And now for something completely different...

[Forrest Richardson]

Brauer, Doak, Moran, Engh, Hanse and others have shown us some very interesting — different! — holes. (Below I have posted one of my own.)

I would like to see some examples here of truly different holes — modern golf architects creating something that is out of the box, unusual and daring.

[George Pazin]

Wow, that really is unique, imh(and vastly inexperienced)o.

I will admit to a strong bias toward any architect who contributes to the site, so maybe others will think I'm simply a suck up when I say I like it. But I do. If I didn't, I wouldn't say anything.

Is this the course you offered to take someone along for a day to witness construction?

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

That sure is truly different, out of the box, unusual and daring.

I just can't imagine what some of the ultra purists and naturalists on golf architecture on this particular website are going to say about that but if I were you I would put on my asbestos tuxedo and get ready for a real wild party with some fights breaking out at some point probably sometime after midnight.

I probably like architecture that is on the very natural looking side where it gets hard to tell what the architect did and didn't do but I also believe that the strength of architecture is in its differences, in other words, the wider the spectrum the better the whole art form just might be.

I also believe in what I call "The Big World Theory" that there should be something out there for everyone and I thiink you just made my theory even wider.

The only other thing I will say about that green is it obviously has some of the narrowest MARGINS for error on the front of that green I have ever seen on a golf course with those separate box-like straight lines and if I owned that course I'd highlight that ultra modern feature by rotating the pins from box to box about one foot on the green just over the straight lines and see what all these guys on here think about them apples in a "strategic" sense.  

Oh, by the way, if some golfer dumps the ball in the water, if I were you I'd tell 'em that thinking outside the box is for architects not golfers who pretty much need to think inside the box on Las Paloma's #11.  

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Reminds me of Cupp's geometric course at Palmetto Hall in Hilton Head.

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

If one hits the ball onto the front of the box that sticks out furthest and the pin is on the front of the next box to the left, how in the hell does one get the ball from there to there? Would you say you've created an ultra modern version of "greens within a green"?

Also, Forrest, I started a thread on here within the last month or two asking which of the architects out there was willing to take some real risks or the biggest risks. I can't remember what the consensus on that thread was but I'll tell you what---eg you just won hands down.  

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

Just out of curiosity would you mind telling us all what Tommy Naccarato has said about that particular hole? He's got a pretty good imagination and I'd like to see him figure out some way to electrify the hole or something around it. Can you imagine how cool that might look at night?  

[Gib_Papazian]

It looks to me like there are too many spots where a player is forced to chip from one of those enclosed corners to another - over the crotch of the angular edge.

Didja ever think about contouring the putting surface so players trapped in one of those cul de sacs can putt the ball to a different inlet? (Lack of a better term)
 
That is certainly "outside the box," although the green looks more "inside the box(es)" than anything else.

I find it odd that the general shaping and geometry of everything else in the photo looks more conventional - and then suddenly you have these pointy angles.

But I don't hate it. Its modernistic, daring and wierd in an entertaining way.

Did you intern under Desmond Muirhead?

As for the Emperor, I do not want to hear any of his bombastic rantings about this. He was close friends with Muirhead and that photo has a . . . well . . . . rather Stone Harbor-esque quality about it.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest,

Aerials, and off-golf angled photos are deceiving.

In order to make an accurate assessment, I think you have to view a golf course from the ground, from the golfer's eye.

Photos should represent what the golfer, not the hawk, sees.

But, that sure is different.

[wsmorrison]

What is the approach angle?  What elevation is the tee?  Somewhat flat I'd guess and not as in the photo.  It is very hard to tell what would be seen from the golfer's perspective.

I'd have to see that perspective, but from the one offered, it doesn't look appealing to my eye (I am heavily biased towards naturalism) and I am not sure how playable it is either.

[peter_p]

Forrest: "Has anyone seen the floor plans for the clubhouse?"
Associate: "Not me, but they're sure to turn up sometime, someplace".

Guessing that the front will be hand mowed and anyone on a roller can't daydream.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Forrest,

Any inspiration from your friend Desmond?

[TEPaul]

"As for the Emperor, I do not want to hear any of his bombastic rantings about this. He was close friends with Muirhead and that photo has a . . . well . . . . rather Stone Harbor-esque quality about it."

Gib:

I doubt TommyN has ever seen Stone Harbor. But do you know what those heretics at Stone Harbor have been doing to that course in the last fifteen years? They've been trying to soften it. Can you imagine that? The next thing we know the people at Las Palomas will be trying to grass the corners of Forrest's boxes on the front of #11. Really, what are these people thinking of when they mess around with original architecture?  

[TEPaul]

Hey Forrest, is that thing behind the 11th green a copy of the Suez Canal? If so, I think you nailed it---good on you.

[Jin Kim]

I like it.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Ok I'll bite.

I'm gong to bed in a minute and I'll only sleep happy if I convince myself its a photoshop job and you didn't actually spend anyone's money on it.  I mean the little concrete retaining walls which could trap your ball and the circular rough just inside them - couldn't you manage a better photoshop job than that?  (As for playability, Gib nailed that).

No I refuse to believe you built a hole you concieved age 10 & 3/4.  

Daring to be different to what purpose?

(PS is 10 14 an American equivalent to our 01 04?).

[Forrest Richardson]

Sorry for the dalay...had to go buy some steaks. Guests coming for dinner.

The angle of this shot is about 40-feet up — same as the tee. However, the angle to the hole is from the camera's left; nearly 90-degrees. So, the angle of the tee shot is coming from left of picture towards right.

The shot is 175-yards at most. If the back position is used, perhaps 185.

The ridge in the green makes it nearly possible to bank a putt from one area to the other. But, if you are close to the trough (running water spills out over the walls) at any point, you are destined for a three-putt if you need to get to one of the other areas. Only a poorly hit shot finds the wrong "step". It beats a tee ball in the water, but it clearly leads to a three-putt. I am not sure there is anything wrong with a poorly placed tee shot — even if on the green — ending up in bogey.....?

Desmond was a good friend. I suppose he had something to do with this...at least in spirit.

[Tony_Muldoon]

PS forgot to mention the bunker/waste area next to water on the other side, what gives with that?

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

Did you say that water actually spills over those walls? My God man you are in another dimension of difference.  

Also, Forrest, if you ask a caddie what it is to the front of the green will he answer "Which one?", or perhaps "141, 147, 154 or 161 take your pick Pal."

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Forrest,
Considering you stole the name from one of Desmond's original holes, "Temple" @ the Imperial Golf Club in Jakarta, I'm glad top see your finally admitting it! (Forrest once denied this to me when I asked him about when I saw it in plans.)

Actually, I don't think there is anything wrong with it either, especially when considering Forrest's friendship, more of a kinship, just like mine with Desmond. He was truly a unique character and Forrest will hopefully concur that knowing him only makes my life feel much more fuller. He was part comedian, bon vivant, and an intelectual genius. He would tell with great comedy how he squandered two fortunes, yet didn't hold back on one detail how much fun he had while doing it.

TEP, No I have never seen Stone Harbor and it's unfortunate that he destroyed the plans for them out of disgust of what they did to the course. I scolded him for it. (If you could call it a scolding. I was hoping it was more of a pep talk)

He also destroyed the plans for Soboba Springs because of effect that ugly waterfall had on the Game. He claimed it gave architects a reason to build fake waterfalls on golf courses and he detested the concrete that went into it. (The worst substance ever introduced to a golf course" he labled it.)

[TEPaul]

"TEP, No I have never seen Stone Harbor and it's unfortunate that he destroyed the plans for them out of disgust of what they did to the course."

What do you mean, what they did to the course? Do you mean trying to soften it in the ensuing years after he built it?

If that's what you mean I think that was probably wrong of them to do. If you ask an architect to build a golf course as completely radical as Stone Harbor originally was or you are even remotely aware that's what he is planning on doing, my feeling is you should stick with it as it originally was designed.

Stone Harbor was probably the most radical golf course ever done to that time and in some modernistic style. He used a few real straight hard lines and some real right angles but certainly not everywhere. But the course was basically just completely outrageous and for that alone I thought it should stand and be left alone as the greatest example of the outside edge of the spectrum golf architecture could ever offer.

[John_Conley]

Forrest, I've said it many times here - the Muirhead course I've played near Ocala is pretty good.  As for this?  Well, you've created something memorable.  Can I add a barber pole or buoys so people can see the innermost edge of the water?

If I'm ever there, wherever there is, I'd like to play it.

[Chris Perry]

I think you could go through some of the Desmond catalog for examples of eclectic design, but here's mine from the northwest, non DM of course:

Apple Tree, Yakima, WA:



Forrest:

Am I correct in assuming from the map on the website that the green can be played from the 10th fairway over the water, as well as the 11th from the tees in the background (with the green open in the front and water as the lateral on the right side)?

If so, how does that work for play, and are there two pins designated on the green for this?

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest and Desmond were close friends.  Does anyone have a photo of #18 at Stone Harbor?  If I recall correctly, that green looks similar to Forrest's #11 hole.  The bunkers are all boxed out and staggered by the green.  

[TEPaul]

The front of that hole looks more like both sides of Muirhead's hole at Stone Harbor that was called "Jaws" (#7). Stone Harbor was a super radical design but it was really the 7th (Jaws) that put that golf course on the outter edge of radical.

Those geometric sides of that hole that basically were designed to look like a shark's teeth did not last long, and the bunkers that were separated from those Jaws by water on both sides were eventually brought in and attached to the sides of that green.

Again, in the name of honesty, it seems like Desmond Muirhead pushed the envelope about twnety years ago in almost the exact same way that Forrest just did and it was not well received back then. Why should we expect it to be well received now?

That is the question and it's a good question to discuss on here, because we should be into discussing the finer points and nuances of the entire evolution of golf course architecture on here.

If a guy like Tommy Naccarato is going to criticize Forrest Richardson for what he's done at Las Palomas, which frankly I don't know that he has done, I just can't see how he could call Muirhead a genius for what he did at Stone Harbor. The look and style and type just seems remarkably similar and if someone doesn't think it is I wish they'd please tell me why.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

This hole needs no introduction: