Friar's Head #10

[TEPaul]

Just look at that post of Ken Bakst! Is that not the best thing in all of this? What does it show us? Here's what it shows me.

1. The value of constructive criticism
2. The value of openmindedness
3. The value of collaboration.
4. Willingness to understand that change can be benefical, it can actually create improvement. And that change need never be for change's sake alone. Just like during original construction creativity, collaboration should reign and it should be put through a logical and sensible filter at all times--apply basic principles when you think architecturally!

These kinds of things and these kinds of attitudes are great for architecture. The more thinking that goes into something, anything, the better it may be. It shouldn't scare anyone but we all should be realistic about who does it and how it's all filtered through.

Do any of you think George Crump, had he lived instead of dying prematurely before his course was quite finished, would have stopped working on it, improving it, perfecting it? No way, and his own quote is left with us to prove that bigtime. Did Macdonald stop at NGLA or Ross at Pinehurst #2 or Fownes at Oakmont or Wilson at Merion?

Good Stuff KenB and also a good answer to some purists who for some reason feel that once a great course opens for play its architecture should be frozen in time!

It also puts the lie to Pat Mucci's bizarre tenet that if any architect takes the King's shilling (the owner) he should do the King's bidding only. Doesn't that sort of smack of an owner who thinks he knows more about architecture than the architect--like a Coore and Crenshaw, for instance? If that tenet had any real truth to it why would that owner, that King hire an architect in the first place? Why not just do everything himself?

For any of you out there interested in this fascinating process of what it really takes, how it really comes about in producing a great golf course such as Friar's Head, perhaps someday you will be lucky enough to hear from Ken Bakst what he knew way back when, knows now, what he went through, what he learned and how he feels about the whole thing now.

Did he ever feel disappointment that some of his own thoughts and ideas were not executed? Definitely. Perhaps that's the most fascinating thing of all of it. Did he keep an open mind? Did he listen and learn? Definitely. Did he contribute to the vision, large and small, the architecture, the large scope and the minute stuff and get some of the things he wanted in the architecture? Of course. Did he give up some of the things he thought he wanted because he had respect for his architects? Does he think it worked out for the best that way? Just let him tell you. I sure hope he does. And in the meantime just read his posts.

Let's all keep open minds like that, keep collaborating even if it's disagreeing half the time. It's better that way in the end, as a course like Friar's Head shows now and apparently will continue to.

Great stuff and excellent post Ken Bakst!

[redanman]

So...

I'd still like to know.....Can one sneak a peek at the 10th green before actually playing it?  (As best I can tell the routing is the front nine all east of the back nine, 1 tee, 18 green, 9 green and 10 tee all together with 9 west of #1 and 10 west of that, 18 almost perpendicular to 10, running       West->East.)



For example, one can sneak a peek at the 8th green at PVGC before entering Hells Half Acre.  Several times at my home course (LehighCC) one can see an upcoming green which is totally blind from the tee to aid in the strategy due to extremely wide strategic flexibility.

I think that can add immesureably to the enjoyment of such holes. Then, the more blind the shot the better!

[Ken Bakst]

Tom Paul

I would agree with almost everything you wrote with the following exception:

I can’t recall ever being disappointed that some of my own thoughts and ideas were not executed?  I did always communicate what I thought and saw as things evolved in the field, as everybody else involved was encouraged to do as well, and if those thoughts inspired something for the better into the final design, then that’s the beauty of a collaborative and open-minded process.  On the other hand, if C&C had different thoughts from those that I expressed, then it was always to be their way.  I just had such a high level of confidence and faith in the architectural team that I had engaged that I thought it was prudent to allow the people who were far more knowledgeable and experienced than I to be responsible for making the final decisions.  Consequently, I am absolutely certain that you will never hear anybody from C&C say that they did something at Friar’s Head against their better judgment because I made  them do it!  

Please note that I am not saying that I wasn’t ever worried or concerned about anything while certain beautiful features were being altered to make them playable for golf.  In fact, there were a number of instances in which some artistic beauty seemed to have been lost along that road, but in the end they all, without exception, ended up every bit as artistic, if not more so, when all was said and done.  Again, remaining patient at times like that was made all the easier by the confidence and faith that I had in C&C.  If there is one great lesson that I did learn, it is to never reach a judgment about a green until after Bill Coore himself has completed his final grading work!  

[Tom Doak]

Dear Ken:

Can I introduce you to a couple of my own clients?  Not many have the faith to always let me "win the ties" when we have a difference of opinion about some aspect of the golf course.  

I'd never thought about it, but this may be, as perhaps Pat Mucci was referring to, the biggest advantage that the tandem of Bill and Ben have in any working relationship.  It's always two against one!  (Urbina and Hepner sometimes contribute as much from their own perspective as Ben would from his, but in this respect, they do not carry the same weight!)

I had not noticed that the green was angled away from the tee -- I thought it was straight on -- though I did notice it tapered at the back.  And I'm sure the contours of the green did fool me, since it is always harder to read a green in a large bowl where you can't easily find the low point or a flat spot.  

I'm ashamed to admit I didn't notice the contours of the green enough to submit a good description.  But after thinking about it a bit, it does make a lot of sense to have some slopes on a huge green that are much steeper than they appear.  A slope that runs back uphill to the mound at the front of the green would induce people to leave putts well short of the hole -- I can't believe how often I've seen that on a fallaway section of green.  But perhaps the most strategic arrangement would be to have the green tilt to one side, so that to leave yourself an uphill putt you would have to think about playing into the narrower space to the left or right of the target.  Did I miss that??

[Ken Bakst]

redanman

You can check out the exact pin placement on FH #10 when going from the practice facility to the 1st or 10th tees.  You can also do so while playing the 9th hole, but not without a little effort as you can’t just give it a quick peek from the fairway by any means.

However, pins set on the right half ± of the green and the very front left are visible from the tee without any effort and pin locations in the approximate back left quadrant of the green can be seen by going to the far right side of the tee.  So even if you don't know where the pin is before arriving at the tee, if you know what you are doing and you can’t see the pin, you pretty much know where it is.  There are, however, a number of pin locations that are very deceiving with respect to their depth even when you can see them clearly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I believe you've misquoted and misunderstood me.
I referenced and qualified my statements in the context of
"a man of vision" not just any Tom, Dick or Harry.

I also referenced and qualified my statements in the context of restoration work, specifically bunkers.

You may recall that this topic of discussion occured during one of the Merion threads when Fazio was being descended upon for his bunker work at Merion and I countered with his bunker work at Pine Valley.

I stand by my statement.  On a restoration work, a man of vision can direct the project to a successful conclusion, with a variety of architects.  There aren't just two or three guys out there who are the only ones capable of producing good work.

What can I do to help you stop confusing yourself ?    

P.S.  I thought a bizarre tenet was that structure you
       erected in your back yard.

[TEPaul]

"I can’t recall ever being disappointed that some of my own thoughts and ideas were not executed?"

Ken:

Very glad to hear that--my mistake or maybe I didn't write what I meant to say well enough. On reflection what I remember was much more of what's in the second paragraph of your post above that there may have been some concerns along the way to the development of something, maybe actual, maybe only in thought that changed from something that you may have felt before the construction of something but in the end it all came out for the better in your opinon.

I know exactly what you mean too. My only actual experience in architecture that got done was one green and green-end in a semi restoration. I had an idea about where some interesting little contours should be in that green for an overall effect for all golfers--I was pretty adamant about it too but only in my mind, not yet with Gil Hanse.

I wanted those little contours way over on the left side of the green to create a smaller more intense green space in that section for golfers to get to as we expanded the green on the left right next to a quarry. I thought it would create a really intense situation on the left compared to a far more forgiving right side of the green which was to be much larger.

But Gil put those great little contours in the middle of the green. At first I was disappointed but I can see now what I was trying to do wouldn't have been as good, as that left section would not have been able to be used as much (less pinnable space if smaller) and it would have basically unbalanced the strategic right/left options on the green too much as well.

So now I think it will be much better Gil's way and not mine, certainly for all levels of players. That's why he's the architect and I'm not.

But another nice post on your part about Bill Coore. I hope Pat Mucci appreciates it too. I'm gonna give Pat one last chance to retract his constant beer and melon analogy about Coore and Crenshaw and if he doesn't he's gonna see some expressions of both favoritism and bias come out of me he won't believe!

Concerning his dig at me that I have my phone answering machine message say Coore and Crenshaw---well, on reflection, I think that's a pretty neat idea, I might retape and try that one for a while. Maybe Pat might want to take some messages on his phone for Rees--I don't know--that's Pat's call.

[Tom Doak]

Ken -- I'd be glad to share some of my other first impressions on the course with you, privately, as long as they're taken in that light.

I was trying to, but the e-mail address you posted did not work for me.  I did post some more thoughts about #10 above, but you might not have seen them since they were simultaneous with your last post.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken Bakst,

Was the conception, design and building of the 10th green influenced in any way by the 10th green at NGLA ?

[Ken Bakst]

Tom Doak

Thanks for the kind response.

Yes, I do think you missed that.
A most simplistic description of the slopes of that green would be front to middle, back to middle and left to right, with a pinnable plateau at the back of the green, perhaps all of which would have been pretty much unplayable if greater and lesser gradient slopes weren’t worked into the final grades.  And, yes, all of the grades do appear less severe than they actually are due to the overall size of the green and the dunebowl into which it is set, but that’s as much as I think I would like to say at this time.

By the way, if you end up appreciating this hole more after playing it, even once, than just looking at it, you won’t be the first and I’m certain you won’t be the last!  

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

I don't buy the two against one advantage that you think Coore and Crenshaw have with their clients vs just your single opinion with your clients.

It's hard to give you good professional architects much advice about things to do with architecture but this advice I'm about to give you is sure to work.

When you really want your opinion to carry the day with anyone just do what I've been doing recently in green committee meetings---wear your Colt 45 and shoulder holster and a coat on top. When things aren't going your way, take your left arm and move that coat back and expose that Colt 45. Since doing that there hasn't been a single instance so far when I haven't gotten my way and the same will be true for you!

[Tom Doak]

Tom P:  When we were building The Legends, the irrigation contractor did in fact wear a sidearm at all times during the job.  When he told us not to hold up his schedule we took it very seriously!

However, having Ben as his backup must be helpful to Bill.  Some of the architect/client relationship in many cases is a power play, especially for a young architect.  

If the owner perceives that he is a better golfer than the architect, then he (or she) is often too forceful with opinions about the playability of a hole.  

Sometimes the owner is simply used to getting his way in all business dealings -- although I've been surprised to find that some of the clients I would have suspected to be the toughest have turned out to be pussycats!

Over time, I have learned to consider the client's every suggestion, but most importantly to think about it for a while before responding, and to discuss it with my associates (out of earshot).  Often clients are just saying something off the top of their heads, rather than digging in for an argument.  But, at least half the time they do have a point, and it's possible to address that point in a lot of ways, instead of just the one they proposed.

Still, I don't think there are many architects who wouldn't love to have Ben Crenshaw for backup.

[TEPaul]

"What can I do to help you stop confusing yourself?"

Patrick:

The short and honest answer would be, again, for you to avail yourself of my still open offer to pick up your first dozen sessions with Dr. Katz. That way you will see once and for all that I'm your teacher and your the student. What you're suffering from and have been for too long now is simply a pyschiatric malady known as transference.

That essentially means you think you're me, the teacher, and for some fantastic reason I'm the student. That will never be Patrick--that's just not the way the ball bounces, the way the crow flies, the yin and yang of things, the truth and the light.

You will always be the student. Please try to be a good student--it's actually a very admirable artistic goal to have. And someday if you do that well enough we will allow you  into a golf architectural atmosphere, perhaps even a site under construction, and let you speak.

[Ken Bakst]

Tom Doak
Thanks.  I will send you a private e-mail.

Pat

No, I don’t believe that the conception, design and building of the 10th green at Friar’s Head was influenced in any way by the 10th green at NGLA?  But let me say the following with respect to NGLA generally.  When it comes to golf course architecture, it is never too far from my mind!    It is an architectural gem and one of my favorite courses throughout the world, and I know that everybody involved with C&C feel that way as well (and nobody more so than Bill Coore himself).  So while I don’t believe that NGLA influenced any particular feature at Friar’s Head, it did give at least me a great degree of comfort that certain things that we were doing were valid and not too far outside of the box or bold if you know what I mean!

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:  When we were building The Legends, the irrigation contractor did in fact wear a sidearm at all times during the job.  When he told us not to hold up his schedule we took it very seriously!"

That would explain why the Legends has always been so soft and slow and unfortunately mostly the opposite of its "ideal maintenance meld".

It's amazing the little architectural truths that come out on Golfclubatlas.com!

[TEPaul]

Patrick Mucci actually asked;

"Was the conception, design and building of the 10th green influenced in any way by the 10th green at NGLA?"

Oh God--the thinking and questions of a slow moving mind!

That's way too close to home and way too obvious Patrick. These guys at Friar's Head are creative, they're fresh, they take chances. Is that so hard to recognize?

The concept of #10 Friar's came from the southwest section of an escarpment on Putooty Ridge in Eastern Bora Bora that Ken Bakst gave to C&C as a concept and they collaborated on it with him.

Ken Bakst happened upon Putooty Ridge when in the early 1980s when he was doing some reconaissance work for.....

Well, if you try to be a better student I'll tell you who he was doing recon work for in about 12-15 years when the classified period ends.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Tell me again, Oh great teacher, how 2 = 2 = 4.

I continue to be awed by your revelations  

P.S.  With respect to your sidearm advice to Tom Doak,
        In my neighborhood, if you were foolish enough to
        brandish a gun before using it, your week usually ended  
        with lots of flowers, and a long procession of black cars
        to a place that looked like an overwatered golf course,
        with a lot of white oversized tee markers.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Once again, thanks for the reminder of my 2=2=4 typo but this is the wrong thread. Would you like me to show you the way to the right thread? I know it may be hard for you to get back there but I don't mind helping you--it's the least I can do.

[TEPaul]

Patrick, to your addendum PS which was;

"P.S.  With respect to your sidearm advice to Tom Doak,
       In my neighborhood, if you were foolish enough to
       brandish a gun before using it, your week usually ended  
       with lots of flowers, and a long procession of black cars
       to a place that looked like an overwatered golf course,
       with a lot of white oversized tee markers."

A slow mind and lack of reading comprehension again. Did I say anything about brandishing a gun before using it? No, I did not. Another poor assumption on your part. We probably live in similar environments. However, you may not have dealt with the type of green committee I deal with. There are a number of members that need to see me brandish that gun because apparently some of them had neither heard nor seen that I'd just shot the guy sitting next to them.

[RJ_Daley]

I'm sure I have darn near gone blind looking over and over at the B&W pictures of 10 and the aerial, trying to discover the hidden secrets to the conversation between Doak and Bakst  

That exchange is certainly worth the price of admission to GCA today.

[Bronco]

Mr. Bakst,
How do you play the sandy areas at FH from a rules standpoint?
Where can you ground your club? > anywhere? nowhere?

[Jeff_Lewis (Guest)]

The bunkers are hazards and it is generall fairly clear when one is inside a bunker as opposed to just in a sandy scrubby area where one could ground one's club. The waste areas in the photos (right side of 7, right side of 10) are hazards.

[Bronco]

Jeff,
Thanks and I'd agree. It is "generally fairly clear".
We've had this discussion at other courses too...thanks for your input.
...It's the bleeded out, hard-to-define areas that have always confused me.  In a tournament I'd imagine playing everything off the fairway and rough cut as hazard.  Is that right or wrong? Or how do you think the best way to handle this would be in a tournament situation?  I've never been to Europe's links but how do they rule it there?  

[Bronco]

P.S. Not that it matters that much either.  Great looking GC!

[Robert_Walker]

The sandy areas play as hazards.