Is golf architecture on the verge of a revolution?

[Mike_Cirba]

Re: Ballyowen

At first I was inclined to agree with both Matt and Mark as I think Ballyowen is a very good course, as well.  It certainly has a good deal of strategic interest and many solid, varied par fours and some wild, roller-coaster par fives that can provide a wide range of scoring.  A few holes have interesting gambling options, and there are even holes with center bunkering features that are not only interesting, but almost retro Golden Age design.

On the Doak Scale, it's probably a 6, and is certainly in the Top 3 public venues in NJ, which is hardly the wasteland of public golf that many believe.  

I was going to say all of that and agree that Tom MacWood probably is being unfair in his somewhat humorous contention that it would make a good landing strip for a small plane.  

Then, I started thinking about the site.  

The fact is, I can't imagine anyone asking for a better piece of inland property on which to design a course.  It's wildly rolling, while not being severe like some of its northern NJ counterparts (i.e. Crystal Springs, Wild Turkey) and has little in the way of protected wetlands or dense forests.  I'm sure there was quite a bit of "rock" to deal with under the surface, but not so much that huge amounts of engineering had to take place.  Water sources may have been an issue, which might explain the large pond/lakes that were created on a few holes, but one wonders if that couldn't have been handled in a different manner on a course trying to emulate the auld sod.

Still, in fairness, one has to wonder what might have been created on such a site.  The fact that a very good golf course was created there is a positive, no doubt.  I just wonder if something close to a Great course might have been feasible from an architect who was a bit more willing to work with the land and who was more willing to let the course be as wildly unpredictable and naturally beautiful as the site itself.  

[Forrest Richardson]

This talk of landing strips has me wishing to come clean about a project in texas that we are consulting on -- the course was actually built in 1966 ON TOP of an old airfield -- and all they did was break up the tarmac and add a few feet of soil. When they dig they often reach the tarmac layer. Sorry for the interruption, it was just on my mind.

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

There's probably room in the entire universe of golf architecture for the true "landing strip" course and architecure as well. I just hope there isn't all that much room for it! I admire you for going "site natural", though.

But after all, how many courses can there be built on old landing strips?

You don't have to answer that if you don't want to, since I hear United Airlines is thinking of filing for bankruptcy!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Forrest
Did I judge the merits of the golf course? I was judging a single photo for its purpose in making a point about a group of modern designs - it was useful in illustrating my point. If I was judging the merits of anything via a photo, I was judging that particular fairway's merits an airstrip - I think it would make a superb one.  

I'd being lying if I did not make judgements about golf courses through a photograph (or photographs), isn't that, along with our past experiences, an important method in computing what appeals to us? Afterall we are human beings not slugs. For example when you see a photo of Banff or Cypress Point, don't you make an immediate judgement. And does't that judgement effect if you desire to journey to that particualr destination? I see on you web site you have numerous photos of your work, don't you want people to draw a certain conclusion based on those photos? I know I did.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom -- Good point. I'm taking the photos off my website. At least any that do not total five for any given hole. Please allow four years for this as that's how long it took to get the site up and running.

[Matt_Ward]

There is a tendency here on GCA for people to wax on about the need for more Sand Hills and Pac Dunes, etc, etc. Gentlemen -- that's a wonderful dream, but that's like asking that every singer possesses the magical qualities of Frank Sinatra in his heyday.

Mike, you raise some good points about Ballyowen. It is clearly not an Irish links although the club attempts to replicate the "feel" of one it's mroe cosmetic than actual.

I still do believe Roger Rulewich did a first rate effort. Could others have done better? It's possible. It's also possible that others could have fared less so. All in all, Ballyowen is among the 3-4 finest public courses in the Garden State even if it does have such "delicious tarmac(s)."

Tom MacWood:

I only responded when you posted the picture you did. I continually marvel at your "gift" in gleaning from just one photo the very character of an entire course and lumping it into a some broader category in proving some esoteric point. Amazing stuff indeed. You do have such a gift.

Tom -- there's no context just take one item and FLASH some "insightful" point.

[GeoffreyChilds]

I am certainly the most unashamedly vocal basher of Roger Rulewich probably on this earth for his supposed "restoration" work, however, Ballyowen is a fine golf course.

The comments of my friends above are pretty much spot on with mine.  I don't like the par 3's at Ballyowen as too many are the usual repetitive RTJ/Rulewich long carry over water.

From inside the playing area, the look of Ballyowen is not as artificial as is apparent from other modern architects. Its also been pretty firm with a good amount of roll along the undulating property when I have played there.  Of course all this can't really be seen from a single photograph. Actually, a property like Winged Foot is much flatter and conducive to landing a small aircraft (especially after tree removal)  .  I welcome Ballyowen as a fine addition to the public golf courses within the Met area.  I wish prices were lower but they seem to have a steady flow of business.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
Thanks for the kind words. Wouldn't it be great if we could glean the quality of a course so easily, just think about all the mediocre courses you could have avoided. Don't you think that picture does an excellent job of illustrating that modern school of design that produces machine-like regularity in fairway grading; with features that have very little relationship to their natural environment?

I think you may have missed Ronan's original point, I don't think anyone is "waxing" about the need for more Sand Hills per say, but a return to golf courses that don't obliterate interesting natural features.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Dave Schmidt:

In terms of who can bring real change I would put my money on those that believe in the mustard seed, those that live in obscurity, and those that walk through the woods at places like Walden Pond.  If these are intellectuals then I think you are looking in the right spot.

[Ronan_Branigan]

Guys, thanks for all the food for thought. I am currently studying for a masters in GCA in Scotland. I have read many books on the subject but after experiencing the wealth of knowledge that the contributors to this site have I need to spend more hours in the library. I'm just about to post another topic which may yield some interesting replies. Try not to be too bias in your replies

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Just to fill you in a little secret -- I try to do my homework before leaving the house in playing ANY golf course.

Second, Ballyowen was a diffciult site to work with as former quarry and I think Rulewich did a solid effort. I do, however, agree with Geoff regarding the par-3's because they lend themselves to a certain degree of predictability in terms of their lack of overall diversity.

Look, no one is holding up Ballyowen as the second coming of Ballybunion here in the States. It's desire to mimick an "Irish" links is more marketing / branding hype than course reality.

However, there is enough bends and twists in the fairways among a number of holes at Ballyowen that don't translate itself into a simple and broad brush "delicious tarmac." I'm sorry I don't have any pictures to show you, but if you should ever play the course I believe you will find a modern upscale daily fee layout that keeps your interest and leaves you wanting to return and try again. In my book -- any course that gives you the feeling of "wanting to come back" can't be that bad.

On your last point -- if you actually ever take a visit to Ballyowen you'll find that the natural features of the land have been woven into play on a number of holes and have not been "obliterate(d)." (i.e. 2nd, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 18th holes).

[WilliamWang]

in the quest for firm and fast, environmentalists could oddly enough be useful allies for GCA purists.  the push for greater conservation of water might lead directly to more brown instead of green fairways.  that and water pricing premiums for golf courses could do what trying to educate golfers can't do.

besides if you take global warming as proven, the various climate predictions base on a warming scenario posit drier than average conditions for much of the continental u.s.  so in 100 years, golfers will know nothing but firm and fast.
  

There will not be a grass-roots, populist uprising for "firm and fast" without it.  It is clear that the public wants waterfalls, flowers and forced carries.  How to affect change without education?  I honestly don't know.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
There is no need to defend your homework, I was just empathizing with your predicament. And I’ll take your word for it (as well as those of Mike and Geoffrey) on Ballyowen. I have no desire to get into a discussion on the course’s merits or lack of merits. I liked the photo - it was useful in illustrating my point. I could have just as easily chosen another course, but that picture was handy. In hindsight, I probably shouldn’t have named the course, very few could have identified it, unfortunately it has sent the discussion off on a wild tangent.

Wax on!

[Mark_Fine]

One of the top public courses in NJ is described as a "a delicious tarmac".  Either the person making this statement is clueless   or we can end this thread now by answering Ronan's initial question with a empathic NO!
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
Shake yourself - for the fourth time I described that fairway as a 'delicious tarmac'. I guess you can place me in your 99.8% of the general public that is clueless. I have feeling I'm in good company knowing who is the .2%.  

I give your last post a 3.5 and your first post a 4+.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You need to get away from the computer and play a few more golf courses.  They look a lot different up close and personal  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
That seems to be a common refrain for those who have difficulty expressing themselves and their ideas. I'll take it under advisement.

To be honest I'm very comfortable with the ballance I've reached with 'field work', research and theoretical study. I'm sure we all can be improved in some way, but the search for knowledge in all areas is never ending.

I've put my clubs in the closet for the winter, a sabatical is always healthy. At least for me.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Having the time to sit at a computer and "express" one's self is not easy for most of us.  While many people are here posting, some of us are out playing and studying the golf courses everyone on this site talks about.  It would also help if I could type faster than 10 words a minute  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Yes, I've read and enjoyed your studies.....4+.....6.....5.5.....5.....7.....fascinating.

[TEPaul]

I couldn't agree with Tom MacWood more. There're all kinds of ways of analyzing golf architecture and the great thing about Golfclubatlas is there are a number of people who are very good at it in a number of different ways!

Certainly, those who advocate the necessity of playing golf courses can't be that wrong about the efficacy of it but they too should certainly realize that there're also other ways of analyzing architecture, and very much in depth! They may not know how to do it, other than playing the course, but they shouldn't imply that others don't or can't.

I would always advocate playing any golf course that one might be interested in to understand in detail, because certainly golf courses are there to be played! But there're many other ways of going about it either before or after that.

These people on here who constantly imply that playing a golf course, and rating it, if that's what they're doing, is the ONLY way to understand and analyze golf architecture are just flat wrong, in my book. And I think that's a sort of narrow minded approach too. It may be the only way they can do it or know how to do it but that's just them.

For me, after playing a course there are other ways that are more benefical to understanding the architecture of a course, particularly in real detail, than just continuing to play it. Walking with people who are playing it works really well for me and after that just studying it carefully and slowly is even more edifying. Carrying a putter and a few balls around with you is unbelievably instructive!

For me anyway, sometimes actually playing a course and certainly playing it in competition can be very limiting to really analyzing the architecture of a course.

So to each his own--some do it better one way, others do it better in other ways.

And I also couldn't agree more with Tom MacWood about these numbers--3.5, a strong 6, 8.5, whatever! What kind of in-depth architectural analysis is that? It's just a damn number--big deal!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
I have Never implied the only way to evaluate and/or study a golf course is by playing it.  However, I do believe that to truly understand a golf course and comment strongly with some degree of credibility about it, you must at least have seen it in person.  Your comment might still be worthless, but at least you've been there.

Tom MacWood's comment about Ballyowen is a perfect example.  He has never been there or played the course yet he writes it off as another wasted opportunity.  Too many times that happens here and all that does is turn people off.  

My comments may be perceived as useless to some or too brief at times to add much value, and I appologize for that.  I wish I had more time and could type faster to fully "express" myself.  You get what you get from me but at least people know when I make a strong comment about a course, I have seen or played it.  And furthermore, anyone who knows me or has played a round of golf with me, knows where my focus is when I make my assessments.  

No question proper balance is important between actually seeing/playing courses and studying about architecture in books, etc.  I have a vast collection golf architecture books and didn't buy them to collect dust.  The latest book I'm just finishing up is titled, Best Golf Course Management Practices by L.B. McCarty.  Parts of it are more complicated then some of my engineering texts I studied in college but I believe this kind of information will help me better assess what I'm looking at when I study a golf course.  How many people take the time to read stuff like this?  Far less than my 99% rule    

As you say there is no right or wrong way to study golf architecture.  But there is No substitute for actual seeing and playing the golf courses you are studying.  Until you've seen a Sand Hills or a Crystal Downs for example, you have no idea how good those courses really are.  You can not for example appreciate links golf until you have actually experienced it, no matter how much you read about it in a book.

Tom Doak didn't travel to see what he's seen just for the fun of it.  He knew if he was going to design the best, he better have seen and studied the best in person.  It's no different than the architect who "designs in the field" vs. the guy who sits at his desk and draws up his golf holes on a CAD system while he looks at pictures of what he likes and dislikes.  

Again, I'm sorry for not having the time to expand on my comments.  But at least when I post my "Ballyowen is a 5+ comment" you know I've spent at least four or five hours on the property making such an assessment.  
Mark

[Forrest Richardson]

Mark -- I agree with much of your comments. However, you say "...there is no substitute for actual seeing and playing the golf courses you are studying." Is this really true? Or, do you mean: "...the best way to study a golf course is by actually seeing and playing it."

I have never seen or played most of the courses in the world, yet I study as many as I can. I try to learn from each. There are even courses which do not exist any longer, or those which have chnaged so significantly that studying what you can see or play would only teach us, well, what is there. Isn't a huge part of our studying about what was intended, what was original, and what nature and the hand of mankind might inflict in the future? Many of these you cannot see or play, yet they account for far greater percentage of any golf course that the present -- a snippit of time.

I guess I disagree with your notion in this particular point.

[TEPaul]

Mark;

I wasn't referring to you and I sure never said it's a good idea to try to analyze architecture in detail without ever having even seen a course in person.

I think an awful lot can be seen by people who are experienced with it from historic aerials and historic onground photos if you're interested in the history of courses but it sure is important to have seen the course first, in my opinion.

[TEPaul]

Aerials are a very useful tool for studying older courses and such but of course the topographic element of the course is almost completely lost to the student or analyzer--and that definitely loses a lot. Matching aerials with comprehensive on-ground photos fills that in some though, although that too takes some imagination which never can be anywhere near as exact as going there.

[Michael Dugger]

It is amazing to me the digressions and tangents that go on here sometimes.  Who in their right mind is possibly going to argue that there IS a substitute for visiting a course in person?  And, like TEPaul just said, who in their right mind thinks that unless you actually visit a course you don't know shit about it?  To me it comes across as arrogance.  I've been there and you haven't-thus I am right and you are wrong.  As our world moves closer and closer to the hellish technological nightmare that has been depicted in books and cinema over the past twenty years, the day is not far off when we will VIRTUALLY set foot on all the golf courses we discuss here.  What will the argument be then??