The best manufactured/artificial hole in golf

[ForkaB]

Forrest

Good points.  As I said above, I did not mean "completely" in a literal sense.  By that definition, even Shadow Creek is not "completely manufactured" (i.e. there was a desert there and surrounding mountains in the first place, no?).  What is interesting to me about the holes I mentioned at Dornoch is that they do in fact fit in very "naturally" even though looking closely at them they may be "artificial."  Is it because they were "cleverly" designed and constructed, or just because they have been there for so long, or both?

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Not that it will alter your informed speculation, but #6 was the the work of Stutt, Grant and McCulloch....Duncan had nothing to do with it.

Based on your defintion of a manufactured par-3, what one shot hole isn't completely manufactured? Certainly #16 Cypress Point and #12 ANGC are completely manufactured according to your extremely liberal definition.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Who really cares who was responsible for the 6th at Dornoch?  Not serious students of architecture, for sure, and regardless, it is irrelevant to this thread.

As for the 16th at Cypress, the landform for the greensite was already there, unlike the 3 examples I gave.  That is a BIG difference.  think about it.

As for the 12th at ANGC--never been there.  Don't know.  Tell us about your experiences there, please.

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said:

"Some individuals, I won't mention any names, think that the
8th at NGLA was discovered, in nature, in its present form.

Many individuals think that NGLA was discovered, not created by CBM.

Maybe that's a testament to his work, or confirmation of their lack of perception, or a little of both."

Pat:

I just can't imagine that. Anyone who would seriously not notice that manufacturing went on at NGLA or thought that the way that golf course looks is a totally natural discovery would almost have to not have the slightest clue what golf architecture is. Frankly, somebody who thought that about NGLA would NOT have much ability to distinguish between what's natural and what's man-made about almost anything in my view. Do you actually know someone who thinks that way about NGLA?

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I thought you cared based on the fact you wrote the "Architectural Evolution of Royal Dornoch" piece and included architectural attributions. Perhaps the attributions were added to satisfy those less serious students of architecture on GCA.

"As for the 16th at Cypress, the landform for the greensite was already there".....is that informed, informed speculation or pure specualtion? There was land there no doubt (most holes are built upon some sort of landform) but wasn't a green complex artificially created? The pre and post construction photos seem to indicate the work of a manufacturer.

I'd hate to speculate on #12 ANGC since I never been there, but it looks to me based on old photos and TV coverage #12 falls under your extreme definition.

There is a simple explanation for your view on this subject, your superhuman focus on your target, you are totally locked onto the manufactured work, its understandible that you don't see the peripherial work of the man up stairs.

Informed speculation....I could be wrong.

[Forrest Richardson]

Rich -- Actually, I've been told that Steve Wynn had the mountains built. And, Tom -- According to my records, Sam Morse had the jutting rocks built at CPC for the location of the 16th. before that vit was a cotton field to by recollection.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't want to bring up a potentially embarrasing issue, but on the original GCA format you and I were debating this issue, as I had maintained that NGLA was a highly manufactured product and you were disputing same. (I know that doesn't surprise you)

Our discussion gravitated toward the second hole, which you indicated was very natural.  I asked you to look at the second hole from the third tee.  After reflecting some, for one of the few times in your life, you then agreed with me.
After I was revived with smelling salts, we discussed other aspects of the course, including the 7th green and 8th hole.

You have admited, on more than a few occassions, that before you became involved with architecture and this site, your time spent on the golf course was spent solely in the pursuit of your game, and not in observing the architecture.

Well, you're not alone, many people play the game without much thought to the architecture.  That's not a knock on them, their focus is fixed on other issues, playing, enjoying and/or scoring.

I think you have to remember that this site provides an abundance of information that doesn't readily meet the eye of most golfers.  

More than a few people have commented on how natural NGLA is.  But, all one has to do is have them walk the course in reverse, and the construction, the manufacturing of the golf course becomes obvious.

Most people see what they want to see or see what they have been trained to see, others are more fortunate, more intuitive and have extra-ordinary vision that allows them to see everything.

Remember, even two highly trained professional surgeons can look at the same studies and draw different conclusions, different diagnoses, different treatment protocols, and different prognoses, why should we be any different ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Ironically the 4th at Hollywood looked less artificial in the 20's than it does today. The bunkering carved into the flanking mounds looked more in tune, and there was large gaping bunker directly in front of the green that dominated the view from the tee and completed a much more natural picture.

How would you know ?

Have you ever been to Hollywood and examined the hole ?

When was the fronting bunker removed ?  And by whom ?

[T_MacWood]

Pat
There was an article from 1926 entitled "The 'Ideal' Golf Course" written by CV Piper Chairman of the USGA Green Committee. He set forth his principles for the ideal golf course and included examples of holes to illustrate - 14th PV, 17th Rhode Island, the 10th at Merion and the 4th at Hollywood. The perspective of the 4th was identical to this modern view. The caption:

"ATTRACTIVE BUT FORMIDABLE--THE FOURTH, HOLLYWOOD
A mashie hole, length varying from 125 to 165 yards. The bunkers blend into the landscape"

My opinion is the earlier hole was more natural in appearance...have you seen the original 20's form of the hole?

If you think it would help I will forward this photo to Rees and/or McDonald & Sons in hopes they might restore this hole to its most impressive early form....perhaps the course could regain its spot in theTop 100. I have no idea when the huge bunker was removed. And no I have never been to Hollywood and nor was I alive in 1926....were you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

So your opinion is based solely on an article written in 1926, and a current picture, purportedly taken from the same angle, and you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of the hole, or the land immediately and distantly surrounding the hole.

I have a surprise for you, the hole was never intended to look natural.

I have another surprise for you, the members love the hole exactly as it is.

Please, be my guest, forward everything you have on the hole to Rees and the club, along with your astute observations, conclusions and recommendations.  I'm sure they will respect the opinion of an individual who has never set foot on the property, one who has never actually seen or played the hole.

Please include information that will allow them to contact you, as I'm sure they'll call you, seeking advice on other holes on the golf course that you've never seen or played.

This could be the start of a great business for you, contacting golf courses all over the country, no, the world, that you've never been to and offering advice on how they can improve each hole that you've never seen.  

Don't let this special talent that you have go to waste.
My God, the opportunities are unlimited.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

I don't want to bring up a potentially embarrasing issue, but on the original GCA format you and I were debating this issue, as I had maintained that NGLA was a highly manufactured product and you were disputing same. (I know that doesn't surprise you)

Our discussion gravitated toward the second hole, which you indicated was very natural.  I asked you to look at the second hole from the third tee."

Patrick;

First of all I became reacquainted with NGLA in the last four years well after I got interested in architecture. So you sure can't tell me I ever said the golf course doesn't appear manufactured in many places. If you're trying to say that then I'd definitely challenge you to find where I said that in the archives. I guarantee you won't be able to find that.

As far as NGLA's #2 hole I do remember well talking about what was manufactured there and I'd be happy to go through it in detail again. But before I do why don't you give it a shot and tell us all you think is manufactured there.

I'll give you a hint though and tell you that if you stand 30 yds behind that green and look back at it and about 30 yds up into the fairway you can see exactly how most all of that green was leveled up from the natural fallaway slope of the land at the green-site. The bunker was cut into the ridge on the drive and after that why don't you tell me what was manufactured on that hole? And don't be obvious and say something dumb like the tee.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Relax. I love Hollywood and your efforts to restore the course.  

"I have another surprise for you, the members love the hole exactly as it is."
I have no doubt, these are the same members who disassembled the course over the years and then hired Rees to 'restore' the masterpiece. Unfortunately we all know that eventually they'll become restless and change the course once again.

Where did I say the hole was intended to look natural, I'd love know the architects' original intent, do tell? How would you compare the current version to the past version?

I have forwarded plenty of information over the years (some courses I've seen, some I haven't), I assume they appreciated the stuff I've uncovered/shared. Should I start charging....will you be my business manager? In fact we could become the inpregnable trilateral...you, me and Rees! Our symbol could be those three monkeys with their hands over the mouth, ears and eyes....I'll let you guess which one is Rees. We'll have Hollywood back in the top 100 in no time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

.... these are the same members who disassembled the course over the years and then hired Rees to 'restore' the masterpiece. Unfortunately we all know that eventually they'll become restless and change the course once again.
 

I have another surprise for you.

These are NOT the same members who disassembled the course over the years.  I wish you would get your facts right.

How do you know what the members will do in the future ?
Is that another GIFT you have, predicting the future ?

In order for you and others to understand what happened to Hollywood over the years, you have to understand the intent behind Hollywood's creation, the desire for a demanding, championship golf course, and the erosive effect of golf's increasing popularity and the expanding and changing demographic base of Hollywood's evolving membership over the intervening years.

It might interest you to know that Rees had proposed the return of a fronting bunker with the green funneling down to it, but that proposal was rejected.

There is so much you don't know about Hollywood, yet you continue to make erroneous proclaimations as to what transpired at Hollywood.  
It's another facet of that wonderful gift of yours.

Tom, don't let that incredible gift go to waste.
There are so many clubs, just thirsting for advice from non-members who have never seen their golf course.

In order to avoid your attempt at diverting this thread,
"The best manufactured/artificial hole in golf",
I'll start another to deal with the issue of the shaping/changing/evolving of a golf course through the demographic shift in the membership.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I don't think I've been doing a whole lot of proclaiming....eronious or not. (I don't have a clue what the members want today or yesterday, and really don't give a crap).

"I'll start another [thread] to deal with the issue of the shaping/changing/evolving of a golf course through the demographic shift in the membership."

You're just the man for the job. Perhaps you can write a 'In My Opinion' piece or better yet start your own website dealing with the fascinating subject of membership psychology and the complexities of mandates.

I'm not sure why you reacted so negatively to my comment that the original hole looked more natural....especially now that you share Rees wanted to restore it. I think it was pretty easy for me (or Rees or maybe even you) to look at the old photos and conclude the original version was very good. My only GIFT is in drawing your ire.  

"It might interest you to know that Rees had proposed the return of a fronting bunker with the green funneling down to it, but that proposal was rejected."

A blessing in disguise?  

Back to the main topic, what was the original intent of the architects of Hollywood? Would you describe the 20's version as leaning toward the natural or the artificial?

[Forrest Richardson]

"Back to the main topic, what was the original intent of the architects of Hollywood?"

Huh? Is this the main topic?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You seem to have trouble accepting the concept that it is the "MEMBERSHIP" of a golf course that determines its fate, and not a group of well intentioned or malcontent dilettantes.

As I've said before, you have a romantic, albeit, unrealistic view of how golf courses evolve at the hands and minds of man.

I viewed your comment with respect to Rees and Hollywood, comically, as another pathetic sniping attempt to disparage both.  You didn't draw my ire, rather my sympathy, you just can't help yourself.

How do you know what the original or current holes look like ?
You've never seen either one of them in person.

Or, do you feel that one two dimensional photo, from one angle, tells you all you need to know about a hole ?

When I pointed out that Rees wanted to restore a bunker short of the green, rather than applaud his effort, you make fun of it by categorizing it as a blessing in disquise.
I find that sadly, pathetic, yet typical.

Irrespective of whether Hollywood is in or out of the top 100, I get the joy of playing it on numerous occassions througout the summer, with those nice ocean and western breezes.

By the way, what did Ran have to say about the course in his profile ?

Forrest Richardson,

Ran Morrissett's write up of Hollywood, in courses by country will address your questions.

I'll let Tom MacWood address your question with respect to diverting this thread.

[Forrest Richardson]

I enjoy diversions -- I just wanted to point out that we may have diverted and, in my usual subtle ways, did so with a slang word such as "huh".

I still maintain that there may be no better true definition of this question than No. 17 at TPC Sawgrass. Of course, Desmond Muirhead gave us plenty to look back on. But I almost want to separately categorize his work as it is difficult to compare it to Dye's handicraft at TPC's 17.

I will refrain from mentioning No. 17 here again. Most of the references made in posts above seem to begin with terrain and landforms which, although altered to great degrees, had a strong say in the hole's make-up.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest Richardson,

I'll mention # 17 at TPC for you.

There is no doubt that it is totally manufactured.

But, is it a great hole ?

Most par 3's are short on strategy and/or options.
# 17 would seem to fall into that category,
So, Is it a great hole ?

I don't know the answer, but earlier, offered # 6 at NGLA as a par 3 with seemingly, far more strategy and options.

Why do you feel # 17 is great ?

Is it the pass/fail, do or die nature of the hole ?

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I've read Ran's profile....did he answer the questions I posed to you? If I'm not mistaken he wrote the profile before I detailed the numerous design changes that Rees made to the course. I think it is clear the course was so awesome from the start that dispite the changes to Travis's original design it has remained so throughout the years--including today.

One more time...would you describe the 20's version as leaning toward the natural or the artificial, what was the architect original intent regarding naturalness/artificiality? If you don't know thats OK too.

[Forrest Richardson]

Patrick -- When in doubt I always go back to Flynn's remarkablly to-the-point quote:

"Accuracy, carry and length..." -- the order, I believe, of great golf holes, courses and course set-ups.

Options (detours, as I refere to them) are essential, but they come in a variety of forms. It would be shortsighted to think the only option/detour shots are those laid out before us in overt fashion. The split fairway, the wide landing field with dotted bunkers and hollows. These are the obvious. You are on target in that short holes often lack such detour shot requirements. But, can you really say No. 17 at TPC Sawgrass lacks any detour?

I will submit that it beckons play to its center for safety, yet rarely do we find the pin there. The options become playing to this center of the yoke of the egg, or so delicately risking peril by playing closer to the whites of the eyes of the pond.

When in competition we find yet more layers of decision -- "...gee, he hit tight, so I must...but I'm one up, so perhaps a safe shot to the center and then risk the putting..."

I do not think there is a better shipwreck waiting to happen on any golf hole anywhere. For the drama, scare tactic, and "accuracy" there may be no better value for the yardage. Of course, acreage is another matter. There is probably no par-3 in golf which consumes such expansive space as No. 17. This is another of its hallmarks.

Anyway, thanks for mentioning it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Artificial.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Good guess. Sorry natural....may I suggest you go back and review Travis's thoughts on golf design. From the rustic log cabin clubhouse to the profusion of bunkers over the naturally sandy expanse--the original intent for Hollywood was natural (some might argue if he succeeded, but it was his stated focus throughout his design career). The early look of the course really was spectacular....my hat is off to Travis.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Unlike you, I am unable to read other peoples thoughts.

In what context would you pretend to evaluate my answers.
You've never been to Hollywood.

Thoughts and reality are entirely different, and if you think Hollywood is natural, you're way off base.

Travis created artificial features at Hollywood and they never looked natural.

Reading books and doing ivory tower research is nice, but no substitute for up close, in the field evaluations.

But, I forgot, you're the expert on golf courses you've never seen.  

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Travis expressed his thoughts in writing. He authored a book on golf and was the editor of American Golfer for several years.

I have seen plenty of Travis features up close and personal, I am great fan of his work, I admire his unique style. I especially enjoy his greens.

I didn't ask if you thought his courses were artificial or natural, I asked what Travis's intent was, perhaps you were confused....if not, a simple I don't know would have sufficed.

I'm not sure why you always fall back on the ivory tower/lack of field work approach when discussing the history of a golf course. I must conclude you are not familar with the original character of Hollywood, which is no great crime except when you pretend to know and give others the impression a course has been restored, when it has not.

All the field work in the world is not going to reveal the complete architectural history of a golf course. You should stick to club politics and expressing your well researched person tastes/opinions.....and leave the history to others.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

We weren't discussing the history of golf, we were discussing,
"the best manufactured/artificial hole in golf" when you deliberately diverted the thread.

As to knowing Travis's intent, I don't know anybody, except you, that knows what his intent was at Hollywood.
I only know what he PRODUCED at Hollywood, not what he intended.

That's another gift you have, knowing other peoples intent, especially old dead guys.

You stick to theory, and your specialty of being an expert on golf courses you've never been to, and I'll try to stick to reality.

The fact is that you deliberately diverted this thread, in an attempted shot at Rees, and laughingly offer yourself as an expert on golf courses that you've never seen.

I do know that Rees tryed to restore more than the members let him.  What do you know of the project ?