THE DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion about either course Dismal River

[DMoriarty]

Honestly Don,  I am not sure I think it possible or not.  

I do believe that, given quality land, architects would generally design much better golf holes if they were severely financially constrained, both short term in construction and long term in terms of maintenance.  This is because I think that nature often creates the types of quirk, subtlety, and interest that man has trouble replicating.   While Tom is much better at hiding his hand than most, he is also excellent at finding golf holes as they exist in nature.  

So it is not too much of a stretch at all for me to believe that the most cost effective routing could also be close to the best, or even the very best.  IMO, golf would be much better off if architects thought in these terms.  

But to say that the most cost efficient routing also happens to be the best is a far different thing than saying this routing is not only the best, it is also the only possible way to get the course built, which is what you suggested.   This suggests severe financial constraints on the choices available to Tom, and doesn't really seem to reconcile with Chris's statements about how Tom had free choice of the large parcel, and could have chosen anything he wanted.

To try and understand your point, are you really saying that if Tom had insisted on making ends meet, that a course could not have been built?  

[Tim_Weiman]

David M:

I share your view that it is perfectly reasonable to inquire about the concept of finding the best 18 holes regardless of rules or traditional constraints. That is a legitimate subject for study.

Thinking about the tone of this thread where I struggle is identifying the best way to have "concept" discussions.

Of course, it is natural to raise "concept" or "rules" questions in a thread about a course that departs from conventional thinking. If we were discussing the TPC or PGA West, it seems perfectly natural for someone to argue "island greens are bad for golf architecture". It would probably also be natural for someone to offer the rebuttal that "the TPC was built to host a professional tournament".

However, this thread (and others) may demonstrate that "concept" or "rules" discussions may be best as separate threads where multiple examples are cited to illustrate whatever point the author is trying to make.

Face it. Many of us have emotional ties to certain venues and it probably is pretty rare that someone has a close tie to a course and can truly handle criticism.

I can. But, I have an ulterior motive. No course is more dear to me than the Cashen at Ballybunion, the subject of harsh criticism from the very beginning, often from Ballybunion members themselves. Yet, I love the criticism. It kept people off the course and only added to the epic feel of the place when I was out there all alone.

Anyway, again, "concept" discussions might be best as separate threads to generate meaningful golf architecture discussion that we all learn from.

[Chris Johnston]

Honestly Don,  I am not sure I think it possible or not.  

I do believe that, given quality land, architects would generally design much better golf holes if they were severely financially constrained, both short term in construction and long term in terms of maintenance.  This is because I think that nature often creates the types of quirk, subtlety, and interest that man has trouble replicating.   While Tom is much better at hiding his hand than most, he is also excellent at finding golf holes as they exist in nature.  

So it is not too much of a stretch at all for me to believe that the most cost effective routing could also be close to the best, or even the very best.  IMO, golf would be much better off if architects thought in these terms.  

But to say that the most cost efficient routing also happens to be the best is a far different thing than saying this routing is not only the best, it is also the only possible way to get the course built, which is what you suggested.   This suggests severe financial constraints on the choices available to Tom, and doesn't really seem to reconcile with Chris's statements about how Tom had free choice of the large parcel, and could have chosen anything he wanted.

To try and understand your point, are you really saying that if Tom had insisted on making ends meet, that a course could not have been built?  

David,

I don't think things clear are enough for you.  In steps, the budget for the new course was developed after the routing but before the funding.  We all agreed in advance that we wanted to do something different, and build as efficiently as possible. That goal was achieved aside from some mistakes by me mentioned previously that created some constraints.  We were also building during a very scary time, so I suppose we tested more than a bit of convention.

I don't want you to have the notion that we would have done much, if anything, different with 2x or more in capital for I don't believe that to be the case.  Building in sand is very cost effective, and the dollars didn't dictate the routing...the routing dictated the dollars.  The result was a very natural course which fit well into the environment...as good as I've ever seen.

With an existing course already here, Don found an opportunity to do some innovative things wrt irrigation that have worked very well.  It took a bit of "pluck" as it challenged conventional thought, but good minds made it work.

CJ

[Jerry Kluger]

Chris: I don't play the back tees at SH and we weren't on the back tees at DR.  I don't remember how long 18 at DR is but I just felt that I had to play more left off the tee than I wanted and then the second shot was really long. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Can't explain it better without one seeing it, but we are very sensitive about a building in the view scape.

OMG you're...anti shade?!

[Chris Johnston]

Can't explain it better without one seeing it, but we are very sensitive about a building in the view scape.

OMG you're...anti shade?!

 

[Chris Johnston]

Chris: I don't play the back tees at SH and we weren't on the back tees at DR.  I don't remember how long 18 at DR is but I just felt that I had to play more left off the tee than I wanted and then the second shot was really long. 

Jerry,

Interesting...I can't offer and explantion as the 18th is roughly 370 yard from the middle tees. 

CJ

[Mac Plumart]

Jerry...

Did you play in the 5th Major last year?  If so, I believe we played some back tees...at least on the last few holes.  The next time I went out to Dismal, I played the middle tees.  17 and 18 played differently...easier.  And for my game, that is much needed.  Perhaps that explains things.  I have played Sand Hills from the middle and back tees.  Back tees there are not fun for me...middle tees are a hoot.

[DMoriarty]

Tim,

Unfortunately I cannot imagine it would make a difference if we started a new thread. I considered starting a thread on the general issue, and I still might, but I think it pretty obvious that if I did these guys would twist it into me of picking on them and attacking their course in a round-about way.  Just like they attack my motives here in a thread they supposedly created for just such a discussion.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chris,  I understand and appreciate your response,  but it still  seems to me that you and Don have different takes on the issue, or have at least presented different takes here.

To help me clarify, perhaps you could you answer my question to Don?.  If Tom had insisted on a routing that made ends meet, could a course had been built?

[Mac Plumart]

Adam...

Your comment about the current version of the White Course is of pretty high importance, I think.

I never got to see the original version of the course, which was highly panned as being too penal.  In fact, I'm not sure what version of the course I saw first.  But even over the last few years, the course continues to morph.  I do find it enjoyable to play, very much so, but I believe each round of "tweaks" makes it more enjoyable.

HOWEVER, it appears the Red is/was ready to go right from the start.  Even in its preview year, it seems to be well received.  I personally have found Tom, and his crew's, attention to detail to be very impressive.

I believe that this aspect of the design, construction...and its impact on maintenance...is a clear area of distinction between the two courses...and the design team's success.

As a golfer/player, my first concern is if the course I'm playing is fun...both are in my book.  One just, apparently, took longer to get there...while the other was that way right from the jump.  As a professional in the golf design and/or construction business, I can imagine that the time it takes to get a course into "fun" playing conditions is a big deal.  I see that clearly now.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,

Unfortunately I cannot imagine it would make a difference if we started a new thread. I considered starting a thread on the general issue, and I still might, but I think it pretty obvious that if I did these guys would twist it into me of picking on them and attacking their course in a round-about way.  Just like they attack my motives here in a thread they supposedly created for just such a discussion.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chris,  I understand and appreciate your response,  but it still  seems to me that you and Don have different takes on the issue, or have at least presented different takes here.

To help me clarify, perhaps you could you answer my question to Don?.  If Tom had insisted on a routing that made ends meet, could a course had been built?

David,

I don't know. It is hard for people to discuss a course they are close to. Very hard.  One time I even had someone send me a private message asking me why I even tried to do that with a course I was close to - Sand Ridge (near Cleveland).

I think you can only do it if you have a genuine love for golf architecture and even then it is still very hard.

So, a thread that offers three examples of a concept rather than just one course probably makes it easier to keep the conversation focused on the concept rather than a critique of a specific course.

Sand Ridge, by the way, offers several opportunities to discuss concepts (how does environmental issues impact routing? Is blue grass good for the game? Should long walks between holes be avoided? Are subtle greens better than bold contours? Etc.).

But, if the thread doesn't have the right tone, it probably won't be of much value.

[Jim Nugent]

I never got to see the original version of the course, which was highly panned as being too penal.  In fact, I'm not sure what version of the course I saw first.  But even over the last few years, the course continues to morph.  I do find it enjoyable to play, very much so, but I believe each round of "tweaks" makes it more enjoyable.

I believe Jack has tweaked, or tinkered with, 3 courses on a regular basis.  Cabo, DRW, and Muirfield Village.  Pretty sure he has greatly improved each one.  That makes me think if he spent more time on the courses his firm designs and builds, they could turn out better as well.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Tim,

Unfortunately I cannot imagine it would make a difference if we started a new thread. I considered starting a thread on the general issue, and I still might, but I think it pretty obvious that if I did these guys would twist it into me of picking on them and attacking their course in a round-about way.  Just like they attack my motives here in a thread they supposedly created for just such a discussion.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chris,  I understand and appreciate your response,  but it still  seems to me that you and Don have different takes on the issue, or have at least presented different takes here.

To help me clarify, perhaps you could you answer my question to Don?.  If Tom had insisted on a routing that made ends meet, could a course had been built?

Yes David Doak could have built a shitty course, he has done it before.  The truth of the matter is that we trusted Doak to build the best course up to his ability. In that sense he built the only course he could.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes David Doak could have built a shitty course, he has done it before.  The truth of the matter is that we trusted Doak to build the best course up to his ability. In that sense he built the only course he could.

John:

My brother's name is David Doak and he kindly asks that you re-phrase your statement. 

[Chris Johnston]

Tim,

Unfortunately I cannot imagine it would make a difference if we started a new thread. I considered starting a thread on the general issue, and I still might, but I think it pretty obvious that if I did these guys would twist it into me of picking on them and attacking their course in a round-about way.  Just like they attack my motives here in a thread they supposedly created for just such a discussion.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chris,  I understand and appreciate your response,  but it still  seems to me that you and Don have different takes on the issue, or have at least presented different takes here.

To help me clarify, perhaps you could you answer my question to Don?.  If Tom had insisted on a routing that made ends meet, could a course had been built?

David,

The answer is probably, but it would have meant inferior holes that the ones we have, and probably a different cadence in the routing itself. 

The decision was made to find the best 18 holes possible, routed together.  That's what happened and there nothing more to report on the routing.

In the end, I think Tom was happy, the members are happy, and I am happy. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Yes David Doak could have built a shitty course, he has done it before.  The truth of the matter is that we trusted Doak to build the best course up to his ability. In that sense he built the only course he could.

John:

My brother's name is David Doak and he kindly asks that you re-phrase your statement. 

If we had hired Tiger and he shot me a smiley face this would have been the greatest day in my life.

[Chris Johnston]

Tim,

Unfortunately I cannot imagine it would make a difference if we started a new thread. I considered starting a thread on the general issue, and I still might, but I think it pretty obvious that if I did these guys would twist it into me of picking on them and attacking their course in a round-about way.  Just like they attack my motives here in a thread they supposedly created for just such a discussion.

David,

I believe you have been treated more than fair here, and I have done nothing more than answer questions in a friendly manner, and haven't attacked your motives at all.  You claim to want to discuss architecure and that's good by me.  Keep it at that and you'll be fine. 

That said, I'm afraid we have beaten the poor routing horse beyond death.  I think all involved have answered questions and further probing probably isn't needed.  After a while, otherwise gracious people begin to feel they are being deposed.

[Chris Johnston]

Tim, interesting idea about the three courses, but I am not sure we've come up with three comparable examples of open jawed courses on world class sites.
----------------------------------------------


Chris, some of your friends haven't been so courteous.  

Regardless, I wasn't aware that the DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion was subject to your whims, but if you you are done discussing DR, I'm fine with that.  It is really not necessary, though, for you take a parting shot on your way out.  If it wasn't so difficult to get answers to the simplest questions then it might not feel so much like a deposition to those being asked.   As for me, most of my questions remain unanswered.  

As for your answer to my question above, thanks.   That's what I figured.  I was just confused (and am still confused) by Don's claim that a course wouldn't have been built but for the open jawed routing.

David,

Nor, David, have you been courteous to them and me.

I'm happy to discuss the courses and the club and foster frank and open discussion.  The only thing I said was I think we have exhausted the routing answers.  I have nothing more to add, and you don't need to twist what I said.

I also hope you realize that "getting answers" requires people who "know" to take their time to give them.  It is pretty rare that any such questions get answered at all by the people involved, so I would suggest you treat them with the respect for doing it.   Without them, this becomes nothing more than a echo chamber. 

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim, interesting idea about the three courses, but I am not sure we've come up with three comparable examples of open jawed courses on world class sites.
----------------------------------------------


Chris, some of your friends haven't been so courteous.  

Regardless, I wasn't aware that the DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion was subject to your whims, but if you you are done discussing DR, I'm fine with that.  It is really not necessary, though, for you take a parting shot on your way out.  If it wasn't so difficult to get answers to the simplest questions then it might not feel so much like I deposition to those being asked.   As for me, most of my questions remain unanswered.  

As for your answer to my question above, thanks.   That's what I figured.  I was just confused (and am still confused) by Don's claim that a course wouldn't have been built but for the open jawed routing.

David,

I don't think three courses are necessary to discuss a concept. For example, the TPC would be sufficient to discuss island greens. But, offering three examples probably helps GolfClubAtlas discussions by avoiding too much focus on a particular course that people here may have close ties to. If nothing else, it increases the chances of people here actually having first hand experience at one of the sites under discussion.

That, if nothing else, has to help. Makes it easier for more people to participate and contribute.

Earlier in the discussion Don Mahaffey said something like he didn't believe in rules. David Elvins, IMO, went to the opposite extreme suggesting the DR routing was cheating.

I disagree with both. Even if, as Tom Doak suggested, Alister Mackenzie himself later said he had some regret publishing his famous 13 rules, I think his rules mostly made a lot of sense. So, IMO, the generally accepted rules are things the architect and entire project team should think about.

But, the rules aren't cast in stone. The specifics of the site have to be considered. Other factors may also be important: Don makes a point about maintenance costs. That's quite valid, IMO.

Chris Johnston is probably right. The routing issue - at least the question of start and finish - might well have been exhausted in terms of interesting discussion. We will probably need to see a few more "build the best holes" courses before we can discuss the concept more objectively.

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
One key factor with DR-Red is that there were no logistical requirements for the 18th green to be close to the 1st tee.   If you accept the fact that they had spatial freedom, I suggest that it just didn't make any difference.  And still doesn't.

In my opinion, routing holes down along the river made DR-Red unique, both from a playing and from a sensory perspective.   Seeing the "horseshoes" get closer and closer as your golf journey progresses really the riverside holes a sense of drama that may have been impossible otherwise.

PS - If I recall correctly, the 18th green at Sand Hills is about a mile from the clubhouse.  And lord knows, Sand Hills is one of the best courses in the world.

Figure 1.  Big Horseshoe from the earliest days of construction:

[Chris Shaida]

In my opinion, routing holes down along the river made DR-Red unique, both from a playing and from a sensory perspective.   Seeing the "horseshoes" get closer and closer as your golf journey progresses really the riverside holes a sense of drama that may have been impossible otherwise.

+1 and maybe sometime we can discuss the context for this particular routing.  A bunch of the greatest courses are in a 'box' (TOC, Seminole, Merion, Lytham) and a part of their routing genius no doubt is dealing with the clear and hard edges of the 'box'.  The sand hills are the absolute opposite of a box (there's no hotel, town, houses, sea) -- as others have mentioned above it is a huge, brawny, open, empty and seemingly endless landscape.  I don't see why we can't let the architect, in this and perhaps a few other instances, actually let the course be open to that context in a way other than just 'views'.  It really isn't clear to me to in this case it's not a bug but a feature.

[Jud_T]

I do agree with David that the topic is fair game for discussion. As far as I know, 99.9% of golf courses and all of the top golf courses end roughly when they start. It says a lot about Tom to a) go across the road and b) go against the grain in order to build the best golf course possible. Would Tiger have had the stones to do that with his first design had he gotten the job?

It probably could start a trend of at least considering an open jaw routing when the site doesn't allow for something more traditional. I think I rather have the maximum number of quality golf holes.

Diamante is the 52nd best course in the world according to Golf Magazine and 55th best in the world according to Golf Digest.  As I recall, they shuttle you to the first tee, between nines and up from the 18th green.  I'm certainly not here to defend Tom, Don or Dismal, but lets not make it seem as if this is the first highly rated course on the planet that employed an "open-jawed" routing.  I would think that having 18 contiguous holes with short green to tee walks is more important to the tradition of the walking game than having a long walk or cart ride within the 18 holes.  Granted, as more of these type of courses are built, get highly rated and are financially successful, more of these type of courses will be built.  Therefore, it is certainly a valid talking point for a bunch of naval gazers like ourselves.  Hell, at Bandon they shuttle you all over creation, including up a long steep hill during the round at Trails, but just because each course has it's own "clubhouse" they're traditional?

[JC Jones]

HarbourTown
Diamanté
Crystal Downs
Dismal Red

Pretty good company.

[William_G]

While not a golf architecture specific book, or even landscape architecture focused, 101 Things I learned in Architecture School by Matthew Frederick is a most insightful book. The book has many "lessons" that work for vertical or golf architecture. At the beginning of the book, the Author's note reads:

Certainties for architecture students are few.  The architecture curriculum is a perplexing and unruly beast, involving long hours, dense texts, and frequently obtuse instruction.  If the lessons of architecture are fascinating (and they are), they are also fraught with so many exceptions and caveats that students can easily wonder if there is anything concrete to learn about architecture at all.
The nebulousness of architectural instruction is largely necessary.  Architecture is, after all, a creative field, and it is understandably difficult for instructors of design to concretize lesson plans out of fear of imposing unnecessary limits on the creative process.  The resulting open-endedness provides students a ride down many fascinating new avenues, but often with a feeling that architecture is built on quicksand rather than on solid earth.
This book aims to firm up the foundation of the architecture studio by providing rallying points upon which the design process may thrive.  The following lessons in design, drawing, creative process, and presentation first came to me as barely discernible glimmers through the fog of my own education.  But in the years I have spent since as a practitioner and educator, they have become surely brighter and clearer.  And the questions they address have remained the central questions of architecture education:  my own students show me again and again that the questions and confusions of architecture school are near universal.
I invite you to leave this book open on the desktop as you work in the studio, to keep in your coat pocket to read on public transit, and to peruse randomly when in need of a jump-start in solving an architectural design problem.  Whatever you do with the lessons that follow, be that grateful I am not around to point out the innumerable exceptions and caveats to each of them.  

Matthew Frederick, Architect  August 2007  

 

Hobbyists think there are hard fast rules that must be followed, practitioners know there are exceptions to every rule or idea.

Don,

Guidelines are not necessarily rules, and we all know that.

More people just need to get to DR and experience it.

There is no doubt there are certain principles in architecture to have a structure succeed against fire, gravity, weather, usage... you cannot disagree with that.

I am always learning, but do not learn well from beat downs etc... I love implementing new technologies and meeting great new people everyday.

I really don't understand why you say everything is subjective and innovative without respect to some rules/guidelines...

Please provide a couple guidelines you think are important. Also, there is no doubt that adaptation and applied logistics make everything work.

In fact I think Logistics could be a skill that should be coveted.

If I was CJ I may have done it differently given the parameters at DR, but he is happy and everyone involved is happy with the RED.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Sxv-sUYtM&feature=kp

[Howard Riefs]

HarbourTown
Diamanté
Crystal Downs
Dismal Red

Pretty good company.

Streamsong Red