[Patrick_Mucci]

I was thinking about the comparitive routing processes that must have taken place at NGLA and Seminole.  Especially, in light of the configuration of the properties, and the initial starting points for both courses.

I won't say that the potential and final routing of NGLA seemed obvious, but it does seem rather fixed, whereas the potential routings of Seminole seem far more varied and difficult to finalize.

Do certain properties dictate a few limited routings ?

Could there have been other, inherently different routings at NGLA ?

What other courses have routings predetermined by the configuration of the property ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

We may have been over this before on another semi-related thread to do with property configuration, but...

"Do certain properties dictate a few limited routings?

Of course they do. The configuration of sites, particularly narrowness, definitely limits routing latitude. I mean take a look at the best example of all---TOC. It's probably 150 yards wide throughout. What kind of latitude is that but to route out and back to the end of the property? Of course one could play out the left side and return on the right (and in fact that's the way it was and could be now) or do it on the opposite side (as it is now).

That does not give the router much routing latitude at all unless he wanted to put in a bunch of holes side to side and come up with about 36 little 150 yard par 3s. Of course that's and extreme example but sort of makes the point of how certain property configurations can be limiting to routing options.

Probably square and flat--along the lines of Shadow Creek would be as limitless as one could imagine in a routing sense! Basically that would almost be a square blank canvas where anything under the sun could be routed with ease.

It's not only the shapes of the property lines of sites that limits routing latitude, that's for sure. All kinds of interesting natural features, creeks, topography (slopes), whatever within even a large square property can be very limiting to routing in certain areas which throws off the whole.

Even in a routing project like Ardrossan Farm which is a wonderful, big, accomodating property with many natural features to be used for golf happened to have a few very large historic houses placed on the property that were a total pain in the ass for routing latitude.

Matter of fact one of those houses in combination with some serious slope next to it and also combined with a "waist" created by a property line on the other side created some really complex routing concerns to get holes through and in and out of. It took about six months of thinking how to get through that "waist" with the proper type of holes for those landforms (and other things) until finally the placement of a par 3 in the "waist" seems to have done it.

Par 3s can be great solutions to routing problems as "separators" or "connectors" just when you need to overcome a routing obstacle.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Matter of fact, the par 3 as a routing problem solver is probably best evidenced by Pine Valley. Crump was having problems for maybe four years finalizing four holes of his routing. Most have heard that once #13 green site feel into place where it is (instead of far out to the right), then all that needed to be done is connect #14 to the obvious place where #15 tee needed to be (to connect a par 5 with #16 which was already built).

So #14 became the linchpin and connected and finalized the routing, although the entire green had to be created out of a swampy lake to do it.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What do you mean by the 'configuration of the property' anyway? Do you mean the shape of the property created by the property lines or do you mean the topography of the site or both?

[Michael Dugger]

IMHO, the "right" or "true" or "natural" or "best" routing OUGHT to be predetermined by the lay of the land.  Yet, on how many occasions do we look and see a course where the design went very wrong.  

I think Tom Doak pointed out one time that in many instances an architect is forced to 'deal with' a couple of bad holes in order to retain the ones they really relish.

Instead of what you are proposing Mr. Mucci, I like the idea of a course like Prairie Dunes and Sand Hills.  Places where we hear the famous words, "There are 118 great golf holes here......all I have to do is eliminate the 100."  

In these instances, Mr. Mucci, has the land pre-determined anything???

Cheers

  

[Interpreter]

mdugger,

You may want to slow down, stop, then ask for directions.
I think you missed the turn, and are heading down the wrong road.  

This accounts for why you probably missed the entrance to NGLA and Seminole, they're hard to see when your barreling down the wrong road, out of control.  

[Tom Doak]

Patrick,

There are always alternatives.  The alternatives are fewer with a linear property like National than a more squarish piece like Seminole, but there are always alternatives.

Sometimes when we do a plan it comes together so fast that we think there must not have been too many other alternatives.  But it's not so.  Bill Coore told me he and Ben didn't think there was really any other way to lay out the Plantation Course at Kapalua, but after it was done they saw routings which Hale Irwin and Arnold Palmer had proposed, which had pretty much nothing in common with the present course.

The Old Course could have gone a hundred different ways, because there weren't any other golf courses to worry about back then.

[Michael Dugger]

And what are you doing Mr. No name anonymous coward?  Listening to Beethoven's fifth on your way to the course?  

Based on the popularity of this thread, I'd say it doesn't much matter.  

One more thing....if I'm not getting it, then why don't you spell it out for me.  Instead you make fun of me.  Cool. Thanks man!

[TEPaul]

Interpeter:

I don't know what you're cautioning mdugger about. When Pat Mucci starts with those twenty question posts it's damned amazing anyone can find the keyboard much less the right road.

[interpreter]

mdugger,

NGLA & Seminole are properties that look nothing alike.
As Mr Doak pointed out, one is linear the other square.
It seems that you aren't familiar with either one, otherwise
you wouldn't have made the silly statement about the land  without understanding the configuration of the properties.

I understood, Mr Doak understood, Mr Paul only pretends not to understand, Mr Mucci understood, only you didn't get it.

I was only trying to point you in the right direction.
You appear to prefer going in the wrong direction, and doubling your speed.  

[Michael Dugger]

Well, Mr. Interpreter, you blew me down on this one!!!  How stupid of me not to understand that Seminole and NGLA are built on different pieces of land.  How silly of me not to remember that NGLA is essentially an out and back routing while Seminole is virtually a big square.

But let me ask you, not that you'll answer, Mr. Smartie pants.....tell me what we have really learned when we discover that sometimes the land dictates the routing.

Get that???

dictates.....Mr. Interpreter....as in "How's my dictates."

[TEPaul]

Interpreter:

Not only are you going in the wrong direction at a rapid rate of speed you're trying to go in two directions at the same time. You'd be absolutely amazed at what mdugger understands.

As for what Pat Mucci understands--that one is an immensely complex question. Pat Mucci may not understand a damn thing but he talks so damned fast it sounds to some people like he might understand some things about architecture, maybe even a lot. On the other hand, if he does understand things he won't admit it and doesn't appear to ever want any of us to understand his stand or if he even has one--and that's precisely why he's the question man!

And also, we don't need an Interpreter on this thread particularly since you're looking suspiciously more like Pat Mucci himself every second!

[Michael Dugger]

Ok....for the sake of chivelry, let me spell it out to Mr. Interpreter.

I do know the shape of the land Seminole is built upon....and I do know the shape of NGLA.  Always did, no thanks to you.

It was early, and I don't always come up with the most coherent of sentances at that hour.  For that matter, sometimes I'm downright rude, Mr. Paul can attest to that.

Considering the location of the clubhouse at NGLA....I can't see what more a guy could really have done.  Play #1 down where #18 presently is.  Mix up the hole sequencing.  Thus putting a one shot hole, Like #4 (great redan) for example, where something else is.  Maybe change #2, with its' great blind tee shot and epic green complex.  #2 becomes #17.....#1 becomes #18.  Wow!!!  We've all learned something here...especially you Mr. Interpreter.

Thus.....I'm wondering what Mr. Mucci's original point is here.  No offense to the man, for he surely knows a great deal about architecture and has been the ringleader to many a great thread.  But I feel like his question answered itself.  As TEPaul implied earlier.  ANSWERED ITSELF.  YES, it is a different endeavour when comparing what was going on in the heads of Mr. Ross and Mr. Macdonald when they routed NGLA and Seminole, respectively.

Let's talk about the routing at Seminole.  Doak raves about how Ross incorporated 'basically a long running dune' into something like 12 of the 18 holes.  YEp, yes sir e.  My mind tingles when I think about HOW ELSE Mr. Ross could have done this....but I don't know that this question  Mr. Mucci's original question.  

Hypothetical.
Is what C & C considered when routing Sand Hills different then what Mackenzie thought when designing Cypress Point.  If I wasn't such a dumbshit I'd know what these pieces of land look like.  Although I've only heard of Cypress, and I've never seen this world famous 16th hole everyone always talks about.

Darn right the old noodle is working OT here.  I mean no offense to Mr. Mucci, and I also know that he is capable of coming up with much more thought provoking and interesting subject matter then this.  

Answer key......

1.  yes, certain properties do dictate a certain routing.  To extrapolate on this.....we have to look at these considerations from two points of view.

A. Strictly logistics I.E. drainage, severe terrain, irrigation, getting back to the clubhouse, sun in the eyes etc.

and
B.  Strategic and aesthetic considerations.  

2.  Yes, there probably could have been small differences in NGLA, but nothing especially different.  All I can think of is the sequencing of holes, like I already mentioned, but you aren't going to get two loops on nine on that land.

3.  Cypress Point's routing is dictated by the land.  Most out and back courses are as well.  Pacific Dunes probably could have been either two loops of nine, or the present 'non-returning to the clubhouse after nine holes'.  Thankfully, Mr. Doak found that strategic and aesthetic considerations were very integral to this great golf course.  It could have come back to the clubhouse after nine...but doesn't

touche'      

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

First Daniel Wexler, and now you.

Would you then say that fewer par 3's indicate a superior overall routing ?

MDugger,

The present NGLA clubhouse is at the extreme, opposite end of the property, relative to where the original 1st hole began, so perhaps your orientation, and perspective on this thread are a little out of kilter.

NGLA is my favorite golf course and I believe the architecture is pure genius.  However, I wonder how much credit or rather, accolades should be accorded the routing on this relatively narrow strip of land running north/south, versus the other extreme, a rather square piece of property, with far more routing permutations and combinations at the architects disposal.

It seemed to me that the potential routings at Seminole were a far more complex puzzle than the potential routings at NGLA.

With numerous potential routings, I don't think that the land at Seminole dictated a singular, specific routing. but I do think that the land at NGLA did dictate a more specific routing.

While the individual holes at NGLA are spectacular is the routing mundane or perhaps obviously simple when compared to the routing at Seminole ?

I view this thread as both interesting, and thought provoking, provided people want to think  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

First Daniel Wexler, and now you.

Would you then say that fewer par 3's indicate a superior overall routing ?"

Huh, what, come again?? Where do these questions come from?

What I might say, though, is if you're in a fairway and a tree was blocking any conceivable shot angle to a green that Chip Oat would say that the golf course is a total God-damned architectural abomination.

I know you didn't ask that question but I feel you might at any minute so I thought I would answer it first.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The par 3 question was asked in the context of the answers you gave in your first two (2) posts on this thread.

On which side of the fairway is that tree ?

[TEPaul]

Pat;

You're right about the par 3 question--sorry about that. Last I looked Pine Valley had four par 3s and I think that's fine and on the 36 potential sideways par 3s on TOC routing---it took a helluva lot of thought but I think I might have to say that fewer par 3s than that probably would create a superior overall routing.

[Michael Dugger]

Mr. Mucci

I'm not sure that I understand where I am wrong here.  Is the clubhouse located near the first tee and the 18th green?  

Yes

[Patrick_Mucci]

MDugger,

In my post starting this thread, in the first paragraph, second sentence, I should have substituted the word "original" for "initial".

The original 1st hole is the current 10th hole and the original 18th hole is the current 9th hole.  The original, (I said initial) clubhouse was by the current 9th green/10th tee.

[Forrest Richardson]

From an original question: Do certain properties dictate a few limited routings?

Yes. In difference to Tom D.'s note that The Old Course could have gone in 100 directions, I'll bet that there were even some conditions that suggested its beginning from atop the hill and out. Perhaps a land issue, or nearby interference with a daily fair or market. But Tom is right-on in that TOC was certainly not restricted in the sense many routings are in today's charming world of complicated property shapes and restrictions.

From "Routing the Golf Course" it was suggested that there are really six primary classifications by property type and/or configuration. They are:

•      Block or core routings — where holes are contained within a whole shape that is not broken by other parcels or large land uses; i.e. the course goes where it needs to without outside influences of property ownership (unrestricted!)

•      Development-driven strip routings — Usually single or double holes that are bordered by development (we all are familiar with this, unfortunately)

•      Drainageway-driven routings — where the holes primarily follow drainage alignments and are, for any number of reasons, confined to these areas (Rustic Canyon might be in this category as it sits in a valley and there were influences to keep in low and off the hillside -- the course had to follow the low area or it probably wouldn't have been approved or built)

•      Topo-driven routings — influenced by the terrain to the degree that the routing is a matter of following the only practical route based on the topographical givens

•      Large feature–driven routings — where the layout is oriented to a massive feature such as an ocean shoreline, lake, river, or mountain

•      Remnant land routings — designs configured on awkwardly shaped land parcels that are remnant in nature and often pooled to provide acreage on which the routing must go; therefore, the routing must follow paths implied by the shape of the land

[paul cowley]

in essence ,all routings are 'predetirmined' by three factors;
  the course boundary and the lay of the land within.[and, unfortunately,where does the range go?]
  the buget and client dictates.[same now as then]
  the designers ability.

the first two are generaly 'givens'
the last the biggest variable.

there are no apple to apple course comparisons
and there is always more than one right[or wrong] way to do any thing.

thats what keeps it interesting.....

[Forrest Richardson]

linksland -- "[t]here are no apple to apple course comparisons". Are you sure?

I've always found that it IS possible to compare a gala apple to a red delicious, and a red delicious to a granny smith. They are simply different, but they are all apples.

The variable of the architect is certainly a factor of routings. Also, I would add, the charm and persistence of the designer to get what is right from paper to reality. This last factor is where we see the most compromise in courses. "He with the gold rules" we are led to believe. Which is true. Developers get their way when they want it. But he with the gold who rules -- and lets great things happen -- truly rules. I think we've seen a grand example of this at Bandon.

[Michael Dugger]

Mr. Mucci,

So the original clubhouse use to be located at the opposite end that it is now???  Correct.  Thus, what is now the 1st and 2nd holes would have been something like #11 and #12?  

Now I get it.  But how would I know this unless I knew NGLA as well as you, based on how you phrased the question?

[paul cowley]

forrest......on the apple comparison,i would admit the  statement was quite  broad,it was late,but yes,i am sure[but thats a whole other thread.]
....in earlier posts there was much discusion concerning 'connecting holes' in golf routings[par threes,etc.] in the preliminary routing of a site,a good designer seeks the 'givens'[natural green sites,tees ,vistas,etc.].any site,good or bad,yields certain starting points.
as when one starts a crossword,thats the easy part.        
  the challenge then becomes to best 'connect' the remaining holes [or letters ,as it were]
  a poor designer might start strong but not adequately finish the puzzle.
  a good designer realizes that these connections provide the greatest challenge and design oppurtunities,[perversely,in a great design,these 'connections' can become the best holes]......

[Patrick_Mucci]

MDugger,

By paying attention  

Mark Fine started a thread a very short while ago with respect to the 1st and 18th holes at NGLA heading into the rising and setting sun.

It was pointed out to Mark that the current 1st hole was the original 10th hole and the current 18th hole was the original 9th hole.  That information abruptly ended the thread.

On another thread initiated some time ago, a thread on which Ken Bakst participated, this fact was also mentioned.

There was also a discussion relative to football stadiums and the 1st and 18th holes at golf courses, and the north-south orientation of same, due to the rising and setting sun.

Had you not played hookie from GCA.com those days, this information would have been indelibly etched in the architectural side of your brain.

You snooze, you loose.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()