[Mike_Cirba]

Had the real pleasure of playing Plainfield today, and was struck by the 10th hole.  From the tee, the shot is distinctly downhill, yet one can only aim at points on the horizon.

You see, a ridge about 100 yards out blocks any view of the fairway below.  Thinking of Tom Fazio's book, it occurred to me that this is the sort of thing that he may have been thinking when he speaks of the value of earth-moving equipment.  

Knowing his (and other modern designers) penchant for "visibility" and "framing", I'm sure they would have opted for the more picturesque downhill view of the whole fairway, and would have removed the unsightly ridge without a second thought.  

However, there is a real value to such a blind ridge.  If one was able to see everything below, psychologically the tee shot would be so much easier.  As it is, the ridge creates just enough uncertainty to give pause.  The tee shot is all the more thrilling because of this simple feature of leaving well enough alone...focusing on the golf aspects rather than the scenery aspects.

It made me wonder what Fazio would do to Plainfield if called in to "restore" the course.  There are a number of blind and semi-blind shots, and I can't imagine that his modern tastes would stand for them very well.  After all, how "fair" is seeing just the top half of a flagstick on a green with a false-front?  

Thankfully, Gil Hanse is doing the work out there and is remaining true to Ross's wonderful vision.  

[Edward Scissorhands]

I love the barberpoles in the fairways at my course at the 150 markers, they keep me focused on my round, not on my cell phone, cigar, beers, cartgirl, pager, gps yardage guide, bushnells,......I'm trying to get them to put them in at 100 and 200 as well
maybe you should suggest Plainfield do that as well, the course sounds boring, who would want to play on a plain field? :> )

[Joel_Stewart]

Mike:
Considering Fazio is a board member at Pine Valley I'm surprised he hasn't asked them to bulldoze the green on #2, the hill on the 4th, etc, etc.

Imagine if he got his hands on the 10th at Shinnecock.

[jim_lewis]

If I am ever accused of a crime, I hope you guys are not on the jury.  You would not only judge a guy for things he has done, but you would also invent or imagine things that he might do in the future and convict him of those too.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

In playing the 10th hole, it occurred to me that the hole would probably never be built today, even at a private club.  

The reason I mentioned Tom Fazio is because as I was walking from the tee, looking at the ridge, the words he wrote about the positive benefits of eliminating such natural, but blind features jumped to mind.

Couple that with his tendency towards visual cues and creating lovely views, his new penchant for "restoration" work, and I'd ask you, Jim;  isn't that the type of feature that he would eliminate given his druthers?  

I'm not saying that many other modern-day architects wouldn't do the same.  However, I can't recall too many others who have railed against the overrated golden agers and their use of natural features.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

My other point, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts, is that the blindness created by the ridge DOES have a value in creating uncertainty and aiming difficulty.  It contributes to the challenge of the course and is a clear part of the architecture.

If that ridge were eliminated, the drive would be more lovely, but less thrilling and confusing.  If Mr. Fazio wants to cite the benefits of modern earth-moving features (and conversely, the deficit that golden age architects operated under) in eliminating blindness caused by natural features, then I think using him as a hypothetical example is really not as unfair as you claiim.    

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike,
It's OK, I don't think Jim really wants to understand Golden Age architecture other then Mr. Fazio's version of it.

He is just as one-sided as I am, only on the other side of the spectrum.

[BillV]

I have to agree with Mike 100% on this one.  Fazio will never build a course the quality of Plainfield.  Few have.

10 Plainfield is not without its problems, but the master plan addresses them.  The blind pond (Visible from #9 if you know where to look if you've never played there before) was originally designed as a creek and is on the plan to become one again.  The evil   green is punishment enough.

Fazio isn't even capable of a green of that calibre, no less a hole.

[Bill_Coggins]

Mike,

Thanks for bringing back memories from long ago.  I played a rough little course in the hills of upstate New York.  One hole was a par 4, but you could drive the green with a long iron.  Problem was that the hole dropped off some 50 feet down to the green.  If you overshot the green, you were in the water.  Blind shot, if you dared.

Your proposition of "if Mr Fazio would do..."  IS this not a reverse of hole #5 on ANGC.  To lengthen the hole, the teeing ground is to be moved down the hill into the old hole #4.  The ridge on #5 will make the drive blind, unless....

[Mike_Cirba]

Bill(s),

You know, as we were looking at the wonderful rolling property that is Plainfield, we noticed just a slew of movement in the natural terrain.

One of my foursome idlehandedly commented, "You could never do that with a bulldozer".  In fact, so many of the contrasting rolls happen in close proximity, often creating narrowing of sight lines.  I couldn't help but think that most modern architects, including Tom Fazio, would never stand for this.  

The use of natural features that is so evident at Plainfield brings to mind one word that I think is not nearly evident enough in modern design; "Adventurous".  

Give me a golf course with a sense of fun and adventure.  I just don't see the bulldozers improving on mother nature, frankly.  I would ask naysayers to just walk the first two holes at Plainfield (and many others) and tell me where they've seen this kind of thing done by the hand of man.

More importantly, tell me that they aren't just "Plain" fun!  

[GeoffreyC]

Our host at Plainfield pointed out the line of play for us off the tee of #10.  Immediately I said to him something like "over there, you want us to play out there towards the ladies tee?".  It was not obvious and it did take some degree of concentration to take that line.  That would be gone in a New York minute if the hill were plowed away to create a visually framed hole.  Mike pointed this out as we walked over the hill to see our balls in an ideal spot in the fairway. Plainfield sits on a nearly ideal property but my guess is that a course built by the majority (but not all)of todays architects  on the same piece of land would move a million cubic yards of earth. Any comments on that statement and would that result in a comparable product? Hole number 1 alone would account for a good part of that earth movement but I thinks its as good an opener I've seen anywhere.

[aclayman]

I am reminded of the 7th hole on the Valley nine at Blackwollf Run (orig. 16th) Blind tee shot over a ridge that bends and extends down the right side of the par 5. With my weak fade, I would rarely find the generous fairway that awaits a half-way decent tee shot and I'd be on the wrong side of the bend in the ridge to the right.

What I value was Mr. Dyes placement of two little humps that gunsight where the fairway is, from that line of charm  

[Lou_Duran]

From my standpoint, an occasional blind shot provides variety and interest in a golf course.  As long as safety and liability issues are addressed, my ideal course would contain a couple of blind or semi-blind tee shots, and a few greens where the view of many of the pin positions is obscured.  I do not like hazards that can't be seen when the preceeding shot has been properly executed (or from the tee).

Unlike Tommy N., I am not polarized on the style of GCA.  I love MacKenzie and Ross, but I also have a lot of respect for  Nicklaus's and Dye's work.  I do wonder whether some of the features characteristic of the Golden Age which are so revered on this site (blind shots, wildly undulating greens, uneven, rough edged bunkers)would have been designed/built if the architects then had at their disposal the construction and maintenance equipment as well as the agronomical knowledge available to their successors today.  Did MacKenzie build those beautiful,undulating greens for aesthetics or was it because it was the only way to test the skills of the players on extremely slow surfaces (by today standards).  If the Doctor was alive today when a Stimp of 10 is on the moderate side, would he have accomplished his objective with less severe slopes?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I do not think that # 10 and # 18 are good holes because they were tampered with.
Someone, NOT FAZIO, altered them for the worse by putting in retention ponds that dramatically affect play on # 10.

Having to aim into what appears to be the woods or far left rough when you know where to aim is uncomfortable at best.  If you haven't played the course and aim straight away as the tee and hole would require, you're blind into a pond.  That's bad architecture and FAZIO had nothing to do with it.

A more valid question/criticism is:  
Who was the architect responsible for the surgery on these holes, resulting in their architectual diminishment, thus detracting form the overall PLAINFIELD golfing experience ?

I doubt FAZIO, NICKLAUS, REES JONES  and others would have constructed such a dumb feature.

[Mike_Cirba]

Lou,

There seems to be a rapidly perpetuating myth that the Golden Age designers couldn't move earth if they wanted or needed to.

Anyone seen Yale?  Read about Lido?  How about Ross in rocky New England?

The argument doesn't hold up and seems to be a convenient excuse for modern architects to just do a wholesale reshaping of the existing land.

However, if you look at the writings of virtually all the Golden Age architects, they talked about using natural features and only moving what they had to for interesting golf.  

There is no doubt in my mind that Ross could have taken out the ridge on the 10th at Plainfield if he had chosen to do so.  The fact is, he did not choose to do so.  

That is the only difference.

As far as whether the dead guys had to build undulating greens as a last defense for slower greens speeds, that seems to me to be a bit of a convoluted question.  More often among the golden agers, one sees greens that tie into existing terrain...actually are a natural PART of the existing terrain (such as the 1st at Plainfield), and utilized surrounding natural slopes, bowls, and hillocks as much as possible.  I can't imagine any of them if they were alive today thinking, "sheesh...with greens sloping at 11 these days, I'd best flatten these things out so they are fair".  

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

As I understand it, the ponds that exist on Plainfield (you cited 10&18) were created in 1978 before the US Amateur.  Some 20 bunkers were added at that time as well.

I cannot verify this, but I've heard it was Robert Trent Jones, Sr.

I agree that both ponds are completely out of character (the one on 10 even looks REALLY bad with it's boxed in surrounds), and am thrilled to hear that they are going the way of the dinosaur under the Gil Hanse restoration.  

I still believe that both 10 and 18 are really good holes, even with the small ponds marring each.  Turned back to a natural creek bed in each instance, they will be much, much better.

[Lou_Duran]

Mike:

Those of us who use myths and convoluted reasoning to explain our view of the world only do so because ...?  I don't think that I am particularly stupid, and I certainly don't have a vested interest, financial or otherwise, in what is termed as modern golf design.  Perhaps we form our opinions through experience and study, but have come to a different conclusion.

And in fact, much of the GCA literature, particularly that pertaining to MacKenzie, reflects the desire of the architects to build courses which are economical to construct and to maintain.  Many of these courses such as OSU's Scarlet were largely built with mules, scoops, shovels, and a largely unmechanized work force.  While MacKenzie encouraged the use of labor saving devices, the availability of efficient, relatively precise earth moving equipment was not there, and what was, I suspect, greatly exceeded the means afforded by the meager construction budgets.  Regarding the comment on today's faster greens, MacKenzie and others were very concerned about the average player being able to enjoy the game.  How many average golfers could play fast, wildly undulating greens such as ANGC's and still enjoy the game?  I for one think that if the Doctor was designing today, his greens would be considerably tamer, though not less interesting nor less appealing to the eye.   What is stopping today's architects from foregoing the use of modern equipment to move so much dirt?  Why are greens today generally flatter than those of the Golden Age?  I know that a few on this site believe that today's architects build to the tastes of those evil, money grubbing developers, who in turn only respond to the ignorant, unwashed masses.  Generally, I beg to disagree.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Lou,

Good points, and I meant no offense by my use of the terms "myth" and "convoluted", although I can understand that they could be personally construed as such.  Please accept my sincere apology.

Now, back to our argument!  

Certainly, many of the golden age architects including Mackenzie talked about building courses that were cheaper to construct and maintain.  It made for great PR, and these guys were businessmen.  Similar to today, the actual projects in the field and their costs ran the gamut from Ross's little munis and paper jobs to Raynor's attempt at draining the Lido Channel!  Tillinghast, for instance, wrote whole articles on earth-moving techniques, as did Ross, and others.  My point, and my example, is that Ross COULD have easily dynamited away the ridge on 10 at Plainfield.  It is hardly Mount Vesuvius.  

Why didn't he?  Because he was trying to save costs at a well-heeled, financially established (1890) club outside NYC that had entrusted him to build them a new course?  I seriously doubt that was his motivation.

As far as Mackenzie's greens, I think you've proved my point, actually.  As you stated, Mackenzie was very concerned about providing "fun" and "enjoyment" for the average golfer.  Does the average member of ANGC enjoy the greens there?  How about those at Cypress?

I'm not sure that the Good Doctor would have agreed that building tame greens that putted quickly would meet his criteria of "enjoyable recreation".  Perhaps it was simply his affinity for the outlandishly rolling greens at TOC that colored his viewpoint.

[jim_lewis]

Mike:

I have never seen Plainfield so I don't have any comment on it.  Nor do I wish to comment on changes that may, or may not, be made to the course (or any other course) in the future by any architect, until the work has actually been done.

It just seems to me that we should judge an architect's work by what he has done, instead of speculating on work that he may never do. In the case of Tom Fazio, (and Rees Jones, and Jack Nicklaus) there are plenty existing examples of their work that can be critiqued. Why create hypothetical situations? I must have missed your point.

Tommy:

I probably appreciate and understand "Golden Age" architecture as well as most on this site. I just am not a fanatic over it, and I do appreciate some courses that were built since World War II. I am NOT one-sided on the subject of golf course architecture, and I have long-since given up trying to debate with those who are.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I'm sorry you feel that way.

My point was simple.  I played a golf course with a ridge obscuring the view of the fairway below.  Although that ridge could have been removed or dynamited by the original architect, he chose not to.

It called to mind Tom Fazio's words in his book where he talked about Golden Age architects being impeded without the use of modern earth-moving equipment.  He specifically referred to natural features creating blindness as something undesirable and needing removal.  I personally questioned that contention, simply because I believe from a golf standpoint, the hole is considerably more exciting and adventurous than it would be would a better, if prettier view of the fairway below.  

I'm talking simply about philosophic approaches to golf course architecture here.  I don't see where I am being either a Golden Age fanatic or someone who is unfairly picking on Tom Fazio.  

I like a good number of his courses, but disagree with him on this one.  I believe I also asked if you'd share your opinion on the philosophic debate.  That's all.    

[jim_lewis]

Mike:

I think maybe I understand your point better now. My knee-jerk reaction this morning (I had not even had my coffee!) to yours and Joel's posts was that it seemed that you had temporarily run out of things to pound Fazio over, so you and Joel had resorted to inventing or imagining changes that he MIGHT make to Plainfield and Pine Valley in order to zing him again. With that interpretation in mind, I was just saying Whoa!, let's stick to commenting on work he has already done. There is plenty  that deserves critique, both negative and positive. I apologize for mis-interpreting your post.

With regard to the philosophical question you posed.....I have no problem with a limited number of blind shots on a course as long as they are the result of natural features of the land. Some courses are otherwise so special (Prestwick and Royal County Down) that the numerous blind shots can be overlooked.  However, I do object to modern architects moving earth in order to create numerous blind shots (Mike Strantz at Tobbacco Road).  I can not imagine a situation where I would approve of an architect renovating a classic course for the purpose of eliminating a natural blind shot. On the otherhand, I would expect a modern architect to limit (not eliminate) the number of blind shots on a new course either by use of modern earth-moving equipment or by re-routing.

I think that a few blind shots are fine on a private course where the same players play it regularly. Safety becomes more of a concern on a resort or daily fee course where most players are playing the course for the first time.

Having said all of that, I could probably think of courses that I like that would violate everything I just said, because other factors are more important.

[GeoffreyC]

Jim

I know you have said that you never played Plainfield but I really would like to ask you (or someone else who has) whether you think that modern technology could have improved on Plainfield as a complete golf course? I was the guy Mike mentioned who said that a bulldozer could not create features like the natural ones at Plainfield and I mostly believe that.  Ballyliffin new course (Glashedy) is a prime example.  It's a wonderful course but you knew the blade of the bulldozer was there and this sharply contrasted with the little humps and bumps found in their old course on adjoining land.

You mention "On the otherhand, I would expect a modern architect to limit (not eliminate) the number of blind shots on a new course either by use of modern earth-moving equipment or by re-routing." which suggests to me that (and I don't want to put words in your mouth) that you think maybe courses like Plainfield  could be improved on with modern technology.  Maybe we can think of another example of Ross' or another dead architects work on a rolling property that could be improved on.  I think that could be an interesting discussion.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Thanks for your thoughts.  I can certainly empathize about the morning coffee, as I'm essentially useless prior to my daily intake of java.  I also tend to be sort of surly first thing.  

I do understand your points and opinion better now, but I think Geoffrey asked a good followup question worth exploring.

Also, if anyone out there thinks that blind shots are not exciting, you should have seen Geoffrey on the 16th.  He had to lay up short of the sahara-like cross bunkers, but striped a long third at his target in the distance.  I was standing just on the other side of the bunkers and saw his ball land short, run up nicely, and finish about 15 feet behind the hole.  

I looked back to see Geoffrey literally jogging, Sergio-like, up the slope between the cross bunkers to get a look, spurred on perhaps by my spontaneous applause.

[Lou_Duran]

Mike:

No offense taken and no need to apologize.  It is not unusual on this site for passionate people to express themselves in less than polite terms, and no one is forced to participate in this forum.  My thinking is more aligned with what Jim Lewis stated on this thread, and I too grow weary with the frequent attacks on the likes of Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus (the latter whom I greatly admire).  I would love to play Plainfield some day; PV, ANGC, CP and all the other venerable ones as well.  Alas, my contact base is meager and it will be very difficult.  BTW, I would hardly compare the average member at ANGC and CP to an average golfer (I doubt that many there would appreciate this characterization).  An acquaintance has played ANGC and told me that the average player would have a hard time finishing the round if he putted out on every hole.  And while Dr. MacKenzie disdained the card and pencil crowd, I don't think he would have much love either for the five hour round.  Just an honest opinion.  

[T_MacWood]

Lou
Ohio State was constructed in the late 30's and there were no mules and scoops utilized, just as with Cypress Point and ANGC it was combination mechanized earth moving equipment and hand work. Much to my surprise the Golden Age designers began using heavy equipment as early as the early part of the century in the heathland. The difference was their hesitance to do anything that might result in an unnatural feature. Same with the undulating greens, they were reacting against the flat geometric greens of the past. I'm not sure MacKenzie and the others would have been thrilled with modern greens which may be fast but also are many times soft -- I think he may have attempted to promote a move back to firmer yet slower greens with more interesting slopes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()