[Kalen Braley]

Don:

I'll start working on a course for that press release, as soon as I find a client who will really let me build it.  Not many I've met would have the guts to do so, including Mr. Keiser ... don't forget that he positioned Bandon Dunes to be "Scottish style" right down to hiring a Scottish architect, both because he liked that style of golf course AND because he thought the story would sell.

I do have an idea for a course unlike any ever built, but if we built it, I'm sure people would think I'd really gone off the deep end.

Originality is not really on the way out, it's just that only a small percentage of designers in any field ever have any to begin with.

Tom,

I'm assuming you would need a fairly featurless piece of property for such a template course.  Is there no one with a couple of mil laying around to purchase some land in BFE Kansas somewhere and make this thing happen?

Forget about playability, I wouldn't even care about that. Its just nice seeing new concepts and ideas.  And maybe as Matt puts it, people would come, and GD would call it your defining masterpiece.  ;P

[Peter Pallotta]

Don, Tom - just wanted to say thanks for terrific back-to-back posts. I really do think they get to the heart of things. Yes, maybe only one in a thousand has "free choice" and a "free hand" to create exactly what he wants. But even that one needs to WANT to make that choice, and be brave enough to see it through.  And Don, fwiw, I think the course you and Mike are working on is what golf design in the modern era is all about; and that Wolf Point is going to be around and providing pleasure for a long, long time. 

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Kalen:

We must have misunderstood each other somehow.  I was referencing Don's last sentence where he wished that somebody would try to do something truly original and not be afraid to sell that, instead of falling back on marketing to what people want to hear.  That wouldn't be a template course at all --

Or would it?  If everybody insists that Old Macdonald is a template course just because we are using certain ideas from Macdonald, does that mean that ANYTHING which starts from a "blue sky" idea is a template?  Is the only non-template course one which is essentially natural in its contours?

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I must have misunderstood this statement you made:

"I do have an idea for a course unlike any ever built, but if we built it, I'm sure people would think I'd really gone off the deep end."

I assumed you meant you currently had something in mind without being site specific, hence the relatively featureless piece of land statement.  But sounds like you have a site in mind for this.

[Tim Nugent]

Don, sorry if reality bites.  Golf is a business and must have revenue exceed expenses - I know too technical.
If you got some extra cash laying around, let's go get crazy.  I'm game.  We'll do it your way - just don't blame (sue) me if the grass don't grow or you lose you ass(ets).
As for that press release - see Desmond Muirhead's for Aberdeen, definately unlike anything ever seen before.

Tom. do you really care if people think you've gone off the deep end?  Why not just do it yourself? Be you're own owner?  If you run a little short on funds, pass the hat on this site.  Just think, 1,500 members before the first shovel of dirt is turned!. You could call it "The Atlas Club".  The logo could be you with the globe on your shoulder.  Just a thought

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tim,
I've been in the golf business a long time. I've been an owner, a GM, and a super for long enough to see the boom and the not so good times.

IMO, standardization has not helped the game.

I've seen courses with great turf that were built simply and "cheaply" and I've seen grossly expensive projects that never seem to stop fighting one malady or another. Yes, it certainly goes the other way as well, but whenever I dare to say that maybe we aren't looking at it the right way...someone like you comes along and says it can't work. I appreciate your business lesson for me...yes revenues must exceed expenses...but it helps if you don't start in a huge hole...I've been there. Have you? You ever own one of your own? I've lived without a paycheck so I could pay my employees...and I've dealt with those whose only solution is to tear it up and start over.

Starting with what you have and doing as little as needed to create something good and lasting is how it should work. It’s obviously easier on some sites than others. And yes, if you’re building in a FL swamp, then you're going to reconfigure the entire site. But, that’s one extreme, the other being all the holes are there to be found. Real life is somewhere in the middle; you seem to start from one view point and but I’m starting from the other end.

[Tim Nugent]

Don, the answer to you questions are yes and yes.  My wife is the GM. I'm responsible for the grounds. Come to Chicago and you can play it.  Some of the local GCA guys will even join you.
I too have been in the golf business a long time - I was born on a Robert Bruce Harris project.  I know all about booms and busts.  If mom wasn't a school teacher, we would have starved some years.
Actually, I start in the middle, keep my eye on both ends and try to build the best course the land will allow.  The budget is typically driven by the land and unfortunately most times that's already a given by the time we get involved.  I also don't want to spend 3 yrs of my life toiling away on something just to see it go bust and become houses in 5.  So I do my own proforma to make sure the project pencils out.  As Tom D. alluded to, we can't control the owner's desires, only provide consultation.  If they don't take it, there's not much we can do about it.
The swampland example was Tampa Palms - I had no involvement and don't think it could even be built today.  Sure, they got a course in on some pretty crappy land but had to manufacture it (and they probably dozed under alot of natural holes because that was the land they could build the houses on).  And that manufacturing produced some pretty narrow holes because everything kicked down into the swamps.  When they built some mounding, the margin of error decreased by the distance the top of the mound was from the swamp. 
You can't generalize when everything is site specific.  On some sites you have much more freedom because the land gives it to you.  On others, you have it because the Owner gives it to you.  But the flipside is also true.

I just don't see the "standardization" you're talking about (unless you mean all courses have a multiple of 9 holes and holes have tees, greens and fairways?).  I see designs that cover the gambit.  Naturalized to formal, links to parkland, desert to mountain, farmfields to landfills to quarries.  What am I missing?  Just because retro is in vogue (this too - in time -will pass) is all of a sudden everything being "standardized".  Just because a few owners think there is a nitch to create a course where average golfers can play 18 holes from around the country or world, in one place - and from some courses where they would otherwise never have a prayer to get on - is everything being standardized?  Looking back on the past 20-30 yrs, I see a greater divergence from the mean, not toward it.

[Don_Mahaffey]

And Don, fwiw, I think the course you and Mike are working on is what golf design in the modern era is all about; and that Wolf Point is going to be around and providing pleasure for a long, long time. 

Peter

Thank you. I'd like to think your right. I feel like Mike, with me in his ear,  (more than he'd like sometimes ) has pushed it to the edge both in creating something, and in doing nothing at all. I didn't write that very well, but I think you know what I mean. Sometimes we went for it, and sometimes we had to drag ourselves away. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that walking away saying; "we can't make it any better than it already is" has to be the hardest part.

[Eric Smith]

Eric,
I think your right in that most likely the vast majority of golfers really don’t care if the course is a template, rendition, original, or some combination of all. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care, unless we all agree that there can never be anything new again in golf design. I think you take any industry and you say, we’ve done it all so now all we can do is copy what has been done before, then you’ve got yourself a dying industry, and some would say that’s what we’ve got right now. I’m certainly not going to say that template courses are going to kill the game, but if they become more the norm, then you tell me if you think that furthers the development of golf course architecture? I mean forget design, with modern tools we can map a golf hole to the knats ass, then plug that data into a dozer and recreate it anywhere we can pile up enough dirt. Far-fetched, I’m not sure, but if someone can make a buck doing it don’t be surprised if you see it happen.
Some here who practice golf design focus primarily on the technical aspects of building a golf course. I say build natural golf courses and they say…remember it all starts with drainage and if you have to build a golf course below the water table…blah, blah, blah, or if I say build wild greens they’ll start reciting how a green must function in accepting shots from this distance or that and you’ll get all kinds of important sounding percentages and cupping area slang and such. These are technicians, and they seem to start with the technical aspects and work from there. I think you should start with the art, then worry about the playability, and then you find a way to make it function using all available technology. Great golf design is about making the art work.

IMO, if template architecture becomes more prevalent we just continue the move away from an art approach to a more technical view of building golf courses. If we as a group say, we don’t care, as long as it’s fun then who cares; why would a developer ever take a chance on something new if he can just copy something that works somewhere else? I’m not about to say the sky is falling, but I don’t like what I see as originality seems to be on the way out. Every course is inspired by this or that and every architect seems has studied the great courses of Scotland…and by God we can create that right here in Dallas. We know most of it is PR bullshit, but I just once want to read a press release that starts…here you’ll find a course unlike any ever built…

Don:

I'm on board with you 100% in your defense of original design.  If we start seeing several, I don't know, maybe 5-10 or more of the Tour18 type courses being built in the next few years I would be surprised.  Conversely, there will always be the 'Scottish or Irish feel' courses being built. 

Again marketing b.s. is I guess, really what gives me a headache with the replica stuff. I'd venture that if you had some nice land with natural features that allowed for building the hole to play like #1 at Sandwich for example, you'd have just as good a hole whether you tell folks it's supposed to be like #1 at RSG or you don't tell them, via plaque, in print or otherwise.

For the most part, I believe the top firms will always be busy building new designs.  What a nightmare if golf development got to a point where the other guys had to build a replica of amen corner or the like in order to survive.

That speaker you mentioned in your original post, who was he? 

Don, this photo is a favorite of mine, which happens to be your work along with Mike Nuzzo. 


Imagine architects 100 yrs from now copying Wolf Point 's best par 5 , complete with the infierno bunker ?!

He who is most creative conceals his sources best - was that George Lucas?

[David Neveux]

If Black Creek Club in Chattanooga qualifies count me in.  I had never really experienced this style of design before in such a steady diet and was very impressed.  I think that as someone stated early in this thread, this style is part of the architectural landscape, and I think if more courses were pulled off like Black Creek using these design concepts it's for the better.  Here in East Lansing we have a really good mix of diverse styles / courses to play.  We do no really have a course that I would say compares to the style of Black Creek and if we did that would obviously be for the better.  I'm not sure that enough of these courses exist, and if variety is a good thing, then like I said count me in.

[Don_Mahaffey]

David,
I went to the Black Creek web site. I guess it's a Macdonald inspired course also. But one picture of the short there, compared to the short at Bandon and it becomes very obvious that not everyone is inspired in the same way...in fact not even close. But, the land is so different that it's not a surprise that the holes will be very different as well. Also, first time I've ever seen a link to GolfClubAtlas on a course website. We should get reduced green fees

Eric,
I'd like to see guys promote their own work without feeling like the marketing spiel has to be about doing what some guy from a 100 years ago would have done. I happen to think we are blessed with an incredibly talented group of architects now and I'd like to see them build things without feeling like they have to use a name from the past. I understand that much of that is beyond their control, but go to almost any GCA website nowadays and you can read about how they studied the masters and love golden age architecture...it gets old...at least to me it does.
Wolf Point 100 years from now?  I think it's good, but I'd like to play all 18 holes before I say much more.

Tim,
Running out of time so I'll start with this. How about the standardization of materials? USGA greens for example...has that been good for the game? I happen to believe that in many cases a local loam or sandy loam would be a better growing medium. But, supers are trained to deal with USGA specs and architects use them because they are the accepted method and they don't want to get blamed if something goes wrong, so we add high 6 to low 7 figure costs to almost every project in the country because it’s the "right" way. I don't believe it’s the best method in every case, in fact I think it's not even the best method in a lot of cases, but almost everyone plays it safe.
Bunker sand. Instead of using local materials we rail car it in from God knows where because it meets some spec. Does that make sense? Just those two items can add unbelievable costs to a project, and in many cases the benefit just doesn't justify the cost. But, it's the way things are done now.
Lastly, you listed different environments for courses, but what I see is the periphery does look different, but the fairways and greens are remarkably similar. Long flowing lines regardless of what was there before construction. I see the same differing views as you, but block all that out and a lot of the courses look the same. And I do believe a lot of that look is due to a technical approach, primarily relating to drainage. I’m a super, I know how important drainage is, but I also know that we can build a little more ruggedness into our courses and still get them to drain just fine.

[Tim Nugent]

Don, no aurgument from me on the material issues you raise.  I thought that was why we have turf schools, so super can deal with what they got. If he can't grow grass on 9" of straight sand, should he call himself a turf professional?

Also, where is it written that each bunker has to have the same sand? I thought they were supposed to be Hazards, not through the green but of a different type a material.
On desert courses I'd rather be "in a hazard" than hitting out of "through the green" DG.

And now I got a super telling his board that the USGA says we should build new tees with 8" of local sand with internal drainage or they are "wrong". The rest of the tees are topsoil and some just look like crap.  Talk about job protection at the club's expense!!!

We have to build bullet-proof golf courses or the finger gets pointed at us.  If a super gets canned because the members wanted better conditions, it's not his fault - it's ours.


  I see from some posts reference to a Mike Nuzzo project in west TX.  Are you involved with that?

[J. David Hart]

Wasn't there a rock group called "cheap trick"?  I look straight to the sheer
creativety, and innovativeness of a course and what I feel its designer is/was trying to express.  I want to live in the delusion that old Tom Morris
was truly a good soul. And that golf course architecture is using the land
to a better potential, and not to such limited parameters. Yes I'm well aware there are others who don't get it, and they would be tickled to play
such, but I'd say "templates" would be sad.

[David Neveux]

Mr. Mahaffey,

I'm a little uncertain what you meant by your post, are you saying that the "short" at Bandon is of far superiority?  Furthermore, does that take away from the Black Creek Club as a whole or merely the design of the single hole?  Which hole, as I'm truly unfamiliar with the the definition, is the "short" hole at Bandon?  I must have been a little distracted when I was there to notice . 

P.S.  There is a course description posted in the review section of the Black Creek Club here on GCA.  I know that their website doesn't feature that many pictures.

Cheers,

D.P.N

[Jeff_Brauer]

A client of mine recently told me he wanted me to "reinterpret the classical ideas for a new generation." Its a nice phrase, and I get the idea that this is what Doak and Company are trying to do at Old Mac.  And, I really think they are on a better track than simply mimicking the CBM style without thinking about it.

As I have written before, I really think that in today's play, for example, a Biaritz green fits better on a short par 4 than long par 3.  Whether or not you agree with that particular idea, its certainly worth thinking through rather than just rebuilding the same idea again and again.

[Don_Mahaffey]

David,
All I mean is two different designers call the hole by the same name, claim it's inspired by the same classic architect, yet it looks to be very different. That's it, no agenda, no favorite as I seen neither (one doesn't even have grass yet!).

Jeff,
I'd like to see that hole. I can imagine hitting some little flip or bump to the front or back tier could be very interesting.

[David Neveux]

Mr. Mahaffey,

Agreed!! 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()