[Ian Andrew]

I’ve just spent the last couple of days at Jasper Park Lodge playing golf with the Director of Golf Allan Carter and the Golf Superintendent Perry Cooper. The chance to talk with both men about the merits of my favorite Thompson course was a real treat. The moment that stuck with me the most was the two completely different conversations that took place on the 8th hole. To set the stage I will explain the 8th hole. The tee shot is from an elevated tee aimed directly between a 30 high foot ridge on the right and another 30 foot hill on the left both featuring very steep banks where the fairway passes between. The aiming point is made clearer by the narrow band of fairway that flows between these spectacular slopes. The approach shot is then about 30 degrees to the right with the green set on the same angle as the fairway. The green is sloped sharply from back to front with a large treed hillside behind and a sharp drop off on the front left. It is one of the best holes on the course, and one of the best reverse cant holes I have seen – period.

picture of hole is at this address:http://bp0.blogger.com/_QDoPVOqOUFg/RnXvcX10RCI/AAAAAAAAA8I/yEmNdTgyJ_c/s1600-h/DSC02513.JPG

picture of the approach:http://bp3.blogger.com/_QDoPVOqOUFg/RnXv1H10RDI/AAAAAAAAA8Q/Ykz7sGwSQ5U/s1600-h/DSC02514.JPG

With Allan the first day, we talked about the natural aiming point between the hills, the fact that the land falls sharply left requiring pin point accuracy to try squeeze a ball between the hills, the need for a new back tee to return the correct landing zone, the extra fairway on the left short of the hill that still provides a great line in (just longer), the way the 8th green requires a draw approach from a natural draw lie, the fact that Thompson placed the green so naturally under the massive slope in a natural amphitheater, the deep hollow on the front left that gobbles the short aggressive approach leaving a tough recovery, the fact that he used no bunkers (nor were any needed) and finally the steepness of the green which is hard to see due to the greens proximity to the hill. In short, the hole is flawless.

The next day I played with Perry Cooper and Perry had a completely different view of the hole. The area that Thompson chose for the tee limited tee surface and had the morning sun blocked by the mountain and trees. The natural valley where the fairway is built is directly on top of rock making the turf always wilt in the heat. The carts have to run on the fairway due to the rolls and hills on both sides and are forced through a neck 20 feet wide between the two ridges leaving the turf always stressed out (it was a walking course). The green itself is below a large bowl where water and ice all congregate at the green causing this to be a tough site for winter damage. The trees and mountain beyond are both in a location that limits the early morning sun which makes the spring particularly tough. Add in this is the coldest spot on the course through elevation and location and you can have frost issues up at the 8th green while the rest of the course is easily playable. Perry has his hands full.

The fascinating part of this is the conflict between the two professions. I’m sure Perry would love to move the hole or at least the green site just to give him a fighting chance of dealing with the tough conditions he has to deal with and the expectations that he has to meet. Anyone knowing anything about turf grass in the mountains will know the idea of great turf at Jasper early is a Herculean task for even someone as experienced as Perry. People have the nerve to complain about a bit of winter kill, when the course (in my opinion) was in great shape and will be in magnificent shape in a very short time – the time when they used to traditionally open due to weather. I feel for Perry’s situation at Jasper and this hole in particular. I say this but I could never support any change to the architecture of this hole since it is one of the highlights of the course.

What are your thoughts on this issue - are architects generally guilty of not caring enough? Or are some situations justifiable?

[Joel_Stewart]

Interesting question and a good real life example.

My personal experience is that the architect doesn't care enough and (architects and supers) are to concerned in this day and age with conditioning and keeping their jobs.  

Furthermore, it sounds like in this example since its not cookie cutter and everything is in front of you it can't be good.

[TEPaul]

MY God, that initial post is what makes this website what it is.

GOLFCLUBATLASERs, read all of it because these are the realities of what go on out there on site in the real world. It's not some unrealistic dreamworld of armchair architectural criticism.

Ian Andrew, you're the architect, Pal, you figure it out! That's what they pay you the big bucks for.

My recommendation----order as many cubic yards of topsoil as need be to make the grass grow and that hole work as it is.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I like 8 quite a bit.
How much further back do you need to go?  What is the carry?
My playing partner a few years ago - Shooter - had some trouble and hit into the right hill.  If it was enough trouble for him, who else do you need to defend the hole from?  His better half handled the hole like a pro.

This sounds like what you did - I'd try to spend time with the super to explain why it is such a great and rare hole, and worth the extra effort to maintain - and also see how you can help him.  If someone learns the importance of a hole, especially to someone like you, they can often better handle the additional management.

What did you come up with for 17?

Can you get rid of the housing to the left of 18?  

I wish I was there with you.

[Ian Andrew]

Mike,

I don't work there, I was just up for a visit. Allan and Perry have done a nice job of restoring and maintaining Stanley's work.

[Scott Witter]

Ian:

I believe more so in 'modern' architecture this happens more often than we realize for the sake of the 'perfect' green site or the ideal aesthetic in view of some owner's position.

I think it also depends on the experience and understanding of the architect as well to consider the agronomic impacts of their actions instead of being blindly consumed by the 'design'.  I don't really think the architects are 'guilty' in the intentional sense, not exclusively anyway, but speaking overall across the profession, and mostly so here with many sites developed in mountainous and heavilly wooded sites, I think more architects should take closer inspection of the total surroundings when location such an impportant feature.

For me, I spent 10 years in green-keeping prior to becoming a designer, so this has helped in many ways to quickly evaluate the best green sites, but I will admit at times I have become quite frustrated with limited, or questionable locations for when I knew the best position would eventually lead to agronomic issues.  Normally, I opt for the best location and hope to educate clients and superintendents, if needed, to aggressively work at management around the green site after the fact.

There is also the value to include the superintendent during design/construction (some architects will need to be flexible with their usual control and open their minds )to provide insights that many architects don't observe or understand.  This may prevent the issue all together.

My take overall though is to side with the best green site available for design, but to make it known to the client and the super the limitations they may face and do the best with turf management.  These supers today are very talented and they have more options available to them to keep the green performong longer and with better conditions.  Not that I agree or like all of the options from an environmental standpoint, but I believe the green needs to be in the right location based on the architects evaluation after careful thought to all conditions IMO.

It is and has always been a fascinating dynamic that I think few people really notice and that must have been a treat for you to experience the two sides of the 'argument'.  Great post BTW

[Jeff_Brauer]

I feel their pain!

I generally live by the axiom of "you can't fool mother nature" when it comes to sunlight and air movement in particular.  I come to that conclusion having built on the perfect green site enough times, and having been around long enough to witness some less than perfect results anyway, owing to agronomic conditions.

In general, fans, sub air systems and the like are like life support systems, and only improve conditions at most 5% in bad situations.  And that often isn't enough to make a long term difference.  Clearing trees for sun and air movement, placing greens anywhere but deep valleys, etc. does a much better job of providing growing conditions.

I am not sure if gca's don't consider maintenance aspects more or less than they used to.  I suspect most are like me in that as time goes on, they pay more attention to it, based on unpleasant experience.  In fact, I would almost say that if they don't, it shows a lack of experience, to the degree that I would say that they aren't golf course architects - they are just playing in the dirt!  

That said, I know that there are always situations that seem to require it, especially when routing housing courses which tend to follow the valleys.  

BTW, I have a situation now where I left a fw ungraded, so didnt' plan to add topsoil and now that grassing has begun, its painfully obvious that the fw is short of topsoil and some should be added.  However, its near the project end and the owners rep doesn't want to spring for a few thousand $ for it, despite me telling him he will regret it.  So, even with experience, certain bad agronomic conditions creep into the project for reasons beyond the gca control.

And, I have never heard a superintendent say he has enough topsoil.  Consulting at a project recently, where I know the topsoil was put down as fully as possible, the super says he doesn't have enough, and may be right.  I think its time to go from the "standard" 6" topsoil depth to 8-9" when stripping and replacing.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents - what a neat topic and fine thread.

I can't put into words exactly why I think this, but I'm guessing that this issue will come up more and more often in the years to come, and that it'll be more important than ever for the "architect-superintendent relationship" to be formed very early on in the process.

Does that seem right/plausible?

Peter

[JESII]

Ian,


I am one of those that does not feel golf courses are the type of art form that needs to be preserved in its original form at all costs. I believe in the evolution of the course to best suit the need of its current users.

At the same time, I believe very strongly in a reasonable understanding of each specific situation. And this situation does not sound like a net positive to re-do the hole in an effort at solving the drainage/air flow/ turf issues. I say that based on your (and others) opinion that the hole 'as is' is very special and that it would not be easy to replicate.

Part of that reasonable understanding is recognizing the issues Perry is dealing with and cutting a little bit of slack on the early season conditioning front. the key there though is to make sure Perry is investigating every which way he can to produce a better product for the full season.

In the modern world, I think there should be a very high understanding of agronomic issues on the architect's payroll...preferrably in the architect themselves. I think Scott Witter's background is ideal for what my interests would be if ever given the chance to be involved in a golf course project.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Ian,
I wish you did work there.
Cheers

[Scott Witter]

Peter & Others:

I believe Jeff Brauer and other writers/authors have over the past few years written much about the importance of the relationship between the architect and the superintendent...it simply makes a whole-lot-o-sense

Also, I think more so perhaps now, many more architects are hiring, or encouraging their clients to hire agronomic consultants during design and construction to assist with this all important aspect of the development process.  There are a lot of very talented superintendents out there who, after working for 20 years or so, are interested and available for this type of work.  I think they make a great fit for they have truly experienced the issues first hand and can really shed some light   on the subject.  I am personally working with a couple of supers just for this reason...I don't see everything and their knowledge and expertise can be huge for the value of the project and hey, most every super I have met along the way are great people to work with!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

The real sad part about that hole is that if ST was planning it today, he might not have done it unless he could figure out a way to hide the path, and make it accessible without affecting play!  It certainly is a factor now.

Are the two big fw mounds also rock, like the fw itself between them?  If not, he could route the path through them.  I guess he could have also blasted if they were rock.

Any reason they can't add a few inches of topsoil in the LZ?

[Ian Andrew]

Jeff,

The path would have gone around the left hill if planned from the start - and likely still should today. The fairway can be sand capped easily they just need the budget to do the work.

JES,

I can take you to a golf course that is spectacular with 18 tough green and fairway sites. Anything routed up a bowl and surrounded by trees is a tough site.

Very few people understand the issues of a superintendent - particularly paying guests - so Perry has a tough situation on that front.

Mike,

I wish I worked there too - it happens to be my favourite place to play in Canada.

Scott,

We all count on the collaboration with others to succeed. Whether shapers, supers or fellow architects - a good architect seeks out all the possibilities and answers. Do you have supers on staff or as consultants on your work - or do you mean the supers at the courses you work with?

[Adam Clayman]

Standing on that tee I remember thinking how cool it was. How varied the teeing ground was from the 7 previous ones. It would be a shame to lose it. The issue with sunlight can be overcome using some outdoor high UV fixtures, can't it. The length is another matter, the good news is it's only a factor for a small handful of players.

The walk past the concession stand, under the canopy of trees, gave such a nice relaxed feeling.

Since the Fairmont group is the principle and after seeing how they screwed up Banff Springs I would tread lightly on such special ground.

Ian, Surely since ST spent years tweaking JP, don't you think he would've noticed the issues, if they were large enough? Or, is the proliferation of carts at the heart of the narrow traffic pinching?

[Scott Witter]

Ian:

I do not have any superintendents on staff, but I do hire on a project by project basis, collaborate with and strongly encourage my clients where applicable, to hire such consultants.  My past experience (green-keeping) has convinced be to understand that to do otherwise is not serving my clients the best.  I currently have two guys I enjoy working with, each with a minimum of 25 years of experience.  They are not your average superintendents as you might guess and are very interested in thinking and working 'outside the box'...not bad to have a beer or two afterward either

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ian,
It's only a problem when people get stupid.
Some holes take more care than others.
Make sure the ones that take intensive care are balanced out by those that take much less care. You can get crazy, but use some sense.
I know that sounds simplistic, but I have no doubt it's true.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

I remember one of my mentors (whom I will not identify) telling me once long ago that "you have to give the superintendent one or two places on the golf course that he can't maintain".  

I believe it was said in the context that one had to be aware of the conflicts throughout the course; that you could go over the line once or twice if you felt it was important to the architecture; but you shouldn't do it more than once or twice, so you really had to pick your spots.

A lot of architects are fine professionals, but pass up the chance to build a great hole because it could create a difficulty for the greenkeeper.  And, there are a lot of greenkeepers who have the wrong attitude, begging you to change the design.  But we've also worked with a few who will help you figure out how to make a workable maintenance solution for a great design.  That's when great courses come together.

[Jon Wiggett]

I think Tom D is just about spot on with this one. There are many greenkeepers who have the feeling they are employed to maintain the perfect sward and anything that makes this difficult is bad. Actually the job of the greenkeeper should be to maintain and present the most interesting golfing experience possible and this doesn't just mean conditioning. It is however important that where a course is difficult to maintain the overall management stratergy allows for it maintenance.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Two comments -

First, I think Ian was originally thinking in terms not of "difficult to maintain" but "impossible agronomically" as was I.  I live by the mantra that "You can't fool Mother Nature."  I challenge anyone to show an example of where someone did!

Second, as Tom D says, many supers will allow difficult to maintain slopes.  When proposing dramatic green contours, for example, I have had some supers demand we flatten a big roll, while others say "I will just hand water it." The latter attitude is necessary to great design because as Ian postulates, sometimes there is a conflict between maintenance needs and great design and if you favor one, you sacrifice the other.

That said, the gca must always keep in mind that supers are changed out like football coaches, and a cooperative one will almost surely at some point be replaced by one who doesn't understand the design intent as well as one who worked with the gca AND is under budget pressures, such as those faced either in the depression or even in the reduced play post 2001 era.

Generally, speaking, the more maintainalbe something is, the more likely it is to last.  So, the gca has to ask "Do I want a great design of the "X" type that lasts ten years, or do I do something that is maybe "90%X" that might last forever.  Of course, the argument for "X" is that none of us can predict the future.  The argument for "90%X" is that all courses HAVE changed over time, usually for reasons cited above and its not too big a stretch to believe that yours will, too!

Short version: As with many gca related things, its not black or white, but shades of gray.  In many cases, the gca can modify something and still get a very, very good design, even if its not his/her exact original thought.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In a nice coincidence, my copy of the Stanley Thompson book to which Ian contributes just came in the door via Fed EX!  It looks like a great read and the photography is stunning.

[PThomas]

as a few have stated, a GREAT thread..thanks to all for your thoughts

[Jon Wiggett]

Jeff B,

you make a valid point. However I don't think a GCA should shy away from doing something great because he thinks it ma not last. With such an attitude where would the alamo be?

[David Druzisky]

Good topic here Ian and nice discussion resulting.

It sounds to me like that is a great old charming golf hole that Stanley fit onto the available land very creatively but is now being affected by modern management and trends.  The cart (and resulting path), unresonable conditioning expectations, and a desire for faster green speeds are all exposing Jeffs point that Mother Nature dictates everything in the end.  When you push, she pushes back.

I guess you could look at it simply as if you wanted to design the hole that way today, what would you do to make it work.  Could you satisfy the intent and unique character with slight adjustment?  Today we can move more dirt.  Could a little earhtwork and shaping be done today to create the same thing that works better - away from the trees a little or to accomodate the path so the golf is not ruined.  Etc.  Fairly easy today but we also throw money at these types of things today in order to get them to work for all these other influences.

Have we ever had a situation where management posed the question "are carts suitable for this course?"  With all the talk about the ball and the clubs forcing course changes, it doesn't even come close to carts, green speeds and overly high maintenance expectations!  Fortunately, it is what keeps us all in business I guess

As the son of a golf course superintendent I am of course biased when it comes to maintenance as it relates to our craft.  I would hope most architects have a program that they determine going into their design effort that ballparks that aspect.  That said, the finest superintendents I have worked with have each said to a tee that they dont want maintenance dictating what we do.  We have been hired to do what we do and they are hired to do what they do.  We all tend to work together anyway and the good ones have plenty of options that allow us to meet our intent while making things for them practical.  

It's also likely people don't understand how much we look to the superintendent to help determine what is specified and used in our efforts.

[James Bennett]

Ian

Adam Clayman has already alluded to one solution for the green - artificial UV.  Riviera #6 provides a template, but it is obtrusive.  Is the problem year round, or a few winter months?

Interesting that the hole is #8.  Do they use two tees to start play, or just from #1?  At least the sun has a chance to rise and do something to the turf before the golfers arrive compared to the hole being played in the first two or three.

I have seen a similar green location to Riviera #6 at Rosanna in Melbourne (#3, also a par 3) which is set below a hill which blocks the sun.  Large cypresses have been removed from behind the green, but the hill slope still reduces the amount of sunlight.  My home club is 'lucky' that the one green set into a northern hillslope (southern hemisphere) is the #15 hole, so there is some chance for winter warmth before play arrives. Of the course, the green has a southerly aspect and slope, so reducing the exposure to direct sun. We have done some tree removal to increase the winter sun exposure, especially those on the top of the hill with the most elevation, to the north-east of the green.  It helps!

James B

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()