[Patrick_Mucci]

Reading the threads about Merion got me thinking about the five (5) plans that were originally drawn.

It also got me thinking about NGLA.

At NGLA it would seem that a routing would have to follow an "out" and "in" pattern, that the MACRO architecture was pretty much dictated by the property.

In thinking about "five" potential routings of Merion, and the perhaps, limited routings available at NGLA, I also thought of York CC in PA, where two eminent architects, Ross and Flynn crafted routings for the same property.  There were some similarities and some differences in their routings.

I also thought of Pine Valley and the "creativity gap" in the mid to end holes.

Then, the property at Pebble Beach came to mind.

I've always been fascinated by the creative process that results in a workable routing, I've always felt that "routing" was the "first" genius in the design effort.

If the clubhouse location is established, doesn't that dictate a huge segment of the routing ?  Doesn't it dictate the MACRO architecture ?

So let's get back to Merion.

Knowing the property, and knowing the location of the clubhouse, could those five (5) routings have been dramatically different from one another ?

Does the property, and Merion's property is fairly unique, dictate the MACRO architecture, the general routing ?

If so, then the genius of Merion and other courses, is in the individual hole designs, the MICRO architecture, since the MACRO architecture is achieved through default.

Your thoughts ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Yes.   Absolutely.

If the property has clear limitations, which the Merion property did in terms of east west width north of Ardmore Ave. and north/south width south of it not to mention a public road running through it and a big hole up in the northern quadrant.

I'm still amazed that Macdonald/Whigham and Barker recommended it as a great site.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Pat

My opinion Routing is the Design, all else are just additions.

Features do not produce a course, although some fixed features may well persuade the earlier designers (with next to no real budget or serious earth moving  machinery) to make the best out of the terrain. Today that no longer seems to apply. We tend to strip the land back to near the bedrock and re sculpture again – for me a classic example is the Castle Course outside St Andrews.

Question - is this the right way, it is certainly the most costly, but then I am not a designer and do not fully understand the full process. Yet I feel that design from the early 20th Century has evolved, not away from design but  incorporating much more of the construction elements within the original design concept. This is, I presume because we still want or need to build golf courses in what I would describe as unsuitable locations.

In the 19th Century certain journalist believed that a golf course pr-existed within the landscape and it just need a good golfer designer of some merit to identify, then lay out the Greens and fairways. This was I believe the advantage of Virgin sites in good locations.

So for me the design is the routing – The feature whether fixed or Man made today can be shape to suit the pocket of the owner(s), unlike the 19th Century who worked with the constraint of the land, machinery and of course money.

Hence, why I believe the original period from 1840-1900 should be called the Golden Age of Golf Design – this was the period that all the basics were developed, standard and rules started and the introduction of Golf to the World.  Nevertheless, Course Design is still exactly that Routing the Land.

Melvyn   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

In the case of Merion, I agree that the routings had to have had some great similarities.  Each leg of the L was only about 2 or 4 holes wide.  If they wanted to use the hill tops for greens and tees the holes would have had to be similar.  They might have been reversed in the same corridor in a few cases and there would have been some other differences.  When the estate north of the second hole got purchased it may have just lengthened the holes past CBM's 6000 yard recommendation or eliminated some walkbacks to the next tee.

All of the above is just generalities of cousre. If they ever find those plans or show them to us, I could be proven wrong.

The property starts to dictate routing when it is small.  In the case of PB where there was property for both homes and golf, there were probably numerous options, as it would be any time a property gets larger.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yes.   Absolutely.

If the property has clear limitations, which the Merion property did in terms of east west width north of Ardmore Ave. and north/south width south of it not to mention a public road running through it and a big hole up in the northern quadrant.

I'm still amazed that Macdonald/Whigham and Barker recommended it as a great site.

Maybe their talents allowed them to know something that others didn't 

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Yes, as memory serves they both saw a sporty little 6000 yard max course with rote hole lengths.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

6,000 to 6,200 was the ideal length circa 1911.

But, you already knew that ..... didn't you ?

Let's not divert and dilute this thread by pursuing your "Philly" agenda

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Philly evidently wanted men's tees on their course. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,

Philly evidently wanted men's tees on their course. 

Why?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Because there evidently weren't any in NY. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

What's happened to this thread is a good example of how GCA.com has deteriorated.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Possibly Pat, and if any part of what you are saying is aimed at me I can only say that I never meant to dilute or divert this topic.
On the other hand, you narrowed this down to Merion's 5 routings ("So let's get back to Merion") and they are already a hot topic on another thread, so that might account for some of what you are seeing as dilution or diversion.

   

[Mike_Cirba]

What's happened to this thread is a good example of how GCA.com has deteriorated.

Gee Patrick,

What I thought was happening on this thread was a few friends teasing each other.

We've covered every topic related to the history of Merion from every possible angle and it's truly to the point of absurdity.

I tried to bring a little humor as I sensed yet again things had reached a boiling point in too much of the dialogue.

I thought I was one of the people here still talking about architecture, architectural history, and architectural theory as well as doing research on golf courses.     

If you think I'm part of the problem then I definitely think I need a break.   

[Forrest Richardson]

I have never worked on a site that did not have multiple routing options — many, many options. Even when it seems that things are "set" there always seems to be a slight variation. That is not to say that there is not one "best" routing — that does present itself.

[John Foley]

Does the property, and Merion's property is fairly unique, dictate the MACRO architecture, the general routing ?

If so, then the genius of Merion and other courses, is in the individual hole designs, the MICRO architecture, since the MACRO architecture is achieved through default.

Your thoughts ?

Patrick - I would think that in general a property that had very unique features would have some similarities in it's Macro architecture (ie The Routing) - but the architects vision & his ability to bring out the details makes the golfer stand up and take notice.

Look at Weed's update of Leatherstocking. No greens we're touched, the bunkers updated and added. I am sure the the pre-weed Leatherstocking course was a tremendous course. Guys ion this board (Jim Kennedy, Paul Cowley, Scott Wood) have all said this. I never played it, but the Weed re-do and the bunker features / green surrounds he updated make the course stand out. Have you played the course pre or post update?

Another great example was the recently completed routing excersize done over the topo of Erin Hills. There was tremendous variation on what was submitted on a property that had some (not as much as those you state) very unique features. A few routings we're similar, but the final product varied tremendously.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What's happened to this thread is a good example of how GCA.com has deteriorated.

Gee Patrick,

What I thought was happening on this thread was a few friends teasing each other.

We've covered every topic related to the history of Merion from every possible angle and it's truly to the point of absurdity.

Mike,  this thread ISN'T about the history or authorship of Merion.

It's about the configuration of a property and clubhouse location dictating the routing of a golf course, making the process potentially less complicated, at Merion and every other golf course.

I tried to bring a little humor as I sensed yet again things had reached a boiling point in too much of the dialogue.

I thought I was one of the people here still talking about architecture, architectural history, and architectural theory as well as doing research on golf courses.     

If you think I'm part of the problem then I definitely think I need a break.   

Jim Kennedy,

This thread is primarily about the process of ROUTING as it's influenced by the property and clubhouse location.

And, the potential differences and similarities between the five (5) alternate routings presented for consideration at Merion, in the context of the constraints of the property and the clubhouse location.

It's a thread that shouldn't be tainted by blind allegiance or wild premises.

[Scott Weersing]

Not all routings are dependent on the property.

For example, Chambers Bay had no limitations as to the routing as it was just a big gravel pit. The property effects the routing as they wanted to have some holes down by the water and the railroad tracks.

Other routings improve when more property becomes available. For example, Kidd had a routing for Bandon Dunes that did not include the land for the current 5, 6 and 7 holes. The course would not be as good if he did not have access this section of the property.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Foley,

I've not played Leatherstocking, but intend to one day.

With respect to Leatherstocking are you making a case for elevating Micro Architecture over Macro Architecture ?

Or, that Micro architecture is the "icing on the cake" ?

Once the clubhouse is sitused, doesn't that determine or influence a good deal of the routing ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

I''m not familiar with Chamber's Bay, but, it's hard to imagine that the property didn't dictate the routing.  Unfortunately, my Google Earth feature isn't working.  Is there a before and after aerial of the property ?

Why didn't Kidd have access to the land you mentioned, I thought that Keiser owned it all ?

[Charlie Goerges]

To all:

What constitutes a different routing? For instance, taking the NGLA example, is it a different routing if everything runs the same direction in the same corridors, but with different starting and stopping points? Or do you really only consider it different only if there are many differences in direction as well?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Charlie,

I consider routing the sequencing and orientation of the holes.

Others may have a different view on the subject

[Charlie Goerges]

Patrick,

Forgive the denseness of my question, but what exactly is meant by sequence in this context? I've always considered it to mean the order (in that sense, isn't the sequence always 1-18 ).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Forgive the denseness of my question, but what exactly is meant by sequence in this context? I've always considered it to mean the order (in that sense, isn't the sequence always 1-18 ).

George,

If the first hole is a par 4, the second hole could be a par 3, 4 or 5, that's a form of sequencing.

[mike_malone]

 I think the property affects a good routing. I suggest two examples that baffle me as to their use of the property---Edgemont and Overbrook. Each seems to get caught in the up and down the hill trap rather than using the ridges as Flynn would. This leads to an awkward feel and for Overbrook too many blind shots. For Edgemont it is too many straight up the hill and down. I would need to spend some serious time roaming the courses to find a better routing. But, for Edgemont, in particular, just driving by it provides insight into better possibilities.

   Then there is Cobbs. Here the routing has been changed but the green sites remain in their original place. As a result, you can clearly see how the use of the property was much better in its original form. The huge uphill #6, the drop shot par #12, the angled tee shot for#9, the uphill and side hill #11, the side hill and up hill #10 par three, and the interesting tee shot and blind approach to #13 are stunning uses of the property. Now this has been lost to several flatter approaches or more up and down the hill shots.


     So, the routing is not determined by the property but a good one is.

[Jim Nugent]

At Sebonack, Jack's designers came up with an initial routing.  Then Tom entered the picture, and routed the course differently.  They went with Tom's routing.  I wonder how similar/different the two were? 

Also, how differently did Raynor route CPC, from Mackenzie? 

At the opposite end of Merion are courses like Sand Hills, Ballyneal and Rock Creek.  From what I've read, the architects could have chosen dozens of routings, or more. 

I hope more architects will post on this.  They know many times more than I ever will. 

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()