...the Next Sand Hills?

[John Kirk]

Interesting side subject, given that this week's tournament course at Dove Mountain, had 17 greens modified after the first year of WGC match play competition.

Ballyneal has had one significant modification, the addition of a series of bunkers on the left side of the 9th fairway.  I don't know of any modifications to Pacific Dunes.  At Pumpkin Ridge, a few trees have died and a couple tees have been added.

Major modifications shortly after course opening is unforgivable.

[Ronald Montesano]

I guess we're running parallel threads...http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47481.0.html

[Jim Nugent]

Anyone who saw Castle Course the first time and wrote about it as I did could see the course needed "fixing" right away. Makes you wonder why the architect didn't. Then Tetherow had to be fixed and softened immediately after opening.  Isn't that the architects job the first time?

As I understand it, most Doak 10s in the U.S. got reworked, over and over, for years, starting shortly after they opened.  This includes Merion, Pine Valley, NGLA, Crystal Downs and Pinehurst #2.  Why is this a problem if Kidd or other modern archies do it?   

Jim,
Crystal Downs has not been reworked, at all.  Have the grassing lines changed? Yes.  Have bunkers grown in over time and then been reclaimed? Yes.

Just a correction to your generalization.
Cheers,
Mike

My sum knowledge of this comes from Ran's profile of Crystal Downs, where he says, "This kind of sophistication in and around the green complexes only results when the architect lives on site and can take the time to get it right. And, of course, that is exactly what Maxwell did at Crystal Downs (and guess what? It is also what Henry and William Fownes did at Oakmont)."

I took that to mean Maxwell lived on or near Crystal Downs and spent years tweaking/tinkering/perfecting the greens.  Yes?

[JC Jones]

Maxwell and Mackenzie routed the course in October of 1928.  Maxwell then stayed in Frankfort from Spring 1929 until (at least) Fall of 1930.  I've not seen anything indicating that Mackenzie ever saw the property except for those couple of days in October of 1928.

[David_Elvins]

I will relate the question I asked Tom after an inaugural dinner. "How do you see yourself tweaking this design over the years?"

He stated that with the crew that he had (Implying trust) that the man hours spent going over every aspect was such that most of the tweaking was done prior to seeding.

I had a bit of a disagreement with Tom, on this site a while back when I suggested that all courses, including his, should be tweaked a couple of years after opening. 

A few months later he reported that he had been to Barnbougle Dunes (possibly his best course) and stated that there were some things that he would like to change. 

I am not sure if he remembered my previous post. 

I am with the Jones on this one.  I don't think that the casual observer often realises how difficult it is to determine the playing characteristics of a hole before it is grassed and played.  there will always be some designers who get it better than others but there is no way that any designer could ever optimize a design to the full potential on the first go.  All courses need play and small iterations to the design to find the optimal playability. 

It is also a fact that 95% of the best courses push the limit of green contours to the limit.  If you want to build a truly geat course, you are going to have to be bold and take risks with your green contours.  these especially will need to be played and re-designed to get the best outcome. 

[Tim Bert]

I just read the article.  I was shocked to see that the quote about Sand Hills was from Kidd.  I figured it was from someone else.  If the architect is going to call his shot that boldly, he better be bringing something special.

I see no problem with tweaking.  Particularly when the original architect is involved on a regular basis and isn't trying to do too much.  I never played the original 17th at Kingsley, but the pictures looked narrow and a little out of character with the rest of the course.  I for one am quite pleased that Mike got out there and made it a double-wide.

[Brad Klein]

I'm with Don Mahaffey and George Pazin on this one. There's a world of difference between making gradual improvements over the years to make a good course better and, on the other hand, having to reshuffle the deck a year after opening because important elements like greens or approaches don't work and holes aren't playable by the intended clientele.

[JC Jones]

Brad,

Would you consider re-doing multiple greens, a few entirely, shortly after it opened "gradual" changes to Pine Valley?  Likewise, would you consider the work done to ANGC within a few years of it opening "gradual"?  How about the re-routing of holes at Merion and the building of new greens?  Or, what about the work that CBM said he did to NGLA in Scotland's Gift? 

I think it is romanticizing at best and more likely, disingenuous to continue to classify the work done to most of the great courses as "gradual improvements over the years."  We're talking about moving holes and completely blowing up greens and replacing them with new ones.

For the record, I also agree with Don Mahaffey on his point that if unnecessary risks are taken that need to be fixed the next year because the clientele is not happy, that is a problem.  I wonder, however, why the architect was hired in the first place if his reputation is such that he builds bold to over-bold features.  Perhaps the client didn't do their due diligence.

[Bill_McBride]

Interesting side subject, given that this week's tournament course at Dove Mountain, had 17 greens modified after the first year of WGC match play competition.

Ballyneal has had one significant modification, the addition of a series of bunkers on the left side of the 9th fairway.  I don't know of any modifications to Pacific Dunes.  At Pumpkin Ridge, a few trees have died and a couple tees have been added.

Major modifications shortly after course opening is unforgivable.

I have only seen the Dove Mountain greens since the softening. I thought they were among the wildest and most difficult to manage I've ever seen.

The mind reels to imagine what the originals were like if they all had to be softened. OMG!

[Garland Bayley]

Brad,

Would you consider re-doing multiple greens, a few entirely, shortly after it opened "gradual" changes to Pine Valley?  Likewise, would you consider the work done to ANGC within a few years of it opening "gradual"?  How about the re-routing of holes at Merion and the building of new greens?  Or, what about the work that CBM said he did to NGLA in Scotland's Gift? 
...

OK JC, here is your argument.
An amateur architect on his first design had to make modifications. You supplement that with, a professional architect who's work was never paid for, had his design modified by others.

Remind me not to hire you to defend me.

[Brad Klein]

JC Jones,

Given the availability today of technical performance standards, professional resources, soil and topographic mapping, client input, golfer expectations, and critical scrutiny, the practices of a some major courses decades ago are a lousy guide and just an excuse for incompetence if relied upon today. Tweaks and minor things that an architect would like to go back and do or redo are one thing. But that's not to excuse major blunders of unplayability today. Given the limited budgets and limited earth moving technology of almost all of those older courses (ANGC could barely pay its bills and, as I recall, never fully paid off MacKenzie), it's not surprising they soon went back and moved things to improve. But not to fix major failures. Today, you hire an architect to get most things right the first time around, certainly the major things. I think a few too many architects today get away with extreme, unplayable stuff and figure they can use their ego or their name to get a second chance, even when they refused to listen to or consider seriously concerns at the outset because they were too impressed with themselves.

[David_Elvins]

Given the availability today of technical performance standards, professional resources, soil and topographic mapping, client input, golfer expectations, and critical scrutiny,

These things are supposed to enable great design???

Hasn't the prevailing view on this website for the past ten years been that these things have restricted the ability to design great golf courses???

[Brad Klein]

I didn't realize the prevailing view of this Website was to endorse "winging it."

In any case, I didn't know we were supposed to swear loyalty to a single political party.

[JC Jones]

Brad Klein,

Do you honestly think CBM, Raynor, Dr. Mac, Tilly, et. al. were "winging it"?  Moreover, do you think they didn't have topo maps, professional resources, client input, or golfer expectations?  I think that is a gross misstatement of the way the golden age architects operated.  Tom Paul has traced the use of topo maps to around 1911, the USGA Greens Section was formed and pumping out trade publications on design, agronomy, etc. long before 1920, mechanical equipment was used to move earth and substantially change the land at several courses.  Hell, Seminole was a swamp that had to be drained.  Raynor died before 1926 and he was the consummate engineer; was he "winging it"?  I think it is nonsense to paint the picture of these guys operating in the dark. 

Moreover, would you call completely re-doing #7 and #11 at ANGC "moving things to improve" or fixing a major mistake?  Would you call Dr. Mac's green at Sitwell Park or the original #18 at Pine Valley with the giant buried elephant in the middle that had to be taken out examples of "extreme and unplayable stuff"?

Bringing it to today, can you give examples of courses where the architect deliberately created extreme features because they were "impressed with themselves"?  Are there any greens at Sebonack (#14) or Ballyneal (#7) that you would consider extreme?  What are your thoughts on Mike Strantz's work?

[Adam Clayman]

David Elvins. On the course I referenced Tom was given free reign. I don't know if its true since, but, I do recall that was the first time that freedom was given. It shows in the final product too. Imo.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Given the availability today of technical performance standards, professional resources, soil and topographic mapping, client input, golfer expectations, and critical scrutiny,

These things are supposed to enable great design???

Hasn't the prevailing view on this website for the past ten years been that these things have restricted the ability to design great golf courses???

Technology is a tool.
If one knows how to use it, it can only help.

[John Kirk]

Lots of questions, JC.  There are a number of detractors to the changes made at Augusta, believing the club has made the Masters the primary focus.  If Jack Nicklaus built Augusta National today, and they tried to sell memberships for $200k, do you think they would get the members?  I'm not sure.  I have not seen the course, but everybody says the greens are beyond wild. 

[Don_Mahaffey]

JC...have you read these publications? ...Seriously, this is your case? Dude.

"...the USGA Greens Section was formed and pumping out trade publications on design, agronomy, etc. long before 1920,..."



 

[Chris Johnston]

This thread is a bit off the topic.  wrt changes, every golf course has strengths and every course has weaknesses.  I've seen most of the greats and have never seen one with 18 perfect or even 18 spectacular holes.  Not one.  Every course makes changes, including the greats, some of which have been mentioned here.   How many great holes, for example, does Cypress Point have?  Augusta?  Pine Valley?  Bandon?  Pacific?  Don't like radical greens?  Better pan Augusta.  Have they all made substantial changes?  Yep.  Did all (or any) of these get it wrong the first time - I don't think so - they just saw opportunity to make it better.  

We seem to judge unequally here and bias is hard wired in most of us.  #2 at Sand Hills itself is a perfect example.  A very challenging drive and a mind bending green complex on the #1 modern golf course?  I like the hole a bunch but it certainly fits "extreme", it will kick your fanny, and par is a very good score.  There is a story that a poobah from the USGA thought it so poor he wrote and strongly suggested it be changed for its severity.  The story further goes that they wrote back and suggested the poobah not bother to return. Sand Hills doesn't apologize for its eccentricities. Why should they?  Did they make changes?  You bet they did.  Did they get it right the first time?  Not if the prevailing litmus test is predicated upon changes if they made em.  Every improvement they made is just that, an improvement.  I wouldn't trade my membership there even up for any other club I've played on the planet.

Funny thing is, from another angle, there are several great courses that have been restored to their original "then radical" form, even though prevailing wisdom at the time dictated the changes were much needed.  

Like art, the beauty of Architecture is the divergence of opinion.  As long as the opinion is applied consistently, who can argue?  If it isn't applied consistently, the question is simply, why?  

I follow a simple axiom...A good course is a good course when its a good course.  Why can't we just celebrate good golf?

[Greg Tallman]

  I agree with Brad here.Can't you just look at it and know?

  Anthony

Disappointiing

[JC Jones]

JC...have you read these publications? ...Seriously, this is your case? Dude.

"...the USGA Greens Section was formed and pumping out trade publications on design, agronomy, etc. long before 1920,..."



 

Yup, that's everything I've got.  Certainly not the other 10 paragraphs I've written on this thread pointing out all of the major changes made to several of the greatest courses of all time nor everything else I wrote showing that the architects of the 20's and 30's were not operating in the dark like some of you would have us to believe.

And yes, I've read through several of those early volumes.  It is quite interesting to see Tilly trash other architects under a pseudonym.  Have you read them?  I'm sure they aren't has great as the ones published today but truthfully, I'm not sure it is at all relevant.  How many architects today are reading through greenskeeper trade publications?  Less than 5?

Are you resting your case on refuted generalizations?

Chris,

Talk about radical, borderline unplayable greens, how about the GCA.com darling, Crystal Downs.  #11 on a dry fall day is ridiculous.

I agree with your axiom.  A course should be judged for what it is today, not what it was and not what it could be.

[John Kirk]

Hey Chris,

That's a fine post you just made.  Lovely.

[Peter Pallotta]

Some random thoughts:

Gents, please remember: conventional wisdom is very boring; and just a tad less boring is overblown reactionary rhetoric.

I hope I never have to play a course with "18 great holes".  What an illusion; what a false ideal. The old Navajos, I'm told, used to purposely weave a mistake into their otherwise beautiful blankets, so as to "let the devil out".  (Would that be the devil of perfectionism, or pride, perhaps? Or might it be the humble recognition that everything in nature is transitory and 'flawed'.)

Ego and the well known psychological trait called projection being what they are, nothing is more obvious to other posters than someone else's self-serving post.

Me

PS - There is Talent and there is Time.  If you don't have the former in abundance, best that you use as much of the latter as you need. Otherwise, "memorize the changes and then forget them", as Charlie Parker used to say about improvising.

  

[Kris Shreiner]

Jud,

Mac Dunes IS an awesome site! The environmental constraints were what presented the major challenges there. The course has had mixed reviews because due to the strict design guidelines, when it opened, a very raw presentation was the result.

If they had instituted a proper caddie program, it would have made all the difference in minimizing most of the bad reviews. There are: some blind shots, areas of run-through on some tee-shots if you don't know the course, scruffy patches with weeds, coarse fairway definition on some holes and some severity of slope on morethan a few surfaces.

That said...it's Brora on steroids for me. Jolly golf, with a bit of stern Carnasty thrown in for good measure! That said, the project will continue to struggle until they have some real golf people there who understand what's needed. The unfortunate thing is, it's always best to get it right from the outset! Sadly, the climb for them will be much steeper now, as it got slammed by many in the early days.

On an environmental responsibility level, it is probably the most important golf course built in the last 50 years, at least. With all respect to the assertions of the folks at Askernish, ain't NO WAY it's any more natural than Mac Dunes! I know firsthand, the exceedingly strict guidelines they had to operate under and I doubt any other team could have, or would have done much better than the design and grow-in bunch that built the course.  

[Gene Greco]

This thread is a bit off the topic.  wrt changes, every golf course has strengths and every course has weaknesses.  I've seen most of the greats and have never seen one with 18 perfect or even 18 spectacular holes.  Not one.  Every course makes changes, including the greats, some of which have been mentioned here.   How many great holes, for example, does Cypress Point have?  Augusta?  Pine Valley?  Bandon?  Pacific?  Don't like radical greens?  Better pan Augusta.  Have they all made substantial changes?  Yep.  Did all (or any) of these get it wrong the first time - I don't think so - they just saw opportunity to make it better.  

We seem to judge unequally here and bias is hard wired in most of us.  #2 at Sand Hills itself is a perfect example.  A very challenging drive and a mind bending green complex on the #1 modern golf course?  I like the hole a bunch but it certainly fits "extreme", it will kick your fanny, and par is a very good score.  There is a story that a poobah from the USGA thought it so poor he wrote and strongly suggested it be changed for its severity.  The story further goes that they wrote back and suggested the poobah not bother to return. Sand Hills doesn't apologize for its eccentricities. Why should they?  Did they make changes?  You bet they did.  Did they get it right the first time?  Not if the prevailing litmus test is predicated upon changes if they made em.  Every improvement they made is just that, an improvement.  I wouldn't trade my membership there even up for any other club I've played on the planet.

Funny thing is, from another angle, there are several great courses that have been restored to their original "then radical" form, even though prevailing wisdom at the time dictated the changes were much needed.  

Like art, the beauty of Architecture is the divergence of opinion.  As long as the opinion is applied consistently, who can argue?  If it isn't applied consistently, the question is simply, why?  

I follow a simple axiom...A good course is a good course when its a good course.  Why can't we just celebrate good golf?

A terrific post.