
1) the site and layout for the golf hole was so compelling that virtually any architect would have included it in the course routing
In my experience of looking at sites that other architects have looked at previously, I rarely see much overlap; for example, none of the holes I routed at Sebonack were similar to what Jack Nicklaus' office had routed before. [I try not to look at any previous plan before I've studied the topos without it; I didn't see the Nicklaus routings until months after I'd done mine.]
It's just not as clear-cut as you think; once you put even a couple of holes down on paper, you start thinking in a certain direction, say clockwise or counter-clockwise, and you're liable to miss even "obvious" holes that another architect saw because he was looking at it differently.
i did notice that David Kidd had a couple of holes on his routing at Sand Valley that are very similar to holes I'd routed at for that part of the ground. [I did two routings there for different parts of the site; Mr. Keiser only looked at the other one.] Those holes were in areas where you had to make transitions over a steep ridge, and we both found the same way over. But, because David's clubhouse is in a different location than mine, he wasn't headed the same way once he got over, so the rest of the plans were totally different.
Golf holes only seem obvious once you've found them.
-
Would lack of available funds and lack of machines not have a major effecton what the architect did? Is that why there's more 'natural' holes/green sites on yee olde period courses?
atb
-
Golf holes only seem obvious once you've found them.
Good line. I think that's why I've always had a hard time even imagining whether a routing is good or bad.
To the thread topic, #5 at Merion is pretty much on the ground as I'd imagine it was before, other than the bunker 40 yards short right which really does impact the play of the hole when it's firm.
-
It is a good line, as is the recognition of the impact on our ability to judge routings. That is why aesthetics and playability and routing can sometimes seem to dovetail/merge together, i.e. if a golf hole looks (aesthetics) as if it's been there a hundred years, it probably means that it is a good golf hole (playability) and one that fits into the whole course (routing) very naturally.
Peter
-
The best courses always have been and will continue to be "found" not built. Not everyone can "find" one. ALSO, not every client ask for a course to be "found" due to other issues that eliminate that luxury.
I don't believe this. Nor do I believe that the best courses are created. I have come to believe that the best golf holes, and therefore the best golf courses are neither found nor created, but simply happen. To me, TOC is the most true, pure, adventurous, exhilarating, and gratifying golfing experience in the world, and it is preposterous to say that those golf holes were "found." TOC simply happened and that is what makes it so great.
-
I don't really agree with the premise here. On any such hole, the architect did one, utterly crucial thing: he decided to put the golf hole there.
Adam,
In case I didn't make it clear, I actually agree that is a pretty big deal. Nonetheless, I still feel it is interesting to examine whether one could really argue the "architect didn't do anything" and tried to layout the requirements for meeting this standard.
-
Tom Doak,
A basic lesson in the point you make can be found at one of the great undeveloped potential golf course sites: Inch.
I was stunned when Arthur Spring took me there years ago. Everywhere one looked you could see golf holes. However, I never imagined I had seen the best golf course. Just potential sites - many of them - for individual holes.
So, by no means am I suggesting it is easy to identify golf holes that meet all the criteria I listed. I accept that it is difficult, especially if one has the "inside knowledge" of a practicing architect. It is us non professional golf architecture junkies that might be foolish enough to think it is easy to find hole where the "architect didn't do anything".
Nonetheless, it strikes me as an interesting exercise. Perhaps another architect might have come up with a radically different design than Mackenzie did at Crystal Downs. Perhaps you could do it tomorrow with a site topo.
But, so many of the holes seem to so naturally fit the landscape that it appears Mackenzie's genius was being the architect that didn't do anything. A contradiction, of course!
-
Tim,
A very interesting topic and one I have been debating with golf aficionados for years. One of the most enjoyable walks I had at Pacific Dunes was with Ron Whitten and Mike Keiser. I was quizzing Ron as we walked all 18 holes if he could tell what was created and what was natural.
Ron has a great eye for landforms so for the most part he had a good idea what we had done; he was surprised on more then one occasion what had been adjusted. I can tell you some of the green sites were totally created and others simply sitting there.
I have photos of almost every hole including the 13th hole at Pacific Dunes before construction started, people would be surprised.
Tim, the real question might be, if the landform was created does it compliment the natural features surrounding the golf hole making the green, bunker or teeing ground blending as naturally to its surrounding environment as possible.
Would you care if the hole looked a-natural when in fact it may have been massaged for strategy sake, I am not sure I would?
I think about Cypress Point all the time when this topic comes up, should we care what Robert Hunter had to do to get this golf course set in this most beautiful location.
Tim,
a discussion worth continuing. Do golf raters consider that when rating a course.
-
Jim,
Thanks for your comments. Pacific Dunes would certainly be an interesting course to consider hole by hole, especially because it has a combination of natural feel and, should I say, a bit of quirkiness that lends a feeling of authenticity. Put another way. Pacific Dunes isn't Shadow Creek!
Anyway, my title "great hole, but the architect didn't do anything" may have been misread. I actually mean it as a compliment and do acknowledge that architects have to play a role not just God!
Out of curiosity, I know from previous conservation with you and Tom that you well remember and documented the creative process for Pacific Dunes. I imagine this was done for Old Macdonald as well. But, do you know how many of the famous old classic courses where sufficient documentation exists to assess whether there are holes where the "architect didn't do anything"?
Can we discuss specific holes at Cypress Point, for example? Or St Andrews? Or NGLA? Etc.
-
The best courses always have been and will continue to be "found" not built. Not everyone can "find" one. ALSO, not every client ask for a course to be "found" due to other issues that eliminate that luxury.
I don't believe this. Nor do I believe that the best courses are created. I have come to believe that the best golf holes, and therefore the best golf courses are neither found nor created, but simply happen. To me, TOC is the most true, pure, adventurous, exhilarating, and gratifying golfing experience in the world, and it is preposterous to say that those golf holes were "found." TOC simply happened and that is what makes it so great.
hmmmm.....who realized TOC holes just "happened"? IMHO if it was possible that could have "happened" in another pattern or routing or order, then it was found...
-
Do golf raters consider that when rating a course.
I'm not sure they realize when and if it happened to begin with. (especially if it is done correctly)
-
Do golf raters consider that when rating a course.
I'm not sure they realize when and if it happened to begin with. (especially if it is done correctly)
Mike:
Can you identify any holes that meet the criteria? Would any holes at Augusta meet the test?
-
Do golf raters consider that when rating a course.
I'm not sure they realize when and if it happened to begin with. (especially if it is done correctly)
Mike:
Can you identify any holes that meet the criteria? Would any holes at Augusta meet the test?
I would think 8 would be one.
-
Tom Doak,
A basic lesson in the point you make can be found at one of the great undeveloped potential golf course sites: Inch.
I was stunned when Arthur Spring took me there years ago. Everywhere one looked you could see golf holes. However, I never imagined I had seen the best golf course. Just potential sites - many of them - for individual holes.
So, by no means am I suggesting it is easy to identify golf holes that meet all the criteria I listed. I accept that it is difficult, especially if one has the "inside knowledge" of a practicing architect. It is us non professional golf architecture junkies that might be foolish enough to think it is easy to find hole where the "architect didn't do anything".
Nonetheless, it strikes me as an interesting exercise. Perhaps another architect might have come up with a radically different design than Mackenzie did at Crystal Downs. Perhaps you could do it tomorrow with a site topo.
But, so many of the holes seem to so naturally fit the landscape that it appears Mackenzie's genius was being the architect that didn't do anything. A contradiction, of course!
I might slightly disagree with Tom here. On a good site, for someone with a good eye for landforms, I think it is relatively easy to see interesting holes. What is much more difficult is seeing 18 of them that join together. I also think that most pick out the obvious (such as a valley) when the obvious isn't always the best (or in the words of Tom Simpson is almost never the best).
To Jim's point, I also enjoy the idea of taking someone round a golf course I've been involved in and seeing if they can tell what was created / adjusted and what wasn't.
-
I am in Adam's camp, even by doing nothing (which is never true...the archie has to do something even if its just sticking a hole in the ground), the choice to do nothing is significant in itself. The one odd thing about the original premise is keeping to the concept of naturalism. I could care less if a hole looks or is manufactured or natural. The goal should be to create good holes...if they are found great...if they are built great. The one thing not to do is fail at making a hole look natural...or perhaps worse...create a "new golf look" which gave us waterfalls, monochrome green grass and neat little lines as if the course was a garden....that was and is a very bad path for architecture.
Ciao
-
I am in Adam's camp, even by doing nothing (which is never true...the archie has to do something even if its just sticking a hole in the ground), the choice to do nothing is significant in itself. The one odd thing about the original premise is keeping to the concept of naturalism. I could care less if a hole looks or is manufactured or natural. The goal should be to create good holes...if they are found great...if they are built great. The one thing not to do is fail at making a hole look natural...or perhaps worse...create a "new golf look" which gave us waterfalls, monochrome green grass and neat little lines as if the course was a garden....that was and is a very bad path for architecture.
Ciao
Don't really understand this one, Sean? Obviously it's better not to fail but do you agree it's better to try and fail than to create something obviously artificial (given that you need to create something)?.... Or perhaps your point is do nothing rather than try and maybe fail.... But unfortunately that isn't always an option...
-
I think Sean is saying that consciously artificial is better than failed natural (a view with which I agree).
-
I think Sean is saying that consciously artificial is better than failed natural (a view with which I agree).
Sounds about right Adam. I see loads of cool architecture which screams artificial....not a problem so long as it demands my attention. Bottom line, natural isn't better than unnatural...its just a different approach which in the end requires a good archie to pull it off well.
Ciao
-
I think Sean is saying that consciously artificial is better than failed natural (a view with which I agree).
But that is assuming the consciously artificial is a success and not a failure...
What about trying to build something consciously artificial and failing in its execution? Is that not worse again? I suppose Sean does allude to that by saying "or even worse..."
In which case I agree also: Successful execution always beats failed execution. I just tend to prefer golf courses where you can't tell what has been built...
-
Me too. I think the highest experience is a brilliant golf course that is indistinguishable from a natural site. I don't object to consciously artificial aesthetics, but properly done naturalism is better imo.
-
Allie
I used to take your line, but there is so much cool architecture that is obviously not natural which confronts a golfer a head on that I changed my opinion. That conversion was maybe 12 or so years ago, but it was only about 7-8 years ago that I was consciously aware of it. That doesn't mean I don't want well done naturalism...its just that I don't think its an either/or deal.
I can't speak very well to failed architecture because imo so much out there has failed (or at least leaves me disengaged) simply because a sort of fake naturalism was employed on sites which either couldn't accomodate that look or had archies not skilled enough to pull it off and still create something worth talking about. I will give a guy a break for trying something new even if it doesn't totally work...isn't that Strantz in a nutshell? Think of a place like Painswick...there is a lot "wrong", but jeepers, would we not want the course built?
Ciao
-
Allie
I used to take your line, but there is so much cool architecture that is obviously not natural which confronts a golfer a head on that I changed my opinion. That conversion was maybe 12 or so years ago, but it was only about 7-8 years ago that I was consciously aware of it. That doesn't mean I don't want well done naturalism...its just that I don't think its an either/or deal.
I can't speak very well to failed architecture because imo so much out there has failed (or at least leaves me disengaged) simply because a sort of fake naturalism was employed on sites which either couldn't accomodate that look or had archies not skilled enough to pull it off and still create something worth talking about. I will give a guy a break for trying something new even if it doesn't totally work...isn't that Strantz in a nutshell? Think of a place like Painswick...there is a lot "wrong", but jeepers, would we not want the course built?
Ciao
I don't disagree with you, Sean. I don't mind seeing obviously artificial stuff if it's well thought out and looks good. In fact, I quite enjoy it and will always give a pass to bold before bland. Plus some of the horrible containment mounding architecture of recent years is definitely a turn-off.
Still, given the choice, I'll take a superb course that fits quietly in to the landscape with no obvious hand of man.
-
I hear ya Ally, but for my tastes, even a lot of highly touted naturalism doesn't quite get it done right...mainly because bunkers are over-used (too much emphsis om easily accomplished aesthetics)...even on sandy sites I would like a balance of features. There has been quite a bit of talk by archies in recent years about not relying on bunkers so much and I suspect that has been put into practice. Bottom line for me is the course still needs to be all it can be no matter the approach or style.
Ciao
-
I hear ya Ally, but for my tastes, even a lot of highly touted naturalism doesn't quite get it done right...mainly because bunkers are over-used (too much emphsis om easily accomplished aesthetics)...even on sandy sites I would like a balance of features. There has been quite a bit of talk by archies in recent years about not relying on bunkers so much and I suspect that has been put into practice. Bottom line for me is the course still needs to be all it can be no matter the approach or style.
Ciao
Yep - when it's not quite right, I reckon that generally comes down to subtlety versus eye-candy, the temptation to over-design, even with a natural looking style.
-
I hear ya Ally, but for my tastes, even a lot of highly touted naturalism doesn't quite get it done right...mainly because bunkers are over-used (too much emphsis om easily accomplished aesthetics)...even on sandy sites I would like a balance of features. There has been quite a bit of talk by archies in recent years about not relying on bunkers so much and I suspect that has been put into practice. Bottom line for me is the course still needs to be all it can be no matter the approach or style.
Ciao
Yep - when it's not quite right, I reckon that generally comes down to subtlety versus eye-candy, the temptation to over-design, even with a natural looking style.
and the ever present personal opinion. I am huge fan of bunker economy and realize this is an outlier opinion.
Ciao
-
Reading through this thread prompted me to go searching for examples, particularly from rural, rustic, out of the way, lower profile courses.
A couple of holes from Donal's Gweedore photo tour caught my attention - namely the fiddled with 2nd green and the at a glace as it lies 3rd green. Examples of less is more and where having the skill/knowledge (or luck/good fortune) to leave well alone comes out best?
Gweedore photo tour - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41990.0.html
atb
-
Reading through this thread prompted me to go searching for examples, particularly from rural, rustic, out of the way, lower profile courses.
A couple of holes from Donal's Gweedore photo tour caught my attention - namely the fiddled with 2nd green and the at a glace as it lies 3rd green. Examples of less is more and where having the skill/knowledge (or luck/good fortune) to leave well alone comes out best?
Gweedore photo tour - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41990.0.html
atb
Many at Gweedore
Thanks for bringing that thread back up.
Gweedore IS the Goat Hill of Ireland + scenery, and has a 2-3 of the more interesting holes I've seen, and showcases the luxury of width and its death by a thousand tiny cuts.
The third green at Gweedore, along with most at Goat Hill are the reasons why I'd love to see tilt and slope over green speed EVERY time.
No substiture for the strategic effect of an approach striking a 5 degree slope on a firm green.
throw in the coastal winds of Gweedore and these effects are magnified or mitigated depending upon wind direction and shot shape
-
Ah, I see part of the difference in perspective. Jeff is actually hitting the green with approach shots! My attitudes might be totally different if I did that more than once or twice a round.
-
Reading through this thread prompted me to go searching for examples, particularly from rural, rustic, out of the way, lower profile courses.
A couple of holes from Donal's Gweedore photo tour caught my attention - namely the fiddled with 2nd green and the at a glace as it lies 3rd green. Examples of less is more and where having the skill/knowledge (or luck/good fortune) to leave well alone comes out best?
Gweedore photo tour - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41990.0.html
atb
Its difficult to find compelling mostly au naturel courses (if we include greens!). I am not sure I know of a good example. I think it really does come down to odd holes where the archie may have just fiddled a bit with the green site. I recall playing Ashdown Forest and being shocked at how much land was pushed about on a so called natural masterpiece. Because a course is lacking bunkers doesn't mean work wasn't done to create interest.
I am never confident about saying old links holes are natural because they may have been changed so long ago that erosion and changing grass lines/vegetation now makes the work look natural (a big advantage for older courses).
In any case, I don't worry much about the distinction of design approaches. It isn't a big deal for me.
Ciao
-
Ah, I see part of the difference in perspective. Jeff is actually hitting the green with approach shots! My attitudes might be totally different if I did that more than once or twice a round.
the tilt and slope allowable on slower, firmer greens adds interest to those next shots as well.
An "approach" doesn't have to be in regulation figures-could also be nearby recovery shot
-
Tim,
The Dune complex that includes the 9th hole at Cypress Point has always intrigued me. What were the options that Mackenzie and Hunter had in mind.
The 9th green I am sure was a big debate; keep it lower in the dune setting and walk up to the next tee or shape the green on the top of the dune.
From the 6th green to the 10th tee this linear dune must have gone through several renditions before a final decision was made. They were maximizing a natural feature and deciding how much they should do with this natural feature.
Great Holes? But the Architect Didn't Do Anything!!!
-
Me too. I think the highest experience is a brilliant golf course that is indistinguishable from a natural site.
This is a most interesting opinion, but for the life of me I can't think of a single golf course I've played that is indistinguishable from a natural site. There always seems to be strips of shortened grass, and sandy holes in the ground that appear to my eye to have been created or manicured in some way. I think maybe that I'm taking you too literally, Adam, or it's the word "indistinguishable" that is throwing me.
What I happen to like best are courses where the hand of man and the hand of god (or Mother Nature or whatever you prefer) work together in a way that delights my mind or my senses. Sometimes working in tandem, sometimes in juxtaposition. I think of a hole like the 7th at Shinnecock Hills, where the surrounding grasses and open spaces give that angular green and the bunkering a beautiful place to nestle. It's clearly something that was built, and the architect(s) clearly "did something," but with that said it's not some kind of scar on the landscape. And the shot that's required, that wasn't created by nature, it was created completely by the hand of man.......
-
Having witnessed this in practice...
The architect has to find the routing...no easy task and there is seldom enough credit given for this...the tying it all together.
There is no such thing as "The Architect Didn't Do Anything"...doing little really can be doing something BIG, and restraint is often the most something. Seems to me letting nature have a commanding role is the best trait possible if the site allows.
Enhancing, in a seamless and subtle manner, the natural landscape is an art and a talent that most of us can't begin to properly appreciate.
Nature alone provides plenty of excitement, and plenty of different.
.
-
Me too. I think the highest experience is a brilliant golf course that is indistinguishable from a natural site.
This is a most interesting opinion, but for the life of me I can't think of a single golf course I've played that is indistinguishable from a natural site. There always seems to be strips of shortened grass, and sandy holes in the ground that appear to my eye to have been created or manicured in some way. I think maybe that I'm taking you too literally, Adam, or it's the word "indistinguishable" that is throwing me.
What I happen to like best are courses where the hand of man and the hand of god (or Mother Nature or whatever you prefer) work together in a way that delights my mind or my senses. Sometimes working in tandem, sometimes in juxtaposition. I think of a hole like the 7th at Shinnecock Hills, where the surrounding grasses and open spaces give that angular green and the bunkering a beautiful place to nestle. It's clearly something that was built, and the architect(s) clearly "did something," but with that said it's not some kind of scar on the landscape. And the shot that's required, that wasn't created by nature, it was created completely by the hand of man.......
Askernish is pretty close, but I agree that once you start mowing fairways it is impossible to be totally indistinguishable. Let's say the closer the better...
-
It seems clear to me that, to paraphrase the old saying, the devil is in the detail-work.
Pacific is one of the most natural looking/found golf courses I've ever seen, but judging from JC Urbina's post the architect and his team did indeed do a lot of work there, and on many of the holes.
But, thankfully for those who enjoy both the aesthetic and the ethos of naturalism, the creative team seems to have developed (from photos, nearly perfected) the skill and know-how to hide their hands and cover their footprints -- thereby making the discussion about what the architect "did" almost (and in years to come I'd bet, almost entirely) moot.
Peter
-
Having witnessed this in practice...
The architect has to find the routing...no easy task and there is seldom enough credit given for this...the tying it all together.
There is no such thing as "The Architect Didn't Do Anything"...doing little really can be doing something BIG, and restraint is often the most something. Seems to me letting nature have a commanding role is the best trait possible if the site allows.
Enhancing, in a seamless and subtle manner, the natural landscape is an art and a talent that most of us can't begin to properly appreciate.
Nature alone provides plenty of excitement, and plenty of different.
.
CJ: You are correct, of course, that just cobbling together the routing (no mean feat) in a manner that allows certain holes to represent something that was "already there" still represents a lot of work, imagination and skill. But if we can't make it sound simple, how are we to try to sound like experts here when there are 100 hobbyists like me to every 1 Jim Urbina! This has been a fun thread, even with some acceptable flaws in logic.
-
Having witnessed this in practice...
The architect has to find the routing...no easy task and there is seldom enough credit given for this...the tying it all together.
There is no such thing as "The Architect Didn't Do Anything"...doing little really can be doing something BIG, and restraint is often the most something. Seems to me letting nature have a commanding role is the best trait possible if the site allows.
Enhancing, in a seamless and subtle manner, the natural landscape is an art and a talent that most of us can't begin to properly appreciate.
Nature alone provides plenty of excitement, and plenty of different.
Chris,
Reading your post it seems that you got the impression I don't agree with the points you made regarding the importance of routing, how doing really little can be doing something BIG, the importance of restraint, etc.
Is that accurate? Or do you think my purpose in starting the thread was to identify examples of where the land form offered so much that restraint was called for and exercised by the architect?
.
-
Tim,
The Dune complex that includes the 9th hole at Cypress Point has always intrigued me. What were the options that Mackenzie and Hunter had in mind.
The 9th green I am sure was a big debate; keep it lower in the dune setting and walk up to the next tee or shape the green on the top of the dune.
From the 6th green to the 10th tee this linear dune must have gone through several renditions before a final decision was made. They were maximizing a natural feature and deciding how much they should do with this natural feature.
Great Holes? But the Architect Didn't Do Anything!!!
Jim,
I think #9 at Cypress Point illustrates the challenge of determining whether a hole meets the standard of the "architect didn't do anything" precisely for the reason you identified. Put another way, unfortunately, due to lack of documentation, we not don't know what Mackenzie and Hunter discussed regarding the sand dune, we also don't know exactly what they actually did. Instead, we just were presented with the final product and quite a fine hole, to be sure.
So, I am inclined to nominate #17 as a hole more likely to meet the test. Would you agree?
-
Having witnessed this in practice...
The architect has to find the routing...no easy task and there is seldom enough credit given for this...the tying it all together.
There is no such thing as "The Architect Didn't Do Anything"...doing little really can be doing something BIG, and restraint is often the most something. Seems to me letting nature have a commanding role is the best trait possible if the site allows.
Enhancing, in a seamless and subtle manner, the natural landscape is an art and a talent that most of us can't begin to properly appreciate.
Nature alone provides plenty of excitement, and plenty of different.
Chris,
Reading your post it seems that you got the impression I don't agree with the points you made regarding the importance of routing, how doing really little can be doing something BIG, the importance of restraint, etc.
Is that accurate? Or do you think my purpose in starting the thread was to identify examples of where the land form offered so much that restraint was called for and exercised by the architect?
Tim,
No desire to contradict at all - I was merely sharing what I observed and believe I learned along the way. At Dismal, Tom really seemed to embrace the site and let the natural holes do the much of the work. To me, the key was the routing to allow this. If Tom went in a different direction, he would have had to "do" more. Funny thing, at least to me...Jack did the same.
I did want to make the point that doing little (hard for me to quantify "didn't do anything") can be an example of the Masters Craft...something many, or most, may never recognize.
We have two courses here, one of which seems far more polarizing than the other. The common element is both did as little as possible. The differences between the two were the sites, the routings, vision and goals, and the Masters Craft itself.
-
Chris Johnston,
Thanks. I guess I'm still wondering if the title of my thread undermined what I was trying to identify: specific golf holes, not entire courses where the final result most closely matches what existed prior to construction.
Jim Urbina raised the example of Cypress Point, specifically the 9th hole. It might be an example, but lacking pre construction documentation it is hard to be sure. #17 seems like a better case, IMO.
Tom's work at Dismal River might be an ideal case study, both because of Tom's known skill and preference to utilize existing, natural features and the fact (I'm assuming!) that pre construction documentation probably exists.
-
Tim,
Got it, and sincere apologies if I changed the focus. I guess out here all holes are pretty much natural (or should be IMO), hence my wandering to entire courses. We are fortunate that a natural hole isn't an exception, it's pretty much the norm.
-
Tim,
Got it, and sincere apologies if I changed the focus. I guess out here all holes are pretty much natural (or should be IMO), hence my wandering to entire courses. We are fortunate that a natural hole isn't an exception, it's pretty much the norm.
Chris,
If you ask me, the biggest thing missing in golf architecture literature is documentation of the creative process whereby a talented architect transforms a raw piece of land, albeit one blessed with good golf features, into a golf course. Based on previous discussions, I know people like Tom Doak and Jim Urbina are aware of this unfortunate gap.
It is really too bad we have so little documentation of just golf holes where the "architect didn't do anything", much less entire golf courses.
-
Tim,
Got it, and sincere apologies if I changed the focus. I guess out here all holes are pretty much natural (or should be IMO), hence my wandering to entire courses. We are fortunate that a natural hole isn't an exception, it's pretty much the norm.
Chris,
If you ask me, the biggest thing missing in golf architecture literature is documentation of the creative process whereby a talented architect transforms a raw piece of land, albeit one blessed with good golf features, into a golf course. Based on previous discussions, I know people like Tom Doak and Jim Urbina are aware of this unfortunate gap.
It is really too bad we have so little documentation of just golf holes where the "architect didn't do anything", much less entire golf courses.
Tim,
Agreed. That's why we tried to be extra transparent on our new course here, and I believe much of that story was told across several threads on GCA. Although, it may not be proper literature.
-
I think it should be noted that when guys speak of being able to create features where one cannot tell if they were there or not, the site is usually an open site. Long flowing lines allow a shaper to blend and short steep mounding looks artificial. If a hole or holes are tree lined it is extremely difficult to blend into the exisiting landscape. JMO
-
I think it should be noted that when guys speak of being able to create features where one cannot tell if they were there or not, the site is usually an open site. Long flowing lines allow a shaper to blend and short steep mounding looks artificial. If a hole or holes are tree lined it is extremely difficult to blend into the exisiting landscape. JMO
Mike, if by open you purely mean without trees then I agree with you. But on links land, a lot of the movement is sharper and shorter so I'm not sure I agree with only long flowing lines in that scenario.
-
Tim,
The 17th hole at Cypress encompasses a different set of circumstances in my opinion.
You have a certain amount of Ocean frontage to work with and according to Folklore a very famous developer / golfer has just convinced you to make the 16th hole a long par 3 when your design team was debating if it should be a two shot hole or not.
Here lies the dilemma that many golf course designers are faced with, keeping the client happy and getting a golf course that you are totally happy with when all is said and done.
Do you think they debated for days the best way to finish the last two holes at Cypress Point, I bet they did. I am sure that Mackenzie and Hunter wore out their shoes in that corner of the property trying to find the best solution to this area of ocean frontage.
Are you saying that the 17th suffers from the "Great Hole, But The Architect Didn't Do Anything” or do you like the hole and what it stands for, simplicity?
Just think if the 18th hole played straight away and the green ended up just below the guest quarters and dining room. I wander why they didn’t go that way?
All just conjecture now
-
Jim Urbina,
When I suggested the 17th hole at Cypress Point might be a "great hole, but the architect didn't do anything", I wasn't thinking the hole "suffers" in any way. I simply meant it according to the definition offered in my opening post.
Once more to be clear: any hole meeting this criteria is not a knock on the architect. In fact, it just might be a compliment: the architect was smart enough to include the hole in his overall design, but also smart enough to leave well enough alone what nature gave him.
I'm not thinking that holes that meet my criteria were included without debate about the routing plan and share your speculation that Mackenzie and Hunter must have debated at some length how to utilize the limited waterfront at CP. That said, once the location of the 16 green was determined, the opportunity to take nature's gift for the 17th - to create a "great hole, but the architect didn't do anything - presented itself. I'm not sure the famous debate apparently solved by Marion Hollins (could 16 really be a par 3) changes anything for 17. Nor, IMO, would placing the 18th green as you suggested might have been done, do so either.
In sum, I do believe the 17th at Cypress Point meets the criteria I proposed. It also has the advantage of being a bit unique with the famous "sky bunkers".
All that aside, I am impressed by how few golf holes people here have mentioned. Seems odd for a golf architecture junkie crowd. Perhaps the lack of pre construction documentation gives people pause. I wish I could see photographic documentation of Crystal Downs before construction because so many of the hole there appear so natural.
Did Mackenzie just fool us all? Or did he do a really brilliant job with the routing?
-
TIm,
I am in full agreement with 17, I simply wandered out loud what the design group must have been thinking as they contemplated when standing on the 16th green, saying OK were headed back to the top of that hill with the last two holes, what should we do???
I think they showed self constraint when they laid out #17 and may have considered a little more massaging when they got to 18. It really was a series of decisions that were made in a few short days while they were finishing off the last few holes, or so I assume that was the construction rotation.
That's another question that I would like to know, what were the first and last holes done at Cypress and did that affect the outcome of the design. Were they working in the dunes to get the project started off right and waited to the end to create the Ocean holes OR did they do the ocean holes first to sell memberships and finance the rest of construction.
These are all things I think about when I stare at old aerials and ground construction photos. I have a series of letters that The Historian of Pasatiempo Bob Beck shared with me concerning the creation of Pasatiempo.
The letters were between Robert Hunter, Alister Mackenzie, Olmsted brothers and Marion Hollins. They discussed construction costs, design ideas and routing changes and when the right time to start the construction of Pasatiempo.
What were the important things to consider when creating Pasatiempo, Cypress Point, National Golf Links and others of that golden age of design? You see Tim, I have been fascinated by this type of discussion for years and so was the most influential designers and developers of that era.
I think the routing is good on a A++++++ site, Robert Hunter and Alister Mackenzie did a masterful job with the site.
Your question regarding little interest does not surprise me in a bit. You need more Tommy’s on this site.
I have enjoyed our little soiree, I have been sick the last few days and this has occupied some of my down time
-
Jim,
Yes, we could use more of Tommy!
Anyway, sticking with Mackenzie, do you believe the famous 6th and 10th holes on the West Course at Royal Melbourne would meet the "didn't do anything" test or come damn close? Both appear to so naturally fit the topography. Yes, I know the green on 6 can be brutal if one is above the pin, but the grade sure seems to my untrained eye to follow the surrounding grade. On the 10th, I don't have a good enough memory of the entire green complex, but, again, it seems to very naturally fall in place.
Any thoughts on those holes?
-
Tim,
The trouble l have with the thread is that as often happens with discussions on GCA, people concentrate on The Golden Age whilst ignoring most of what came before.
Quintessentially, the architects of The Golden Age manipulated the land and "did" more than the early architects on the early links courses. Therefore I think there are 100's of examples in GB&I that probably suit the discussion best of all.
-
Tim,
The trouble l have with the thread is that as often happens with discussions on GCA, people concentrate on The Golden Age whilst ignoring most of what came before.
Quintessentially, the architects of The Golden Age manipulated the land and "did" more than the early architects on the early links courses. Therefore I think there are 100's of examples in GB&I that probably suit the discussion best of all.
Ally,
As my exchange of posts with Jim Urbina suggest, I'm disappointed this thread hasn't generated more interest and examples of holes that meet the criteria of my opening post. Mark Pearce did suggest several holes at Elie and a couple people mentioned some holes at TOC, but otherwise little interest has been shown in offering examples of holes from the early links, Golden Age course or modern courses.
For a golf architecture junkie crowd, that is surprising, at least to me. Great holes "where the architect didn't do anything" seems like it would be an area of great interest to this crowd because it goes to the very heart of the creative process: what was the architect able to see before anything had been done to the site? How many holes was the architect essentially able to just go with what nature presented?
-
Tim
I just don't know if some holes were messed with way back when and its hard to see the work in the ground today.
The question I have is why is the touched/untouched distinction important?
Ciao
-
Tim
I just don't know if some holes were messed with way back when and its hard to see the work in the ground today.
The question I have is why is the touched/untouched distinction important?
Ciao
Sean,
As you suggest, a lack of pre construction documentation may hinder an examination of this question. I'm comfortable declaring a hole like #17 at Cypress Point is a "great hole where the architect didn't do anything", but perhaps that is just a no brainer and many other potential examples aren't so easy to be sure.
As for why this may be important, I would argue that a golf course with a significant number of holes that meet my criteria is more likely to have its own unique character and that the architect that "didn't do anything" deserves lots of credit and praise.
From my perspective, if one falls in love with golf architecture and decides that during the course of one's life he wants to see as many of the best courses as possible, then that person has to make a commitment to travel. You can't just go to a couple great museums. Appreciating the art form requires travel. Lots of it.
So, as I believe Tom Doak once said, when you do travel, you want to find not just great courses, but courses with their own unique character.
To me that is where the "great hole, but the architect didn't do anything" comes into play.
I am not saying the antithesis - perhaps a place like Winged Foot - isn't worth seeing. But, I don't want to travel to Melbourne just to see another version of Augusta.
-
Sean,
I concur with Tim, I have learned more from the examination of holes left untouched then I will ever learn from holes created like PGA West or other facilities of that fashion.
The Dune complex at Cypress Point, the hilltop at The Valley Club of Montecito, the Dune ridge bisecting the 2nd and 16th holes at the National Golf Links has taught me immeasurable amounts of information regarding what to touch and what to leave alone. Years of walking links lands in Scotland and Ireland where barely a spoonful of sand was moved to create a feature was the foundation of my learning curve.
At Pacific Dunes I realized early on that the Dune eco-system was a fragile thing that needed to be cared for with major TLC. By observing what was preserved at the places previously mentioned I knew that you could play with features to some extent. Trying to find out and learn where the ODG got away with massaging the land they worked helped me be a better land steward of the dunes land on the coast of Oregon.
It wasn't blind faith; it was years of looking at what the Golden Age designs didn’t do that really gave me the confidence in the building of both Pacific Dunes and Old Macdonald.
I will continue to seek out the "untouchables" they have so much more to offer.
Deep down I think it is important for some like me but maybe not for all.
-
Tim & Jim
I certainly can see your point as archies...the creators. But from a punter PoV...the customer...the distinction is not so important unless cost savings is passed on beyond the client. That said, there is probably a higher likelihood that unusual holes will be built with less intervention from the archie, but I don't think this has to be the case...it just seems to be what has evolved. Again, Strantz wasn't afraid to make his mark and it works out perfectly with there being a load of controversy about some holes/courses.
Perhaps more importantly, I can see the real benefit in a soft touch if preserving the eco-system is important. I don't mean just in terms of how a course looks, but also how it plays in that rough and drainage can be more natural solutions.
Finally, I am a firm believer that cool stuff is on most courses. The more great courses I see the more I realize greatness is everywhere, but for me it isn't a matter of natural VS man-made, it is more down to which archies were at the helm. I am probably wrong, but it seems like the best of the ODGs got the job done in a more interesting way than do modern archies. Maybe that is because machinery was less prevalent and archies used the lie of the land in more impactful way. It strikes me that loads of classic GB&I courses have very little fairway shaping. Its been a long process, but gradually, the idea of defining (I call it road mapping) the playing field has become popular.
Ciao
-
Sean,
My question really was directed at the GolfClubAtlas.com crowd - junkies like myself and professionals like Jim Urbina not the "average" golfer, who, most likely, hasn't traveled as widely or have as much interest in architectural matters as folks here do.
I'd like to build on one of Jim's points: how to study golf architecture. I'm sure most here would agree travel is required. But, from the perspective of a junkie rather than professional, I suspect there are different lessons to be learned from different courses, even courses that sit very close to each other.
Winged Foot, for example, fails my test. The site itself is not that blessed and the contributions of the architect - Tillinghast - are on full display. As someone like Neil Regan knows far better than I, those greens are amazing and they weren't designed and built by God.
Right down the street is another Tillinghast creation, but it is a very different golf course, IMO. Quaker Ridge is far more blessed from a topography perspective and it appears to be a venue where Tillie's presence is certainly felt, but there appears to be far more restraint on display than at Winged Foot. Not saying Tillinghast "didn't do anything" at Quaker Ridge, but there is a peacefulness and tranquility about the golf course that stands in contrast to its more famous neighbor.
Winged Foot's greens and bunkers are so good they certainly deserve study. Of course. But, the different character you find right around the corner comes from the architect partnering with nature far more.