Working with diverse sites

[Ran Morrissett]

From the flats of Indiana to the mountains and sand hills of North Carolina to the rugged New England terrain, Doanld Ross displayed an awesome ability to create courses that were both interesting AND playable for all levels of golfers. In many ways, I think this is his most impressive design achievement.

Isn't successfully working with a diversity of sites the hallmark of all great architects?

What good architect(s) unluckily never got a similar chance to show their stuff by working with diverse sites?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Great point about Donald Ross, Ran. I wholeheartedly agree that he was very, very successful nearly always, regardless of the natrual characteristics of a site.

On great sites, Ross utilized most all of the best natrual golf features. And on  poorer sites, he create great holes still.

To comparison, I will say that Stanley Thomspon worked on diverse sites throughout Canada during his career. But, whereas Capilano, Banff, Jasper and Highlands Links are outstanding, Thompson doesn't have an "Essex (Windsor, Ontario, Canada)" on his resume like Ross. In other words, a course that began with nothing: a featureless property, and is today, at more than seventy years old, still functional, enjoyable and exciting for all calibers of players.

I think Ross' talents really stood-out when he was dealing with less than promising ground.

As Dr. Mackenzie put it, "The test of a good golf architect is the power of converting bad inland material into a good course, and not the power of fashioning excellent seaside material into a mediocre one."

Therefore, yes, I do believe that the hallmark of the great architects is measured by their work on "less than ideal" terrain.

*See Donald Ross and Bill Coore, for example.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Let me rephrase what I said about Thompson.

He does have a few courses "alive" today on comparatively featureless properties that still "function, and are enjoyable, and are  (somewhat) exciting".

But, Thompson doesn't have a world-class layout on featureless ground that I'm aware of. Ross does.

Perhaps this has something to do with the effects of time. I'm not sure. But, for example, the flat holes at the Ladies Golf Club of Toronto do NOT compare with any of Ross' work I've seen on flat ground.

And I believe the Ladies Golf Club was a big commission for Thompson during the mid 1920s. I should add that many of the holes on more interesting ground -- especially the par 3s -- are wonderful. But not much was made out of the "plains" at Toronto Ladies.

(Perhaps this isn't a valid comparison, but I hope I've made myself more clear nonetheless!)

[TEPaul]

Ran:

You asked what architect(s) never got the chance to show their stuff by working on diverse sites?

That's actually a fascinating question and I'm sure I don't have an answer, if there even is one.

That may be a little like the eternal military or political question; Does the General make the war or does the war make the General? Does the political leader make his time or does his time make him?

Every good architect I can think of was fortunate to have diverse sites at some point in his career, it seems to me.

As I mull over some of the interesting questions that are posed on this site (like this question of yours), it makes me realize how much I may have already learned from an architect like Bill Coore! If he was a little more voluble I guess I would have learned more but I'm very grateful for the things I have learned.

I don't know that this pertains to just diverse sites but early on Coore did say that an architect should find all the golf that a site has to offer in its natural state. Even with a great site or even a diverse one, though, he is always going to run into a number of problem areas--maybe four or five of them! This could be very much in a routing context but also in an individual hole creation context-like where to go next (routing) or what to do with the area of where you basically have to or decide to go next.

The real talent and payoff comes in what they make of and what becomes of those problem areas.

A bit of a failure may be some of the courses or holes of George Fazio. He seemed very capable of finding the good natural landforms on a property for really good holes and letting nature take most of the credit for the good hole design by not unnecessarily altering those landforms. He seems much less capable (to me anyway) of doing something  with the holes (problem areas) that needed enhancement from him.

But what good architect (unfortunately) never got any diverse site? I don't know who that might be.

An eqaully interesting ancillary question might be what architect got a ton of really good and diverse sites and for one reason or another made little out of them or less than he could or should have?

[T_MacWood]

I agree, there is no guarantee that a wonderful site will translate into a wonderful course. When considering the inverse, was Ross the best at getting the most out of a flat site?

Oyster Harbors is another very strong course on a flattish site. In Ohio, Miami Valley is one the flattest Ross sites I've seen and the result is not bad, but hardly outstanding. Springfield is much better, a very good course, however the flattish holes are clearly its achiles heel.

[Kyle Harris]

Bump, good question. I'll answer tomorrow when I'm not in class.