News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Ron_Whitten

How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?
« Reply #25 on: August 06, 2001, 12:11:00 PM »
Aclayman -
 Maybe we're differing in semantics here, maybe not. One of my heartfelt principles is that American golf has gotten too lush and green. ON the basis of that, my idea at The Architects GC was to present the first hole or two or three in unirrigated state, so as to accurately represent the beginnings of golf and "educate" average golfers on the glories of dry, hard turf. The owners felt I was nuts, that average golfers would turn around in the parking lot and leave upon the view glimpse of an unirrigated first hole. It's there money. I saw their point. Did I compromise my principle? Or just give up on an idea?
 If I win the lottery and build my own course, you can bet it won't be green and lush. But, unfortunately, double and triple row irrigation systems are SOP in today's architecture. I don't like it, but I'm fighting the wave of the future, it seems. It'll take a special public course (a "concept" course, like Architects GC) to persuade regular golfers that brown is beautiful. Maybe Bethpage next year and Whistling Straits in 2004 will affect public opinion, but I'm not sure. Those are two TV spots competing against the annual Masters celebration of excess.

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?
« Reply #26 on: August 06, 2001, 10:43:00 PM »
Ron Whitten makes a good point about graveyard green conditions.  The US mentality vs. the Australian/European mentality.  

Ron's belief in conditions reflecting the cycles of weather was a major selling point of one recently constructed golf course.

Widow's Walk, Scituate, MA was touted as an "Environmental Demonstration Project" with "Best Management Practices"... "rooted in century-old techinques" which translates to the usage of "one-half the amount of water, fertilizer, pesticide and fossil fuel for maintenance compared" with other regional courses.  "The turf will turn off-color or even brown during summer's heat or drought,..."

Does anyone know if this course has sacrificed its principles of fairway conditioning due to pressures from the marketplace?  Are the fairways graveyard green vs. "off color or even brown" during times of heat and drought?  Is it still a golf course with low fertilizer requirements.

A question not related to principles.  How does the stack carpet bunkering look?
                                       


Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?
« Reply #27 on: August 06, 2001, 10:52:00 PM »
I'd have to say cart golf was a major league American sellout.  Thank (insert your God) this plague is largely confined to the US.    

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?
« Reply #28 on: August 07, 2001, 08:17:00 PM »
Tony, something disappointing that I have noted in recent times are more promotional pictures of new courses coming on-line in australia and Europe depicting smiling "tourists" and golfers posing in or along side of golf carts.  The promotional advertising people seem to be putting that "ammenity" at the forefront of their picture advertisements...sad as that may be.

As for Hurdzan's Widow's Walk, I'm sure someone who looks into our DG will give you the right information.  But, I read long ago that they abandoned a great deal of that preliminary hype about "best management practices" and organic and low use chemical applications for IPM.  Also, I heard that the carpet rolls rotted and were replaced by sod stacked bunker walls or perhaps "BunkerWoll".

No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?
« Reply #29 on: August 07, 2001, 02:16:00 PM »
There is a picture hanging on the wall of the pub at whistling straits of pete dye.
Pete signed it and left a little note that went something like this:
I didn't give in to Herb, (kohler) I gave in to Alice (Dye).  - Pete.

It is possible to design what you want, just have one of the best portfolios in the business, not have to compete with anyone else in a non-saturated market.
good luck.

Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Matt_Ward

How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?
« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2001, 03:20:00 PM »
Interesting thread.

My only comment rests with the fact that when architects get so big you ultimately see pre-patterened formulas at work. This in some ways, in my opinion, is what has happened with the recent production work within the Tom Fazio portoflio of courses.

When firms begin to "churn" out golf courses you have the McDonald's business plan. Give them more ... not give them better!

Tom Fazio has had probably more success than many in terms of courses with "the look." Obviously, many of his clients want that "look" for their course and for the benefit of selling memberships, home lots, the whole banana. But is the "look" really about quality golf which I define as building sites that advocate ground and air strategies? Do his designs vary bunker design, placement?

With the recent exception of Victoria National I can't think of a course that the firm of Tom Fazio has produced that clearly says it's independent of the pre-packaged stuff previously pumped out. That doesn't mean to say the courses produced are poor it's just that they follow a formula that's been repeated over and over again.

Ron Whitten makes a valid point about the difficulty in trying to convince owners of a key architectural point while they view matters from the $$ side. No doubt the owners get the final say because it's their bread and land.

I just wonder if architects in general really know the value of integrating the ground and air game whenever conditions permit. Clearly, making a living is the primary ingredient for many since new course work can be very limited in certain parts of the country and I guess it should be since they have to put food on the plate for their families.

But, the architects with the "big names" can certainly do what Ron W mentioned. Less water and more naturalness for the site. Are the "big names" really advocates of what golf is about or are they simply interested in producing high-end drop-dead gorgeous courses which are really empty in terms of overall strategy but provide them with a big pay days? Maybe it's time course rankings, from whatever sources, begin to elevate courses where green is not the golden rule. Obviously, the annual spring extravaganza with the Masters has brainwashed many people that the Augusta model is the only way to go.


Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2001, 10:47:00 PM »
I'd say the more time the architect spends on-site, the better his chances of hashing out any differences with the owner.  A continuous design process where the architect is leading the effort, makes the necessary changes to the concepts day-to-day, and is in contact with the crew every step of the way.  
When the architect is an infrequent visitor to the project and the owner is there sweating out his investment giving more thought to the work than the architect and his office, then I could see problems.  The most reasonable way the architect can counter that is by being involved deeply in the process.

There is one architect who in his own words "is searching a mathematical formula to describe correctness" of design.  I have one, though like any formula trying to describe an artistic and strategic effort it is likely to have a certain rate of failure when applied in real life:

Time on-site by a qualified architect leading the construction effort (T) / the total number of construction hours(TT)= Level of Quality (Q)= less potential for having to sacrifice principles.

I see a couple holes in the theory but it's a pretty good guide.


Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2001, 10:51:00 PM »
The end of the formula was wrong.

Level of Quality (involvement) (Q) is directly related to the potential for having to sacrifice principles.



Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?
« Reply #33 on: August 07, 2001, 10:52:00 PM »
The end of the formula was wrong.

Level of Quality (involvement) (Q) is directly related to the potential for having to sacrifice principles.



Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?
« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2001, 01:47:00 AM »
Unless a tour pro is deeply involved with planning, and construction, I'd say another major league sellout which has spread its tentacles everywhere is the Tour Pro as designer.  Isn't that flat out fraud?  Taking credit for something you had little or nothing to do with?

BarnyF

How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2001, 03:43:00 AM »
Tony,

I have visited your web site and considering your love of quotes I think the flaw in your design philosophy was best summerized by Lu Lu when she said

"Large helpings of bad food does not make a good buffet."


Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
How often do golf architects have to sacrifice principles?
« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2001, 04:58:00 AM »
Barney F.  Points noted, but no changes on the horizon.  I did have the greatest laugh yesterday reading your "whack-a-doo" (sic) post. Tears of laughter were actually streaming down my cheeks.