News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The individual archie progression after leaving a mentor...
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2016, 02:28:48 PM »
Have humps and hollows become excessively smooth over the decades?
Scroll through these photos from Yelverton GC on the edge of Dartmoor in Devon - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48487.msg1494280.html#msg1494280
In America, and perhaps elsewhere, the main reason for this is so people driving golf carts [buggies] across the ground don't get upset.
Thanks for this insight Tom. I could have scratched my head for ages and ages to come up with a list of possible reasons but I wouldn't have thought of this one!😄
Atb

Brett Hochstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The individual archie progression after leaving a mentor...
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2016, 03:31:34 PM »
I've also been thinking more about this lately.  While I proudly stand by the work I've gotten to do with different architects and sites the past few years, I've begun to worry a little about getting pigeon-holed or typecast stylistically.  There are reasons for the particular style--land type and regional contexts among them--but I've begun to be more curious about different styles, particularly those found on heavier soil Golden Age sites in the Northeast.  Those seem to be where creativity and variety still thrive while still having a strong impact upon play. 


What I DON'T have interest in emulating are cookie cutter satellite dish bunkers, most of RTJ's stuff, and anything wholly unnatural and clearly shaped with a D6 while being disconnected from play, like leaving a 10 yard buffer of mowed rough between a bunker and green.  There are reasons and principals for why the current style of architecture persists.  Hazards are tighter to greens and more penal, engaging more risk and thought in approach shots.  Ground contours follow and emulate the ground more closely because we have found that pre-dozer quality to be more desirable and interesting to play than most of the "rape it and shape it" courses.  Bunker edges have reverted to a more "natural" aesthetic or attempted to mimic MacKenzie because nature has been "in" and all of our favorite ODG architects preached the values of mimicking nature.  And if you are truly mimicking nature in sand bunker construction, there is only so much you can do as far as variety goes, excepting the variety that nature itself provides (which can be a lot if you are looking closely).


I've been wondering lately exactly how I would approach my first full project on my own, and some of the points already made here about limited opportunity would certainly factor in.  Would I try out something new, something that might stand out and show the ability to diversify style?  Or do I stick more with what's been working so far?  I'd certainly like to try something new, but I will never abandon my core philosophies to be different only for the sake of being different.  In the end, the most important things will remain the same to me as far as aesthetic choice goes--the site type itself, soils, local geology, and regional architectural context.  The other thing that remains the same--not putting aesthetics ahead of strategy and overall design interest.
"From now on, ask yourself, after every round, if you have more energy than before you began.  'Tis much more important than the score, Michael, much more important than the score."     --John Stark - 'To the Linksland'

http://www.hochsteindesign.com

Tim Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The individual archie progression after leaving a mentor...
« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2016, 06:19:32 PM »
I'd certainly like to try something new, but I will never abandon my core philosophies to be different only for the sake of being different. 


Brett,
This is a great statement, and I think it's very important. Nevertheless, at some point someone will come along who is in fact drastically different without forcing it. People are always gonna try to be different just for the sake of being different, yet I believe that the people who go down as true innovators are those who are sincere in their trendsetting ways. People like Pete Dye and Tom Doak became successful, I believe, not just because they were different, but also because they, as you said, weren't simply being different for the sake of being different. Someday, someone else will come along and be a true innovater within the field of golf course architecture, but it certainly won't be forced.


P.S. I believe that any such innovation won't simply be stylistic in nature, but will likely have to involve a drastic change in theory. This change in theory might lead to stylistic innovation of some sort, but I think it will have to be rooted in the theory.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The individual archie progression after leaving a mentor...
« Reply #28 on: December 16, 2016, 08:35:40 PM »
Have humps and hollows become excessively smooth over the decades?


Scroll through these photos from Yelverton GC on the edge of Dartmoor in Devon - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48487.msg1494280.html#msg1494280



In America, and perhaps elsewhere, the main reason for this is so people driving golf carts [buggies] across the ground don't get upset.


There are a ton of places that don't allow carts off the paths.  In any case, that strikes me as a lame reason because it would be very easy to create ground works which could be driven around.


Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Ludlow, Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: The individual archie progression after leaving a mentor...
« Reply #29 on: December 17, 2016, 03:19:25 AM »

There are a ton of places that don't allow carts off the paths.  In any case, that strikes me as a lame reason because it would be very easy to create ground works which could be driven around.



I didn't say it wasn't lame.


The other [somewhat lame] reason is that you've got to mow the fairways, too.  I know Yelverton can mow theirs, but ask yourself, how many superintendents would choose to create features that are difficult to mow every day, if they didn't exist to begin with?  In fact, 95-98% of them will ask to soften such features even where they do exist.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The individual archie progression after leaving a mentor...
« Reply #30 on: December 17, 2016, 05:29:31 AM »

There are a ton of places that don't allow carts off the paths.  In any case, that strikes me as a lame reason because it would be very easy to create ground works which could be driven around.



I didn't say it wasn't lame.


The other [somewhat lame] reason is that you've got to mow the fairways, too.  I know Yelverton can mow theirs, but ask yourself, how many superintendents would choose to create features that are difficult to mow every day, if they didn't exist to begin with?  In fact, 95-98% of them will ask to soften such features even where they do exist.


While its wonderful that supers and archies can cooperate in designing fun and interesting courses which are affordable to maintain, at some point there is a clear division and the super's job is to maintain what is given to him as best he can.  So yes, that is lame excuse as well  8)   


It could well be that the good and great are not ready for a creative course which is a "shaping contest".  However, there are still opportunities on middle and lower rungs of the ladder.  A Yelverton type course lends itself well to a more rough n' ready maintenance approach which has its place in the golf tent.  I wonder what NGLA looked like back in the day...I bet much more like Yelverton than today's NGLA. No matter how great NGLA is, something is lost when we maintain courses in super pristine condition. 


Ciao 
New plays planned for 2025: Ludlow, Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Peter Pallotta

Re: The individual archie progression after leaving a mentor...
« Reply #31 on: December 17, 2016, 12:16:19 PM »
Has the golf industry inadvertently stumbled onto the same business-model that the electronics industry figured out a long time ago? Is it now about built-in/planned obsolescence, and artificially limited shelf life? Sure: run of the mill golf courses chug along and serve their basic functions (like an old computer that can still be used as a typewriter, but for nothing else); but for any high-end/high quality golf course expensive maintenance and/or continual updates seem to have become the norm: golf's version of windows 8/9/10 and its constant patches, at least until the newest RAM-and-energy-sucking software necessitates that we chuck out the computer itself and start anew. Here's a question: Why do we even wait for a golf course to open anymore -- why not renovate it and replace the grass and lengthen it right now?


     
« Last Edit: December 17, 2016, 12:35:54 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: The individual archie progression after leaving a mentor...
« Reply #32 on: December 17, 2016, 12:37:12 PM »
It could well be that the good and great are not ready for a creative course which is a "shaping contest".  However, there are still opportunities on middle and lower rungs of the ladder.  A Yelverton type course lends itself well to a more rough n' ready maintenance approach which has its place in the golf tent.  I wonder what NGLA looked like back in the day...I bet much more like Yelverton than today's NGLA. No matter how great NGLA is, something is lost when we maintain courses in super pristine condition.


Sean:


"Rough and ready" has its place with me, too -- after all, nearly all of the golf I saw in my younger days, even on the very good courses, was rough and ready by today's standards. 


However, I cannot name a course in America with that as their model in 2016, that is succeeding with it.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The individual archie progression after leaving a mentor...
« Reply #33 on: December 18, 2016, 10:24:56 AM »

It's not just tipping golf carts.  There are max slopes you can maintain bent fairways for example.   I measure areas of stress on my courses.  For bent, its about 22%, depending on the transition blend at the top.  I try to max out at 20%, to give some sluff for construction crews. Bermuda can be steeper in general.


For bent greens, at lower cuts, its about half that.  Anything steeper dries out, has mowers on a turn with blades slightly digging in, and may be in a traffic pattern.  Those combination of stresses nearly always lead to bad turf patches that supers and golfers hate. 


And, as noted, its really the transition from flattish green to steep bank.  It needs to "swoop" up to avoid mowing problems.


So, why build in a perennial maintenance problem if you can avoid it?  We end up with a few even trying to avoid them.


As to rough and ready, I always thought that some of my courses (like the MN ones) were successful precisely because they weren't overly cleaned up.  Golfers heading to the north woods aren't expecting Augusta National and the rougher edges fit the terrain and the image of what the place ought to be.  Also, the business model has to be pay to maintain what golfers like most (i.e., greens) and let edges (like cart path edge trimming, outside paths, etc.) go a bit with occasional maintenance, not wall to wall pristine.


As to planned obsolescence, there is some of that, but not the way Sean proposes.  Take the housing course whose initial job is to sell real estate with shadows, bunkers, etc.  Once the houses are sold, the function of the course changes to everyday members or public course, and the steep shadow banks and numerous bunkers come out as they frustrate golfers.  Other courses change, too - from failed high end private to low end public, and must change as well.  You could even say changing economic conditions (like the depression and great recession) change the needs of the course, as redesign can streamline some costs.


The length issue may be over, and 99% of golfers aren't affected.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The individual archie progression after leaving a mentor...
« Reply #34 on: December 18, 2016, 10:59:38 AM »

There are a ton of places that don't allow carts off the paths.  In any case, that strikes me as a lame reason because it would be very easy to create ground works which could be driven around.



I didn't say it wasn't lame.


The other [somewhat lame] reason is that you've got to mow the fairways, too.  I know Yelverton can mow theirs, but ask yourself, how many superintendents would choose to create features that are difficult to mow every day, if they didn't exist to begin with?  In fact, 95-98% of them will ask to soften such features even where they do exist.


While its wonderful that supers and archies can cooperate in designing fun and interesting courses which are affordable to maintain, at some point there is a clear division and the super's job is to maintain owner's job to pay for what is given to him as best he can.  So yes, that is lame excuse as well  8)   



Sean,

I fixed the above for you. Hope all is well.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The individual archie progression after leaving a mentor...
« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2016, 03:59:51 AM »
It could well be that the good and great are not ready for a creative course which is a "shaping contest".  However, there are still opportunities on middle and lower rungs of the ladder.  A Yelverton type course lends itself well to a more rough n' ready maintenance approach which has its place in the golf tent.  I wonder what NGLA looked like back in the day...I bet much more like Yelverton than today's NGLA. No matter how great NGLA is, something is lost when we maintain courses in super pristine condition.


Sean:


"Rough and ready" has its place with me, too -- after all, nearly all of the golf I saw in my younger days, even on the very good courses, was rough and ready by today's standards. 


However, I cannot name a course in America with that as their model in 2016, that is succeeding with it.

Tom

Lots of places are rough n' ready, only they don't call it that.  When I played Yeamans the first time it very much leaned this way except for the greens...and to be honest, those greens don't need to be quick as they are firm and roll well.  When I played Aiken it felt rough n' ready...liked it much more than the one other pristine course on the trip.


Sorry Kyle...the Super's job is to maintain the course as best he can.  No need for owner qualifiers.  Its a given that every super works with certain constraints. 

Ciao
« Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 04:05:04 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2025: Ludlow, Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The individual archie progression after leaving a mentor...
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2016, 09:28:06 AM »

Sean,


You are sure willing to spend other people's money to attain your vision! ;D


And, BTW, my experience has been that supers change the perennial problems if they can, remodeling specific areas that just cause cost, but rarely affect play as they see it.


I recall my first year in the biz.  I loved those bunkers 20 yards short of the green, but spent a lot of that year renovating them out of some old Chicagoland courses.  The prevailing thought (which I see returning) is why maintain a bunker that isn't/rarely/shouldn't be in play?  40 bunkers cost less than 60, 30 acres of fairway cost less than 40, and flat bunkers cost less in washout repair than sloped ones.  Flat slopes mow easier than steep slopes (although with bunkers, there can be a trade off of maintaining sand on slopes vs. grass on slopes)


Golf management is a tough biz and they want every cost saving measure they can get, even if it means blander design than might otherwise be desired by the architect. Or as TD hints, sometimes good is good enough.  Does great (in the eyes of a few architecture nuts) really draw the crowds?  Anyway, that is the low and mid level architect's lot right now, sometimes correcting their own "excesses."
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The individual archie progression after leaving a mentor...
« Reply #37 on: December 19, 2016, 01:04:06 PM »
Jeff


My point is less maintenance shouldn't necessarily mean bland design and that we don't need lots of bunkers (no matter what style) to create interesting golf.  I didn't call for impossible features to be maintained in pristine condition....you should know my thoughts far better than by now.  I suspect a real rollback in the reliance of sand will take a good and willing archie combined with backing money which is hoping to see a profit without competing against the premium public/resort courses in the US.  In other words...regional/local design which will be largely ignored.  I may be wrong, but I think Wolf Point is really something which is very much along these lines.  I never played the course, but in pix it seems to me almost a design of the future by very much harkening back to the past.


BTW...bunkers short of greens is not something I would target as wasteful features.  If courses are maintained lean and keen...forward bunkers hre and there can be wonderful features  :D


Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Ludlow, Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale