[Mike_Young]

I continue to be intrigued by how much stock is put into how the final product got there when it comes to golf design.  Was the statue of David " built in the field "  and would it be that much better if it had a full set of drawings behind it.  Does a wood carver adjust as he goes?  Does a potter follow a detailed drawing? What matters is the end product.  As of today no one has played golf on a set of plans.  And there is not one golf course in existence that is built specifically as the original drawing would indicate.  AND that also tells me that some of these restorations which went back to the architect's original plans were hype....JMO

[Tom_Doak]

AND that also tells me that some of these restorations which went back to the architect's original plans were hype....JMO

Good point there.  I've always told clubs that the thing that really mattered was what the ODG architect actually BUILT and is documented in pictures.  That's because the things that I change between the plans and the field are sometimes the parts of the course that are MOST my own [although other times, they're good suggestions by a shaper or associate].

However, if the famous architect of your course was never actually on site, you can ignore the above thought.

[Scott Macpherson]

I guess we all have different methods. I just prefer being in the field when work is underway. As regards shaping, I like giving the shapers tasks and times lines. Maybe a couple of hours to bust out a bunker. Then come back and review it. My impression is that the best Construction guys like the architect being around too. It certainly means we can all moving forward together quicker, as approvals are done there and then.

scott

[Ian Andrew]

Is there a GREAT course that was designed on paper, computer etc., then placed on the ground, without "in the dirt" changes?

I have asked that question for twenty years and I've yet to get a proof positive answer from anyone.

Try some of the William Flynn work, it's closer than you might expect.

[Ian Andrew]

It's a method of organizing a project.
Either you see value in that or you do not.

I sketch faces from the eyes out.
I think they contain the window into the soul and must be perfect or I’m wasting my time on the remainder of the sketch

A friend of mine prefers to work from a rough outlines in.
He finds proportion essential before detail.

It's only the end that matters, not the journey on how we get there.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I dont think for one minute that D6+GPS eliminates all the field work, I think it more eliminates the boring bits. What these machnes can do is sculpt a feature that you can design in the lab so to speak. When its constructed you can tweak as you wish, ie it should be nearly there. I know I have had days where I have shaped up 3 greens in 1 day and times where a greens taken 3 days. I think the use of the GPS helps you more get to that 3 greens in 1 day scenario.
I also think that for some that dont do plans or have someone full time on site it wont work so well, but for us that dont get so many site visits. If I had 2 D6s working with GPS I think I could shape 18 greens in one weeks visit, after t had been roughed that makes my time more cost effective.
For fairway contouring it is fantastic, but maybe some find it very hard to draw contour lines to show a feature. It is a very interesting excercise to draw the 16th green at North Berwick, you draw parts of fairways that you like and your surface drainage is perfect.

[JC Urbina]

Adrian,

I believe that the best ideas evolve as the shapes are being created.  I remember watching Jonathan Reister shaping  the Punch Bowl at Old Mac and ideas were flowing as he created the feature.

The evolution is where some of the most creative ideas are achieved.  Hogging down a mountain 30 meters is boring, Watching a green morph is exciting.  Sand Pros only take a second to create a cool feature that is quickly preserved and elaborated on.

A mystery is waiting to be exposed on every natural feature.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jim - I dont disagree withwhat you say and I absolutely agree that sometimes things happen and something gets pushed and HEY! thats good as it is STOP scenario occurs.

These things can still happen with a D6+ GPS.

I think that the GPS is more suited to less attractive sites and not the sort of thing you and Tom are working on. Its very useful for cost effective cut and filling and surface water management. Its great for replicating cool features you have already built, you need to map them of course possibly bastardise them a bit but you could have some great bunker templates that gest that dirt into the easiest position to fine tune.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()