[Ran Morrissett]

As any architect evolves in his career, some ideals come and some ideals go. For instance, if he trys too much innovative stuff, and is beaten down time and time again by hapless critics, his style may well and truly change.For sake of a discussion on a present day's architect, I have picked High Pointe. Given what we have seen in Tom's subsequent work, and culminating with three big openings this year, how do you think Tom would build "High Pointe" if he was given the identical track of land today? What would be different, if anything?

[b. williams]

i have no direct experience at high pointe but other first time efforts changed considerably as their architect's principles changed. a fine example is oakmont and  the fownes family's relentlessly tinkering that led the course away from a penal to strategic design.

[Seth Raynor]

1. The Redan hole would have more fairway to encourage the ball to bound onto the green and the pitch of the green itself would be perhaps even increased.2. The Alps hole built today would be less severe than the original (but don't ask me how).

[Ran Morrissett]

Seth,You are a hero, no doubt about it, but what you suggest are more to do with the natural process of fine tuning as opposed to alterations that represent a change of "ideals." I think Mr. Williams hit the nail on the head in using Oakmont as the quintessential example of a change in design philosophy, even it was father/son.High Pointe may even be a particularly bad example, as the front originally ran through an orchard or apple field, and thus the very nature of half the course has fundamentally changed since it opened.Even Tom had known the front would be as open as say Crystal Downs, I imagine he would have built bigger and more extravagant bunkers (ala Crystal's front) and would have integrated the two disparate sides better (ala Crystal).Are there other "Oakmont-isque" design ideal changes out there? The changes to The National were more fine tuning in nature I believe?

[The Horse's Mouth]

I've got a few ideas on this but I'm curious to hear what others speculate first.One thing I will offer which no one else would know:  I would have waited to build it until we had the 18th hole finalized.  We started construction without a permit to alter the wetlands for #18, and when they finally flagged in the field what we would be allowed to do, I knew the hole would be controversial, but there was no turning back!Knowing what I know now, I would probably have brought the 18th back to the clubhouse where No. 2 is, and changed the first couple of holes to make it two loops of nine again.One other thing I definitely would do today is clear a lot more of the little pines in back to preserve the views across holes 11-14.  Now they've lost all the ferns back there, and the trees have grown up so big they'll never clear them all.  That's not really a design change -- but it's more important than tweaking a green or a bunker.

[Chris Purdie]

G'day.I joined Ran at High Pointe two years ago in October. I flew twenty hours to Traverse City, got in at midnight on a delayed flight, we went for a couple of cleansing schooners, and Ran had us on the first tee time at 7:10 though it was pitch dark. The next group didn't go off til 9:15 or some such nonsense. We played the entire day and played 10-15 three different times. The shots I never got right were both on 10 and the approach on 14. The 14 green is so narrow it may not be fair. So what?I kept trying and I looked forward to those unconventional holes more than the stuff on the front. My advice: keep building'em different or it will not matter. As it is, I look forward to making another twenty hour flight back there one day.Cheers,CP

[Ted_Sturges]

The one thing about High Pointe that would make it better if built today (or as Ran asks, what would/should be "different"), would be to have a different owner.  If the owner of High Pointe understood golf as well as the owner of Sand Hills, it would be a much better place.  This would change how the architecture that is already there is enjoyed/viewed by the golfer.  What a concept!

[cary lichtenstein]

I brought this post from the past back up and am curious how it would be answered today.

[Tom_Doak]

Cary:  I can't believe I ever called myself "The Horse's Mouth," [although I guess it's better than the other end!], but that was my answer in 1999 and I'm sticking to it.

I would probably have done a better job on the approach to the Redan with 15 years' construction experience.  I doubt the 18th hole would look anything like it does today.  And there wouldn't be so many pine trees on the back nine, just those beautiful ferns and sumac which I miss every time I go back there.

Most would assume that the bunkering would be way different and more dramatic, and I am certainly more practised at that now, too.  But I wouldn't really want to re-do those bunkers [although it would be nice if they would edge them back out to where they used to be].  High Pointe was supposed to be about greens complexes, not dramatic bunkers.  And I think that set of greens is still right up there with any I've built.

And maybe if we were building it today, we would get Dan Lucas or Ken Nice or someone of that caliber to maintain the fescue fairways and greens, and not everyone would tell me I was crazy for trying that.  In some ways I was just ahead of my time.  But I'm still as fond of the course as you are of your first girlfriend.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()