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.


Tommy Naccarato

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #150 on: July 28, 2020, 12:58:45 PM »
David, Wouldn’t that be awesome in the right hands!?!?

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #151 on: July 28, 2020, 02:51:39 PM »
David, Wouldn’t that be awesome in the right hands!?!?


It absolutely would be. Such a treat to play. Greens were crazy. One of them (the short, uphill par 3 on the (northern?) border of the property was a bit much if the greens were even close to fast (above 10?). Saw many a player 4/5 putt there in the am over the years.

Tommy Naccarato

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #152 on: July 30, 2020, 11:22:55 AM »
My God yes!!!  Of the many times I played Quail Ranch, I three-putted #2 more times then I two-putted it and I had a four-putt there once  as well!  The greens were in the best shape of any course in Southern California in those early days of playing there. (IMHO)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #153 on: July 30, 2020, 11:24:37 AM »
My God yes!!!  Of the many times I played Quail Ranch, I three-putted #2 more times then I two-putted it and I had a four-putt there once  as well!  The greens were in the best shape of any course in Southern California in those early days of playing there. (IMHO)


Sounds like we would be a good match!  If tennis, it might be "endless love" or something similar...... :o
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #154 on: September 03, 2020, 02:07:56 PM »
In the July issue of Golf Digest, architecture editor has quite the rant about a lack of innovation in golf course architecture. I couldn't find the column online, but will share some excerpts:
 
  • The problem is, every architect worships the past...and molds designs to those ancient templates.
  • Nobody has an original thought
[...]
Well, Mr. Whitten, we can fix this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_2TtjAApQw

You've got to watch this to the end or else you're too soft!

Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #155 on: September 09, 2020, 01:29:20 AM »
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.

Ciao
« Last Edit: September 09, 2020, 01:31:11 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Peter Pallotta

Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #156 on: September 09, 2020, 01:42:16 AM »
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.
Ciao
As someone said about Benny Goodman, his greatness lay in the fact that he could go uptown and he could go downtown, with equal facility. You too: the Yank and the Brit, the rater and the free thinker. Thanks: that was the most interesting posts I've read in a month. And it suggests that the top architects (and even the best of them can play only uptown) should hire the least architecturally sophisticated among us to handle the first part of the assignment, so that the random-making is truly random!



« Last Edit: September 09, 2020, 01:43:50 AM by Peter Pallotta »

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #157 on: September 09, 2020, 02:26:49 AM »
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.

Ciao


This is something that I have talked about a lot with my partner if we ever get a “poor” site with a decent budget.


In other words, you either go minimal or you do the opposite (so that you can then go minimal). It came about after watching so many average sites taking the middle ground and doing a bunch of muck shifting in between fairways in order to create ugly containment mounding / dunes / movement. Much more interesting to do the muck shifting before considering the playing corridors.


I’m sure it’s not a new idea but to follow that idea to its end (hiring someone to mess up the site before starting the GCA) has probably never been done before. It would be interesting to hear if there are any examples.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #158 on: September 09, 2020, 07:39:24 AM »
Ally

I'm not sure if it is exactly equivalent and indeed probably not, but when Mark Parsinen developed Kingsbarns he was keen to create a landscape over which the course was laid (or at least I think that was supposed to be the illusion) and I think he managed it quite well. That idea seemed to go out the window when it came to developing Castle Stuart.

Niall

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #159 on: September 09, 2020, 07:53:35 AM »
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.

Ciao


This is something that I have talked about a lot with my partner if we ever get a “poor” site with a decent budget.


In other words, you either go minimal or you do the opposite (so that you can then go minimal). It came about after watching so many average sites taking the middle ground and doing a bunch of muck shifting in between fairways in order to create ugly containment mounding / dunes / movement. Much more interesting to do the muck shifting before considering the playing corridors.


I’m sure it’s not a new idea but to follow that idea to its end (hiring someone to mess up the site before starting the GCA) has probably never been done before. It would be interesting to hear if there are any examples.


Martin Ebert wrote in GCA a good number of years ago that one of his life's ambitions was to get a project on a site that was sandy but featureless. He planned to gather the best shapers he could find and take them to St Andrews to spend some time walking round the Old Course. He'd then take them to the site and say 'Go shape it according to what you just saw'. Then he would route golf holes across the newly created landscape.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #160 on: September 09, 2020, 08:13:56 AM »
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.

Ciao




Yes!


Is this not generally what happened at Streamsong in Florida?


Those courses have certainly been well received.

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #161 on: September 09, 2020, 08:21:45 AM »
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.

Ciao

In part I guess. Most of the Streamsong site was mined forty year ago or more, so the effect of wind etc on the created landforms can't be underestimated.



Yes!


Is this not generally what happened at Streamsong in Florida?


Those courses have certainly been well received.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Derek_Duncan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #162 on: September 09, 2020, 08:52:08 AM »
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.

Ciao


Since Ron Whitten's name is in the title of this thread, it's appropriate to point out that he's talked about this in the past, going back years if not decades. As an example he suggested a hypothetical of a piece of land on which to train a group of people to use heavy machinery, and stop them before they really know what they're going. That disrupted land is now your golf site.


For that matter, that's essentially what David Kidd did at the Castle Course--they took a bland piece of flattish land and started roughing it up with machinery and no real plan, then used those landforms as starting points for the design.
www.feedtheball.com -- a podcast about golf architecture and design
@feedtheball

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #163 on: September 09, 2020, 11:26:45 AM »
...
I’m sure it’s not a new idea but to follow that idea to its end (hiring someone to mess up the site before starting the GCA) has probably never been done before. It would be interesting to hear if there are any examples.

A long time ago John VDB reported on this site that he had either seen or experimented with fractal geometry generation of landscapes which could be a way to generate a golf course landscape.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #164 on: September 09, 2020, 11:37:58 AM »
Many a military site or ex-military site in GB&I, both coastal and inland, that would be perfect for putting back to akin its original ‘natural’ undeveloped state and then having a golf course laid out on it. Same with coastal holiday camps and caravan parks etc as well.
Atb

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #165 on: September 09, 2020, 11:46:19 AM »
Military site or landfill perhaps.  Although years ago, when I worked for Killian and Nugent, we did a grading plan for a landfill so that the contours could be shaped to a future golf course via proper dumping.  Don't think that plan ever came to fruition.


While a "neat idea" to shape randomly to recreate some natural contours, much like you would find in many original designs, its not really the most efficient.  For most owners, the cost of moving earth once is almost too much, much less moving it once randomly and then again to fit a golf course.


If starting with a featureless site, its more efficient to route the course, put the big hills where they might need to be (i.e., typically, elevating an area that has multiple tees, perhaps use landforms to separate holes, or build a gentle grade somewhere, uphill in one direction, downhill the next hole coming back, etc.


The trick for any shaping for a gca is to avoid what I call standard shaping to fit the features, i.e., its so easy to build landforms right around the green, tee, etc.  They do look better if the angles, heights, etc. are at odd angles, rather than perfectly fit to the green.  It seems to me, that thought process would be the essence of a good finished product, whether the contours happened to be at the appropriate angles if random, or not.  I get the idea that each green might hit the site at different angles, but if routing occurred after than "random" earth creation occurred, wouldn't the gca just fall back on similar tendencies anyway?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #166 on: September 09, 2020, 04:09:53 PM »
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.

Ciao


Since Ron Whitten's name is in the title of this thread, it's appropriate to point out that he's talked about this in the past, going back years if not decades. As an example he suggested a hypothetical of a piece of land on which to train a group of people to use heavy machinery, and stop them before they really know what they're going. That disrupted land is now your golf site.


For that matter, that's essentially what David Kidd did at the Castle Course--they took a bland piece of flattish land and started roughing it up with machinery and no real plan, then used those landforms as starting points for the design.

Derek

Given the slope I'm not sure flat is the right term but it certainly was featureless. I suspect though that the shapers might dispute that there was no real intent in what they were doing before laying out the course. It also occurs to me that Kidd won the commission to design the Castle course in a design competition. I can't imagine he promised to randomly create features and then design from there. ;D

That said, I think you are an industry man so you might know better.

Niall

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #167 on: September 09, 2020, 04:57:58 PM »
Many a military site or ex-military site in GB&I, both coastal and inland, that would be perfect for putting back to akin its original ‘natural’ undeveloped state and then having a golf course laid out on it. Same with coastal holiday camps and caravan parks etc as well.
Atb


That's what happened at Budersand on the island of Sylt in Germany. Sand dunes are totally protected in mainland Europe, you'd never get permission to build golf in them nowadays. Budersand used to be an airbase: when it closed it was redeveloped as golf and hotel -- they ripped up all the concrete, exposed the sand beneath, and shaped it.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #168 on: September 09, 2020, 07:34:22 PM »

I think Ron was onto something and I am sure others have thought about creating random landforms. That was Ron being ahead of the game before anyone else.

The key to any random design is how you "Discover" or  "Shape" it to create the desired features.  I figured out a long time ago at Pacific Dunes how to achieve randomness through the use of mechanical equipment.   I hold it close to my vest, waiting for the next chance to use my discovery.  I used it sporadically at Sebonack and at Old Mac, both with success.


I realized touring the Old Course at St Andrews that we shaped features using the hand of man in the U.S.  From that light bulb moment at St Andrews, when I need the ace card pulled out I use this style to create random features. 





The idea to move dirt by others and then create a routing is a novel idea but someone still has to account for 1/2 million Cu Yds  or whatever quantity you plan to move to create your space in an efficient manner.  When moving that dirt you must take into accountant, Drainage, Scale, and most importantly Views.   Unless you are not worried about making a bathtub in the middle of the property or blocking out the all important surrounding property.


 


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #169 on: September 09, 2020, 10:58:38 PM »

I think Ron was onto something and I am sure others have thought about creating random landforms. That was Ron being ahead of the game before anyone else.

The key to any random design is how you "Discover" or  "Shape" it to create the desired features.  I figured out a long time ago at Pacific Dunes how to achieve randomness through the use of mechanical equipment.   I hold it close to my vest, waiting for the next chance to use my discovery.  I used it sporadically at Sebonack and at Old Mac, both with success.

I realized touring the Old Course at St Andrews that we shaped features using the hand of man in the U.S.  From that light bulb moment at St Andrews, when I need the ace card pulled out I use this style to create random features. 

The idea to move dirt by others and then create a routing is a novel idea but someone still has to account for 1/2 million Cu Yds  or whatever quantity you plan to move to create your space in an efficient manner.  When moving that dirt you must take into accountant, Drainage, Scale, and most importantly Views.   Unless you are not worried about making a bathtub in the middle of the property or blocking out the all important surrounding property

I don't mean shaped so much as the land being dynamited with many small charges. Then working over the random land forms. I thought of the idea after seeing WWI sites that were shelled. Setting aside the reason for their existence, the resulting land is awesome for golf with endless options for a creative archie. Seeing the land 100 years later really demonstrates how the features softened, making for excellent golf terrain.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #170 on: September 10, 2020, 12:04:34 AM »
The one thing which interests me most in terms of innovation is making land a random interesting proposition for golf then building a course true to that newly created landscape.



Is this not generally what happened at Streamsong in Florida?


Those courses have certainly been well received.


I was going to point that out.  As Adam mentioned, years of wind action certainly helped, too.


This is hardly a new thought in design circles, and certainly not among shapers, who have been thinking about it forever.  Jim Urbina and I were discussing it twenty years ago; Jim even sent the one non-golfing shaper at The Rawls Course down a couple of the holes backwards, so whatever he was thinking about wouldn't be what the golfer was looking at.  It was interesting, but no one has chosen it as our best work ever.


Mark Parsinen did speak of creating a landscape at Kingsbarns, but he had too many ideas of what he wanted to do, to let it be very random.


As a minimalist, I take the tack that every bit of the earth's surface has already been randomized, and just try to use that.  The army of shapers would inevitably do too much.


But I do have a model in mind for a future flat site if I ever do another one.  It is a landscape that no one has ever used for golf before, so it should lead to some fresh golf holes if I ever get the chance.  Actually it would be a perfect theme for Las Vegas but I think that era has passed.

Peter Bowman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #171 on: September 10, 2020, 11:43:43 AM »
I cannot find the article (have looked thru GD's issue #7...sounds like July to me...from this year w Shane Lowery on then cover and it ain't there).  Scanned thru most of the comments and I would suggest there have been at least 7 major innovations in golf over the past several decades.  IMO some of those innovation are awful, some seem good, and some are to early to decide:


1.  Frisbee Golf...certainly solves the cost question...but seems to have failed in getting much traction (perhaps because it does not have much appeal for 75 year old like myself with fragile bones)


2.  Simulators...solves the problem of increased length demanding more real estate, and a lot of the cost question...but seems to fail in that part of the joy in golf is being outside in different conditions each day...and "feeling" the weather/climate


3.  Original Sheep Ranch...where the winner of the prior hole picks the next green to play for...very interesting concept, but really limits golf course's player capacity...and that concept has now disappeared from its origin


4.  Par 3 courses...IMO one of two real winners in this group...fun fun fun...and great practice ground


5.  Superb practice ranges/facilities...think back to what they were like 100 years ago...there were none.  Courses over 100 years old today that have practice ranges either purchased additional land or had a polo field.  Want examples of fabulous clubs that do not have "adequate" practice facilities today?  Winged Foot, NGLA, Riviera, and Quaker Ridge.  This hugely increased the ""capacity" or number of players a club could keep active at one moment.  And the new ranges offer so much...which I think mostly started w Hank Haney's teaching center in McKinney TX around 1991.  Fabulous innovation.


6.  Golf courses designed around real estate development...ignited a huge boom in golf course construction and is a major cause of the "dark ages" of golf architecture IMO.  This might be the biggest bust of these 6!!


7.  But the biggest innovation related to golf architecture and I guess  Ron can't see it...and it has three huge parts all of which have brought new life into the game:


--building courses on great land...even if players have to travel to get there.  I think part of the issue that caused golf arch to go mostly bad in the '50's thru 80's was that all of the decent land near cities was gobbled up by homes and other forms of development (not to mention the restricts related to environmental regs).  What the likes of Dick Youngscap and Mike Keiser did to turn that issue into a huge opportunity is a fabulous innovation with remarkable success


--the entire architectural trust of the "old look" (for lake of a better term) used by the likes of Doak, Coore-Crenshaw, Hanse, etc etc etches an innovation even if it was based on bringing the architectural thoughts of 100 years earlier back into play again on new courses...bringing something that had almost been forgotten back into play IS AN INNOVATION


--the renovation/restoration "Industry" which had brought back to life so so many courses that had started to "go bad" (yes...they were going bad


The total of these three had resulted in the finest and largest collection off great courses existing at one time in the world


So, Ron Whitten, do the above not qualify as innovation (remember...innovation can be good or bad or in between)
this is gold

Peter Bowman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #172 on: September 10, 2020, 11:51:06 AM »
...
I’m sure it’s not a new idea but to follow that idea to its end (hiring someone to mess up the site before starting the GCA) has probably never been done before. It would be interesting to hear if there are any examples.

A long time ago John VDB reported on this site that he had either seen or experimented with fractal geometry generation of landscapes which could be a way to generate a golf course landscape.
Can you elaborate on this?  I find fractal geometry and Fibonacci sequences and proportions to be very interesting.  I did it myself this year converting an overgrown english garden into a Fibonacci inspired Japanese (I call it Japonacci) Zen garden that feels so balanced and natural that I and friends have a hard time leaving it.  And of course I thought it could be cool if that's ever been done on a golf course.  So I'm curious what some examples of Fractal geometry are in golf course design according to John VDB (who is he, BTW?).

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #173 on: September 10, 2020, 04:18:37 PM »
John VDB is John Vander Borght a member of this site, the author of "The Balloon Ball" in the In My Opinion section of this site, a USGA rules official (having left a software engineering career), and owner of the most tenuous albatross you will ever hear of.

He made a two at his club, Pumkin Ridge, in a tournament where the hole was listed as a par 4, while he otherwise plays it as a par 5 every other day.

I searched for fractal on the site, but the search did not return the post I referred to.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Ron Whitten's low opinion of golf architecture
« Reply #174 on: September 10, 2020, 07:37:44 PM »
Now that John VDG has been outed, perhaps he can shed some light on why the USGA has been so adamant about firm and fast conditions and whether clubs are largely following its lead.  Other than the obvious, to conserve water resources especially in areas where this is a problem, are there other reasons from maintenance, architectural, and playability standpoints why this is better for golf?