An architectural student's curriculum

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle:

Credit Bill Coore with that hole.  The third, fourth, and sixth holes on our course are actually from his original 18-hole routing ... and the 15th, though I found the same hole there.  [I moved the tee on the fifth quite a bit to the player's left.]

Everything looks much longer on raw ground than it does once the flags are in.  Has Rusty got some decent flags yet?

 

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle:

Credit Bill Coore with that hole.  The third, fourth, and sixth holes on our course are actually from his original 18-hole routing ... and the 15th, though I found the same hole there.  [I moved the tee on the fifth quite a bit to the player's left.]

Everything looks much longer on raw ground than it does once the flags are in.  Has Rusty got some decent flags yet?

 

Nothing since when you were here last.

The fifth hole especially seemed extremely long until after the first few mowings. Now it seems extremely short!

[Ben Sims]

Ben:

I will grant that it's hard to figure out WHERE to go without having any idea WHY you're going.

But, did you really gain anything from having expectations of Dismal River II, versus what you saw?  Wasn't it enough to think that something worthwhile was going on, and you were there to find out what it was?

That, my friend, is the essence of golf course architecture.  Because the true essence of golf course architecture is that YOU DON'T KNOW what's going to happen on a new site, until you figure it out.

Tom,

Okay okay, I give.  Sort of.   

My experience at DR#2 was very innocent due to the fact that I had never been to a construction site before.  But based on some insider knowledge, I knew that the par 3's on the front nine were beasts, and--even subconsciously--compared them to that expectation when I saw them. 

But you're right, every golf course I've tried to see has been because something was there that I wanted to see.  Opening yourself to new things--good and bad--is the true secret in my opinion.  It's why honesty is so important.  And why you were completely nuts to write the Confidential Guide when you did. 

[Tom_Doak]

 
My experience at DR#2 was very innocent due to the fact that I had never been to a construction site before.  But based on some insider knowledge, I knew that the par 3's on the front nine were beasts, and--even subconsciously--compared them to that expectation when I saw them. 

But you're right, every golf course I've tried to see has been because something was there that I wanted to see.  Opening yourself to new things--good and bad--is the true secret in my opinion.

Second point first:  NO!!  Seeing bad architecture is pretty much a waste of time.  It's seeing bad architecture THAT SOMEBODY ELSE THINKS IS GOOD ARCHITECTURE that is instructional.  I never went anywhere unless someone else recommended it, but I sometimes failed to consider the source. 

As to the first point, you're one of the few who has seen those holes and will understand this, but, as I've said here before, I do not as a rule route my golf courses around the par-3's.  On this course, it seemed inevitable.

Someone else [Watson's group?] actually found the fifth hole before we did; there was a stake out there on the tee and green, and it was pretty easy for me to connect the dots.  It was not a hole you could turn into a longer hole by putting a landing area at the tee or extending beyond the green, so we took it as it was.

I actually looked at using the third green as the green to a short par-5 second hole, but ultimately decided against it.  It was just too dramatic of a shot not to include in everyone's portfolio, and if it was a short par-5, most people would be laying up short of the green instead of going for it, which would be a ginormous waste of the bunker to the right [not to mention a blind second and third shot, on top of the blind tee shot!].  So, we found the second green site instead.  There was a stake on that one, too -- I think that one was Tiger's team, but I'm told it was the fairway or green for a hole from the high side, instead of a green site played from the low side, as we guessed.

[Peter Pallotta]

I get the feeling more and more that I'm like Adam C, in that I understand what Tom D is saying only 50% of the time. I thought he was saying that a good student's eye works in the same way as a good architect's eye -- it simply sees what's there, what's actually there to see instead of what he wants to see or can make others see.  And that kind of seeing is not so much about knowledge or facts (and certainly not about expectations) as it is about a willingness to see what's actually there in the land, an openness to the fun and anxiety of discovering possibilities anew as opposed to a clinging to the safe and well-worn pattern.  As I noted before, my pov is that a guy like Mac already has all the love and passion for gca and has learned all he needs to learn about it; now there's only left a true willingness to see what he actually sees instead of what he's supposed to see, and then in turn to trust that seeing completely, i.e. to trust himself. That's it, there's nothing more -- there is no enlightenment waiting just behind the curtain, just out of reach.  Because as the saying puts it: "wherever you go, there you are"...and so if you're not taking the seeing and the trust with you, there ain't no place/time when you'll suddenly "find" it.  I hope Tom doesn't mind me saying this, but I think the most important difference between him and us, the thing that most sets us apart, is the fact that 30 or so years ago Tom decided that he was going to trust himself.

Peter  

[Mac Plumart]

Peter, I hear you and I don't disagree...but I do think you are misunderstanding me.  I don't doubt myself at all.  In fact, if you recall I raved about seeing Dismal River from day one...when everyone else pooh-poohed it.  I see its flaws for sure, but I thought the course was underappreciated and told people about it.  Frankly, there are a number of courses that I've stated I thought were under-rated and over-rated...I'm not bashful about that.  I know what I see, I know what good is, and I know what bad is...put these things together and you can get a good idea if a course is good or not.

I start threads like this and ask questions, because I have an interest and I'd like to learn more.  Like I said, I can play a course a know if it is good or bad.  But I think there is more to it than that...and there are some people on this site who can help me discover what more there is.  Look at what Kyle has said on this very thread.  Amazing stuff!!

Also, Tom Paul started a thread about the learning a lot from spending two weeks on a construction site.  So I did.  I learned a crap load.

If you piece together some ideas in this thread and some past posts by some contributors to this thread, you can see that Prestwick is a must play.  I haven't played it.  I need to.  Why?  I'm not sure...but I'll find out.

I'm not looking for a magic bullet that fully illuminates all architectural knowledge.  Rather I know I have weaknesses in my education, I want to round that out.  There are so many good tidbits on this thread including the idea that a quality architectural education includes construction knowledge, agronomy education, and the like.  I'm weak in those areas...plain and simple.

The more questions I ask of knowledgable people and the more time I spend with them, the more I'll know.  And since I find this stuff fun...the more fun I'll have.

[Ben Sims]

Second point first:  NO!!  Seeing bad architecture is pretty much a waste of time.  It's seeing bad architecture THAT SOMEBODY ELSE THINKS IS GOOD ARCHITECTURE that is instructional.  I never went anywhere unless someone else recommended it, but I sometimes failed to consider the source. 

As to the first point, you're one of the few who has seen those holes and will understand this, but, as I've said here before, I do not as a rule route my golf courses around the par-3's.  On this course, it seemed inevitable.

Someone else [Watson's group?] actually found the fifth hole before we did; there was a stake out there on the tee and green, and it was pretty easy for me to connect the dots.  It was not a hole you could turn into a longer hole by putting a landing area at the tee or extending beyond the green, so we took it as it was.

I actually looked at using the third green as the green to a short par-5 second hole, but ultimately decided against it.  It was just too dramatic of a shot not to include in everyone's portfolio, and if it was a short par-5, most people would be laying up short of the green instead of going for it, which would be a ginormous waste of the bunker to the right [not to mention a blind second and third shot, on top of the blind tee shot!].  So, we found the second green site instead.  There was a stake on that one, too -- I think that one was Tiger's team, but I'm told it was the fairway or green for a hole from the high side, instead of a green site played from the low side, as we guessed.

Negative Ghostwriter! (cue Price is Right losing sound effect here) I've learned as much from bad commanders as one's I thought were great.  I learn how NOT to be a leader, and how NOT to treat your people.  In seeing some less than good golf courses, I've learned what I don't like and what I'd like to not emulate.  

On the second point about #3 at DR, that's pretty cool.  I never looked at it that way.  Even so, the routing throws a changeup to those looking for the "normal" Renaissance equation of using par 3's to connect dots.  Funny how the short par 4 has been among the firm's most dramatic holes, and at DR#2, the short 4 became the dot connector in a couple spots.  Cool concept.  I wasn't expecting that, and learned something from it.  

  

[Tom_Doak]

I get the feeling more and more that I'm like Adam C, in that I understand what Tom D is saying only 50% of the time. I thought he was saying that a good student's eye works in the same way as a good architect's eye -- it simply sees what's there, what's actually there to see instead of what he wants to see or can make others see.  And that kind of seeing is not so much about knowledge or facts (and certainly not about expectations) as it is about a willingness to see what's actually there in the land, an openness to the fun and anxiety of discovering possibilities anew as opposed to a clinging to the safe and well-worn pattern.  As I noted before, my pov is that a guy like Mac already has all the love and passion for gca and has learned all he needs to learn about it; now there's only left a true willingness to see what he actually sees instead of what he's supposed to see, and then in turn to trust that seeing completely, i.e. to trust himself. That's it, there's nothing more -- there is no enlightenment waiting just behind the curtain, just out of reach.  Because as the saying puts it: "wherever you go, there you are"...and so if you're not taking the seeing and the trust with you, there ain't no place/time when you'll suddenly "find" it.  I hope Tom doesn't mind me saying this, but I think the most important difference between him and us, the thing that most sets us apart, is the fact that 30 or so years ago Tom decided that he was going to trust himself.

Peter  

Peter:

This is why I've said before [and been pooh-poohed for saying it] that if you are not an architect, you can't really understand.

An architect HAS TO trust himself, because there's no other choice.  He only gets a blank topo map to work from.  There is no solution to the puzzle in tomorrow's paper -- an architect must decide for himself when he's found the right solution.

It is why I tire of critics who regurgitate the accepted "checklist" of what's a good routing -- whether the par-3 holes all point in different compass directions, and so forth.  On a flat site, maybe.  But on a site with real topography and trees and views and other real estate in play, having four par-3's face in different compass directions would only be the first priority of a moron.


P.S. to Ben:  Do you really need to see bad examples to understand how NOT to treat your people?

[Ben Sims]

P.S. to Ben:  Do you really need to see bad examples to understand how NOT to treat your people?

Tom,

I don't know many leaders/managers that set out to do it poorly.  Most just don't have the tools.  I have worked for a few Colonel's that I thought were the bee's knees, until I saw how they did their business.  Things I thought were admirable as a young Lieutenant turned out to be delusions and smoke once I finally got some responsibility and maturity of my own. 

Did I need to see it?  Probably not.  But did it go a long way to shaping my belief system in regards to good people and great work?  Very much so. 

[Sean_A]

Mac

I too find it interesting you take notes - especially as one who isn't a journalist trying to capture their feelings while while playing the course.  I don't take notes, but I take photos and once looking over the photos can pretty well remember the course that much better from just playing it because I can filter out my feelings at the time of playing. 

A few things I look for:

Probably my favourite one is seeing how the archie deals with sections of difficult terrain and how that work is tied back into more mundane sections of the property (or just an unusual feature for a given property - such as say the berm at Cavendish, or walls on a course such as at Cavendish and North Berwick etc).  It is here where I can often see original design and how good an archie really is.  Seeing a section well used could entirely shift my way of thinking about a course. 

I also like to look for unusual holes of all sorts, but the visual deception examples are very pleasing.  Little mentioned Whittington Heath has a handful of this sort - really interesting stuff.   

I also like to look for variety in types of hazards (as in playing features as used originally in golf, not the USGA defnition) and placement of hazards.  I especially admire the one hazard solution to a hole - so rare to see from any era of design. 

Grass lines (transitions in general) are important, but not really an archie deal - more a way of maintaining a course to make the design work better.   

Unusually compared to most on this site, the actual greens aren't nearly as important to me.  Sure, I like a bit of this and that, but in general its the getting to the green and what happens when missing the approach target which floats my boat.  Part of this thinking is due to a firm belief that greens really shouldn't roll higher than 9ish and given this, an archie doesn't need to do all sorts of rigmorole to make a green interesting.  I just played Harborne last week and they rolled at about 10ish - this was that was needed to make Colt's greens a challenge even if they don't look like they are up to much.  I guess this ties into the deception angle I like so much. 

An example of contrasting styles is Beau Desert and Woking.  Both are very good sets of greens, but they are totally different.  BD's are the very art of table top deception where the player must pay attention to the nearby terrain and the actual green surfaces.  Woking's are much more contoured ala modern style (which given when they were done is incredibly in its own right), but obvious in what needs to be done.  The borrows are for the most part very clear IF green speeds are kept to 9ish which I think Woking's usually are.  Ironically, my favourite green at Woking is the 16th, an old fashioned deceptively sloping front to back jobbie that will cause much consternation. 

BUT, sometimes a course may have very little on the positive ledger of the above and still be very good and sometimes terribly under-valued.  Princes is a great example that gets no love.  Wallasey too.

Ciao 

[michael damico]

Grass lines (transitions in general) are important, but not really an archie deal - more a way of maintaining a course to make the design work better.   

I agree with you, but then I don't. Is it not the architect who establishes these grassing lines? It's then up to the superintendent to maintain the correct grassing lines, and in most cases, the two of them (possibly even another architect who would be selected for long-term master planning) working together to either re-establish original grassing lines or create new ones after years of experience.

I think that you're downplaying this as it is exactly these transitions that are EXTREMELY important! In all of my studying (architecture, environmental design/planning, landscape architecture and most importantly, golf architecture) I have concluded that the best architects (structural, landscape, golf course) are the ones who pay attention to details most sets them apart from the rest.

[Sean_A]

Michael

I am not downplaying grass/transition lines, thats why I mentionend it.  On the other hand, if a course is good/great, the transitions aren't a deal breaker for me.  The classic example is Merion.  Do I think the grass lines are dopey - yes.  Do I think that means Merion isn't a great course - no.  I find these transitions are most nioticeable in non-golfing environments such as the desert.  Tiime and again I see stark transitions which look all wrong which is why I was impressed with photos of a few C&C desert courses (can't remember their names).  For sure the details enhance a good design, but I don't get overly excited about it unless it is more than a visual enhancement.  An example may be the Cyrstal Downs thread.  Folks are raving about how a bunker seeps in from the trees to the green.  I first want to rave about the bunker placement then decide how good it looks.   

Ciao

[Jud_T]

A single trip suggestion:

I found these three courses offered me more than anywhere else I ever went to see:

Prestwick
The Old Course
North Berwick

A comprehensive list would cover multiple countries and about 10 years worth of travel

Mac,

I think Ian's got the Cliff's Notes version down here.  You've played 2&3, now it's time to play #1 (and 2&3 again....).  Frankly it wasn't until my second time around the Old Course that I began to get an inkling of all that was there.  Probably only some of the locals who've been playing the course for a lifetime have truly figured out every nook and cranny of the Old Girl.  Essentially a Master's Class in 18 holes IMHO...Be very wary of anyone who claims it's overrated because of all the history etc.  Also Sean's England suggestion seems quite worthwhile.  The biggest missing piece of my personal travels.

[Mac Plumart]

Jud...

I have no doubt you are correct.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Overrated because some cannot bring themselves to understand how simple changes in the weather or the time of the day can affect a links course.

Perhaps that’s the lack of fully understanding a links course - full stop, but then if you have never played links golf you have not experiences golf at its best. 

No matter what one reads or studies, Nature has the ability to render all null and void, hence why I say the modern game and GCA has become too complicated to the very point that we diminish if not totally destroy the natural golfing characteristics that attracted us to the land in the first place.

Golf needs Nature and we should nurture the natural because Man does not hold all the answers when it comes to Golf.

Melvyn