[Tom_Doak]

Jeff B. mentioned on another thread that some "mistakes" in golf architecture are the product of bad instructions from a client as to what they wanted.


I was trying to think back about what were the worst instructions I have received, and thought it would be a good topic for any of us in the business.  You don't have to identify the course or client if you don't want to ... just the instruction.


The first one that comes to mind for me was the client who said he "never wanted to hear someone come in and complain the course was too easy."  We were building his second course, and the first was loudly dismissed as not being challenging enough, in a period when many "exciting" new courses were being added to the area and sucking up all the attention.


I managed to succeed in fulfilling his wishes, but went too far ... many think the course is too hard, and it has struggled for years now.  Its location doesn't help.

[Randy Thompson]

I managed to succeed in fulfilling his wishes, but went too far ... many think the course is too hard, and it has struggled for years now.  Its location doesn't help.


HiTom,
Before I Kiss and tell a few questions. .1. If said client called today and asked you to do a thiid course but a little harder then the second, would you take it?  2. To hard is subjective, although I have played my share of them but it`s hard to visión you creating one. Not sure how long ago you built this but fifteen to twenty years ago there was a fairly good sized market that got off on Arc-i-torture. In your opinión, what plays bigger, the difficulty perception of the course or the location or a combination of other developer errors. Giving marching orders to you was his first mistake.

[JWL]

Tom
I redesigned a course and was given to the charge to make it really demanding.   So much so that I was told that if it wasn't really considered difficult, then the money spent was wasted.   I took it as far as I could go, and it still wasn't enough.    There are certainly greens on the course that I would like to redo if given the opportunity.   

[Steve Okula]

One course I worked at as the superintendent the owner was obsessed with making the course ever longer, and was always wanting us to build tees further back. He provided limited resources, the site was naturally wooded, and we didn't have permisson to cut down trees. In order to gain visibility we had to raise the platforms, so we ended up with all these truncated cones that nobody ever played with no grass on them stuck back up in the shade of the trees (but it was long on the card, which is all he cared about). I suggested once we could simplify the project by just building wooden platforms covered in artificial turf up in the branches of the trees. 

The same owner thought extremely small, revetted pot bunkers were cool and we had these manholes accessed by stairways where you could only swing a wedge if you were lucky enough to be in the exact center. 

[Tom_Doak]

Randy:  the project I described  was my third solo design (opened 1991) and I was excited to try something different. Or maybe I could blame my exuberance on my crew (Gil Hanse and Mike DeVries)!


If I got the same request today it would be the start of a different conversation.  I'm not opposed to building a very difficult course in the right situation, but an isolated resort location probably isn't the spot.  And even if I was trying to build a very hard course, I'd get the balance of playability a bit better.


This seems like a good spot to remember the silliest marching orders I ever heard given to Pete Dye, by Ernie Vossler at PGA West:


"We don't want an ideal course.  We want the hardest course in the world.  We want it to be so hard that people in Japan, who have never been here, are complaining about it.  We're going to build four other courses for regular golfers, so I don't even care if we build forward tees for this one."  (It's been a long time and I hope my memory is accurate on that quote but it was hard to forget!)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Had to think a little, but the developer who started me out with the charge of creating the longest course in TX as a marketing tool, and then wanted any cart ride required between holes to make sure the course touched all parts of his 1600 acres has to be tops.  He later decided the longest course wasn't great marketing after all, and we were able to shorten the course to "only" 7600 yards.  And, some of that was a result of a few killer back tees with 40-50 yards difference from the next tee back.


The most interesting was the Japanese owner at Wild Wing in Myrtle Beach.  After two relatively pedestrian (but well within the norm of those times for MB) Willard Byrd courses, he began speaking adamantly (mostly in Japanese) at an early meeting.  At some point, he blurted out his main idea - "More fru fru".


And the most common sense came from Wilderness at Fortune Bay, after seeing my first two nearby courses at Giant's Ridge.  "We think you should split the difference in difficulty between the two, sort of the "porridge is just right" sort of mentality."


Actually that sort of market analysis isn't bad. Many business types study markets for gaps in difficulty and more importantly price range.  Right now, too many courses discount to rock bottom, and a few remain top end.  Sometimes, you find there is a gap at say, $45 and try to build a course that feels like $75 value, but can be played at the sweet spot of $45.

[Jason Topp]

Actually that sort of market analysis isn't bad. Many business types study markets for gaps in difficulty and more importantly price range.  Right now, too many courses discount to rock bottom, and a few remain top end.  Sometimes, you find there is a gap at say, $45 and try to build a course that feels like $75 value, but can be played at the sweet spot of $45.

That is an interesting point Jeff.  Do owners typically give you an expected revenue and annual expense target?  Do many owners accurately estimate those figures? 

[Greg Tallman]

Tom
I redesigned a course and was given to the charge to make it really demanding.   So much so that I was told that if it wasn't really considered difficult, then the money spent was wasted.   I took it as far as I could go, and it still wasn't enough.    There are certainly greens on the course that I would like to redo if given the opportunity.

I can't help but think you've gotten worse orders than that Jim

[Jeff_Brauer]

Actually that sort of market analysis isn't bad. Many business types study markets for gaps in difficulty and more importantly price range.  Right now, too many courses discount to rock bottom, and a few remain top end.  Sometimes, you find there is a gap at say, $45 and try to build a course that feels like $75 value, but can be played at the sweet spot of $45.

That is an interesting point Jeff.  Do owners typically give you an expected revenue and annual expense target?  Do many owners accurately estimate those figures?

These days, a business consultant is pretty frequent on the team.  There is a lot of debate about how accurate projections can be. And consultants are rarely deemed to be liable, since weather, course conditions, service, design, etc. all play a part in how many rounds can be played.  But, NGF has pretty good data on how many players are likely to be in a region, and if you take players x ave rounds per year/number of courses, you should get a base line of how many rounds you can expect. 


The tricky part is figuring what bump you get from being the newest remodeled (or just new) course on the block, and how long it will last.  Conservative consultants and banks only count on the course getting the same amount of rounds as everyone else.  Some figure plus 10% or more. 


And, the design does play a part.  Very few golfers are really looking for the toughest course around.  As discussed on the "could play every day" thread, the top priorities are rarely signature design and demanding courses.

[JWL]

Well, Greg, now that you mention it.....

[Steve Okula]

And, the design does play a part.  Very few golfers are really looking for the toughest course around.  As discussed on the "could play every day" thread, the top priorities are rarely signature design and demanding courses.

Numerous studies have shown that course conditions are the first priority for golfers, but then conditions can be dependent  as much  on design and construction as they are on resources and know-how.

[Jeff_Brauer]

And, the design does play a part.  Very few golfers are really looking for the toughest course around.  As discussed on the "could play every day" thread, the top priorities are rarely signature design and demanding courses.

Numerous studies have shown that course conditions are the first priority for golfers, but then conditions can be dependent  as much  on design and construction as they are on resources and know-how.

Agreed maintenance is no. 1, but in the case of a course I am remodeling, often called the worst course on the best site in East Tx, word of mouth on a new design gets them there once.  After that, they must enjoy the course, but maintenance is definitely the first thing they recall.  Just look at the GD places to play, as voted by golfers themselves, or any of the golf sites.  Comments usually mixed in like "Great course, greens are in great condition."  Unlike this group, they sort of mix things together.  They may not know why they like it, but they do.  And, it probably isn't because of "great strategy."


As you mention, sometimes it leads to different design decisions based on budget and proposed greens fee. I have seen architects put in single row irrigation, but shape wall to wall. IMHO, they should have shaped less and put in more irrigation, granting it might be able to be added later if planned for, but it really isn't efficient.

[Ian Andrew]

It's easier when you no longer work there to talk about something like that.


I was about five years into a restoration of CC of Scranton, when the committee had a complete change or leadership. I was originally hired to restore the course back to its origins. The new committee instructed me to build modern flashy bunkers on what I believed was a great original example of his architecture.


They got what they wanted ... with someone else.

[Carl Rogers]

Has anyone ever asked any of you to do a course hard enough for a US Open Qualifier?

[Randy Thompson]

It's easier when you no longer work there to talk about something like that.


I was about five years into a restoration of CC of Scranton, when the committee had a complete change or leadership. I was originally hired to restore the course back to its origins. The new committee instructed me to build modern flashy bunkers on what I believed was a great original example of his architecture.


They got what they wanted ... with someone else.

Being rich isn`t important in this field but having enough food on the table to walk,  in these type of situations,  will be sufficient compensation for me.!

[Bill_McBride]

I managed to succeed in fulfilling his wishes, but went too far ... many think the course is too hard, and it has struggled for years now.  Its location doesn't help.


HiTom,
Before I Kiss and tell a few questions. .1. If said client called today and asked you to do a thiid course but a little harder then the second, would you take it?  2. To hard is subjective, although I have played my share of them but it`s hard to visión you creating one. Not sure how long ago you built this but fifteen to twenty years ago there was a fairly good sized market that got off on Arc-i-torture. In your opinión, what plays bigger, the difficulty perception of the course or the location or a combination of other developer errors. Giving marching orders to you was his first mistake.

It's hard to envision Tom Doak building a course that's too hard?   I guess I'd agree with that, maybe delete the "too" so the adjective is just "hard."    I have always found his courses to look sort of easy - wide fairways, accessible greens more or less - but you add up your score and look back and realize the angles and contours of the greens make it "hard" to post the score you think you could have.  It's subtle but devastating. 

[Bill_McBride]

One course I worked at as the superintendent the owner was obsessed with making the course ever longer, and was always wanting us to build tees further back. He provided limited resources, the site was naturally wooded, and we didn't have permisson to cut down trees. In order to gain visibility we had to raise the platforms, so we ended up with all these truncated cones that nobody ever played with no grass on them stuck back up in the shade of the trees (but it was long on the card, which is all he cared about). I suggested once we could simplify the project by just building wooden platforms covered in artificial turf up in the branches of the trees. 

The same owner thought extremely small, revetted pot bunkers were cool and we had these manholes accessed by stairways where you could only swing a wedge if you were lucky enough to be in the exact center.

The Reef Club on Key Largo has two of those wooden platforms, very strange.  The raised platforms remind me of the way back 4th tee at Oakmont, which is so out of character.   It's sad that clubs feel they have to use such poor tactics to add length for the sake of length.

[James Brown]

And, the design does play a part.  Very few golfers are really looking for the toughest course around.  As discussed on the "could play every day" thread, the top priorities are rarely signature design and demanding courses.

Numerous studies have shown that course conditions are the first priority for golfers, but then conditions can be dependent  as much  on design and construction as they are on resources and know-how.

Agreed maintenance is no. 1, but in the case of a course I am remodeling, often called the worst course on the best site in East Tx, word of mouth on a new design gets them there once.  After that, they must enjoy the course, but maintenance is definitely the first thing they recall.  Just look at the GD places to play, as voted by golfers themselves, or any of the golf sites.  Comments usually mixed in like "Great course, greens are in great condition."  Unlike this group, they sort of mix things together.  They may not know why they like it, but they do.  And, it probably isn't because of "great strategy."


As you mention, sometimes it leads to different design decisions based on budget and proposed greens fee. I have seen architects put in single row irrigation, but shape wall to wall. IMHO, they should have shaped less and put in more irrigation, granting it might be able to be added later if planned for, but it really isn't efficient.

It's hard to enjoy the architecture if the conditions suck.

[Tom_Doak]

Has anyone ever asked any of you to do a course hard enough for a US Open Qualifier?

I had a potential client ask if we could build an 8,000 yard course that could host the U.S. Open.  I guffawed, thinking he was crazy.  That's how I lost out on building Erin Hills!

[Dave McCollum]

I'm not qualified to comment, but I do affirm that most golfers don't want harder courses.  This doesn't bother me.  What I like are more interesting puzzles, more options to play a hole based on conditions, a lot of short par 4's that require precision or failure (reward/risk).  I think I am in a minority position on this as well.  Posters are also correct that most golfers consider conditioning more important than great architecture.  They don't really know the difference.  We frequently have the best playing surfaces (my subjective opinion)  and are criticized for not being lush and green.  My instructions to an architect to renovate my course would be:  how can we make it more fun?  When I'm in an honest moment with myself, I think we could maybe improve our course 1measley Doak point, from 5 to 6, and it would cost us half a million +. Much of it would be a necessary upgrade in irrigation.  But it wouldn't be that much more to take our good bones to new level.  Do my current customers support this?  Emphatically no.  Would the the affluent golfers come if I built it, perhaps based on unique scenery/landscape.  Yet my gut says probably not without marketing beyond our means.  So, my problem remains how to make the most of what we have, to make it work, and not dream beyond our means.  Pretty boring stuff.               

[Tony Ristola]

Potential marching orders.


On a good undulating piece of land, on one of the better sites in the country, one of the owners came up with the idea to run a competition in a national magazine for the design of each hole, figuring it would be a marketing coup. One hole OK... perhaps, but 18? Oi !!! I told him it was a bad idea, which probably didn't do much for my chances.


Luckily, they came up with that idea too late for the renovation of the first 9-holes. Hopefully they'll forget about it for the second 9-holes.

[Tom_Doak]

Potential marching orders.


On a good undulating piece of land, on one of the better sites in the country, one of the owners came up with the idea to run a competition in a national magazine for the design of each hole, figuring it would be a marketing coup.

Tony:


I read somewhere that Mike Keiser considered the same approach for the original course at Bandon Dunes, and that Ron Whitten talked him out of it.

[Tony Ristola]

Potential marching orders.


On a good undulating piece of land, on one of the better sites in the country, one of the owners came up with the idea to run a competition in a national magazine for the design of each hole, figuring it would be a marketing coup.

Tony:


I read somewhere that Mike Keiser considered the same approach for the original course at Bandon Dunes, and that Ron Whitten talked him out of it.

If you'd make a bet today, he would have been one of the last guys one would expect to go for something like that considering what he's built.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Randy:  the project I described  was my third solo design (opened 1991) and I was excited to try something different. Or maybe I could blame my exuberance on my crew (Gil Hanse and Mike DeVries)!


If I got the same request today it would be the start of a different conversation.  I'm not opposed to building a very difficult course in the right situation, but an isolated resort location probably isn't the spot.  And even if I was trying to build a very hard course, I'd get the balance of playability a bit better.


This seems like a good spot to remember the silliest marching orders I ever heard given to Pete Dye, by Ernie Vossler at PGA West:


"We don't want an ideal course.  We want the hardest course in the world.  We want it to be so hard that people in Japan, who have never been here, are complaining about it.  We're going to build four other courses for regular golfers, so I don't even care if we build forward tees for this one."  (It's been a long time and I hope my memory is accurate on that quote but it was hard to forget!)

That makes me feel good that I shot 69-70 there last weekend to win the Golfweek Senior event😉😉

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Tom
I redesigned a course and was given to the charge to make it really demanding.   So much so that I was told that if it wasn't really considered difficult, then the money spent was wasted.   I took it as far as I could go, and it still wasn't enough.    There are certainly greens on the course that I would like to redo if given the opportunity.

I can't help but think you've gotten worse orders than that Jim

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()