[Mike_Young]

Do you think there are any architects worthy of the name who don't care about angles and good feature work and interesting greens and all the other things we hold dear?

I'll go a step further and say there are a few that don't even know they don't know......some guys got in the business by accident right out of an LAR program and did not play and were only concerned with a landscaped hole. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Peter:

I'd counter by asking you if any course that was not designed by an Architect should be disqualified from the conversation.  After all, the most prolific golf architect of all time was named "Unknown."

Even for some of the courses where we know who did the work, the model didn't always allow for months or even weeks on site to get things right.  Often times the designer did the best they could in the limited time they had (or the time the client could afford), and then handed the details off to the members to finish the job.  Even today there are still Mom and Pop jobs that seem to get by with a very basic design that is little more than mowing the grass shorter in font of the tees and even shorter on the greens.

You asked how we can defend the mediocre.  My answer was that the mediocre still gives people a place to play the game.

It was interesting to me that you used Garden City and Seminole as your examples for this thread, two courses so far afield from the norm as far as golf course development goes.  Not every town out there had a Walter Travis or an E. F. Hutton.

But if you are limiting the conversation to courses with the means and where the architect/builder was in a position to give their all to both the design and construction processes, then yes, why would you accept anything less than a thoughtfully produced outcome.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

The other "excuse" is that you have to start somewhere.

There's a long history in the US of modest golf courses being turned into masterpieces.  Perhaps the problem these days is that we have to do things too quickly.

Sven

[Don Mahaffey]

and yet the course is one interesting hole after another. Why? Because instead of creating interest on a macro scale - massive earth movement, endless waterscapes and pointless eye candy for nitwits - the golf course is full of little swales, kick points, falloffs and strategic geometries providing an easy path to the green for the chop, but a great variety of options for the skilled player.

He could have mailed it in, but it is clear a great deal of thought was put into the last 10% during construction -
  

Thanks Gib as this is a topic I have tried to raise so many times and it never seems to go anywhere. In the golf creation world today we are in love with big...big views and big features....we build these macro landscapes and then smooth everything out and play golf on them. They are pretty, they grow good grass, but they lack something....whimsy, quirk, choas....then you trip across a course like Gib describes and realize that good golf isn't just about how much construction you can pull off. It is about how much imagination you can build in.

The disconnect happens when the designer thinks that big, or macro, is the way to go but he doesn't have the resources to really pull it off. So you end up with built up greens and tees, some slugs of dirt along the edges of fwys to hold bunkers, but nothing that really looks like a land form. That is when it is really bad, and there are a lot of golf courses like that.

It does not take great land to build a good golf course. maybe it does to build one that makes the cover and competes for top this or that, but to be good, interesting, fun to play, and most of all compelling enough to bring you back time after time, that does not take great land and a huge budget.

One thing I've never understood is why the guys who have the budgets to go big don't ever seem to mix in excellent micro work as well. Its like designers are just incapable of doing both. I guess the closest I've seen to pulling this off is the Rawls course where RGD built the large scale land form, and still mixed in some micro around the greens. But even there it seems like they backed off the micro compared to some of their other courses. Probably a good topic for another day.

[Sean_A]

As is frequently the case, Peter has successfully cut through the nonsense and dispelled the myth that excellent golf is only achieved via a huge budget. Where I would however wish to add one proviso is over the issue of turf. Where nature does not provide the right soil, cheap and quality are unlikely to be bedfellows. You can't build quality on a rice field, far as I know. And whilst attempting to do so wouldn't qualify as an excuse in my book, it would be an explanation for indifferent, inefficient results.

Which is the reason I brought up Huntercombe.  All (deserved  ) mickey taking of Ed aside, Huntercombe is a completely manufactured course which in essence could be done anywhere as there is a lot of man-made stuff and using what little decent land there is very well.  IMO, this type of design is good enough...not a world breaker, but plenty good enough to engage the thoughtful golfer.  

So Pietro, I agree with you 100%.  

Ciao

[Tom Kelly]

It baffles me why the kind of green approaches / contours etc at Huntercombe are virtually never replicated in modern courses.

I'll take a stab in the dark and say maintenance...... many greenkeepers would have a fit if they were asked to cut some of those banks and hollows. Unfortunately some can't get their head around the scruffier/natural look, everything needs to be pristine.

[Randy Thompson]

The other "excuse" is that you have to start somewhere.

There's a long history in the US of modest golf courses being turned into masterpieces.  Perhaps the problem these days is that we have to do things too quickly.

Sven

Sven,
Take out the word perhaps and you hit the nail on the head!

[Gib_Papazian]

Randy,

That is precisely why the darlings of this website produce results a quantum leap beyond the bilious regurgitations, watered down strategies and vapid, repetitious putting surfaces of their "quick & dirty" peers. I suppose one could make the vacant argument that Raynor stuck to a series of templates, but each one introduced some kind of variation on the theme, which is why - despite the similarities between say, Fishers Island and Piping Rock - no Raynor course ever becomes tiresome.

Coore and Crenshaw courses are not without flaws - or controversial decisions - but it is obvious their final product was not drawn up on a drafting table and sent to Wadsworth with an occasional site visit. The same can be said for Pete Dye - like it or not, the courses where he kept his hands on the steering wheel from start to finish are usually fabulous.

There is no substitute for taking the time to ruminate over something. It is impossible to spit out the perfect solution with a stopwatch ticking in your ear. No, not everyone has the luxury of unlimited time, but in any artistic endeavor, it is crucial to keep massaging ideas until the very last second. Personally, I fiddle with lights on set right up to the moment the A.D. shouts "Picture is up, quiet please!"

A couple years ago, Neal and I were working out a redesign project in San Luis Obispo. He'd been hired to rework Loren Roberts' home track and things were going along just duckeroo - with just the right mix of respect for the original and some daring twists to spice up the journey. There was one thing that just kept bothering us (cue: Colombo voice) and we couldn't get it out of our minds: Why doesn't the par-5 downhill 5th hole look right? Drawn up, it looked really good  . . . . . . but the rough grade just sorta - I don't know - didn't fit the ground.

About the 10th time we sat in the middle of the fairway trying to come to grips with what we hated about his otherwise gorgeously drawn green complex, the answer popped into our skulls at nearly the same instant. The entire arrangement was backwards! In other words, we took the drawing, turned it over and held it up to the greensite. Voila! Everything was perfect except it needed to be built as a mirror image.

The reality is, not many architects would have returned to ponder one green complex that many times - because the original concept would have passed muster with 99% of the membership. What finally got built came out terrific, almost as if one simple modification smoothed out an awkward transition - like correcting a single puzzle piece turned upside down.

Taking the time to finally figure it out made the difference - getting the last 10% exactly the way you want it, not for the client, but for yourself. Ultimately, those of us who pursue any artistic endeavor ultimately do it for ourselves - because we cannot stand walking away from something "just good enough." You can say you're doing it for the client, blah blah blah, but that is bullshit. You're putting your best effort into the ground because the ego of a *real* artist cannot stand to live with anything less.            

  

 

[JC Urbina]

Gib,

The reality is, not many architects would have returned to ponder one green complex that many times - because the original concept would have passed muster with 99% of the membership. What finally got built came out terrific, almost as if one simple modification smoothed out an awkward transition - like correcting a single puzzle piece turned upside down.


This quote speaks volumes.

One of the reasons I really enjoyed Ken Nice the Resort superintendent at Bandon Dunes was his willingness to let me ponder golf holes and in particular green complexes one last time before the final amendments and seed were laid down..  Since Ken was in charge of the seeding process at both Pacific Dunes and Old Macdonald he knew I was going to revisit every little nuance before he started the hydro-seeding process. 

He would call on the radio or alert me to his seeding schedule for the day.  Since I spent considerable time on site I got to watch ideas evolve as the sand drifted or as talented young  shapers were putting the final touches on various projects.   Whether it was Brian Slawnik or Kyle Franz at Pac Dunes or the young local kids being creative, some of their thoughts transforming over several hours or days.  Each idea evolving over time and any rush to get the job done usually meaning a lesser product. 

I could say the same for Old Macdonald, it's the little things that really make the golf course appear much different then some of the other courses built in the modern era.  C.J Kreuscher the grow in super and his construction team at Old Mac put extra ordinary man hours into the creation of the golf course.  A little extra hand raking by the team  or watching Jonathan Reister a design associate adding a few extra inches on a bunker horizon is what your quote is all about.  The same can be said for Jeff Stein or Mike MCartin, always willing to do just a little more on the creative side, the efforts by these talented guys really go along way and resonate with your quote.

George Waters always adding just that little extra shape or idea during the process, that reminds of your Jig Saw puzzle piece.  George is always trying to rotate it one more time, just to be sure it was the right piece and it fit perfectly.

It is not days of wasted time spent on building a golf course , it's minutes of well thought out ideas crafted into the design as the day evolves.

[Peter Pallotta]

Gib writes: "Ultimately, those of us who pursue any artistic endeavor ultimately do it for ourselves - because we cannot stand walking away from something 'just good enough.' You can say you're doing it for the client, blah blah blah, but that is bullshit. You're putting your best effort into the ground because the ego of a *real* artist cannot stand to live with anything less."

And THAT'S why there is no excuse. Whether one is making a 5 million dollar movie or a 5 thousand dollar film; whether one is designing for the egg-heads at Mike K's latest walking only, golf only resort or for Crass E. Publican on a dead flat site sure to be surrounded by hundreds of ugly little homes. Unless, of course, as JK said right off the bat and Mike Y later seemed to confirm: even in this day and age there are people who call themselves architects who actually aren't.  (I find that hard to believe, or maybe I just don't want to believe it; if I did, I wouldn't have started the thread, as I'd already have my answer.)

Peter

         

 

[Jud_T]

This is great for the guys who are willing to actually turn down work if they don't feel they'll be able to work with the client and produce something up to snuff.  This may mean putting one's artistic principals above paying the bills; something most aren't willing to do.  And then there's the guys who simply don't have a clue and never will.  You can't learn rhythm and taste after all.  So I'm not sure where this discussion has really gotten us.  Client A is an egotistical meddling scumbag.  GCA's B & C decline to work on the project.  GCA D takes the job.  The course ends up average/mediocre.  The excuse is GCA D needs the paycheck and/or is a misguided soul without an artistic bone in his body.  So they've both, in fact, got an excuse...

[Mike_Young]

Unless, of course, as JK said right off the bat and Mike Y later seemed to confirm: even in this day and age there are people who call themselves architects who actually aren't.  (I find that hard to believe, or maybe I just don't want to believe it; if I did, I wouldn't have started the thread, as I'd already have my answer.)

Peter

Peter,
I never said there were golf architects who were not golf architects, I just stated that there are some that don't know much about golf.   Actually I had one who did not know what Chicago Golf club was.  BUT to add to your thoughts here....would you agree with me that the best golf courses ever built have been designed and built in the last 15 years after the housing boom showed us what not to do.  When I say this I'm talking about architectural talent, with very good technical specifications , proper irrigation and state of the art agronomics being incorporated from the beginning and not having to come back as we have done with so many golden age courses.

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder if TD is able to adequately "cost" this effort as it was a state enterprise with his professional input very much discounted professionally ( I think I read that somewhere?). Nonetheless I wonder, Tom, if you have a gut-feeling with regards to per hole cost of Common Ground compared to other courses being built?

Colin:

CommonGround was not really a "state" enterprise [the Colorado Golf Association and the CWGA are two independent organizations with no funds from the State of Colorado], but since the financials were very much part of their mission statement, I think it's safe to talk about the project here.

Their budget to rebuild the course [all in] was $4 million.  They chose to spend it all on the course are not to put any into a clubhouse, and they are still playing out of a temporary clubhouse that looks more permanent every year.  They told us their mission was to make the best $40 course they could.

It worked well because two of my associates [Eric Iverson, who ran the job, and Jim] lived in Denver, and Don Placek's parents lived there, so that saved a bundle on expenses.  And it worked because those three guys -- plus Jonathan Reisetter and Brian Slawnik and Brian Schneider, and our four interns that summer -- all busted ass to make it special even though they had "only" a 4 million dollar budget.  In fact they might have been more determined BECAUSE of the budget, and because Eric was trying to save enough $ and recycling the sand from the old tees and greens so that we could build their 9-hole kids' course for free within the $4 million.

But, as Gib has correctly surmised, I don't think the budget for the project really had much to do with it.  Most jobs I've been on have seen similar commitment from the whole crew, whether it was High Pointe [$1.3 million budget] or Sebonack [$100 million plus all told] or anything in between.  They are all there because they want to build something cool, and that is just very hard to get from the contractor-based model.  

The funny part is, contractors sell themselves on being able to stay on budget, but I have yet to work on a project where a contractor threw in a 9-hole par-3 for kids that wasn't in the budget.

So, I agree with Peter's last post that there is no excuse, but I also go back to what I said early in the thread ... the only thing that really stands in the way is the client.  If the client is not supportive of your efforts, I don't think there's any amount of time on the part of the architect and the crew can make up for it.  They don't all have to be Mike Keiser, but they have to care about the finished product, and not all do.

[Mike_Young]

I wonder if TD is able to adequately "cost" this effort as it was a state enterprise with his professional input very much discounted professionally ( I think I read that somewhere?). Nonetheless I wonder, Tom, if you have a gut-feeling with regards to per hole cost of Common Ground compared to other courses being built?

 They don't all have to be Mike Keiser, but they have to care about the finished product, and not all do.

TD,
IMHO that is the most difficult part of the business for the regional architect....

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Jud, Mike - you and many others (rightly, I grant) keep mentioning the "client" as one of the key determining factors in the quality of the finished project/product. As I say, I will grant you that, but I will also say that I believe many creative types unconsciously foist unto/blame the client for their own limitations. When I was serving clients (in other field of endeavour), I too was or felt limited/prevented from achieving the "ideal" outcome. But what is as clear as a bell to me now -- and sadly, was not then -- is that with more work and time and effort and integrity on my part, I could've made the best of that situation, i.e.  I could've found imaginative and compelling solutions to working within those limitations, while at the same time trying subtly to expand and/or negate them. If I'd done that the finished product still wouldn't have been a "10", but it may have been an "8" or "7" instead of a "5".*  (One of the projects I'm thinking about was nominated for the Canadian equivalent of an Emmy for best writing -- but in my mind it, i.e. my writing, was no better than a "5".) In short, the fault dear architects and filmmakers is not in the clients and producers but in ourselves that we are underlings. (Tarantino, by the way, has no sympathy for independent filmmakers who say that their films were ruined by producers/i.e. clients. He suggests that problem was that the filmmakers didn't fight hard enough for what they believed in.)

Peter

*If I ever turn my attention back to that field, I will never make that mistake again. Indeed, on a project I've written and I think (in my not so humble opinion) potentially 'ideal', I've already rejected the promise of funding tied to client input. I will find a way to do it myself - the proper way....even if (no, especially if) the budget is minuscule! 

PS - Mike, apologies - I didn't mean to put exact words into your mouth  

[Mike_Young]

Peter,
There is much truth to your last post.  One of my first projects, the owner agreed for us to design it but we had to use a builder who had built for JN.  Well that builder immediately knew he had the upper hand with the client and used it daily.  I we wanted a bunker to look a specific way and were to ask to have a small excavator do the work he might tell the owner that he never did that for "signature" and owner would go along with such.  That's just part of the price often paid to get work when starting.  I allowed him to step all over me.  The other issue I find interesting is rework of a project.  If a regional archie designs a course and a problem arises with say a green slope or a bunker washing, the owner may not call him but may blame him and go to another source and yet if the signature does such the owner will call him back and pay him to correct such.  Jock sniffing is a huge factor in owner realtionships...

[DMoriarty]

This has been an interesting thread but I am somewhat troubled by the direction it has taken.  Sure I agree that hard work and reflection might make for a good golf course, but too much fretting over every detail might result in the opposite as well.   Golf at its best is an interaction with nature.  Oftentimes nature does nature better than the most well meaning architect.  

Let me try to explain what I mean by way of example. I've played at Rustic Canyon (and elsewhere) with golf course architects and with those who like to think they could be golf course architects.   Almost always there are suggestions about what the architect (or wannabe architect) would have done to make the course just a little bit better -- exaggerate and accentuate this ridge . . .  build up the ground and place a bunker here . . .  add some rolls there . . .  cut a tee into the side of that hill over there . . . raise this green up a a few feet . . . etc.   Seriously.  They all want to come in and put their fingerprints on this or that, and very few of them seem to understand that so doing would be cutting against the essence of the course.

Part of great architecture is leaving well enough alone.

[Peter Pallotta]

David - your posts no. 50 and 68 (and others by various posters) are good correctives to the 'drift' of my thinking. But I think they support my basic contention, ie if YOU know about CBM's approach to and principles of good golf course architecture (even when working on an average site), and if you are aware of the various tendencies/factors that lead to mediocre design, then is it too much to ask/expect/demand that practicing professional architects not only know but insist upon honouring those same principles too?
Peter

Mike - thank you. I appreciate that. It feels better to know I'm not alone in that.

[DMoriarty]

If your premise is that even lower budget golf courses on less than perfect sites ought to present some semblance of interesting and exciting golf, then I agree.

Where I might disagree is how one ought to go about creating such courses.  Oftentimes less is more.  Trying to make every golf hole into a perfect-in-every-detail masterpiece is rarely cost effective and often results in unnatural and overdone abominations.

[Don Mahaffey]

Let me try to explain what I mean by way of example. I've played at Rustic Canyon (and elsewhere) with golf course architects and with those who like to think they could be golf course architects.   Almost always there are suggestions about what the architect (or wannabe architect) would have done to make the course just a little bit better -- exaggerate and accentuate this ridge . . .  build up the ground and place a bunker here . . .  add some rolls there . . .  cut a tee into the side of that hill over there . . . raise this green up a a few feet . . . etc.   Seriously.  They all want to come in and put their fingerprints on this or that, and very few of them seem to understand that so doing would be cutting against the essence of the course.

Part of great architecture is leaving well enough alone.

When you play with people who study architecture, this is what you get. I think most of us have been guilty of doing this, and I think it takes some time to learn to study the entire course and not pick apart the details. But, I also think we are more sensitive when we hear it about a course we are invested in, and a lot more likely to do exactly the same thing when we are talking about a course we don't like or owners/designers we don't care for. We've all got a little hypocrite in us.

[DMoriarty]

Don,

We've all got a little hypocrite in us?  If you say so, but somehow I don't think you are really addressing the topic at hand. Probably I wasn't clear. Maybe another example might help. 

Imagine I played Wolf Point and heaped praise on the course as a minimalist masterpiece. Then, in the same breath, I started pointing out how I'd like to built tee boxes  4-6 feet above the surrounds to improve the views and increase the visibility of the hazards, so the golfer always had a clear sense of what was in front of him.

When you were assessing idea, would it matter at all if I promised that I'd be there everyday to supervise the creation of these tee boxes and even to finish each tee box myself with a rake?  Or would you think that perhaps I had missed the point of what makes Wolf Point a worthwhile golf course?

It takes more than hard work, ernest effort, and painstaking attention to detail to make a quality golf course.  Or perhaps it takes less.

[Adam Lawrence]

Don,

We've all got a little hypocrite in us?  If you say so, but somehow I don't think you are really addressing the topic at hand. Probably I wasn't clear. Maybe another example might help. 

Imagine I played Wolf Point and heaped praise on the course as a minimalist masterpiece. Then, in the same breath, I started pointing out how I'd like to built tee boxes  4-6 feet above the surrounds to improve the views and increase the visibility of the hazards, so the golfer always had a clear sense of what was in front of him.

When you were assessing idea, would it matter at all if I promised that I'd be there everyday to supervise the creation of these tee boxes and even to finish each tee box myself with a rake?  Or would you think that perhaps I had missed the point of what makes Wolf Point a worthwhile golf course?

It takes more than hard work, ernest effort, and painstaking attention to detail to make a quality golf course.  Or perhaps it takes less.

David

I don't know how useful your Wolf Point example is. You don't need a deep emotional investment in Wolf Point to realise that building highly elevated tee boxes all over a site with very little overall elevation change would be a dumb idea -- even though some people might still do it. I think a more useful example for discussion would be a suggestion that, in isolation, could be a good idea... but where you might still say 'We should not do this' because it would impact on the design integrity of the golf course as a hole.

To give an example that many here will be familiar with: I have long wondered whether it would be a good idea to add another bunker, perhaps 15-20 yards further up the fairway, to Stuart Paton's central complex on the fourth at Woking. Strong golfers routinely fly those bunkers now, and the tee is hard against the car park, and thus can't easily go back any further. I think another bunker would restore Paton's original strategic intentions for a decent number of players (the very strong might still go straight over but I cannot see a good way of preventing that). But this is an iconic piece of golf design. Should it be left as Paton designed it? I can well see the strength of that argument too.

[Jeff_Brauer]

IMHO, almost every answer here is correct, and doesn't necessarily contradict the other.  The key, being, of course to do the exact right thing for every situation...or best among many possible right things.

Gib, while I don't necessarily disagree, as I gave similar examples,  I wonder how you know what most other architects would do?  Let's put it this way - I know I ruminate over several greens per course that just don't come out right. I have flipped a green as you did with Neal.  I actually had one staffer who while otherwise talented, had a knack for seeing green angles just the opposite as I do. I flipped the plans he drew more than a few times! 

And, I have heard many architects tell similar stories, so maybe more of their initial plans just needed more rumination!

But the truest comment reminds me that just one subtle mound in front of a green can give interest and pleasure, so its not a matter of bunkers, cost, etc.  It really is true that good design is often a matter of "necessity is the mother of invention" rather than plopping a standard green from the file (or idea from elsewhere, no matter how good there, it may not be as good here....) it takes time to craft an interesting feature, set of features, which somehow, make a golf hole better.

[DMoriarty]

I don't know how useful your Wolf Point example is. You don't need a deep emotional investment in Wolf Point to realise that building highly elevated tee boxes all over a site with very little overall elevation change would be a dumb idea -- even though some people might still do it. I think a more useful example for discussion would be a suggestion that, in isolation, could be a good idea... but where you might still say 'We should not do this' because it would impact on the design integrity of the golf course as a hole.

You are probably correct, Adam.  I picked an intentionally and obviously "dumb" example so as to try and remove the sidetrack about hypocrisy and "deep emotional investment."  Although I should probably add that to my mind the Wolf Creek example is no dumber than many of the ideas I have heard about Rustic and other courses, sometimes by actual working golf course architects.  As you said, "some people might still do it." Unfortunately some of those people might be golf architects.

Leaving well enough alone is very difficult to do, but to my mind it seems to be one of the keys in the creation and preservation of quality golf courses.   As you say it is about "design integrity of the golf course as a whole."  To my mind it is also about the integrity of what was there before a golf course even existed.  

As for your example, unfortunately I am not familiar with the situation at Woking so I can't comment specifically.  But generally I am not one who believes that every feature has to impact every golfer.  Nor am I a proponent of messing with quality designs to try and keep up with "strong golfers," especially because (as even you suggest) that is probably a losing battle anyway.

[Jeff_Brauer]

re: Leaving well enough alone, it is hard to do.  Harder, is it seems to many that once you place a series of, for lack of a better phrase, Rees Jones type mounds, down a fairway, it seems you can't stop, for fear the "whole thing won't tie together."

I once heard some of my designs were "odd" in the fact that I built what I had to/wanted to at tees, greens, and bunker complexes, and let the rest go, even if flat.  He felt it was sort of a "Japanese Garden" model in which the view had to not look beyond the curtain, so to speak, and accept it was basically an artificial garden using just the important elements.

I am not claiming I ever understood completely what he meant, but will say, it seemed to boil down to the fact that once I built a mound, I didn't feel compelled to compound my design problems by building a whole colony of them.  Of course, you can find courses of mine where I did just that, but soon found it bad. 

Sorry for the OT, but it seems to relate to DM's "Leave well enough alone."  Or the idea that more is better, also hinted at here.  And perhaps a semantic point, but I still say good design is doing just enough, whatever that may be, than to minimize designs as a point of pride.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()