News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


ChrisB (Guest)

"He should have gotten more out of the site"
« on: March 02, 2002, 05:54:23 PM »
In the relatively short time I've been following this DG, I've noticed that one criticism of an architect's work goes something like: "great piece of property, it could have been a spectacular course, but he didn't seem to get enough out of the site".

 ??? What exactly does this mean?  I'd imagine that routing, utilization of natural features, overall quality/balance/variety of holes, etc. have something to do with it, but every time I read this criticism, I find myself thinking, "I wonder what he really means by that?"

What are some examples of prominent courses whose architect(s) "didn't get enough out of the site", and what should have been done differently?  On the other hand, what courses were absolutely nailed--that is, where anyone would be hard-pressed to come up with anything else the architect could have squeezed out of the property or have done better?

Fully grasping this issue would be big for me, because I'm much better at seeing "what is" than I am at seeing "what could have been"...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2002, 06:47:28 PM »
Chris:

You raise a good point.  Saying an architect could have "gotten more out of the site" without detailing exactly how this might have been done isn't particularly useful.  Moreover, it probably undermines GCA's credibility.

On the other hand, if a perosn offers such criticism and does share detailed thoughts about what he would have done differently, it could be very useful and add to GCA's reputation.

It might even encourage more people directly involved in projects to contribute to our discussion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2002, 08:06:33 PM »
Chris, I think it depends on who it is coming from and if they really know what NATURAL features are key to a routing.

Today, we have so many golf architects that are simply bowling it all over and creating what ever they can, where ever they can. Fairway bunkering has become more about containment then strategic choice, thus the lack of truely provocative art form. (In it's context)

This is what puzzles me most about Schmidt and Curley designs. Here on the left coast they have managed to create some great work simply by relying on strategic thinking and trying to rely on what the site dictates. Unfortunately, they don't use the some of most natural of features when building other holes and the result is they look either terribly artificial or just too conventional. I thk it all comes down to routing and moving too much damn earth. (Mind you that a lot of this is prevailant if the site is on the side of a hill; very severe topography, and once again containment for all of the wrong reasons.

If out on the West coast, Go see SCPGA-Legends which is a clear result of what a horrible routing can do for a golf course. It featues some of the most phenominal topography that could make a truely classic course, but unfortunately gave way to 8 good holes and 10 very repeticious ones.

Cheers
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SGD

Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2002, 08:26:13 PM »
ChrisB:

Example of not getting "more out of the site"?

Not only an example, but the first and always will be forever GCA Lifetime Achievement, Hall of Fame inductee, Winner-in-Perpetuity...

(DRUM ROLL)...

By unanimity...

T H E   P R E S E R V E !

(WILD APPLAUSE)

And accepting the award for the developers - Mr. Tom Fazio...

(MORE WILD APPLAUSE)

 ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2002, 09:04:43 PM »
Chris B,
 
I think the phrase is normally used when someones dog of an architect (Fazio, PWT, Nicklaus) designs a good course.  Sort of the "yeah it good but I could have done better" argument.  To be taken with a grain of salt at all times.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2002, 10:25:47 PM »
SGD:

If The Preserve wins the Lifetime award for not getting more out of a site why not share your thoughts about what you would have done differently?

Wouldn't that be far more meaningful?

Isn't that what Chris was really asking for?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Richard Chamberlain

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2002, 12:15:44 AM »
You know, that type of comment really pisses me off.
We armchair critics have absolutely no idea what influences particular design features, strategies or whatever.
Unless you were involved in every minute of negotiations, site walks, environmental issues, soil analysis, etc etc etc...there is no way you could make that call.
Sure some particular design aspect may have been a better result, but maybe there were unforseen circumstances that prevented the designer from doing it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Justin_Ryan

Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2002, 01:15:45 AM »
Dr K
I'd bet my house that some of the more recent courses on the terrific land on the Mornington Peninsula would have turned out much better if the jobs were given to different designers.  I'll quite gladly take you for a game on my favourite example of a complete stuff up if you are ever in town, after which you will no longer need to get pissed off whenever you hear it said (and I'm not not talking about Moonah Links either).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2002, 01:39:09 AM »
Justin,

Do you really think it is that bad?  I knew some people were disappointed, but "complete stuff up" doesn't give me much hope for when I see parts of it on Friday!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2002, 02:12:05 AM »
Chris,

It's worse
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2002, 02:57:53 AM »
Justin / Brian

Whats the general consensus down there. On a scale of 1-10, what are most of the members giving the Ocean (if I guessed right)? Are there any really bad holes that stick out, or is it all a percieved mess?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Justin_Ryan

Re:
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2002, 03:06:01 AM »
Chris
Unlike some of the younger and less fearless participants, I have this strange reluctance to bag my own club in a public forum, but this course really does prove that it is possible to mess up exceptional land.  Of course I am talking about the Ocean course at the National, which was ranked at 40 on the ADG top 100, and probably deserves that ranking.  The fact that Norman's Moonah, which is adjacent and opened at roughly the same time, came in at 9 sends a pretty strong message.  And a quick look in the syllabus tells me that there were two members on the judging panel.  What makes it even more tragic is that in addition to the course, they even managed to stuff up the practice fairway, a truly extraordinary feat.  Of course, a lot of the pain would be eased if the proposed new courses go ahead, by Norman/Harrison and hopefully Doak, whose name has been strongly touted.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2002, 03:11:57 AM »
Shane,

Some love it, some hate it.  One group out numbers the other.  18 I don't like, same with 6 and 7.  1st and 2nd greens don't work well, 3rd green way to small for the length of the hole and the way the green sets up with the bunkering.  You just can't hold the green.  8th green doesn't work, 9th green could have a chairlift if it snowed down there.  10th green doesn't work.  Bottom tier of 13 could have a poma, 15 fairway would be an issue if there was one, 17th green would just get a t-bar.

I love 11 and 12.  Tee shot on 16 and 17.  3 if it was 50m shorter would be sensational.  One day it could be really good.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

ChrisB (Guest)

Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2002, 08:17:02 AM »
SGD said:
'Example of not getting "more out of the site"?
Not only an example, but the first and always will be forever GCA Lifetime Achievement, Hall of Fame inductee, Winner-in-Perpetuity...
(DRUM ROLL)...
By unanimity...
T H E   P R E S E R V E !
(WILD APPLAUSE)
And accepting the award for the developers - Mr. Tom Fazio...
(MORE WILD APPLAUSE)'

OK, this kind of response is exactly what motivated my initial question.  What exactly do you mean?  What does the Preserve lack and what would you have done differently there?  We could go hole-by-hole if you'd like because I've played there several times.  Or we could discuss the features of the property that weren't used for golf because I've got a pretty good picture in my head of what the property looks like.

If SGD decides to back off of this topic, I'd like to read some other responses.  I think this is a very interesting and important issue, because I can't help but feel that legitimate criticisms are weakened by not explaining the why's and the preferred alternatives.  I want to be educated, not just complained to!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2002, 08:57:30 AM »
ChrisB:

I don't mean to personally attack SGD, but it does seem pretty clear he didn't "get" your original post.

Tom MacWood, on another post, talked about people being lazy, people who want to criticize without taking the time to detail their point of view.

I hope SGD will redeem himself with some thoughtful comments about what he would have done differently at The Preserve.

In the meantime, we will have to nominate his post for a Lifetime lazy award.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

GeoffreyC

Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2002, 09:31:15 AM »
Chris

Rather than focusing on NOT getting the most out of a site lets look at examples of actually GETTING the most out of a site.

For this I would go back a couple of pages into the archives and look at the aerials and discussion of two courses.  The courses are Metacomet and Siwanoy.  Both are Donald Ross underappreciated gems on rather small properties.  

Metacomet is on less than 100 acres yet there is more good architecture packed into that course then about anyone else could have found.  There is great use of the bay on the short par 5 #2. It comes into play on the tee shot if you want the best approach into the green in two and on the second.  There is a barranca that comes directly into play on the front nine and rolling ground that Ross managed to incorporate beautifully into four holes that run parallel to one another on the back nine yet these holes each play differently and have unique features.  That's hard to do with parallel holes yet he saved space by doing it (necessary on this small property) and still created good golf holes.  Some actually call #14 the best par 4 in the state.

Look at the aerial of Siwanoy.  There is an amazing use of diagonal hazards (mostly the stream) that creates decisions for play.  The longer carry always results in the best angle for the next shot.  That stream comes into play on several holes but in ways that utilize it to the max (#'s 5, 15 and 18 in particular).  In addition, Ross uses the elevation changes of the small property very well.  In addition to finding naturally high greensites, he places the tees and makes the length of some holes (#*8 for instance) where you can drive any distance you want but going past the crest of the hill leaves a downhill lie to an uphill green with a false front!  Similarly, #15 is great long par 4 using the stream so well as a hazard but in addition, the drive must carry uphill over a diagonal ridge towards the left side of the slight dogleg left.  You must carry the ball a good ways on the left to find a level lie and a shorter approach.  It's a bit easier but longer to drive out on the right side.  I remember this and more from one play and that's a sure sign of a great design and maximal use of a property.

Study some of those aerials - I think its a good exercise for those of us who have played some of these courses to ask and discuss if the property is utilized well in a routing .
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

Will E

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2002, 09:31:45 AM »
Chris,
The question I pose is if the course is worthy of the setting. Did the architect get the most out of property? Were the natural features used and enhanced? Did artificial features work? Does the course flow? Did it make me think? Was it enjoyable and challenging? Does the course make the property better?

I answer no to the above questions in regards to Art Hills work at Bay Harbor.
I answer YES to the above questions in regards to Chechesse Creek.

I am probably tougher on a course with a great setting than one built on a medicore site.

What are some of the questions you ask yourself when you play a new course?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2002, 03:34:43 PM »
Shooter:

With all due respect, I think you should go back and read Chris' original post.

Then, take a shot at detailing what you would have done differently at Bay Harbor.

That's the essence of Chris' original question.  That's what SGD missed in his comments on The Preserve and what you have missed in regard to Bay Harbor.

Chris is pushing us to better articulate our criticism of particular courses.  I think he is right on the mark.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Will E

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2002, 03:57:42 PM »
Tim,
Perhaps Chris is right is that I'm too lazy to go into detail regarding what I'd have done differently at Bay Harbor. It would have required a different routing utilizing more of the natural terrain, more strategic holes, etc.. I felt my question answered his original question in "I wonder what he really means by that?"  Subjective no doubt. Much easier for me to defend on site than online. Tough question for sure. I'll await your attempt to answer his question. I hope you do.
Shooter
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SGD

Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2002, 05:25:09 PM »
ChrisB and Tim Weiman:

I don't ever want one of my posts to be described as "lazy", but I guess at 11:30pm Friday night I was into the quick one-liners instead of critical analysis.  

The Preserve, which I've played several times, is a once-in-a-lifetime piece of property, similar say to Pacific Dunes, but inland.  Chris, since you've played it, you know it is God-given beauty, a veritable canvas of all that makes California unique-coastal oak trees, rock outcroppings, Monterey pines, gently rolling foothills covered with wildflowers, with the backside of the Santa Lucia Mountains as a frame.  It is a "10" site that needed very little earthmoving to build 18 holes of natural golf.

The routing was done not by the architect of record, Tom Fazio, but rather Mike Poellot and Sandy Tatum over a period of several years as the entitlement process proceeded.  The routing is a pleasant walk in the park that explores all of the various features of the property very well.  In my opinion, it would be difficult to improve on the routing.

The developers engaged the designer with the best reputation in the business, Tom Fazio, to take the routing and turn it into a finished golf course, adding all the various features and strategy.

Fazio, whose work I generally like, delivered a course that is pleasant, one you would very much enjoy playing as a member or invited guest, but not one of the great modern courses in the world, like Pacific Dunes or Sand Hills, but probably a "7" or "8".  Various magazine panelists seem to share this view as it was rated #60 on the 2002 Golfweek Modern Course list and #8 best new private course by Golf Digest in 2001.

Now a "7" or "8", as I grade it, is a very good golf course and I think that's what The Preserve is.  But this property begged for personal attention, that for whatever reason the Fazio organization didn't provide, to fully realize its potential.  

Specifically, the green contours, shapes, and sizes at The Preserve are generally good, but lack variety.  There are no tiny postage stamp greens, or large 10,000+ sf rolling greens, no putt that is frightening if you get above the hole, none that precipitously fall away.  

There are few holes, with the notable exception of the wonderful par-4 11th where you want to hug the right side bunker to gain best access into an artfully left-hand bunkered green, where the generous fairways demand pinpoint placement or risky decisions.  

The first three par-threes, measuring 163, 177, and 171 yards from the back members tees can all be played with the same iron depending on hole location.  Wouldn't you want a 130, 160, 190, 220 yard set of four par-threes where you can hit everything from a wedge or 9-iron to a long iron or fairway wood during the round?

Shot values, strategy, variety are hallmarks of great golf courses.  The Preserve relies too much on its phenomenal aesthetics and resulting memorability, and has some, but not enough, character to fully realize its potential for greatness.

Now, the developers can bring somebody back in, perhaps Tom Fazio, to make adjustments and create something really special there.  Economics will ultimately make that decision one way or the other now that the course is open.  

All I'm saying is that there are only a handful of opportunities in a lifetime as good as The Preserve presented, and I would hope any architect, no matter how sizeable the current workload, would personally take the time and interest and work and massage the course so that he could offer it to his client and the golf world as an achievement of a lifetime.  Mackenzie did it at Cypress Point, Dye did it at Casa de Campo, Coore and Crenshaw did it at Sand Hills, Doak did it at Pacific Dunes, and it just saddens me that Tom Fazio didn't do it at The Preserve.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ChrisB (Guest)

Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #20 on: March 03, 2002, 07:21:21 PM »
SGD,
Tremendous post!  I definitely learned something there (although I think that the course has more strategic interest than many give it credit for, especially when the greens are firm and fast like I've seen there--we can discuss over email or in a separate thread if you like), and I'll take that with me next time I play there.  It also makes me wonder if what you say the Preserve lacks is what a course like Shadow Creek (which most seem to like) has...but I don't have a $1000 to shell out to find out, so I'll have to rely on someone else's articulate post to find out.  CB
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2002, 08:03:13 PM »
SGD:

Thanks very much for your post and for responding positively to my critical comments.  I now have a much better understanding of your perspective on The Preserve.

Your post was good enough that I'll try to make it to The Preserve someday.  If the site is anywhere near a "10" than I definitely would like to see it.

FYI, even the biggest Fazio supporters I know feel the quality of his work - especially out West - has fallen as he has taken on so much work.  The picture you paint of The Preserve is unfortunate.

Incidently, I don't recall anyone coming to Fazio's defense on this project.  Maybe someone can chime in.  We'll see.

Shooter:

My reading of Chris' original post is that he did have a general understanding of what people mean by the statement "he should have gotten more out of the site".

Don't you think?

But, what frustrates me when people make this statement is that often they really don't follow up with sufficient detail about what they would have done differently.

It makes me wonder what point there is to making the statement in the first place.

In fairness, I don't believe it is real easy to do what I'm asking for.  It could take lots of time and thought.  And, lots of knowledge of the site, probably far more than most people will gain from one or two site visits.

Among the modern designs I've seen, probably the only course where I could even attempt to detail what I might have done differently is my home course (Sand Ridge).

So, practically speaking, the statement itself probably shouldn't be used unless you are willing to do a little homework and think through different alternatives for the venue in question.

The person who does do that is really making a great contribution to GCA.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

F. Ryes

Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2002, 08:50:07 AM »
SGD

For you and those who love to bring up The Preserve as a missed opportunity  - clearly stemming from Fazio's inability to 'get the most out of the land' - you should know that the course was routed by Mike Pellot.  It is his routing which Fazio inherited.  Re-permitting a new routing would have taken another 15 years.

I understand this will upset many a Fazio basher to know the truth.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

F.Ryes

Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2002, 09:12:02 AM »
And as I read closer I see that you did know that.  Sorry SGD.  

I do think that Fazio struggled to meld his design theory to Pelloet's routing.  Playing the course, it is easy to see ample opportunity with a different routing plan.  Knowing the piece of property I think Fazio would have utilized a routing, which simply put, would have resulted in a better golf course.

Specifically, the meadow holes (#8, #9, #10) come to mind as poorly routed with the natural features of all of the surrounding land.

One question though - I  am guessing you did not hit it above the pin on #10?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

F. Scue

Re: "He should have gotten more out of the site"
« Reply #24 on: March 04, 2002, 09:12:47 AM »
F. Ryes,

Actually, we're all well aware of the inherited routing problem on GCA. We've discussed how Mr. Fazio was happy to step in and take the job off Mr. Poellot's hands. He's such a charitable man to take these lousy jobs and turn them around with his golden touch! And perhaps we can get into the other projects where his work isn't up to par because of the work of other architects he's had to, errr, inherit?

F.S.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »