If Wilson, his committee and others could do it, why can't we ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Given a good piece of land, no environmental or permitting impediments and the ability to seek sage advice, why couldn't a group of us design a terrific golf course ?

If Ran, TEPaul, Tommy Naccarato, a civil engineer and myself obtained a good piece of land with the above conditions, could we design a top 100 golf course ?

Are we any more or less qualified than the Construction Committee ?

Is our knowledge of the great courses and holes of the UK and US broader and deeper than that of the Construction Committee ?

If it's so simple, why haven't more amateur groups built wonderful to world class golf courses ?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Pat,

Sure. You guys could probably design a great course. But, my advice is: Someone MUST be selected to have the FINAL SAY. Otherwise, trouble is inevitable; even amongst a group who presume they have similar tastes, philosophies and ideas.

I presume Hugh Wilson had FINAL SAY; and Crump too.

[Matt Varney]

I think collectively as a GCA Group this could be a great project.  The biggest issue would be making a final decision on things like design style, bunkering, green complexes.  The routing is always going to be changed and tweaked slightly to fit the best features and contours of the property.  

We have people on GCA that love Ross and others are big fans of Tilly, Flynn, Wilson, Maxwell, Mckenzie, Macdonald, Raynor, etc... the list goes on and on.  I can just imagine 20 to 30 of us (all with some level of financial skin in the game) standing on a graded out #1 tee box and small groups within the group start to form on what they want a hole design to look like.  

To build a great golf course you only need 4 things:

1. A great piece of rolling property with nice natural features.
2. The financial horsepower to back the project from start to finish (No Cutting Corners!)
3. A course designer or talented design team that wants to design/build the best golf course on this piece of property without worrying about resort or residential development pressure.
4. A superintendent that is damn good and will stop at nothing to create course conditioning playing surfaces and setup found on the best courses in the world (Even if that course is in Oregon not Ireland)

These first two on the list from the very beginning set the stage for the last two because without great property and the financial backing (ala Mr. Keiser) you just can't make it all happen.  It has to be a special setting and it the golf course has to be even better than the setting to create a Top 100 Modern.

 

[Matt Varney]

Jeff,

You hit the nail on the head we are working with Pete & P.B. Dye right now on a new course.  When they are on property walking the holes designing a discussion starts and ideas are bounced around and then a final decision is made end of story.  Time is money and we could stand around and talk about it for days and weeks but, you have to take accountability and move on to the next piece of the design process hole by hole.  If your name is on the design they make the final call on the finished look of the course.

[TEPaul]

Patrick Mucci:

That is probably the most intelligent question you have EVER asked on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com! And I mean EVER!!!!

The only real problem is WE LIVE in a time that is about 98 years AFTER Hugh Wilson and his "Construction Committee"!

Would you like me to explain to you why that may make a difference?

I'll be more than glad to explain it to you if I don't have to suffer through about 20 sets of follow-up BULLSHIT questions from you!

What do you say, Patrick? Do we have a deal? 

And, I would be more than happy to explain to you as well why people like Moriarty and MacWood and perhaps you too are just completely missing the boat on this era and those "amateur/sportsmen" architects like Wilson and not only what they could do and why but what they very much DID DO and why.

You can ask me now or just wait for the second and follow up IMO essay after the one that we are working on right now about the TRUE and FACTUAL history of the original creation of Merion East and who really did route, design and build IT!

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick,

Back when I trying very hard to learn the craft of writing, at least once a week someone at the end of a bar or cafe would say "I want to be a writer. I've got great ideas, I just need some help getting them down on paper".  To which the honest and right response would've been "Your freaking moron, getting them down on paper IS the writing!" 

In any art and craft, the IDEAS are the easy part - at least for those who invest enough of themselves in the pursuit.

In terms of golf course architecture, I'm sure the Hugh Wilsons of the world back then had more than enough ideas; it just that almost no one (including CB Macdonald) knew how to get them down on paper.

That's changed.

Peter   

[Mark Bourgeois]

Patrick,

Back when I trying very hard to learn the craft of writing, at least once a week someone at the end of a bar or cafe would say "I want to be a writer. I've got great ideas, I just need some help getting them down on paper".  To which the honest and right response would've been "Your freaking moron, getting them down on paper IS the writing!" 
 

Too bad no one said he wanted to be a copy editor -- you would've made a great team!

Peter, I thank you for this...

Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Certainly, you could do it.  But I reckon the odds of success are about one in ten ... that for every Hugh Wilson there were nine other clubs which tried the same approach and failed. 

And, if you put Wayne Morrison on your committee, he will point out that your odds might go up if you find a young William Flynn to help you, and then let him go back and redo the bad bits a dozen years later.

[DMoriarty]

I'd imagine that it would also help if you had a Tom Doak or Bill Coore or both out to inspect the site before you even purchased the land, and if your entire Committee could spend a couple of days with them so that they could help you plan the course, and then if they would return to the site before you started building it to make sure you had everything right before you got started.   

But if all that happened you might want to try and keep it quiet or others might get the unfounded notion that perhaps these guys had something to do with the creation of the course.

[cary lichtenstein]

You would need a great piece of land, not a good one and once you got started, youwould find out how really difficult it is and the real important of a talented architect.

[Sean_A]

I have no doubts that a wonderful course could be built by just about any group of 5 guys on this site.  However, it would take serious cash and time to fix all the mistakes (just as the great "amateur" archies had).  On the other hand, it would seem this same problem exists with some professional archies.  I have seen more than one newish course that was a complete failure in terms of design - the history of professional design is littered with baduns'. 

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Pat

There is a lot of evidence in GBI of great courses "designed" at the same time as Merion going through what (to most of us, at least) seems to have been a very similar Committee-led collaborative process, involving "experts" (significantly inlcuding the local pro and head greenkeepr) to a greater or lesser degree, usually lasting over a number of years, often decades.  County Down, Portrush, Portmarnock, Lahinch, Dornoch, Carnoustie and Aberdeen come immediately to mind.

As others have said on some of the related threads, a central concern of any aspiriational course in the early 20th century was finding a way to deal with the Haskell ball, which effectively made many previous assumptions about what was and was not a "good" golf hole and/or "good" course obsolete, or at least quaint.  Nobobdy had "the" answer to these evolving problems, so it is not at all surprising that so many of the best courses built or significanlty remodeled in the 1905-1920 period were directed by a Committee of the people actually on the ground and with significant accumulated knowledge of how their course actually played, rather than the periapetetic "architects" who often advised them.

As to your primary question, of course a Committee of GCA.com wingnuts could design and build a very good/great course, if properly advised (as you suggest) on some of the more practical and esoteric issues and (of course) given land as good as Merion (i.e. OK, but not great).  We have examples even within our little community of this being done.  However, whether or not the course is acknowledged as being great depends on a lot more things that inherent quality.  There are courses as good as Merion or NGLA out there that are not as highly thought of, mostly (IMO) because they did not have such prominent Committees (even if, in the case of NGLA, it was a Committee of one...), and as a result are not as well known, have never had any prestigious event awarded them, etc. in a vicious cycle.  But, that is a subject for another thread....

rich

[Jim Nugent]

There are courses as good as Merion or NGLA out there that are not as highly thought of, mostly (IMO) because they did not have such prominent Committees (even if, in the case of NGLA, it was a Committee of one...), and as a result are not as well known, have never had any prestigious event awarded them, etc. in a vicious cycle.  But, that is a subject for another thread.

Rich, I'd love to hear more about these courses.  Here or another thread, wherever! 

[Rich Goodale]

There are courses as good as Merion or NGLA out there that are not as highly thought of, mostly (IMO) because they did not have such prominent Committees (even if, in the case of NGLA, it was a Committee of one...), and as a result are not as well known, have never had any prestigious event awarded them, etc. in a vicious cycle.  But, that is a subject for another thread.

Rich, I'd love to hear more about these courses.  Here or another thread, wherever! 

Jim

I'm stupid, but not stupid enough to bring this up on GCA.com!  I am perfectly happy to explain myself over a beer or three, and have done so several times with people from this forum.  Until we meet under similar circumstances, my lips are sealed!

Rich

[wsmorrison]

It would likely be a 1:5 chance of getting it right if TEP was in charge, though it would take three times as long to finish because PM would ask a million stupid questions and argue about everything.
1:10 if Ran was in charge
1:100 if TN was in charge
1:1000 if PM was in charge for everyone else would have walked off the site because they couldn't stand working for the guy and having to listen to his incessant babble about NGLA and Macdonald all the time.  Even a young Wm Flynn couldn't help that design by committee if led by Pat.  Flynn's sense of naturalism and enhanced design ideas would clash with Mucci's child-like grasp of the subject.  With a young Flynn out of the picture, we are left with Pat alone designing the course.  In the end, it would resemble one designed by CB Macdonald and S Raynor...at the ages of 5 and a half if they were given one big piece of paper and lots of colored crayons.

[Peter Wagner]

I think the amateurs could build some good looking holes but we would make many mistakes on the plumbing.

Think drainage for a minute.  How about irrigation patterns?

Sure we could build a course but I think the technical issues would prevent it from being Top-100.

[Jeff_Brauer]

A lot of amateur architects have built courses, and they run the gamut. Most had some help.

so, its not a matter of whether or not, its a matter of percentages as to whether it would be any good.  I would say the percentage would be low, but higher than the typical airline pilot or doctor who gets the bug to build it.  But that is a generalization, of course. No way to tell until one of you actually gets one built.  And, in following the Merion example, revised for three or four years.

[TEPaul]

"And, in following the Merion example, revised for three or four years. 


JeffB:

In the case of Merion East it was revised by Wilson/Flynn and then Flynn for over 20 years. The same was true of NGLA under Macdonald, Myopia under Leeds and Oakmont under Fownes which was revised under his aegis for about forty years. According to the things Crump said, had he lived, the same would've been true of Pine Valley. On the professional side the same was true of Ross and Pinehurst #2. It's pretty clear from the foregoing that the key to those courses was the very extended amount of times those architects spent on those courses. In my opinion, the message is pretty clear! 

[John Mayhugh]

I'd imagine that it would also help if you had a Tom Doak or Bill Coore or both out to inspect the site before you even purchased the land, and if your entire Committee could spend a couple of days with them so that they could help you plan the course, and then if they would return to the site before you started building it to make sure you had everything right before you got started.   

But if all that happened you might want to try and keep it quiet or others might get the unfounded notion that perhaps these guys had something to do with the creation of the course.

Could that really happen?

[JC Jones]

"And, in following the Merion example, revised for three or four years. 


JeffB:

In the case of Merion East it was revised by Wilson/Flynn and then Flynn for over 20 years. The same was true of NGLA under Macdonald, Myopia under Leeds and Oakmont under Fownes which was revised under his aegis for about forty years. According to the things Crump said, had he lived, the same would've been true of Pine Valley. On the professional side the same was true of Ross and Pinehurst #2. It's pretty clear from the foregoing that the key to those courses was the very extended amount of times those architects spent on those courses. In my opinion, the message is pretty clear! 

To further support this, the same is said about the good Dr. and Pasa.

[Kyle Harris]

If Ran, TEPaul, Tommy Naccarato, a civil engineer and myself obtained a good piece of land with the above conditions, could we design a top 100 golf course ?

No.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"And, in following the Merion example, revised for three or four years. 


JeffB:

In the case of Merion East it was revised by Wilson/Flynn and then Flynn for over 20 years. The same was true of NGLA under Macdonald, Myopia under Leeds and Oakmont under Fownes which was revised under his aegis for about forty years. According to the things Crump said, had he lived, the same would've been true of Pine Valley. On the professional side the same was true of Ross and Pinehurst #2. It's pretty clear from the foregoing that the key to those courses was the very extended amount of times those architects spent on those courses. In my opinion, the message is pretty clear! 

And yet, so many here argue for preserving original intent.............

[JC Jones]

"And, in following the Merion example, revised for three or four years. 


JeffB:

In the case of Merion East it was revised by Wilson/Flynn and then Flynn for over 20 years. The same was true of NGLA under Macdonald, Myopia under Leeds and Oakmont under Fownes which was revised under his aegis for about forty years. According to the things Crump said, had he lived, the same would've been true of Pine Valley. On the professional side the same was true of Ross and Pinehurst #2. It's pretty clear from the foregoing that the key to those courses was the very extended amount of times those architects spent on those courses. In my opinion, the message is pretty clear! 

And yet, so many here argue for preserving original intent.............

I think people have less of an issue if its the actual archie who is doing the tinkering as they are just trying to create a more perfect replica of the course they envisioned.  When someone else gets involved then they are interpreting what the original archie envisioned, or worse yet, imposing their own vision on what the original archie did.

Its one thing to let a painter help restore the Last Supper, its another to let them paint in a new person.

[Jeff_Brauer]

But, as Merion demonstrates, the original architect can die a few years after the course opens (all will die sometime) and needs and better ideas still continue to evolve regardless. 

Would this group be chastising Flynn for changing Merion if it happened today?  Or is it just an example of human nature that change brings reaction, which gets muted over time?

[Peter Pallotta]

Kelly -

I always enjoy your posts - you're a fine writer, with a touch of old school elegance.

Everybody must agree that any limitation of talent can be compensated for by time. It's just that few people who lack the talent are interested enough to put in the time.

I think that's one thing that's changed - the 'professionalization' of everything. (Used to be someone studied yoga for decades and for their own spiritual growth; seems now that most yoga schools make most of their money teaching beginners how to become instructors).  

The idea of devoting time to a vocation instead of a profession doesn't seem appealing (or financially viable) much anymore.

Peter