[Dan Herrmann]

Getting back to GCA, I was thinking about what the future holds.

I am especially curious to know if there are any new architectural features or paradigms being developed now.

At one time, for example, the redan was a new paradigm, and now it's an accepted part of GCA.

Is there anything new under the sun?

[PThomas]

this may be one:  I think at Stone Eagle Tom had fairways that were connected, instead of each of them being separated by desert areas

[redanman]

Honestly, really fast new cultivars that are perfect at speeds >12 or 13 are a real marvel and until you've truly seen one you have no idea.  They are really something and did not exist like 5 years ago.

And I am NOT being facetious.

[Dan Herrmann]

what about Kittleman's 'abruptment bunker' at French Creek?  Or is this just a one-time quirk?

I think it makes what could be a fairly routine par 3 pretty interesting, but it IS a polarizing item.  Some folks really hate it.

[PThomas]

Dan - pls explain about that bunker

[redanman]

AS sent to Paul in an I.M. asking if it IS possible to get out of the D.A.

I have previously posted a picture of Naccarato getting out fo the D.A.  It takes strength, loft and clubhead speed.  It CAN be done.

Hopefully one of the slueths can find it on here and link it. It was in a thread something like "Best gca.com photo ever.  I can't use the search function worth a shit on this board.

 If not, when I get around to the other pix for #10 as it currently exists, I'll re-post the T.N.D.A. photo again.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Everything old is new again.

What's new is the combining of learned principles, new techniques and an understanding of how important maintenance practices are to a design.

While much of the old is new again, not everyone of the elders had the knowledge to get everything working together. Humming so to speak. Through the advent of gca.com archies of every level have the chance to visit, albeit virtually, places it would take a lifetime to see personally. I assume they take away from here what they deem necc.

Although I did just read about how 6 new fescue based turf courses will be opening in the next year.

[Jay Flemma]

I like Jim Engh's muscle bunkers...little sunken squggly shapes with high sloped sidewalls shaped like a flexed bicep.  He'e helped free bunkering from the cloverleaf...

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Persoannly, my hopes are very simple.
In some way we get away from building courses that seem to accomodate the technology..the best current architects appear to be those who have not compromised sound architectural principles, simply because the ball travels further in the hands of the few.

Thus the works of Tom Doak, Mike De Vries, Gil Hanse et al, who do feel that courses in excess of 7300 yards are the answer.

[Dan Herrmann]

Dan - pls explain about that bunker

It's a really big bunker about 50 yards from the tee.  It spans the entire width of the hole.  The biggest differentiator is the height of the bunker wall - I think it's probably 8 feet high.  Further, the bunker is preceeded by about 20 yards of fescue-type natural grasses.

Kittleman/Hanse actually built the bunker into the side of an elevation.  It doesn't collect many golf balls, but it sure changes the visual character of the hole.  What would have been a routine par 3 is actually pretty darn cool.

Here's Gil's pictoral representation:


I'll try to post a photo tonight.

-----------------------

Here's TE Paul's description from a thread in 2003:
"TEPaul,
Isn't the 17# at FC a par 3? Does a misaligned tee box on a par three even matter?"

JimK:

Good question. It doesn't matter to me but I'm sure it'd probably matter to most golfers particularly if it's misaligned by about 45 degrees.

But on this particular hole which is a long par 3 known as the "abruptment" (or something equally unique) and is the exclusive design and work of that elusive genius, Bill Kittleman, it probably truly doesn't matter. The reason being no one I know of can figure the hole out or how to play it anyway. Geniuses like BillK have a way of producing truly fascinating enigmas!!

The first time I saw the hole under construction was with Rodney Hine, formerly of Hanse design and as we stood on that tee and looked at that hole Rodney said that the crew had been watching this hole come into being and that in their opinions, as cool as it looked and as much as seemed to be going on on it none of them had the slightest idea what that was or how one should play it. There is a unique feature on it know as the "walk-out basement" and it's believed to be the only hole in the world or even in history with such a feature.

[Craig Sweet]

I think the next big architectural feature will be the "pond in the center of a green".

[RJ_Daley]

Perhaps as Mark Brown was promoting, the 6 hole loop could be considered a new architectural feature.  Courses that are designed to return to the CH after 6, 12, 18 or 24.  If you crave a long shlog of 5 and a half hours - play 24.   If you got out of work late with only an hour or so of daylight left, play 6.

I don't know if there are any shaped/graded or use of natural terrain features left to be discovered that would be innovative and not be pure gimmickry.

[Jerry Kluger]

It seems to me that I am seeing more use of closely mowed areas around greens - I don't see it as a new feature but I do believe that it is a feature which architects have found to create a challenging, and often changing, aspect to the play of a hole.

[Jason Topp]

I would love to see a course that poses interesting playing challenges, but meets three ideals:

1.  Very interesting design
2.  Low maintenence costs
3.  No lost balls ever

I haven't quite worked out how you would accomplish all three ideals, but a few ideas:

1.  No rough, but maintained fairways would be limited to the extent possible.  Areas off the fairway would not be irrigated, but maintained in the least cost manner that allows one to find a golf ball easily.

2.  Few bunkers, if any

The trick would be to make such a course visually interesting. I would think contours could be used to make the course play in an interesting manner.

A bit like the original Augusta, without the maintenence.

[PThomas]

Jason - Pinehurst #2 maybe, not sure what the maintenance costs are

[Tony_Muldoon]

I love burns and streams meandering down the side of a hole and then diagonally across the fairway.  There’s always ‘the chance’ that a ball might find its way into the hazard, and have to be dropped out at the cost of a stroke.

I detest ponds.  Once the ball is in there it’s lost and gone forever. Hit the ball at the pond and it’s a certainty what the result will be.

What I would like to see is a new kind of water hazard based on a very natural and ancient water point.  The Ford.  On a flat area the water could be engineered to run very shallow across a gravel bed. Set into this would be islands of packed hard sand and stepping stones. Ideally this area would be quite wide and some of the sand and grass islands would be reasonably large.  There would be a few deep pools but the majority of the water would run so shallow that you might want to try and play out of it (less than 1” deep should do it).  It would be a watery waste area ideal on long holes where you try to carry the hazard at your peril.  A wide bridge would give a straight shooter the occasional break.

I am aware that the litigation risk of people in golf shoes crossing water would make this a difficult idea to carry off but I’d love to see it.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tony,
I love the idea of the Ford.  I think the only question would be how to keep it properly filled with water.  Once that's solved, though, you have a very interesting feature.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen what you describe on a golf course.

[Ian Andrew]

Dan,

 The only thing I can think of is reclaimation projects where more of the original equipment, features or spoils are left in place. Almost something approaching an architectural tip of the hat to what was there.

...and I for one hate the bunker at French Creek....and I wouldn't call the idea new either.

The boat shaped tee on #8 is more original than #17.

[Bill_McBride]

Dick Daley, Cuscowilla is a great example of multiple short loops, right? 1-6, 7-9, 10-14, 15-18.  Great for overtime or beer loops in the late afternoon.  7-9 in particular gives you three completely different holes, with #9 played off the absolute tips as a par 5.  Short tricky 4, long reverse redanish par 3, short par 5.  Fun fun fun!

[Tim Gavrich]

Bunkers that are REAL hazards !

But seriously, I'd like to see more convex bunkers, like the one I saw at Toftrees out in central PA.  The idea of the high point of a bunker in the middle seems avant-garde and visually interesting.  It also demands a different type of shot altogether.

[Doug Siebert]

Jason,

I think your list of three ideals is perfect, but I don't know how well accepted they'd be since they are contrary to what I think "the masses" want out of a golf course.

OK, interesting design, sure, whatever that is, what you and I consider interesting is not what others consider interesting.  I wonder how it is possible to reconcile an interesting design in the minds of many golfers with your third item where there are no lost balls (plus you've played with me, so you know that word 'ever' on the end might be hard to accomplish )

I'm sure a lot of golfers can't imagine a course as interesting if you don't have some Doral-like long par 4 with water down one side, or a risk/reward Cape-style tee shot where you bite off as much as you dare on a par 5 to give yourself a chance to go for it in two, or the obligatory drop shot par 3 with the pretty little pond in front of the green.  Or does your idea of 'no lost balls' mean water and maybe even OB is OK, but not a ball you have to search for?

Low maintenance costs are a great thing and I think many in GCA support them, but how do you sell them to the people who think ANGC is the pinnacle of evolution that all golf courses aspire to?  At least in terms of maintenance and preparation, ignoring the recent controversial changes.

I wonder how much difference there would be in the greens fees for a typical CCFAD with high maintenance standards and one that tried to go low maintenance, even if it meant the fairways might get a few brown spots, there may be some bare areas in the rough here and there, you don't get the pretty little flowerbeds near each teebox, etc.?  If it saves enough that you can cut $10 off the greens fees, that's great on a course in Iowa that goes from $50 to $40 but it doesn't mean much on a course in California that goes from $150 to $140!

I'd love to see more courses designed that met your ideals, but unless something external happens to cause it, like water rights becoming more expensive in certain areas or some great new golf ball technology that helps poor players but makes balls cost $15/ea, I won't hold my breath.

[Dan Herrmann]

Dan,

 The only thing I can think of is reclaimation projects where more of the original equipment, features or spoils are left in place. Almost something approaching an architectural tip of the hat to what was there.

...and I for one hate the bunker at French Creek....and I wouldn't call the idea new either.

The boat shaped tee on #8 is more original than #17.

You may see the bunker on #17 eventually modified.  It's been a maintenance nightmare - washes out if we get more than 3" of rain.

And you're right on #8 - that's a pretty cool tee where the boat is the championship tee (shaped like a boat) and the regular tee surrounds it about 5 feet below.

[Sean_A]

What I would like to see is a new kind of water hazard based on a very natural and ancient water point.  The Ford.  On a flat area the water could be engineered to run very shallow across a gravel bed. Set into this would be islands of packed hard sand and stepping stones. Ideally this area would be quite wide and some of the sand and grass islands would be reasonably large.  There would be a few deep pools but the majority of the water would run so shallow that you might want to try and play out of it (less than 1” deep should do it).  It would be a watery waste area ideal on long holes where you try to carry the hazard at your peril.  A wide bridge would give a straight shooter the occasional break.

I like the idea of a ford as well.  Though I don't like the idea of a bridge.  It negates the idea of a ford!  I spose after rainy season the walk through area of the ford would need to be fixed unless the flow of water is controlled somehow.  What is neat about a ford is that when it is dry season it is possible to play from it.  When it is wet season, people can't even traverse the ford much less play a ball from it.  

Folks must have seen something like this.  Think of a wide washout area that has section prepared for people to walk through rather than around or over.

Ciao

Sean

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()