What shouldn't an architect do?

[Mike Nuzzo]

As for what golf architects face everyday ... I think a lot of it is self-imposed.  Nearly all of the great golf courses I've seen tend to find an audience and be profitable.  But architects who constrain themselves too much with what they "should" do often fall short of greatness.  I'm not sure if this is the fault of the system or of the individual.

This was a segment from the public NGLA thread.  
What does this mean for everyone, and Tom if you would please expound?
The designer trying to please someone else
Design for a specific player
"Should" stay in their own comfort zone, or normal routine
Should not move any dirt
Cheers

[A_Clay_Man]

Mike, I have no idea what Tom meant, but I read it to mean that greatness is acheived by not doing something rote. It's more likely acheived by perhaps doing something you shouldn't have.
 Does that make any sense?

[Ted Kramer]

To me, the quote means . . .

If the land provides 2 par 5s in a row, design them as such.
If an unusual opportunity arises, don't be afraid to create something bold.


-Ted

[Tom_Doak]

Mike,

What I meant was that architects shouldn't talk themselves out of building interesting features just because they think someone will criticize their course for being too difficult to play, or too difficult to maintain, or any of those other worries you hear from management companies.

I'm not saying every course needs 365 bunkers; I am a firm believer that good design can be [and should be] relatively simple.  I'm just saying I think it's easy to stop short creatively if you keep reminding yourself of Pat's "realities" of the marketplace.  If you look really closely at the marketplace, you won't find many smashingly successful courses that were built by the numbers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I agree with Tom, and that really doesn't limit me much.  I am not sure I normally favor lost balls anyway, or too many forced carries, etc. just like the golden age guys!  

I get more static from some owners than others. However, its not really necessarily about difficult golf, as it is in what is percieved as "easy to maintain" later on.  And, going back to Pats original question, how many courses were altered as too difficult, and how many as too difficult to maintain, a la Tillies trip across the US in removing thousands of bunkers?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thank you Tom & Jeff,

As for too difficult, do you lie and say it won't be too difficult?  Unless it's that bunker at Stone Eagle, it's difficult for an owner to gage a courses difficulty pre opening.

The maintenance one is tricky (for me), especially on an existing course.  Which would be a good reason not to do that type of work.
As an example: with existing cart path, especially on the inside of a dogleg, there is reluctance to place bunkers which may create traffic wear patterns.
The cart path can have a major impact.  Any thoughts?

I'll vote the industry's fault lies in the industrialization of the golf course.  Middle mgmt. everything to blandness to appeal to everyone.  I recall Tom saying Pacific Dunes turned out so well as everyone was in good spirits, which I assumed meant they all had the autonomy to try new things.

Cheers

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Well, lie is a pretty strong word, but I would suggest you learn to say things like "Oh, I'm doing this for the average player" with a straight face., when building 30 feet deep bunkers.  If you are building highly contoured greens, say (again, straight face required) you wanted the best greens anywhere, so I'm emulating Augusta.....  

Your career will then flourish!

For the courses I design, mostly public access, I try to find a solution to the cart path access question without resorting to every hole having no fw bunkers on the cart path side of the hole.  I figure that we can all argue the merits of placing a bunker in a certain place endlessly, (and often do) but its hard to argue with the premise that 55% or more of golfers take carts, and drive them on the straightest, levelest line from the path to their ball.

The old saying, "it's not nice to fool mother nature" may not have been coined about golf course maintenance, but it applies.  Ignore some of those basic design rules in the name of "perfect" design, whatever that is, and sooner or later, your course will look pretty crappy, rendering most folks opinion of its strategic merit moot.

I visited a well known So Cal course recently that didn't pay attention as closely as it could, for example, not favoring the cart path side with irrigation.  All the roughs between path and fw are dead or dying.  For all its design wizardry, it isn't presenting itself very well right now.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

What if Baxter had said to himself at Black Mesa:

"Hey, the golf market out here in New Mexico isn't very sophisticated.  We shouldn't put much contour in the greens because they might not understand or appreciate it."

Architects actually do say these things to themselves sometimes, usually after hearing it repeated by others too often.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I've never had that situation exactly, but I have had owners say they want flattish greens, because on the big scale of things, speed of play is more important to them than rankings or awards.  In that case, the design program set forth by the Owner would tend to limit greatness, but I can't think of an experience where, with a great site, I tried to dumb down a design.  In fact, my premise is usually, the farther you are from population, the better the course has to be.

I have also given consideration to flattening greens (usually in deference to the super) but especially in dry climates, where you can guess that water restrictions will make those steeper contours problematical, as they usually require extra water.

But, lets extend that a bit further.  If an Owner said "flat greens" there could be other ways - especially on that site - to create greatness, no?  Make them smaller, better protected, whatever and create a different type of challenge than the one we might normally do, or prefer as a gca.

In football, if the run aint working, you try the pass. It can be similar in golf design.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Tom,
Good example.
Do you feel seeing as much as you have oversees was required to empower you to be more creative, at least in the beginning?
Working on my own it's tough to be empowered, and I try.  I
once created a grading plan, not for an architect, where the requestor wanted to know why I had a 10% slope in one fairway, "make it 2%".  When they asked who does that?  Finger?  I was a little off guard, and didn't respond... Mackenzie, Tillie, Ross, Doak, Colt...

Jeff,
In football no one wins without good defense.  Keep undulating those greens.  Use the other options as a diversion for the owner, if they complain about the bunkers and steep slopes, they'll forget about the horseshoe shaped greens.

Cheers

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

When I was leaving for Scotland in 1982, Pete Dye told me the following:

"Be sure to take measurements of some of the famous golf holes you see, so when somebody criticizes you for building a green too severe, you can tell them the 11th at St. Andrews has eight feet of fall from back to front, or that the Postage Stamp is only 30 feet wide."

Knowing details of those courses has certainly proven useful.

Jeff:

Mike Keiser told me he wanted "flattish, puttable greens" at Pacific Dunes.  He was concerned that our greens at Lost Dunes and High Pointe were too severe for resort golfers.  So, we started smaller and flatter in Oregon, and devoted more of our attention to interesting shots from off the edges of the greens.  It seems to have gone over quite well.

By the same token, at Barnbougle, I used your "far from population" theory to embolden myself to build a couple of really wild greens.  I figured we needed to go all out to get people there ... and if the greens are too severe, well, not too many people in Australia are going to chase me down, anyway!

[Dan_Callahan]

In football no one wins without good defense.  

New England Patriots 2001 Super Bowl Champs: 24th ranked defense in the league.

[Tags:]

Tags: