[JNC Lyon]

From reading some of the posts in the Fishers Island thread, it seems there is much debate about how to account for land when judging a golf course.  The question raised is: would a golf course be as good if it sat on a different piece of property?  This got me thinking.  I am wondering if the land is detachable for a golf course layout to judge the pure architecture of a golf course.  If architecture (specifically, routing a golf course) involves melded golf holes with a piece of property, and if architecture is to be judged on how well a course fits with the land and appears natural, then can we actually distinguish a golf course's "architecture" from a golf course's "land?"

The ultimate question, for me, is: does the land, as an external force, take a golf course and its architect and change people's perception of it? Or, does an architect stumble upon a piece of land and fit a golf course into it to make better?

I believe that the architecture of a golf course cannot be judged separately from the land it sits on.  Architecture and land are inexorably linked.

Discuss!

[Joe Hancock]

Routing matters.

So while the land is important, it can be somewhat nullified by improper use...or uncreative use, perhaps, as another way of stating it.

I'm specifically thinking of ridges and spines on a property. If the architect routes only in parallel or perpendicular angles to the ridges and spines, then the interest of diagonals is lost.

I'm sure others will have more interesting takes on this, and I'll be interested to hear what they say.

Joe

[JNC Lyon]

Routing matters.

So while the land is important, it can be somewhat nullified by improper use...or uncreative use, perhaps, as another way of stating it.

I'm specifically thinking of ridges and spines on a property. If the architect routes only in parallel or perpendicular angles to the ridges and spines, then the interest of diagonals is lost.

I'm sure others will have more interesting takes on this, and I'll be interested to hear what they say.

Joe

It seems like this would be example of the golf course misusing the land.  There are certainly many oceanside sites that are as good as Fishers, but they have been butchered by poor architecture (think: old British political party coniferous trees).

[Mark_Fine]

Location might matter but the land IS the golf course.  I guess I really have no idea what you are talking about.  You can't move a golf course without moving the land it sits on!

[cary lichtenstein]

Routing matters.

So while the land is important, it can be somewhat nullified by improper use...or uncreative use, perhaps, as another way of stating it.

I'm specifically thinking of ridges and spines on a property. If the architect routes only in parallel or perpendicular angles to the ridges and spines, then the interest of diagonals is lost.

I'm sure others will have more interesting takes on this, and I'll be interested to hear what they say.

Joe

It seems like this would be example of the golf course misusing the land.  There are certainly many oceanside sites that are as good as Fishers, but they have been butchered by poor architecture (think: old British political party coniferous trees).

The best example of poor use of the land I can think of is Dismal River and our of the best example of excellent use of the land is Ballyneal. I also think that a course like Sanctuary is excellent use of land that several architects were scared to death to even try.

[Mark_Fine]

Cary,
What do you think of Pete Dye's use of the land at Whistling Straits?  Did you know it wasn't a grain of sand on the property before he got there and it was relatively featureless.  How about his use of the land at TPC Sawgrass?  It was a big swamp.  What about Gil Hanse's use of land at Applebrook?  I got a kick out a fellow playing partner's comments about Applebrook.  He said it was amazing how Gil was able to shape these huge land forms on a few of the holes.  I didn't want to tell him (but did anyway) that some of those big land forms were old fillpads for homes that never got built.  My point is very few golfers have any idea what the land looked like before the golf course was there.  Furthermore, the land IS the golf course.  You can't pick up a golf course and move it without moving the land.  If you could pick it up and move it, what you could change is the land's location and/or proximity to features around it.  Cypress Point for example wouldn't be Cypress Point if you picked it up and stuck somewhere in a corn field in Montana.  It is what it is.   The initial question - "would a golf course be as good if it sat on a different piece of property?" I don't get what JNC is talking about unless he is talking about a different location e.g. my Cypress Point example. 
Mark

[Chris Flamion]

I was actually thinking the same thing about half way through the Fisher's Island thread.  I know you cane have great courses on boring land and you can have junk courses on great land.  I think it comes down to this...

A great course will take a piece of property and showcase everything that makes that piece of property great.  Regardless of how great the property is to begin with, the best course will get the most out of that land.

[JNC Lyon]

Cary,
What do you think of Pete Dye's use of the land at Whistling Straits?  Did you know it wasn't a grain of sand on the property before he got there and it was relatively featureless.  How about his use of the land at TPC Sawgrass?  It was a big swamp.  What about Gil Hanse's use of land at Applebrook?  I got a kick out a fellow playing partner's comments about Applebrook.  He said it was amazing how Gil was able to shape these huge land forms on a few of the holes.  I didn't want to tell him (but did anyway) that some of those big land forms were old fillpads for homes that never got built.  My point is very few golfers have any idea what the land looked like before the golf course was there.  Furthermore, the land IS the golf course.  You can't pick up a golf course and move it without moving the land.  If you could pick it up and move it, what you could change is the land's location and/or proximity to features around it.  Cypress Point for example wouldn't be Cypress Point if you picked it up and stuck somewhere in a corn field in Montana.  It is what it is.   The initial question - "would a golf course be as good if it sat on a different piece of property?" I don't get what JNC is talking about unless he is talking about a different location e.g. my Cypress Point example. 
Mark

The Cypress Point example is exactly what I was talking about.  Can you judge the architecture at Cypress Point separately from the quality of the property?

With regards to the Pete Dye examples, I think it is better to judge a course on how natural it appears rather than how natural it actually is.  The Ocean Course, for example, is very natural in appearance despite being almost completely manufactured.  I am guessing that Whistling Straits is similar (though I have not played it).  Natural appearance is much easier to ascertain as a golfer.

I'm not sure I would go as far to say that the land IS the golf course.  I think the land is as good as the architect makes it.  That can a variety of different things to different architects.

[Matt_Ward]

JNC:

Keep this in mind -- those courses blessed with great land were scoped out for that very reason.

Early on architects in the early part of the 20th century had free rein away from any federal, state / local environmental regulations. Wetlands were filled in as desired. The land allowed for quality design to proceed -- although not in all cases were such efforts successful.

Great courses borrow the linkage to great restaurants -- location, location, location.

Few great courses have mediocre sites -- the best example I can immediately mention would be what Tillinghast did for Winged Foot -- both courses. Westchester County has some marvelous terrain but the 36-hole layout in Mamaroneck isn't one of them - inspite of that Tillie still hit a big time home run.

Land, in my mind represents somewhere between 50-60% of the total equation. Show me inferior land and odds are you will get a so-so course in most instances. There are exceptions but they are truly in the minority.

After the land itself -- the issue becomes one of the routing -- how well does the architect use all the natural features of the property in providing for a range of holes that magnify its overall qualities.

The final element -- is the wherewithal of the architect to include a range of shot situations that blend all elements of dexterity with the greatest range of clubs.

Let me give a good example -- Old Head has a stellar site in a number of ways -- however, the totality of the design only succeeeds partially with three six-hole subsets that highlight excellent, so-so and low level design outcomes.

[Sean_A]

I agree that architecture should be judged by how well it fits with the land if that is the intention, but what if that isn't the intention?  Can great architecture be dismissed because it doesn't flow with the land no matter if its man made or not?  If so, there is a lot of great stuff out there guys praise which they shouldn't.   

For my part, it doesn't matter if the land is greatly altered or not.  What rests on that land is the architecture so its impossible to separate the two.  To me, this includes what can be seen in the immediate and long range vistas and how that makes one feel about being on the course.  At some point folks have to realize that architecture is as much about the emotional response of the golfer as it is about the technical aspects.  How many technically good courses out there remain only good because they didn't impact the golfer in a meaningful way?  This is the reason we have such varying differences of opinion concerning what is ok, good or great.  We can all chuck out certain elements we like to see in greatness if a course impacts us in an a positive emotional manner. 

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

What is "natural" about #17 at The TPC at Sawgrass?  The answer is pretty much nothing.  Same goes for the rest of the golf course.  So what - does that mean it's bad.  How did Pete do with the land there?  Same goes for what Fazio did at Shadow Creek?  It was a flat piece of featureless desert.  Did he get the most out of the land?  You could add in theTalking Stick sites that C&C had to work with as well. 

This thread is getting off track as I thought the initial question was centered around - "would a golf course be as good if it sat on a different piece of property?"  That to me says the "routing is fixed" and you are just picking up the land/whole course, and moving it to another location. 

[Mike_Young]

IMHO most of our great courses were elevated by the land and the LOCATION of the land....would we have heard of CPC or Pebble if not for the location?  Also in cases where the  course elevates the land as MF indicates above....it is a case of an architect building the course "ON the land" whereas IMHO many of our greatest courses were on land where the architect was able to build the course INTO the land.....I think the majority of great courses were elevated by the land and the location of the land....

[Mark_Fine]

Well said Mike! 

[JNC Lyon]

IMHO most of our great courses were elevated by the land and the LOCATION of the land....would we have heard of CPC or Pebble if not for the location?  Also in cases where the  course elevates the land as MF indicates above....it is a case of an architect building the course "ON the land" whereas IMHO many of our greatest courses were on land where the architect was able to build the course INTO the land.....I think the majority of great courses were elevated by the land and the location of the land....

My question is, how can you judge the quality of a Cypress Point or Pebble Beach in the setting of an Iowa cornfield rather than the cliffs of the Monterey Peninsula?  The routing at both courses centers on the ocean holes.  Would the architects not have routed the course differently and employed a different style of architecture if it was in a different location?  I don't think you can separate the course from the land it is built upon.  I agree with the distinction between "into the land" and "on the land,"  but I still think it is impossible to judge whether either type of course would better or worse if it were on a different piece of property.  You cannot just, as Mark Fine says above "pick up the up the land/whole course and move it to another location."

[Mike_Young]

IMHO most of our great courses were elevated by the land and the LOCATION of the land....would we have heard of CPC or Pebble if not for the location?  Also in cases where the  course elevates the land as MF indicates above....it is a case of an architect building the course "ON the land" whereas IMHO many of our greatest courses were on land where the architect was able to build the course INTO the land.....I think the majority of great courses were elevated by the land and the location of the land....

My question is, how can you judge the quality of a Cypress Point or Pebble Beach in the setting of an Iowa cornfield rather than the cliffs of the Monterey Peninsula?  The routing at both courses centers on the ocean holes.  Would the architects not have routed the course differently and employed a different style of architecture if it was in a different location?  I don't think you can separate the course from the land it is built upon.  I agree with the distinction between "into the land" and "on the land,"  but I still think it is impossible to judge whether either type of course would better or worse if it were on a different piece of property.  You cannot just, as Mark Fine says above "pick up the up the land/whole course and move it to another location."

With respect and IMHO....CPC or Pebble ain't CPC or Pebble if in an Iowa ornfield...too many average golf holes.....trust me...if either were on a different piece of property they would be worse  

[JNC Lyon]

IMHO most of our great courses were elevated by the land and the LOCATION of the land....would we have heard of CPC or Pebble if not for the location?  Also in cases where the  course elevates the land as MF indicates above....it is a case of an architect building the course "ON the land" whereas IMHO many of our greatest courses were on land where the architect was able to build the course INTO the land.....I think the majority of great courses were elevated by the land and the location of the land....

My question is, how can you judge the quality of a Cypress Point or Pebble Beach in the setting of an Iowa cornfield rather than the cliffs of the Monterey Peninsula?  The routing at both courses centers on the ocean holes.  Would the architects not have routed the course differently and employed a different style of architecture if it was in a different location?  I don't think you can separate the course from the land it is built upon.  I agree with the distinction between "into the land" and "on the land,"  but I still think it is impossible to judge whether either type of course would better or worse if it were on a different piece of property.  You cannot just, as Mark Fine says above "pick up the up the land/whole course and move it to another location."

With respect and IMHO....CPC or Pebble ain't CPC or Pebble if in an Iowa ornfield...too many average golf holes.....trust me...if either were on a different piece of property they would be worse  

I'm not saying that they would be better or worse.  I'm saying that they simply could not ever exist on another piece of property.  Those courses are what they are.  They cannot be abstractly removed from the property on which they sit.

[Mike_Young]

agree.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

It can and is both.  And it isn't black and white.  Its a percentage thing.

Look at any top 100 list.  How many are on average (not flat, or bad land) and how many on great sites?  Probably most are in there mostly by design and average to good sites, until you get to the top 10-25, where you need both great design and great sites.

And look at the number of ocean front courses that are not in the top 100 from Montauk to Sand Pines. Of course, we can't say "and many others in between" can we?  But obviously, the ocean doesn't make up for the design flaws.

As to PB, I truly think the ranking is somewhat ocean and ocean holes, and somewhat history.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,  what r u doing up this late?  U watching Ga Tech??

[Jud_T]

Thank you Mike,

I have been slammed for suggesting Pebble isn't the best thing since sliced bread without the views...

[Mark_Fine]

Jud,
And beer wouldn't be beer without the hops.  What is your point?  How could for example, #8 at Pebble could be anything but what it is?  You can't separate it from it's setting so why bother making the point!
Mark

[JNC Lyon]

Jud,
And beer wouldn't be beer without the hops.  What is your point?  How could for example, #8 at Pebble could be anything but what it is?  You can't separate it from it's setting so why bother making the point!
Mark

My thoughts exactly.  Cliff top holes cannot be reproduced anywhere except, well, cliff tops.

[Tom_Doak]

How many architects would have built the eighth hole at Pebble exactly as it is today?  Not very many, I think.  Most would likely have put a tee at the edge of the precipice and played further down the coast.

But I have to say I don't understand the framing of the question.  Is the question:  Would you rather have a great piece of land and a middling architect, or a middling piece of land and a great architect?  Because that's a silly question.  Anybody that had a great piece of land and only hired a middling architect would be out of his mind.

[Jud_T]

Guys,

#8 is one of the greatest holes on the planet, nobody, including some of the left-fielders here, would question that.  #7 also potentially falls into that category.  I just think that Pebble, while it has perhaps a collection of 5 or 6 of the most scenic holes on the planet, including 1 or 2 of the world 18 best holes, that as an 18-HOLE COURSE it has too many pedestrian holes to be considered a top 5 course on the planet...Of course, I only played it once in cool rainy weather and wasn't on my A game,  hmmmmmm, maybe I need to get back out there!

[Jud_T]

TomD,

I want a middling piece of land AND a middling architect.  Why, you ask?  1) So I can be really sleazy and cheap in the development and profit at others expense. 2) So I can impose my will and ego on the architect more easily 3) Because I'm a rich guys who thinks because he has money and a 15 hdcp. know something about GCA  4)  I can take credit for the press that my PR people create and last but not least so that 4) I can blame the middling architect when it ultimately fails...   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()