GCA and tastemeking

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

Yes, I've read Hunter's book.

With respect to Rees's designs and C & C designs, I think I've played the exact same number of both Architects courses.
Atlantic for Rees, Southern Hills for C & C.  
My comments regarding Rees's work weren't directed toward admiring his designs, since I have played but one, but rather defending him against unfair criticism.  But this thread isn't about Rees.

Architecture is not about producing nature, it's about producing terrain.  Some favor natural terrain, but not all sites are so fortunate.  Did CBM produce nature/terrain on the 8th hole at NGLA ?  Did he succeed rather admirably ?

TEPaul,

I think you have to carefully re-read the words preceeding
Crump, Crump, Crump.  They had to do with flexibility and collaboration.  Crump was merely a reference example, not the focus of my point.

I have no doubt that C & C are excellent architects, I have no problem with that contention when it's used in a non-exclusionary or non-relegating context..
I have no doubt that you admire almost everything about them.  But, I did ask some pertinent questions about the selection process regarding their work and a qualitative analysis of their work in the context of the quantity of their work.  Reasonable questions for a reasonalbe discussion.

Tommy Naccarato,

You keep losing sight of the reasons the course was brought into existance.  The reason it was designed and built.
Neither Fazio, C & C nor any other architect could have produced anything more NATURAL than Shadow Creek.
Any deviation from Wynn's vision would have been met with dismissal.

If you've been to the site, or have seen pictures of the site, you know it was featureless, arid, barren land, and that Wynn's vision was to bulid an Oasis in its midst, not a flat, as NATURE had left it, golf course.

If Steve Wynn had wanted to build a different type or style of golf course..... he would have.   He helped design and build exactly what he wanted for his business purpose.

Do you think CBM and Raynor left YALE as they found it in nature, or did the alter the hell out of the land in order to build a world class golf course.  I love you dearly, but please don't tell me they just REVEALED what was there, unless you consider the extensive use of DYNAMITE to be an subtle form of revealing  

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
Your definition of "revealed" must be different than mine.  Far as I could tell, C & C manufactured most every golf feature at both Talking Stick courses.  

If you give the South course more than a 5 you are either just giving bonus points because of who designed the place or else your scale needs to go up to 12 or 13 instead of 10.  The South is just a pretty well manicured resort course designed for the higher handicapper.  Nice set of greens but otherwise there is not a lot going on on that one.  

Let me make something clear that I obviously assumed incorrectly should be accepted universally when it comes to rating/ranking the best golf courses - The cost to build a course or the cost to play that course has absolutely ZERO impact on how good or bad it is!  If you're rating the "best value" golf courses/golf experiences then that is a different story but I don't think any of us are doing that here.  If St. Andrews starts charging $1000 to play there, should it drop out of the top 10?  I don't think so?  If Pelican Hill drops there green fees to $25, does that make it a better design and increase its Doak scale rating?  I sure hope not!  

If a course cost $1MM or $40MM, it doesn't matter when it comes to rating the end result?  Frankly I don't give bonus points for a design because one architect could build it cheaper than another.  Do you?  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Pat:

If you asked me some pertinent questions about the selection process of C&C's work and the qualitative vs the quantitive aspect of it, I hope I answered it. I still don't know what you mean by exclusionary or relegating or with adding NON to those words. And I think I answered you about Crump. If not what's the question?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Some of the questions I posed were in response to your belief that I could not work well with C & C  if I were an owner on a golf course project.  

I'd certainly like the chance to do so, as well as the chance to work with many other architects discussed on this site.

I don't believe you answered the two questions I posed regarding the selection process involved in determining which work C & C  undertake, nor the issues relating to qualitative work in quantitative context, ala Ross.  

While I appreciate their old world craftmanship and devotion to a project, what is it about their involvement that creates the self imposed restriction of two (2) courses per year ?

The point of the last two paragraphs in post # 43 had to do with the genesis of ideas or concepts and that good ideas and concepts don't reside solely in the minds and domain of architects, though that's where the majority of them may come from.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Regarding your question about C&C and the restriction of two courses per year, I still come back to thinking that each architectural firm has to decide on how much work it can handle.  Part of this must be a quality control issue.  The firm probably has some standard for the kind of work it wants to do and only so much "capacity".

I don't know either Ben Crenshaw or Bill Coore, but I am aware of a project they turned down.  Crenshaw explained that he thought the project might be very exciting, but he just didn't feel he or Bill could devote the time necessary to make it turn out the way it should.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
What C&C course was it that you played?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

A Nothing Site--Talking Stick, North and South

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You ask again about Coore & Crenshaw's process for selecting the projects they take. My feeling on how they do it and why has been mentioned on here many times. But I tell you what, if you take a stab at why they limit their course production to two a year then I will go through the first question again.

There are more than a few hints and explanations on this very #3 page of this thread as to why they do it that way--read this page again and ask any other questions if you don't understand something. You might even try reading Coore's feature interview on GolfClubatlas.com. It's about clear as day!!

As to quality vs quantity ala Ross, I feel that as quantity increases, particularly dramatically, like Ross's 30 courses in 1923 obviously quality is going to suffer to an extent, in my opinion. That however, is contingent on many things--like who worked for Ross on those projects, etc. Ross was very good, he was a very organized architect and businessman, he delegated well and he had a particular style of architecture (ie: routing and basic design technique) that likely helped him overcome SOME of the problems inherently involved in high production. But even for him, as with anyone, I believe quality will suffer with that kind of high production! The basic reason for this is lack of time on site! That to me is the basic key to real quality design and is one reason I feel that even with Ross, Pinehurst and also some of his Rhode Island (and Mass) courses have a higher degree of detail, interest and quality!

The entire foregoing is my true feeling about the best process for high quality output, for anyone--hint, hint on C&C here!

As for Crump and where his ideas came from and how he put them into effect at Pine Valley, I hardly see how I could be much more clear on that subject on my previous post. If you want to talk about collaboration and the genesis of ideas on the design of Pine Valley then let's talk about it. But when we do I'm going to add to it who made the decisions and how so that some of the misconceptions about who was responsible for Pine Valley can be better understood. If you want to talk up this idea of "pride of authorship" at Pine Valley then I will tell you it doesn't appear to me that Crump had much of that!! Particularly since he made it more than clear who collaborated with him and appeared to never even attempt to contradict some of the people who said they were responsible for design ideas when clearly they were not! In this particular way it appears Crump was not only an inherently natural talent but also a most clever marketer!

But the key to this entire subject to me with both Crump and C&C and also Ross (in the converse) is time on site! Time on site won't help an architect who really doesn't have much talent but it will one that has talent. And a talented architect who doesn't spent much time on site generally is going to have the quality of his course suffer to some extent, in my opinon. Business organization can certainly compensate for this problem but not entirely. By business organization I'm sure you can imagine what I mean--the people you have working for you on the projects--ie, your own people vs local contractors--hugely important!!--and your ability to communicate. Obviously Ross had this talent and my understanding is that Fazio probably has it too, to a large degree!

As an example of that you mentioned Pine Valley's short course as some kind of example to me. Do you know what the design and build details of that project were?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
You said 'Architecture is not about producing nature, it's about producing terrain.  Some favor natural terrain, but not all sites are so fortunate.'  

What do you mean by architecture is about producing terrain - if an architect decides to utilize existing natural terrain instead of producing terrain, is he not an architect? And if an architect is forced to produce terrain should his goal be to make as natural appearing as possible? You say some favor natural terrain, I take it you believe others do not, who are the best architects who ignore natural terrain? Would you advise a developer or architect to seek out a site devoid of interesting natural terrain?

You have actually played two Rees courses, remember Pinehurst #7 - don't worry I have same problem.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I can see now why you and I, at least, sometimes don't see eye to eye on what is natural. You said on this thread that Shadow Creek could not be more natural the way it is, no matter whether Fazio or C&C did it!

I suppose you're right about that! But natural to what? It's probably a small point but all this time when I think about what's natural I might use the phrase "site natural" sometimes or just "natural". What I mean is that the golf course sort of fits into it's natural surroundings.

Now, I have no real problem with Steve Wynn's vision or his creation and I'm certain it has been successful and he is an interesting visionary. And Shadow Creek surely looks natural to somewhere, I'm sure, but certainly not to where it is! Anything but, in fact! Again, I have no real problem with that either since Las Vegas looks nothing like where it is either. Matter of fact, I can't think that Las Vegas looks natural to anywhere on the planet! It's a total "fantasy land", an oasis concept in the desert, a microcosim world, completely manufactureed and brought into being from flat desert sand  by another visionay--Bugsy Seigal.

I have no idea what a golf course would look like on the site that Shadow Creek sits on that really would be "site natural". That would be a tough one but one that may have been able to be done somehow with creativity. But since it wasn't, again, it's OK with me because what Wynn/Fazio did at Shadow Creek looks like what Las Vegas is all about--a "fantasy land" that looks nothing like the desert it's in! And certainly it is what Wynn wanted!

I'm definitely not saying either of us is right or wrong about all of this or even that Shadow Creek is right or wrong in some way because of this--it's just a very interesting distinction I never thought to make with you until now.

NGLA looks quite natural to me somehow and quite "site natural" too which is an amazing acheivement. So does Shinnecock, Pine Valley, TOC, Cypress, Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills, Hidden Creek, Friar's Head, Seminole, Pinehurst and a ton of others. In other words they sort of look like they just evolved out of their natural surroundings!

Again, not that either is exactly right or wrong, it's just that there is a distinction---and a huge one at that!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

If you go back to one of my original questions to Tommy about terrain, natural terrain, you will see a reference to the
8th hole at NGLA.  Was that green site there naturally, or did CBM create that terrain and green site ?  He created it.
Did that diminish the architecture, merit or value of the hole ?

At YALE, did the extensive creating of terrain, demolishing what nature had provided diminish or create the brilliant architecture that exists ?

If you are so keen on leaving everything exactly as nature has provided, let's eliminate the word DRAINAGE from the archhitects dictionary, and make no alterations in an attempt to create drainage, a rather important factor at any golf course.

TEPaul,

Pine Valley and Crump were references on a subject, not the subject.  First we hear that Crump did most of the routing, now we hear that everyone else was responsible.

The ISSUE was about the origination of sound design ideas, and whether they reside in a chosen few, "SEASONED ARCHITECTS" .which was the exact term I used, or could others possibly possess them as well,  And, Crump certainly wasn't a seasoned architect when he began Pine Valley.  

I have a belief different from yours.

I don't believe that architects must nest on a golf course like birds incubating their eggs.  This idea, gaining popularity on this site, is nonsense, and counter to the historical evidence regarding Ross, Tillinghast, MacDonald, Raynor, Flynn, as well as modern day architects.  

There comes a point of diminishing returns.

Pacific Dunes is being heralded as a sensational new golf course.  Did Tom Doak live on the site from inception to opening ?  I would doubt it.  Is Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, and others capable of working on three to four golf courses in a year ?  I believe they are.  I believe they can build and manage the organization necessary to implement their design ideas.  I don't think each job requires their everyday presence and fine tuning, you do because that may be the methodology of your idols, and I understand that.  But that doesn't mean quality golf courses can't be produced in quantity, and I don't buy in to the value added by spending 182 to 365 days on site for oversight.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Not withstanding those few extraoridinary exceptions, would you say that Macdonald did an excellent job in utilizing the outstanding natural features of both Yale and NGLA? Do you think generally speeking Macdonald's preference was to mazimize the use of natural features and when creating man-made features to present them as naturally as possible?

What about my other questions ---
If an architect decides to utilize existing natural terrain instead of producing terrain, is he not an architect? And if an architect is forced to produce terrain should his goal be to make as natural appearing as possible? You say some favor natural terrain, I take it you believe others do not, who are the best architects in your opinion who prefer to ignore natural terrain? Would you advise a developer or architect to seek out a site devoid of interesting natural terrain?

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat:

Maybe some of the architects you mentioned could handle three or four projects at a time.  But, what if THEY don't believe it?  What if they don't believe the work would turn out as good?

Maybe, also, that the guys you mentioned simply prefer and want to emphasize the craftsmanship aspect of golf architecture.

I can remember that Tom Fazio was initially reluctant to take on the Sand Ridge project.  He explained work load was a constraining factor.  But, eventually he agreed.  Candidly, I would have been happier if someone like Mike DeVries had done the work, in part because I saw the craftsmanship Mike applied to building bunkers at Kingsley and saw the same quality missing at Sand Ridge.

[Mark_Fine]

For what it's worth, when you are playing at Shadow Creek, you feel you are in North Carolina.  The course is essentially set down in the desert floor and the sides are all bermed up.  You really can't see the desert from anywhere on the course, just the mountains in the distance.  It's really quite amazing.  Whether any of us agree with it or not, this is exactly the product that Wynn wanted.  He wanted a North Carolina golf course in his backyard.  

Tim,
Remember the product they wanted at Sand Ridge was a high profile design that could be easily marketed.  Fazio's name did that for them.  Remember my comment from Dusty, "Ben Crenshaw is one of my best friends but I can't sell a Ben Crenshaw golf course like I can a Fazio design".  Another good example that golf course design is a business first and foremost whether we here like it or not.  

Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

It seems exclusionary, or unfair for discussion purposes that I cite two examples, and you label them extraordinary exceptions, especially NGLA and YALE, two of the GREATEST golf courses in the world.  If it's okay for CBM and Raynor to move massive amounts of earth and rock, why should Fazio or anyone else be faulted for it.  Aren't Pacific Dunes and Sand Hills the extraordinary exceptions in today's environment ?

I think that CBM's preference was to build the best golf hole possible, and to do whatever it took to accomplish that end.
If a particular hole required almost no change in the land,
I think he left it as is.  If another hole required the elimination and/or moving of substantial amouts of earth, I think he did so

I don't think he looked at YALE or any other property and made the pre-design and construction judgement to move as little land as possible, outside of the cost factor.  I think he clearly wanted to sculpt the best possible holes given the site he inherited, with that specific site dictating the construction technique or methodology.

From my post construction view point I don't know the answer to the question since I never saw or inspected in close detail either site.  But, some holes, like # 5 at NGLA seem like the green site was always there, and was just mowed tight.  That may not be exactly what happened, but it seems that way.  Other holes seem quite manufactured, with massive amounts of dirt moved to accomplish the design and construction of the golf hole.  So perhaps it was whatever each situation dictated, rather than a monolithic, inflexible methodology.

With regard to terrain, I know of no golf course built in America where terrain wasn't altered.  Some sites are inherently more conducive to accepting golf courses.  
Other sites can be nightmares in accepting a golf course.  
I would ask you to look at sections of Long Island and California to draw extreme examples.

I think you may hold a more romantic view of land, nature and golf courses than I do.

With regard to seeking sites void of natural terrain, you seem to be operating in the realm of idealism, overlooking availability of parcel size, acquisition costs. environmental issues, zoning restrictions and most importantly, the intent of the project.  

Where are golf courses are being built in New Jersey ?
It's not in the northeastern corridor, no matter how attractive the land may be, it's in south Jersey, or Mid-west to Western New Jersey, relatively undeveloped areas where land is availalbe at a relatively cheap price.   It's also noteworthy that the two most recent courses to draw raves are in remote locations in Nebraska and Oregon.  

Price has more to do with land selection than natural features.
What normal person is going to pay $ 100,000 per acre and more just to acquire 300 or so acres to build a golf course ?
Then add in the cost of the golf course, maintainance facilities and clubhouse, and you have one hefty nut to crack
And if an unusual person did, in order to recoup their investment, they'd have to charge around $ 250,000 for memberships, and we know how popular that is on this site.

What I am more distressed at, are those clubs built 60-70-80 years ago, that had good terrain and a good golf course, that allowed them to be altered in the name of, who knows what.
Those are the real crimes against architecture and your love of the natural land.

With respect to Natural versus UnNatural looking man made features, I'm not sure I understand what yoiu mean and would appreciate some examples that I could respond to.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark Fine:

Dusty was upset with me one day when I told him I wasn't impressed with the bunker work done by the Fazio team.  But, I can't recall many, if any, members expressing the same complaint.  More likely, you will hear complaints about the blue grass rough which slowly frustrates people through the round.

Dusty tells everyone the same story about selecting Fazio over Crenshaw.  He had the responsibility to both select the architect and market memberships.  The Fazio name alone was worth at least 250 members.

Sand Ridge golf course isn't perfect, but the entire story of development is interesting from a golf architecture business point of view.  It sure taught me some things about balancing all the competing points of view, including marketing, environmental, construction, maintenance and architectural style.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Would you say that Macdonald did an excellent, fair or poor job of utilizing the outstanding natural features of both Yale and NGLA? Wouldn't you say both sites were both blessed the tremendous natural advantages?

What do you make of Macdonald's philosophy regarding utilization of natural features and harmonizing the man-made as naturally as possible?

I'm no expert on land in NJ, I had no idea that it was impossible to build an interesting golf course utilizing natual features in the Northeast or maybe what you are saying is due to land costs, for a golf course to sell or to be financially viable the architect/developer must create an exciting terrain.

Would you advise a developer or architect to seek out a site devoid of interesting natural terrain? It seemed like a pretty easy straight foward question, perhaps it is however unrealistic, idealistic and romantic. Disregard

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
Isn't Southern Hills a Perry Maxwell course, or do they have a seperate C&C original design there to compliment it?

Surely you aren't saying that Southern Hills is a C&C original course are you? Even if it was a restoration, I don't consider that a C&C course.

What is fact is that you and Mark both are missing the point as far as the utilization of natural features and what it means to the Art. It has nothing to do with a club's mission statement or of those of us that favor any paticular architect. It has everthing to do with what is prescribed in that book you have read called "The Links," and the ability to interpret it in the 21st century and beyond.

Mark, Talking Stick took advantage of a series of dry creek beds for some of the architecture for both the North and South courses. Hardly any exisiting top-layer was removed from what would become fairways, but greens were gently if not subtley pushed-up from bunker excavations. It is the sheer work of genuis to create something so beautiful, yet so magnificently disguised in such a way that it is perfect for the natural surrounding. There is no containment as utilized at the near-by Estancia. And still exists a golf course of some 6700 yards, that feels as if you are playing at 7200, which provides what I would call one of the best ultimate tests in the Valley of the Sun.

What do you think of the bunker work that exists there? What about their placements? (Or are you going to call it Architorture also?)

Honestly, tell me truthfully that #11 isn't one of the best par 3's in the southwest? Tell me that truthfully that other then some minor shaping and bunker building that #2 isn't one of the three best par 5's you have played in the game?

If they aren't, then I think you are just disagreeing to be disagreeing.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, I forgot to also address your question regarding the place which you call a desert oasis. (Shadow Creek)

First, I'm not saying it isn't a good or great golf course if not King Fazio's best. I haven't played it and will reserve judgement until I do, if I ever do. However, I'm telling you my thoughts of what I feel is GREAT.

Second, How does moving in millions of cubic yards of earth to produce this desert oasis make it natural, or even comes close to considering it natural?

This is why I feel Talking Stick is such a valid comparison--the sites. Both sites are or were flat.

Talking Stick is what natural is all about, or at least in terms of emulating natural surroundings. Shadow Creek seems to be a monument to how man can BIG and BOLD man can create something out of nothing. It has nothing to do with trying to grasp what was there, but in your own verse, what wasn't there. It would seem in your minds eye, that is what is most impressive.

Pine trees in the barren desert of  Northwest Las Vegas or sage brush that was found on site on the Eastern most territory of Scottsdale? Millions of hundreds of millions of cubes moved-in to create pine hills, or flat barren NATURAL desert where barely any earth was moved at all? Which do you think is more natural LOOKING site?

Yes, Steve Wynn shared a vision Tom Fazio to create something so grand and lush, with the ultimate price tag for publicity yet, some Indians relied on Coore and Crenshaw to create two very interesting and simply strategic golf courses for less then half of that, which feature golf holes worthy of world praise. (Isn't it funny how everybody raves about Shadow Creek yet no one ever really talks about any one paticular golf hole as being in a class unto itself. I do hope that someday if I do ever play there that I can express some excitement of a great golf hole that can merit a comparable excitment as when I step up to the tee at Talking Stick #2.)

Pat, I have a place near my house, less the 15 minutes away, which just like Shadow Creek was artificially created out of barren, flat fields. What the developers created there was an acheivement of almost fantastic preportions. The ultimate in man's quest at bringing joy and creativity to the minds of millions. However, it was something that could NEVER possibly be ever considered natural to the environment in which it was built.

They created jungles and frontiers that would almost seem impossible to exist anywhere in surburbia. They even created a spot for people to visulaize the future, or place themselves in a land of fairytales.

It's called Disneyland.

And I can assure you that it isn't natural nor will it ever be.

Looking from afar, the whole place is sort of like faking going on a safari or going into outerspace. It really is Fantasyland.

I'm hoping all of this diatribe will have you further, deeply looking at golf courses, and just not their mission statements, because lets face it, way too many times they have been wrong when it comes to terms of GREATNESS.

Do you think that the National Golf Links of America was created in such a unnatural vein? What about the Old Course and other GREAT courses in the UK? Did they have to rely on such a extravgant scheme of creating an oasis like no other to create the very best golf in the game?

And since when does an oasis in the barren desert have pine trees with beautiful waterscapes and rock formations?

All of this is not to take away from the remarkable fact of what Tom Fazio created in Las Vegas, and just how much money a person is willing to spend to make such a lavish palace his statement of vitality.

THAT is truely impressive!:)

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Finally after all this time I think we've gotten to the bottom of this "natural" vs "unnatural" or "site natural" vs "site unnatural" thing. You aren't just kidding we don't agree! That's just the way it is, I guess. No problem at all, we just look at this subject much differently.

On the Crump/PVGC subject I've try to really get to the bottom of the way things happened at that project. I surely don't know it all yet, but I have seen so much evidence to date that leads me to be able to make some good conclusions about what transpired.

I surely never said that Crump did not collaborate with many people, many architects; in fact, I've said many times it may have been the greatest collaborative effort ever. Certainly more architects showed up there than on any other project in history! But that doesn't mean to me what it seems to mean to you! But in the end it means only what the evidence can show it to mean.

There is no particular reason I can find to make blind assumptions like the Colt routing story. The same is true with any of the other architects that entered into Crump's collaborative process. Crump was not the slightest bit proprietary about this collaborative process and he gave credit where the credit was due. It seems also that he may have given credit where credit was not due or necessary and that I account to brilliant marketing! Crump was an amateur architect, but one who clearly had talent. He probably needed to spend that time on site and the fact that he did obviously increased his creative curve immensely.

It is unlikley to me that a course like Pine Valley would have been termed "Crump's Folly" by some (including MacDonald) in the very beginning, but near the end (and the end of his life) five years later was being hailed by all, including the greatest architects in the world almost all of which had seen it as one of the greatest architectural acheivements ever! And almost all of those people, all those architects, credited that acheivement very much primarily to George Crump!

You can keep challenging that, denying that, discounting that, challenging various details, whatever you want, but if you want to convince me show me some facts to the contrary and then I will gladly change my mind and concede to some other set of facts! As I say, I don't think I've seen it all but what I am seeing is leading me more and more to that conclusion.

You said above; "First we heard that Crump did most of the routing and now we hear that many others were involved". I said nothing of the kind. I said Crump did the vast majority of the routing (if not all of it), period! The precise reason I say that is because at this point with all the available data and facts I've seen, Crump did the vast majority of the routing before anyone that I can see showed up at Pine Valley! Crump bought the land in the late fall of 1912 and by March of 1913 the routing he did (most of the routing that is Pine Valley today) was done! This was before Harry Colt ever got there! This was before others got there as far as I can see at this point. So what does that mean? It's quite obvious to me!

From the spring of 1913 until 1918 when Crump died many people may have visited and apparently collaborated with him to perfect the details of the holes in Crump's routing. For some reason that may not be a distinction that you understand between a routing and collaboration on the details of the holes. We will probably never know where all the ideas for all the details of those holes came from--Crump himself or from others that supposedly collaborated with him--but we do know that wherever they came from it was Crump that decided what would be done and what would not. The list is interesting about who gave him various ideas on the holes and in one case the green site on #13 possibly. And then there was the 1921 Committee following Crump's death!

On hole #8 at NGLA you say it was obviously manufacturered and of course it was--but how and how much? Does it look like it fits into the natural site and the property to you and if not why not? You said you've never gone out there and looked to try to see how it was done. I did last fall with Kye Goalby. We might have spent an hour at that green end. You can clearly see many things if you look at it and what surrounds the green site. It becomes apparent where he likely used natural grade and where he got his fill for the green (and probably the 9th tee).

But that's another discussion but probably one we should have sometimes. You even said to Tom Macwood that if an architect touches natural terrain at all that it would indicate that the architecture of the course can not really be considered to meld with nature or look natural and that it should be considered manufactured like anything else manufactured by man. At least I believe that's what you said or are implying, and if so that's patently preposterous to me.

I do believe in site time most definitely but acknowledge it doesn't have to be exactly the same for any architect. Some may be able to work faster than others. My sense is that MacKenzie could work quickly and that today Doak may be able to! That in no way means though that it's unimportant. There is a strong correlation that on many of the best courses in the world site time was put in more far more than other designs. That too is another discussion.

I know you don't seem to believe these things but I do! And who knows, maybe if you had a project you could do it as well as Crump's Pine Valley. You're an amateur like Crump was and maybe you could do it as well as he did. Maybe you could even do it faster and better than Crump. Only a completed project and time would tell for sure!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

When did I ever say that I never went out and spent time on the 8th hole at NGLA ?  I've probably spent at least ten (10) times the time you have just over the last five (5) years.

When did I ever say that if an architect touches the ground/course it can never be considered a meld with nature ?

Where do you obtain these wild and incorrect statements from ?  

Was Crump a seasoned architect when he began Pine Valley ?
That was the tangential gist of my post, could you answer that in a simple yes or no, thanks.

If you're going to cite or quote me, please do it accurately.  

Tom MacWood,

The reality, like it or not, is:  It costs less to acquire land for $ 2,000 an acre, and modify it through the golf course construction process, than it does to buy land at $ 100,000
per acre, and  build a golf course on it.  
I was referencing northeast New Jersey, versus other parts of the state with respect to new golf course construction.

NGLA is my favorite golf course. I love everything about it, but
NGLA is a manufactured golf course, a more than successful attmept to duplicate other holes from another land, and, it is 80 years old.  Does anyone remember it the day it opened up ?
Or does everyone just accept it in its present form ?

What green sites do you think look natural from all angles ?
What green sites appear to have been created with the moving of substantial amounts of earth?

And now you and others want to compare the site Shadow Creek sits on to the site NGLA sits on.  Compare their relative naturalness, Shadow Creek had none, it was a site void of any features, including water.

You ask if I think CBM drew out the wonderful natural features at YALE ?  And I say, no, he created them, he blasted, carted and plowed that property to yield his unique vision and world class golf course.  

If you've seen YALE you can't believe that he just cleared the land to REVEAL the golf course, he sculpted that course from a hostile site.  And in the context of our discussion, it to is almost totally manufactured.

Tommy Naccarato,

C & C did the third nine at Southern Hills.

Let me know if you have the Shadow Creek book.  If you don't I'll try to send you some pre-construction pictures, or better yet, a copy of the book.

If you understand what pre-existed the golf course, what Steve Wynn's objective was, you would have to credit Fazio and Wynn with doing a wonderful job.

Perhaps the reason you don't hear anyone tout any one hole, is that they are all pretty spectacular in the context of the golf course oasis, the metamorphosis that the desert went through to produce 18 unique holes.

You also never hear anyone who has played it say it stinks or is extremely overrated.

It's a unique golf course in a hostile setting, built for a specific unique purpose.

Would I prefer to play NGLA, GCGC, PV and some others day in and day out, yes, but what courses can hold up to that comparison ?

Hunter never conceived of desert golf in the context of the principles in his book.  It was as alien as golf on the moon.
You might as well take an artic survival expert's book and give it to the guys lost in Death Valley.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I had no idea that Yale and NGLA were totally manufactured, that seems to be at odds with most everything I've read, including Scotland's Gift, but I'll take your word for it. Maybe I've been over-emphasizing the role of Mother Nature.

'Nature herself anticipated all this and has done her part nobly. It was in her kindest mood that she fashioned every dune, every gentle hollow, every foot of the entire surface and fringed it with the lapping waters of Bull’s Head Bay and Peconic Bay, wholly and solely in the interests of the true lovers of real golf.'  - Walter Travis


Are there any largely natural holes at Yale and NGLA? Do you see any difference in Macdonald removing rock at Yale and Rees creating containment mounding at Atlantic?

[TEPaul]

Patrick Mucci:

Here's what you said about the 8th hole at NGLA."From my post construction viewpoint I don't know the answer to the question since I never saw or inspected in close detail either site" (NGLA or Yale).

Obviously, I was wrong and you must have meant that you never inspected what the site of #8 looked like before it was built. That fooled me since I thought it wasn't worth stating that you had not seen NGLA before it was built. Since I know your approximate age I didn't think you needed to mention you hadn't been out there in 1912! I thought you said you'd never inspected #8 period.

But since you've spent about 10 times more time out on #8 then I have in the last five years let me hear you tell me something about it. Where do you think the natural grades are surrounding that green? Where do you think MacDonald got his fill for that green? How raised do you think it is from what was there before he built it? How would you go about determining that? What would you look for? Where would you look? What do you think that green-site looked like before MacDonald built a green there? Do you have any ideas about that? I would really like some answers to those questions, but why do I think I won't hear a single one?

Then I won't quote you, only tell you what I think you're saying. Tell me what you think is a meld with the natural surroundings of the site of a golf course and tell me what you think isn't. Use any golf course. Or better yet use NGLA. Let me hear some examples. Not what you think or know he  might have moved in dirt but why it looks unnatural to the site. Do you think because you can detect that an architect moved dirt that it can't look natural to that specific site? Do you think an architect can move dirt that you can't detect? Do you think an architect can meld his architecture into the natural surroundings of a site at all? And if so how would that be?

Do you think a golf course that looks something like North Carolina in the Nevada desert looks like the natural surroundings of Nevada? Do you think that because Wynn spent millions recreating a North Carolina fantasy in Nevada that that makes it look natural to that site? You don't care about that do you because you think that the Nevada desert is just a crappy piece of land, don't you?

Could you see a golf course out there without a tree on it? Could you see a golf course out there that brings the hills or mountains and their lines from the background into the lines of the golf course? Can you see a golf course that brings the look of the surroundings into the golf course somehow? These questions aren't misreading anything you said. There're just questions. Can you answer them or are you just going to ask me again how I can be so misguided?

What is it you're saying about Crump and Pine Valley? What is this tangential gist you're referring to? Tangential to what? What gist? How about some facts about Pine Valley! What are you going to tell me, that you saw some aerial on the wall? What does that mean to what Crump did or didn't do there?

Was Crump an unseasoned amateur when he started Pine Valley? Of course he was! Was he considered by the entire goddamned world of architecture an unseasoned architect when he died five years later?  What do you think? Was he considered by the world of architecture the man who created Pine Valley or wasn't he? Was he the man who made the decisions on the architecture of Pine Valley or wasn't he? If you think he took everybody's ideas and advice for everything that happened there you tell me which ideas, where and on what. You tell me who gave him all that advice on the routing of the course and all the details of the holes of Pine Valley. The advice he got and accepted and put into the design is very well known. Do you know what that was? Where it was?

Give me some facts, evidence, details or else tell me why you're having such a hard time accepting what I'm saying. Tell me where I'm misinformed and why.

There're a lot of questions here, and you know what, I don't think you're going to answer one of them. You'll probably come up with one helluva tangential gist though!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

If the information that both Tom Paul and Tom MacWood have put down in the last two posts isn't enough to open Patrick Mucci's mind, nothing will.

For all that are reading this, the last two posts say it all. Tom Paul's "Meld"  and Tom MacWood's quote of Walter Travis explain it in the perfect terms simply, while answering all detractors to the ways and means of what both Classic Architecture of yesterday, as well as Classic Architecture today is all about.

It is without doubt the reasons why NGLA is so Natural. and it is all the reasons why people yearn to see Pine Valley in more then just pictures and talk.

Classic Golf Features are more then just gentleman from a long time ago understanding and building them. It is everything about people today understanding and interpreting them proper. It is about how NATURE dictates the design and everything else is chicken liver. If earth was required to be moved, so be it! It is all part of the meld. Just as long as the existing lines of NATURE are followed or emulated.

This is where the GREATNESS lies. This is where golf courses are "10's" and draws way outside the lines of any ranking panel.

Tom MacWood and Tom Paul have both justified that cause.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

To Tommy Naccarato:

This thread is too complicated to follow, but your comment regarding architect's chasing big name players is a good place to start.  It ties into a lot of what is being said about taste making and integrity.  You are right.  Architects should not team up with golf pros period.  It does great harm to the profession.  There are many examples of celebrities crossing over into other fields of interest by using their star power.  Marketing a product associated with a celebrity seems to be an accepted way of selling the product.  The professional's involved in the process must feel cheapened.  We should all be a little less envious of celebrities, and be more confident and proud of our skills and accomplishments and be more respectful of our integrity.  I would rather live in obscurity knowing that day in and day out I worked hard, studied hard, and did my very best.  Once you set the goal to be famous, or just well-known within your profession you begin the process of compromising your integrity.  Every effort should be directed toward improving your skills, for the quality of your products will be more worthy.  Celebrity and recognition can not be a part of the means toward this end.  It may come but it should be resisted.  For example, in music when I was a kid I liked Elton John, Jagger, Billy Joel, but as they pursued more and more celebrity the quality of the music became more hollow.  The early recordings showed a passion and soul for their craft.  Today it is pure production and marketing and the music sucks to no end.  These people should just go away.  I do not find this true with artist like Waylon Jennings and Johnny Cash.  They have pretty much stuck true to their craft.  But, do you hear more about them or Garth Brooks, who is a phony.  But, Waylon and Johnny could care less what people think about them.  I will never forget an incident during a father/son golf tournament.  We where the "B" group duirng a shotgun when a very successful business man, well known, entertained President Johnson at his home, etc, was waiting on the tee as well and we were having pleasent coversation with my Dad.  Then he looked at me and said, "  your father is the finest business man I have ever known and he has the highest integrity you can find."  Not much sticks with you like that as a kid, but that incident has meant more to me than any other.  My dad, unknown to the world, working hard day in and day out, could impress a man that entertains the President.  What else matters? You can not do anything well unless you do it yourself and it comes from within you.  You were upset about architects seeking pros.  What about name architects that sell the client, then turn the whole production over to associate architects.  If I commission a Jamie Wyeth painting, I do not want to walk into his studio one day and find a couple of junior painters sketching out my commisioned work on the canvas. Why pay all that money and have junior architects do the work?  Sorry for the rambling.  You have some excellent comments.