[Bill Satterfield]

I've been going through the pictures I took on my recent trip back east and it go me thinking.  To replicate a course like Pine Valley would be extremely difficult given the terrain contours, amount of sand, etc.  Cypress Point of course has the unique forest/sand dunes/ocean front combination that would be very difficult to replicate as well. 

What top tier course (on a somewhat reasonable budget) could be "recreated" somewhere and have a decent chance of being a good "copy"?  With the relatively flat terrain at Winged Foot West, could you GPS the contours of the greens, bunkers, etc. and recreate that layout in another heavily forested location?  The tall, thick trees and relatively flat terrain are such that you don't see many landmarks that give away the location.  Conversely, at Shadow Creek, those Nevada mountains are in the background of so many pics that it is a give away to the location.  With the heavy forest surroundings of Sahalee, could it be reproduced and fool the untrained eye?  Or are the trees the exact reason they couldn't be recreated since they are so mature?

How about Sand Hills?  How unique is the acreage used to Sand Hills in comparison to the miles and miles of vacant terrain around Mullen, NE?  How difficult would it be to replicate a course like Wolf Creek in Mesquite?  I'd enjoy some thoughts and discussion.

[Marty Bonnar]

Bill,
only the one question.

WHY?

cheers,
FBD.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Bill,
only the one question.

WHY?

cheers,
FBD.

UK courses without huge sandhills would be the easiest. Probably TOC would be the easiest, athough the town and hotel might be tough. I think the course could be mapped to within 0.1m VIs and recreated on flat land pretty near that with software attached to a D6, I am guessing there is only 6 metres of fall over the whole lot. If its just terrain anywhere reasonably flat could be replicated.

[Phil_the_Author]

Without putting any thought into it, wouldn't NGLA as it already is a collection of copied holes?

[Mac Plumart]

What would be the hardest GD Top 100 courses to replicate?

Maybe Rich Harvest.   

[Marty Bonnar]

Let me clarify my position.

Why ever 'replicate'?

One of the primary purposes of 'Design' is to bring new thought to an existing situation. Replication seems to me to be nothing more than mere pastiche. Even Charlie Blair, Speccy Seth, Steamboy Banks and Loaferlightboy didn't simply 'replicate'. They took a pre-existing set of conditions: distance, alignments, bunkering, etc and APPLIED those conditions to a NEW situation. Using the OLD stuff as inspiration, they neatly re-applied the Rules in a new PLACE. Not replication, more re-application. That's what I like and appreciate.

cheers,
F.

[Bill Satterfield]

Marty, I guess what made me think about it is the uniqueness of each course and what makes it 'special'.  Why be a member of one particular course over another?  There are a lot of factors that can go into that (distance from work/home, cost, quality of course, etc.) but in this case I'm mainly worried about how unique it is inclusively.  I think part of what makes Cypress Point special is the unique property it sits on and how there will likely never be anything else like it ever again.  On the flip side, does it "cheapen" a course when there are others similar to it or could easily be similar to it - particularly in the area?  Like most things in life, the more 'rare' something is the more valuable it is.  For example, in the Pacific Northwest there are a lot of courses that "feel" similar since they are cut through heavily forested trees; including current Top 100 courses Sahalee and Eugene CC.  However, replicating the design, property, etc. at a place like Fishers Island is a far more rare situation and thus more "valuable."

Most people that visit Wolf Creek in Mesquite have got to be thinking, "I've never played anything like this before!"  The closet "copy" to Wolf Creek is probably something on a video game.  On the flip side, I've played several parkland courses that feature similarly shaped holes, concepts, etc.

Like was mentioned, terrain has a ton to do with it.  Flat courses would be much easier to replicate.  I've played courses that "copy" holes from other areas and most of the time their effort falls short.  However, a hole like #17 at Sawgrass I think could be copied pretty easily and deliver the same "excitement."

[Tim Martin]

Marty, I guess what made me think about it is the uniqueness of each course and what makes it 'special'.  Why be a member of one particular course over another?  There are a lot of factors that can go into that (distance from work/home, cost, quality of course, etc.) but in this case I'm mainly worried about how unique it is inclusively.  I think part of what makes Cypress Point special is the unique property it sits on and how there will likely never be anything else like it ever again.  On the flip side, does it "cheapen" a course when there are others similar to it or could easily be similar to it - particularly in the area?  Like most things in life, the more 'rare' something is the more valuable it is.  For example, in the Pacific Northwest there are a lot of courses that "feel" similar since they are cut through heavily forested trees; including current Top 100 courses Sahalee and Eugene CC.  However, replicating the design, property, etc. at a place like Fishers Island is a far more rare situation and thus more "valuable."

Most people that visit Wolf Creek in Mesquite have got to be thinking, "I've never played anything like this before!"  The closet "copy" to Wolf Creek is probably something on a video game.  On the flip side, I've played several parkland courses that feature similarly shaped holes, concepts, etc.

Like was mentioned, terrain has a ton to do with it.  Flat courses would be much easier to replicate.  I've played courses that "copy" holes from other areas and most of the time their effort falls short.  However, a hole like #17 at Sawgrass I think could be copied pretty easily and deliver the same "excitement."

I think you might have answered your own question with your reference to Fishers Island. I can`t imagine a tougher course to replicate considering its surrounds.

[Tom_Doak]

UK courses without huge sandhills would be the easiest. Probably TOC would be the easiest, athough the town and hotel might be tough. I think the course could be mapped to within 0.1m VIs and recreated on flat land pretty near that with software attached to a D6, I am guessing there is only 6 metres of fall over the whole lot. If its just terrain anywhere reasonably flat could be replicated.

Adrian,

I have yet to see the computer or the D6 which could pull off all the wrinkles of The Old Course.  And even if you could, it wouldn't hold up without great soils and oodles of drainage.

[Dan Herrmann]

Hardest?  Cypress Point
Easiest?  Southern Hills

[Peter Pallotta]

Strange - if Bill S hadn't said that Pine Valley was the hardest to replicate, I would've said that it was the easiest. It was the first course that popped into my mind when I read the thread title.  That's not worth the paper it's written on, but just to say.

Peter

[Ryan Farrow]

Seminole... without a doubt.


Survey the property Pick up a few D6's with Gps and let em run wild.... Then plant some palms.

Its one big earth move, excavate the lakes, build the 1 dune. and there you have it...... All that is left is not letting Jack Nicklaus join your super private club.

[John Moore II]

Exclusive of views, places like Shadow Creek, Bayonne or Liberty National would be very easy to recreate as they were 100% manufactured on site to start with. Now, the mountain views at Shadow Creek would be semi-difficult to replicate, though possible; the Statute of Liberty view at Liberty National would be impossible (I don't think LN is in any top 100 though)

Outside of the manufactured courses and including all views and surrounds, certainly an inland course would be somewhat easier to replicate than a seaside course.

Toughest-Cypress Point maybe? I guess you could replicate the entire course, views anyway, but the cost would make Liberty National or Bayonne look minimalist cheap.

[Richard Choi]

Exclusive of views, places like Shadow Creek, Bayonne or Liberty National would be very easy to recreate as they were 100% manufactured on site to start with.

Have you played Bayonne?

Do you realize exactly how much dirt was moved there? The place used to be relatively flat. Now there are 50 foot dunes and a huge hill in the center of the property. The only reason they were able to do that was because of the dredge they were able to get from nearby channels. Anyone claiming that it would be "very easy to recreate" doesn't understand the logistics involved. The same goes for Shadow Creek. If it was so easy, there would be many copies of Shadow Creek already.

[Bill_McBride]

Easiest:  Pinehurst #2. Recreate the greens.

[John Moore II]

Exclusive of views, places like Shadow Creek, Bayonne or Liberty National would be very easy to recreate as they were 100% manufactured on site to start with.

Have you played Bayonne?

Do you realize exactly how much dirt was moved there? The place used to be relatively flat. Now there are 50 foot dunes and a huge hill in the center of the property. The only reason they were able to do that was because of the dredge they were able to get from nearby channels. Anyone claiming that it would be "very easy to recreate" doesn't understand the logistics involved. The same goes for Shadow Creek. If it was so easy, there would be many copies of Shadow Creek already.

Well, given the huge budgets they each had to start with, if someone had that enormous sum again, they would be 'easy' to copy. My main idea was to say that because they were manufactured to start with, given the proper budget (and if we are talking about exactly copying a course, any course built to copy another exactly would be hugely expensive) it could be recreated more easily than a place that is more entirely natural. I have heard the budget for Liberty National was in the range of $250 million; I would assume Bayonne was about the same. Given that sum again, either of those courses would be as easy to build a second time as they were the first, excluding the views of course.


Bill McB-That was one of my first thoughts as well.

[Richard Choi]

John, just because you have the plans to Empire State Building does not mean that it would easy to build it again.

Bayonne got paid to take the dredge from the local channel. If they had to buy that fill, the budget may be out of reach for even most ambitious developers.

And even if they could, why would that be easier than replicating a relatively flat site like Seminole? For the fraction of the budget spent on Liberty National, you can laser scan the entire property at Seminole and build it from scratch at any place you want within +/- of inches. Why would that be more difficult than building something like Bayonne where you have to literally move heavens and earth?

The answer to the OP question is simple. Flatter the course, it is easier to replicate. With the technology that we have today, it is all matter of how much dirt you have to move. Less dirt you have to move, easier it will be.

[Adrian_Stiff]

UK courses without huge sandhills would be the easiest. Probably TOC would be the easiest, athough the town and hotel might be tough. I think the course could be mapped to within 0.1m VIs and recreated on flat land pretty near that with software attached to a D6, I am guessing there is only 6 metres of fall over the whole lot. If its just terrain anywhere reasonably flat could be replicated.

Adrian,

I have yet to see the computer or the D6 which could pull off all the wrinkles of The Old Course.  And even if you could, it wouldn't hold up without great soils and oodles of drainage.

Tom- You could get it as close as a D6 (with a 6 way blade) would perform. Of course you are correct about the soils and the soils might be 90% of it anyway,even if you could shape out of the clay, the application of a 300mm sand cap might be enough to bugger the very intracasies of the computerised grading.....BTW next up is an unmanned D6 operator.

[Philippe Binette]

Easiest:
TPC Sawgrass... because it was completely shaped in the first place, so it's possible to do it again

Hardest for internal features:
The Old Course, there's no way a D6 can do that shaping, even with a GPS.. if your margin for error is 0,1 m on those contours, it's not going to work. You'd have to do a lot of stufff by hand and maybe with a sandpro

[Adrian_Stiff]

Easiest:
TPC Sawgrass... because it was completely shaped in the first place, so it's possible to do it again

Hardest for internal features:
The Old Course, there's no way a D6 can do that shaping, even with a GPS.. if your margin for error is 0,1 m on those contours, it's not going to work. You'd have to do a lot of stufff by hand and maybe with a sandpro

Philippe, you can shape to 0.05m (ie 2" with GPS). I agree a D6 wont be abe do the tiny stuff, a D4 might though.You would get a pretty near replica of the topo with a D6. I find the sandpro is often the problem tool on greens if your are looking for internal contours, it almost smooths it too much, my last set of greens, I pretty much avoided the sandpro at the final stage and when I did use it I sat on it myself. Sometimes you need that obliqueness.

[astavrides]

If the universe is infinite, there are already infinitely many copies of the GD top 100 courses out there, but they are pretty far away.  And there are infinitely many people with all the same molecules as me who has access to all of them.  Of course, that doesn't do the person who I like to call 'me' any good.   But then again, it is probably more likely that my 'life', which I like to think of as real, is just a Matrix-like simulation.  (I just heard an interview with Brian Greene).

[Bill_McBride]

If the universe is infinite, there are already infinitely many copies of the GD top 100 courses out there, but they are pretty far away.  And there are infinitely many people with all the same molecules as me who has access to all of them.  Of course, that doesn't do the person who I like to call 'me' any good.   But then again, it is probably more likely that my 'life', which I like to think of as real, is just a Matrix-like simulation.  (I just heard an interview with Brian Greene).

What were you and Mr. Greene smoking?  ("Star Trek" theme in the background).

[Peter Pallotta]

Astavrides - excellent! I will file that under the "True, but Unhelpful" category, a very under-rated subsection of the "True". It forces one to get past selfish considerations of what is "helpful", and thus wipes clean the doors of our perception. So - how does the fact that the great courses have already been replicated affect our insatiable desire to "rank" and "judge" every person, place of thing we encounter? Maybe we can get Mr. Greene on the Golf Digest ranking panel and see what happens.
Peter  

[Jeff_Brauer]

I would vote for the flattish, parkland courses to be easiest to replicate.  Style wise, I would think Pete Dye courses would be easy enough to redo.

Of interest is the Tour 18 attempts to replicate.  Frankly, I couldn't pick out many of the holes, even having played them.  The Dye holes - strong visually and that being their strength, are easy to pick out, even if some subtly is gone from the originals.  The overall impression just doesn't require that, and if a public player who can't get to Florida to play TPC hasn't played it ever or in a while, I doubt that a few differences in putt breaks would be picked up on.

Tour 18 in Dallas tried to replicate the Amen Corner from ANGC sans the pines they had on their Houston attempt.  They also learned they had to up size their version of the 12th green for public play.  They really lost the appeal of the original on that one, so some types of design really do depend on the details/dimensions to get it right, regardless of overall style of course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()