[Brian Phillips]

Being one of the most inexperienced designers on this site I spend a lot of my time reading and trying to learn as much as I can from writers of the past and of these new 'platinum' years.

One of the quotes that I would like to share with you is from an essay that Jeff Mingay wrote for Paul Daley's book 'Golf Architecture':

Jeff says:

Golf design has come full circle in recent years.  Today, students of the art have the facilities to look back over a century of past works, to ascertain which philosophies and styles worked well and perhaps more importantly which did not.  The consensus among a new breed of contemporary architects who have made a study of the history of their profession is that golf courses are more interesting, more enjoyable when appropriate width and more consistently firm and fast conditions prevail

Jeff is not the first to write about design proceeding in circles Cornish also mentioned this in his commentary to the republishing of Colt's book 'Some Essays on Golf Course Architecture'.

I agree that design has come full circle but where are we going now?  Where should we be going?

Not everyone is given sites like Pacific Dunes or Friars Head or Hidden Creek however is that an excuse not to design that way?

Can you achieve firm and fast with a poor topsoil?  A clay based soil will get hard if not irrigated but soggy when irrigated.  

Linksland sites are far and few so can we compare the strategy of the Old Course with those of the poor sites many architects are given?

Yes, design has come full circle but where are we going and how do we achieve these goals with poor sites?

Brian.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Brian,
Not being an architect I can only offer a layman's perspective but here it goes. I've mentioned this on a couple of other posts but I think P.B. Dye's Buck Point in Indiana is a good example for others to follow. Wide open but challenging, inexpensive to build and maintain and reasonable fees.

I also think that some golf courses should become less global and more regional. Use the indigenous features more prominently and forget about creating stuff that isn't.
Grass hollows work just as well as sandy ones and cost less to maintain. Don't blast away the rock, use it. If you have wetland, force the carry over it or offer a long way around if possible. Etc.,etc.,etc..

[Forrest Richardson]

Brian -- I'm still debating whether golf architecture has come full circle. As soon as I win the argument with myself I'll be getting back to you.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It doesn't go in circles.  Its an upward spiral, or depending on your point of view, a downward spiral, like the DNA helix.  We come around to the same spot, but at a slightly different level....

[TEPaul]

JeffB is right, in my book. It hasn't gone in a circle--what's happened is SOME--by no means all--in the golf world have come to realize so much more the value of some of the older real quality courses and their architecture. This isn't much more than a reawakening of sorts which has created a "renaissance" in new construction but on a limited level. There're a ton more new courses being built today in the massively overshaped style of the 50 year "Modern Age of Architecture".

As for the type of maintenance practices that logically go with that "renaissance" style, those courses are trying hard to match the firm and fast conditions that go with that type of design. Pac Dunes, Easthampton, Rustic, Applebrook, Hidden Creek, French Creek, Stonewall2, Lubbock, Friar's, Kingsley etc will all probably try to do it--but as always, soil makeup can have a lot to do with accomplishing that.

As for where we're going in the future? I think this "renaissance" style will continue to gain in popularity and others will try to do it but by no means all. I just hope it can someday grab a solid segment of the market. If it someday hit maybe 20% of the new construction market I'd be happy--I doubt it will ever be more than that though.

[Brian Phillips]

Jeff,

Very good point.  I suppose that is the best way to describe it if you are positive about design work a the moment.  However, to get to that spot slightly higher than the last then do we not always have to look at what has gone by before.

To me Hidden Creek is definitely a heathland type course.  Coore and Crenshaw openly admit that they have studied these courses and Hansen and his wife even travelled the courses in Britain.

Is Hidden Creek better than the classic courses as you say reaching the same spot but slightly higher?  

How far do we go with the rugged so called 'natural' look.  What is good design?  We have had discussions between ourselves at the University about what is good design.  The lads are fed up with me talking about creating natural looking courses.

Some say that there is no point in creating or talking about strategy as the average player is jus happy to hit a fairway let alone start planning what side of the fairway to hit!!

Some others talked aobut the K club.  They said that the strategy of the course was great.  Pictures were put up that showed perfect bunker edges and well manicured roughs.  They liked it and I didn't but they argued very well that the strategy of the course was good.

Robert Trent Jones II has now designed a couple of courses in Norway both with great strategy on paper.  However, when I played one of the courses I got bored half way around.  The greens were great but the strategy was the same style all the way around.

Do we as designers need to vary our strategy on the same course?  Woking's 11th hole has a bunker on the inside of the dogleg.  I didn't study my strokesaver correctly and played right over the bunker.  I thought I had hit a perfect drive to only hear from my partner that there was heather behind all the way to the hole.  If I had played to the left of this bunker I would have had an easy shot to the green.

Now if I had tried to design something like this at Uni. I would be marked down for confusing or cheating the golfer.

I like Tim Liddy's essay in Daley's book as well.  He talks about the good long player not always being rewarded with an easier shot to a green with a long perfect drive.  He talks about placing bunkering right in the line of the perfect long drive so that the player has to go out to the right of this bunker.  By doing so it still then creates a tough shot to the green as the green is angled in such a way that the entrance from that side is not as easy as the player laying up of the fairway bunker.  Yes, the player who has laid up short of this bunker has a longer shot to the green but the entrance is wider and less severe than the good player who has played the long drive to receive a pitch to the green.

Has modern design maybe become too boring and repetitive?  Because of the mistakes or critisism that previous architects have made not that many modern architects dare take a chance anymore.  

I think the strategy of a golf course needs to vary all the time making the player think everytime he or she stands on a tee.  Maybe at least one hole on a course should be unfair to the good player just to bring him or her back to reality?

I agree with Gil Hanse that we need to stop making sense in our designs but by how much?

Brian.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brian,

Sure we are too repetitive.  But so were the old guys.

If you take a trip through the top 100 courses of Scotland or the US, studying all the best holes, and then compare those with any particular 18 designed by a current architect, you would naturally find the 18 less diverse than the other 3600, no?  Few classic 18s have all great holes too.

As to roughness versus smoothness, yes smooth is bland, but it works better in many situations, including Texas, which is snake country and in many housing developments, and with much modern maintenance equipment.  I have tried wild grasses around bunkers on irrigated courses, and you have to either add special bunker irrigation, or forget it in a lot of climates (you climate may vary)  

I am working on varying my strategies, as I am guilty of courses/holes being too much alike, so yes to your question.

Got to go!  Will say more later.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Brian,

I find that the biggest impediment to "firm and fast" are the memberships themselves.

Many don't want "firm and fast" and it's a battle to convince members of its value and the benefit to their games.

Television and democracy haven't been the best things for a golf courses condition.

And, until we get the mind set of TEPaul's maintainance meld deeply imbeded into the brain of every green chairman, board member and club president, architecture and maintainance will continue to be at odds at many clubs.

But, I do see clubs like Friar's Head and others as having a very positive influence in leading this resurgence.

[Brian Phillips]

Pat,

I agree with you about that 'firm and fast' being a member problem.  It is also very difficult to create those conditions on soil that doesn't allow you to do that.  

If the soil conditions and the budget stops us designing for the ground game where should we go as designers?

What hazards and challenges can we create without being lambasted by the Tommy N's or Shackelfords of this world?

Brian

[TEPaul]

"Many don't want "firm and fast" and it's a battle to convince members of its value and the benefit to their games."

Pat:

If it's GCGC you're talking about the reason you don't have it  there is because you haven't put me in front of your membership or whoever it is that needs convincing. You've been screwing around procrastinating too long now. They have to buy into the concept first and then we figure out with the necessary people like the super how to get it done on the ground.

Just tell me what you want--firm and fast through the green or the full boat "ideal maintenance meld" with "ideal" green surface firmness to match. Just show me who needs to be convinced to give the okey dokey--full membership, golf or green committee, whoever, and I'll come up there and not only convince them to do it, I'll make them want to have it yesterday!

I don't know what you're waiting for--hell, I told you I'd do it a year or so ago---although my "maintenance meld" wasn't quite as thought through and fully developed back then as it is now! Hell, I even told you last year I'd get rid of that unsightly water tower off the property for you. You'd see it before the sun went down and before sunrise the next day it'd be gone--although that particular day might not be the best one for us to start firming up the course into the "ideal maintenance meld".

I don't know what the hell you're waiting for--if you don't hurry up, though, I'm never gonna tell you which house around that golf course that girl who had to be about the best looking I ever saw lives in.

[Brian Phillips]

Don't you two hijack my thread with another in-house arguement or I will fly over with a 1 iron and batter the both of you...

Give me some opinions about how you can design a course that cannot afford to pay for the ground game?

Brian

[Jim_Kennedy]

Brian,
We have a good deal of clay soil on our course. It was built in 1925 and the ground game is there. Problem is it's not always there due to weather conditions so we take a "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" outlook.
Sometimes our fairways are too soggy so our players favor the air ball, sometimes our fairways are too hard so our players will bounce 'em on and sometimes our fairways are just right and the players eat it up.  
Why can't a course be some things some of the time and other things at other times?  

[RJ_Daley]

Brian, I don't think designing golf courses based on minimalist construction and incorporating the features of quirk as a factor of strategy based on minimal disturbance to the land is unattainable in future golf design conventional wisdom.  Nor do I think that soil conditions of more clayey characteristics necessarily precludes attempts at trying to provide at least seasonal periods of firm and fast conditions which also promotes the more classic elements of the ground game.

What has to come full circle is the mentality of why people play golf, how many folks will or can play in the future, and what their perceptions of the game are and what expectations they have from the game.  Is it a game of aesthetics and social status seen on TV in pro tournaments, or one for vigorous refreshing wellbeing, and one to meet your fellow like minded enthusiasts on a field of play?  

I am begining to worry that the newest courses that represent the most classically strategic and ground game ready, invitingly walkable - sporting venues of strategy, suggesting throw-back conditions to an era where the game was pursued by people of vigor, is becoming chic and trendy - not popular.  Too many of these newer courses that offer throw-back conditions and emphasise strategy are ultra exclusive private courses, or very expensive CCFAD type places.  Possible the only ones that are available to to the masses, to become part of a popular return full circle are places like Rustic Canyon, Barona Creek, or Wild Horse.  There is still not enough popular usage throughout the golfing public to stimulate widespread recognition of the merits of these classically inspired courses or the ideals of the classic game to be enough of a demand in the mindset of the majority of players to come about full circle and seek out the benefits of such courses.  

What has to happen, is more people need to be exposed to the benefits and enjoyments of a different game than they are playing now on cost prohibitive modern courses and modern settings within a modern mentality of what it is all about.  

[TEPaul]

"Don't you two hijack my thread with another in-house arguement or I will fly over with a 1 iron and batter the both of you..."

Brian:

Sorry about that---I won't hijack your thread and I'll be sure to slap Pat upside the head with my 1 iron when I see him for trying to start a hijack on this thread.

You asked:

"Give me some opinions about how you can design a course that cannot afford to pay for the ground game?"

I'm working on it...I'm working on it--my "maintenance meld" tends to bog down a little in very clayey soil but I'm working on it. I'll call it the "Ideal clay soil maintenance meld" but I'm not certain what it entails yet. The thing that's really throwing me off in your question is this thing about not wanting to or being able to spend much more....I just hate that!

But I'm working on an opinion on clay soil firm and fast. Actually it's beginning to formulate this very second but I need a little more time. I might even start the opinion with an interesting old Flynn idea that touches on the subject which is quite radical--actually I can't believe he ever proposed it.

[ian]

Brian, I don't buy the circle analogy. Architects have been studying the old course and other early golf courses from the birth of the golf architect. There are high points and low points in the development of the golf course architecture, but when you take many early century architects and present day architects much of what they forsee and develop has not changed. Every profession has its innovators and duplicators. The success of an era is defined by the innovators. We applaud the golden era, many of the present traditionalists, and we condem the modern age architects who seemed to achieve only conformity.

Is this a circle, no, its just a developing profession. For every Coore, there is a Jones. For each traditionalist there is a modernist. Is this bad? No, it just reflects a wide varieties of style and choice for the player.

As for your other question, the answer is drainage, even in the clays and shale of Montreal, add a complete drainage network and you have the conditions you want ($2,000,000 for one course alone). By the way should it always be firm and fast?

[Forrest Richardson]

OK, Brian, I've settled the argument I was having with myself. The fine comments above have helped me win.

You asked, "where are we going and how do we achieve these goals with poor sites?"

First, I believe the term "full circle" is a bit over-used and therefore misunderstood. Golf architecture is an art which has now been made a commodity -- a business. Too bad for the most part. I do not think the business part of golf architecture has come full circle, it has just begun. The art portion of what we do has perhaps seen a comeback to old times -- simple uses of land, minimalist, etc. I guess this is a circle, but perhaps not full. Full would take a more drastic and unrealistic step. Oakhurst is closest to this reality. But one Oakhurst is enough.

"Where are we going?" is easier, perhaps. We are going where we take ourselves. This is true of all journeys. The business side of things will work out in a supply/demand equation. The solution for which is probably about what we've seen, albeit much lower cost courses that will be a part of our future. The art side is bound to head in a "retro" design direction, but this is true of all art at one time or another. And, thankfully, this is not the only direction it will head. Personally I am looking forward to seeing new thinkers -- and continuing to be part of this group myself. This may not be where everyone is headed. But it is where I'm headed. Mixing the past with ideas that have not been done. Par-2s, one of my passions among new ideas that will rattle out as I am able to convince clients or find those that do not need such convincing. Let's hope golf architecture maintains this path along with the old. Would you want every restaurant to look like a 1950s diner? help!!!

The "poor sites" comments has me thinking that you, also, must have been given a cotton field on the outskirts of Phoenix with which to create some magic! How dare these bas#@*ds! Poor sites is in the eye of the beholder. Sure there are some that are poor, but let's look to Merion where the land was mined and the acreage way too few. Yet here we have a fine course to celebrate.

Great thread. Thanks.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

I love this statement of yours,

"Is this a circle, no, its just a developing profession. For every Coore, there is a Jones. For each traditionalist there is a modernist. Is this bad? No, it just reflects a wide varieties of style and choice for the player."

I couldn't agree more--much of the overall interest in golf architecture can be in the vast differences in style. Even Coore believes in this I think. Not everyone will ever like or want the same kind of thing. Only problem is some are so vastly different they need vastly different maintenance and sometimes those course don't seem to understand how to keep that process as distinct as it should be.

You also say this,

"As for your other question, the answer is drainage, even in the clays and shale of Montreal, add a complete drainage network and you have the conditions you want ($2,000,000 for one course alone)."

I realize a good subsurface drainage system helps a whole lot but even that can only work so far to produce real firm and fast, right? I mean the water might get away from general areas, but.... The soil composition has to be such that not only the water filters down almost everywhere but the roots have to get down deep too everywhere too, right? And if the soil is too clayey and compacted it really can't do that no matter how good the subsurface drainage system is.

If you have subsoil that mimics soil hydrophobia anywhere you still have a problem getting a deep root structure which is necessary to dry out the layer near the surface and create fast conditions, right?

[RJ_Daley]

Maintaining an interesting golf course of strategic and option filled design character on clayey-loam ground isn't the problem.  Clay as a turf growth medium can be dealt with along with hydrophobic ground with various cultural practices.  In fact, it can be a good growth medium.  But, as TE Paul said above, there are times or seasons when you have to accept softer conditions.  Being more judicious with the water and fertility is a function of course managers being afraid the public won't accept a little brown and heat dormant.  The turf will, if maintained properly, grow roots nicely, and come bouncing back from seasons of heat stress and drought if players are willing or learn to cope with or enjoy the firm and fast conditions that would come with turning down the H2O and easing up on NPK and accepting less than idyllic conditions.  That goes to mindsets...

[Joe Hancock]

RJ,

You kinda sorta right. Some species of turfgrass do the heat/ drought dormancy cycle better than others. Fescues are good at it, while poa and bent is not so good. Bermuda and most warm season grasses will handle that cycle ok too. One big factor is traffic. When the turf has gone dormant for whatever reason, it can't recover from traffic.

For a Kingsley Club, the fescues combined with a low round/ few carts traffic pattern sets up well with heat/ drought induced dormancy.

Joe

[RJ_Daley]

Amen Joe

Even 40K rounds aren't too much traffic if they were being played by walkers!  The carts really compact the clay-loam courses.  What is the matter with playing on K-bluegrass in the northern climates in mid summer, if they are a wee bit browned out?  So long as the turf manager can make the decisions of when and how to water and apply fert to keep the grass viable, without fear that if he lets it get a little browned out - he won't be fired,  I think the option of a ground game as a factor of classic design could be alive and well.  If he can let the green speed go slower, but be allowed to maintain the green firmer, and strive for trueness of roll rather than just speed, why not let them manage turf with those practices?  Would that really take away the fun of the game?  I don't think so...

[Joe Hancock]

RJ,

Agreed!

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

I wasn't referencing GCGC, but other clubs that I'm fairly familiar with.

This isn't an isolated problem.

[Tom_Doak]

Brian:

The first and most important thing you can do is to stop thinking of them as "poor sites."

I haven't had a poor site yet.  Some of them just required more work than others.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Since it was something I wrote that instigated this thread, I guess I should respond  

In my humble opinion, it was Abercromby, Fowler, Colt, and perhaps Willie Park, Jr., too, who pioneered inland golf course architecture, in the heathlands, at the turn of the twentieth century. Those guys were the first notable golf course designers to truly utilize natural landscapes to great effect; to create strategic holes in the image of the Old Course and other ancient seaside links; and, to strive for naturalness in the construction of artificial golf course features.

So, when I say, golf architecture has 'come full circle' in recent years, I simply mean that a bunch of bright, young(er) golf architects working today have made a study of the history of their profession, and have subsequently come to learn that employment of those same principles - utilizing native landscapes, creating strategic holes, and striving for naturalness in construction - have resulted in the most enduring golf courses in the world. In turn, we find more than a few contemporary golf architects trying to apply those same tried-and-true principles to their own work, these days.

Sure, not ALL golf architects working today are doing the same. But, in my opinion, the most exciting golf courses constructed throughout the world in recent years have been designed by guys who clearly reflect on the past; particularly on those pioneering efforts in the heathlands that spawned the practice of golf course architecture. Before that, all the golf world basically had was a bunch of pros taking half a day to drive 36 stakes in the ground to mark where the tees and greens should be made.  

So, if you consider that early work in the healthlands to be the 'start' of it all - as I do - than golf course architecture has indeed 'come full circle'.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()