This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
GCA is a golf architecture site that generally discusses a bunch of far off stuff. Here is an opportunity for many folks to really see something take shape and you want it to go to twitter?I have no dog in this either, other than a sincere hope that it works out great for everyone involved...so for my $0.02 you just might have to figure out how to let people misinterpret something for a change. If this thread goes anywhere, it could become required reading for anyone with a vague interest in the subject.
Now, he has turned to Doak--one of his original skeptics--
Quote from: Ben Hollerbach on January 27, 2021, 03:24:45 PMTom,Based on your last paragraph it sounds like you did not create the routing document that was posted on The Fried Egg? It's a given that the routing ideas today will inevitably evolve and change as the course begins construction. So these documents really on capture the thoughts in a moment in time. As this drawing is being promoted as your routing, I'm then curious what level of accuracy it still holds today? Is the spit pond idea a new one, or was it misinterpreted in the creation of the Merry Land Timber plan?Ben: It's my routing, but I think Zac is actually the one to put it onto that base map. The only version I've sent to him is the one I posted on my Instagram last night, which was drawn straight on the topo and texted to him in pieces over Christmas, to build suspense. I didn't draw the pond onto it, so he probably just didn't quite understand what I had described, or maybe he's decided to do it differently.
Tom,Based on your last paragraph it sounds like you did not create the routing document that was posted on The Fried Egg? It's a given that the routing ideas today will inevitably evolve and change as the course begins construction. So these documents really on capture the thoughts in a moment in time. As this drawing is being promoted as your routing, I'm then curious what level of accuracy it still holds today? Is the spit pond idea a new one, or was it misinterpreted in the creation of the Merry Land Timber plan?
I can't help but relish in the unique distinctions between each architect's solution to the same problem. For the lay golfer, they may look at the work of these two architects as similar in style, but in a lot of ways their approaches are fundamentally very different.For each routing to existing on the same piece of land, each final course would have a dramatically distinct feel compared to the other, almost a Pine Valley vs. Pinehurst type comparison.One approach feels much more adventurous, attacking the landforms head on and creating a routing with a series of interconnected loops of holes. While the other routing demonstrates a greater level of restraint and joins hole in a flowing chain, smoothly traverse the property. This, quite simply, is one of the most fantastic elements of design. There is never just one solution to a design problem and the character in varied approaches makes the study of the act so much more enjoyable.
Quote from: Ira Fishman on January 27, 2021, 04:44:35 PM Now, he has turned to Doak--one of his original skeptics--I believe I suggested that he not try to do it all by himself, though of course some people here tried to twist that into some kind of personal attack [one reason I am wary of Ben's suggestion]. I certainly had no thought of him asking me for help; I was thinking more along the lines of him finding someone like Kye, or one of my associates. But I have learned to keep my options open.
So, Ben, I think you are projecting a lot there in your descriptions. Why is it more "adventurous" to attack the landforms more head on? The adventure is how you make your way around the property and what you see as you go, and while these were certainly different I don't think "adventurous" is the reason.Likewise I don't see how I am routing the course as "restraint" -- this is a pretty dramatic routing and deliberately so. What I was trying to minimize was climbing up and down hills, because Zac said right off he wanted the course to be as walkable as possible despite the ridge-and-valley nature of the property.Moreover, if the one routing is really Zac's, does it make as much sense to compare them?
Which makes me curious what lead you to associated the two descriptions the way you did?
I am happy to describe my own design and how I got to this plan, if anyone cares.
Quote from: Tom_Doak on January 27, 2021, 04:20:36 PMI am happy to describe my own design and how I got to this plan, if anyone cares. Yes please!
Quote from: Adam Guren on January 27, 2021, 11:04:45 PMQuote from: Tom_Doak on January 27, 2021, 04:20:36 PMI am happy to describe my own design and how I got to this plan, if anyone cares. Yes please!It may be a couple of days, as my grandson has arrived in town this evening and seems to have big plans for me.
I also look as a double check at the number of hole centerlines that parallel the contour lines, as opposed to crossing them (although, crossing in the downhill fashion is fine, but not uphill) I also look at the number of hills a hole has to cross, and the blue routing has more of both uphill and ridge crossings, which aren't really natural golf holes.If I read TD's routing correctly, and I think I am, TD also has about half a dozen wonderfully approach shots over valleys, with is always pleasant, and I mean always! His fw seem to hug ridgelines nicely. Yes, I see a few areas that I expect he would tweak very slightly on a site walk, but the basic pattern is there already.....until he sees a better one, of course.
I'm telling you, that's a skill I definitely do not have: I wish I could read street maps as well as you guys read topos! [No GPS for me. I'm always afraid that the lady giving directions will get mad at me for some reason and suddenly stop talking!]