[Jeff Doerr]

I vote for routing. This thread got me to go back a read the Sand Hills course profile again. The essence of a truly great course is the genius of finding the best routing option on a great piece of property.

One thing I've always wanted to see is the contellation map of Sand Hills. (A good picture of the map with a C&C interview would be a great asset on this site) To see the 130 choices, to know more of what C&C went through to develop the finally plan, would surely increase the appreciation for what was finally built.

The interview with Stephen Goodwin touches on the routing options at Bandon and provides some early routing options. Again, it only increases the awe one has for what has been built there.

[Philippe Binette]

Ok, take Sand Hills routing and do Rees Jones like shaping???
cookie cutter bunkers,
bunkers not tying with the native
symetric mounds everywhere
a couple of ponds

what do we get...
a disaster

[Ian Andrew]

Ok, take Sand Hills routing and do Rees Jones like shaping???
cookie cutter bunkers,
bunkers not tying with the native
symetric mounds everywhere
a couple of ponds

what do we get...
a disaster

Philippe,

There will be people who prefer this version - may be not on this site - but there are lots out there who will never see Sand Hills the way the DG does.

Shaping will never be the foundation of excellence - it will always be in the routing. In regards top Tom's and C&C's work - its not what you see - it's how it plays. That's the one thing that the modern architects who are using the "naturalistic style" have never figured out.

The hole still shines through the architecture...

[TEPaul]

"Was Hugh Wilson an amateur or a professionnal architect at Merion???"

Philippe:

Hugh Wilson was an amateur architect. His four man committee that created the course were amateur members. George Crump who created Pine Valley was an amateur. Herbert Leeds who created Myopia was an amateur as were C.B. Macdonald, the Fownses of Oakmont, George Thomas and Devereaux Emmet when he created GCGC and some of his early courses.

As I'm sure you realize we're talking about some of the best and most enduring courses and architecture in the world here.

[Philippe Binette]

Ian, you forgot the mounds on the side and the pond lol...

what I'm saying is that a routing is important, very important... the good thing with a doak routing and an amateur shaping is that you can easily fix it....

doak crew finishing off an amateur routing might have a chance to be OK, it's not going to be great, just OK. and they'll spend a lot of money to fix the routing mistakes to make it work...

it's always possible to demolish the value of a routing through amateurish shaping... by flattening out natural contours, missing the scale of a site, (reminds me of walking Royal Montreal Blue) and developing a bad bunkering plan

[Philippe Binette]

TE Paul: there you go an amateur can do a great routing 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

We've had this debate before, but if you want to start again.

I'll concede that these great amateur architects (Fownes, Hugh Wilson, Crump, etc.) did great work because they spent so much more time on their pet projects than most professional architects do --

IF you'll concede that they also spent years improving upon those courses, which for a professional architect, would be interpreted as "correcting their mistakes."

[Joe Hancock]

Wouldn't it also be safe to say that, by far, the majority of amateur routings missed the mark considerably? I would imagine a great deal of professionally routed golf courses were less than optimal as well.

Joe

[Charlie Goerges]

Man, I wish I had a photo of what I consider to be the worst example of routing a single hole that I have ever seen. Anyone on this site could (and would) have done better. Perhaps I'll try to approximate it with a makeshift topo drawing because, damn.

[Tom_Doak]

Joe:

Yours is a good point ... Tom's using Merion and Pine Valley and those courses is a great example of the "survivor bias", because it doesn't include all the other poor attempts by guys who might have seemed as qualified as Crump to begin with.

A few guys going 1-for-1 can only be evaluated in the context of how many went 0-for-1, if you're comparing them against an architect who designed 50 or 200 courses.

[TEPaul]

"IF you'll concede that they also spent years improving upon those courses, which for a professional architect, would be interpreted as "correcting their mistakes."

TomD:

I sure will concede the first point----eg that they (those famous band of so-called "amateur" architects) spent years improving upon their special projects. I don't really need to concede that point anyway as history is so clear about that in frankly every case of those great "amateur" courses.

As for the second part of your statement above----eg that for a professional architect, that would've been interpreted as "correcting their mistakes", I'm not so sure I would concede that right now but I sure would like to have that part opened up to discussion and debate.

Matter of fact that second part of your statement I believe needs a few additional questions added to it to discuss it correctly such as:

1. What really good courses were there in this country by professional architects in the first decade of the 20th century for anyone to look to as a model?

2. If the answer to that first question is few to none, then we have to ask, why was that the case back then? Was it because the professional contingent back in the first decade wasn't very good or was it because they simply weren't spending the time on any projects for various reasons? I think the answer is pretty obvious----eg no they weren't and for a variety of reasons that probably had a lot to do with a lot of things that did not necessarily include their own talent levels (if they had bothered to slow down and take some time).

3. I think history also tells us how this era and evolution sort of flowed back and forth together---eg those so-called "amateurs" did what they did to develop their great courses because at the time there wasn't much or enough of a professional pool to do it for them (to take that kind of time to do what they did). And secondly, isn't it interesting that basically not another of those famous "amateur" projects that took so much time was begun again after about the end of WW1. Why do you suppose that was? In my opinion, it was because at that point they did not have to do what they'd done preceding that because at that point (just following WW1 most everyone could see the professional contingent had become more organized and more efficient primarily because they were beginning to devote themselves solely to architecture and they had become far more comprehensive in their dedication to most all of their projects----eg other than a mode of basic routing for about $50 and then onto the next town. Plus beginning around that time America was actually beginning, and for the very first time, to pay them for what it took them to do if and when they slowed down some and dedicated themselves more to comprehensive golf architecture projects.



I think the trap we just do not need to fall into on these kinds of threads is some big debate about whether professional architects just inherently and innately have more raw talent compared to a so-called "amateur" architects of the likes of Leeds or Fownes, Wilson, Crump etc from that early era who spend so much time on particular projects.

I don't think that will ever get us anywhere or to some final answer. The point is those men did take a lot of time and they did design and create great golf courses over time and they did it basically on their own. This whole notion promoted on here by the likes of a Moriarty or MacWood that in every case they must have found some professional to do it for them somehow whose name has been purposely forgotten by history or some respected professional like Colt who's been purposefully dissed and dismissed by some club like Merion or Pine Valley is just bullshit plain and simple, and that kind of bullshit constitutes some real historic revisionism, simply because it's just so factually inaccurate.

In that vein, the facts are out there, much more so now, and history is talking to us this way. It's about time we listen to it and start giving up taking seriously some of these hair-brained interpretations of it!   

Or you can ask and answer this another way, TomD. Here's a good question for you:

"Did you suddenly come to understand routing and golf architectural design the minute someone agreed to pay you for it? 

I think you'll answer that question that of course that's not true. You obviously came to understand it and get good at it after spending a necessary amount of time on it and with it. Those famous "amateur" architects spent that kind of necessary time too; let's never forget that.

[Joe Hancock]

TEPaul,

I think routing a course is a melding of art and intelligence, feel and flow, function and form. It is a complicated, oft misunderstood activity. It isn't easy.

Whether money is involved or not.

Joe

[Charlie Goerges]

Okay, here's my example.

Actual routing (don't know if it was amateur or not, but it probably was):



Here is the routing that the amateurs in my group proposed:



None of us has designed a course, but that hole was so bad, almost anything would have been better.

[Joe Hancock]

Charlie,

Hard to tell anything by what you posted, other than you do graphics way better than I do.

That knoll that the green sits on would be hard to abandon if all the other land is as gentle as your topo lines indicate. But, the hole as routed does leave a lot to be desired. If the green were approached from a different angle and from a different distance, would that land feature be cool? Or was it just a difficult place for a green?

Joe

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I think routing a course is a melding of art and intelligence, feel and flow, function and form. It is a complicated, oft misunderstood activity. It isn't easy."


Joe:

No, it certainly isn't easy and I think in my life, and relatively recently like in the last decade, I've come to find out perhaps many to most of the reasons why it sure isn't easy, but I've been fortunate to have had some truly good mentors and teachers. And furthermore, I do not believe these kinds of things can be taught on here or from books or even completely by architects to students with just something like topos or in some classroom. It has to happen on the ground, on sites, and since I think that's true it does take time, that's for sure.

[Joe Hancock]

"TEPaul,
I think routing a course is a melding of art and intelligence, feel and flow, function and form. It is a complicated, oft misunderstood activity. It isn't easy."


Joe:

No, it certainly isn't easy and I think in my life, and relatively recently like in the last decade, I've come to find out perhaps many to most of the reasons why it sure isn't easy, but I've been fortunate to have had some truly good mentors and teachers. And furthermore, I do not believe these kinds of things can be taught on here or from books or even completely by architects to students with just something like topos or in some classroom. It has to happen on the ground, on sites, and since I think that's true it does take time, that's for sure.

Amen, Padre.....

[TEPaul]

CharlieG:

There is nothing really wrong with doing some hole individually like that one above but it is sort of in a vacuum. The real complexity of doing good routings is what leads up to that hole, how is the tee gotten to and from where and how do you get away from it with the next and the next and the next and what are they all anyway (one always has necessary balance and variety in the back of their minds)? It really is a big jigsaw puzzle and even if land, particularly interesting featureful land, can be a great asset it can also create as many obstacles and problems to a good routing and good holes.

The flipside of falling in love with some great natural landform for a hole is also really true if you can't get to it or away from it well. A really great landform for a great hole can wreck some of the rest of a routing just as fast or faster than anything else.

[Charlie Goerges]

That knoll that the green sits on would be hard to abandon if all the other land is as gentle as your topo lines indicate. But, the hole as routed does leave a lot to be desired. If the green were approached from a different angle and from a different distance, would that land feature be cool? Or was it just a difficult place for a green?

I guess what's missing is the context, so it is tough to say from a topo. If you were there, I guarantee you'd have thought the hole sucked.  That knoll was a nice spot, but definitely not from the angle the hole plays from. The four of us concluded that since the next hole was a par 3, re-routing that hole and the par 3 would have made for a much nicer couple of holes without much impact on the rest of the routing.

Also, the "flat" area wasn't without contour, but it was mostly less than 10 feet, which was the interval in the sketch. Plus, I didn't want to take the time to make the interval smaller.

[Ian_L]

Charlie, I'm a bit confused by the topo.  Is the green 50 feet above the fairway?

[Charlie Goerges]

Ian, yes, roughly 40-50 feet. And also bear in mind, this is greatly simplified from the real thing.

I feel like the guy telling the joke, nobody laughs, and I say 'I guess you just had to be there'.

[Mike_Young]

TP,
Forget this amateur vs professional architect routing stuff....that is not the way to compare..it should make sense that the more routings one does and puts on the ground then the better chance he has of getting it right.  All the while knowing that there is no perfect routing....just some better than others.  That has always been my basis  when arguing the definition of architect as it pertains to guys that do nothing but restoration and guys that do both restoration and their own projects.  Now before you get your little Armani underwear and Gucci thin soled loafers in a wad.......I am not saying i don't appreciate the work of the pure restoration guys...I do...but I appreciate new courses routed properly and designed with the old elements more.
 
Also....so many of the "signature architects" have a routing in place before they ever get the job..so I think it is fair to say the same there as above....in  much of the architecture of the last 25 years the routing took a backseat to shaping and hyperbole....and I think much of this stuff will go away with the present on going correction.    

I also think that total freedom in routing is a huge factor in routing quality vs. many of the older places where the clubhouse was already located or in modern times where a specific spine road or system was primary importance.

So for me, routing is the most important and critical piece of the puzzle in defining the work of an architect and it can only come about by experience of placing those routings on the ground...be it amateur or professional.....and if someone has designed 300 courses but a land planner told them where to place it..then that doesnt count......And I'm sure  someone may get it right the one time they do it..but I dont think that has happened yet either....JMO

[TEPaul]

MikeY:

I agree with what you say in that last post. You and I have sure talked about all this a lot over the last some years and I think we're on the same page.

But just on the subject of routing----even with the routings of Merion East and Pine Valley, one should definitely remember that on the former it did take some time (over ten years) to get that one the way it is now (even if about half the holes were the way they are now back in 1911) which is pretty damned good.

With Pine Valley, we sure do know that Crump struggled for a number of years to get that routing right and when he died we do know from the remarks of a couple of his friends speaking directly to him that he himself felt a number of things still had to be done and he told them what he planned to do. From Father Carr (about the 15th anyway) that was the last he ever spoke to him and all of a sudden he was gone. I think it is most interesting to consider how a few of the holes of Pine Valley would be different had Crump lived than they are now (this is all documented, BTW).

But the routing that sort of blows me away is Oakmont's. Assuming most think that course has a great routing I was totally stunned within the last year to see a stick routing of the course from 1903 which was before the course was built. Other than lengthening over the years I was just dumfounded how much the routing then is the same as it is now.

And who did it? I don't think there's much question it was H.C. Fownes with his son W.C. If this is all true here's a case of a couple of first time "amateur" architects who sort of nailed it right out of the box. Neither one of them did 300 or 200 or 100 or even 5 other routings and courses in their careers so we will never know if that might have helped them get even better at routing, will we?

All we have to go by is Oakmont's routing-----again, their first.

[Mike_Young]

MikeY:

I agree with what you say in that last post. You and I have sure talked about all this a lot over the last some years and I think we're on the same page.

But just on the subject of routing----even with the routings of Merion East and Pine Valley, one should definitely remember that on the former it did take some time (over ten years) to get that one the way it is now (even if about half the holes were the way they are now back in 1911) which is pretty damned good.

With Pine Valley, we sure do know that Crump struggled for a number of years to get that routing right and when he died we do know from the remarks of a couple of his friends speaking directly to him that he himself felt a number of things still had to be done and he told them what he planned to do. From Father Carr (about the 15th anyway) that was the last he ever spoke to him and all of a sudden he was gone. I think it is most interesting to consider how a few of the holes of Pine Valley would be different had Crump lived than they are now (this is all documented, BTW).

But the routing that sort of blows me away is Oakmont's. Assuming most think that course has a great routing I was totally stunned within the last year to see a stick routing of the course from 1903 which was before the course was built. Other than lengthening over the years I was just dumfounded how much the routing then is the same as it is now.

And who did it? I don't think there's much question it was H.C. Fownes with his son W.C. If this is all true here's a case of a couple of first time "amateur" architects who sort of nailed it right out of the box. Neither one of them did 300 or 200 or 100 or even 5 other routings and courses in their careers so we will never know if that might have helped them get even better at routing, will we?

All we have to go by is Oakmont's routing-----again, their first.

TP,
Is Oakmont a great routing?  I don't know....have played it a couple of times but still don't know that answer.....but if you say that is a case of someone that got it right first time.....I can live with that

[TEPaul]

MikeY:

I think Oakmont is a great routing. I think the way to tell is given that raw property it sure does have a ton of excellent holes and after all what is a great routing if not a ton of great holes? 

If there is some way the Fownes could've improved on their routing or the holes on that course I guess I'd have to say, then, I sure can't figure out how that would be. But since I admit I can't figure that out maybe I don't know as much about routing as I think I might.

[Mike_Young]

I never said it wasn't......I just asked.....I think that in great routings tee sites, landing areas and green sites need to be as natural as possible and yet landing areas need to be chosen that move water via sheet drainage as much as possible...  I trust your judgement....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()