[TEPaul]

In the hopes of shedding more light on a very important subject of golf architecture, I would like to segment and discuss the various areas of the COSTS of great architecture.

Naturally this includes the inherent architecture of a golf course but also very much concentrates on what some call the "maintenance meld" (def; the ideal maintenance program to highlight the design intent). The term "maintenance meld" I think is very useful, since, at the very least, it makes an important distinction from "conditioning", which can have negative ramifications of immaculatness and soft lush playing conditions to the detriment of a golf course's design intent!

In the Miller/Shackelford book, Geoff alludes to the fact that really great architecture has much value and even if it might cost somewhat more it may very well be worth it!

But does it cost more? Maybe or even probably not, but as to WHY the various areas of architectural construction as well as the proper "maintenance meld" should be analyzed and discussed in detail.

Incidentally, this topic is designed to create another heated discussion with Pat Mucci who is of the opinion that there is absolutely nothing he does not know on this entire subject. And that includes how to design and construct a golf course and also how to maintain it ideally. It also includes how to handle any particular membership to have them come on board with these important subjects.

So since COST appears to be absolutely everything to some (ie; P. Mucci), to get a better idea how to acheive great architecture and how to maintain it properly, let's take a look at as many design, construction and maintenance costs as possible.

There are so many areas anyone should just come up with their own, but I'll start off with a few good candidates;

1. Dialing down the water vs lush conditions
2. Manpower costs if syringing is necessary
3. Bunker construction costs if one wants really natural handworked bunkers of the style of C&C vs the generic computer designed and machine constructed style and variety.
4. The relative cost of maintaining either of the styles of #3.
5. Really natural mounding vs piles of dozered dirt, or better yet none of this  mounding at all, except to hide the occasional unrelocatable road, mis-sited building or the odd Empire State Building vs sensible building siting to preserve the integrity of golf holes and their surrounds.
6. Interesting greens with the practical speeds to preserve them vs the overriding need for speed and the consequent green designs to support it.

And etc and etc......

[TEPaul]

Just one other thing...I want FACTS and certainly not assumptions and unsupported conclusions!!!!!

[Bob_Huntley]

To achieve a course without cartpaths and to have a true links style approach to the game, here in Northern California, you need superb drainage. With that in mind, there is a course under consideration where the plan is to have one and half feet of sand base distributed throughout. Estimated cost $2,500,000.

[Bob_Huntley]

I should add that that is just for the cost of the sand, trucking and distribution.

[BY]

Tom,
You want costs and facts, why don't you provide what you know to be the costs and facts and we'll work from there.

One question on "computer designed" bunkers, what exactly is a computer designed bunker? You get stuck on the CAD=BAD all the time. CAD is a drafting tool, just like your hand, you dont push a button and say, "give me ten of those ugly bunkers over here and a dozen ugly mounds over there, and make em all look ugly, static and the same." That's simply not how it works.

There have been many good golf courses constructed where they plans were CAD generated and many bad as well, just like hand drawn plans. Most of the time, plans are drawn by hand by the architect and then a CAD draftsperson will enter them into the computer.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom and Bob,
Did you hear something? I could have sworn someone was saying something. Maybe just my imagination.

Come out clean and the world will rally around you. Until then your voice is nothing more then wind.

[TEPaul]

BY:

Yes, forget about my mention of computer generated bunker designs. That, I'm sure is inaccurate on my part and I sort of knew it when I typed it but just didn't alter it. You're good to pick that up.

I don't have any particular feeling about CAD processes either. Whatever works best and most efficiently to produce a course that appears more natural than artifical is just fine by me. So I have no CAD=BAD take on things. Frankly, I'm not real computer literate anyway and I'm not real sure all that CAD may be anyway.

As far as me providing costs and facts and having an architect work from there seems fine, I suppose. I would prefer though to provide an overall idea for a course, and naturally that can involve many, many things and then discuss the facts and costs to acheive such a thing, always of course being aware and cognoscent of comparative alternative facts and costs.

Someone like Pat Mucci would disagree with my approach, I suppose, as he seems fixated on cost analysis. I wouldn't really disagree with that unless it got into lack of considered alternatives and a basic restriction on design latitude if you know what I mean. At the end of the day though I would do it all in a well planned way so not to spend more than needed or that I wanted to.

But on this thread I was referring more to the maintenace end and what comparative costs are and for the proper "maintenance meld" and one that really isn't the proper one.

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Fescue to the rescue!  Less watering, less drainage, less mowing, less fertilizer, less "pro player" designer wannabes (That was redundant with the mention of less fertilizer).    Less is more.  

No cart paths with carts limited only to those that NEED them. (Small fleet that won't ruin the turf)

IMHF  

[G_Tiska]

Fescue needs less water and fertilizer true...but if used on fairways cut below 3/4" it will need more pesticides than bentgrass.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

Great subject, with difficult answers, since there is no "grand poohbah" dictating exactly the same maintenance everywhere.

The comments by Slag Bandoon and G. Tiska are true - I recall at Colbert Hills our Audubon Advisory Committee and some professors recommended fescues over bluegrass for the roughs, based on some scientific studies about water useage.  Turns out that the water useage is based on a cut of 4" plus.  To maintain fescues at 1.5-2.0 inches to keep some semblance of playability, the fescues needed more of everything and didn't hold up to traffic as well, to boot.  It turns out that "conventional wisdom" about using bluegrass was right after all.

After a return from an Australian trip, where I was suitably impressed with the MacKenzie bunkering, I started to incorporate some more of that style in my bunkers.  I have interviewed every superintendent who has the shaplier bunkers about maintenance costs for them.

Basically, most superintendents hand mow bunker edges, because in most soils, they will break down under a machine eventually.  Thus, the extra time to weed whack a few more detailed noses is minimal.  One super estimated another 6-8 man hours per week, at $10/hour, or $4000 per year.  On a 40,000 round course, thats only .10 per round, not bad for the better look!  (That's an old insurance salesman trick - Only pennies a day! - that I use to convince wary owners of the cost)

At the same time, I began reducing the framing mounding to only "sincere" needs, similar to the ones you mentioned.  I had an employee who loved them, so I convinced a local superintendent to let him ride the mower on some of the mounds he designed.  It was hair raising, to say the least.  It made me question the safety for both employees and cart riders. Hard to figure the costs on that!

From a daily cost perspective, mowing steep slopes on framing mounds really lowers mowing productivity, and probably does increase costs dramatically.  Add that to the extra water required to keep such mounds green, and I have, as I said, eliminated those as well.  At one time, I may have been the "moundiest" architect in the south, but no more!

Oddly enough, I think that the key to putting out less water, as per your point no. 1 is best accomplished in design by putting out more sprinklers, allowing better control and separation of different areas, rather than less.  Much over watering occurs, IHMO, because the super needs to water different areas with the same sprinkler.  Since he/she can't underwater critical turf, some of it usually gets overwatered.  However, spending over $1M (we spent $2M at Colbert Hills to separate the various turf types with part circle heads) usually doesn't happen.

As to green speeds, this is an endless debate.  I have told the story of using steep slopes on greens, and always I get complaints.  For an example, check out Whittens piece on Cowboys this month.  You can see the contours of the green in a photo, and that means there is a lot of contour! And the guy at the hockey game stops me to complain about it! (I can't make a putt from above the pin)

From a maintenance perspective, keeping bent in the south for fast greens costs about $30,000 annually in pesticides over Bermuda.  The new Bermudas can attain some pretty good speed, too, and I no longer contour greens steeper for Bermuda vs. Bent.  Most clubs are going to these, since keeping bent well virtually means putting it, in the words of a USGA rep, "on life support systems".

An interesting side question is how modern maintenance affects your feelings about the classic courses,  Clearly, maintenance  has improved dramatically over the years.  I don't like overwatering, but I think most of us would like to play courses with reasonably consistent turf, and courses that are maintained a bit better than what I see in old photos.

Jeff

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff:

At Great Southwest, the entries and most of the collection areas around the greens are generally mush.  Is this due to a poor drainage design, an inadequate irrigation system, or questionable maintenance practices?

Also, you suggested that prior to the availability of the new Bermuda strains, you built more slope on Bermuda greens than for bent.  Since GSW converted to Champions, the already steep slopes you built for the original bent (SR1020?)greens seem to have become steeper with the new grass.  The experience at Mira Vista which converted from bent to TiffEagle seems to be the same.  What do you think happened?

[TEPaul]

Jeff;

I liked your post---some good info. I really wasn't suggesting one style of maintenance for every golf course. Some of the modern designs are so different in their strategic ramifications that they may not need anywhere near the speed some of the older designs need to function up to their potential. I'm speaking "through the green" not on the green.

[RJ_Daley]

Terrific post Jeff, chuck full of info...

How much of a ratio of [added cost / time spent pre-construction evaluating the property] do you think can be attributed to an architect/designer's work effort?  I mean things like a thourough understanding of the natural drainage VS designing complicated drainage systems to compliment natural features, and the understanding of localized soil characteristics and water needs.  

Your explanation of more control of irrigation heads and capacity is well understood in that a bit more cost upfront saves more long term as the years go by.  

By the way, how much does the musk-melon scented towels provided by the on-course wait staff add to Cowboys maintenance meld?  We are still using "borrowed" YMCA towels soaked from the water coolers up here.    

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff:

I must add my compliments to your post.

Special thanks for your comments on the cost of maintaining Mackenzie style bunkers.

[rkg]

Jeff,

As everyone said nice post.

I have a question about your self described period as the "moundiest"  architect in the south.  

You sort of mention "framing" as a reason for the use, I was wondering if you could explain your thoughts behind the use of  the mounds, what you thought it added etc., then why your thoughts and style changed.

It seems many have abandoned this "style" to some degree or another over the past 10 years.  I have my theories as to why and would like to hear your thinking.

I know the first stuff I did we over killed the mounding.  At the time I was learning to shape and thought I was really cool building the bumps- the more they stood out the more I stood out.  My thoughts changed as I learned more ( or maybe I just began to think rather than mindlessly build humps to seperate)

Anyway It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on changing.

Thanks

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thanks to all for the nice comments. Of course, I feel like I can lend a technical hand to this group as my primary contribution.

RJ,

I do study the drainage patterns of each site in detail, including offsite impacts (i.e. upstream flows) and FUTURE impacts (i.e., what happens when all this nice farmland turns into subdivisions at some point in the future.....

The preconstruction evaluation during routing usually means putting major swales between critical areas, not in them, such as under greens, tees, landing areas, etc.  Soil types affect drainage as well, with a tendency to use many more catch basins in a clay soil (like you have in Wisconsin, and we have in Texas) vs. sand.

However, the primary reason to design complicated drainage systems is that water collects from sheet flow to concentrated flow after a free run of about 300 feet. Placing basins every 275 foot or so really speeds grow in, and keeps the course from having thoses mushy swales that are so prevalant - and frustrating to maintenance crew and players alike.

This is especially true of housing courses where we have found the nuisance water trickling down from surrounding houses to constantly affect turf. If I end up with a swale crossing a fairway or near a green and I have more than an acre of housing (or 2 acres of natural ground) I pipe it beneath the fairway.  I treat the fairways like an engineer treats roads - with a collection swale on either side, with pipe and basins carrying water below in the natural swales as necessary.

P.S. -With onset of winter, Cowboys is switching from the melon scented towels to an warm apple cider to enhance the golf experience.

Kye,

Good question on the mounds. Like you, there was a period where we felt like we should see how far out we could go in earth shaping for effect.  In  my case, I may have been affected by my University of Illinois landscape architecture education, which in turn was affected by its most illustrious graduate (no, not me, at least not yet!) Hideo Sasaki, who was famous for the dictum, "The Land is Putty", implying you shape it as you need to.

My mentors Killian and Nugent also believed in mounding to frame the green and hold in bad or hot shots for average golfers, although they rarely graded fairways unless necessary for drainage or vision.  I have trouble breaking out of this mold very often.  In the 80's, that framing was extended by many architects down the fairway.

As I said once, you either accept that you move earth only to create golf features, or you create the look all the way down the fairway, a la Fazio, who IMHO does create this look very well, albeit by planting on top of his man made ridges, which hides their origin somewhat.  The Rees (and mine, and others) style mounding suffers from limitations of shaping, i.e. there are only so many ways a dozer can shape a mound, and they never approach the variety of nature.

Basically, the changeover came from a few sources.  First, I used to think that any grass hazard was easier for the average golfer than sand, and substituted mounds for sand.  Then, I played a few of my courses with average golfers, and found my thought process flawed!  The sidehill lies killed them.

Then, the Australia trip convinced me that a few well placed fairway bunkers really provided better definition than framing mounding. Lastly, I found it was hard to get those mounds watered properly, making the sand bunkers a better solution.

Perhaps more later, got to take the kids to school!

Jeff

[John Bernhardt]

thanks for the great follow up Jeff. It is always good to see these issues discussed with southern grasses in mind too.

[RJ_Daley]

Excellent comments by Kye and Jeff, how insightful?  What I am understanding from these two architects is that the question often raised here in ongoing discussions about whether our general tendencies to reflect back on past era of golf course design is having an impact on modern design, is yes.  Jeff and Kye speak of why they had the inclination to utilise excessive mounding early on as a matter of an evolved conventional wisdom that became somewhat ubiquitous in the modern era, giving rise to what I think is "the look" of the evolved tradition of their profession.  Jeff speaks of his upcoming in the Chicago school tradition and apprentice work with Killian and Nuggent and their use of mounds.  Frankly, is there any other feature that causes many of us to rail about "the look" of a modern course more than excessive mounding as sparation and framing.  Look at the marathon thread on The Bridge.  Mounding through excessive grading and because of conventional modern construction wisdom is the root of all controversy!  Now, we finally have people like Jeff and Kye and I'm sure many others, who are toning it down with the mounds due to playability, and that maintenance meld Tom started this thread with.  Wavy gravy is no fun to mow or stand side hill on like a billy goat.

I think mounds have a place in design.  But, they are more well received when they are manufactured for the functionality and design that Raynor and Langford and those old time gents utilized them.  Lawsonia is a case study in the right way to use mounding to back up bunkers often placing the mounds on gullwing diagonals, and provide long sweeping blended in or graded back side speed ramps to the well struck ball to carry them down fairway to desired spots.  Not to separate and frame fairway corridors with monotonous humps of sameness due to dozer blade characteristics and symetry of the designer's aesthetic for perfection that contrasts so sharply with natural terrain.

[rkg]

Jeff,

Thanks for the response. I think mounds are kind of  like 70's  golf clothes- what were we thinking.

Your mentors K and N (and many others) believing mounding is a way to "hold in" errant shots seems misguided.  It only works for shots slightly off line.  What of the shots that hit on the backsides of these mounds?  How do they help these guys? Don't they only exagerate the off line shot and make the recovery one diminesional, longer and much harder?

I have my own theory that the overabundance of greenside mounding is a function of USGA type greens construction.  When a green is cored out the dirt has to go somewhere.  The easist, cheapest and quickest thing to do is build a pile just outside the cavity.  Most of the guys I learned shaping from and most others I know  do the same thing when dealing with extra dirt anywhere... they build mounds.

Often when looking at the mounds I see the piles (mounds) in locations and sizes that are very near the spot the dozers pushing power is matched by the resistance of the amount of dirt.  So if operating the dozer, you lift the blade and leave it.   Also, when exiting a welled out green with a blade full of dirt, the dozer is pointing UP and it is much easier to build a pile than it is to feather it across the existing grade or carry it a long way.

I believe a lot of the mounding is a direct result of  and grew out of the excess dirt from greens excavation. Even though there are mounds around greens on older push up green courses and often this can come from bunker excavating ( greens/bunkers at Pasatiempo come to mind).

At least thats my theory.

[TEPaul]

Man, Jeff, that was another wonderful post of yours on the very necessary technical side of construction which is something that many on this site need to know much, much more of.

This will be incendiary as Hell for those who are in the business and are quite proprietary about what they do but I feel that there are a number of people who are not in the business and many on this site alone who are as good or even better on golf architecture than a number of professional architects in what I would call the "Concept side" of golf design.

I think there are some very interesting reasons for this. Some obvious reasons and others that are anything but. One of the obvious reasons, although highly ironic, is that many of those not in the business probably play or have played far more golf than many of the professional architects, particularly the real busy ones.

In this area, I hate to say it again, but I really believe it helps a professional architect an aweful lot if he sort of has a sense of any and all golf shots in his bones!! Obviously if you're a good player you will come to feel golf shots in your bones, like a Ben Crenshaw. That could be limiting, however, if that particular player is unable to translate that feeling to levels other than his own. So some think that a good player should have architectural or design sense, but it may not necessarily be so or certainly not in anything but on a particular level.

This is where I feel that a guy like Crenshaw, and Coore, and very much Nick Faldo have an additional talent in that they have the knack of translating that "golf shot feeling" to every single level and then translating that knowledge to concept>design>construction>maintenance>playability! I don't really know why Ben and Bill have that ability to span the levels this way (just talent, I guess) but Faldo is an interesting case. He is actually more "swing technically minded" than people already think he is and he is a natural born observer, if I've ever seen one! He's  fascinated in constantly watching the technical shortcomings of golfers all around him. He is anything but in a cocoon this way and it evidences itself in some of his concept and design feelings and beliefs!!

It is indeed a talent to have really good "golf shot sense" for an architect and one that gives them a serious headstart in all the areas of golf architecture if he can span the spectrum of golfing levels in concept>design>construction>maintenance>playability, in my personal opinion! Those that don't have it in their bones have to learn it some other way!

They have to have it somehow though, I think, to be really first rate or their architecture could become riddled with a wide variety of little ongoing annoyances in the area of maintenance somewhat but particularly "playbability" for the spectrum of golf levels!

This is just one tiny area of all the subjects that this particular topic might cover, but a very basic and important one, I think, for architecture generally. In this way, it is interesting that many nonprofessionals, and many on this site, seem to have a somewhat "freethinking" capacity when it comes to golf design particularly the "concept" side of it. I think that "freethinking" capacity allows them to be adventurous with golf "concept".

Frankly, the real reason they may be able to "freethink" conceptually is because they really don't know what the limitations of the other areas of golf architecture are all about. Certainly not in the depth and detail that the professional architects do.

I mentioned this to Geoff Shackelford not long ago. In my opinion, he is one of the best design "conceptualizers" I've ever seen probably as much from basic talent and instinct as from the massive amounts of research he's done on all forms of golf architectual design in his young life. He also has started to learn the world of construction methods and how to use the machinery. He told me he was starting to see where the limitations between concept, design, construction, maintenance and playability are believed to be (although not necessarily agreeing with some of those limitations) and even having to learn to live with a few design decisions he personally wasn't real happy about. I told him that he shouldn't let his newfound understanding of the "apparent" limitations of machinery get in the way of his raw ability to "conceptualize" or it could hold him back that way.

I was being half fascetious and expected him to laugh about that but to my surprise he took that remark very seriously which tells me he has even more talent to understand the entire package of golf architecture than I already thought he did!

Anyway, I think this entire topic and subject of how all the various areas of golf architecture (concept>design>construction>maintenance>playability) come together and meld together to  potentially produce some really interesting and unique products is extremely fascinating.

You should listen carefully to some of what is said on here from some of us nonprofessionals particularly in the area of "concept" but also in the area of maintenance and playability, and I know you do listen. We should listen to you very carefully in the areas of design and construction and I thank you for sharing with us in these areas.

If you listen to some of these "freethinkers" you may come up with some interesting and unique ideas and then you can eventually say when you filter it through your understanding of design and construction; "No can do, and here's why" or "that's interesting, that can be done, let's give it a shot!"

So thanks again for your information and particularly your honesty. There is a ton of stuff to know in all the areas (concept>design>construction>maintenance>playability) and I guess it's hard to know everything about all of it, so let's keep on collaborating.
 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Lots of truth to what you say. There is an old saying that if you want to play golf, for God sakes, don't go into the golf business!  I have always been up front that this group does serve as one of my sources of inspriation and design evolution - but just one.  (BTW, I have been around to quite a few golf courses, both 65 of the top 100 plus other classical courses, and those judged the best of the new.)

But, I do listen to some of it, and at some I roll my eyes, but I like to keep an open mind! Having said that, I am aware of the value of critics who challenge us to break the current mold, which is why I don't take any offense (as some architects do) to anything presented here. For the record, even Tommy has never offended me, with the possible exception of the 666 comments of a few months back!

As for free thinkers, it is true that a certain conventional wisdom sets in over time.  What made Pete Dye unique was his complete new direction.  I still believe, while he reveres the Scottish courses, that his move was motivated at least partly by marketing genius to do something different. And I find it no surprise that one of his mentors, Tom Doak, took that formula and invented minimalism, for similar reasons - looking for the next big thing, just to be different.  Now, I have no doubt that Tom does love the classical courses, or he couldn't keep up the charade, but you have to admit, it was both marketing genius, a capture of nostalgia, and a recognition that modern thinking had in fact, gotten too stereotyped......

There is also some wishful thinking to your post.  I will repeat what I repeat to any  person wanting to be a golf architect - it's not big ideas, it's the little details is what makes you a professional! Big ideas are and always have been a dime a dozen in the design biz.  The concept side is about 10% of the time you spend in this business, but of course its the thing you live for!

I always get the ideas that many of you really believe (perhaps wistfully) you could do better than the crop of current architects, if only given the chance.  While the amateur architect makes good syndrome has come true, it typically isn't the case. And I agree with you that a good architect must keep the swirling thoughts of concept>design>construction>maintenance>playability all in mind at once.  That's what makes it such a fascinating job.....Most here think only concept, which you can (and should) do on the internet!

I happen to think of myself as a pretty good conceptualizer myself, and have generally found golf pros (there are exceptions) to be notoriously weak in that department.  I also know (and have expounded on) some of the reasons that great ideas don't always get put into practice.  Geoff S. could expound on this, now that he has some real world experience, as you mention.  Ron Whitten has done the same here.  And this is separate from him simply wanting to try a new style, ie more fairway bunkers in the center of fairways (which from his routing look cool).

For all the sameness many percieve in modern design, I'll bet a detailed conversation with even some of the architects you don't care for would reveal more detailed thought, and less sheeplike follow the leader mentality, than you give them credit for.  That is what I tried to get across in some of my earlier posts, as to how my thoughts (as an example) have evolved over the years.

I recall my first week with Killian and Nugent. They let me design something, but quickly discarded it in favor of some of their more standard fare.  I asked why, and they didn't know.  A few days later, Dick came back in and said, "I thought about your question.  You know, your design must have reminded me of something we tried in '63 and it didn't work out, so we are reluctant to do it again."

So, current designers must balance what they know from experience, with some questions about what they "know" from experience, whether internal, or from some outside source, like GCA!

Jeff

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

Another excellent post! Very honest and informative.

On the subject of the amateur architect, I really hope I didn't give the wrong impression. I would no more recommend that someone like myself or some on here try to go out and build a course at this point than fly to the moon. There are a ton of areas, I, for one, know way too little about. And that's the very reason I appreciate your posts and the information. They are extremely helpful for those of us who are understandably weak in those areas!

But in the "concept" area I do feel that some on here are not weak at all. I think they could be adventurous and "freethinkers' conceptually and would only need someone more versed in the other areas to tell them the possibiliites, drawbacks etc TO those areas.

This is not so much that they might come up with something new and altogether different for golf architect, it's more that they see the possiblities of going back to some of the things that have left architecture for reasons that might not have been that valid.

Basically, It's the understanding of the odd evolution of golf architecture that makes me say that. There are some on here who understand that extremely well and their thoughts could be very useful for the future!

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

Sorry if I got a bit cranky there. On both of your posts, I think I know what you were driving at, and didn't get any negative or wrong impressions at all.  When I mentioned the grand poohbah, I was really referring to the wide variety of conditions, both economic and regional (like Bent in the south) that some may forget if they ususally play in only one region of the country, and only in the south during the winter, for instance.

On your last post, I think we are driving at the same thing, as well.  There are certainly a lot of classical ideas that are working their way back into architecture, and certainly a lot of non architects, like Geoff S. researching the whys and wherefores of "why not use them".  Could any of those people put together a functioning golf couse without some professional help?  Not likely.  I saw your routing, and it was the best amateur routing I have seen - although I know you had some help from Gil, Bill and Ben.  PS, I still think you worked too hard to save your 13th hole, the cows be dammed!

Many here do understand the concepts of design very well, I dare say, as well as even a few professional architects who either don't really love the game and/or have given up trying to improve themselves.  No, I won't name names, but I'm not thinking of the big name guys GCA like to bash sometimes.  

My posts are honest, and I hope the ones today conveyed a few things.

First, you can tell that I think that a better understanding of the technical issues that swirl inside our minds would help all figure out why modern courses look like modern courses!  I usually leave it to you guys to debate the nitty gritty details of concept.  Why?  Not that I'm not interested, but I can try a concept for real once, and if it isn't great, I can improve it the next time, or put it on the shelf for a while until another situation comes up where it might be the right thing.  

When I was a new kid at Killian and Nugent, I recall my first design attempt - I tried to get every neat concept into my very first hole.  Doesn't work.  Another thing Nugent told me - a golf hole usually really does one thing well, not several, and thats usually enough.  It can challenge a hook or a fade, require accuracy or power, etc.

I will start  a thread someday, and it will be called "mistakes amateurs make". The first is trying to put too much, or read too much into any given golf hole.  The second is not realizing just how much room golf features really take up.....

A good , legitimate question is if we as a group (and we are not really a cohesive group) are too unwilling to take chances, based on the criticism we get.  Nugent always said he did derivative holes about 14-15 out of the 18 and tried new ones on 3-4.  That way, he was pretty well assured of a good course that people and owners would accept.  

In telliing these stories, I hope you also get a sense of the respect I have for the mentoring of Ken and Dick.  I find myself telling my employees these same Dick Nugent stories over the years, sounding as much like Dick as I sound like my own father when talking to my kids!  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess.

Of course, the mentoring system prevalant in golf arnchitecture does breed slow change.  And perhaps this is good.  As in politics, and other fields, there is always someone selling something new, or the "good old days", and over time, most ideas are found wanting, and a small percentage will be found to be an advance forward.

I agree with Jim Engh and others who think the latest generations of golf courses will stand up as "great architecture" - no matter what the cost (shameless attempt to tie back into your original subject) and a percentage of these, at least as great as any other decade, will eventually be judged as great.  Further, more of the broad middle spectrum of modern courses will certainly be judged as superior to the middle class courses of previous decades, in all likelihood.

As any historian knows, a place in history is best judged over a long period of time....We won't know where Clinton, or Bush will stand for a long, long time.  Same with golf courses, but the law of averages, the feelings of nostalgia, which haven't attached themselves to new courses, and human nature almost guarantee I will be right on this one, IMHO.

Tom, what was your question again?

Jeff

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Having had the pleasure of walking Tom Paul's routing, I can say without reservation that Tom didn't work too hard to save the 13th hole.  The potential was incredible.

In fact, if we had our clubs with us, all that would be needed was a hole cutter and tee box, and we could have spent the rest of the afternoon attempting to each play it in about 10 different ways.  It truly was one of the most interesting landforms for natural golf I've ever seen.

By the way, I've really enjoyed your thoughtful, well-reasoned posts on this thread, as well.

As for your agreement that the modern era will someday compare favorably with the classic era, let's just say that I'm still hoping that the best courses of this era are ahead of us.  

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

I don't think I asked a question. I rarely do! I generally make statements because if I just asked questions Pat Mucci wouldn't be able to challenge me and that wouldn't be any fun at all!

But even questionless, you did supply more interesting info.

I don't regret not giving up that hole--it would have been great! It will be done someday. You said I should have given up that hole (it was #12) and 'let the cows be damned'. I tried very hard to damn those cows but the owner wouldn't let me!

I spent hundreds of hours out there with those cows and frankly we never got to know each other well at all. They let me do my thing although they never stopped looking at me sideways. But they were OK. Actually they were very quiet for cows and kept their  distance mostly but one time I was staring at a beautiful natural golf hole for about five minutes and one of them snuck up behind me. I just happened to turn around and he was about a foot behind me just standing there staring at me. Damn near scared me out of my shoes. I jumped so high my flask fell out of my pocket. I always figured they were sort of lazy, overfed, elitist cows anyway.

If you want to see some crazy cows you should see some of the ones in Virginia. We were out there hunting natural holes on one awesome piece of property and they came after us like there was no tomorrow. Tried to outflank us and every other military tactic I've ever heard of--and we were in a big SUV for Crissakes!! I thought we were in for another "Custer's last stand"!

But it won't be long before I do damn those Virginia cows whether it's a great hole or a terrible one! Crazy somabitches!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()