[Mike Hendren]

One of my favorite sayings of Lee Buck Trevino is "I'd rather be lucky than good."  I wonder if any of our architects in the treehouse can (or are willing to) cite a hole or feature where they just plain got lucky in hindsight.   Surely not.

Bogey

[Tom_Doak]

I would be happy to do this, but first can you provide the definition of what you mean by me "getting lucky" ? 


It could be embarrassing if I misinterpreted that and gave you an example of something you didn't mean.

[Garland Bayley]

I would be happy to do this, but first can you provide the definition of what you mean by me "getting lucky" ? 


It could be embarrassing if I misinterpreted that and gave you an example of something you didn't mean.

Well I am not an architect, but I can tell a story about getting lucky on a golf course. I went to the course one day as a single, and got sent off with two young ladies. Nearing the end of the round, one of the ladies turned to me and said "I bet that you didn't think you were going to come to the course today and get lucky and play with two beautiful young ladies." My response? "Just don't go home and tell your husband that you played golf with me today, and that I got lucky."

[Mike Hendren]

Tom, I was thinking of a hole, green, bunker, contour or any other feature that the architect felt was rather pedestrian that somewhat surprisingly turned out to have significant strategic merit or be great fun.  Perhaps something the cognoscenti unexpectedly raved about.

Make sense?

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

Did you realize how good Rock Creek could/would be upon your first view visits and seeing the massive boulders and rocks littered everywhere? I don't think many go there and realize how damn good of a golf course exists in the Montana hinterlands, at least not at first until the secret got out.

P.S.  I recall an old thread where you claim to have considered taking a trolly to the top and play the entire thing more or less down the side of the mountain.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bogey - I too would be interested to read the answers. In the meantime, I'd suggest that it's more often the other way around, ie the cognoscenti discover all manner of delightfully nuanced challenges and surprising strategic choices that the architects had no idea were there, because they didn't consciously create/put them there. Mind you, I don't mean that the architects weren't *responsible* for those wonderful elements (that we later discovered) -- they were, absolutely; it's just that, in the freely creative act I think the intended and the unintended are very often one and the same.
Plus: I think no creative work is truly finished (ie has properly served its function) until an audience has engaged with it; the 'meaning' of a golf course comes from us, not from the architect.
P

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Did you realize how good Rock Creek could/would be upon your first view visits and seeing the massive boulders and rocks littered everywhere? I don't think many go there and realize how damn good of a golf course exists in the Montana hinterlands, at least not at first until the secret got out.

P.S.  I recall an old thread where you claim to have considered taking a trolly to the top and play the entire thing more or less down the side of the mountain.

Kalen:


We did not decide which part of the property the golf course would even be on until my third visit to the site!


To the P.S. - there wasn't going to be a trolley involved, we just considered a remote start, from a couple of different points.  But then I heard the client and his friends discussing taking a cart up to the top, and I realized that approach would actually encourage cart play instead of encouraging walking, so we started working more seriously on a routing that started from the clubhouse.

[Joe Hancock]

Not sure if it’s serendipity, luck, or some other dynamic. But, I have observed many times that when good fundamentals are implemented, other, unintended good things may, and usually do happen.


I was working with Jim Urbina at Yeaman’s Hall a few years ago, and he had me re-instating some fairway bunkers on #17. The left side bunker is approximately 23 yards short of the right side bunker, so they’re offset. Once I had roughly shaped them in, I took a ride over to 16, back to 11 tee, and then back to the tee on 17 to see how they fit, and looked from several viewpoints. Once I got to the tees on 17, I immediately realized that the horizon lines of the landforms of the bunkers aligned perfectly, creating the illusion that there was only one fairway bunker instead of two. I was so pumped up and excited about the effect that I quickly called Jim, who was elsewhere on the property and told him to come see what happened. It never was part of the discussion....not a conscious attempt to create that effect, but it came about because other good, fundamental design decisions were the starting place.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, I was thinking of a hole, green, bunker, contour or any other feature that the architect felt was rather pedestrian that somewhat surprisingly turned out to have significant strategic merit or be great fun.  Perhaps something the cognoscenti unexpectedly raved about.

Make sense?

Usually I have a pretty good sense of what golfers are going to like; I think that's why my courses do as well as they do in rankings.  But, sometimes I build a feature I know a lot of people aren't going to like, just because I think it's the right thing to do.


Often, though, what I see right away as the most natural hole on the golf course does NOT turn out to be everyone's favorite.  In hindsight, I sometimes wonder if it was wrong to work harder on other holes, and let the natural one rest on its own merits, instead of trying to enhance it . . . but I have always felt it was better to err on the side of doing too little instead of too much, just to be different than everyone else.   


For example, when I routed the back nine at High Pointe, #10 and #11 and #12 and #14 were the holes that jumped out at me; #13 had a cool green site, but I thought of it as more of a connector hole.  And it turned out to be most people's favorite hole on the course, including my own.


The sixth at Pacific Dunes was one of the first holes I found on the map; but it was eliminated from the routing early on, partly because Mr. Keiser thought it was too short, and only snuck back in at the last minute.  I actually had to hit a bunker shot out of the deep greenside bunker to convince Mr. Keiser it was playable, and thank goodness, I pulled it off on the first attempt -- I generally try and avoid that bunker when I play, but I don't think I have gotten a ball on the green from there since my demonstration!


As for a feature that's surprised me, I would say that I didn't realize when we were building Barnbougle just how many of the greens would allow you to play a shot off a bank at the back or sides of the green, to get close to the hole.  The last time I played there was with a couple from Singapore who I met at random, and once I showed them that feature on the 4th green, they were doing it the rest of the day!

[Joe_Tucholski]

One of my favorite sayings of Lee Buck Trevino is "I'd rather be lucky than good."

Whenever I hear this quote or something similar my response is "the better you are, the luckier you get."  Which is a twist on a quote I've seen attributed to Gary Player: "The harder you work, the luckier you get."


These statements seem appropriate based on the responses in this thread so far.

[MKrohn]

Tom, I was thinking of a hole, green, bunker, contour or any other feature that the architect felt was rather pedestrian that somewhat surprisingly turned out to have significant strategic merit or be great fun.  Perhaps something the cognoscenti unexpectedly raved about.

Make sense?

Probably a little off tangent however Tom D. mentioned the 4th at Barnbougle. It's part of the course, but the walk from the green on 4 to the 5th tee is really something.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_k7okNGM_E

[Tom_Doak]

Probably a little off tangent however Tom D. mentioned the 4th at Barnbougle. It's part of the course, but the walk from the green on 4 to the 5th tee is really something.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_k7okNGM_E

That's true.  The strip of dunes is so narrow there that we had to have golfers walk away from the 4th green by a path along the sea to keep them safe, to the next tee which is offset from the landing area on 4.  But, that's your first interaction with the coast, and people love the walk, for good reason.  The same is true of the walk from 3 to 4 at Pacific Dunes, but in both cases it was just a byproduct of the routing.

[SL_Solow]

Not to be a stinker, but Lefty Gomez of the Yankees said "I'd rather be lucky than good" back in the 1930's.  Undoubtedly someone said it before Lefty.

[Peter Pallotta]

Shel - somewhere Lefty Gomez is smiling.

I'd always assumed that one of the benefits of minimalism was that it offered (to architect and golfer alike) the possibility of the serendipitous. At the very least, there was more willingness on the part of minimalists (compared to their opposites) to allow the land to pleasantly surprise them. In fact, I thought that was basically the whole point of minimalism, i.e. the humility to accept/embrace  that the intended and unintended go hand in hand.

P 

[Tom_Doak]

Not to be a stinker, but Lefty Gomez of the Yankees said "I'd rather be lucky than good" back in the 1930's.  Undoubtedly someone said it before Lefty.

Probably someone from ancient Greece and/or China!

[Tom_Doak]

Shel - somewhere Lefty Gomez is smiling.

I'd always assumed that one of the benefits of minimalism was that it offered (to architect and golfer alike) the possibility of the serendipitous. At the very least, there was more willingness on the part of minimalists (compared to their opposites) to allow the land to pleasantly surprise them. In fact, I thought that was basically the whole point of minimalism, i.e. the humility to accept/embrace  that the intended and unintended go hand in hand.

It is indeed one of the benefits.  And it's especially effective because nearly everyone assumes we anticipated all of the unintended benefits from the beginning!  Most golfers just can't shake the notion that architects are omniscient and have everything planned out from Day One.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have had it happen.  At the Quarry at Giant's Ridge, I walked the property, topo map in hand.  I got lost, as I couldn't pick out the topographic features.  Turns out the topo map just couldn't get the data underneath the heavy trees.  When it got cleared, we discovered the mining features that are now incorporated in the 13th hole, by most accounts, one of the favorites.


Similarly, when clearing started, we had already routed the 11th, a short par 3 and really couldn't change it.  Instead of a grassy areas, we found expose sand, with some rock outcroppings which we didn't know were there, really in a perfect place.  There were a few other instances of similar things.  We called it the "site that just keeps on giving."


Can't think of too many other examples, but have had trees now show in the same place as they appear on the aerial photo, which we made use of knowing where they really were.  Some subtle, non mapped topo signatures have occurred as well.

[Peter Pallotta]

Heard a good line tonight, from an old interview, Dave Brubeck quoting Igor Stravinsky:
"Composition is the act of selective improvisation".
I thought it fit nicely here.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Shel - somewhere Lefty Gomez is smiling.

I'd always assumed that one of the benefits of minimalism was that it offered (to architect and golfer alike) the possibility of the serendipitous. At the very least, there was more willingness on the part of minimalists (compared to their opposites) to allow the land to pleasantly surprise them. In fact, I thought that was basically the whole point of minimalism, i.e. the humility to accept/embrace  that the intended and unintended go hand in hand.

P 

Peter,


Thought about this one for a bit. 

Gca's change their mind often in the design process, work to improve the design right up until grassing, based on new outside ideas or natural features, so they might have trouble identifying serendipity, by it's standard definition.

I don't know that minimalism has much to do with it.  IMHO, more just creativity, which I have always thought is a thought process that just happens in a creative mind, which is to go over every possibility endlessly and at any time, rather than solve problems with straight line thinking.  I don't know what % of the population has the creative thinking gene, but I think it's a pretty low one.


In any design, seeing a piece of land and having it remind you of some great hole in some ways (not a perfect copy by any means) and seeing how a feature/concept from old hole X might combine/reverse/adapt with old hole Y on your new hole Z is sort of the essence of creative design for many of us.  So, if we are in the field, either during routing or after an initial stab on paper, and we see something that is different than what we expected, its seems more natural design process than serendipity to just go ahead and make what seems to be a good change.


As you can see from my examples, the serendipity part seems to come when certain things have been set, and then an additional nice feature becomes known, at least IMHO. 

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know that minimalism has much to do with it.  IMHO, more just creativity, which I have always thought is a thought process that just happens in a creative mind, which is to go over every possibility endlessly and at any time, rather than solve problems with straight line thinking.  I don't know what % of the population has the creative thinking gene, but I think it's a pretty low one.

Jeff:


Minimalism, by itself, only has a little bit to do with it.  But minimalism, combined with a great piece of land, adds a lot of serendipity, because there are tons of little features that can add interest, that you barely have time to think about.  Whereas if you've got a great piece of land but you are insistent on grading all the fairways, you can kiss the serendipity goodbye.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


I am probably more of a minimalist than given credit for.  I don't grade any fw or portions thereof unless it is too flat to drain, needs to be swagged out to provide vision, or flattened enough in cross slope to hold good tee shots.


Told this story here long ago, but on one project, with a big name contractor, there was one hole where I showed no grading, and added big notes saying, "NO grading here!" I even covered it verbally, but when I got out to the site and the foreman had stripped all the topsoil in preparation for grading it all, saying it was their company policy because architects "always end up shaping the fw."


It was one of those cool land forms you describe.  The rancher had left a fence (which we did take out, of course) but the land up to it was steeper than the rest of the landing zone, effectively killing roll if golfers elected to try to cut the corner and come up short.


In short, there is a case where the operators decided to kiss serendipity good bye.  You are right, not many (or enough) people understand the importance to architects of leaving certain land forms. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


I am probably more of a minimalist than given credit for.  I don't grade any fw or portions thereof unless it is too flat to drain, needs to be swagged out to provide vision, or flattened enough in cross slope to hold good tee shots.

The part of serendipity I really miss is that when I was shaping the greens myself, I would usually start with one idea and then halfway through, see something else evolving and veer that way instead.  It usually wound up being a better design and taking less time and $.


My associates usually have permission to do that themselves when shaping, unless I specifically tell them otherwise.


Eric Iverson is particularly good at that.  When we have drawn out some earthmoving for a hole, he will see if he can figure out how to do it with only half as much or 2/3 as much dirt.  Of course, contractors do that all the time to try and increase their profits, but we are only doing it to see if we can disturb less, or make the hole better.

[James Brown]

Tom, I was thinking of a hole, green, bunker, contour or any other feature that the architect felt was rather pedestrian that somewhat surprisingly turned out to have significant strategic merit or be great fun.  Perhaps something the cognoscenti unexpectedly raved about.

Make sense?

The sixth at Pacific Dunes was one of the first holes I found on the map; but it was eliminated from the routing early on, partly because Mr. Keiser thought it was too short, and only snuck back in at the last minute.  I actually had to hit a bunker shot out of the deep greenside bunker to convince Mr. Keiser it was playable, and thank goodness, I pulled it off on the first attempt -- I generally try and avoid that bunker when I play, but I don't think I have gotten a ball on the green from there since my demonstration!

How funny.  Getting up and down from that bunker on the left of the green is one of the most memorable shots of my life.   Super tough bunkers must just require audacity because I can’t imagine a committee or a cautious developer creating them.  And Keiser isn’t exactly weak hearted.


I don’t remember reading any of those details in Dream Golf.  Thanks for sharing. 

[Tom_Doak]

I don’t remember reading any of those details in Dream Golf.  Thanks for sharing.

There is not much in Dream Golf about how the routing came to be, or about the construction of the golf course, really.


The first part, I'm sharing in my new book about routing.  You'll get to see all three of my routings for Pacific Dunes, including the first one that Mr. Keiser never saw, because it was redundant from the time we landed there.


The second part is all in my book about Pacific Dunes, but who knows when I will make time to finish that one?  I'm certainly going to miss the 20th anniversary of the course.  Maybe for the 25th I'll have time.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()