Alex:
I have just spent most of the day walking around our new site in Florida, tweaking what I thought was already a pretty good routing, and making it even better. We relocated two of our par-3 holes entirely, turned the 4-5 finish into a 5-4 that should be much better, and thought through a lot of issues of how to do earthwork on six holes that really need some.
To me, all of this is what a golf architect does. But if I could have figured out a way to move a couple of holes so as to require LESS earthmoving and artificial work, and still produce a great golf course, I would have considered that an improvement, whereas you've implied that having to do less work means the architect should get less credit.
By all means, you've got to give credit to the guy who thought of building on this dramatic site ... where a huge amount of earth has been moved around in beautiful and creative ways by a team of guys who had no thought of creating a golf course there. But then it takes real work and real creativity to figure out the best way to lay out a course over the ground.
Thanks Tom,
I wonder if Pat Mucci will like that Florida course. I think people are inferring from my statements that I don't have as much appreciation for what GCA do as some other people. That may be true and it may not, but I definitely give them credit for routing a golf course and leaving certain things alone on a site that warrants it.
My contention, which is still being ignored, is about what an architect is PROUDEST of. I think an architect who turns an all-world site in to an all-world golf course should be commended. First, that's a lot of pressure to not screw a task such as that one up. Second, they have to do all the things that people on here are discussing: rout the course, use restraint, find the best golf holes available on such a property.
I assert, however, that a GCA should feel proudest of turning an average or below average site into a Great golf course. Obviously the same things go into doing such a thing. There are likely still features to be left alone, but some things need to be done to improve the site given to them.
I am NOT saying that a manufactured golf course is better than a more natural one. My arguments concern only how the GCA feels, as in the original statement.
I appreciate the conversations that go on here, and while I have not strayed from my position, I'm glad I can get everyone else's take on the matter. Especially those involved in the production of a golf course.