[Patrick_Mucci]

where you build a golf course.

That the uniqueness of the land just might be irrelevant.

Eliminating environmental/permiting issues, soil conditions, drainage and extremes, I don't think it matters with respect to what land you choose to put a golf course on.

It's the inherent lure of the game, the challenge of getting the ball from Point A to Point B in the fewest strokes possible, coupled with the creativity of the architect that creates value.

And, it's done on all types of land, flat, hilly, a combo of both, square sites, narrow sites, fan like sites.  It really doesn't matter.

It's solely the architects ability to see and create the routing and individual holes that determines the merits of the golf course, not the land.

Pine Tree, Garden City Golf Club, Riviera and TOC are relatively flat.

Augusta is on the side of a huge hill.

Sand Hills is ..... hilly.

Maidstone is on the ocean.
Prairie Dunes and Wild Horse are on the plains.

Topography doesn't matter.

Isn't it the creative application of the principles of golf integrated with the topography of a particular site that produces a good to great golf course, and nothing more ?

Isn't it the architect's creative ability to extract the best possible golf course out of the land, whatever land that may be, that produces good golf courses.

If Wayne Morrisson could provide the overlays of Donald Ross's and William Flynn's approach to the same piece of land, it might reveal their approach to routing and hole design.

And, it might just confirm that "the land doesn't matter"

Given the same land, wouldn't Tom Doak, C&C, AWT, CBM, SR, CB, Thomas and Dr MacKenzie all design good golf courses ?

And, wouldn't they all be unique ?
And, in their style ?

So, isn't the land is irrelevant.

[cary lichtenstein]

Sorry to dissagree, but the land + the architect make a great golf course, and you can't have one without the other.

Give me a great piece of land and I'll find a worthy architect.

I don't think it works the other way around with a lousy piece of land.

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,
I've got to disagree as well. I have not played the courses that you specifically mention, but I think Cary makes a good point with needing both the land and the architect to make a great golf course.

That said, there are a number of different types of "great sites," and you do a nice job of giving some various types of them.

[Paul Payne]

I think there is some merit to what Pat says. I have played a number of good course that were built on mediocre property. One of course is Whistling straits. It was flat as a pancake until Pete Dye took a bulldozer to it. Another is Harborside in Chicago. Not quite the same caliber course but still a good one. It was built on a mounded landfill.

I think with a little imagination a good architect can do a lot with a poor piece of land.

However, it would probably be a mistake to hand a great propery over to a mediocre architect.

[wsmorrison]

"If Wayne Morrisson could provide the overlays of Donald Ross's and William Flynn's approach to the same piece of land, it might reveal their approach to routing and hole design."

I think the uniqueness of the architect is extremely important to the end result and may outweigh the uniqueness of the land but not completely.  It is more true today where Fazio and other massive earth movers obliterate what existed so that it is made irrelevant.

A comparison of the Ross and Flynn designs at CC York is a fascinating exercise; one that will have to wait for the Flynn book I am afraid.  I think the two men took extremely different approaches on this site with its dynamic topography.  The starting and finishing points were given due to the road into the property and the existing farmhouse that was to be the site for the clubhouse.  The results are two entirely different golf courses; one far more demanding (both in terms of test of golf and walking) than the other.

[TEPaul]

The land may not be essential but I hardly think you can say it doesn't matter. If you took a dozen architects and showed them the land of Cypress Point or the land of the Hempstead Plain (GCGC) and told them they could pick either for a course how many do you think would not choose Cypress Point?

[Bill Gayne]

Tom,

I think we would all say Cypress Point given Pat's caveat "Eliminating environmental/permiting issues, soil conditions, drainage and extremes, I don't think it matters with respect to what land you choose to put a golf course on."

I think if the choice was to work within all the current day restrictions on a site like Cypress Point and the alternative was a site like Garden City with no restrictions the choice may be a lot closer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sorry to dissagree, but the land + the architect make a great golf course, and you can't have one without the other.

Sure you can.
You can have a good piece of land, but, if the architect does a poor job, you have a poor golf course.[/color]

Give me a great piece of land and I'll find a worthy architect.


That's a different issue.

Judging by comments on this site, how would you classify the sites at Spanish Bay and The Bridge ?

And, based on the comments on this site, how would you classify the golf courses ?

Great sites, poor results ?
That refutes your theory doesn't it.
[/color]

I don't think it works the other way around with a lousy piece of land.

You've predisposed the outcome by choosing an EXTREME, something I told you to eliminate.[/color]

Absent extremes, there is no bad land.

There are only bad examples of architecture.

It's not the land, it's the architect.[/color]

TEPaul,

Just because one site may have advantages over another doesn't mean a thing.  This is not a comparitive exercise.

It's got to do with a blank pallet and an artist.
Is the blank pallet that much different from a raw piece of land ?

It's the artist who transforms nothing into something of value.

[Mark_Fine]

There are soooooooo many factors (in addition) to the land that impact the design of a golf course.  Most every course would turn out differently if the designer were given a free hand with no restraints but that does not happen, especially these days.  There are too many people, too many restrictions, and too many limitations that impact the outcome and need to be satisfied.  Doing restorations and renovations might even be more difficult from that standpoint.  

[Paul_Turner]

No architects are overrated- it's the land that matters.

[Andy Troeger]

Absent extremes, there is no bad land.

There are only bad examples of architecture.

Pat,
What kind of land are you thinking of when you refer to extremes? There's a lot of flat cornfields around here in the Midwest USA that I don't think make very good land for golf compared to other types of sites, but I personally wouldn't call them extremes.

[Peter Pallotta]

"Given the same land, wouldn't Tom Doak, C&C, AWT, CBM, SR, CB, Thomas and Dr MacKenzie all design good golf courses?"

Yes, they would -- as good a golf course as the quality of the land allows for.  If that weren't the case, every AWT course would be "just as good" as any other AWT course, no?

Good courses HAVE been built on all sorts of land: hilly, flat or ocean-side. But to suggest that "topography doesn't matter" is to take "a bird's eye view", i.e. TOC may look flat from the AIR,  but not to a golf ball bumping and bounding along one of its fairways; and Augusta might've been built on the side of a hill, but WHAT a side of a hill.

In other words, it seems to me that a large part of the architect's skill and talent is the ability to recognize that "not all land is created equal".  The best and most talented ones also have the good sense to hope for the best possible land.

Peter

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

Bumps and bounds are overrated, if not obsolete.

Did you learn nothing from John Daly and Tiger Woods at TOC ?

It's an aerial game that's played today.

Bumps and Bounds look pretty in early morning and late afternoon photos, but, since most of them aren't in play, they tend to be window dressing.

Andy Troeger,

Why not ?

What about a corn field precludes a good, interesting golf course from being built on it ?

Is Wild Horse not a good example of a routine piece of land producing a great product ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

No architects are overrated- it's the land that matters.

Like Lido and Shadow Creek ?  [/color]

[Mark Brown]

Patrick,

I think you must be on a walkabout.

[A.G._Crockett]

Obviously, all other things equal, a better piece of ground will yield a better golf course, but I think we have all seen very good courses built where one wouldn't expect a course at all, much less a good one.

In fact, I would bet that most of us here can trace at least part of our interest in GCA to a moment when we found ourselves wondering, perhaps in awe, how someone had seen a golf hole where we were standing.  Often, on great pieces of ground, any of us can see it, but a lesser piece brings the artistic side of GCA to the fore.

I used to belong to a course in the N.Georgia mountains called Bent Tree, a Joe Lee course from the late 70's that I still love.  How he was able to see those 18 holes is a great mystery to me, but there in the heart of the mountains was a very walkable, scenic, challenging, and fun golf course.  That's art in my book.

[Dave Bourgeois]

This is an interesting thread the more I think about it.  

I do think the land matters greatly to the overall feel and variety of a course.  Having interesting topography will allow the designer to utilize up/downhill shots, contoured or sloped fairways etc.  The same can be said of a sea side layout with using the wind direction as variety, dunes if present etc.  

Can a great course be made on flat or boring land?  Of course it can!  Last I checked Florida is pretty flat and there are some very excellent courses there .  You can build in contours and add heroic carries over water that is of great interest and of high architectural value, but how does it all feel?

It’s the overall feel of a course that may suffer on poor land.  Ultimately it may take more of a trained eye to realize that it is an above average design then if it was on more dramatic terrain.  


 

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick
you "correct" me on one of my minor points but overlook the main one. I agree with your argument that a fine architect can design a good golf course on a mediocre piece of land (in fact, I don't think anyone would DISAGREE with you on that). But if you discount the quallity of the land in the equation, you'd be left to say that one Doak (or CBM or DR) course is as good as any other, no?  

You wrote to TEPaul that is was not a "comparative exercise", but if not, doesn't it threaten to become a "meaningless one"?  I mean, don't we all wish we could play the best POSSIBLE course for a given piece of land? Doesn't that involve a value/comparative judgement? And doesn't it assume that both the architect's skill AND the land itself are being judged?


Peter

[Jordan Wall]

Most of the time the site matters.

In some cases (Kapalua) the site makes the courses.

It seems all ocean courses are good right??

[Andy Troeger]

Andy Troeger,

Why not ?

What about a corn field precludes a good, interesting golf course from being built on it ?

Is Wild Horse not a good example of a routine piece of land producing a great product ?

Pat,
I won't go to the length to say that its "impossible" to build a good interesting golf course to be built in a corn field. I've never seen one, and I've never seen Wild Horse. Compared to other landforms and golf courses I personally think flat, treeless sites are terribly blah and rather ugly, but that's just my personal preference. I need trees or hills or water or something to break the monotony. Fake mounds don't count!

I'd still like to hear your definition of an extreme site!

[Gary_Mahanay]

Pat,

I've never been to Wild Horse but with all of the pictures and Mr. Daley's comments and seeing "The Wandering Golfer" this afternoon on the Fine Living Network, that land was not and may never have been a cornfield.  Though there are probably a lot of cornfields around there, the land for Wild Horse looks like it had probably been in the CRP program for quite a while before a golf course was put upon it.  Just letting Mother Nature blow and wash the sand where ever she wanted.  And from the looks of it she did a pretty good job with a little help from Axland and Proctor.

Gary

[Patrick_Mucci]

Obviously, all other things equal, a better piece of ground will yield a better golf course, but I think we have all seen very good courses built where one wouldn't expect a course at all, much less a good one.

But, all things aren't equal.

And, this site would seem to offer proof of same.

Certain architects enjoy "most favored nation" status, others are villiifed.   WHY ?

Have you learned nothing from the "Sandpines" and "The Bridge" threads, where legions claimed that the architect, not the land dictated the final product.

Wouldn't Friar's Head offer reinforcement ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I won't go to the length to say that its "impossible" to build a good interesting golf course to be built in a corn field. I've never seen one, and I've never seen Wild Horse.
How would you classify the front nine at the Warren Course at Notre Dame ?

A flat cornfield ?
Very similar ?[/color]

Compared to other landforms and golf courses I personally think flat, treeless sites are terribly blah and rather ugly, but that's just my personal preference. I need trees or hills or water or something to break the monotony.

How do you like St Andrews ?
No trees, flat, no water, nothing to break the monotony.[/color]

Fake mounds don't count!

What's the difference between a fake mound and a real one if they both look and function the same ?[/color]

I'd still like to hear your definition of an extreme site!

Surely, you don't need me to define that for you.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

[size=4x]
I've never been to Wild Horse [/size] but with all of the pictures and Mr. Daley's comments and seeing "The Wandering Golfer" this afternoon on the Fine Living Network, that land was not and may never have been a cornfield.

Then go to google earth and look at the golf course.

You'll see it's surrounded by cornfields and other fields[/color]  

Though there are probably a lot of cornfields around there, the land for Wild Horse looks like it had probably been in the CRP program for quite a while before a golf course was put upon it.  

LOOK at Google earth, it'll change your mind.[/color]

Just letting Mother Nature blow and wash the sand where ever she wanted.  And from the looks of it she did a pretty good job with a little help from Axland and Proctor.

Are you saying that Axland and Proctor changed the landscape ?[/color]

[Andy Troeger]

I won't go to the length to say that its "impossible" to build a good interesting golf course to be built in a corn field. I've never seen one, and I've never seen Wild Horse.
How would you classify the front nine at the Warren Course at Notre Dame ?

A flat cornfield ?
Very similar ?[/color]

Compared to other landforms and golf courses I personally think flat, treeless sites are terribly blah and rather ugly, but that's just my personal preference. I need trees or hills or water or something to break the monotony.

How do you like St Andrews ?
No trees, flat, no water, nothing to break the monotony.[/color]

Fake mounds don't count!

What's the difference between a fake mound and a real one if they both look and function the same ?[/color]

I'd still like to hear your definition of an extreme site!

Surely, you don't need me to define that for you.[/color]

Pat,
From everything I read on here St. Andrews isn't flat, it has all sorts of natural humps and bumps and hollows and other things. Holes where one has to hit over a building would likely have a way of breaking the monotony

Some parts of Warren have more resemblance to a cornfield than I'd care for, but there are still a number of trees even on the westernmost areas of the property. My favorite stretches on the course are 7-10 and 16-18.

When I say cornfield I mean courses such as the Legends of Indiana and the Brassie in Indiana, which literally appear to have been about as completely flat (for the entire course...not just a couple holes) as you can get along with having just about no tree that was there before the course was built. There's just nothing there. Warren and St. Andrews are both worlds away from that type of site.

The fake mound comment was a joke...both the Legends and Brassie have one type of land feature...fake mounds. They just don't work for me on those courses.

Nice try at avoiding the question, but I'd like the Pat Mucci definition of an "extreme" site. Extreme means different things to different people, and I'd appreciate a definition  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()