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

[Melvyn Morrow]

Gentlemen

“The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.  Does that mean that nothing was touched that no works was done upon the land before it was finally open to the public. Please show me where its states that fact.

Let’s not look at jokes like the Castle Course or any other section of land that is totally isolated and different to its surroundings after a course has been constructed. I am talking of the quality designers who shape and design a course to blend in to the landscape without it looking totally at odds with the environment. To put it back to meet the statement “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”. That takes skill, perseverance and quite frankly a dedication to himself and his profession and I believe would whole heartily deserve that sort of worth while praise.

But what do you guys do, as you always do with most of the things I post, you never read the complete post, you jump to conclusions and continue on that mindset.  The New Course did not suddenly get the grass cut and flags stuck into 18 flap surfaces as some seem the to think the statement implies. If you knew your history, IF ONLY YOU WOULD TAKE TIME AND KNOW YOUR HISTORY you might, just might learn something you did not know.

As for REFRESHING DOSE OF REALISM that is exactly what you guys need. I just try and remind you that we learn from our past, our past mistakes, and try and move forward. Many believe that is by riding a cart and not thinking hence the need for distance aids, Others talk about strategy, not understand that penal is part and parcel of ones strategy. Boy, do you need a massive injection of realism and a need to get back to the core values of the game.

It’s quite pointless to say anymore, you will no doubt come back with some more crap, perhaps I have hurt or insulted someone. But lets me say that all golf course are built, all the ones Old Tom was involved with were built, the times scale was between 2-3 months on average, some taking longer, none were design AM played PM, which is a corruption of the original procedure. So when a reporter of the day, said on the day that the New Course was opened and that  “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases” I take as a proud endorsement to the skill and ability of Old Tom Morris. As for drainage, we have not learnt all the lessons on that yet, perhaps the worm may or may not play a part in the future but they did in the past.

Excuse me but I am off for a real dose of realism at 10 Downing Street.

Melvyn
       

[Garland Bayley]

Let me expound a little more on my understanding of Friars Head (as obtained from Ran's review).

Bill Coore spent a very significant amount of time trying to find a set of holes in the dunes. The land was there for great golf holes, but there was a missing link for a long time until it all came together. To get the full 18 they had to go into the potato field. I would posit that the lay of the land on a macro scale is still there in the potato fields (unlike in the pictures posted above). The work C&C did in the potato field was to rumple the land a bit for a more interesting playing surface.

My personal aesthetic would be that I would be more proud of preserving the lay of the land and rumpling it a bit, than I would be of building artificial landscape seen in the pictures posted by Mr. Rossi. Furthermore, I would be more proud of the holes found in the dunes and their preservation and enhancement (greens, bunkers), than of the holes laid out on an uninteresting canvas that was the potato field where I had complete control and could have gone to extremes on either end of the building scale.

[Michael Rossi]

Michael is fine no need to use Mr. It is nothing personal don't take it that way just voicing an opinion and discussing the topic.

So the potato field was ideal land for golf?

The land was altered although small in comparison to other properties.

My view is that regardless of the land a good GCA can produce good golf.

Garland have you played Eagles Nest? My photos don't do it any justice.

[Garland Bayley]

Michael is fine no need to use Mr. It is nothing personal don't take it that way just voicing an opinion and discussing the topic.

Not taking anything personal. Just be glad I didn't misspell it as Ms.

So the potato field was ideal land for golf?

No but talented GCAs were able to tie it into ideal land to make it better than it was.

The land was altered although small in comparison to other properties.

Exactamundo

My view is that regardless of the land a good GCA can produce good golf.

And a great GCA can produce great golf while keeping the lay of the land on bad parcels. E.g., my limited knowledge would indicate Winged Foot kept the lay of the land for the most part on a flat parcel, and turned out great.

Garland have you played Eagles Nest? My photos don't do it any justice.

No. But, chocolate drops? As the valley girls used to say, "gag me with a spoon."

[Michael Rossi]

Garland like I said the photos do it no justice, they are far from chocolate drops.

Before you place judgment on the course I suggest you play it, many speak highly of it an enjoy the experience.

Melvyn I have not studied the history of golf as thoroughly as you, but I am trying to learn from you, please be patient with me.

Enjoy your dose of realism.

[Brian Phillips]

Michael,

With all due respect to Doug Carrick but the before picture looked more like a golf course than what was created and in my opinion this is a classic case of crossing the fine line between beautiful and ugly.  Too much has been moved and created and therefore a golf course has been built that does not "sit" in the landscape as well as it might have done.

You only posted two photos and asked us to give opinion (because you gave opinion) so that is what I am doing, judging just those two pictures.

[Michael Rossi]

These photos do no justice.
These photos were taken 2001 and 2004 with poor digital cameras, and stitched 5 images together to make a panoramic image, the image is not meant to be used for judging the course and are distorted.

Yes a lot of earth was moved, on this part of the property the land was previously a gravel pit, that became a fill site and of no use for golf. Of the natural features left from before the gravel extraction, they were left unchanged and incorporated into the design. 

In the interview on this site Doug address why things were done they way they were. Take a read of question#12 and the photo that is include is of the 13th that used one of the features.

[Jud_T]

Yes nature's hand is best, but this can be taken too far-some would say Erin Hills is the poster child for not wanting to move a spoonfull of dirt regardless the strategic consequences...

[Garland Bayley]

Yes nature's hand is best, but this can be taken too far-some would say Erin Hills is the poster child for not wanting to move a spoonfull of dirt regardless the strategic consequences...

Do you not think a better routing could not have been made? For example, one that did not require a Dell hole in a first attempt at routing a course? Especially since it is really a hole in a valley since it does not meet the definition of dell criteria?

[Jud_T]

Well, given that it is no longer part of the course, yes...

[Mike Cirba]

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.

Tom,

How does the whole idea of bunkering factor into your less is more earthmoving strategy?  

To quote Herbert Fowler (from Ran's review of Eastward Ho),  ""God builds golf links and the less man meddles the better for all concerned." This minimalist approach is evident in all his designs – the teeing areas are simple affairs, there are no superfluous bunkers, the greens are frequently extensions of the fairways, and there is never any ‘framing’ of the greens."

I think I have a new idol the more I read of Fowler, but the question I'd ask of you is simply, wouldn't the ideal minimalist course need very little, or no earthmoving to create bunkers, and instead be wholly dependent on the use of the existing features and terrain to create both strategy and hazard placement?

[archie_struthers]

 

You know this thread really resonates with me , as my only job ( aside from tinkering at Greate Bay) was one of the most massive earthmoving endeavors ever  LOL !  However my goals were to generate as much fill as possible to mitigate my construction costs, as we had some willing buyers for same. In fact the land where most of our extraneous filll went , the H-Tract in Atlantic City, needed millions and millions of tons to stabilize the Borgata site and build the connector tunnel.  It's really a pity that we couldn't quite finish it off the way I wanted to.


My personal preference in golf course architecture tends to be the old classics, although I do really enjoy some days at Galloway National. William Flynn is probably my favorite architect , and he moved what appears to be a decent amount of material to create his green complexes and certainly at Indian Creek in Miami Beach, which is just so much fun to play.

Thus for me a complete lack of respect for anyone who happens to move more than a shovel full of materiial seems elitiist at times, which is reflected in my queries to Gayland .  As stated it's myopic to believe that golf shouldn't exist in sites that don't hae the quality of land that   Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes. , this is in no way a disparagement of the fabulous job the arcihitects did in building these masterpieces , just  recanting that there nothing like those sites in our neighborhood, and if they existed , the government would no doubt outlaw descrating them with golf.

[Mike Cirba]

Archie,

As an early and fervent fan of what you did at Twisted Dune I am in complete agreement with your sentiment.

Yet, from a philsophical standpoint, I think you'd also agree that too much design over the past 30 years came from the mindset of just "building" golf holes through construction, even on sites where a more light-handed approach may have created something better, and certainly something more unique and even more architecturally indigenous to the site, if that's a term. 

[archie_struthers]

 


Agreed to and certified Mike...ps great work on Seaview , Cobbs et al

[Bill_McBride]

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.

Tom,

How does the whole idea of bunkering factor into your less is more earthmoving strategy?  

To quote Herbert Fowler (from Ran's review of Eastward Ho),  ""God builds golf links and the less man meddles the better for all concerned." This minimalist approach is evident in all his designs – the teeing areas are simple affairs, there are no superfluous bunkers, the greens are frequently extensions of the fairways, and there is never any ‘framing’ of the greens."

I think I have a new idol the more I read of Fowler, but the question I'd ask of you is simply, wouldn't the ideal minimalist course need very little, or no earthmoving to create bunkers, and instead be wholly dependent on the use of the existing features and terrain to create both strategy and hazard placement?

Mike, next time you go to the UK, go to the northwest close to Liverpool and play Delamere Forest and Beau Desert.    These second tier courses are pure delights, very natural, exactly as he is quoted above.  There was nothing superfluous in the slightest. 

[Steve Lang]

   Aren't all the ODG's comments merely self-sustaining in an era of real horsepower, exclusive land ownership, and no controlling "Town and Country Planning" in the UK or equivalent in the USA?  Look what I did so purely without doing anything???
from wiki..
Town and Country Planning is the land use planning system governments use to balance economic development and environmental quality. Each country of the United Kingdom has its own planning system that is responsible for town and country planning devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

The Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 created the framework for the system. green belts were added in 1955 via a government circular. The system has essentially remained the same since the initial 1947 act, which repealed all previous legislation, including the first Housing and Town Planning Act 1909, which had been followed by the Housing and Town Planning Act 1919, Town Planning Act 1925, and Town and Country Planning Act 1932.

Current planning legislation for England and Wales is consolidated in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990). Three further planning-related acts are associated with this principal Act. These four acts are defined as the Planning Acts. Parts of these Acts have been replaced or amended by the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which received Royal Assent on 13 May 2004.

The basic planning law of Northern Ireland is contained in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

The relevant Acts for Scotland are the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.

[Sean_A]

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.

Tom,

How does the whole idea of bunkering factor into your less is more earthmoving strategy?  

To quote Herbert Fowler (from Ran's review of Eastward Ho),  ""God builds golf links and the less man meddles the better for all concerned." This minimalist approach is evident in all his designs – the teeing areas are simple affairs, there are no superfluous bunkers, the greens are frequently extensions of the fairways, and there is never any ‘framing’ of the greens."

I think I have a new idol the more I read of Fowler, but the question I'd ask of you is simply, wouldn't the ideal minimalist course need very little, or no earthmoving to create bunkers, and instead be wholly dependent on the use of the existing features and terrain to create both strategy and hazard placement?

Mike

I understand your sentiment, but "ideal" is a rare commodity.  We must also take Ran's quote with a pinch of salt because "less" is a sliding scale depending on how ideal the site is.  Fowler is rightfully gaining a reputation on this site as a man whose work is hard to pin down.  This may be because much of his work is truly minimal in design and intent and is mainly characterized by the land the courses rest on.  However, Fowler was more than willing to shift dirt to make courses practical or even more natural in appearance.  Beau Desert is a prime example of dirt shifting.  Everyone one of those greens had extensive shaping to make them playable - mostly jacked up rears and sides to remain somewhat level with the mainly grade level fronts.  The Berkshire is an example of dirt shifting ala Colt style to create what we think of as a natural looking course.  I guess my point is it doesn't pay to get too far into these labels because all the best archies have examples where the label doesn't apply.  

Who said Fowler didn't do framing?  Here is a page out of the Colt book.


More mounding.  Is it minimalist architecture?  Is it natural architecture?  I can't answer these questions, but I do know it is compelling architecture and its intent is not to frame.


Ciao

    

[Mike Cirba]

Sean,

Are you saying that Fowler didn't always practice what he preached?

Funny thing...years ago I was reading Donald Ross where he states that generally uphill, blindish par threes are to be avoided as good architectural practice.   Then, I went to play one of my first Ross courses, Mark Twain GC in Elmira, NY.

All four of the par threes were rather steeply uphill, with only the flagstick visible!

Much like much of what we say on here, it just goes to show that rules to live by are generally best taken as a grain of truth swallowed with a big lump of salt.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike C:

We do put in quite a few bunkers on most courses that are largely superfluous to the strategy of the hole [although, of course, there is NO bunker which doesn't affect someone].

A lot of those "superfluous" bunkers are for visual reasons.  They're not for eye candy or giving you something more to look at ... they are there to hide what would otherwise be scars of construction work, or to distract you from seeing a scar somewhere else.  Sometimes the scars I am talking about are just the grassing lines between fairway and native rough, which make a hole look obviously artificial if you don't occasionally put a bunker between them to make the hand-painted line go away.

[Jud_T]

Would Mach Dunes and Askernish qualify as the most recent examples most in line with the title of this thread?

[Tony_Muldoon]

Sean,

Are you saying that Fowler didn't always practice what he preached?

BTW welcome back Mike I enjoyed following the new threads.

Sean can answer  for himself but I’ve picked out some of the more obvious examples at Walton Heath that were known as “Fowlers Coffins”. Mind you it was his first course.

[Sean_A]

Tony

Fowler's pits are especially pragmatic and austere at Walton Heath - just as the courses are.  I unabashedly am a great admirer of Fowler's work.  Unlike Colt, Dr Mac or Simpson, though I could be persuaded to admit that their work is on the whole better than ole Herbert's, Fowler, very much in the main, stuck to his guns of shifting as little dirt as necessary.  This is why Fowler is so hard to put a finger on whereas the work of the others is far more easily identifiable.  

"They are curiously, aggressively, artificial looking.  That may be another way of saying they're old-fashioned, but I am glad to see that they have not beed reduced in height or blended more with the landscape.  They are uncompromisingly BUNKERS.  You cannot make the excuse 'I never knew it was there'.  The bunkers are positive, direct, and need make no comment upon such enter them."

An excerpt from what I consider to be the greatest golf book ever written and its author needs no identification by the likes of me.  

Ciao

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Thanks...I'm sure a lot of factors go into the decision of where (or why) to place bunkers, but have you ever seen a property where the land for golf was just so ideal on its own that you thought perhaps you might build a bunkerless course, if given the opportunity?

Tony/Bill/Sean,

Thanks for the additional info on Fowler, as well as the cool snaps.

One of my main interests in Fowler has to do with the fact that George Crump and his friends who put together PV were supposedly absolutely fascinated with his writings. 

[Tony_Muldoon]

Got to love a man who writes about a “course that is genrally considered the finest test of all”, when he had reworked it!

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1920/gi131l.pdf

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1920/gi126i.pdf

[Thomas Dai]

I came across this topic from a link in the Goat Hills thread and thought it needed a bump, especially as the name Herbert Fowler gets mentioned in some of the latter posts and there are two nice articles written by him highlighted by Tony which are worth reading.
atb