A question for our Architect contingent.

[TEPaul]

I'm not sure why I came to feel this way but I've always looked at course design in two sort of separate phases (maybe this happened from watching Bill Coore in the field for a number of days). The first phase being the basic routing phase and then once the routing was really set the second phase of what I might refer to as "designing up" the holes in that routing.

So my question to the architects on here is;

"Is it at all common for any of you to design up a hole in shooting for a particular hole "concept" or strategies and to then look at the hole and realize there's too much going on and then proceed to begin removing architectural features until the hole's "concept" or strategies are just at a bare minimum that might be considered the "bare essence" of the concept or strategies?

If it's not clear what I'm asking I'd be glad to elaborate. One slight example may be Hidden Creek's #6. At one point there was a big significant fairway bunker in the right portion of the fairway. They must have thought it was too much since they removed it before opening the course. Where it once was is now just an interesting but rather significant fairway contour.

[cary lichtenstein]

I would guess that the answer to that question is no.

Restated, do minialists remove features to make holes look minialistic?

Take Friar's Head for example, there is so much going on #10 tee that you need to wait a few extra seconds to calm your eye down and focus on your shot shape.

I love the hole, so don't take this as a negative, I think the hole is great.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

I think any golf architect would enjoy the time and money required to make such modifications, and definitely use it too their advantage by reviewing holes as construction progresses and making changes to bunkering schemes and styles, green contours, etc.  

The problem is, most golf course construction budgets are pretty strict and most developers are keen to open the golf course as quickly as possible in order to start generating revenue. This tends to prevent the repetitive tweaking of the same hole in most cases, simply because time and money aren't available.  

[TEPaul]

cary lichtenstein;

It's really ironic you mentioned the 10th hole of Friar's Head.

I was thinking more along the lines of an architect removing features he'd built or created (I guess generally when I refer to "architecture" I mean man-made features not natural ones).

But nonetheless that 10th hole at Friar's is a good example anyway. It seems not that long after I met Bill Coore and he was here in Philadelphia helping me with something (actually staying with me for a time) he whipped out a series of photos of the raw site of Friar's Head and particularly a photo of where the tenth hole is now taken from about the position the tee is now. The course I don't think had been routed because sometime later I remember walking through the raw site at Friar's with him and he was just searching for possible and potential holes.

Anyway it was only that photo of that enormous mound that now fronts the 10th green that he asked me about. He asked me if I thought something that large could be used on a golf hole without minimizing it and I only remember saying I certainly hoped it could somehow. For some reason I visualized what he meant was if it was too large to preserve to drive over on something like a par 4 or par 5. I never thought of using that natural feature on a par 3 and I very much doubt he did at that time either.

I also remember when walking the raw site one time with him but after some holes had been routed saying to him that I hoped they could preserve all of the very large ridge on the left side of the drive on #9 and that there was something  similar to it on the left side of the drive on the 10th hole at Misquamicutt I thought he should take a look at first.

There was also a really large mound on the left side of the drive on #15 maybe 200-250 out (before the hole was built obviously) and I always wondered what if anything they'd do about that. That thing they basically took out.

But it was walking the raw land that turned out to be 16 through 18 that was really amazing. At one point he got pretty far ahead of me and I remembered thinking if I got down in there and couldn't find him I might never find my way out of there.

When I finally went back after those holes were built it was obvious they had to have taken that radical natural topography on what's now #16-18 down a lot but they did such a masterful job of it it was hard to tell just how they did it or what they did and didn't do in there.

[Art_Schaupeter]

Tom,

Generally speaking, I would say the answer to your question is yes.  I would think that most architects go through many revisions in their thoughts regarding each hole as it goes through the design process and the construction process.  As Jeff refers to, there are a lot of variables that will make revisions easier or more difficult on an individual project basis, including timing, budget, owner's preferences, etc.  I don't think that these issues preclude an architect from revising his ideas, though they might dictate the magnitude of the revisions.  Thinking back through my last two completed projects, there are quite a few examples, like the one you described, of holes that were tweaked during construction to take advantage of subtleties on site and/or to clean up the concept/strategy.  I am sure that most architects would have similar examples.

I also agree that the routing process and the design process are almost two separate processes.  When I am routing a course, the focus is on the bigger more general concept for each hole.  Once the routing is established, then I focus on the more detail oriented aspects of the design in terms of green design, bunker positions, etc.

[cary lichtenstein]

Redanman:

#10 Friar's Head

I played it once. When I got to the tee, I said to myself: "oh my god, wow, beautiful, par 3?, where is the green?, where is the flag, claim down boy, this is soooo geogerous, you're also playing golf.

Then I said to self "uphill, finish high, and I did and watched the ball disappear over all the sand, mounds and other wonderful stuff"

[TEPaul]

That's interesting about "Where's the flag on #10 Friar's Head"? I always thought if one couldn't see it obviously it's on the left side but that green is so long and I don't know the hole well enough to know if the flag is on the back left whether or not you can see the top of it meaning if you can't see it at all from the tee it pretty much has to be front left.

[blasbe1]

"Is it at all common for any of you to design up a hole in shooting for a particular hole "concept" or strategies and to then look at the hole and realize there's too much going on and then proceed to begin removing architectural features until the hole's "concept" or strategies are just at a bare minimum that might be considered the "bare essence" of the concept or strategies?

Tom:

Sounds to me as if you're asking is it possible for GCA to be similar in process (in certain circumstances) to French style cooking.  I baste and braise and simmer and render as much  as possible when cooking, and, I always think of it as rendering a particular ingredient down to its essence.  The right combination of several "essential" ingredients with the proper balance and you've got a knock your socks off dish.  

That being said and by qualifying this by stating that I am an amateur vis-a-vis GCA, I would think that you have understated the point and process of finding a particular hole's essential qualities.  Instead of bringing the concept to the canvas, I would imagine in an ideal world it is a better process to expose the concept within the canvas as is, tweaking as you go.  

In this way, GCA is not a build up . . . oops I built too much, tear it down to expose the core elements of a hole type of process . . . but rather the skill and artistic measures are in seeing the essential qualities before the building up process begins, and thus, in this way it seems inextricably tied to the routing process.  (I realize your question does not presuppose that this process is the norm, but rather you ask if "is it at all common . . ."

The above is a very long winded way of questioning your underlying assumption that GCA is two seperate stages, first routing then design.  Without identifying the key essential qualities of each hole while laying out the routing, how do you know the routing will accomplish anything?  

Routing in the dark seems difficult and perhaps this is your point, but it seems that thinking of GCA as two seperate "phases" may be too simple a view?

[Forrest Richardson]

When I'm routing I'm also thinking (hard) about what each of the holes could become — or are naturally based on where they head and what they transcend. Many times on sites devoid of obvious interest I will have ideas in my head (my family likes to tell people I have "holes in my head") and I'll note on the routing plan what might become of this hole or that hole.

Seldom — but it has happened — I'll see a site and before any routing get some idea of what might constitute a genre of the holes and their make-up. I suppose I do this always, but it rarely comes to the surface until I get pencil and plan in front of me with all of the background, client's comments, research and collectibles from the area — leaves, brochures, photos, menus, books, etc.

As I have written and said before: Golf design is like juggling thousands of balls at once — the decisions in one area will always affect another. You cannot stop creating options — it becomes exponential.

[blasbe1]

As I have written and said before: Golf design is like juggling thousands of balls at once — the decisions in one area will always affect another. You cannot stop creating options — it becomes exponential.

It seems to me that the ability to make decisions and the decisions made make all the difference . . .

Moreover, it seems like the "perfect site" could present a daunting task even for a seasoned GCA because the seemingly endless possibilities before you make any decision  difficult . . .

I think that's why I enjoy playing Pacific Dunes so much.  
That property could have led to thousands of different routings and the options seem endless, but when you play it each hole has purpose and transitions are as natural as walking down a path.  Therein lies the art form from my prespective, discovering the holes in your head in the multitude of possible holes before you.  

Perhaps someday . . .

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

To me the routing and the detailing are interwoven.  If we are working with very good property, the routing of the holes provides the structure for the details ... the rises in the ground are in the right places for bunkers, and you just start adding bunkers one at a time until you're comfortable you've done enough.

I am very conscious not to get too far ahead of myself and have so many strategic thoughts that I have to go back and strip some of it out ... I want to leave some of the details to the "on site talent" who are doing the shaping, because they're working with it in 3-D and they know it much better than I do.  I DO sometimes feel the need to go back and edit their stuff down if they're too excited and get carried away.  

And I do believe that nearly all architects would benefit from some friendly editorial advice of paring things down ... as would some of the things I've built in the past.  Unfortunately, most of our friends are more interested in suggesting a new bunker of their own, than in taking one away!

[Forrest Richardson]

In general, bunkers are the great crutch of modern golf courses. Tom D. and I have exchanged posts before about how more interesting things than bunkers can help define exciting golf. It is a real shame when we stride onto a course and are immediately introduced to a family of look-alike hazards — all filled with sand and all the product of some lazy chap with a pencil, a few stakes or a back-hoe.

[TEPaul]

"The above is a very long winded way of questioning your underlying assumption that GCA is two seperate stages, first routing then design.  Without identifying the key essential qualities of each hole while laying out the routing, how do you know the routing will accomplish anything?"

Jason:

How do you know the routing will accomplish anything? Simply because you can see some potential in the raw landforms of the holes. That however, does not complete the course in my mind. Some landforms have huge amounts of natural potential just as they are and some don't but in most cases all of them need enhancing to some extent. Perhaps the best example I've ever seen of a natural landform that was completed as a hole with very little else done to it is CPC's #9. One just needs to look at the before and after photos. All he appeared to basically do is make a tee, lay the fairway on the ground as it was and basically use the natural landform which is now the green. But of the routing and designing I've seen and helped with how to arrange architecture features on the natural landform was most definitely the second step.  

Who really knows though? It appears architects approach the routing, designing and the constructing of golf courses very very differently and probably always have. Hence the question.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Another reason I think I'm asking this question about paring things done until just the bare essence remains may have to do with the 13th hole at GMGC as it progresses through our restoration or master plan project.

Gil Hanse and I have been talking about it for a couple of years now. At first he wanted to adjust a right fairway bunker upfield. But he also wanted to restore a berm on the left side that once was about 7 feet high. Where it used to be RTJ placed two bunkers. Those RTJ bunkers were removed but the committee would not agree to the restoration of the 7 ft high berm (primarily because RTJ shifted the hole from a slight dogleg left to a straight to very slightly dogleg right (off that right fairway bunker). That right fairway bunker was a committee add-on in perhaps the 1930s. I suggested we just go with no fairway bunkering and return the fairway to about 55 yards wide only using the slight diagonal rise across it as its feature. That left a very open and wide unfeatured fairway. It's a bit harder to get the tee shot up the left side because of the diagonal in the fairway rise. The green is oriented to the left and an approach from the left is definitely the easiest and proper way to play the hole.

However, for a golfer standing on the tee the right side looks for all the world like the easiest way to play the tee shot and I'd like that to remain as what the golfer on the tee sees and feels. But there's bunkering on the right side near the green. One big diagonal bunker that covers about half the approach but about 30 yards short of the green. There's another one beyond it that covers a bit of the right side of the green but ends just short of the front of the green.

That latter bunker is the one I wanted to revolve the entire strategy of the hole around. So we reformed that bunker exactly as it was but pushed it about 5 paces farther up towards the green. All our members seem to want to go up the right side of the fairway particularly now the rightside fairway bunker has been removed but they can't understand why they seem to be hitting the ball into that right greenside bunker so much more now.

Frankly I want to tweak that right greenside bunker up a bit more to make the play from the right side of the fairway even more challenging. I think Gil and I feel this type of hole is just so typical Ross's basic style of giving golfers a ton of rope off the tee but ratcheting things up imperceptibly on the position one approaches the green from.

This hole, if completed correctly, should accomplish what I mean by stripping a hole's concept and strategy down to a bare essence. If that bunker up to the right of the green is positioned correctly the entire tee to green strategy will completely revolve around it although that fact is anything but apparent or obvious to most all golfers and I think that's pretty subime in its architectural simplicity and I think Gil does too.

Most all golfers are going to be tempted into driving up the right side it just looks so easy and it's straight at the green. It's anything but obvious from there though why that just isn't the place to be!

I think all this is stripping the concept and strategy of the hole down to a bare essence---eg the unobvious but very powerful effect of trying to approach that green from the nonpenal right side of the fairway because of that right greenside bunker!!