[George Pazin]

As I sat on the phone yesterday, listening to my friend explain to me why my business was so easy to run - just increase sales, and get paid a fair price in a timely fashion, dummy! - I was reminded of the old phrase, if all you have is a hammer, pretty soon every problem looks like a nail...

So what's the hammer in golf course architecture? The bulldozer? The golf cart? The stimpmeter? The measuring stick?

Think and report back.

Merry Christmas!

[Garland Bayley]

The bunker.

[Adam Clayman]

The thought that you know what other people want and will accept. (if I understand the q)

[Philippe Binette]

Playability... whatever that means

[Alex Miller]

I am not familiar with the expression, but if I understand it correctly, it means that if you have a solution, then every problem begins to look like it can be solved with that same solution. Correct?

If so, then it is water. LOOK AT HOW PRETTY THIS COURSE IS WITH THE PONDS EVERYWHERE

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mechanically - earth moving

Mentally - smugness

[George Pazin]

Errrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnn. Wrong! (think SNL spoofs John McLaughlin)

Actually, Jim's pretty close to my opinion - no surprise, though he may be alarmed - and I find Adam's thinking interesting. As always...

[Dan Kelly]

I was thinking ... hazards, generally.

I'd love to see how good a course you could build if you set out to build a course with *minimal* hazards.

Might have to move a lot of dirt, and might not look very "natural" -- but most non-water hazards don't look very natural to me, either.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I'd love to see how good a course you could build if you set out to build a course with *minimal* hazards.
...

Bill Diddel worked at that.
His protege Pete Dye went the opposite direction.

[JESII]

Isn't the golf course architects overriding dilemna keeping the interest of the widest array of players?

If so, the tool that does this best in my opinion is either the gentle slope/tilt of the target area...or the slight angle/offset of the target area (fairway or green). Holes that utilize one, or both, of these items well don't need too much else to be enjoyable for years.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Errrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnn. Wrong! (think SNL spoofs John McLaughlin)

Actually, Jim's pretty close to my opinion - no surprise, though he may be alarmed - and I find Adam's thinking interesting. As always...

Golf isn't politics, although if I distribute strokes to you so we can start on a level playing field......        


p.s. I was debating whether or not to reply, then decided that if I waited 3/4 of an hour to answer I wouldn't appear too smug.  

[Mike_Young]

IMHO all that matters in golf design is what ends up on the ground.  A design cannot be evaluated until it actually exist.  All the plans and drawings and autocad etc don't matter.  I would say the hammer is the shaper and his toolbox.  If the toolbox has to be limited then it would be a track hoe and a tractor with a cutting blade and a sandpro.  The conductor might be the architect but as with a symphony the conductor is not what they come to hear.  He makes no sound he only composes the sounds.   And to prove that the shaper is the hammer just watch how golf design unfolds in the future.  Shapers will be working when architects are not.  The value of the architect in golf architecture is dwindling in most cases.

[Mac Plumart]

As I sat on the phone yesterday, listening to my friend explain to me why my business was so easy to run - just increase sales, and get paid a fair price in a timely fashion, dummy! - I was reminded of the old phrase, if all you have is a hammer, pretty soon every problem looks like a nail...

So what's the hammer in golf course architecture? The bulldozer? The golf cart? The stimpmeter? The measuring stick?

Think and report back.

Merry Christmas!

Frilly bunkers.

[Tom_Doak]

IMHO all that matters in golf design is what ends up on the ground.  A design cannot be evaluated until it actually exist.  All the plans and drawings and autocad etc don't matter.  I would say the hammer is the shaper and his toolbox.  If the toolbox has to be limited then it would be a track hoe and a tractor with a cutting blade and a sandpro.  The conductor might be the architect but as with a symphony the conductor is not what they come to hear.  He makes no sound he only composes the sounds.   And to prove that the shaper is the hammer just watch how golf design unfolds in the future.  Shapers will be working when architects are not.  The value of the architect in golf architecture is dwindling in most cases.

Mike:

Jim Urbina always thought he was the conductor of the projects we did together, and that I was the composer, for putting the routing plan together.

I do think the routing of a new course is the most valuable piece of the puzzle, and the one that the client should pay most dearly for.  The ASGCA approach is to make the fee all about a big plan set [because the time it takes to draw up a plan set helps to justify the fee], but I believe the architect adds the most value by getting the routing right ... whether it takes him nine months of work, or ten minutes!

[Ian Andrew]

George,

I think its a short grass slope where the ball won't stop.

[Mike_Young]

George,

I think its a short grass slope where the ball won't stop.

Ian,
I just read George's post again and if you interpret it to mean that the hammer is the " solution of the month" for golf design issues then I think you may be right on.    I didn't read it that way the first time.

[George Pazin]

Some pretty interesting responses, and a wide variety at that. That certainly implies that there is no particular hammer, though perhaps Mike's HOTM idea might fit!

My original idea in posting was that people tend to look at only one way to solve a problem, and rely too much on that solution; at some point, it becomes mundane and almost self-defeating. I'd argue that adding length, often seemingly as a knee jerk response to a particular club that someone hit into a green, is such a hammer.

Gotta think more about the responses, back in a bit.

[JMEvensky]

My original idea in posting was that people tend to look at only one way to solve a problem, and rely too much on that solution; at some point, it becomes mundane and almost self-defeating. I'd argue that adding length, often seemingly as a knee jerk response to a particular club that someone hit into a green, is such a hammer.

I agree with your definition of hammer,but I think adding length is too limiting an answer.

The hammer nowadays,IMO, is making a golf course tougher--adding length being but one of the ways to accomplish it.

[Anthony Gray]

  The hammer is the golfer. Build something that suits him and is in his price range and he will come.

  Anthony

[Mark Ringsmuth]

The hammer where I live is making the course harder.  Evidently, market research had led to the following formula: Upscale = hard, More upscale = harder, Rich = leave em bloodied.  Consequently, some of the most expensive courses to join are design atrocities. Even worse, they are barely playable if you are not a single digit hcp.

[JESII]

I misinterpreted the question. I thought the Hammer was the solution to a problem when it turns out the Hammer is whatever keeps banking. Sorry.



Challenge!

[Garland Bayley]

Some pretty interesting responses, and a wide variety at that. That certainly implies that there is no particular hammer, though perhaps Mike's HOTM idea might fit!

My original idea in posting was that people tend to look at only one way to solve a problem, and rely too much on that solution; at some point, it becomes mundane and almost self-defeating. I'd argue that adding length, often seemingly as a knee jerk response to a particular club that someone hit into a green, is such a hammer.

Gotta think more about the responses, back in a bit.

If the problem is "how do you elevate the course in the eyes of the public", then adding length can be a solution. However, I would argue that adding bunkers is a much more effective solution. It even seems that Alister learned that solution as evidenced by CP and Pasa. I would argue that even those more knowledgeable about GCA use it as a yardstick to a certain degree on this site. There are certainly more people here arguing against added length than arguing against added bunkers. I am of the opinion that if Pacific Dunes had been built with next to no bunkers, it would still be home to one of the most interesting and variable games of golf found anywhere, but it would be panned by most of the evaluators as a lost chance.

[Forrest Richardson]

Fun

[Lyne Morrison]

....people tend to look at only one way to solve a problem, and rely too much on that solution; at some point, it becomes mundane and almost self-defeating.

More typically a management issue but - narrowing fairways with long rough.

[Tim Nugent]

The bunker.

+1 with water as a close 2nd, length is 3rd.  Win, Place and Show!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()