[Tommy Williamsen]

Paul Stookey from Peter, Paul, and Mary was once asked how he wrote songs. He said that some songs just come easily but sometimes "You become the instrument of what it is that wants to be said. At those times I can not take credit for the song."
He was referring specifically to the Wedding Song that was so popular twenty year ago. I can't tell you how many times I had to sing that song at weddings at which I officiated.

I wonder how often that happens in golf design. Golf holes can take on a life of their own. Did C&C know that the first hole at Sand Hills would be so special? Did it turn out better than they imagined? Or did they know it would be that good? When 8 at Pine Valley was designed did Crump (Colt?)  know it would become one of the classic short par fours in the world? Did Dr Mac know that AGNC 13th would become one of the most exciting holes in the world?

Some holes design themselves, they just wait for grass seed.I asked Bill Coore how he designed the 13th green at Sand Hills. "We just smoothed it out and threw grass seed down."

What holes do you think came out better than might have been thought.

The opposite must be true as well. Somebody designing a hole that the archy thought was brilliant only to find out it just didn't work as thought.

[Ally Mcintosh]

This happens often, Tommy. A hole that seems like it could be weaker at concept stage turns out to be a sleeper hit and one of the best on the course.


And vice versa.


I’m sure Tom will give quite a few examples on his courses.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I've never written or produced a song, but I can imagine sometimes it is possible to work on it too much.
2 thoughts on why one wouldn't be surprised:
Design-build, if not overdoing things, can work out details until the hole works or is excellent, as opposed to build to plans where the contractor & architect may finish according to the plan and then move on to the next hole/job.
Finding great green sights and fairways or other natural features kind of ensures the hole will be interesting or very good (in the right hands).


I was most surprised by how much better Wolf Point played or how great it really was after Don Mahaffey got the maintenance meld perfect.


Peace

[Philippe Binette]

Would be a great marketing line

Code: [Select]


'I design so-so holes but somehow, they turn out good !!'

[Matt MacIver]

My work weaks for itself.

[Tom_Doak]

Fifteen years ago, I had a pretty good idea of where a new course I was building might be ranked.  That's gotten much harder now, because panelists are comparing one of my new courses to my roster of other courses they really liked, and it's hard to know where they might come out on that.  It really is just the sum of personal preference, plus trying to agree with other respected voices.





Honestly, though, I do not get too much feedback on individual holes anymore.  Everyone wants to make a pronouncement of where the course will rank, but they aren't very specific about why and it rarely comes down to individual holes.


Here's a typical report from the thread last week about my best/worst courses:


My least favorite Doak is Lost Dunes in Michigan.  Tough routing with a highway going through it.  Can't remember any signature holes?  Seems like it was penal if you missed it.
[/size][/color]



The only thing in there about individual holes was that he didn't identify a "signature hole," which is strange because there are a couple of holes that attract all the comment from most visitors.  Basically, he was looking for things not to like.


A good example is Tara Iti.  For The Confidential Guide, neither Ran nor Darius nor Masa rated it in my top 3-4 courses, because they tend to focus on individual holes, as do I.  Yet the magazine rankings are all over the moon about it, and have it as my best course by a fair bit, because there is nothing not to like.  It's beyond beautiful, there are no distractions, the condition is perfect, and everyone gets treated like a king. 

[Tom_Doak]

This happens often, Tommy. A hole that seems like it could be weaker at concept stage turns out to be a sleeper hit and one of the best on the course.


And vice versa.


I’m sure Tom will give quite a few examples on his courses.

It's the vice versa that bothers me, and yes it does happen on my courses, too.  I think I get complacent when there is a stunning natural hole, focus my attention on the ones that need work, and in the end the great natural hole isn't everyone's favorite when it seemed obvious it would be.  13 at Pacific Dunes is like that . . . it takes a beautiful picture, but nobody ever tells me they think it's the best hole out there.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Honestly, though, I do not get too much feedback on individual holes anymore.  Everyone wants to make a pronouncement of where the course will rank, but they aren't very specific about why and it rarely comes down to individual holes.



I'll give you a hole that few people will bring up as a favorite of yours--18 at High Point.

[Andrew Harvie]

This happens often, Tommy. A hole that seems like it could be weaker at concept stage turns out to be a sleeper hit and one of the best on the course.


And vice versa.


I’m sure Tom will give quite a few examples on his courses.

It's the vice versa that bothers me, and yes it does happen on my courses, too.  I think I get complacent when there is a stunning natural hole, focus my attention on the ones that need work, and in the end the great natural hole isn't everyone's favorite when it seemed obvious it would be.  13 at Pacific Dunes is like that . . . it takes a beautiful picture, but nobody ever tells me they think it's the best hole out there.

I think it is the best hole out there, so you can count one. In fact, I'm a little surprised no one thinks that, too. It is a spectacular golf hole.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The funny thing in evaluating golf holes is that if you ask someone what the best hole on the course is, the answer, 99% of the time, is their idea of the worst hole on the course, or the one they like least.  Try it. 


I've had clients tell me the entire course I designed for them was much better than what they thought they were getting (usually on a public course commission) even using the term "You sandbagged me!" 


Over the last few days, I have struggled to think of an individual hole that came out better than I personally expected, but I am sure there are some.  I will echo TD's comments about sometimes thinking that the best natural hole doesn't need as much work.  At the first Giant's Ridge course, they did favorite hole surveys (no the answers weren't "all but hole X..." as per above) and I was surprised that some of the holes on lesser land and woods, where I did do more bunkering came in almost universally as the favorites.


The other ones that I sometimes have a bit of sense of relief on are those up and over holes or other landforms that tend to create blind holes, and I am never quite sure if the planned earthworks will look good and fix the problems.


On the technical side, LOL, I recall that same Giant's Ridge course, built over a rock pile, and really fretting all winter that the subsurface flows were going to suck the topsoil down and out, leaving a field of craters the next spring.  Thankfully, it didn't, even though you can still hear the subsurface river running under the 7th fw.  At Superior National, the 7th there also required a steep, 30 foot high, rock-covered fill, on a 1 to 1 slope to widen the fw.  At the bottom was a protected trout stream, which engineers at the adjacent ski hill had been fined for sullying.  That said, it has held up quite well.


At Tempest, in East TX, I designed a valley par 3, and just assumed we could get the path down there somehow.  Turns out, it took a 40 foot high bridge to cross that sucker, and oddly, riding high over the rushing stream turned into a nice view that golfers seem to love, so I consider that a happy (if expensive at about $100K) accident.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()