[Mark Hissey]

Frank:

Thanks for your post.  My wife was the one who went to art school [I started at MIT], so although I'm often accused of having an artistic temperament, I tend not to think of how I work as "art" even if it helps to be good at composition.  But I have learned well that once I'm finished with the work, it's out of my control; and more recently, that what people think of me, is really none of my business.

One of the things that has badly infected golf architecture over the last 30 years, as Jeff Brauer alluded to a bit in his earlier post, is how the last generation of signature designers [and their ghostwriters and p.r. people] were encouraged to ramble on about what they were doing, until it became expected as a part of the big design fee.  There have been a lot of guys who spent more time talking about their courses than actually thinking about the design when it was happening.  [That's a danger for all of us now that business is so slow.]

I'm not trying to paint everyone with a broad brush, but we all know there are lots of courses where the designer of record is a fraud, and eventually that expectation of fraud starts to infect everything said about the business.

I'm astonished at that comment Tom. I've been with you enough and seen your creative process to say in my opinion what you do is definitely art. It's not just art of course; there are so many other components, including scientific ones, which are essential to the process.

You're an artist, an engineer and a scientist mate.

[Steve_Lovett]

Tom,

I haven't read this entire thread but my response would be that this cuts both ways - honest discussion of your work should include YOUR honest discussion of your work.

It requires you to respond to it. I'd like you to tell us what you were thinking on specific holes or with respect to specific features. Share what you would do differently. Talk about what's worked, what you knew would be awesome, what has surprised you, and what hasn't worked the way you intended - from your point of view.

For instance - at Tumble Creek I think the 4th hole is one of the most interesting par-5's I've played, but the 8th and 15th aren't. The 8th is straightforward and less interesting than the rest of the course and I don't understand the man-made creek cross hazard on the 15th in the driving zone or the lack of strategy on the 2nd shot if you lay up. I'd love to hear your thoughts on those comments.

I'd like to know what I am missing (if I'm off the mark), learn about your vision for those holes, and to know if they turned out the way you had envisioned - or if you would do something different. I know after the discussion of my opinion I would learn something new and appreciate those holes in a way I don't now.

[mike_malone]

If you would build some lousy courses it would help the discussion group

[Mike Sweeney]

If you would build some lousy courses it would help the discussion group

It's official. The guy who thinks Merion East is a nice sort-of Flynn golf course is now trying to snuggle with Tom Doak!

Mayday,

Drawing a 100 mile radius from William Penn's hat, is is Stonewall Old a Top 20 course in Philly?

[Tim_Weiman]

If you would build some lousy courses it would help the discussion group

Mike,

I agree with you. That is a problem.

My biggest, maybe only, complaint about Tom's work is at Rock Creek. Way too much sensory overload. Played it a couple times and couldn't even see the course. The scenery creates a big fog. Not even sure Tom actually built 18 holes and if somebody showed me pictures I would think it was a fake photoshop deal.

[Chris Shaida]

If you would build some lousy courses it would help the discussion group

nominate for post of the year, so much packed into so few words...

[mike_malone]

Stonewall is among the best in Philly. It is in that second level below PVGC. Beechtree was a favorite of mine.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

As you will notice I do not post much ... I guess I am a lurker.  Many of the responses have been about how much the collective 'we' on the site learn from you and not many say your presence discourages honest discussion. 

My question to you is what do you learn (if anything) or gain from the discussion and have you (or could you foresee) incorporating the learning or insights into future designs?

As an aside, I do think the discussions about architecture with people that laid out the vision and strategy of a golf hole and had their 'hands in the dirt' is invaluable from my perspective and gives me a greater appreciation of all that goes into to good design when I am out on the course.  but again, I think it is a one way street in some ways... lots of benefits from my perspective, don't know how much from the architects' perspective.

thanks,

rtc

I thought about this question today while reading a passage that I quote below:

"Even the conversation of a high school teacher or that of an unsuccessful college professor is likely to be more worthwhile than the latest academic paper, less corrupted with neomania.  My best convesations in philosophy have been with French lycee teachers who love the topic but are not interested in pursuing a career writing papers in it (in France they teach philosophy in the last year of high school).  Amateurs in any discipline are the best, if you can connect with them.  Unlike dilettantes, career professionals are to knowledge what prostitutes are to love."



For most of you, interaction with a professional opens the door to technical considerations you never consider.  For me, that is all mundane, and I am more likely to gain insight from talking to people who don't let such practical considerations get in the way of good ideas.  That's why I spend my time here, and not at ASGCA meetings.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Tom,
 
I'll bite.

I don't think your participation discourages honest discussion of your work. I also have noted that you won't always respond to questions regarding some aspects of your work. You may not always see them, I get that, but for some of the questions I've asked that are more technical in nature, I don't see much discussion of.

Here's a new topic as an example: The 4th green at Pacific Dunes.

When I played there, I looked to the right of the green, and I thought that there was some undercutting via natural processes or the mechanical properties of the soil itself. I think that left alone for a few more years, a decent size portion of the collar and perhaps the green may fall off to the beach below.

Here's my question: How much does GCA work take into account engineering principles? If a site is analyzed before a design is completed would the tendency be to change the routing, or to work on a solution for the issues present to incorporate the preferred routing.

For the 4th at PD, are there any plans to mitigate the undercutting?

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think your participation discourages honest discussion of your work. I also have noted that you won't always respond to questions regarding some aspects of your work. You may not always see them, I get that, but for some of the questions I've asked that are more technical in nature, I don't see much discussion of.

Here's a new topic as an example: The 4th green at Pacific Dunes.

When I played there, I looked to the right of the green, and I thought that there was some undercutting via natural processes or the mechanical properties of the soil itself. I think that left alone for a few more years, a decent size portion of the collar and perhaps the green may fall off to the beach below.

Here's my question: How much does GCA work take into account engineering principles? If a site is analyzed before a design is completed would the tendency be to change the routing, or to work on a solution for the issues present to incorporate the preferred routing.

For the 4th at PD, are there any plans to mitigate the undercutting?

Jonathan:

Well, that's a topic most professionals wouldn't want to touch, because there are potential liability issues and the whole subject raises the possibility of "malpractice," if there is such a thing in golf architecture. 

However, I'll bite.

Most architects would never build a green that close to the cliff edge, even if allowed.  To be safe, they would build it 25 or 50 feet inland, where it didn't come into play so dramatically.  It would be a good hole but would become better many years later, when the edge had eroded a bit and had evolved to be really in play.  Essentially, we decided not to wait.  I told Mr. Keiser that eventually the green would erode, and at that point we would have to build a temporary green to the left of the dune, and carve out more of the dune on the right side, to rebuild the green much like it is today.  That was a dozen years ago, and so far the green has not eroded nearly as much as any of us anticipated it might ... [knock wood] ... though someday it will.

We did not pursue an "engineering" solution for the site.  The green sits on a cliff top 100 feet high, with various layers of sand and sandstone underneath.  I'm not sure anyone would let you work at the very edge, if you asked.

I was familiar with the situation and prepared to take the approach we did, because the site for that golf hole reminded me immediately of the 7th hole at Ballybunion, where they went through exactly the process I'm describing above, after part of the original green fell away in the 1970's.  I don't know if Molly Gourlay planned it that way, or not.  I do know that the replacement green they've built is nowhere near as natural-looking as others on the course, because they are trying to be "smart" and leave a buffer for some future erosion.

[Mark Smolens]

"However, I'll bite."

Which is, imo, the answer to your original question. . .

[Jonathan Mallard]

We did not pursue an "engineering" solution for the site.  The green sits on a cliff top 100 feet high, with various layers of sand and sandstone underneath.  I'm not sure anyone would let you work at the very edge, if you asked.

Here's my comment on that. Full disclosure: I am not a geotechnical engineer, and in no way should be considered an expert in this area.

If the cliff is sandstone, and presumably stable per your comments, here's how the engineered approach may have helped: There are techniques to 'toughen' soil. I get advertising materials touting foundation improvement techniques. Basically they inject cementitious material so far down into the soil using a grid system. Obviously mix of material, spacing of grid needs to be thought about. But in this application, the outcome would hopefully be that the green site would endure for many more years than if left alone to go its own way.

Having said all that, I get that with the agronomy, drainage, and ocean proximity to consider, such a treatment might introduce other issues that outweigh the site preservation, and it might not be the best overall solution.

[Tony Ristola]

I've been told on another thread that my participation here, and especially on threads about my own work, discourages frank and honest discussion about those courses.

I know that there are a handful of posters (and presumably more lurkers who don't participate in the forum) who agree with this.  They're the guys who call out anyone who says something positive about my courses as a "butt boy", and try to chill one side of the discussion themselves.  I've tended just to dismiss their complaints, because it seems personal and I don't understand what's behind it.

However, if there were 25 or 50 regular posters who felt that my presence and participation stifles frank and honest discussion, I would consider that much differently, and alter how I participate on the site.  So, please let me know.  And those who don't feel this is the case, do not need to reassure me or defend me against what the others post.  It's better if you stay out of the way, otherwise you'll only be contributing more evidence to their side of the argument, whether it's valid or not.  Thanks.

Don't worry... be nervous
Keep doing what you're doing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()