good read as usual, Gib.
My question is probably best answered by our resident archies.
Do you think the design and most particularly the construction techniques utilized at SC, have made anything more efficient as a matter of learning new construction techniques or manipulating the interface of machines and terrain? For instance, building the artificial stream, or how to move ground to achieve a certain presentation? I forget the name of the company that did the stream design, I think it was a sub of Wadsworth, but I believe they did the stream at Barona after SC. If so, and more streams like this have been attempted, did SC start a body of learned techniques that translate to more efficient and improving efforts each time that sort of thing is attempted? Does the efforts made for tree and other plantings, inspire any other archies to attempt similar?
Or, in a contrarian sort of way, did SC teach other designers that it is wasteful and while anything can be done for the money, isn't a desirable goal to go about things so extravagantly, and really added nothing to the body of knowledge within the GCA's repetoire? That essentially, all that was done there was always within the realm of the possible, but who actually wants to go to those extremes to create golf courses?
RJ, a very insiteful question. One has to look at it in a "then" and "now" context. Then, I was younger and right dap smack in the middle of the whole "Go-Go Golf" era. Anything was possible and the emphasis seemed to be on creating courses that "Photographed" well. As we all know, phots are 2-D and tend to flatten out reality so sharper, framed, and bold were sought after.
From a golf construction standpoint, we all looked at it and said, 'wow, that's really pushing the envelope'. Not the techniques - we all could do that. No, it was the concept. The vision and ability to come up with the concept of building at such a wild scale. Many older guys couldn't get their head around it. 'why???', 'it will never pay for itself' etc. But for us younger guys, I guess the lesson to be taken from it was, 'if you're gonna do it, don't half-ass it - go full-in'. Up to that point, archies worked mostly with the land they had. If the land was marginal, odds were the course would be too. SC wasa watershed moment when developers said 'if the land sucks, make it what you want' Enter the Terraforming era. While it wasn't really manifested here in the States or Europe, it set the stage for some courses in Asia that dwarfed SC in their earthmoving.
Now we look back and see it for what it was. An exercise in excess engineering. But, I still think that it was pivotal, in that it was the direction things were going, incrementally, but SC just jumped us to the end. After SC, things actually started going in the opposite direction because no one could really see one-upping it. Spending 10x's the average cost to make a piece of dead-flat desert look like North Carolina? Been there, done that. One could say the SC Jumped the Shark and forced us to begin to question the excesses (but TF seemed to make an artificial stream a part of other 18th holes - Caves Valley, Conway Farms come to mind). From a golf perspective, it is what one expects from a TF course, well prepared, visually beautiful with holes that don't necessarily beat you up but then don't really stimulate the purest either. Just good, solid, and somewhat expectable golf.
I'm sure in 30 years, the experience will wear thin but it's "Vegas Baby" and they'll think of some new twist so guys can go home and bore their friends with tales of their exploits.
Gib, great read, thanks.