[Carlyle Rood]

http://www.golfarch.com/Governors/

Wednesday morning I visited a new course that's currently under construction in Acworth, Georgia.  Mike Riley is the golf course architect.  Curtis Strange is consulting.

The back nine is still under construction; however, most of the front nine is already sodded and the greens are seeded.  Some of the greens probably won't sprout grass for another week.

I spent last summer watching Mike during construction.  He's a very hands-on golf course architect.  He's at the site nearly every day supervising the construction crew.

If you live in Atlanta, then you may be familiar with some of Mike's courses.  Crooked Creek and Reunion are two of his new courses.  He's also renovated Brookfield Country Club (formerly Brookfield West).  I met him when he redesigned the green complexes at Atlanta Country Club.

Mike worked for Nicklaus originally.  He then worked for Bob Cupp before launching his own company.

Here's a few photos for teasers.  You can follow the link above to see a thumbnailed index.


Hole 1 (above)


Hole 4, from tee (above)


Hole 4 (above)

[Carlyle Rood]

By the way--in case you're wondering about the rocks in the last photo--Mike decided to leave them as he found them.  I think the boulders lend some authenticity to the hole.  What do you think?  Should he have hauled them away?

Carlyle

[Mike_Cirba]

Carlyle;

Considering that most high-handicapper's slices will end up landing right and short, I'd say the rocks should go.  

That right-side fall-away slope also looks like a great place for a bunker of Raynorian depth and intimidation and the teeny bunkers that have been placed there surely don't match the scale of the impressive surrounds.

Great meeting you out at Pasa, by the way!

[ChipOat]

I agree with Mike Cirba.

[Keith Williams]

The pics look great Carlyle!

I had no idea that the course was that far along.  I
live only a couple of miles from the site (just moved
there recently) and have driven by the entrance just
a couple of times, but nothing I saw led me to believe
there was much to see...

I guess I will have to go out there and look a little harder!

I agree with mike regarding the tendencies of the high
handicap player, but for some reason I still like the rocks;
I guess it adds a sense of randomness if someone hits
their ball over there; plus the penalty for hitting a shot into
the rocks is still not as bad as if there was a water
hazard in that location, so I guess the rocks might not
be considered too severe.  I do think, though, (like mike) that
larger bunkers would be more in scale with what the hole
presents.

[Carlyle Rood]

Well, they'll have to get some dynamite then.    Much of that slope is rock and granite.

There's some speculation that this might be the most difficult hole on the course.

[A.G._Crockett]

Carlyle,
Do you know the approximate date that the course will open?  Is it to be private, semi-private, or daily fee?

[Mike_Cirba]

Carlyle;

If digging a bunker there is complicated due to granite underneath, then I think that there are really two good choices.

1) Realize that Yale was built on a lot of rock, as well, and build a Charles Banks/Raynor style bunker anyway if costs aren't prohibitive.

or

2) Forget sand, dig out the rocks, and just use the natural slope as the challenge, prefererably cut at low-rough height to allow for some interesting recovery shots.

The rocks accomplish nothing of value as far as golf is concerned.  An approach shot hitting them is a weird crapshoot as far as the carom(and not in a good or fun way), and playing a chip or pitch from within their midst would just be dangerous and borderline bush-league.  

As far as "authenticity", I'd have to question the rationale.  What are they trying to show off, exactly?  That there are rocks under the ground?  

[Keith Williams]

Mike,

I am afraid I need some clarity regarding the rocks...

I mean the player can see them easily, he/she is aware
of the potential conseqences of hitting into them, so how are
they really any different than countless other hazards found
on golf courses?

Are they worse than the road and wall on 17 at TOC;
or more of a crapshoot than any bunker shored up by
sleepers?  What about any course that incorparates old
rock walls in its design?  I'll even go way out on a limb
and compare those rocks to the creek near the green
on 13 at ANGC.  Both can be seen by the player when playing
the hole.  And in challenging both the rocks and the creek
a player knows that if they hit a shot into either they may
or they may not have a recovery shot.

I am not totally disagreeing with you, because I can
understand the sentiments associated with watching
one's ball carom off a rock when a shot 1 foot to either
side would have settled harmlessly (been there), but I
still feel a little randomness is good for design.

If, in playing this hole, you just happened to half shank
a ball into the rocks only to watch it ricochet (sp?)
onto the green and into the cup for an eagle, would
you still hate the rocks as much?  

Keith.

[Michael_Riley]

Mike,

I am afraid I need some clarity regarding the rocks...

I mean the player can see them easily, he/she is aware
of the potential conseqences of hitting into them, so how are
they really any different than countless other hazards found
on golf courses?

Are they worse than the road and wall on 17 at TOC;
or more of a crapshoot than any bunker shored up by
sleepers?  What about any course that incorparates old
rock walls in its design?  I'll even go way out on a limb
and compare those rocks to the creek near the green
on 13 at ANGC.  Both can be seen by the player when playing
the hole.  And in challenging both the rocks and the creek
a player knows that if they hit a shot into either they may
or they may not have a recovery shot.

I am not totally disagreeing with you, because I can
understand the sentiments associated with watching
one's ball carom off a rock when a shot 1 foot to either
side would have settled harmlessly (been there), but I
still feel a little randomness is good for design.

If, in playing this hole, you just happened to half shank
a ball into the rocks only to watch it ricochet (sp?)
onto the green and into the cup for an eagle, would
you still hate the rocks as much?  

Keith.

[Mike_Cirba]

Keith;

Great questions, truly, and far be it for me to ever argue against randomness, naturalness, and a little unexpected local character in the design.

However, the answer to your question, in comparing it to all of your examples, is relatively simple;

The area in question is not a "hazard".

That may seem like a minor distinction, but when you think about your options there from a playability standpoint, it's really not.

That's what makes it much different from the rocks in the creek bed at 13 ANGC, or the sleeper-faced bunker.

As far as the Road Hole, the green was built abutting the property boundary, thus the wall and road in play.  No one would ever think of locating a green in such a place today, but since it's already been there for 150 years, who am I to disagree with its placement.    

[Carlyle Rood]

It's going to be a private club.  I think they may have approximately 450 members; though, I'm not certain.  It will open this fall, perhaps in September.

It's an interesting site because it's almost equally divided between two counties.  I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it was to accomodate two local governments!

Also, what do you think about keeping the orange mesh fence around the green?  Right now it's to deter deer from browsing the green seed; but, I think it would create some interesting pitches.  

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm also being totally hypocritical here, admittedly.

For instance, I love the rock walls on 17 TOC, as well as on North Berwick.  I think part of the reason that I love them is because they've been there since antiquity, and preceeded the golf course and in a way, are remaining proof of man's first "fingerprints" on those particular properties.

I also love the old rock wall that Gil Hanse incorporated as a crossing hazard about 20 paces in front of the 11th green at a new course he has opening in PA this year for much the very same reason.  It's certain to be VERY controversial, though, because it's something that not many modern architects would do.  

I like those features simply because they are historically interesting, man-made features that pre-dated the course.  

The rocks lying about on the hillside just don't have the same charm to me.  

[A.G._Crockett]

Carlyle,
Do you know if the boulders were easily removable?  It may be, especially in that area, that the blasting necessary to take them out was prohibitive, either by cost, local ordinances, or both.  I think this was the case at Cobblestone nearby, which you'll recall was originally named The Boulders.

I haven't played Reunion yet, but Crooked Creek is absolutely one of the best daily fees around Atlanta.  The Riley renovation of Brookfield is also excellent and relatively extensive.  That is a course that I knew extremely well before and after, and not one change was made that did not dramatically improve the course.  I believe that the work at Brookfield was done with a very minimal amount of dirt being moved.  That's why I wonder about the feasibility of the removal of the boulders.

[Michael_Riley]

Keith,
Your points of view are refreshing and show that you have an open mind to design.  Obviously Mr. Cirba likes MacDonald/Raynor designs, of which I am also a big fan, but then the hole would look like every other green that was benched into a hillside with a deep bunker along the right side.  His points are well taken but if he was practicing golf course architecture in the real world he would realize that all the things that happen with the design of a golf hole would not be completely under his control.  Budgets, construction constraints, and the owner and design consultant desire to leave the rocks in place and not put a larger bunker or additional bunkers determined the outcome of the green setting.  The only time someone will ever get to design exactly what they would like is if everyone is of the same  exact opinion or the architect also is the owner.  Only then could critcisms of design be directed at THE source.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Riley;

First of all, welcome to GCA!  Thanks for stopping in.  

I also want to wish you the best with the project at Governors Towne that Carlyle was nice enough to preview for us.

That being said, I have a couple of thoughts based on your reply.  First, although I do enjoy Raynor/Macdonald's style, I can't say that it's my favorite, per se.  It's just the first thought that came to mind in looking at the landform.  

I believe I also suggested just leaving the slope as is, sans bunkers, but also sans rocks, as a very viable option, so I'm not suggesting or debating "style" issues here at all, but only "feature" issues; to wit, whether the rocks that exist there contribute or detract from the golf hole.

That being said, of course we cannot know the multiple factors you mentioned that go into the design process, not to mention owners who have "pet" features, or insist on having their way with certain segments of the design that you might not agree with, not to mention the host of other regulatory concerns.  

All we can judge as golfers is the finished product and not the process of getting there.  

But, I'd tell you the same thing I told an architect friend of mine who was explaining to me how the owner insisted that he build this incongruous waterfall complex between the 9th and 18th greens of an otherwise very natural golf course.

Basically, what I said to him is that I now understand why it's there, but I still don't like it any better.  

Thanks again, for stopping by, and for your "open mind" as well.    

[Carlyle Rood]

I like the rocks.  I think the orientation of the rocks is visually pleasing.

I don't think they'll be quite as punitive as has been suggested.  Even if it were, I'm not uncomfortable with that because you'd have to hit an exceptionally poor shot before you were punished.

I think the rocks add interest and memorability to the hole.

[Mike_Cirba]

Carlyle;

I don't mind the look of the rocks, but I'd hesitate to see them used due to playability reasons.

Frankly, unless the area was designated as a "hazard", I don't see the purpose or desirability of rocks as a golf course playing "feature".  I particularly wouldn't want to see it emulated elsewhere.  

[Carlyle Rood]

I'm not advocating them as a design feature.  But, they were there.  They're a remnant of the original landscape.  I think there is something genuine and authentic about that.

To me, I don't really see them as in play.  I think they're merely ornamental, sort of like the (formerly in play) MacKenzie bunker on the tenth at Augusta National.  I guess that people do hit shots in that bunker ocasionally; but, I wouldn't encourage anyone to remove it to make play more fair.

[Mike_Cirba]

Just to look at other examples, I don't care for the use of rocks in play on these other courses, as well;

[Michael_Riley]

Mike
I appreciate your thoughts about the design.  Actually they are very similar to my first impression also.  I think only time will tell what the future of the rocks will be.  Membership sales and the ability to play the hole my influence their longevity.  Of course, half the members will love them and half will hate them.  I guess that's what makes design so interesting to debate.  I respect your opinion to dislike the rocks now that you know the rest of the story.  

[Carlyle Rood]

Mike Cirba:

In the last photo, is that actually the green that drops down in front, or is that cut to fairway height?

[Mike_Cirba]

Carlyle;

I guess perhaps we disagree on whether they'll come into play often.  They look to come up to within 10 yards, short and right of the green, which seems a likely spot for approaches from what looks to be a downhill lie to an elevated green.

How long is the hole?  Are we looking from the desired landing area in the pic, or is that further back?

[ChipOat]

Michael Riley:

The good news is that you got the assignment and appear to have enhanced your reputation given the results that I see.

The bad news is that the owner and design consultant got to have a say in the end product yet only YOU have your name on it.

In contrast, the Chairman at Pine Valley is pleased to present the Short Course there as a "Fazio/Ransome design" - no running and hiding allowed.

[Mike_Cirba]

Michael Riley;

Thanks, and I agree with you that this stuff is great fun to debate.  I appreciate you coming on here to do so, and I'm sure other's here do, as well.  I also hope I'm wrong!  

Carlyle;

I don't know but it sure looks like greenspace to me which is even scarier in some ways.  The course in question is Tot Hill Farm in NC, which I know a number here have played.  Perhaps they will weigh in.      

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()