Great Hole, But The Architect Didn't Do Anything

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,

Got it, and sincere apologies if I changed the focus.  I guess out here all holes are pretty much natural (or should be IMO), hence my wandering to entire courses.  We are fortunate that a natural hole isn't an exception, it's pretty much the norm.

Chris,

If you ask me, the biggest thing missing in golf architecture literature is documentation of the creative process whereby a talented architect transforms a raw piece of land, albeit one blessed with good golf features, into a golf course. Based on previous discussions, I know people like Tom Doak and Jim Urbina are aware of this unfortunate gap.

It is really too bad we have so little documentation of just golf holes where the "architect didn't do anything", much less entire golf courses.

[Chris Johnston]

Tim,

Got it, and sincere apologies if I changed the focus.  I guess out here all holes are pretty much natural (or should be IMO), hence my wandering to entire courses.  We are fortunate that a natural hole isn't an exception, it's pretty much the norm.

Chris,

If you ask me, the biggest thing missing in golf architecture literature is documentation of the creative process whereby a talented architect transforms a raw piece of land, albeit one blessed with good golf features, into a golf course. Based on previous discussions, I know people like Tom Doak and Jim Urbina are aware of this unfortunate gap.

It is really too bad we have so little documentation of just golf holes where the "architect didn't do anything", much less entire golf courses.

Tim,

Agreed.  That's why we tried to be extra transparent on our new course here, and I believe much of that story was told across several threads on GCA.  Although, it may not be proper literature.

[Mike_Young]

I think it should be noted that when guys speak of being able to create features where one cannot tell if they were there or not, the site is usually an open site.  Long flowing lines allow a shaper to blend and short steep mounding looks artificial.  If a hole or holes are tree lined it is extremely difficult to blend  into the exisiting landscape.  JMO

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think it should be noted that when guys speak of being able to create features where one cannot tell if they were there or not, the site is usually an open site.  Long flowing lines allow a shaper to blend and short steep mounding looks artificial.  If a hole or holes are tree lined it is extremely difficult to blend  into the exisiting landscape.  JMO

Mike, if by open you purely mean without trees then I agree with you. But on links land, a lot of the movement is sharper and shorter so I'm not sure I agree with only long flowing lines in that scenario.

[JC Urbina]

Tim,

The 17th hole at Cypress encompasses a different set of circumstances in my opinion. 

You have a certain amount of Ocean frontage to work with and according to Folklore a very famous developer / golfer has just convinced you to make the 16th hole a long par 3 when your design team was debating if it should be a two shot hole or not.

Here lies the dilemma that many golf course designers are faced with, keeping the client happy and getting a golf course that you are totally happy with when all is said and done.

Do you think they debated for days the best way to finish the last two holes at Cypress Point, I bet they did. I am sure that Mackenzie and Hunter wore out their shoes in that corner of the property trying to find the best solution to this area of ocean frontage. 

Are you saying that the 17th suffers from the  "Great Hole, But The Architect Didn't Do Anything” or do you like the hole and what it stands for, simplicity?

Just think if the 18th hole played straight away and the green ended up just below the guest quarters and dining room.  I wander why they didn’t go that way?

All just conjecture now

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim Urbina,

When I suggested the 17th hole at Cypress Point might be a "great hole, but the architect didn't do anything", I wasn't thinking the hole "suffers" in any way. I simply meant it according to the definition offered in my opening post.

Once more to be clear: any hole meeting this criteria is not a knock on the architect. In fact, it just might be a compliment: the architect was smart enough to include the hole in his overall design, but also smart enough to leave well enough alone what nature gave him.

I'm not thinking that holes that meet my criteria were included without debate about the routing plan and share your speculation that Mackenzie and Hunter must have debated at some length how to utilize the limited waterfront at CP. That said, once the location of the 16 green was determined, the opportunity to take nature's gift for the 17th - to create a "great hole, but the architect didn't do anything - presented itself. I'm not sure the famous debate apparently solved by Marion Hollins (could 16 really be a par 3) changes anything for 17. Nor, IMO, would placing the 18th green as you suggested might have been done, do so either.

In sum, I do believe the 17th at Cypress Point meets the criteria I proposed. It also has the advantage of being a bit unique with the famous "sky bunkers".

All that aside, I am impressed by how few golf holes people here have mentioned. Seems odd for a golf architecture junkie crowd. Perhaps the lack of pre construction documentation gives people pause. I wish I could see photographic documentation of Crystal Downs before construction because so many of the hole there appear so natural.

Did Mackenzie just fool us all? Or did he do a really brilliant job with the routing?

[JC Urbina]

TIm,

I am in full agreement with 17, I simply wandered out loud what the design group must have been thinking as they contemplated when standing on the 16th green, saying OK were headed back to the top of that hill with the last two holes, what should we do???

I think they showed self constraint when they laid out #17 and may have considered  a little more massaging when they got to 18.  It really was a series of decisions that were made in a few short days while they were finishing off the last few holes, or so I assume that was the construction rotation.

That's another question that I would like to know, what were the first and last holes done at Cypress and did that affect the outcome of the design.  Were they working in the dunes to get the project started off right and waited to the end to create the Ocean holes OR did they do the ocean holes first to sell memberships and finance the rest of construction.

These are all things I think about when I stare at old aerials and ground construction photos.  I have a series of letters that The Historian of Pasatiempo Bob Beck shared with me concerning the creation of Pasatiempo.

The letters were between Robert Hunter, Alister Mackenzie, Olmsted brothers and Marion Hollins.  They discussed construction costs, design ideas and routing changes and when the right time to start the construction of Pasatiempo. 

What were the important things to consider when creating Pasatiempo, Cypress Point, National Golf Links and others of that golden age of design?  You see Tim, I have been fascinated by this type of discussion for years and so was the most influential designers and developers of that era.

I think the routing is good on a A++++++ site, Robert Hunter and Alister Mackenzie did a masterful job with the site.

Your question regarding little interest does not surprise me in a bit.  You need more Tommy’s on this site. 

I have enjoyed our little soiree, I have been sick the last few days and this has occupied some of my down time

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim,

Yes, we could use more of Tommy!

Anyway, sticking with Mackenzie, do you believe the famous 6th and 10th holes on the West Course at Royal Melbourne would meet the "didn't do anything" test or come damn close? Both appear to so naturally fit the topography. Yes, I know the green on 6 can be brutal if one is above the pin, but the grade sure seems to my untrained eye to follow the surrounding grade. On the 10th, I don't have a good enough memory of the entire green complex, but, again, it seems to very naturally fall in place.

Any thoughts on those holes?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tim,

The trouble l have with the thread is that as often happens with discussions on GCA, people concentrate on The Golden Age whilst ignoring most of what came before.

Quintessentially, the architects of The Golden Age manipulated the land and "did" more than the early architects on the early links courses. Therefore I think there are 100's of examples in GB&I that probably suit the discussion best of all.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,

The trouble l have with the thread is that as often happens with discussions on GCA, people concentrate on The Golden Age whilst ignoring most of what came before.

Quintessentially, the architects of The Golden Age manipulated the land and "did" more than the early architects on the early links courses. Therefore I think there are 100's of examples in GB&I that probably suit the discussion best of all.

Ally,

As my exchange of posts with Jim Urbina suggest, I'm disappointed this thread hasn't generated more interest and examples of holes that meet the criteria of my opening post. Mark Pearce did suggest several holes at Elie and a couple people mentioned some holes at TOC, but otherwise little interest has been shown in offering examples of holes from the early links, Golden Age course or modern courses.

For a golf architecture junkie crowd, that is surprising, at least to me. Great holes "where the architect didn't do anything" seems like it would be an area of great interest to this crowd because it goes to the very heart of the creative process: what was the architect able to see before anything had been done to the site? How many holes was the architect essentially able to just go with what nature presented?

[Sean_A]

Tim

I just don't know if some holes were messed with way back when and its hard to see the work in the ground today.

The question I have is why is the touched/untouched distinction important?

Ciao

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim

I just don't know if some holes were messed with way back when and its hard to see the work in the ground today.

The question I have is why is the touched/untouched distinction important?

Ciao

Sean,

As you suggest, a lack of pre construction documentation may hinder an examination of this question. I'm comfortable declaring a hole like #17 at Cypress Point is a "great hole where the architect didn't do anything", but perhaps that is just a no brainer and many other potential examples aren't so easy to be sure.

As for why this may be important, I would argue that a golf course with a significant number of holes that meet my criteria is more likely to have its own unique character and that the architect that "didn't do anything" deserves lots of credit and praise.

From my perspective, if one falls in love with golf architecture and decides that during the course of one's life he wants to see as many of the best courses as possible, then that person has to make a commitment to travel. You can't just go to a couple great museums. Appreciating the art form requires travel. Lots of it.

So, as I believe Tom Doak once said, when you do travel, you want to find not just great courses, but courses with their own unique character.

To me that is where the "great hole, but the architect didn't do anything" comes into play.

I am not saying the antithesis - perhaps a place like Winged Foot - isn't worth seeing. But, I don't want to travel to Melbourne just to see another version of Augusta.

[JC Urbina]

Sean,

I concur with Tim, I have learned more from the examination of holes left untouched then I will ever learn from holes created like PGA West or other facilities of that fashion.

The Dune complex at Cypress Point, the hilltop at The Valley Club of Montecito, the Dune ridge bisecting the 2nd and 16th holes at the National Golf Links has taught me immeasurable amounts of information regarding what to touch and what to leave alone.  Years of walking links lands in Scotland and Ireland where barely a spoonful of sand was moved to create a feature was the foundation of my learning curve.

At Pacific Dunes I realized early on that the Dune eco-system was a fragile thing that needed to be cared for with major TLC.  By observing what was preserved at the places previously mentioned I knew that you could play with features to some extent.  Trying to find out and learn where the ODG got away with massaging the land they worked helped me be a better land steward of the dunes land on the coast of Oregon. 

It wasn't blind faith; it was years of looking at what the Golden Age designs didn’t do that really gave me the confidence in the building of both Pacific Dunes and Old Macdonald. 

I will continue to seek out the "untouchables" they have so much more to offer.

Deep down I think it is important for some like me but maybe not for all.

[Sean_A]

Tim & Jim

I certainly can see your point as archies...the creators.  But from a punter PoV...the customer...the distinction is not so important unless cost savings is passed on beyond the client.  That said, there is probably a higher likelihood that unusual holes will be built with less intervention from the archie, but I don't think this has to be the case...it just seems to be what has evolved.  Again, Strantz wasn't afraid to make his mark and it works out perfectly with there being a load of controversy about some holes/courses. 

Perhaps more importantly, I can see the real benefit in a soft touch if preserving the eco-system is important.  I don't mean just in terms of how a course looks, but also how it plays in that rough and drainage can be more natural solutions. 

Finally, I am a firm believer that cool stuff is on most courses. The more great courses I see the more I realize greatness is everywhere, but for me it isn't a matter of natural VS man-made, it is more down to which archies were at the helm.  I am probably wrong, but it seems like the best of the ODGs got the job done in a more interesting way than do modern archies.  Maybe that is because machinery was less prevalent and archies used the lie of the land in more impactful way.  It strikes me that loads of classic GB&I courses have very little fairway shaping. Its been a long process, but gradually, the idea of defining (I call it road mapping) the playing field has become popular.

Ciao

[Tim_Weiman]

Sean,

My question really was directed at the GolfClubAtlas.com crowd - junkies like myself and professionals like Jim Urbina not the "average" golfer, who, most likely, hasn't traveled as widely or have as much interest in architectural matters as folks here do.

I'd like to build on one of Jim's points: how to study golf architecture. I'm sure most here would agree travel is required. But, from the perspective of a junkie rather than professional, I suspect there are different lessons to be learned from different courses, even courses that sit very close to each other.

Winged Foot, for example, fails my test. The site itself is not that blessed and the contributions of the architect - Tillinghast - are on full display. As someone like Neil Regan knows far better than I, those greens are amazing and they weren't designed and built by God.

Right down the street is another Tillinghast creation, but it is a very different golf course, IMO. Quaker Ridge is far more blessed from a topography perspective and it appears to be a venue where Tillie's presence is certainly felt, but there appears to be far more restraint on display than at Winged Foot. Not saying Tillinghast "didn't do anything" at Quaker Ridge, but there is a peacefulness and tranquility about the golf course that stands in contrast to its more famous neighbor.

Winged Foot's greens and bunkers are so good they certainly deserve study. Of course. But, the different character you find right around the corner comes from the architect partnering with nature far more.