[TEPaul]

In an attempt at more balanced architectural analysis generally it seems to me any of us should take a really objective look at anything architectural by any architect no matter how otherwise glorified that architect may have become!

So I'd like to see a discussion of what the mistakes were or may be of even the best of them--(and what was done about them).

What could objectively and fairly be classified as a mistake? I'd say something that probably through years of play, perhaps a decade or more, clearly was not working well and certainly for that level of golfer it was intended and certainly if not working well for all levels!

Some of us who might be considered "purists" can attempt to defend almost anything an architect who has become glorified did but I don't think we should do that!

At my course there were at least 3-4 situations on as many holes by Ross that just weren't working at all well and that became completely evident over a period of play of about 10-15 years from all levels of players. And so eventually they were changed but the club unfortunately may have continued that modus operandi of change too long, and for the wrong reasons, which of course was not good.

Even Perry Maxwell, in an otherwise very ingenious redesign on a particular hole clearly made a mistake that basically contributed to that hole not working well or as he must have intended. I, for one, have as much respect for Maxwell, particularly his greens and green-ends, as any architect but you have to call a spade a spade certainly if things are basically proved over decades to not be working as they should.

So what are some of the mistakes any of us are aware of from the architects many of us consider great? And what was done about it? Whatever was done to fix it, was it done right? Or was it made worse?

[allysmith]

Tom,

Excellent thread and most interesting view on what makes a 'mistake' a mistake and not just a quirky hole.

I think the Classic is at Cruden Bay Scotland.

Tom Simpson and Herbert Fowler laid out the course and created the worst par three in existance. The 15th is a blind Dog Leg par three!!

Many of the so called classics contain weak holes but these are often due to topography, lack of space, neccessary routeing, or budget limitations.

I would cite, for example, the 10th at Royal Aberdeen, The 17th at Royal Dornoch or the 16th at Nairn. These are in no way mistakes but pale into insignificance with the rest of the respective holes on these Classic links.

[Tom Doak]

Ally,

I don't know if I would classify the hole at Cruden Bay as a mistake.  It's still there, presumably because no one has been able to figure out how to make better holes out of that stretch of land.  As you say, it's tough to separate the "mistakes" from lack of space or budget.

To me, mistakes would be things like:

failure to make better use of a stretch of land in the routing, something which few courses are immune to but very hard to decipher years later;

a green which is just too severe, although the threshhold is a matter of opinion and green speeds keep changing;

rubber-stamping the same holes on different pieces of land (often at the expense of moving a large amount of earth) and charging a complete design fee each time; and

physical problems like bad grassing schemes or drainage or bunker washouts, which not many on here care about, but owners and superintendents certainly do!

Here's a mistake I made:  building two holes so that people might short-cut through one fairway to get to the other hole.  A terrible error, but I'm in good company:  Tom Fazio did the same thing in redesigning Inverness.

[Paul Turner]

Harry Colt for planting too many trees at Sunningdale!  I wish he had kept it more open.

[George Pazin]

Tom D -

Could you throw out an example for the first mistake you cite (failure to make better use of a stretch of land in the routing, something which few courses are immune to but very hard to decipher years later)? I've always thought this must be the most difficult thing to discern, especially if applied to today's courses where so much dirt is moved.

Paul Turner -

Are the other heathland courses suffering from overtreeing like most of the US parkland courses?

[BCrosby]

I've always thought that Ross made a routing mistake at the Athens CC.

(For those that know the course, no. 5 is an awkwardly located par 3. The tee is exposed to drives from no. 14. The green is very close to no. 6 tee, which limits other options.)

My guess is that if Ross had visited during construction, he might have rerouted that area of the course. Minor changes to the course in the last 80 years have only exacerbated the problem.

There is a relatively easy fix, but it would require wholesale changes to three holes.

The interesting question is do you live with the Ross routing or do you risk someone comletely redesigning three holes on an otherwise very good Ross course?

Me, I vote for living with the Ross routing. But its a question about which reasonable men can disagree.

It is clear, however, that Ross and others in the gca pantheon were not infallible.

Bob

[Mike_Young]

Bob,
As you and I have discussed; there are several mistakes at Athens CC but can we blame Ross.  
In many cases the old guys routed a course on paper, sent it to the club.  The Club staked it and maybe had the arch back to review.
I know that I have always adjusted my original routings to some extent and in many cases did not go back to change it on paper.
At ACC the 18th hole has a severe 90 degree dogleg that I feel would have been changed if Ross had been back to review the routing but since he did not come back we have an unfair golf hole.  Yet membership says Ross wanted this.  No way.

[Bob_Huntley]

MacKenzie and Cypress Point's 18th hole.

Half the members can't hit over the trees and have to resort to a shot to the right. They are then blocked out, having no shot to the green because of more trees. All in all a disappointing conclusion to one of the great courses in the world.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

All architects, "great" and otherwise make "MISTAKES."  MacK's 18th at CP cited by Bob is only one of the most egregious.

However..........

...........as we discussed long ago on this site, it is the imperfections of any art that gives that "art" character.  Even golf courses.

I find the 18th at CP very intriguing, because it is so flawed.  It makes me think, even now, even though I have only played it twice, with radically different strategies and different results.  It may well be a 350 yard par 5 to anybody who can't fly a 220 yard shot over a 100 foot tree, and then hit a high 9-iron ove another tall tree.  So what?  Who said golf was supposed to be fair?

Or perfect.............?

[THuckaby2]

We need Geoff Shackelford to check in.

The Good Doctor wanted 14 to be tougher, Dave, and 15 would have likely been longer and totally different... Unfortunately Mr. Morse wanted the road to go where it is, and MacK wasn't given the coastline.  So hard to call this a "mistake."

And as for 18, I remain confused about the "problem" or what a "mistake" it is... Sure, it's not the greatest hole in the world, but what should replace it?  And remember that again, MacK wanted to put a island tee out in the ocean on the rocks... Cut back the trees and you have a really boring hole...

A certain Doyen and a former regular, now guest have also suggested that MacK should have routed the course backwards, with 1 heading down toward where 17 green is now, 2 being played right to left along where the current 17 is, 3 being 16 in reverse, 4 being 16 in reverse, 5/14, then the rest of the course the same... interesting, but does it really improve upon the great holes there now?  And given the placement of the road, it doesn't solve the issue of what to do with #18, where would you put the green and how would that improve upon the current #18?

Fire away at Cypress. I personally find it close to perfect as it is, given the realities of the site.  

TH

[Paul Turner]

George

On most heath courses, the trees don't ever really encroach on play, they just detract from the true heathland setting i.e. open to the elements.

[Bob_Huntley]

Tom:

With regard to our former doyen, regular contributor and now, infrequent guest, I think his ideas of reversing the flow at CP was thought up after ingesting vast quantities of his favorite single malt. It would add but nothing at all.

Can you imagine him suggesting any change, anything at all, about his favorite haunt up there in the far north?

[Doug Wright]

Was the original 16th at Augusta National a mistake by Dr. Mac or the best he could do under the circumstances? I've heard it was a weak par 3 that needed redoing, but I could be wrong...

All The Best,

[THuckaby2]

Tom:

With regard to our former doyen, regular contributor and now, infrequent guest, I think his ideas of reversing the flow at CP was thought up after ingesting vast quantities of his favorite single malt. It would add but nothing at all.

Can you imagine him suggesting any change, anything at all, about his favorite haunt up there in the far north?

Don't challenge him Bob - he'll suggest a change to that northern haunt just to prove he can!  He's already contemplated combining 7 and 8 to an app. 700 yard par 6 and adding another hole somwhere near the clubhouse....

But right on re the Cypress "reversal."  Interesting - yes.  Improvement - no.

TH

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Bob

I first posited my re-routing of CPC whilst standing on the 18th green and looking down the gorgeous sweep to the ocean with a Cajun, an Armenian, and a good ole' boy from Southern Illinois whose nom de plume is neither Barney nor JakaB.  At that point in time it had been at least 3 weeks since I had my last sip of Macallan.  As Tom IV will tell you, his research recently discovered that this brainwave was very possibly planted in my subconscious by an ealier post by THE Doyen himself.  Also, the Armenian agreed with me, and you don't mess with those folks.  They invented the word "vendetta"...........

You will also know that I have made many suggestions for "improving" Dornoch, the most recent of which was a reprise which I posted on JB's recent thread on "4,5,6 at RDGC."  I have also been consistent in saying that none of these changes are necessary, and that in fact I find Dornoch, as well as CPC, NGLA, Shinnecock, Olympic, Muirfield, Merion, etc., much more attractive because of their multiple imperfections.

You may re-read Browning's "Andrea del Sarto (the faultless painter)" for clarification............but, of course you probably have recently done so and are just trying to reel me in like a love-sick salmon fighting his way up those highland streams to spawn and die......

Rich(ard)

PS--any chance of getting together on your imminent trip over here?

R

[THuckaby2]

Correct.  The doyen I referred to earlier was indeed the Doyen of all Doyens, Mr. Paul.  It was indeed he who initially postulated the Cypress reversal and somehow Rich(ard) picked this up and threw it out there also.

Maybe they both had a few too many wee drams?

And yes, the Armenian agreed it was interesting.  He had no good answers for the problems I posted, however, and neither did Rich(ard)....

I do like the idea of these courses being attractive for their imperfections, in any case.  The perfect course would be kinda boring... what would we talk about besides our poor golf shots?

TH

[TEPaul]

So I'm THE Doyen, am I? And I was the one that suggested the reversal of the routing of CPC? Well, Holy Jumping Catfish, I'd better take myself out to the woodshed and slap myself silly for suggesting such an impure thing!

And I implanted that brainwave subconciously into your head, did I Young Rich? I don't believe it! It must have been while you were asleep at my house because awake you've never let a single thing I've ever said enter your brainwave or subconcious, that I'm aware of!

Be that as it may, I would like to say to you that I'm absolutely delighted that you said you like all those great courses almost BECAUSE of their imperfections! To me that takes tremendous clarity of thought and I commend you greatly for it!

Now that will be the very last nice thing I'm going to say to you for the remainder of the year!

TomH:

Best not to call me things like the Doyen of all Doyens! All that really indicates is that I have over 3000 posts on here which is only evidence that I really am a sick and troubled man. Calling me things like that has been making others accuse me lately of being egotistical, conceited and a windbag too, and even at my ancient addled state, I'd rather avoid accuasations like that!

Unless of course it happens to be Friday night and like the cowboys do, I feel generally it's time for a healthy barroom brawl!

[THuckaby2]

TEP - bravo!

OK, given we have lots of doyens now, whaddya say we just give you the only capital D.  

TH

[Ed_Baker]

C'mon Tommy, you're a lover, not a fighter, we can't tarnish that professorial image of THE Doyen   BTW, I'll call you tommorrow.

Mike Young;

Interesting post on Athens.

I'm sure I've posted this before, but Donald Ross was a dues paying member of Charles River for a few years and he actually "corrected" a "mistake" himself that very much parallels the Athens situation.

Originally when CRCC opened in 1921 the 18th hole was a right angle dogleg left par 4 of 380 yards, that required a forced carry over a pond off the tee of about 180 yards.

In 1924 Ross approached the BOG, esentially the founders that had hired him, to redesign the 18th hole. There is no documentation on his reasoning, but he did prevail and the hole was redesigned in to what we have today, one of the best finishing holes in New England.

It is mentioned and pictured in the course profile section, but it is a brute of 440 yards from the upper members tees and can play at 460 yards from the lower "gold" tee. It is a "slight" dogleg left featuring a tee shot over a ridge to a blind landing area, the fairway has two levels,higher on the right, any ball landing slightly left of center will go hard left or leave the player with a hanging lie above his feet, then the hole plays slightly downhill to one of the largest and most diabolical greens on the course. It is a great hole for us mere mortals but technology is rendering it tameable as a 280 to 300 yard tee shot to the right side leaves a 7 or 8 iron in for the bangers from a relatively level lie.

I found it interesting that Ross changed the hole to virtually straight away from a severe dogleg and he did it mostly by adding about 75 yards to the golfers walk from the 17th green to the 18th tee. The original hole had the 18th tee about 25 yards directly behind the 17th green which is now woods, although us addicts have found the original tee. Todays tees are located about 50 to 75 yards to the right of the 17th green with a nice little uphill walk through the woods to get to it. There is no forced carry, even if you dump it off the tee, you can hit it again, albeit a 6 is likely.

The redesigned hole is so radically different from the original that Ross must have considered the original a "mistake", he obviously didn't like it, because the club records show no additional funds disbursed for the rebuild.

[TEPaul]

Ed:

I was wondering if you forgot how to use a phone. No way, I'm a fighter now. I used to be a lover but in the early 1980s I somehow misplaced my libido and I haven't been able to find it since for some odd reason! So I'm a fighter now--you know--your gotta just go with what you got--and sometimes that ain't much!

[brad_miller]

Waterfall on the best course ever built in the desert

[Dan Kelly]

Would one of you fine gentlemen please do me (and likely others) a big favor?

Thank you in advance.

I have heard, innumerable times, here and elsewhere, that Cypress Point is the greatest 17-hole course in the world! If it weren't for that god-awful 18th!

But in all of those innumerable times, NO ONE has ever described the horrifying 18th in anything like the detail one would need to see it in one's mind if one has not seen it with one's eyes.

Someone! Please! Describe that 18th hole!

Why is it such a bad hole -- lovable, apparently, only for its flaws?

[TEPaul]

Dan Kelly:

"Horrifying....all its flaws."

Whatever problems #18 CPC has must be in the eye of some beholder because there really isn't anything at all wrong with it except it's apparently a letdown to some players following the 3-4 holes that come before it. Probably the real reason the hole is thought of that way is it's a bit short.

MacKenzie had a tee planned out on a rock with a very elaborately constructed bridge to it near #17 green that would have added up to 50 yds to the hole. Unfortunately Morse shot the idea down.

But not all think there's anything wrong with the hole and certainly one who ought to know, Robert Hunter, doesn't, as he described the hole this way;

"The last hole takes us along a very narrow route back to the clubhouse. This hole will requre better play than the others and while it is short, it is amazingly difficult and is, perhaps, in its contours and landscape, the most beautiful in the world."

Certainly many people who have passed through the last five holes of CPC have been overwhelmed visusally with holes 14-17 but it's worth considering for a moment what Hunter said (".....and is, perhaps, in its contours and landscape the most beautiful in the world.") and why he said it.

If you have GeoffShac's book on Cypress I think you can see why he said that. The flowing topography and the immensely beautiful flow of the "lines" of its contour really is stunning!

I didn't think of things like that when I last played Cypress quite a few years ago and I distinctly remember standing on the 18th tee thinking it really did look like a queer hole because it appeared that you almost needed to hit the tee shot right into the grove of trees on the right side.

Looking again at those beautiful photos in GeoffShac's book and certainly the one of the tee shot on #18 (and also #17) does make one wonder about MacKenzie's thinking on trees and bunkers though. On both hole he liberally combined bunkers amongst the trees or trees amongst the bunkers and this on opening of the golf course!

That question might be worth it's own thread!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Dan

Since I made the point that 18 is "intriguing, because it is so flawed," and THE Doyen didn't have enough bandwidth this morning after copying Hunter's anodyne schmatlz to answer your question, let me try. to describe it.

You tee off seemingly into a grove off very tall cypress trees.  You can sort of visualize a fairway off to the left, behind the tallest of the trees, and barely see the green poking its head through the right grove of trees, high up on a hill.  To have a clear shot at the green you have to hit a 220 yard shot that either hooks around or flies over the tall tree in the middle/left of hte fairway.  Right is dead.  You can go long left, but then have to hit a hugely high 8-9 iron over another tree that overhangs the fairway at about 80 yards from the green.  There probably is a "there" there in that fairway, but I think it would take many tries and a lot of experimentation with your clubbing to find it.

Assuming you have found that little patch of nirvana, the second shot is a straighforward uphill short iron to a standard back to front, "hit it below the hole, STUPID!" sort of green.

Hunter must have been the sort of person who seriously looked forward to his apres golf cocktails if he really loved this hole!  It has all the visual appeal of a trainwreck.  On a course that is full of space and light and vistas it is cramped and dark and unwelcoming.

However, it is still not a bad place to be........

[TEPaul]

You know, Young Rich, unfortunately I'm going to be forced to agree with you twice in 24 hours when you say there really must be a "there" there somewhere on the tee shot of #18 to land the ball but it certainly isn't very apparent! I did allude to that with my remark about my visual take on the hole with all the trees from the tee though!

(Unfortunately, since I'm agreeing with you twice in 24 hours it means I won't be saying anything nice about you in all of 2003 though, if I can possibly help it!).

It is very strange, though, that MacKenzie would not have removed a good deal of those lovely stunted Monterrey cypress trees out of his bunkering and lines of potential play on that hole. There does appear from aerials and on-ground photos to be so many of those cypresses that one wonders why he didn't just clear them back some more so you could have both vistas, improved shot angles sans trees within the shot angles, and then the cypresses well off to the sides as a form of backdrop!

Possibly this was MacKenzie's way of getting back at Morse for scotching his elaborate plans for the bridge and added rock tee with an additional 50 yards to the hole. And we all know that Robert Hunter was very good but he might have been some type of "fixer" between MacKenzie and Morse and the disagreements they had on certain things to do with Cypress and Pebble!

But nevertheless, whatever reason those trees were left to remain on that hole as it was in the beginning (and is now) does show a lot about my eye in comparison to your eye.

All you seem able to see is a bunch of trees and a dark and unwelcome place, while I, on the other hand, am able to see the trees, but beneath them, around and behind them I'm also able to detect the extraordinarily beautiful sweep of the contours of the topography and land and obviously you aren't!

Maybe next we should get together for a round at Myopia where you might feel more comfortable about the things you apparently can't see.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()