“The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.

[Melvyn Morrow]

That surely must be the proudest boast anyone can level at the door of any Designer/Architect “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”. To do so must be one of the highest goals in designing a golf course particularly if the course is also found to be fun and challenging to play

A complete display of ultimate skill, understand and knowledge of ones profession.

However, not many will ever get that close, restricted by clients, budgets or more often than not the selection and choice of the land.  Another proud boast is to say, ‘Well. I have to do it to keep a roof over my family’s head and also to put food in their mouths’ while totally honourable and  commendable, yet it does not quite cut it when looking for the next job.

“The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”. I wonder how many designers/architects care to answer how many of their courses comply with the above statement. Let’s make it easy, say over the last 10 projects how many of the ten have their original lie of the land?

Melvyn

PS This reference originated from a report in The Evening Times on The New Course St Andrews published the day after it was formally opened on the 10th May 1895. A full transcript can be seen in Tony Muldoon thread Re: The New Course. Tour with photo's  Reply # 70.  Did anyone actually notice?

[Jimmy Chandler]

That surely must be the proudest boast anyone can level at the door of any Designer/Architect “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.

Melvyn --

Why do you state this?  Is this true of whichever course you think is the best you've played?

[Alex Miller]

That surely must be the proudest boast anyone can level at the door of any Designer/Architect “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.

Melvyn --

Why do you state this?  Is this true of whichever course you think is the best you've played?

Why would a GCA be proud of doing nothing?

[Tom_Doak]

Melvyn:

I've never built a course where that is true of all 18 holes.  The only modern courses I've seen which are close to that, are Sand Hills and St. Andrews Beach.

In general, my goal is to have as many holes as possible where we don't change the contouring of the fairway and rough.  On most of our courses that is between 12 and 15 holes out of 18.  [St. Andrews Beach was 16 or 17 out of 18; only the 15th fairway and a small portion of the 13th were altered.]  However, if I do think a hole would be better if we altered the fairway a bit, I generally have little hesitation in doing the work, as long I'm confident we can do it in a way that nobody will be able to tell what we did.

[Kirk Gill]

Melvyn, you obviously hit it on the head with your comment regarding the choice of the land.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Gentlemen (including Alex)

The process of selecting the site of a new golf course in this day and age I presume in not a simple operation. The site is chosen for many reasons, one being the practicality of being a golf course or has the selection process changed out of all recognition?

If I am right in that selection is a major part, then why go and change it. After all its appearance was one of the reasons to built a course at that location. So why would a designer/architect not be content or please with the comment  “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”. I would have thought it would have shown his/her mastery of their profession.

Clearly I am mistaken, yet Tom and Kirk do not seem to object (if I have understood their posts). As for Jimmy, did you understand my post as I have to ask you why the question if you are a designer? However, I must say I am both shocked and surprised by Alex post “Why would a GCA be proud of doing nothing?”

I hope to God Alex, that you are not involved in the golf course industry or heavens forbid designing a golf course. If so then IMHO you have not only missed the point but do not understand the importance of LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION (I use the expression Land Fit for Purpose). Tell me would buy a beautiful expensive picture then go about changing it to blend in with your home, when buying a car would you take your time in choosing your Ferrari then immediately customize it? Clearly by your own question you know little about the game, its history or apparently are not that interested, which makes me wonder why you are involved in GCA.com. Is it just to post your preferred Top 20 or 100 courses and not look at golf course architecture. 

The game of golf in not just about dropping a ball in a little hole 18 times a round. It is also about the challenges both penal and strategic that tests and pushes a golfer, to make him think and step up in the hope of lifting the gauntlet the designers has thrown down. The secret and I believe Tom hit well on the point is to give the impression of  ‘doing nothing’. Something you Alex clearly never considered and why “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases” is perhaps a very proud boast.

Surely this site is more than the sum of just the best courses and players. At times I wonder as so many of you who play seem to be totally uninterested in the design, architecture and its history which I thought was the main reason for being a member of GCA.com.

Yet, I am pleased to see some are still in contact with their soul and the spirit of the game, so all hope is not totally lost for golf or GCA.com

Melvyn

[Steve Lang]

  I miss the day when we'd head out from the back yard with a 7-iron and 2 balls, play the house corner doglegs  to young sapplings along the street, work our way down to the schoolyard to take aim at building features, and parking lot manholes, pondering the architectural significances and trajectory demands of going over or around the baseball diamond backstops from 2nd base tees, keenly aware of the mid-course test of a rather long and crazy par 10 reaching into the park, across the pricker bushes lining the railroad track, to the 5th green, the 6th and 7th loop on course, to the dangerous short fountain hole, and heading back home over the tracks again past the evil tomato greenhouse moguls, around the swing set to the gym stairs and the finishing Cheltenham-Pelham lamp post finishing target.. then splitting from my partner for home.. 

ahh.. those were the days,... stick, balls, the raw lay of the land for the taking..

[Melvyn Morrow]

Steve

Many thanks for the insight into the American Way - well of playing golf. I would suggest that it sound much better that those island Greens and Mountain courses, but that only the impression I get from your description.

The problem is how you can describe it as natural. But I do agree those were the days.... of Empire, of colonies in the Americas, always fighting the French then the Spanish for the Inca Gold. Although come to think of it I do not recall golf in the America back then but it was played on TOC. History and tradition, don't you just love it - yes you are right those were the days.

Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

Melyvn,
Please, use the gifts that were given to you by, and at, birth.

There are some 20mil+ players of the game in the USA, where do you think the 2.4 million acres of 'perfect land' needed to satisfy the demand is going to be found? That's a number equal to the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined. 

There is much more to the 'world' of golf than fits into your limited description and not every course can be built to meet your ideals.  Golf would be a 'relic' by now if every course was forced to follow your dogmatic approach, there'd only be three courses in Florida, a couple in North Carolina, a handful in NY, one in NJ, and 15,985 in Nebraska     

Your point is well taken, impractical, but well taken.

[JESII]

Melvyn,

Are suggesting that "Original lie" and "people not knowing what we did" are the same thing?

I've had this question on here a few times...it seems the guys that were called minimalists are now calling themselves naturalists...unfortunately that shifts the burden from the architect to the observer. I can't tell worth a damn what wa sdone on a golf course unless it's really blatant...does that mean the architect passed the test if I can't tell the difference?

[archie_struthers]

 

Melvyn ,  what if you had a 200 acre piece of ground in a populous area where you could build a golf course , would you not do it because the ground wasn't good enough or had to be reconfigured?

It's nice that Tom Doak, Coore and Crenshaw get beautiful sites to work with on most occasions but what about the guys (architects) who are asked to build a course as an amenity to a housing development or (argghh) a municipal facility . Are they supposed to say no , knowing that they need the work or think they can build something worthwhile on what to you might be an unsuitable palette...I just want to make sure I understand your drift?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim (K)

The gift I was given at birth was true golf courses in my father’s back yard (as I believe is your term for our back garden), perhaps the close connection to golf and courses with family members popping out the back garden door for a round has had some bearing upon my opinions. Maybe it’s the family history, that of my father, his father and so on that also reflects upon my attitude to golf.

With all due respect, you know very little about me, your comment “ Please, use the gifts that were given to you by, and at, birth” may actually be the very gifts that makes me say what I do. I would not expect you to understand tradition but my family proudly can trace playing golf at TOC back to Old Tom’s grandfather circa pre 1770.  A history and tradition older than many modern countries in the world today, perhaps, just perhaps that might have a bearing on “use the gifts that were given to you by, and at birth”.

Again perhaps I should be saying “Your point is well taken, impractical, but well taken”. 

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

Archie

We all answer to our own conscience. But I thought I was saying the highest praise must be “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”, nothing sinister and no not many will I expect ever reach those dizzy heights of success that would generate such a statement.

Would I turn down a project if I felt it wrong? I have in the past on more than one occasion. If I thought the concept was wrong, I would not want my name associated with the potential mess that might occur. Yes we could have done with the work but reputations take years to earn but can be lost overnight. Maintaining ones name and reputation is far more important in the long run, I believe Tom may agree with that statement.     

Melvyn

[Garland Bayley]

That surely must be the proudest boast anyone can level at the door of any Designer/Architect “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.

Melvyn --

Why do you state this?  Is this true of whichever course you think is the best you've played?

Why would a GCA be proud of doing nothing?

Because there are so many so called GCAs messing up everything.

And so you education begins Alex.

[George Freeman]

“The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”. I wonder how many designers/architects care to answer how many of their courses comply with the above statement. Let’s make it easy, say over the last 10 projects how many of the ten have their original lie of the land?

My guess would be zero, for all architects dead or alive, as discussed before about Sand Hills and in this thread by Tom D.

I don't think there is a course in the entire world that has not been touched by the hand of man (besides sand trap creation, mowing the grass, etc, obviously)...

[Alex Miller]

I am not in the golf course industry, but I think my statement may have been slightly misinterpreted.

If the site permits no earth moving, then it would seem that the site should be praised, not necessarily the GCA. Granted, there are a lot of things that go into building a golf course, including getting the right routing over that site. This is something that I have overlooked, but in the case of the TOC, who is given credit with that design? OTM, some say, most say mother nature. If someone were to talk to OTM today and praise him for the job he did with TOC, what would he say? How much credit would he take?

So, I have a problem with the statement that, "That surely must be the proudest boast anyone can level at the door of any Designer/Architect “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases,” not the idea that a land which is suitable for such a feat, would be a great golf course.

[Mike Leveille]

Melvin:

You ask the designers/architects how many of their courses comply with the statement "the original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases".  I have played a number of courses in your area (in and around St. Andrews), and absolutely loved playing most of them.  I'd be curious which of the courses in Fife you believe comply with the statement.

Kind regards.

Mike

[Michael Blake]

Another proud boast is to say, ‘Well. I have to do it to keep a roof over my family’s head and also to put food in their mouths’ while totally honourable and  commendable, yet it does not quite cut it when looking for the next job.

GCA's are scraping for work right now in order to indeed pay a mortgage and feed a family, yet from your computer in fantasy-land you admit it is commendable while still taking a jab at them.  Disgusting.

Good for you that you have been able to turn projects down in the past and still feed your family.  Others choose take a design project on a less than suitable site and overcome the challenge that is being able to turn it into the best course possible for the client and the players.  I'd say that may be most 'boastful' to a GCA.

[Ken Moum]

That surely must be the proudest boast anyone can level at the door of any Designer/Architect “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”. To do so must be one of the highest goals in designing a golf course particularly if the course is also found to be fun and challenging to play

Melvyn, while I love your take on golf, and the playing of it, I think in this case you've got it completely wrong.

That statement should be a source of pride for the person who selected the location for a course, but I think that person is not often the architect.

I grew up in NW Minnesota, where the land for many, many miles was bulldozed flat by glaciers. And i have lived in South Dakota and Kansas as an adult, both places that have vast areas tha look like this:



Or this:



Would you praise a GCA who left the lie of this land unchanged from tee to green?

The alternative it deny the game to people who live in these places--something I am not willing to do.

[Bill_McBride]

You would have to be pretty lucky to find 18 nice flat areas of grass in the right places for the tees.

[Garland Bayley]

You would have to be pretty lucky to find 18 nice flat areas of grass in the right places for the tees.

Why do tees have to be flat? Chambers Bay purposely allowed teeing areas to not be flat. Clearly you don't want steep slopes, but why is flat a necessity?

[Steve Lang]

I miss the day when we'd head out from the back yard with a 7-iron and 2 balls, play the house corner doglegs  to young sapplings along the street, work our way down to the schoolyard to take aim at building features, and parking lot manholes, pondering the architectural significances and trajectory demands of going over or around the baseball diamond backstops from 2nd base tees, keenly aware of the mid-course test of a rather long and crazy par 10 reaching into the park, across the pricker bushes lining the railroad track, to the 5th green, the 6th and 7th loop on course, to the dangerous short fountain hole, and heading back home over the tracks again past the evil tomato greenhouse moguls, around the swing set to the gym stairs and the finishing Cheltenham-Pelham lamp post finishing target.. then splitting from my partner for home..  

ahh.. those were the days,... stick, balls, the raw lay of the land for the taking..

Steve, I hereby bequest upon you an invitation to join the Honourable Company of Reverse Jans Golfers at any time.  

Dave, I would be "honoured"

[Melvyn Morrow]

Alex
I have never mentioned any restriction of how the site is designed/constructed. My statement is as follows “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”. To do so must be one of the highest goals in designing a golf course particularly if the course is also found to be fun and challenging to play.

To have built a golf course that proves challenging and fun yet retained most if not all its original features is I understand hard for some to achieve let alone perhaps for some to contemplate. I would have thought it would have been the most important part of the design/build process, but seems I am wrong. Perhaps that explains why so many of the new courses and modification to some old ones since WW2 come across as mediocre. Well as we know on here our likes and dislikes on courses are as wide as the English Channel, proving that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Michael B
Get a life and grow up, the financial recession is hitting all of us. My topic was meant to praise designers as I said

“A complete display of ultimate skill, understand and knowledge of ones profession.

However, not many will ever get that close, restricted by clients, budgets or more often than not the selection and choice of the land.  Another proud boast is to say, ‘Well. I have to do it to keep a roof over my family’s head and also to put food in their mouths’ while totally honourable and  commendable, yet it does not quite cut it when looking for the next job.”   

Do you fully understand my meaning of the last sentence (above) – ‘yet it does not quite cut it when looking for the next job’. Being forced to be average, generally producing whatever within the budget/brief does not always display a brilliant course which is what you may be judge upon when going for your next job, so it does not quite cut it when looking.

“Disgusting” perhaps but it the price we pay for accepting specific contracts which will never show our true merits – sometimes we have to take a risk.

Kmoum

I would not praise a designer for building a course on either site, but you know my position on Land Fit For Purpose. There are sites where course should NOT BE BUILT UPON no matter how much money is involved, but if an architect wants to sell his soul to the Devil who am I to stop him. This has always been at the heart of my argument regards location of a golf course. Yes there are parts of the world just not suitable for the game of golf – cart ball or any other deviatory word for golf, perhaps but not golf.

Mike

Quite a few one being, The New Course

Gentlemen
A post to praise the skill of design on a site which is meant to be all about design, has yet again been rubbished. However, we still continue to go on throwing out this absolute crap and rubbish about the best of this and the best of that, never ever seeming to agree upon a definite listing.

Melvyn

[JESII]

Melvyn,

Are you talking about land that is actually untouched by the designer (or at least as little as possible)? Or are you talking about doing all the work and then covering your tracks...so to speak?

[Bill_McBride]

You would have to be pretty lucky to find 18 nice flat areas of grass in the right places for the tees.

Why do tees have to be flat? Chambers Bay purposely allowed teeing areas to not be flat. Clearly you don't want steep slopes, but why is flat a necessity?

"Reasonably flat" would be a better characterization; there has to be a bit of a crown for drainage.

Ever try to hit a drive off a sidehill lie?  Flattish is better, and on the tee is the only place where you are guaranteed a flattish lie.

How much slope and/or bumpiness is there on the tees at Chambers Bay?  I can't imagine the USGA is planning two national championships on a course with tees that were "purposely allowed....to not be flat."   Please post a few photos of those purposely non-flat tees.   l

Thanks.