So when you look at a course, how can you tell where the earth was moved?

[Jay Flemma]

I remember someone saying how tough it is for those that aren't GCAs to tell WHERE the land was moved from and to where it was moved?

What are some tell tale signs where you can say "Aha!  They moved earth here"?

[Tom_Doak]

Jay:

If it's really well done, you can't tell.

If it's not really well done, you can find the evidence at the edges of disturbance ... slopes which make abrupt changes of grade.

[cary lichtenstein]

I look at the base of trees, that for me usually works.

If the land is rolly polly, and the fairway is flat, that is a giveaway in reverse.

I look for hard edges and at counter angles

[paul cowley]

....if your cuts and fills don't balance and the resulting 'tie ins' are exaggerated.

[Adam Clayman]

Larry Kelto was nice enough to share this exercise of before and after photos, featuring Dick Durrance's images of the 8th at Ballyneal.

Have at it!

[paul cowley]

Unbelievable....I had no idea so much earth was moved to create the hole! amazing, simply amazing.......

[TEPaul]

cary lickentstein has a good point if the site is treed. look at the base of trees that are clearly older than the course.

My technique is to look as far out as necessary for what is undeniably natural grade (the grades before the course was built) and then start to work your way inward towards the architecture. If it's hard to tell where natural grades stop and architecture begins the architect has done a good job "tying in" or "tying out" what he made with what is natural grade. If there are juxtapositions where it's very easy to tell where natural grade ends and man-made earth formations begin, then you can easily pick up what an architect did and where.

[TEPaul]

Adam Clayman:

Thank you for those before and after photos.

We are trying to start a golf architecture archive at the USGA and my suggestion recently was that before and after photos of sites and courses would be a true lesson in architecture.

Most of the architects on the committee laughed at that suggestion and said they all have a million before and after photos.

My only response was---OK, then let us have them as there's not much of a better education in golf course architecture than that.  

Essentially really good before and after photos are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Other than those great "before" pictures of Cypress Point -- which you would have to admit, is an unusually dramatic site -- have you ever seen before and after pictures of a course where you could really tell very much?

I haven't.  If there is much vegetation to be cleared, it hides all the features; and if there isn't much vegetation, then you have to have an exceptional piece of property to have contours which stand out visually in the open ground.  What could you really tell from Adam's before and after pictures above, other than it wasn't so obvious where the hole should go when the vegetation was all uniform?  [At least, I think Paul's compliment about it was facetious.]

There ARE some great pictures from overseas of architects literally blowing down mountains to build a golf course, though.

[Tim Copeland]

If earth was moved leaving hardpan and it was not ripped or topsoil added back to it then you can see the tell tale signs of grass not establishing, weeds, washes and all kinds of other fun stuff

[Jay Flemma]

I remember on the drive through CO and western NEB remarkign with Adam how many great holes there were waiting to be born out there.  I also see a little bit of how you "melt it down" to buiild the hole.

What about 9 at Ballyneal?  The one Adam calls the great meltdown...are there before and afters of that?

[Tom_Doak]

Jay:  I don't have a picture of the ninth at Ballyneal "before".  Jim Urbina might.  However, without the bunkers behind the green as a frame of reference, it would be very hard to tell how much the ridge on the left just short of the landing area actually obscured the view of the rest of the hole.  That's the tough part about "before" pictures, there is not enough frame of reference to get a good sense of scale.

[cary lichtenstein]

Tom:

There is a giant exposed dune on one of your holes on the back nine of Pacific Dunes, the one where you have to walk a little backwards and then up the hill to the next tee.

One of the caddies said he heard you dynamited that dune to get that exposed look. True or Myth?

Cary

[Tom_Doak]

Cary:

Myth.  I do have a before picture of that one, taken the very first time Jim Urbina and I got out to that part of the property.  (It was "over the fence" and not on the original topo map we'd been given.)  The hole looked very much like it does today ... although we had to cut down the crest of the landing area and the green site before we capped them with sand, so the elevations would be the same now as they were before we started.  We did fill in the right side of the landing area a bit.

All of which you will see for yourself someday, if I ever get my book on the course finished.

[Jay Flemma]

My technique is to look as far out as necessary for what is undeniably natural grade (the grades before the course was built) and then start to work your way inward towards the architecture. If it's hard to tell where natural grades stop and architecture begins the architect has done a good job "tying in" or "tying out" what he made with what is natural grade. If there are juxtapositions where it's very easy to tell where natural grade ends and man-made earth formations begin, then you can easily pick up what an architect did and where.

See that's what I try to do...look around at the surrounds and see how they flow with each other, than look at the course and see if it follows the same natural flow...

[George Pazin]

Tom:

Other than those great "before" pictures of Cypress Point -- which you would have to admit, is an unusually dramatic site -- have you ever seen before and after pictures of a course where you could really tell very much?

I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating. Seeing before photos only increases my respect for all architects. When people finish playing a course and immediately start thinking, I'd move this bunker here, or move that bunker over there, or add a bunker right here, I immediately think that poster has overlooked the big picture, which is most of the course, imho. You have to get the course close to that point before you can start recommending minor changes, so it tends to strike me as nitpicking.

If the land is rolly polly, and the fairway is flat, that is a giveaway in reverse.

And that's my biggest criticism of modern courses - too many are too smoothed out in the fairway.

Not that that's a wide generalization or anything.

 

[TEPaul]

"Tom:

Other than those great "before" pictures of Cypress Point -- which you would have to admit, is an unusually dramatic site -- have you ever seen before and after pictures of a course where you could really tell very much?"

TomD:

I think you can tell enough, particularly if the before photos are taken from the same place as the after photos which I would prefer to be where the tee goes looking right down the hole what will be the hole.

The before photo of Cypress's #9 is one of the best I've ever seen because you really can tell in some pretty good detail that Mackenzie did almost nothing on it. It's a really unique landform for an entire hole and thank God he recognized it, since one would probably never call Cypress's 9th a "normal" golf hole.

[G_Tiska]

When you stand on a tee box and your eye level with the canopy of the native trees

Example: #14 and #16 tee boxes @ The Bridge  
             

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  If you take the before and after pictures from the tee box, you are very liable not to be able to pick anything out, because that's the one angle from which any architect will be conscious of trying to conceal their work.

You generally notice the changes to the earthwork when you are looking from an oblique angle, or from the green back toward the tee, because most architects don't pay attention from there.

Can you think of any pictures other than Cypress Point where you could tell what had happened?  I should get someone to download my before picture of 13 at Pacific Dunes so you could see how little was done there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Wasn't # 13 capped ?

It's one of my favorite par 4's in golf.

Was the buffer area behind the green a concession to safety ?

One reverse walk around NGLA starting from behind the 18th green to the first tee will enlighten even the most dense students of GCA, (read TEPaul)  

[paul cowley]

TomD...I wasn't being facetious [thank God for spell check]...but just joking around after a tuff day.

...and as I have said before, I think its a great course that's just going to keep getting better.

[Jay Flemma]

Does anyone have a picture of the cypress hole or the 9th at Ballyneal?  Love to see the changes...