News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jim Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Artistic License???
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2005, 03:25:58 PM »
I never knew there were free Richardson pin ups out there.  i had to pay a ring of golf spies to get this Richardson pin up on the black market ;)



Cheers!

JT
Jim Thompson

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Artistic License???
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2005, 03:38:35 PM »
Yep, that is me. The 1/6 follow through is evidence enough.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Artistic License???
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2005, 07:04:25 PM »
Mike and Forrest, don't you find it a bit disconcerting to play a course which gives the impression that maybe three or four different shapers split up the 18 holes and there was no cohesive feeling to the course?  I don't care if the objective was simplicity, or flashed up bunkers, or close to the ground, or what, if three or four groups of holes are at odds.

I'll give you the best example I can think of:  The Ocean Course at Olympic in San Francisco.  That course really does look like Tom Weiskopf turned three or four shapers loose with no comprehensive plan.  The result is, to me, choppy and awkward. Too bad.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2005, 07:05:09 PM by Bill_McBride »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Artistic License???
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2005, 07:57:00 PM »
It depends. I am not for choppy unless it is the look that is called for. Very often a golf course will have distinct areas and settings — like the different experiences of a large garden. While there is usually a need for a common thread, the features may be totally different from one area to the next. I find nothing wrong with this.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com