[Mike_Cirba]

Kelly;

Very well said, and I completely agree.  There are TONS of great sites remaining, just take a drive on any highway across Pennsylvania where I live.  These places are just further away from the major population centers than the older traditional courses for the most part.  The nice part is that we can get there quicker than most could in the 20s.  

Although I have the utmost respect for the genius of Pete Dye and much of his work, I have to say that in recent years he seems inclined to manufacture courses to some overdone version of his philosophy that is stylistically unsophisticated and seems to border on being a parody of his style.  In either case, he seems much less inclined to work with existing features than he used to, and I'm not sure who the heck he thinks he's building 7,700 yard, overly-dramatic monstrosities for.  He was always a leader and an innovator but I feel that he's stuck in a rut of his own making.    

[Mike_Cirba]

Ronan;

Hopefully, my previous post will give my feedback to Carlos's main points in post 192.

I would add that I think it's hardly been a "revolution" to move massive amounts of earth in an attempt to engineer courses, as he contends.  One need only go back to consider the courses built at Lido and Yale to realize that with enough money and manpower, virtually any site could be manufactured for the playing of the game.  It didn't just start with Shadow Creek and The Ocean Course.  

I also don't think that "creating" a golf course on a lousy or indifferent site is a bad thing.  Great courses have been "created" and will in the future on bad sites.  I've lauded modern courses like Twisted Dune in NJ here on previous occassions, and that course is wholly manufactured.  

However, I think that too many times modern architects just proceed with the "graders" irrespective of the natural benefits of the land, removing all of the unique and special features in the interest of creating stereotypical man-made features.  I also agree with Kelly Moran that if more architects spent more time with routing, perhaps many of the awkward places they find themselves needing to "dig out of" could have been avoided in the first place.

As to your question about "GCA Conferences", I see that starting to grow in a grass-roots way from a variety of sources including some of the get-togethers done through or by members of this group.

However, there is an "official" architectural society in the US, which is the ASGCA (American Society of Golf Course Architects).  I know little about it favoring any particular design style, or school of thought, so I won't comment except to say that quite a number of those building the type of minimalist courses generally enjoyed by this group are not members, for reasons of their own choosing.  

[TEPaul]

Kelly Blake Moran:

Man, do I love the way you talk--just say it like you see it, undiluted--and coming from an architect too--great stuff!

Contributors are saying this is both a great thread and it's also starting to wander but you're right on the title subject, in my opinion.

You said that designers like a Fazio may be misusing, misdesigning perfectly good or adequate sites (natural topography for golf) due to relatively poor routings and moving tons of earth to cover that fact!

Those are great general points, but would you please get into some of the specifics, in your opinion? Do you see things like ultimate cart golf demands by clients that deal bad landuse hands to designers like Fazio and he doesn't defend the best land for golf design as a specific cause of this? How could he, or any other designer, defend his artistic turf in these cases?

Are you talking about bad routings in the sense of huge green to tee commutes or just the fact that architects are being given mundane landforms for their holes and are shaping the beejeesus out of the landforms to try to sort of "individualize" each hole?

One of the things that bothers me the most on some modern designs vs the old stuff, is some of today's designers seem to do so much more "mid-body" hole earth moving--berming, parallel mounding, shelving etc! And for what? Entire holes start to look like elongated bathtubs and bowling alleys and such and play boring too because of it.

Obviously they're trying to block out the view of the obnoxious but frankly I'd rather even see them route individual holes better off each other like twisting and turning and triangulating and maybe just sticking with clumps of tree blocks that're out of the way of shot angles to block out obnoxious views as some of the old guys did, who never seemed to move much earth on the mid-bodies of holes--probably because it was too much to do anyway.

What are some of other more specific and detailed indications of poor design you see, and the reasons you think it's happening?

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

TE Paul,

I should be doing more in the office today, but you are getting in my way.  Which is good because these types of discussions are helpful, no.  I can speak from experience on bad routing plans and earthmoving so I probably should do that first rather than whoop up on poor Tom.  I will tell you that I listened in on a conversation between him and von Hagge and he said a bad routing plan can easily be overcome if you move enough dirt.  Maybe he is right, but is that a principle to live by?

Anyway, moving dirt because of featureless land is not the issue of which I was thinking.  I was thinking of bad routings in the sense that more time spent on the land and studying the topos could have yielded golf holes whose strategic design and visual interest come from the land.  A bad routing plan ignores these landforms and creates situations where large-scale earthmoving must be employed to fit a hole onto steep land, or remove massive ridges to get from the tee to the fairway or fairway to the green, or for any other number of reasons.  In my case, I have a project under construction where the housing dominated the land plan not the golf course.  My first routing basically separated the two land uses and the golf course made good use of the topo.  The client would have nothing to do with this philosophy.  In fact I almost got fired because at the same time James McLoughlin, of TMG, Inc., was doing a feasibility study, and in the study he advised the client to fire me and hire a big name architect, Ron Garl, which is not the first time he has promoted big name architects and Ron Garl, to clients for whom he consulting.  I know RJ Daley does not like it when I mention names but I think of it as the old days when you acted up in the neighborhood there were a dozen neighbors that called your parents, it is a good way to correct shameful behavior.  So, Tom Paul, what do you do, walk away, or compromise and work through a plan that salvages some good holes and meets your client’s needs.  At the time I decided to work it out, not walk away, I do not think walking away from a tough situation is good for your reputation, nor does it set a good example for those people around you.  Since then I have been through two additional golf course community projects and I must tell you it is getting hard to stick it out when the housing component so dominates the golf course.  Fortunately, I have found some client’s whom believe separating the two land uses makes a lot of sense, and I wrote about it in the second book that Paul Daley is publishing next year I think, and I put it on the table anytime a housing developer talks to me about doing a golf course for their residential community.  Basically, I am a strong, vocal proponent for separating the two land uses, yes the housing can skirt the golf course, but not protrude into the golf course, keep the course a core course.  But here we are, a residential plan that has compromised the routing, caused long journeys between holes, put holes in some difficult terrain.  By my standards, a bad routing plan.  There are some great holes, or I should say fun holes though.

Another difficult situation, which I regret, is that an irrigation pond and two holes were built on one side of  a road.  Rather than haul the dirt from the pond to the other side of the road I decided to place it between the two holes.  Now had we moved it to the other side of the hard it would have to have been placed somewhere on the golf course and screwed it up there.  It is not pretty.  I remember looking at the land as it was naturally and it was magnificent to look out over the land where both holes were to be placed.  Now a big ridge separates the holes and that was not the best thing for them.  However, what do you do with 20,000 cubic yards of dirt.  You build a big landform like you said, maybe at the juncture between doglegged holes.  The reason we built the ridge between the two holes was because another 70,000 yards was supposed to come from the residential housing, so we would have to spread it over a big area to get rid of that much dirt.  Again, the housing trumped the golf course.  Somehow that dirt never materialized and we were left with a puny ridge that separates two holes which did not need separation.  Why separate holes?  I like looking out over several holes.  So in this case the routing was good but the irrigation pond and the dirt from the housing that was supposed to come conspired to compromise the natural beauty of the land where the two holes are now, and I was an accomplice.  I agree, the dirt moving at the midbody of holes is disruptive.  I think that is a great observation on your part.

I do not think moving massive dirt is a good reason because some think the land is mundane.  First, I have walked land that people have warned me was mundane, no topography, when in fact there was magnificent movement, just not exaggerated movement.  One project I did I thought the land was interesting, inspiring, so the design just laid back and let the land show off and Matt Ward in a review called the course repetitious because the land was just subtle farmland.  One other reviewer said the course was too natural.  I guess I do not accept that land is mundane, particularly in the Northeast.  Is Garden City Golf Club mundane?  Does the water tower and shopping center that peek over the tree line beyond #9 make me think massive dirt should have been moved to distract my attention?  No way.

I think a great routing plan is a part of the construction documents.  If it is routed well to the land then you have gone a long way toward constructing the course.  A routing plan is a construction document.  Didn’t you see that at Stonewall II?  I only saw it briefly but you could tell that it was well done, well routed, and if you noticed of the six holes I saw constructed there was still quite a bit of vegetation in the fairways because they did not have to strip the topsoil in order to move massive amounts of dirt to correct a bad routing plan.  But, if you gave that same routing plan to some we have mentioned here they still would have moved massive amounts of dirt in order to show off their great skills at imposing manmade beauty on the land.  It is not enough that nature could have presented something remarkable, they have to show that man has moved beyond nature, that man has advanced the art form of golf architecture and it lies in the highly developed skills and sensibilities of our great shapers being orchestrated by the hand of the genius architect.  Whew.  I need to get back to work Tom, I am getting a little over dramatic.  Anyway I hope I answered your question and keep your midbody thought out there so other people can absorb it.  

[Matt_Ward]

Kelly:

Thanks for mentioning my name, but need to clarify a few items. First, my comments were directed at the repetition of approximately 6 holes that contained back tee distances within 10-15 yards of each other. I was hoping for a greater range of holes and although the land does have movement it is quite subdued. You will likely say otherwise and I respect that. All in all, the final product is clearly one of the dozen or so best public courses in NJ. I am sorry to hear it is turning private because much can be gained from the public playing it.

[Mike_Cirba]

Just as a related aside, the 6th hole at Kelly Moran's course in question, Hawk Pointe GC in NJ, was recently singled out and cited by Matt Ward's "Jersey Golfer" magazine under the "Great Architecture" section.  

It's a brilliant, bold, original take on the short par four concept and clearly deserving of the recognition.

I'm such a fan of the course that I even agree with Ron Whitten's assessment, which can be found at the following link;  

http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/index.ssf?/courses/critic/hawkpointe.html

Finally, I was looking up some old course reviews I used to do for a regional golf guide, and here's part of what I had to say about the course a few years back;

"If there is a more strategically planned course built recently, I'm curious to see it. Every single hole has options and requires risk/reward shotmaking. Some of the greens are incredibly daring, and there are several excellent holes that are better played than described.  Suffice to say that both eyebrows and scores will be raised on holes like the short par four 6th, the par five 7th, or the par three 13th, chiefly due to the wildly undulating greens.  Still, they are all enormous fun."

"Almost as daring is the somewhat retro concept of moving as little earth as possible during construction, and letting the design fit the land like a tailored glove.  Hawk Pointe totally eschews modern concepts like "containment", "visual cueing", and "target bunkers".  Instead, nothing is wasted, overdone, or cloyingly ingratiating and I imagine the course today doesn't look much different than when the architect started on the raw site."
 
"Two things hold the course back slightly...1) The bunkering, while huge and effective, is rather bland looking and inartistic. and 2) The holes are almost TOO strategically-conceived; some randomness of features would have balanced this course nicely."

[Mike_Cirba]

Ronan;

Are we on the right track in answering your questions?  I didn't mean to get too specific about any particular course or architect, but I also believe that the type of "working with the land" approach outlined by Kelly Moran is consistent with the general theme of this thread.  

[TEPaul]

Ronan:

Your thread has now logged over 200 posts! You're now a true Golfclubatlas Treehouser (a distinction, if that, that's impossible to define). But now you're free to bash, slash, insult and anger anyone and everyone as some of us have been doing around here for years. You will now be hugged, laughed at, congratulated, snickered and sneered at and applauded all over the world.

Never worry about Pat Mucci, I'll take care of him for you!

[Forrest Richardson]

..."bash, slash, insult and anger..." Aren't these the key ingredients of a great golf hole?

[Carlos Febres]

Kelly and Ronan:

When referring to Pete, Tom and the "revolution," I agree on a few points: revolutions aren't always necessarily a good thing.  This is true, but I should say that the products of Dye and Fazio's "revolution" have pushed the boundaries of earthmoving and environmental impact.  As a result, our "reaction" in modern design has been highly sensitive to the environment and the existing topo.  For example- TPC Sawgrass.  This project could never happen today.  There is no way the government would allow an architect to fill a swamp in that fashion, in addition to using the toxic chemical-infested railroad ties.  Building in a swamp today is extremely difficult because of all the regulations.  Runoff must be entirely self-contained and recycled, wetlands must be preserved and created, rather than filled.  The byproduct is a course like Shark's Tooth or Sea Island, where wetlands are a feature rather than an eyesore.  Had it not been for the Dyes and Fazios of the world, we might have never built into wetlands to begin with.    In the case of building in the swamps (or established wetlands, if you prefer), routing is irrelevant, except in considering wind and sun direction.

In the northeast, I agree with a few points.  Architects don't spend enough time on routing and on-site before construction begins.  Add to that a client that wants to establish homesites ASAP, and your hands are tied.  It's unfortunate, but those are the facts.  I feel that it is the designer's responsibility to be aggressive in establishing the best routing, both in-office and on site, before the client runs off for approvals.  I don't feel that designers can compensate for a bad routing with eartmoving, unless we're talking about screening.  In the case of Twisted Dune, it's completely overcooked.   If anything, what makes it so unnatural is that you can't see other holes because the mounds are so huge, and the designer was careless in not creating any topo on the property edges.  This makes it quite obvious that the course should not look like it does.  The best hole out there is 4?(long par five?), because it seems to fit the natural topo better than any other.  

  

[Ronan_Branigan]

Mike

Fantastic posts. Dare I say the last 10-20 have been the best yet. I really enjoyed kelly's post and his 'tell it as it is approach'. I agree with his theory on separating the two land use issues. We designed a links course in Ireland called Seapoint. A few years after the development the developers decided that it would be a good idea to build houses. The ones that skirt the course aren't too hard on the eye but the ones in the middle of the course could be most politely described as an eyesore! They visually detract from the golfing experience and the fact that is a links course means that there is very little to hide them. Unfortunately, that is how the developers make money and at the end of the day they all want to make a return. That leaves us in an awkward position as outlined by Kelly. Do you walk away from a job or do you stick with it? There are very few that can afford to walk away. If you stay you can make the best of a less than an ideal situation.

Carlos

Thanks for your post. Maybe without the aformentioned designers we wouldn't have the situation and the discussion that we are having now. Due to their 'lack of respect for the lines of nature' we have a movement of people who are rebelling against that approach. All we have to do now is convince the golfing fraternity!

TE Paul

It feels good to be a 'Treehouser' and I will gladly accept your invitation to unleash some strong opinions!

[Matt_Ward]

Carlos F:

I don't doubt that Twisted Dune may be "overcooked" but it does provide a number of things that many designs often lack. You can start with playability. The course is wide enough for just about any skill level to play. The demands for the better player are also included because you need to reach certain key points in order to score consistently.

When you say the designer was careless in not creating "any topo on the property edges" I wonder just what you mean by that? There are edges to Twisted Dune where you can't see off the property and are blended quite well. Clearly, as Mike C mentioned the course is the child of man's hand. But -- so what! The quality of the holes when linked in their totality does work -- in fact, I say it works quite well. At Twisted you do have to shape shots and where you are in the fairway will determine how aggressive and / or cautious you can be.

If man's hand was not involved with Twisted I dare say you would find a piece of land that is quite boring and lifeless. What was done at TD is use man's hand without going to such severe excesses you see in many courses today. I agree with Mike that creating "over the top" demands that simply pile on are not what's needed. However, I take a pragmatic position regarding the use of man's hands and don't always believe the minimalistic approach works as much as some of its advocates claim.

[Michael Dugger]

Ronan,
I very much enjoy your freshness and positive outlook.  But I have one 'hang up' with this notion of revolution you are inquiring about.  What do you say to someone who just got a bad new haircut?  What do you say to those people who drive pink cars...watch the home shopping network and are, generally, uncool?  

What I am getting at is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  It has been that way since the beginning of time and will remain so forever.  It is the basic objective/subjective distinction.  While there may be groups of us who feel the same way about something, the opinion of our group does not make objective truth.

So what does this have to do with golf course architecture, you may ask?  It means that there will forever be people out there who think Rees Jones bunkers are artistic.  There will forever be people who think putting houses on a links course is perfectly acceptable.  I'm sure there are groups of people out there who don't give a damn about the artistry of golf course architecture, they are merely in it for the $$$$.  Furthermore, there is a large population, probably the majority, of golfers who think any course is as good as another, just as long as it has taken them away from their job, wife and kids and allows them to whack the ol' ball around.  

How do we battle this?  I suspect our plight is not unique to any group that is passionate about their 'hobby'.  Old timers hate the way basketball is played in the 'new' NBA.  They think it is disgusting how 'above the rim' the game has become-what poor free throw shooters players are today.

We have to remember human nature.  Most golfers don't care about the architecture of their home course.  Remember what Mackenzie said once, if I can recall it correctly.  Ask most players what the greatest course in the world is and they will say it is where they play most often.  Their home course.  I've said it once and I'll say it again, only when we can establish 'objective truth' can we say that golf courses OUGHT to be designed and built one way or another.  Without a foundation any argument crumbles.  
  

[TEPaul]

..."bash, slash, insult and anger..." Aren't these the key ingredients of a great golf hole?

Forrest:

You can bet your bippy they are! Maybe not always but they can't hurt when offered in magnificent doses to some golfers!

[TEPaul]

I'm glad to get over here to a good golf architectural thread again (even if it is on revolution!)! I've been getting a little worn out over on that Whaley thread trying to run this country!

[ForkaB]

Tom

Actually Bash, Slash, Insult and Anger, Inc. is the PR firm representing both Ms. Whaley and Ms. Burk..............

[TEPaul]

Right you are Rich. If Bash, Slash, Insult and Anger Inc constructed the proper "Chinese wall" do you think they could manage to take ANGC's PR too--or would that be a conflict? Don't answer that--in today's world that's virtually unknown.

I hope they can as they would have to be able to do a better job than Hootie's Hotlanta PR firm of Doofus & Looselip Inc.

[Ronan_Branigan]

Tom

Once again I agree and as my granny often told me 'there is no accounting for taste'!!! Lets try to convince them of the merit of our ways which I know you will continue to do.

[Joel_Stewart]

No.

Golf architecture is at a point of divergence.  There are two distinctly different almost diametrically opposed branches of "What constitutes Good".

This is not a good thing.

I always go back to my nouveau-riche Colorado friend who is a member of THE Estancia as well as THE Preserve at Carmel (And CPGC no "THE").   After spending 3 days at Sand Hills he proclaimed it the most boring course he had ever played as all the holes looked the same.  The same guy loves the $1M (Now $2M) flower budget at THE Vintage Club.

For every Kenny Bakst, there are these guys, too.

Which faction will win out?  

13 years later this is a fascinating thread.  Are we still at a divergence or have the flower lovers seen the light?

[Paul Gray]

Ronan Branigan (Nice Irish name you have!);

In my opinion there will never be a revolution in all golf architecture to that. But I think a renaissance has been happening for almost ten years and it's building. But at the most optimistic it will only ever capture a slice of architecture, I think.

I do believe the ones who are doing it now, are in a way going back to the philosophies of Thomas and MacKenzie (as you said) and trying to pick up in some ways where they left off and may be even trying to experiment with what those guys hoped and dreamed about when architecture progressed in the future.

The oddity was the hiatus though--maybe almost sixty years. But I think the hiatus is over now but only for a slice of golf architecture, at most.

"Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there's room in it for everyone."

As relevant and accurate today as it was in 2002.

Plagiarism works for me.   

[Mark_Fine]

Joel,
Wow, long time since this post was active!  Interesting to read some of the prophecies from all us soothsayers   I’ll chime in with a few new comments:

- Water has become a MAJOR factor for golf courses and golf course design. Water is definitely impacting the “wall to wall” green philosophy that was quite prevalent back in 2002.  The impact from the recent Pinehurst #2 “brown plays just at good as green and is better for the environment" display is still too early to call.  I for one sure hope it catches on big time!!
- The C&C Sand Hills effect of minimalism and more natural looking courses has carried over to many designs and to many architects.
- More and more older courses (especially the classics) started to embrace their design history.  Restoration of original design attributes really became in vogue. 
- Many courses that had become arboretums from years and years of over planting, recognized the problem and got in the firewood business
- The cost of golf and the time factor to play it has become a central focus and will impact course design going forward.  More courses are closing these days than new ones are opening (at least in the U.S.) so that is not so good.
- Whether you love them or hate them, the major golf magazines played a key role since 2002 in the direction of golf architecture.  As one example, Golf Digest even changed their “conditioning" criteria in their rankings to promote less water, more brown, more natural appearances, and more firm and fast conditions vs soft and lush.  All the major course rankings and associated articles have had a huge impact on what architects are designing and on what courses golfers are seeking out to play.  And even The Golf Channel talks much more about golf architecture and features segments about course design.

Maybe that 99% figure I talked about in 2002 should be readjusted to 98 or 97%

[Paul Gray]

Mark,

Humans are pack animals. Golfers are suckers for wanting to keep up with the Joneses (or Doaks). Your 97% could be reversed. Either that or we're going to end up with two different 'codes' of golf, much like ended up happening in rugby.

But nothing will happen overnight.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()