[Philippe Binette]

I try to limit the use of the word great but... I'm asking this question

Oakmont site was against the odds producing a great course
Merion site was too
so was Ganton
Sagebrush was the side of a mountain and according to the comments, it's pretty good
Essex Golf Club in Windsor ON is a flat clayish site, and it's a really good course

So, even with limited ressources, or probably because of limited ressources, can any site produce a really good course ?
or in other word, put any site in the right architecture hands and it will produce a really good course, yes, no maybe

[Kyle Harris]

Limiting factors and resources encourage creative solutions to problems.

[George Pazin]

I try to limit the use of the word great but... I'm asking this question

Oakmont site was against the odds producing a great course
Merion site was too
so was Ganton
Sagebrush was the side of a mountain and according to the comments, it's pretty good
Essex Golf Club in Windsor ON is a flat clayish site, and it's a really good course

So, even with limited ressources, or probably because of limited ressources, can any site produce a really good course ?
or in other word, put any site in the right architecture hands and it will produce a really good course, yes, no maybe

I'd say mountains, canyons, swamps, and likely some other types I'm overlooking, provide challenges that in some case may be insurmountable.

Other than that, I think the overwhelming majority of sites have the potential to be something special. I think "plain Jane" sites are vastly underrated.

[Philippe Binette]

oh yeah among the weak site / great course category I forgot TPC Sawgrass... which was a swamp I think

[Sean Leary]

Great greens alone can make a very good course, for the most part.

[Lou_Duran]

A sandy site with nice topopraphical variety able to yield a concise routing has a huge advantage.  Add beautiful surroundings and the gca doesn't have to be as compelling.  But with today's equipment and body of knowledge, as long as $$$$$ is available, the answer is typically yes.

 

[Matt_Ward]

Philippe Binette:

Often times it's not the site but what kind of golf theater happens there.

Look at this weekend's plays between Tiger and McDowell. Sherwood is a good course but I don't see anyone saying it's great.

Ditto at what happened in '08 when Tiger beat Mediate at Torrey. No one, I can remember, is saying that Torrey / South is a great course.

Given the $$ that people can bring to bear -- just about any location can be made into a course of quality.

[Jud_T]

IMHO a very good course can be built on a mediocre site.  However, a truly great course generally needs an assist from Mother Nature...

[Philippe Binette]

Lou Duran:
"A sandy site with nice topopraphical variety able to yield a concise routing has a huge advantage.  Add beautiful surroundings and the gca doesn't have to be as compelling."

Lou, two comments about those lines.
1) A sandy site with nice topopraphical variety able to yield a concise routing has a huge advantage... you're rightbut if you start with that, you MUST to produce a great course.

2) I would disagree that better sites makes that the "gca doesn't have to be as compelling"... on a better site, the golf architecture might be less important in terms of actual physical work... but more mental work needs to be taken to achieve a precise result and not ruin the quality of the site.
Also, it takes better architecture on better sites if not the course goes down in the "dumb blonde" category, great looks no substances.

A. Mackenzie said that his concepts for Cypress were really extreme but the beauty of the site made them acceptable to the players... more conventionnal concepts might have not worked at Cypress because of the beauty of the site

all that with the necessity of not overdoing things...

[Michael Blake]

Yes.  A really good course can be 'produced.'
It only takes a SMART, CREATIVE, RESOURCEFUL architect/team.

[Adrian_Stiff]

No. Some sites are just so steep that you cant get enough good holes and there are too many bad ones. I think on a flattish site with enough $$$$$ it becomes a yes.

[Randy Thompson]

Yes.  A really good course can be 'produced.'
It only takes a SMART, CREATIVE, RESOURCEFUL architect/team.

and a smart owner, you can have all the above but if the owners ties your hands in relation to creativity or by not providing you with the resources to bring out the full potential then it will end up in the dumb blonde catagory.

[Philippe Binette]

Adrian,

I'm not sure you need that much money on a flattish site... I look at Essex in Windsor and basically D.Ross dug a few trenches to generate dirt and allow for drainage, built solid greens and nice bunkering with it and there you go, job done.

I don't think it would be that expensive to built.

[Michael Blake]

Randy,

You're right.
Forgot that a good owner is part of the equation. 

In your experiences (in South America or elsewhere,) what kinds of resources can the owner provide or not provide that affect the project's potential?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,

I'm not sure you need that much money on a flattish site... I look at Essex in Windsor and basically D.Ross dug a few trenches to generate dirt and allow for drainage, built solid greens and nice bunkering with it and there you go, job done.

I don't think it would be that expensive to built.

Phillipe- No doubt some sites will be cheap. The question was ANY and ANY surely is the keyword. If you have a horrible wet, wrong soil, flat site with no redeeming features then you will need big pockets, but it could be done.
There is only one answer to the question initially posted and it is an absolute no. When you have elevation changes of 300-400 feet, rocky mountainous sites, power lines going across, you cant make a really good course.So great architects, great greens, great owners will still yield a poo course.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Adrian,

I'm not sure you need that much money on a flattish site... I look at Essex in Windsor and basically D.Ross dug a few trenches to generate dirt and allow for drainage, built solid greens and nice bunkering with it and there you go, job done.

I don't think it would be that expensive to built.

Penguin,

You're right. Essex cost approx. $150,000 to build during the late 1920s. The course opened in 1929. $150,000 in 1929 = about $1.9 million today.

[Randy Thompson]

I guess its more their attitude than resources. I had one that wanted an island green. I treid to educate him about the importance of recuperation shots in the game of golf and that the islands have been over used and I HATE THEM! He said he respected my oppinion and understood where I was coming from and if I would now try to understand where he was coming from. He told me the day I build a golf course for myself that I should feel free to build the course wothout an island green but for now he is paying and it will be his course and you either build me an island green in the design or I will finnd somebody else that will! So he has an island green. Other owners want water here there and everywhere becasue it is sexy and more importantly sells real estate. They are constantly looking at the bottom line numbers and every square meter you take for golf is a square meter less for lots and that effects the bottom line. you try to talk stategy to them and they say well how bout bouncing the ball off a tiilted roof top and it rolls down the roof top and onto the putting surface, will that work? One of my recent projects, after finishing the design asked that the dirt movement be cut in half, which we did. Then they asked that there be no more than one bunker per hole no more bigger than the size of a third of a green, than they wanted to use a dirt mover not our experienced shaper. We were negotiating takinng my name off the project and we came to an agreement where I eliminated a lot fo bunkers and added a lot of grass depressions and they are using my shpaer for greens, bunkers and greens surroundings. I could tell you more but my stomach is starting to feel quizzy, so I will stop here.

[Mac Plumart]

Yes, ANY site can produce a good course.  Just put the MacDonald/Raynor template holes in place.  It is the "secret sauce"!!   

[Michael Blake]

Thanks Randy.

[Sean_A]

Much depends on what one calls a really good course.  To me, this means it almost certainly must be a good walking course, but there are exeptions.  So my answer would be no for very hilly etc sites, but I think many an uninspiring site can release inspiring results if the right approach is taken. So my other answer would be that there are plenty sites for creating really good golf.

Ciao

[Philippe Binette]

Maybe the question should be, can a really good course can be built without a good owner ?

Defining really good...

- interesting routing
- good greens
- smart bunkering

and not too much other stuff.... mounds lakes waterfall etc

[Randy Thompson]

Maybe the question should be, can a really good course can be built without a good owner ?

IMO, No and it also takes good supers and an owner that wants the course to evolve to its max. You have to have all the ingredients. I love some of George Fazio works and Tom Fazio definetly has earned my respect through the years. They teamed up on a project in Panama and the result doesn´t even make the dumb blonde catagory. Two great talents coming together on a failry decent piece of land but there had to be others factors lacking.

[Jim Franklin]

Philippe Binette:

Often times it's not the site but what kind of golf theater happens there.

Look at this weekend's plays between Tiger and McDowell. Sherwood is a good course but I don't see anyone saying it's great.

Ditto at what happened in '08 when Tiger beat Mediate at Torrey. No one, I can remember, is saying that Torrey / South is a great course.

Given the $$ that people can bring to bear -- just about any location can be made into a course of quality.

I forget which announcer said it, but one of them said that Sherwood was without a doubt a Top 100 course. So someone thinks so.

[Mike Nuzzo]

A sandy site with nice topopraphical variety able to yield a concise routing has a huge advantage.  Add beautiful surroundings and the gca doesn't have to be as compelling.  But with today's equipment and body of knowledge, as long as $$$$$ is available, the answer is typically yes. 

Lou
Didn't you visit our course?

Please compare the relative cost to build Mansfield and Wolf Point as compared to their quality.

Cheers

[Lou_Duran]

Nuzzo!!!!!

You, Don, and Al are the MEN!  If there is a better first-time effort anywhere, anytime, I want to go see it.

I think Mansfield Natl. was built for $4.8MM turn-key (land is owned by the city and leased for a nominal amount, as I understand- I was off the project long before construction began).  The land was the remnant of a larger tract that the city bought from the federal government and used the better, non-flood prone parts for athletic fields.  The developers were primarily motivated by turning surrounding cheap cotton land bought by the acre into commercial and residential lots sold by the square foot.  They greatly succeeded, and though the quality of the course was not a major consideration, John Colligan did a great job with what he had to work with.  The course does well over 50,000 rounds annually and some golfers believe it is superior to the nearby private 36-hole country club.  As I recall, it took a year from ground breaking to opening, and it has been a homerun ever since.

You can tell the group if you want what you spent on WP in comparison, and how long it took to build.  I am also sure that you had but a small fraction of the red tape and politics that the folks in Mansfield endured.

As to quality, WP is easily a top 20 Texas course in my view; Mansfield National does not scratch the top 100.  But in terms of customer satisfaction, at least quantitatively, I think MN has you by a bunch.

Jim Franklin,

If Sherwood would starve the rough (water and fertilizer) so it doesn't defeat the canyon effect, it might be a top 50 in my book.  It has great variety, nice topograpy, good green complexes and plenty of challenge.

Philippe,

Funny that you would mention CPC in your response to my comments as it is my favorite course and a good example of what I was alluding to with regards to the importance of the surroundings.  CPC has a few holes that are rather ordinary (e.g. 3, 10) and if the course was on the east side of the mountains, it may compete with Pasatiempo, Valley, and Meadow to crack the top 100.  Naturally, all of this is subjective and we all have our preferences as well as our ideas of what is gca.  I think that Sand Hills is a superior course architecturally than CPC, but it doesn't have the same impact on me because of the surroundings.
   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()