GCA? How Hard Is It?

[Glenn Spencer]

Bruce:

Your comments are quite valid and certainly applicable, but let's assume for the moment that those parameters are in place, but more so on the surface...a what if comes to my mind, and I think there are a lot of individuals who are good/great golfers and just as many who are not golfers at all that could do a very good job, but they are doing something else and have likely not ever given it much thought....UNTIL NOW, so thanks Glenn for stepping up the competiton, I was worried that I was about to be overloaded with so much new work!

Does playing ability factor in for the amateur? Is Archie Struthers a good player like Ken Bakst?

[Gary Daughters]

Go ahead and subtract drainage and the myriad engineering aspects, and the artistic side of golf course architecture is still a maddening puzzle.  Some of you guys may be giving yourselves too much credit.  

Just start with designing a playing field that must accomodate players of such wildly varying skills that many aren't even playing the same game.  That's the basic math of the thing, and the guys who are good are doing calculus and beyond.

A good drummer can have four different things going on all at once, any of which may or may not be simple, and make the whole conglomeration make sense.  Same sort of thing our pals are out there doing.

Were the artistic aspects of gca easy I don't think we'd be wasting our time here, 'cause after all, who really cares about drainage?

[Karl Bernetich]

I'd support JSlonis' post.
What was Fownes design experience ?

[Kai Hulkkonen]

Would anybody be willing to give a shot at it? We could organise the 1st golfclubatlas.com Amateur Design Contest or alternatively "design" something for the pro's on the site to have a look at.

I think I could provide most of the materials for such a task, including the necessary maps, basic soil data, some photos, some weather data, etc.

Guy's in the business wouldn't be allowed to participate but someone would have to give feedback on the outcome, otherwise no point, of course.

Would something like this be doable?

[Tyler Kearns]

We also need to throw into the mix;

1. Dealing with the demands of the client,
2. Producing and adhering to a budget,
3. Attending meetings with planning and regulatory agencies,
4. Orchestrating the numerous pieces of machinery on-site,
5. Scheduling of work so that contractors are not stepping on each others' toes.

TK

[Mike Nuzzo]

In 2000 I moved to Houston.
For the next five years I helped every architect, developer, superintendent and contractor that would let me - anywhere for any price.
During that time I did cultivate some existing clubs as clients.
I got my first new course design project over 1 year ago.
Just last night I redesigned 1 hole on paper (it hadn't been built yet) to fit better into the course - it was a nice hole individually, but the new one will fit better with the course.  We will begin building it next week - and I will be making modifications in the field.
I am about 2,000 hours into the project.
I am not doing it alone.
Hope that helps.
Cheers

Disclaimer:  I am far from average, and was far from average when I worked with a bunch of rocket scientists and engineers.

[paul cowley]

I would bet there are at least 50 or more people who participate here that could, with the proper support, design a good product.

Although Mike might be an exception, rocket science is not necessarily a requirement to design a golf course.

 What is required though, and something Mike exemplifies as well, is a desire and willingness to work hard, with little guarantee of success, to achieve the goal of building your first course.

I can remember telling myself that if I was only be able to get to build one, that I would be satisfied forever.

I was wrong.

Now I've set my sights on helping Tom Paul achieve a similar goal.

.....maybe Barney could be next......

[Adam Clayman]

I smell a goat. Barney re-builds his Bendelow!

[Tom_Doak]

It is quite a bit harder than it looks.

I think the key for anyone new in the business would be how much help they were willing to accept.  If they insist on doing it themselves, and they have little construction experience, 99 times out of 100 it would be a mess.

One of my associates has been talking some about doing a project on his own.  I keep reminding him that if I insisted on doing it that way, he wouldn't have a job, and wouldn't know anything about it now.  My associates are a huge part of my success, because I know when to let them run with things (and when not to!).

[Michael Dugger]

Would anybody be willing to give a shot at it? We could organise the 1st golfclubatlas.com Amateur Design Contest or alternatively "design" something for the pro's on the site to have a look at.

I think I could provide most of the materials for such a task, including the necessary maps, basic soil data, some photos, some weather data, etc.

Guy's in the business wouldn't be allowed to participate but someone would have to give feedback on the outcome, otherwise no point, of course.

Would something like this be doable?

We've had a few.  It was fun, but nothing like the real thing.  Unless someone creates "simgolf course design" we will never know what it is like to consider

budgets
weather
clients wishes
realities such as the materials you want to use are unavailable
what is the property like

just for starters

Scrawling out 18 strategic holes on a piece of paper just doesn't cut it.

[paul cowley]

I agree with Tom in that it is definitely harder than it looks.....and for the most part one has to have the ability and motivation to chart ones goals, and then seek out others or teach yourself about what you feel you need to know to get there.

Out of 50 successful designers you will find 50 very different paths that led to their success.......and the evolution is not rapid, most designers put in many years before getting a break in which they might be able to do something on their own. Since he is well known here, the 'Tom Doak' story is pretty typical of this long line of experiences that can finally lead to success. Now if Tom was related to a GCA or was a successful golf professional, he might have been able to shave a year or year and a half off his journey.  

I still feel that there are talented people here that could design something decent if they committed themselves.

[Kai Hulkkonen]

Michael,

How did those amateur designs turn out? Or did the professionals also participate?

Do you think that such an exercise could be taken to next level by having all the data an architect can normally obtain from the client, such as topography, soil specs for the site, budget, cost of local supplies, complete weather date, imaginary client wishes, etc? Some architects even work this way in the real world, right?

[Ian Andrew]

From the Friar's Head profile, ask yourself if you have the patience to find that routing:

In the early spring of 1997, just such an opportunity presented itself when Ken Bakst invited Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw to tour a 350 acre block of land outside of Riverhead on Long Island.
 
For the rest of 1997, and with no signed contract, Coore made several site visits to study the complex dunes portion of the property. The 15th hole was an easy find with a tee high on a dune and its fairway tumbling through a natural valley toward Long Island Sound. Coore could also see the short one shot 17th hole and eventually came to see the 18th hole as well. However, Coore & Crenshaw resist signing any contract until they find a routing that is pleasing to all parties and in this regard, finding a satisfactory way to get from the 15th green to the 17th tee remained a missing piece to the puzzle.

Coore kept walking through the sand dunes until late that fall. On the one hand, the scale and size of the dunes was so severe as to make one wonder if there was a good golf hole in there. On the other hand, the dunes were too beautiful to want to 'fix' them for golf. As winter set in, Coore didn't have an answer and he returned home.

In March 1998, Coore returned to the site and his break came when he stumbled upon the shoulder of a sand dune that was completely masked under years of organic matter and debris. He thought it would make for a handsome feature within a hole and working off it, he soon found an ideal spot for the 16th tee going 230 yards back from this dune shoulder as well as for the green complex some 150 yards ahead of it.

With the 16th found and an appealing routing now in place, Coore & Crenshaw signed the contract in August, 1998, more than sixteen months after they first walked the property.

Could you do this? This is only the very first step.

[Ian Andrew]

I wrote this about Pacific Dunes for an article in Travel +Leisure Golf:

Could you step outside the box?

There are many things to admire beyond the beauty of Pacific Dunes. For me, I find it most admirable that Tom Doak resisted much of what is considered standard practice in modern design. He built a course well under 7,000 yards and used an unconventional placement of one shot holes throughout the round, all in order to get the best routing from the existing land. But Doak didn’t stop there—he also used extra wide fairways to keep the course playable in high winds. He bunkered the interior of some holes to challenge good players and kept the width by taking the fairway around the outside. He built two greens on the ninth hole and two tees on the 10th hole rather than compromise either excellent option. Finally, he didn’t worry when the card had only two par fours on the back nine—he stood firm, knowing that he had found the best eighteen holes regardless of what conventional wisdom might dictate. I think the results speak for themselves.

Losing money to Doyle Brunson or being continuously stopped by Martin Broduer is a lot different than having the skill to play against them. Those are skills that are honed with time. Anyone can call themselves an architect, and practice tomorrow, but it is takes a lot of knowledge to be good. And that goes well beyond understanding great holes from good.

One small note, did you notice that almost all the great single course architects did the job for no pay. Would you?

[Forrest Richardson]

This thread reminds me of something Desmond Muirhead said once:

"Most people have a difficult time imagining more than one hole at a time."

That really is the essence of golf course deign — you must continually be thinking about the whole of the parts — the entire course (routing.)

While it is often easy to focus on one hole, its strategy and features, it is an entirely different mater to consider hundreds of aspects of the course as a whole...where does water drain across fairway after fairway? ...how does material and construction progress across a site? ...how does topsoil get balanced across a site? ...how does the round unfold? ...etc.

And this is just the beginning. It is an exponential matter. You can easily say it requires considering each hole, feature, green, length, safety set-back and both the two-dimensional and three-dimensional cross-sections against each other...it may well require squaring about a hundred or more when you do the math.

Of course, we never "do the math"...we just acquire an ability — part natural as designers — that allows us to continually weigh and balance and test solutions and approaches. Plus...and this is the culmination...all this while (hopefully) being creative and risk-taking.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forrest,


As someone once said, I can see things before they are there.....which either makes me a candidate to be a designer, or for the nut house.

Very few people have that ability.  For that matter, most golfers - including Tour Pros who consult, and posters on golf club atlas - can't imagine golf holes from nothing, but they can sure imagine a gca should have done something different....... The ability to critique something after its there is a marginal talent compared to the talent required to put something on a piece of ground.

[JSlonis]

Jamie - don't you think guys like Crump and Archie are the exception, though?  That is, sure it CAN be done by an amateur... but one wouldn't lose money betting on the course sucking mightily by damn near all others.

No?

Tom,

Of course they are the exception.  But that wasn't the basis of the first question of this thread.  The question was, "how hard is it, and is it possible?"  There may be only a small amount of guys that could pull it off, but come to think of it, honestly, there really isn't that big of a group of professionals either.

There is no question that it is extremely difficult, but it has been proven that it can be done.  I would fully expect the professionals of this site to tell us all just how difficult the process is.  After all, it is their livelyhood, and they have spent countless hours perfecting their craft, but it is not out of the realm of possibility for an avid amateur golfer/ wannabe architect to design something very special.

In this day and age with all the regulations and the huge $$ involved, the prospect of an "amateur" architect having the opportunity like a few of them had in the early 1900's is almost impossible.

[Forrest Richardson]

We are working with an owner now who has great ideas, but no idea on scale or space. He thinks there is room or space, but it seems impossible for him to visualize the spacial volume from a geometric point — as for the third-dimension (topo)...forget it! To me, that often is the dibilating factor — not being able to "see" the land and changes to it, in tandem with the many factors listed, including the geometry.

[Forrest Richardson]

JSlonis — It would be "easy" on an ideal site, or one with so many options and natural sites for features that dropping stakes from a helicopter while watching the latest Britney Spears photos on a less-than-ideal internet connection while drinking Scotch would yield a decent golf course, provided, of course, you were handed a capable and excellent crew of shapers who could work on their own and make you look good. Oh, and you had a small black saddle bag with several hunderd thousand dollars (U.S.) inside to use as contingency should you need to re-build a green or two.

[JSlonis]

JSlonis — It would be "easy" on an ideal site, or one with so many options and natural sites for features that dropping stakes from a helicopter while watching the latest Britney Spears photos on a less-than-ideal internet connection while drinking Scotch would yield a decent golf course, provided, of course, you were handed a capable and excellent crew of shapers who could work on their own and make you look good. Oh, and you had a small black saddle bag with several hunderd thousand dollars (U.S.) inside to use as contingency should you need to re-build a green or two.

Where did I say anything about design being easy?  I don't think I did at all.  In fact I said it is extremely difficult.  I wouldn't let 99.9% of all the amateur golfers I know anywhere near a potential site.  But I believe there are a few guys that could do a very good job regardless.

I've seen plenty of very good sites screwed up pretty well by so called professionals.  Easy sites aren't easy either.

[Forrest Richardson]

JSlonis — I was answering your plea...that original question you mentioned..."how hard is it, and is it possible?"

Allowing  .1 % of golfers to try it would be a huge number...are you certain you would consider allowing that many to try it?

As a whole, very few golf course sites get "screwed up" as you put it. Of course, this is a matter of subjective opinion in the majority of cases. What you consider "screwed up" may not meet the definition of an owner or developer who feels that what they have created is truly good or worthy.

I think the litmus test for whether a significant number of sites "get screwed up" would be a massive assualt against the golf design business — one in which golf course design professionals are no longer favored and, instead, another group begins designing golf courses. Landscape architects, land planners, plumbers, wealthy men with a first name of Donald, or train conductors.

The reality is that golf courses are primarily designed by professionals. And, I submit, it is the exact opposite that occurs: The occasional course created by a novice is the one that is most apt to contribute to the small catagory of courses that are considered "screwed up". It is this minority of courses at which we see the most problems, the most errors in construction and the highest percentage (based on incidents per course) of litigation involving everything from errant balls to cart accidents to construction faults.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I side with those who think that it wouldn't be easy even on a good site for an Am to design a course.  As noted, the experience and mistakes the pros have made to get where they are would probably be made in too big a number.

Some guys couldn't come close to imagining a golf course, no matter how enthused they were, and others would make far too many mistakes, the first of which would be ignoring professional help.


As much as I love hockey, as much as I understand it, as much as I watch it, I couldn't strap on the skates and play against the worst junior team.  Loving something to the degree you want to do it is just not the same as talent for doing it.  In sports its pysical skills, but there are mental skills involved as well in gca, and the principle is the same.

Its not impossible, but those who pull it off are the rare exception.

[Forrest Richardson]

Gosh, Jeff, strapping on skates and heading out to the rink..................................wait, I did that and broke the end of my right arm into 34 pieces. Never mind.

[JSlonis]

JSlonis — I was answering your plea...that original question you mentioned..."how hard is it, and is it possible?"

Allowing  .1 % of golfers to try it would be a huge number...are you certain you would consider allowing that many to try it?

As a whole, very few golf course sites get "screwed up" as you put it. Of course, this is a matter of subjective opinion in the majority of cases. What you consider "screwed up" may not meet the definition of an owner or developer who feels that what they have created is truly good or worthy.

I think the litmus test for whether a significant number of sites "get screwed up" would be a massive assualt against the golf design business — one in which golf course design professionals are no longer favored and, instead, another group begins designing golf courses. Landscape architects, land planners, plumbers, wealthy men with a first name of Donald, or train conductors.

The reality is that golf courses are primarily designed by professionals. And, I submit, it is the exact opposite that occurs: The occasional course created by a novice is the one that is most apt to contribute to the small catagory of courses that are considered "screwed up". It is this minority of courses at which we see the most problems, the most errors in construction and the highest percentage (based on incidents per course) of litigation involving everything from errant balls to cart accidents to construction faults.

Forrest,

I didn't mention .1% of all golfers, I said .1% of amateur golfers that I know.  Over the years, I've been lucky enough to meet a lot of very good amateur golfers, the majority of whom don't really have a big interest in golf course architecture.  There are a few guys that do have a passing interest, and fewer more that I would think capable of producing a good golf course.

Perhaps "screwed up" is too harsh an assessment, I should have said "not nearly up to the potential of the site".   But I really don't agree with you that it is easy, even on a "can't miss site", like you mentioned.  I don't think the work of designing a good golf course is easy for a professional given a good site, I'm certainly not saying it would be easy for an amateur.

Unless I misread all my posts on this thread, I think it was quite clear that I expressed that although it would be an extremely difficult task, it can be done.  It doesn't matter if it's the exception and not the rule.  To me, it's obvious that the accomplishment would be the exception.

Jeff,

Your analogy to hockey doesn't quite equate.  Reaching the highest levels of Professional sports is both physical and mental, but predominantly physical.  I don't care if a guy loves a sport more than anything, and has the mental makeup to play professionally, if the physical tools are not there, the rest of it doesn't matter.

Becoming a professional architect and possessing the ability to create a golf course is not the same thing.  If one has the love of architecture and the intellectual capacity to study and learn just like most of you have, what is the difference?  You had to begin somewhere.  Quite a few of the early golf course designers were professional players, or very good amateur players FIRST, after exposure to different courses and a good deal of study, they made themselves into very good GCA's.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forrest,

I actually played a little street hockey as a kid. Dad would never spring for pads, and I took a stick to the shin, which would up being a career ending injury......