News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


John Pflum

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Ultimate in Contrived Design?
« on: April 14, 2008, 11:57:49 AM »
... and no, it's not a Donald Trump course.  :-) 

I came across this article on a recent flight and found it interesting. 

http://www.delta-sky.com/2008_04/theswingplane/

I don't think that I would ever want to play any of those courses.  I think it would be more like an amusement park ride than a round of golf. 
--
jvdp

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Ultimate in Contrived Design?
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2008, 01:01:12 PM »
The test of a course has always got to be how it plays and how it feels and how it looks from ground level. Who cares if from space a course looks like a butterfly, as long as the course itself isn't utterly compromised to achieve that look. Of course you have to think of the building of Brasilia, the from-scratch-built Brazilian capital, designed to look like an airplane when viewed from above. By all accounts (haven't "played it"), the feel of the place was, from the beginning, disjointed and not "human-friendly." Maybe things have changed in the years since it was created. A renovation, perhaps. Regardless, I won't argue with Berthet's desire to create something fun, as long as it's real golf, and not some quasi-iteration of the game.

I took a look on Google Earth at the course that he designed to be shaped like a woman. I have found in the past that I am highly attuned to such shapes, and just can't see it in this case.........

I'd love to hear from some folks that have played any of his courses, particularly the one near Dunkirk.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Ultimate in Contrived Design?
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2008, 01:03:16 PM »
Let's name the designer:  Robert Berthet


Art Roselle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Ultimate in Contrived Design?
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2008, 04:20:54 PM »
That reminds me of how Ron Prichard described working for Desmond Muirhead.

"Desmond’s work was not really just golf architecture. It was more great land sculpture. Desmond was really influenced by a myriad of different intellectual pursuits. He owned an art gallery, for example. I remember asking Desmond this question after I went to work for him: How much stock do you put into the work of Ross and McKenzie and Tillinghast? And he said NONE.

That, of course, disappointed me, but I said, then, who are your influences, and he said Arp, Brancusi and Henri Moore. They all are internationally known sculptors. This stuff carried over to
Desmond’s golf architecture. He has designed some golf courses around the world that are really pretty outrageous. He really pushed the limits of golf design, and it had very little to do with golf. He built a hole in Florida that was shaped like a mermaid. It had breasts that were big mounds in the fairway. Part of the fairways looked like scales. It had the big old tail and a head with bunkers as eyes. He built one called Stone Harbor in New Jersey where you had a green out in the water. On each side was a bunker, which was surrounded by wood and the bunker was in the shape of teeth like upper and lower jaws clamping down on the green, the playing surface. It was some sort of mythical symbolism. Desmond did this stuff in Japan and a lot in the Orient. He did courses that were beyond my understanding."

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Ultimate in Contrived Design?
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2008, 08:25:30 PM »
Berthet appears to be playing the role of a small part of Desmond's career. Certainly not all of it, nor any major act. Muirhead practiced far more than the memorable (visually memorable) holes such as Stone Harbor. Berthet, as far as I can see, is simply hell bent on whatever it is he is doing. I do admit it is interesting...sort of.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

John Moore II

Re: The Ultimate in Contrived Design?
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2008, 09:14:52 PM »
If designing a golf course to look like a woman, or a butterfly, or anything else manages to get more people to come out and play my club, then I am all for it. We have no way of knowing how the course flows and sits on the land or how it plays. It may be a great layout to play, while looking interesting from above. Anything to get more people on the course, especially during a down market like this is good by me, contrived or not.

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Ultimate in Contrived Design?
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2008, 12:37:24 AM »
A second thread has emerged = Robert Berthet Delta Sky Magazine

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Ultimate in Contrived Design?
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2008, 06:52:34 AM »
This course probably plays better than it looks from an aerial.
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

JLahrman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Ultimate in Contrived Design?
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2008, 10:06:27 AM »
I actually think these courses look fascinating.  The shot values when you're on the ground haven't been mentioned, but assuming the course plays well I like the artistic approach.  It's contrived but certainly well thought out.

Tom Ferrell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Ultimate in Contrived Design?
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2008, 10:23:17 AM »
I have to say that I'm somewhat intrigued.  The butterfly routing is cool to me.  Personally, I tend toward classic architecture and its modern counterpart, but variety is the spice of life.  The conceptual works are somewhat like a rock opera.  Wouldn't want a steady diet, but as a creative expression, I can appreciate it.  And, as with most any golf course, I'd certainly play it once.