[Jordan Wall]

I was thinking just yestersay how such architects as Mr. Doak, and maybe C&C use a minimalist philosophy when the site in which they are a buliding a course on is too severe to successfully build any kind of a playable minimalist course.  How do they do it?
Obviously they have tremendous skill, but what are special things they do to still make the course look as if it was meant to be there?
It worked well most of Tumble Creek, but what about sites that even more severe than the one at Tumble.
Like Kapalua?
What do architects do to go out of their way to make sure a course looks as if it was meant to be there, even when the site would say there should be no golf course here?

[Eric Franzen]

I wouldn't be surprised if Doak shows up here and tells us a thing or two about the creation of Stone Eagle.

[Bill_McBride]

Jordan, take a run up just north of Vancouver one of these days and take a look at Furry Creek.  

There are indeed non-golf sites; Furry Creek was built on one.  The very fact that it is sort of possible to finish playing 18 holes on those terraced, single-file fairways is testimony to the genius of Robert Muir Graves, the architect.  But it should never have been built in the first place but for the dreams of a developer to sell a bunch of houses.

The views are spectacular!  

[Bob Jenkins]

Jordan,

Living near Vancouver, I am in total agreement with Bill's comment on Furry Creek. It has absolutely spectacular views of the inlet, mountains, coastal islands, etc. but the course is contrived and squeezed into unnatural terrain. Very difficult walking if not impossible for most people because of the hills.

A very hilly site, in my opinion, has too many drawbacks. It only places limitations on what the architect can do and the "minimalist" could not even function as massive earthworks seem inevitable.

At Furry Creek, for example, you can take a 5 iron off the tee on one hole and then have to hit a full out 3 wood to get to the green. There were no options for the architect in trying to fit in the holes and not having the green to tee distance too great. The fact that Robert Muir Graves was actually able to layout 18 holes was a great feat. I had heard that he turned it down when first asked, saying a decent course could not be built on the site but then was talked into taking it on. Maybe money had something to do with it.

Bob Jenkins

[Greg Tallman]

Jordan,

I believe there is a thread about Stone Eagle where TD discusses this basic premise of designing a course on a site that, at first look, does not appear suitable for golf.

Your comments/question beg a broader question... What is too severe?

There are some pretty good "mountain" courses out there.





 

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan,

I believe there is a thread about Stone Eagle where TD discusses this basic premise of designing a course on a site that, at first look, does not appear suitable for golf.

Your comments/question beg a broader question... What is too severe?

There are some pretty good "mountain" courses out there.





 

Good question.

I would say too severe would be when a minimalist philosophy cannot succesfully work throughout the better portion of the course.

Agree?

[Chris Perry]

Jordan,

Living near Vancouver, I am in total agreement with Bill's comment on Furry Creek. It has absolutely spectacular views of the inlet, mountains, coastal islands, etc. but the course is contrived and squeezed into unnatural terrain. Very difficult walking if not impossible for most people because of the hills.

A very hilly site, in my opinion, has too many drawbacks. It only places limitations on what the architect can do and the "minimalist" could not even function as massive earthworks seem inevitable.

At Furry Creek, for example, you can take a 5 iron off the tee on one hole and then have to hit a full out 3 wood to get to the green. There were no options for the architect in trying to fit in the holes and not having the green to tee distance too great. The fact that Robert Muir Graves was actually able to layout 18 holes was a great feat. I had heard that he turned it down when first asked, saying a decent course could not be built on the site but then was talked into taking it on. Maybe money had something to do with it.

Bob Jenkins

I know you must be talking about hole 6. Really if it weren't for the topography it is nested on it would be a par 4, and the hole after it a par 3 (still is for pro's.)

And, they probably could have either made #6 shorter, and given a forced carry over the ravine of 220 or so from the tips, or cut a few more trees down and moved the tees back making it a "real" par 5 where most could hit driver and not reach the ravine.

Someone told me he managed to hit 11 in two because he hit his drive so far he had a 8 iron or so in. I don't see how that's even possible considering it's a 2 club elevation to get up to the green in the first place.

Furry Creek has to be one of the toughest 6,000 yard courses on the planet.

[B. Mogg]

One way those guys you have mentioned handle those severe sites -they just don't take on the job! It helps if your services are in demand.

Kapalua by the way is not a really severe site in my books.

it much easier to reconcile minimilist philosophy with a better site. A site that involves having to move over a million + yards makes it difficult to say you worked with the land and keep a straight face.

[Forrest Richardson]

The routing is key. You need to find holes that fit, and when you simply cannot, you cross canyons and fight back with creative options.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()