[Will Lozier]

Congrats to Tom Doak for being hired to build the fourth course at SV and for this really neat idea of a "smaller, shorter" course. Having played Rye, St. Enodoc, Swinley, The Addington, and West Hill (a ton!), I have to say this seems like a great idea and for great reasons.


I will say Tom's comments about the trend of width, which he rightly takes initial credit for promoting and even mastering, seem to semi-bash DMK's new SV course, especially considering the recent questioning of that courses' strategic requirements on GCA. But, I can't argue that this is perhaps a great opportunity to work that idea backwards a bit.


I have yet to visit SV and am now more excited than ever to head up there in the next 3-4 years.


Cheers

[Tom_Doak]

Congrats to Tom Doak for being hired to build the fourth course at SV and for this really neat idea of a "smaller, shorter" course. Having played Rye, St. Enodoc, Swinley, The Addington, and West Hill (a ton!), I have to say this seems like a great idea and for great reasons.

I will say Tom's comments about the trend of width, which he rightly takes initial credit for promoting and even mastering, seem to semi-bash DMK's new SV course, especially considering the recent questioning of that courses' strategic requirements on GCA. But, I can't argue that this is perhaps a great opportunity to work that idea backwards a bit.

I have yet to visit SV and am now more excited than ever to head up there in the next 3-4 years.

Will:  Thanks for your note, and for providing a better place to address the above.


One of the first notes of congratulations I got after the announcement was from David Kidd.  He and I are seen as public rivals, because certain magazine writers have tried to stir the shit, and because I've made the same sorts of criticisms of his courses that I have made . . . of everyone else's courses. 


I had a few beers with David at Streamsong in December [while he was trying to convince Rich Mack to let him build another course there    ], and I don't believe there are any hard feelings between us.  There never have been on my end; until Sand Valley I had never competed with David for a job, and everything I write in The Confidential Guide is meant as constructive criticism.  [Some may believe otherwise, but I think that reflects what lies in their hearts, because they don't know what's in mine.] 


David, at that point, said he was lobbying pretty hard for me to get the third course, because [in jest or not] he really wants to beat me head to head there.


I just figure if we build something like Swinley Forest, that will be a win, whether 60% of people prefer David's course, or 40%.  I really hope it's not 80-20 either way, as that would be a bad result for the client.


I do not think I'm the only one who believes the trend of width has gone too far, and needs to find its center again.  I've had conversations with more than one person in the golf business who says so, in private. 


But of course, I am the only one who would say it on the record.  No other architect would touch that subject with a 100-foot pole right now, not just out of general political correctness, but also because they all want to work at Sand Valley next, and don't want to take a chance of saying anything that would offend Mike. 


Funny how that worked out. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom -- the old vaudeville performers were fond of noting that it was called "show business" for a reason. You're in the "golf business", and you've got my admiration for being able to walk that knife-edge for so long and so well. Off one edge, if you don't honour the 'business', the risk of no meaningful/successful career whatsoever; off the other edge, if you don't honour the 'golf', a career based on being a gun-for-hire, following trends instead of establishing them and executing a client's vision instead of fighting for your own. In my own former profession, I wasn't able to walk that knife-edge very well (or to my satisfaction)-- and unless someone has tried, I don't think they can know how hard it is to do. But all that aside, and most importantly, I think it's a very good thing for golf that a high profile resort will have a walkable, compact, 6200 yard course that, at Par 68, will offer a wide variety of golfers a wide variety of genuine challenge.
(Excuse me though: I will likely continue to prod you and others for less width, less sand, less Par 5s, more compact routings, and some re-balancing of the fun-challenge equation that's more in-line with golf's first 150 years or so. It's my prerogative as a rank amateur!  )   
Peter
     

[Derek_Duncan]

I do not think I'm the only one who believes the trend of width has gone too far, and needs to find its center again.  I've had conversations with more than one person in the golf business who says so, in private. 


But of course, I am the only one who would say it on the record.  No other architect would touch that subject with a 100-foot pole right now, not just out of general political correctness, but also because they all want to work at Sand Valley next, and don't want to take a chance of saying anything that would offend Mike. 


Funny how that worked out.

Ian Andrew talked about it pretty directly with me on my podcast last spring, and other's have broached the subject as well. I think quite a few people in the business have been sensing that width has gone to an unfavorable extreme. I think people saw SS Black and Mammoth open back to back and realize the trend has probably played out. Even Bill Coore insinuated as much.

[Tom_Doak]

I do not think I'm the only one who believes the trend of width has gone too far, and needs to find its center again.  I've had conversations with more than one person in the golf business who says so, in private. 


But of course, I am the only one who would say it on the record.  No other architect would touch that subject with a 100-foot pole right now, not just out of general political correctness, but also because they all want to work at Sand Valley next, and don't want to take a chance of saying anything that would offend Mike. 


Funny how that worked out.

Ian Andrew talked about it pretty directly with me on my podcast last spring, and other's have broached the subject as well. I think quite a few people in the business have been sensing that width has gone to an unfavorable extreme. I think people saw SS Black and Mammoth open back to back and realize the trend has probably played out. Even Bill Coore insinuated as much.

Ian probably didn't think he was in the running for a future job there, so he felt free to speak his mind.  Bill Coore would have said anything in the most gentlemanly way possible, so that most people wouldn't even notice.


BTW, I've asked Ian if he is interested in consulting with us on the course.  He is one of the two people [besides me] who has been most vocal about this concept in recent years -- including a thread on GCA not that long ago, when he had no idea that we were already discussing that exact idea for Sand Valley.  The other person may decline, so they shall remain nameless, for now.

[Will Lozier]

Tom,


From the topo routing, it looks to me like there may be a few Alps-type approaches. Am I seeing it correctly? Furthermore, what you be willing to share with us about particular holes you have in your mind or even the "look" of the course - bunkering, greensites, how much earthmoving will be required, etc.?


Finally, if Ian isn't interested, I'd be happy to consult!    No...really!!


Cheers

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,


Did you do an informal contest when you built Dismal Red to have a "lucky" winner come out and work with your team for a week?  I'll bet there'd be a few who would love to see the process work up close at SV....

[Tom_Doak]

From the topo routing, it looks to me like there may be a few Alps-type approaches. Am I seeing it correctly? Furthermore, what you be willing to share with us about particular holes you have in your mind or even the "look" of the course - bunkering, greensites, how much earthmoving will be required, etc.?

You are seeing that correctly.


As to the rest, we are still more than a year away from even starting to build this course, so I have not even started to think about many of the details you're asking about.  There are a few holes where I have a better idea of what I might build:  I'd say those are 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 18.  I've got plenty of time to think about the rest.




We will need to do near zero earthmoving for the holes that are closest to the clubhouse, except maybe at those Alps-type green sites.  [I'm inclined to think we will keep one of them more natural, and hollow out the other approach so you can see into it.]  We might do some dramatic things for #6, 7, 9, 12 and 13, depending on how we feel the rest of the course stacks up.  I know Sean A has weighed in on leaving some very flat holes, but Mr. Keiser's input was me to do a bit more than I would have on the flattest holes at Pacific Dunes, so we shall see.  When I discussed that with Michael K. he mentioned that the soil borings show that the sand on site was hundreds of feet deep ... so if we want to jazz things up, we have the material at hand.


For now, I'm perfectly content to think of the place in terms of the other great 6200-yard courses I've seen, and perhaps even make a study trip next year to some of them.  It's been ages since I played Rye and Cavendish and Swinley Forest -- 1995, I think -- and even longer since I saw Pulborough.  I've reviewed all of them quite nicely in my books, so hopefully we will get a nice reception. 

[Michael George]

Tom - Congratulations on the assignment.

With resort courses, it is always hard to make sure that each course is different, yet still great golf.  I applaud you, and Mike Keiser.  At Bandon and now Sand Valley, you have found a different style of golf course that still provides a great golf experience.  Old Macdonald was the perfect 4th course for Bandon and this new course likewise looks like a great course, but still distinguishable enough to provide variety for the golfer.
I just wish the timeline was quicker as I want to visit but now want to wait to see your course.

[Tom_Doak]

I just wish the timeline was quicker as I want to visit but now want to wait to see your course.

Maybe if everybody keeps saying this it will make them get going faster.


Not really, though; if they stopped making money that wouldn't be a good thing for course 4.

[James Brown]

From the Golf Digest article today:


“Keiser and Doak both discussed [/size]Swinley Forest, the 6,000-yard par-69 classic design that opened in 1910 in England, No. 37 on our last World 100 rankings[/color][/size], as inspiration for how a course can be special while lacking length or difficulty.”
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]Swinley Forest is no pushover.   [/size][/size]I don’t know why anyone would see that a par 68 Course with what looks like 5 par-threes lacks difficulty, at least when it comes to the differentials one would shoot on it. 

[Tom_Doak]

From the Golf Digest article today:


“Keiser and Doak both discussed Swinley Forest, the 6,000-yard par-69 classic design that opened in 1910 in England, No. 37 on our last World 100 rankings, as inspiration for how a course can be special while lacking length or difficulty.”

I did not talk to Ron Whitten today, although he wouldn't have found me at the office if he did try.


I doubt he has ever been to Swinley Forest.  It isn't as difficult as Rye, but it is not a pushover, for reasons cited in the other thread.


And, remember, 6200 yards is the max length.  I suspect that will get a lot of people to play the back tees, instead of the middle tees as they would if it were 6900 yards par 72.  But at the end of the day they may find out that it's the character of the holes that counts, not the total of the yardages.  We could make this as hard as Pine Valley if we wanted to, but my client would not be on board with that.

[JC Jones]

Tom, I can’t read topo maps very well.  I never know whether the lines indicate a hill or a valley; so, keep that in mind when I ask this:


Is the 7th hole inspired by 5 at CD?  If so, have you ever found a site worthy of emulating that hole prior but refrained from the homage?  If not, or if I’m way off, never mind.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, I can’t read topo maps very well.  I never know whether the lines indicate a hill or a valley; so, keep that in mind when I ask this:


Is the 7th hole inspired by 5 at CD?  If so, have you ever found a site worthy of emulating that hole prior but refrained from the homage?  If not, or if I’m way off, never mind.

I don't think you are reading the map correctly.  The topo on #7 is pretty gentle.


As to the general question, yes, I've thought about trying to build a hole like that if I ever found the right spot, but to be honest, I don't know if I'd find it if it was right there on the map.  I'm just not trained to look for driving over a ridge.  I've always presumed that was the last piece of MacKenzie's routing rather than the first - that he found 7 green and 8 and 6, and then had to improvise something for 5.  Which makes it all the more amazing.


I once did a rough estimate of how much cut and fill it would take to create that hole from flat land, if you could start at the median and cut as deep as necessary without drainage issues.  It wasn't nearly as much as I would have guessed ... small potatoes in the earthmoving budgets of the 1990's.  Too bad none of those guys had any imagination about trying something wild.

[jeffwarne]

My favorite courses rarely top out over 6200 yards(and often are closer to 5000 yards), especially from the tees that a visitor is invited to play from (although opening all tees to visitors is becoming more common overseas).


Secondly, I'd guess 80-90% of the rounds played in the world are played from 6200 yards or less.
Women, Seniors.Jrs., Higher handicappers, multiple tees pushing the average tee forward, tees placed forward of scorecard yardages by operators to speed play.


Thirdly, I love the idea that a course would be more compact, smaller scale and require less sets of tees for different skill sets. i.e. Many/Most 10 handicappers and below play Southampton and Palmetto from the same back tees the Club Champ and Pro plays-increasing the social and practicality factor.


Lastly, if Tom does max the course out at 6200 with no par 5's and a par of 67-68, does anyone(at Golf Digest at least) realize how many difficult long(in relation to par) holes could still be built(if that was a goal).
I'm all for variety, and I generally dislike modern courses due to their large "one size fits all" scale that inevitably takes a lot of land and litters it with tees.


I guess I find it intriguing and surprising(but extremely compelling) that a smaller scale, intimate course is such a novel idea in the "second golden  age" of course design.


All that said, I do think it's important to note that many/most of our favorite intimate-dare I say "boutique"-courses weren't originally built that way, but rather time, evolution of athlete/technique and equipment merely rendered them that way for the elite, "status quo driver", expert golfer.


Wouldn't it be interesting if the modern expert players decided that playing such a course was so compelling that they themselves became the driving force for equipment change or status quo by voluntarily embracing gentler equipment to enhance the challenge, yet still retain all of the desirable benefits of sustainable downsizing.......

[Peter Pallotta]

J - you bring to mind what a terrific venue this would be for the GCA.COM World Persimmon Championship!

"A modern course. A traditional experience. A classic game. The
World Persimmon Championship at Sand Valley: Golf as Hogan played it"

[Tom_Doak]

Instead of everyone speculating, the following is is the scorecard for the routing shown.


Note that the routing is anything but finalized at this point, and we might not build every back tee listed.  However, the tees shown are in most cases the longest the hole could play without moving earth to put a tee further back - which I almost never do.  Here goes:


Front 9:  365, 440, 450, 310, 145, 240, 360, 435, 440
Back 9:  215, 380, 175, 375, 160, 470, 395, 295, 400


To me, that's not an excessively difficult course, but certainly not a pushover either. Please note, I am not inviting people to analyze this and tell me I need a hole between 400 yards and 435 so you will hit a 6-iron approach.  I'm just trying to give you a sense of what a 6,075-yard par 67 course actually looks like.  We could still make it a 7000-yard course if I changed holes 9-14, and used more land; I'm not going to go that far, but we're not stuck on par-67, necessarily.




Just for comparison, Swinley Forest:


Front 9:  389, 367, 290, 184, 497, 424, 400, 146, 434
Back 9:  205, 285, 455, 174, 366, 493, 415, 170, 368


Pulborough:


Front:  484, 412, 367, 383, 158, 226, 441, 185, 367
Back:  395, 458, 221, 382, 458, 145, 369, 461, 443


and Rye:


Front:  481, 180, 437, 411, 165, 468, 159, 391, 300
Back:  420, 324, 420, 430, 184, 458, 419, 222, 439


Yes, Rye is as hard as it sounds when you look at it that way.  And it adds up to 6308 yards!  The one "pushover" in that card, #9, is actually the hole on Ran's homepage right now.


All of these cards were handy because they were all printed in the front of The Confidential Guide.  I didn't even realize I had picked all three courses for the Gourmet's Choice back in 2014.  It's been a long campaign   

[Derek_Duncan]

Ian probably didn't think he was in the running for a future job there, so he felt free to speak his mind.  Bill Coore would have said anything in the most gentlemanly way possible, so that most people wouldn't even notice.


BTW, I've asked Ian if he is interested in consulting with us on the course.  He is one of the two people [besides me] who has been most vocal about this concept in recent years -- including a thread on GCA not that long ago, when he had no idea that we were already discussing that exact idea for Sand Valley.  The other person may decline, so they shall remain nameless, for now.

Tom, I'm curious -- the group of architects who believe they might be in the running for future Sand Valley (or any Keiser) jobs is fairly small. I know that three bids were seriously considered for SV 2, can you say how many were seriously considered for 3?


BTW, congratulations on 3 (and your new grandson!). This project is one of the most exciting developments in golf design in a long time, with potentially far-reaching implications. Can't wait!

[James Brown]

Instead of everyone speculating, the following is is the scorecard for the routing shown.


Note that the routing is anything but finalized at this point, and we might not build every back tee listed.  However, the tees shown are in most cases the longest the hole could play without moving earth to put a tee further back - which I almost never do.  Here goes:


Front 9:  365, 440, 450, 310, 145, 240, 360, 435, 440
Back 9:  215, 380, 175, 375, 160, 470, 395, 295, 400


To me, that's not an excessively difficult course, but certainly not a pushover either. Please note, I am not inviting people to analyze this and tell me I need a hole between 400 yards and 435 so you will hit a 6-iron approach.  I'm just trying to give you a sense of what a 6,075-yard par 67 course actually looks like.  We could still make it a 7000-yard course if I changed holes 9-14, and used more land; I'm not going to go that far, but we're not stuck on par-67, necessarily.




Just for comparison, Swinley Forest:


Front 9:  389, 367, 290, 184, 497, 424, 400, 146, 434
Back 9:  205, 285, 455, 174, 366, 493, 415, 170, 368


Pulborough:


Front:  484, 412, 367, 383, 158, 226, 441, 185, 367
Back:  395, 458, 221, 382, 458, 145, 369, 461, 443


and Rye:


Front:  481, 180, 437, 411, 165, 468, 159, 391, 300
Back:  420, 324, 420, 430, 184, 458, 419, 222, 439


Yes, Rye is as hard as it sounds when you look at it that way.  And it adds up to 6308 yards!  The one "pushover" in that card, #9, is actually the hole on Ran's homepage right now.


All of these cards were handy because they were all printed in the front of The Confidential Guide.  I didn't even realize I had picked all three courses for the Gourmet's Choice back in 2014.  It's been a long campaign   

Wow.  Why anyone would look at a card with so many 400+ par fours and think it would be anything like easy is beyond me,  Those holes plus long par 3s on any course with strategically designed greens always drive scores. 

[Tom_Doak]

Yes. 


Here's another way of looking at the length:  if I wanted a more conventional course, all I'd have to do is combine the 9th and 10th holes into a long par-5, play a new short par-5 10th hole out into the land we haven't used, and come back to the 11th green from a different angle.  And that would look like this:


Front 9:  365, 440, 450, 310, 145, 240, 360, 435, 440, [/size]610[/size]Back 9:  215 515, 380 435, 175, 375, 160, 470, 395, 295, 400


And then we'd be at 6600 yards, par 69 !  That would be a beast.  Rob Gronkowski might take up golf for that.  [/size]

[Kalen Braley]

In my experience as a high handicapper, its the long par 4s that do the most damage....aka par 4s at 400+. (Even a 510 yard par 5 you can usually manage a short iron 3rd shot approach most of the time). So seeing 5 of them tells me the course will certainly not be easy for the lesser player. Then throw in a couple of 200+ yard par 3s and the course will have plenty of teeth for the average joe.

[PCCraig]

Tom Doak,


Do you enjoy building a new 18-hole course or a new concept more exciting? Did you enjoy building Tara Iti or exploring the concept of a reversible course at Forest Dunes more enjoyable?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,


Do you enjoy building a new 18-hole course or a new concept more exciting? Did you enjoy building Tara Iti or exploring the concept of a reversible course at Forest Dunes more enjoyable?

Perhaps, getting to work on a concept I'd wanted to do for so long was extra exciting in the planning phase, but once you get into the work, any new project we choose to do gives me the chance to access my creative side. 


There are lots of "new 18 hole courses" where I wouldn't get excited, because I think they're more about the real estate than the golf, or because I think the client wouldn't give me the freedom to be creative, or it's too far from home, or whatever.  The same goes for restoration and renovation work.  I'm happy to stick to the few projects I'm really excited about, and just let other designers do the rest.


And yes, I'm very lucky to be in that position.  But honestly, I've taken that approach from day 1:  every choice I've made outside of which projects to do, has been based on not getting my company so big [or my lifestyle so expensive] that I needed to take on jobs that didn't excite me.  The goal is for build a course where people will have fun -- and that starts with me having fun building it.

[Peter Flory]

I really do like the move toward differentiation for the next course there... or at any destination resort.  My trip to Streamsong with higher handicap playing partners really opened my eyes to the need for something shorter and sportier.  The average player gets pretty worn down and discouraged after 54-72 straight holes on tough courses, especially with firm and fast conditions that they aren't used to and wind.  And for better players who may be in better golf/ walking shape, having a course like this for the 2nd round of the day is really attractive.[size=78%] [/size]

[Ronald Montesano]

Has Streamsong prohibited play from the Silver tees on its three courses? It seems that they all run 6200 yards or so, which would be sporty enough for anyone.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()