[Peter Pallotta]

If golf courses came into existence solely through the power of thought, would all of today's golf course architects build nothing but great golf courses?

If there were no barriers whatsoever between an architect's vision-imagination and the fully realized golf course of his dreams, would great golf courses abound?

If Magic made literally everything that was possible, possible -- such that there could be no such thing as poor sites or stupid clients or financial/environmental restrictions -- would every new course be a 10?

[JESII]

The 10’s must always be the outliers, the exceptional when compared to the rest.


Golf architecture quality is, and must be, an entirely subjective category. While I can say Pine Valley is the single greatest golf architectural achievement imaginable, I can also acknowledge that it is virtually unplayable for most golfers.

[Tom_Doak]

If golf courses came into existence solely through the power of thought, would all of today's golf course architects build nothing but great golf courses?

If there were no barriers whatsoever between an architect's vision-imagination and the fully realized golf course of his dreams, would great golf courses abound?

If Magic made literally everything that was possible, possible -- such that there could be no such thing as poor sites or stupid clients or financial/environmental restrictions -- would every new course be a 10?

The word "all" in your first sentence is certainly doing a lot of work.  There are a lot of architects, and most of them are never going to build a 10.


Even the ones who can, rarely do.  A real 10 requires true artistic inspiration, and nobody can do that in mass production.  You might be able to do it once every few years, I think.


The best architects might be able to build a 7 almost every time out -- which is pretty darned good -- if they don't try to do too many courses in a year.  And if you listen to all the p.r. these places are putting out, 7 is the new 10. 

[Ira Fishman]

If golf courses came into existence solely through the power of thought, would all of today's golf course architects build nothing but great golf courses?

If there were no barriers whatsoever between an architect's vision-imagination and the fully realized golf course of his dreams, would great golf courses abound?

If Magic made literally everything that was possible, possible -- such that there could be no such thing as poor sites or stupid clients or financial/environmental restrictions -- would every new course be a 10?

Artists, writers, and composers who do not face the same limiting variables as golf course architects do not uniformly produce 10s. Not even the greatest of them.


Ira

[Michael Felton]

If golf courses came into existence solely through the power of thought, would all of today's golf course architects build nothing but great golf courses?

If there were no barriers whatsoever between an architect's vision-imagination and the fully realized golf course of his dreams, would great golf courses abound?

If Magic made literally everything that was possible, possible -- such that there could be no such thing as poor sites or stupid clients or financial/environmental restrictions -- would every new course be a 10?

The word "all" in your first sentence is certainly doing a lot of work.  There are a lot of architects, and most of them are never going to build a 10.


Even the ones who can, rarely do.  A real 10 requires true artistic inspiration, and nobody can do that in mass production.  You might be able to do it once every few years, I think.


The best architects might be able to build a 7 almost every time out -- which is pretty darned good -- if they don't try to do too many courses in a year.  And if you listen to all the p.r. these places are putting out, 7 is the new 10. 

Not to mention, if every course within 100 miles was a 10, there really wouldn't be much of an incentive to travel round the world to play another one. It's like if someone called me up and asked me if I wanted to go play Cypress Point when COVID is over, I'd drop everything and buy the plane ticket. But if I had 300 Cypresses within driving distance, I probably wouldn't. Thus would anything really still be a 10?

[Peter Pallotta]

Most of you focused on the '10'.

I was more focused on the potential for great courses when:
- no compromises ever need to be made (and no transition holes are ever required) in order to get a flowing, walkable routing
- there's never a lack of beauty or drama or vistas, because the scenery (including sea-side settings) just magically appears
- no premium at all is placed on the ability to 'see' golf holes in the natural/pre-existing site, since there isn't one, nor is any talent with operating heavy shaping equipment required

Just and only pure design ideas and architectural-strategic insights and understanding are necessary in order to create courses as great (and different, one from the other) as a Sand Hills or Dornoch or NGLA or TOC or Merion or Cypress or Melbourne

Don't all working architects today have the design ideas and architectural knowledge-insights-understanding required to build nothing but great courses if Magic took care of everything else (including excellent turf and drainage)?

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,

As long as we're in the realm of fiction, I play an online golf game that has some pretty cool holes that I would certainly love to play in real life and they could be built (meaning they aren't played on floating clouds or stuff like that).  Problem with most of them is the amount of space, over the top bunkering, and maintenance otherwise that they would require, would be super expensive.

I can say this, they are good about putting bunkers and other obstacles right in the way of where you want to go to get that great line into the green or find a power slot for 20-30 extra yards.  Quite a few others offer 2-4 different fairway options and I've seen them played in many different ways...but once again, the space and expense thing is at play for "real life".

[Steve Lang]

   Frankly it'd be Mickey Mouse time, like in Fantasia...


https://video.disney.com/watch/sorcerer-s-apprentice-fantasia-4ea9ebc01a74ea59a5867853

[JESII]

Peter,


Do you think all architects would have come up with the same course (concept and quality) as Tom Fazio at Shadow Creek?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Peter,


I fear most have taken your question up wrong. So maybe here’s my attempt:


I think just about all architects would be able to magic up a great course in their imagination if there were no constraints. Strategy, routing, technical aspects are all something familiar to all archies.


BUT a lot of them would imagine up an aesthetic that is not to this board’s liking. A lot of them also wouldn’t have the inspiration to be playful enough with hazard placement, strategy and interesting greens. In other words, their idea of an ideal in their minds would be a little bit more homogenised.


But who isn’t going to imagine up ground contours like TOC or other great aspects from great courses. The only differences are that we all like different things.

[JESII]

Peter,

The only differences are that we all like different things.

This is the crux of my responses.


Lets say I don't necessarily like the things Ally likes...even the ground contours at TOC.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - re your post about Fazio: no, I don't. But that's the point/question:

Jeff B and Jack N and Tom D and Mike Y and Ally and Gil H and Tom Fazio and Forrest R etc would all conceive of their 'dream golf course' differently, but if unfettered by any logistical considerations wouldn't they all equally be able to make manifest great design ideas and exemplary architectural-strategic understandings?

[I mean, maintenance issues aside, even the non architects designing Kalen's video game are producing cool holes he'd love to play.]

What else is there? What else is involved in a building a great course if magic took care of everything else?

Taste -- a given architect's personal tastes? Would we really want to downgrade and criticize a great (and brilliantly designed) course just because it didn't suit our own tastes?

PS
Ally, just read yours before posting this: see immediately above. Are we here on this august board of experts and fans and panelists really unable / unwilling to see and appreciate greatness simply because it doesn't suit our personal aesthetic?

Or instead, are you and I wrong, i.e. is it simply not true that, even with magic at their disposal, many professional architects simply could not -- and wouldn't know how to -- create a truly great course, one of the best in the world?

[Ira Fishman]

Jim - re your post about Fazio: no, I don't. But that's the point/question:

Jeff B and Jack N and Tom D and Mike Y and Ally and Gil H and Tom Fazio and Forrest R etc would all conceive of their 'dream golf course' differently, but if unfettered by any logistical considerations wouldn't they all equally be able to make manifest great design ideas and exemplary architectural-strategic understandings?

[I mean, maintenance issues aside, even the non architects designing Kalen's video game are producing cool holes he'd love to play.]

What else is there? What else is involved in a building a great course if magic took care of everything else?

Taste -- a given architect's personal tastes? Would we really want to downgrade and criticize a great (and brilliantly designed) course just because it didn't suit our own tastes?

PS
Ally, just read yours before posting this: see immediately above. Are we here on this august board of experts and fans and panelists really unable / unwilling to see and appreciate greatness simply because it doesn't suit our personal aesthetic?

Or instead, are you and I wrong, i.e. is it simply not true that, even with magic at their disposal, many professional architects simply could not -- and wouldn't know how to -- create a truly great course, one of the best in the world?

Peter,


I stand by original answer.


Ira

[Ally Mcintosh]

Peter (and Ira),


It depends on how far we are extending the magic. Many people can’t build what they see (To Tom’s point). Do they actually have to build what they imagine or does it just appear?


Similarly, some architects aren’t that inspired with what they see. Do they actually have to design it in their mind and create? Is the site imaginary? Can they just invent anything with any routing? Can it just be a parade of great hole copies?


Where does the magic stop and reality begin?

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira -- and it's a good answer, and a defensible one. I happen to disagree, in part because I don't think great novels / music / art 'work' in the same way that golf courses do; an 'observer' has to be engaged differently than a 'participant' does.

Ally - I posit no limits. Can professional architects all 'imagine' a great golf course into being? If folks say no, I'm curious as to what they think those architects are lacking.

[Ira Fishman]

Ira -- and it's a good answer, and a defensible one. I happen to disagree, in part because I don't think great novels / music / art 'work' in the same way that golf courses do; an 'observer' has to be engaged differently than a 'participant' does.

Ally - I posit no limits. Can professional architects all 'imagine' a great golf course into being? If folks say no, I'm curious as to what they think those architects are lacking.

Peter,


My experience with literature/poetry/philosophy and with music is not as an Observer. Probably true for Art as well but I need to think about it some more although clearly a Participant in Physical Art such as the Vietnam Memorial or the Rodin Museum or the H Street Bridge in Washington DC.


Ira

[Andrew Harvie]

Is Shadow Creek a 10? Seems that's the closest example to magic in the world of golf course architecture thus far

[Tom_Doak]

Is Shadow Creek a 10? Seems that's the closest example to magic in the world of golf course architecture thus far

I gave Shadow Creek an 8 or 9 in The Confidential Guide; I can't remember.  I've been teased for that sometimes, but I have great respect for the level of design that went into the course and the landscaping that went along with it.  They did not go for any interaction between holes because of Steve Wynn's preference for privacy and feeling like you are in a cocoon [which had something to do with his failing eyesight] -- that's the one piece where I felt it could have been much stronger.


Of course, if I understand Peter's question right, that's all the "magic" and the designer wouldn't need to worry about that -- but it's hard for me to separate that from the design because that is such an integral part of design!




That is is the fantasy of all golf professionals [or golfers], that they could just purely work on designing the strategy of the golf holes and everything else would take care of itself.  If it was 100% of the equation, sure, maybe anyone could do it, but that doesn't mean all the work would be equally good.  The dreamers would just be out of excuses.


To me, the strategic design of a golf course is maybe 25% of the equation.  The routing is 25-50%, because if it's done right, a lot of the strategy just follows the lay of the land.  And the shaping is 25-50%, because if you want a green that rewards a shot from the left, it's the way you accomplish that up at the green that makes all the difference between a pretty good course and a great one.


Strategic design is the lyrics, without the score.  Or the plot, without the characters.  It's important, but it isn't how we judge things.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

If you had been given a "money is no object" budget at Rawls, given it was a similar site to what was there at SC, what direction do you think you would have taken?  I've never seen it and know you did a good job out there, but it doesn't come up on your proverbial greatest hits album like SC comes up on Fazio's....

[Ira Fishman]

Ira -- and it's a good answer, and a defensible one. I happen to disagree, in part because I don't think great novels / music / art 'work' in the same way that golf courses do; an 'observer' has to be engaged differently than a 'participant' does.

Ally - I posit no limits. Can professional architects all 'imagine' a great golf course into being? If folks say no, I'm curious as to what they think those architects are lacking.

Peter,


Let me offer up a design category where Participation is the essential fact: food. And put aside high end restaurants where expensive ingredients may be important. Even with Magic, few chefs could design the Fried Chicken at Brother's in NOLA, the Char Cheddar Burgers at Poochie's in Skokie, the Mushroom Barley Soup at Sarge's in NYC, or even the Hash Browns at Waffle House. And there are many more. Artistry is artistry, and not everyone possesses it.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira -
I do believe that artistry plays a key role, and that perhaps not everyone possesses it. [Hence my 'Where Lies an Architect's Talent' thread.] But I wanted, in this thread, to ask about the role of thought-imagination alone in creating great golf courses, ie what professional architects could accomplish given their knowledge and design insights and architectural vision if all external constraints were removed. [It is yet another way of asking a question I've asked many times before, ie what makes for great golf course architecture?]

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

If you had been given a "money is no object" budget at Rawls, given it was a similar site to what was there at SC, what direction do you think you would have taken?  I've never seen it and know you did a good job out there, but it doesn't come up on your proverbial greatest hits album like SC comes up on Fazio's....

Well of course, if money was no object, you'd dig the Pacific Ocean because building a course next to that is a guaranteed top 100 ranking   


If you read Getting to 18, though, you would learn that The Rawls Course was a very different site than Shadow Creek.  The client actually made that comparison early on, but we did have a budget, and the university did not want any of the donation earmarked for the business school to get swallowed up by the golf course instead.  Moreover, the site for Shadow Creek had a strong tilt to it [so building a flowing creek made some sense], whereas the site for The Rawls was dead ass flat and our main concern was that a future storm event not flood all of the parts of the course that were "cut".  In theory we could have wound up with 500+ acre feet of water in a big bathtub and no place to pump it to!


I really don't spend much time thinking about "money is no object" dream scenarios [although I've got three or four concepts in a file drawer that I might use the next time a flat site comes around -- and a potential customer for one of them].  But if building the Lido in Wisconsin is seen as a reasonable thing, I might spend more time doodling on some ideas in the next couple of years.  There is no reason I couldn't come up with something better than that if I tried, just might be hard to convince a client it's better.  Maybe I will do a video game mock-up for them!

[Kalen Braley]

I can relate to that a bit Tom.

I recall you saying here years ago, that'd you love to build something very much out-of-the box, and given my love for quirky unconventional holes, I always thought it'd be swell to pick up a few hundred acres of silty land in the Palouse Foothills and make it happen.  All I need are 6 little numbers for tommorow's Powerball picks!

P.S.  I just fired up Google Earth and it looks like there is 2 feet of elevation differential from north to south at the Rawls site, I would think that would be plenty to work with!

[Carl Rogers]

Doesn't "magic" have to be discovered, created and evolved all at the same time?

[Philippe Binette]

To quote Kyle Franz (among his favorite lines)


If anything was possible for the architects, I think you'll some more ''Crystal Meth than Crystal Downs''


The best design often come out by tackling tough constraints or unexpected features on the site...


They once asked landscape architects to design a public space from scratch and what came out was boring and unispiring

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()