Should Architects Use Their Hole Designs at More Than One Course?

[Tony Ristola]

On past threads I've argued that golf course plans are not all they're cracked up to be and been rebuked -- now here are a bunch of ASGCA members recounting how the same plan turns out differently on different sites and with different shapers! 

I always found this to be one of the most powerful admissions for investors on GCA:
"...we were working on two courses, so I had him draw the exact same plan for a short par 3 on both. The difference was amazing. The "good" contractor's green had fuller slopes, better integration of green slopes with surrounds, etc. The foreman directed the shaper to hide the cart path crossing in front of the tee with a small ridge, whereas the other sat in plain view, the cart path drained, basins were hidden, etc. The good shape also went back to the tee often just to see how it looked, rather than shape it without looking..."

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom D,

I don't actually ever recall you being "rebuked" about your method of working.  Plans are a tool many of us use, but ASGCA recognizes all methods of creating good golf courses, so your comments are off base a bit. 

Tony,

I believe you are a bit off base, too.  In fact, the only powerful "admission" for my potential clients is that my courses are well designed - many win or place in "best new" contests, are popular with golfers and fill tee sheets, they are technically sound, drain well allowing play in all climates, they come in on budget, etc.  The method is not as important.  In salesman terms, you sell features and not benefits when you sell your on site method over the quality of the finished product.  Benefits are more important to the client than method. 

And, you seemingly presume that just because I draw plans, that I do not go out in the field, which is wrong.  You could call my reference list and I am sure they would tell you that I was on site more than enough to improve the design,  and more than my agreement called for.  I am sure my passion for field work is similar to yours, even if I let my plans stand in for me to get everything started.

My "most powerful" admission is that I start thinking about their greens, tees, fw and hazards as soon as I get the job, noodle, doodle, and then draw grading plans as I see the site, then redraw them after clearing, then tweak them, etc.  I think they come out better being thought out from several perspectives than someone who starts thinking about them the day the bulldozer fires up and gets on site for that green, or whatever and "wings it."  In fact, I think my method probably best avoids being repetitive, since humans are creatures of habit, and an extensive thought process is the best way to beat that tendency.  Of course, there may be smarter and quicker guys out there than me!

Now, you might say that you do the same, but then you would be admitting that you actually plan things out on paper first, as well, so what's our argument about method?

You also presume that your shapers are the best in the world.  I don't know them, and they may very well be, but I doubt that any small gca could pay as well as a big contractor.  Bigger pay usually attracts the top talent.  Also, as Tim N points out, in house shapers often shape to your last idea of what was good.  There is a benefit of working with different shapers who can bring different perspective. Not to say there isn't value to working with the same guys, but its not the only way.

Short version:  Tony, please cut the crap! (insert smiley)  Admit it, great designs and designers have used several methods, and in reality, a combination of methods to get some of the worlds great golf courses built. 

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

How come you didn't object to my statement until Tony started quoting me? 

I will grant you that great golf courses have been built using all sorts of different methods.  But, a question:  what is the best set of greens you've ever seen that were built entirely to the plans, with no significant field changes?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I thought about posting something about your quote yesterday, but got busy and felt it wasn't worth arguing about. Tony just gave me a mulligan.

I agree that there are probably no great greens that haven't had the gca tweak them in the field.  Plans are great for a lot of things, but micro contours probably aren't one of them.  Its that last little flare that can make a green great.

Probably a separate, but interesting topic, is the relative (there are no absolutes) strengths of different methods. When I defend plans, I am defending that they work for me, not that they are the only way.  I believe all methods inherently place certain limitations on the gca thought process, not just plans.

I know from experience drawing green plans, with contour lines especially, that certain visual tendencies of that method lead to unintended results, at least if you don't actually see what you draw get built.  Here are some tendencies I fight, luckily, I think, successfully.

First, it often looks better in plan for a contour line to paralell a green edge, when in reality, a rolling green edge looks better,  and requires contours to cross the green edge.  Actually, the same applies to fw, and I believe the plan drawing method has resulted in a lot of flat fw with mounds on the sides going up steeply, rather than rolling across the fw more naturally.

Second, in plan view, its easy to start relating all the surrounding contours to the green edge, rather than to the outside surrounds, almost too religiously.  In fact, its too easy to ignore the lighter, dashed existing contour lines, although computers, with the ability to color any line make that easier. 

I told the story the other day of an early green I built for K and N in Wisconsin.  We had a tendency to do "2 mounders" behind the green back then.  My green plan for the 8th at Lake Arrowhead in Nekoosa, WI was one such plan. (which I was very proud of!) However, they sent me in the field for construction staking and I soon realized that the fills were reasonable, until I got to the back left mound, which had a fill of about 18 feet.  That slope didn't look goofy on plan, but it did immediately in the field.  I field adusted, doing one big mound on the right that tapered to nothing on the left, in effect field correcting my plan.  But, I also made a mental note and always paid more attention to high and low sides when drawing green plans later, to this day.

But, as noted earlier, I think there are some weaknesses in working completely in the field as well.  While I have my thoughts, I will leave it to others who might care to chime in on similar experiences where total field work led to less than perfect results.

In essence, of all the tools the gca has available, the trick is to use each to its best advantage.  And to keep designing right to the very end when the grass must be sown.......

[Tony Ristola]

Tony,

I believe you are a bit off base, too.  In fact, the only powerful "admission" for my potential clients is that my courses are well designed - many win or place in "best new" contests, are popular with golfers and fill tee sheets, they are technically sound, drain well allowing play in all climates, they come in on budget, etc.  The method is not as important.  In salesman terms, you sell features and not benefits when you sell your on site method over the quality of the finished product.  Benefits are more important to the client than method.

A bit off base? Quoting verbatim?

An admission was made that a hole had the same plan. There was good and bad. Those were the words. Not my words.

I can't say I've won any awards, not having worked in a country that gives them, but my projects have come in on-time and on-budget as well. And they've been successful.

I sell services. Hopefully increasing the Margin-of-Error and adding intrinsic value, plus any benefits that my daily presence can add. And there are a few.

And, you seemingly presume that just because I draw plans, that I do not go out in the field, which is wrong.  You could call my reference list and I am sure they would tell you that I was on site more than enough to improve the design,  and more than my agreement called for.  I am sure my passion for field work is similar to yours, even if I let my plans stand in for me to get everything started.

You presumed wrong. I don't think your passion for field work is similar to mine. Unless you spend all day in the field, I think our passions differ.

My "most powerful" admission is that I start thinking about their greens, tees, fw and hazards as soon as I get the job, noodle, doodle, and then draw grading plans as I see the site, then redraw them after clearing, then tweak them, etc.  I think they come out better being thought out from several perspectives than someone who starts thinking about them the day the bulldozer fires up and gets on site for that green, or whatever and "wings it."  In fact, I think my method probably best avoids being repetitive, since humans are creatures of habit, and an extensive thought process is the best way to beat that tendency.  Of course, there may be smarter and quicker guys out there than me!

Jeff, there you have the situation wrong again. Because I'm not dividing my time between numerous efforts, do not have a staff, I probably spend more time on site before construction than most architects spend on-site during construction. I've written that many of your brethren believe plans are critically important, or just short of. I merely think they're important. You can't get a project through most places without a set of documents. Call Jim, he'll tell ya.

As far as avoiding repetition; I'll recommend Dr. Alan Snyder. U of Sydney. More time on-site gives you more chances to do things out of the norm. Seize opportunities that equate to your "risk taking". Funny how you say you can't plan cutting edge designs in an earlier post because it's too risky, and now you say it's the way to go. Which is it? I think it's as your initial post indicates because:

Individuals are building those golf courses and every individual is influenced by their learning experiences. So 10-different builders will give 10 different versions of the same plans. Some might even nuke key elements in the design because they don't recognize them as such. It didn't jump off the plans and say "Dude... you don't want to go heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere!"

Now, you might say that you do the same, but then you would be admitting that you actually plan things out on paper first, as well, so what's our argument about method?

I do plan them on paper. But on the latest job I came in after somebody had provided a set of detailed plans, and the builder-accredited archie duo dropped a doo-doo. I've been working here without plans. Only the routing plan is pretty much as we started.

You also presume that your shapers are the best in the world.

LOL. Actually ROTFLMAO. I'm not the greatest shaper in the world. Period. I also work with general contractors. Haven't used anything close to a GCBAA builder yet. Sometimes the guys don't even know what a fairway is, and they don't speak English.

I don't know them, and they may very well be, but I doubt that any small gca could pay as well as a big contractor.

LOL again.

Bigger pay usually attracts the top talent.  Also, as Tim N points out, in house shapers often shape to your last idea of what was good.  There is a benefit of working with different shapers who can bring different perspective. Not to say there isn't value to working with the same guys, but its not the only way.

I'd love to pressure test your system. Get a project in an emerging country and let's see who's method is more fail safe. Like I said above, you've contraditced yourself from your early post. This one...

Doing something truly new for the gca expands his/her horizons and if never done, stifles their growth, and potential ability to provide good solutions in the future.  Trying something truly new for an individual client can work out well for them, but its high risk for a high reward, that may not materialize.

Short version:  Tony, please cut the crap! (insert smiley)  Admit it, great designs and designers have used several methods, and in reality, a combination of methods to get some of the worlds great golf courses built. 

One method is riskier, even risky, and another one is far less so. One method can produce crap and has produced an abundance of crap while the other method is designed to prevent it... it is designed to help people do the best job possible. It's only common sense.

Jeff, I read a fair bit, and collect quotes. I've got a few pages of quotes where architects of all stripes admit plans and periodic visits are inferior. It is riskier. Anyone studying management would laugh at the thought having an architect on-site daily wasn't vastly superior. There are exceptions to the rule, but as a rule... the more time an architect spends on-site leading construction (MBWA), the better the project will be. And I'd bet a collection of such courses would be far less repetitious than a company of guys that are trying to read the principal's mind, or have a list of "Principles" to follow.

You're going to tell me otherwise?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

In short, Yeah, I think otherwise.  I have seen people in all fields who spend their days looking at every detail when the principal should be looking at the big picture instead. But, c'est la vie.  We both agree field time is necessary to the final product.  No risk in that.  I don't really think your other propositions on "risk" are that well proven.  Again, just MHO, but your arguments are just YHO.

Lets just keep designing the best golf courses we can.

[Tim Gerrish]

Tony.

"I've got a few pages of quotes where architects of all stripes admit plans and periodic visits are inferior. It is riskier. Anyone studying management would laugh at the thought having an architect on-site daily wasn't vastly superior."


I agree, but there are only a few projects, especially in today's market, that require continual observation.  I'm willing to bet that there are a large portion of contractors that would go nuts having me on site every day, all day.  That and I would go crazy watching the work, when it takes only a few moments to review and adjust if necessary.   I'll stick with the once week for a full day, and more if necessary routine. 

If I/we did design and build only one project at a time, I would need another job to make enough money to pay the costs of doing business and live.  Typical new course in this part of the world might take 5 years from start to finish.  That is what heck of a fee to cover our costs over that time.  We would be competing with Jack at that rate and the last I checked my major count is slightly less than his.  I guess we just need to charge more!

[Dan Herrmann]

I guess this whole idea of template holes is what I was meaning to say on the Pete Dye Golf Club thread. 

To me, it seemed that Dye used a similar "template" at PDGC and Bulle Rock's respective 18th holes.  Both are long, challenging slight dogleft left par 4's, with lateral water most of the way up the left side.  Both holes feature slope on the right side of the fairway to the rough.  From a conceptual standpoint, #18 at TPC-Sawgrass and even  #18 Pound Ridge seem to both fit into the template.

Of course they're different holes, but they actually offer very similar risk-reward.

[Dan Herrmann]

Kelly- perfect metaphor. 

It's the reason I couldn't wait to get out of the Eagles concert I went to - it sounded just like my old 8-track.  But the guys that take their music and change it - let it grow and mature and transform - those are the concets I love.

And Dye's "template #18's" are certainly remake of his classic design paradigm.