[Jim_Coleman]

Pete Dye has said that he only had to design 11 holes at Teeth of the Dog.  "The Big Guy" built the other 7.

[BCrosby]

I don't really agree with the premise here. On any such hole, the architect did one, utterly crucial thing: he decided to put the golf hole there.

Exactly. 

What is important is 'seeing' a golf hole. If that requires no earth-moving or if that requires extensive earth-moving, it doesn't matter. What matters is the ability to envision the hole. That is the value-add of an architect. 

Bob

[Mike_Young]

I don't really agree with the premise here. On any such hole, the architect did one, utterly crucial thing: he decided to put the golf hole there.

also agree....never thought of it that way...

[Jud_T]

Wasn't the original pitch for Erin Hills that they only moved more than a teaspoon of dirt on two holes?  Funny that they're on what, their fourth iteration?

[Kirk Gill]

There's this old saw:

“In every block of marble I see a statue as plain as though it stood before me, shaped and perfect in attitude and action. I have only to hew away the rough walls that imprison the lovely apparition to reveal it to the other eyes as mine see it.”

                                                                                                    -Michelangelo

[Kevin_Reilly]

You've got to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a guy burning down a bar for the insurance money (if he makes it look like an electrical thing). If you do it right, they'll never know you've done anything at all.

Bonus points to anyone who identifies the source of this (paraphrased) quotation.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756880/quotes

[Brent Hutto]

You've got to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a guy burning down a bar for the insurance money (if he makes it look like an electrical thing). If you do it right, they'll never know you've done anything at all.

Bonus points to anyone who identifies the source of this (paraphrased) quotation.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756880/quotes

There it is!

[Terry Lavin]

The 5th at Beverly is a straight away mid-length par-4 hole that has OB at the back of the tee and OB the along the right side for the entire length of the hole.  The architect HAD to put a hole here.  At 415 yards from the hemmed-in tee box is the top of horizontally moving ridge that cuts across the front nine, leaving the architect a perfect site for a plateau green.  He HAD to put the green there.  Having said all that, the hole just might be the best on the property, especially after Ron Prichard put some angles back in the hole which had been reduced to a bowling alley like corridor due to overplanting of trees.  So, I guess the second architect did something!

[Keith Grande]

I'd certainly list Lahinch Holes #4 (Klondyke) and #5 (Dell).

[Tom_Doak]

I guess I have a hard time with this part of the premise:

1) the site and layout for the golf hole was so compelling that virtually any architect would have included it in the course routing

In my experience of looking at sites that other architects have looked at previously, I rarely see much overlap; for example, none of the holes I routed at Sebonack were similar to what Jack Nicklaus' office had routed before.  [I try not to look at any previous plan before I've studied the topos without it; I didn't see the Nicklaus routings until months after I'd done mine.] 

It's just not as clear-cut as you think; once you put even a couple of holes down on paper, you start thinking in a certain direction, say clockwise or counter-clockwise, and you're liable to miss even "obvious" holes that another architect saw because he was looking at it differently.

i did notice that David Kidd had a couple of holes on his routing at Sand Valley that are very similar to holes I'd routed at for that part of the ground.  [I did two routings there for different parts of the site; Mr. Keiser only looked at the other one.]  Those holes were in areas where you had to make transitions over a steep ridge, and we both found the same way over.  But, because David's clubhouse is in a different location than mine, he wasn't headed the same way once he got over, so the rest of the plans were totally different.

Golf holes only seem obvious once you've found them.

[Thomas Dai]

Would lack of available funds and lack of machines not have a major effecton what the architect did? Is that why there's more 'natural' holes/green sites on yee olde period courses?
atb

[JESII]

Golf holes only seem obvious once you've found them.

Good line. I think that's why I've always had a hard time even imagining whether a routing is good or bad.


To the thread topic, #5 at Merion is pretty much on the ground as I'd imagine it was before, other than the bunker 40 yards short right which really does impact the play of the hole when it's firm.

[Peter Pallotta]

It is a good line, as is the recognition of the impact on our ability to judge routings. That is why aesthetics and playability and routing can sometimes seem to dovetail/merge together, i.e. if a golf hole looks (aesthetics) as if it's been there a hundred years, it probably means that it is a good golf hole (playability) and one that fits into the whole course (routing) very naturally.

Peter

[Tim Lewis]

The best courses always have been and will continue to be "found" not built.  Not everyone can "find" one.  ALSO, not every client ask for a course to be "found" due to other issues that eliminate that luxury.

I don't believe this. Nor do I believe that the best courses are created. I have come to believe that the best golf holes, and therefore the best golf courses are neither found nor created, but simply happen. To me, TOC is the most true, pure, adventurous, exhilarating, and gratifying golfing experience in the world, and it is preposterous to say that those golf holes were "found." TOC simply happened and that is what makes it so great.

[Tim_Weiman]

I don't really agree with the premise here. On any such hole, the architect did one, utterly crucial thing: he decided to put the golf hole there.

Adam,

In case I didn't make it clear, I actually agree that is a pretty big deal. Nonetheless, I still feel it is interesting to examine whether one could really argue the "architect didn't do anything" and tried to layout the requirements for meeting this standard.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Doak,

A basic lesson in the point you make can be found at one of the great undeveloped potential golf course sites: Inch.

I was stunned when Arthur Spring took me there years ago. Everywhere one looked you could see golf holes. However, I never imagined I had seen the best golf course. Just potential sites - many of them - for individual holes.

So, by no means am I suggesting it is easy to identify golf holes that meet all the criteria I listed. I accept that it is difficult, especially if one has the "inside knowledge" of a practicing architect. It is us non professional golf architecture junkies that might be foolish enough to think it is easy to find hole where the "architect didn't do anything".

Nonetheless, it strikes me as an interesting exercise. Perhaps another architect might have come up with a radically different design than Mackenzie did at Crystal Downs. Perhaps you could do it tomorrow with a site topo.

But, so many of the holes seem to so naturally fit the landscape that it appears Mackenzie's genius was being the architect that didn't do anything. A contradiction, of course!

[JC Urbina]

Tim,

A very interesting topic and one I have been debating with golf aficionados for years.  One of the most enjoyable walks I had at Pacific Dunes was with Ron Whitten and Mike Keiser.  I was quizzing Ron as we walked all 18 holes if he could tell what was created and what was natural.

 Ron has a great eye for landforms so for the most part he had a good idea what we had done; he was surprised on more then one occasion what had been adjusted.  I can tell you some of the green sites were totally created and others simply sitting there.

I have photos of almost every hole including the 13th hole at Pacific Dunes before construction started, people would be surprised.

Tim, the real question might be, if the landform was created does it compliment the natural features surrounding the golf hole making the green, bunker or teeing ground blending as naturally to its surrounding environment as possible.

Would you care if the hole looked a-natural when in fact it may have been massaged for strategy sake, I am not sure I would?

I think about Cypress Point all the time when this topic comes up, should we care what Robert Hunter had to do to get this golf course set in this most beautiful location.

Tim,

a discussion worth continuing.  Do golf raters consider that when rating a course.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim,

Thanks for your comments. Pacific Dunes would certainly be an interesting course to consider hole by hole, especially because it has a combination of natural feel and, should I say, a bit of quirkiness that lends a feeling of authenticity. Put another way. Pacific Dunes isn't Shadow Creek!

Anyway, my title "great hole, but the architect didn't do anything" may have been misread. I actually mean it as a compliment and do acknowledge that architects have to play a role not just God!

Out of curiosity, I know from previous conservation with you and Tom that you well remember and documented the creative process for Pacific Dunes. I imagine this was done for Old Macdonald as well. But, do you know how many of the famous old classic courses where sufficient documentation exists to assess whether there are holes where the "architect didn't do anything"?

Can we discuss specific holes at Cypress Point, for example? Or St Andrews? Or NGLA? Etc.

[Mike_Young]

The best courses always have been and will continue to be "found" not built.  Not everyone can "find" one.  ALSO, not every client ask for a course to be "found" due to other issues that eliminate that luxury.

I don't believe this. Nor do I believe that the best courses are created. I have come to believe that the best golf holes, and therefore the best golf courses are neither found nor created, but simply happen. To me, TOC is the most true, pure, adventurous, exhilarating, and gratifying golfing experience in the world, and it is preposterous to say that those golf holes were "found." TOC simply happened and that is what makes it so great.

hmmmm.....who realized TOC holes just "happened"?  IMHO if it was possible that could have "happened" in another pattern or routing or order, then it was found...

[Mike_Young]

 Do golf raters consider that when rating a course.

I'm not sure they realize when and if it happened to begin with.  (especially if it is done correctly)

[Tim_Weiman]

 Do golf raters consider that when rating a course.

I'm not sure they realize when and if it happened to begin with.  (especially if it is done correctly)

Mike:

Can you identify any holes that meet the criteria? Would any holes at Augusta meet the test?

[Mike_Young]

 Do golf raters consider that when rating a course.

I'm not sure they realize when and if it happened to begin with.  (especially if it is done correctly)

Mike:

Can you identify any holes that meet the criteria? Would any holes at Augusta meet the test?

I would think 8 would be one.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tom Doak,

A basic lesson in the point you make can be found at one of the great undeveloped potential golf course sites: Inch.

I was stunned when Arthur Spring took me there years ago. Everywhere one looked you could see golf holes. However, I never imagined I had seen the best golf course. Just potential sites - many of them - for individual holes.

So, by no means am I suggesting it is easy to identify golf holes that meet all the criteria I listed. I accept that it is difficult, especially if one has the "inside knowledge" of a practicing architect. It is us non professional golf architecture junkies that might be foolish enough to think it is easy to find hole where the "architect didn't do anything".

Nonetheless, it strikes me as an interesting exercise. Perhaps another architect might have come up with a radically different design than Mackenzie did at Crystal Downs. Perhaps you could do it tomorrow with a site topo.

But, so many of the holes seem to so naturally fit the landscape that it appears Mackenzie's genius was being the architect that didn't do anything. A contradiction, of course!

I might slightly disagree with Tom here. On a good site, for someone with a good eye for landforms, I think it is relatively easy to see interesting holes. What is much more difficult is seeing 18 of them that join together. I also think that most pick out the obvious (such as a valley) when the obvious isn't always the best (or in the words of Tom Simpson is almost never the best).

To Jim's point, I also enjoy the idea of taking someone round a golf course I've been involved in and seeing if they can tell what was created / adjusted and what wasn't.

[Sean_A]

I am in Adam's camp, even by doing nothing (which is never true...the archie has to do something even if its just sticking a hole in the ground), the choice to do nothing is significant in itself.  The one odd thing about the original premise is keeping to the concept of naturalism.  I could care less if a hole looks or is manufactured or natural.  The goal should be to create good holes...if they are found great...if they are built great.  The one thing not to do is fail at making a hole look natural...or perhaps worse...create a "new golf look" which gave us waterfalls, monochrome green grass and neat little lines as if the course was a garden....that was and is a very bad path for architecture.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I am in Adam's camp, even by doing nothing (which is never true...the archie has to do something even if its just sticking a hole in the ground), the choice to do nothing is significant in itself.  The one odd thing about the original premise is keeping to the concept of naturalism.  I could care less if a hole looks or is manufactured or natural.  The goal should be to create good holes...if they are found great...if they are built great.  The one thing not to do is fail at making a hole look natural...or perhaps worse...create a "new golf look" which gave us waterfalls, monochrome green grass and neat little lines as if the course was a garden....that was and is a very bad path for architecture.

Ciao

Don't really understand this one, Sean? Obviously it's better not to fail but do you agree it's better to try and fail than to create something obviously artificial (given that you need to create something)?.... Or perhaps your point is do nothing rather than try and maybe fail.... But unfortunately that isn't always an option...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()