A highly developed imagination for earth shaping?!

[TEPaul]

Given the type and style of architecture you like, both aesthetically and with playability, do you think a highly developed imagination for earth shaping is an asset or a liability for an architect? Or do you, perhaps, on additional reflection and consideration, think it may be a little of both somehow?

I've been wrestling with this over-all question for about a month now and it's completely fascinating me.

OR, another way to look at what I'm trying to get at is this question:

If different architects are put on a site or even a particular landform at the same time, how different is what they see in their imagination and mind's eye for a golf course or even a golf hole on a particular landform?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Your first question is too complicated for me to understand what you mean.  But your last question is simple -- different architects see VASTLY different things in the same landform.  Which presumes of course that they ever see the landform at all, instead of drawing plans and having it regraded to build something entirely out of their imagination.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

That's funny; to me the first question is a lot easier than the second question.   

With the first one I've been wondering if architects with a highly developed imagination for earth shaping may not take as much time as they should (or perhaps other do) to use sites and landforms more the way they are naturally. I would think that might potentially mean a highly developed imagination for earth moving could be a liability or a drawback.

On the flip side, perhaps a highly developed imagination for earth moving could mean an architectural asset in that they would even be willing to take on a challenging site that others with less imagination for earth-moving (or even inclination to do it) would just walk away from.

[Eric Smith]

Tom Paul:

Does it take a lot of imagination to see this as a potential greensite?



I have to believe it does.  Pete Dye saw it as such and it is being built today.

[Norbert P]

. . . do you think a highly developed imagination for earth shaping is an asset or a liability for an architect?

  The more interesting land requires more restraint;   e.g. Carne or Sand Hills.  Both sites could have  reduced the truth of the land if the designers imposed too much reworking. The key is that they SAW greatness that was already there.

  The less featured land, I consider Talking Stick or Rawls in Lubbock as examples of successful results,  exemplify that the mind's eye, in the right skull, can create great golfing land.

  Now, Sandpines is a sad example of the antithesis of that balance.  I did not see the land prior to its completion, but I'm sure that the rythmic fairway-edged mounding was not shaped by nature.

[Tom_Doak]

Eric:

Is that imagination or just necessity?

Tom P:

Okay, I understand your first question much better now.  There's no question to me that having shaped greens and features for a couple of years made me much better at fitting holes to the ground, as opposed to just having seen all the great courses in years prior to that.

Still, it depends on what you mean by "a highly developed imagination for earth shaping."  Once you have a PREFERENCE for your own shapes as opposed to what you can do with natural forms, then I think you get away from even looking at what the land might give you.  It's pretty clear from looking at some architects' routings that they don't even look for natural landforms anymore ... they'll draw a hole with the landing area on a severe slope 50 yards past a good natural landing area, just because that's where it measured out from the tee.  Depending on your point of view, that's either "bold and unafraid," or "oblivious."

I do think I have a pretty highly developed imagination for earthmoving ... maybe I should take you to Stone Eagle someday when it's not 105 degrees.  However the more important skill is knowing when not to use it.

[Carl Rogers]

It is usually easier to take on a complex problem by breaking it down into digestable parts based on a specific context.

I remember at the Bay of Dreams, Tom talking to me about the 11th hole, a short par 4.  It seemed like that small piece of property as a 'bridge' between differing topographical segments of the larger whole.  It required significant shaping in the landing area.   Tom, I think you used the term 'problem child' and that it was easier to have 1 'problem' than 18.

[JNC Lyon]

Tom Paul:

For the first question, I think it all depends on how you use it.  I think many architects would build better courses if they had a limited concept of earthmoving and were forced to use the features of the land.  The modern example is usually mounding, but I think moving earth around can be more detrimental to potential greensites.  This is true not only of courses built in last 20 years, but also for courses built in the 50s and 60s.  I've been noticing a pattern at my temporary home course, Seven Oaks in Hamilton, NY, that, while many of the greens follow the slope of the land, they are unnecessarily built up from their surrounds.  Several of the greens would be more cohesive if the greenside rough flowed in contour directly into the greens.

On the other hand, I think many architects use earthmoving in ways that transform architecture.  Pete Dye is the prime example.  Would the Ocean Course or Whistling Straits be half the golf courses they are today without that Dye genius? I think the difference is that Pete Dye's shaping is not based on a bunch of different rippling forms (with Whistling Straits as a possible exception).  It seems like most of his features are one or two simple forms that make the hole different.  Specifically, I am thinking of the pushed up 3rd Green at the Ocean Course.  Many golfers would build an elaborately shaped greensite to tackle the flat land.  Instead, Dye built a very simple green that is elevated 6 feet on all sides from its surrounds and flat on the top.  It doesn't require complex construction, it is highly challenging, and, although it is artificial, it is a very attractive green complex.

What's the key difference between the two types of architects?  What makes Pete Dye better than Rees Jones?  Dye's courses make a concerted effort to make his courses appear natural, while Rees makes no attempt to do so.

[Eric Smith]

Tom that may be the case re: a necessity.

Judging By the looks of it, necessities can be ex-pen-sive!

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul:
Does it take a lot of imagination to see this as a potential greensite?"


Eric Smith:

I think so. To me it sure does in the context of imagination for earthmoving. I can tell you I doubt I ever would've seen it particularly when it was just in trees. But I have very little imagination for earth shaping and the potential results of construction machinery. I admit it, and frankly, for a number of years I've felt I never really want to know.

But now let me ask you a question. When that greensite in the photo above where you asked me that question----when that green site was in its natural state (including with trees on it) did it look like a "natural" greensite to you? Not a potential greensite, just a natural greensite?

[TEPaul]

TomD:

It's a bit off this subject but I need to ask you this question anyway. When you were a kid or whatever did you have an interest in things like jigsaw puzzles and such?

[Norbert P]

TomD:

 When you were a kid or whatever . . .

Whatever ?  Too funny.

[TEPaul]

That "whatever" actually has great meaning when it comes to Doak. He has personally told me that in some ways when he was a kid he wasn't a kid and now that he's no longer a kid, he is a kid----or at least greatly enjoys acting like one now and again.

I probably shouldn't say this on here and I hope it doesn't make him sore at me for telling this to this website but in the last few years Tom Doak has admitted to me that he gets up early regularly on Sunday mornings and watches old tapes of the Road Runner cartoons. He says it has given him a most interesting and new outlook on both life and golf course architecture.

[TEPaul]

And here is a new revelation on Gil Hanse and his imagination. Recently, when over at his house I came to realize that one of his great loves is NASCAR, the cars and particularly the tracks and such----even the drawing of same.

I thought my impromptu and apparently inappropriate references some time ago to NASCAR king "Fireball" Roberts was completely meaningless on here when I mentioned it.

Apparently not! 

[Eric Smith]

Eric Smith:


But now let me ask you a question. When that greensite in the photo above where you asked me that question----when that green site was in its natural state (including with trees on it) did it look like a "natural" greensite to you? Not a potential greensite, just a natural greensite?

Tom:

Before 2 days ago, I had never seen that site.  But theoretically, I doubt very much that I would look over to that tree covered rocky slope and think, 'now that's a wonderfully natural greensite'. Not even if I had been able to spend a month there pre-construction, working day and night trying to apply generally accepted flask architecture principles.

[TEPaul]

Wait a minute Eric Smith. This thread's subject is about a highly developed imagination for earth shaping when SOBER, not when practicing "Flask Architecture."

Hell on wheels, that green site in that photo you posted above even when completely treed and in its totally natural state would've been a complete snap for even me to pick out if I was practicing some really good "flask architecture" routing and such.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

It goes without saying a good imagination is a prerequisite for good shaping. A good imagination doesn’t necessary mean “over the top” creativity but essentially the ability to sift through many different ideas and come up with the best one - almost a process of elimination of ideas - including the option of minimal earth movement.

If there is lack of imagination it will tend to lead to simplicity and eventually repetition.

I was considering lately why so many older golf courses were redone by Braid, Simpson and Colt. After visiting Tain with greens lacking in imagination within an interesting natural dune landscape it is easy to understand why the more imaginative GCA’ers were allowed to reshape Muirfield and the like.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  I haven't seen "Road Runner" for some time but I loved it when I was 5-6 years old and I would probably still love it today.  Also, "Underdog".

I've always liked puzzles and maps (my dad made me the navigator on family trips when I was six or so), and I think working on those were great preparation for what I do today.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:  I haven't seen "Road Runner" for some time but I loved it when I was 5-6 years old and I would probably still love it today.  Also, "Underdog".

I've always liked puzzles and maps (my dad made me the navigator on family trips when I was six or so), and I think working on those were great preparation for what I do today."






AH-HAH!!!

GOD-DANG IT TO HELL----I KNEW IT. I just knew it, I knew it, I KNEW IT!!!!

I've got you all figured out now,  you,  you, you, little architectural genius, YOU!

YOU liked Road Runner AND UNDERDOG (now that is truly pyschologically FASCINATING) and you liked PUZZLES when you were a 5-6 year old kid. I knew it, I knew it, I KNEW IT!!

This explains almost EVERYTHING about you and your architecture and your style and approach. No wonder you can route any damn course on a topo in a weekend without ever even seeing it. You were you're Dad's little 5-6 year old NAVIGATOR?!? I knew it, I knew it, I KNEW IT!!

Could you even see over the dash-board at that point or did he just give you the streets and you immediately worked the navigation out on the maps in your little short pants?!? And no wonder you feel some kind of kinship for Mackenzie who just might've been the "quickest take" golf architecture has ever known.

I knew it, I knew it, I KNEW IT!!

Now, just consider Mike Hurzdan's background or Lester George's. Do you know what it was?

Or Bill Coore's?

What I'm saying is there's a ton in this that needs to be known and discussed, and not just by you guys in the business but by us who aren't in the business.

I'm not saying any of it is necessarily right or wrong or bad or good. All I'm saying is it can be SO different and it can produce such DIFFERENT results on perhaps even the very same thing.

This is great----great stuff, you, you, you, little old UNDERDOG Road Runner puzzle lover, you!

[Rob Rigg]

I admire the architect most who can see a piece of land that may not be very interesting, and turn it into something fascinating while moving as little dirt as possible.

If an architect sees a piece of land and does not use it at all, then he has no imagination IMO.

Putting in huge waste areas, water falls, artificial rivers, etc. does not equate to imagination, it is a lack of imagination.

The architect with imagination shines when using everything a piece of land can offer and only shaping it where necessary to make something the golfer will enjoy playing over and over again.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  Well, I know Lester and Mike Hurdzan were both in the military, and probably had some intensive map-reading courses there.  I had never really thought about that until a couple of years ago when one of our clients (Bill Foley, from Rock Creek) received my preliminary routing and called me right away excited about it.  It was obvious he could read the topo, and when I asked him why and he said he'd been in the military for five years.

[Ben Sims]

I'll admit that our orientation courses in survival school helped extensively in learning how to read topo.  In Geoff Shackelford's book "Grounds for Golf", he used topo maps and drawings by Gil Hanse to illustrate his points regarding routing and proper green placement.  Of course the last time I read a topo, I was under direct threat of capture by cadre' in the program.  Not looking for a nice natural amphitheater for a green placement.

[paul cowley]

Given the type and style of architecture you like, both aesthetically and with playability, do you think a highly developed imagination for earth shaping is an asset or a liability for an architect? Or do you, perhaps, on additional reflection and consideration, think it may be a little of both somehow?

I've been wrestling with this over-all question for about a month now and it's completely fascinating me.

OR, another way to look at what I'm trying to get at is this question:

If different architects are put on a site or even a particular landform at the same time, how different is what they see in their imagination and mind's eye for a golf course or even a golf hole on a particular landform?

I think a highly developed imagination for shaping is an required asset.....and that a person of ability adjusts this asset to meet the sites needs....regardless of whether its flat or steep.

In other words one modifies according to the sites needs.

It can take as much imagination to flesh out the minimal features of a site as it does to make bold statements on another

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:  Well, I know Lester and Mike Hurdzan were both in the military, and probably had some intensive map-reading courses there.  I had never really thought about that until a couple of years ago when one of our clients (Bill Foley, from Rock Creek) received my preliminary routing and called me right away excited about it.  It was obvious he could read the topo, and when I asked him why and he said he'd been in the military for five years."


TomD:


They were indeed and not just sort of short term or incidentally or even necessarily as I was (I was in the Marine Corps Reserses during the very beginnings of Vietnam after going through Paris Island, Geiger in Lejuene and MCRD in San Diego (the latter not for basic but MOS specialty training right next door) in total for about nine months back around 1965 and then for five years of a six year stint in the USMC Reserves).

Obviously their experiences in the military helped them bigtime with a talent and facility for topo map reading. Lester sure says as much as he was 25 years in the military. Hurzdan was pretty much into a Marine Corps career I believe, previous to his career in GCA.

But obviously you had or found your talent for real topo map reading somewhere else, TomD, as you weren't in the military, were  you?

I believe, like most anything else in life that things like that come naturally to some people and not others.

I think it's amazing if someone can really read a topo well enough to never be surprised by what-all he sees when he actually sees a site ON THE GROUND that he analyzed surveyed on a topo contour map.

Even after spending like 500-700 hours on that Ardrossan site trying to design a course (and I always had a survey topo contour map with me even if I never used it much) I used to be amazed at what the topo contours lines showed compared to what I was actually looking at on the ground.

But I know I could understand all that if I really tried. At that site I just never felt like relying on my topo map for anything other than just straight distance and marking it on the map or plan because one other thing that sort of bothered me about topo survey maps is there is no way what they show can give an architect any indication of what's off the site and what that looks like (basically background) which I feel should and could match up somehow or flow somehow sort of naturally with what is on the site that any architect might consider actually creating and building.

[Tom_Doak]

No, I wasn't in the military, which is lucky for me because I got to do a lot of other stuff between the ages of 21 and 25 that was even more useful for golf course architecture.

However, my dad was a Marine artillery officer in WW II (on Peliliu and Okinawa among other not-so-fun places), so I'm familiar with a few of the places you mentioned from your training days.

I learned to read topo first by learning to do grading plans in college, but I really got good at it when we were getting ready to build High Pointe.  I had 4-5 months to walk the site with a good topo map every day before we could start construction.  By the time we started I knew what every little bump and swale should look like on a topo map.  That was a big relief after working for Mr. Dye for a while and almost NEVER looking at a topo map in the field.

[Tags:]

Tags: