[Peter Pallotta]

Sven -

I've often thought and asked about the element of Time in the design process (working with/supporting the element of Talent).  Many of the same architects/courses listed here have come up in previous discussions. What struck me about these lists is that our modern-day greats seem to have learned from the past greats -- i.e. since our top modern architects have the final products to study, e.g. Oakmont, Pinehurst, Pebble, Pine Valley, Pasatiempo etc, very few of them as a rule spend much time tinkering with their courses after they've opened. Now, I know there are exceptions, and I know there are other reasons for this (e.g. economics and the need to 'open big'), but in general most of our leading designers today spend the bulk of the Time at the front end of the project, before shovels hit the ground, rather than at the back end (after the course is opened for play.) I think that's partly because they simply know more and are more conscious of (at a deeper and more nuanced level than their ODG counterparts) what they want and need to accomplish in their designs, right off the bat. That's a product of being able to stand on the shoulders of past greats as it were.

Peter

[John Connolly]

Would one consider Flynn's involvement through the years at Merion an example of a constant "hand and mind"? I know that Hugh Wilson is credited for the design but there remains some discussion regarding the depth of Flynn's involvement. His maintenance and tinkerings with the East course are well-accepted, no?

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven -

I've often thought and asked about the element of Time in the design process (working with/supporting the element of Talent).  Many of the same architects/courses listed here have come up in previous discussions. What struck me about these lists this time is that our modern-day greats seem to have learned from the past greats -- i.e. since our top modern architects have the final products to study, e.g. Oakmont, Pinehurst, Pebble, Pine Valley, Pasatiempo etc, very few of them have as a rule spent much time tinkering with their courses after they've opened. Now, I know there are exceptions, and I know there are other reasons for this (e.g. economics and the need to 'open big'), but it does seem to me that some of our leading designers today spend the bulk of the Time at the front end of the project, before shovels hit the ground, rather than at the back end (after the course is opened for play and for years after that.) I think that's partly because they simply know more and are more conscious of (at a deeper and more nuanced level than their ODG counterparts) what they want and need to accomplish in their designs.

Peter

Peter:

In 99% of the cases, the ODG's didn't linger on site either.

For the most part, the courses noted above are either one-off cases (Oakmont), or instances where the architects connection to the course goes beyond just the initial design (Dornick Hills is a great example of this, as in subsequent years Maxwell served as Greens Chair and President of the club).

There's also an element of the amateur sportsman architect that comes into play (Travis at GCGC, Leeds at Myopia).  This was their home course, and they were there and were interested in making improvements.

There has to be some sort of relationship between the architect and the course that extends beyond the paycheck.  Perhaps it was their first effort.  Perhaps they saw it as their masterpiece.  Or perhaps it was where they hung their hat.

Sven

[Peter Pallotta]

Sven - yes, then and now the labours of love have been rare. My point is that these labours of love take a different form today than they did in the golden age/days of the amateur architects. I am suggesting that our leading modern day architects get it right/get what they want by using Time differently (i.e. at the front vs at the back end), and by knowing how to express their 'love' more expertly than their ODG counterparts.

Peter 

[Sven Nilsen]

Peter:

Not sure if I agree.  The ODG's were so varied in how they practiced their craft (even individually from project to project) that it is tough to apply generalizations.

There was a lot of front end "Time" going on back then as well (plasticine models and all that).

I'd suggest that the bulk of the work done to existing courses wasn't necessarily tinkering.  It was more to update courses to fit the demands of a rapidly changing game.  As much as we discuss technology today, there were leaps and bounds taking place that made some courses obsolete almost overnight.

Sven

[Sean_A]

Sven - yes, then and now the labours of love have been rare. My point is that these labours of love take a different form today than they did in the golden age/days of the amateur architects. I am suggesting that our leading modern day architects get it right/get what they want by using Time differently (i.e. at the front vs at the back end), and by knowing how to express their 'love' more expertly than their ODG counterparts.

Peter 

Pietro

Well, they had the ODGs to learn from.  Plus, I will bet canickels to loonies that budgets these days are almost uniformly much bigger than 110 years ago - it makes a difference in getting things right off the jump.

Ciao  

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - agree completely, on both counts. All I'm saying is that 'Time' aint what it used to be.

Peter

[Bill Crane]

Would one consider Flynn's involvement through the years at Merion an example of a constant "hand and mind"? I know that Hugh Wilson is credited for the design but there remains some discussion regarding the depth of Flynn's involvement. His maintenance and tinkerings with the East course are well-accepted, no?

Boy, I would think so.  Flynn was in area for so long and had a big influence on the design of the bunkers.  I seem to remember Mr. Doak including Flynn's work at Merion on his Best Renovation list in the Confidential Guide.

I have also read that Flynn tinkered with Lancaster C C for many years.  Now, there is a course that has been severely under apreciated for a long time.  Since they are hosting the Womens Open in 2015 the club will get exposure that may remedy this situation.


Wm Flynnfan

[Dave McCollum]

Sven—

I didn’t intend to challenge the notion that certain people aren’t and weren’t very influential in the creation of golf course.  Only wanted to point out that often the architect gets too much credit or blame when so many folks are involved.  I greatly admire the guts and vision of the restoration of P2 as a tribute to Donald Ross and history.  However, the current version has to be very different from how the course was in Ross’s day.  It’s the nature of golf courses to change and evolve.

I think most architects understand this and may play an important role in the design.  Since I am reading this discussion, I’m also guilty of putting the architect on a pedestal or some form of hero worship because I have so much respect for what they do.  I often wonder what an architect thinks when they visit their courses after years of evolution and change.  Most golfers could care less about such things.  They care more about how a course is maintained than who designed it. 

It’s a bit of thread-jack, but I’ve always wanted to bring this up.  For years I wanted to play Stone Eagle because I find myself in the area every year.  This year I was very fortunate to be invited.  I was quite surprised by the conditioning of the course.  I’m not being critical because it was the best conditioned golf course I’ve ever played.  Simply magnificent.  I was surprised because it was so perfect and because I expected it to be firmer and faster and bit more rustic, wild and wooly.  More like Pac Dunes and less like Augusta, if you will.  Conditioning and architecture are entirely different subjects, yet the conditioning is a choice made by the owners, members, and how the course is maintained, it does have a powerful effect on how the course plays.  No offence intended, however I wondered if such top notch conditioning was the intent of the designer?

I think it must be quite flattering to an architect that a club thinks so much of their work that they spend the money to keep their course in such great shape.  Is there such a thing as too good?  Just wondering and sorry about the thread jack.

[David Kelly]

The course on the ground today is as much the product of Press as it is Perry -- with ongoing stewardship from Bill Coore and team.

I don't necessarily agree.  While Press definitely built the second nine, I think he was building holes that Perry had originally conceived.  

[Sven Nilsen]

Dave:

I get what you're saying, especially in regards to the meld of architecture and conditioning.

I'd add one comment to your point regarding Pinehurst, which is it is hard to pin down exactly what you mean by "in Ross's day."  His work  there spanned 45 years.

As for whether or not the current version is very different from how it was back then, would you agree that it is closer now than it was before C&C, and that is a good thing?

Sven

[Niall C]

Would John Sutherland at Dornoch fit the bill? Or is he DQ'd for not being a legit architect?

atb

Thomas (or is it Dai ?)

I was thinking the same thing as I scrolled down this thread, however both Old Tom and Donald Ross reworked the course during his tenure so you couldn't really say he was totally the guiding hand.

Niall

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Perhaps Wolf Point will fit this in the future?
Cleraly the place is a labour of love from what people have told me about the course.

[Dave McCollum]

Yes, I very much admire pictures of the restoration.  Never been near the place.  The other day I was chatting with a golfer and said I was very much looking forward to the US Opens at Pinehurst because there is no rough like they used at Merion.  He seemed surprised by my comment and said he had spent a bunch of time there when lived nearby, probably 25 or 30 years ago.  I showed him Ran's pictures after the restoration and he was blown away.  I read somewhere that the restoration was based on the late 1930's version after the grassing of the greens.  I love what they did and consider the course an iconic masterpiece.  

I've been tempted to use Ran's pictures in a power point presentation when my members start bitching about conditioning. They must have been done in the early spring when the turf had lots color with plenty of brown spots.  My guess is that there was no winter over seeding that year.  You see this is my burden to shoulder.  I have a sand based golf course that plays beautifully when it's fast and firm.  My customers want it soft and mushy with lush green grass.  Our maintenance meld is kind of a compromise based on the seasons, our affordable rates, and, yes, giving them what they want to a degree.  (Our yearly maintenance budget would pay for about 5 months of maintenance at a place like SE.)  

Personally, I enjoy playing golf on a variety of different courses, even scruffy ones like ours.  Never have played Pinehurst or any Ross course.  Loved Dornoch and tipped my hat to where he was born.  Also really liked the three C&C courses I've played.  Know some of the guys that work on their crews.  Planned to use them to work on mine before the recession turned the golf business into a survivor contest.                  

[Thomas Dai]

Would John Sutherland at Dornoch fit the bill? Or is he DQ'd for not being a legit architect?
atb

Thomas
I was thinking the same thing as I scrolled down this thread, however both Old Tom and Donald Ross reworked the course during his tenure so you couldn't really say he was totally the guiding hand.
Niall

Niall,
I was sort of thinking along the same kinda unsure lines, hence the '?'. Either way, a top course.
atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()