A blinding flash of the obvious - it’s the site!

[Thomas Dai]

Mark is apparently looking for an example of a piece of crap land, left untouched, that became a Top 200 course in the world...

Ah "crap land, left untouched", sounds like the sandy areas that link the seashore to land that can be used to usefully grow crops!:)
atb

[JESII]

Perfect!


Unless we've become naval gazers in 2021...

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim
to your earlier point:
I was wondering how many very good sites Ross actually had to work with, and whether many of them *seem* to us now to have been very good sites for golf courses only because it was *Donald Ross* who designed-built those courses!
I've played many a Doak 3 -- designed by less talented architects, apparently -- that were laid out across the same gently rolling land with modest elevation changes that Ross often worked on.
Yes, it *could be* that they had a lot less money to work with than Ross had, and/or that they moved a lot less dirt than he did -- though that last seems more doubtful than likely.

[Jimmy Muratt]

What I find fascinating is all that has to go right to turn an average site into a great golf course.   It has to be like a perfect storm of architect, client goals, budget, maintenance team...  The realization that the site is just average and then giving a talented architect the freedom to get creative seems like the critical element.


There are countless sites as good as Winged Foot or Oakmont and many talented architects have worked those sites throughout the years but very few ever reach greatness.   

[David_Elvins]

What I find fascinating is all that has to go right to turn an average site into a great golf course.   It has to be like a perfect storm of architect, client goals, budget, maintenance team...  The realization that the site is just average and then giving a talented architect the freedom to get creative seems like the critical element.


There are countless sites as good as Winged Foot or Oakmont and many talented architects have worked those sites throughout the years but very few ever reach greatness.

I remember an architect X's offsider saying "if architect x ever got a good site he would be just as well renowned as the big names." Then I went and looked at his courses.  A couple of them were on unbelievable sites.  But they had no clue that they were working on unbelievable sites because they did not have dramatic features and they just had no clue as to what an actual good site is. 


Sometimes our perception may be wrong and its more a case of most architects stuffing up good sites rather than good architects improving poor sites.

[Jimmy Muratt]

Very true, and that's another topic entirely.   The final product should never be worse than the potential of the raw land.   Obviously, there are potential environmental issues, budget concerns etc. that factor into the land's potential.

[Mike_Trenham]

I am very surprised to hear so many on here saying Oakmont’s land is nothing special.


The site has some very steep slopes, it’s far from gently rolling.  If anything the credit should go for making the land work while not overworking the playing corridors.  They do have some newer championship tees that look to have utilized a lot of fill.


I don’t see this as a site where during boom times many of the leading architects would have declined the engagement.  Also very minimal natural wetlands so it could likely be built nearly unchanged today.

[Jimmy Muratt]

I am very surprised to hear so many on here saying Oakmont’s land is nothing special.


The site has some very steep slopes, it’s far from gently rolling.  If anything the credit should go for making the land work while not overworking the playing corridors.  They do have some newer championship tees that look to have utilized a lot of fill.


I don’t see this as a site where during boom times many of the leading architects would have declined the engagement.  Also very minimal natural wetlands so it could likely be built nearly unchanged today.

Mike,


I reference Oakmont because, in my opinion, it's a 10.  Looking at the site, it's certainly decent but no different than countless other parcels of heavy-soiled farmland, perhaps a 5-6 max.   So, that's quite an improvement to go from a site with a grade of 5-6 to a 10.....in my opinion.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
I can't think of a great course that didn't have an excellent architect.  I referenced Pete Dye turning marginal sites into great golf courses but even someone as talented at Pete needed a good budget to do so.  I also referenced Talking Stick as basically a barren piece of desert that C&C turned into something special.  Clearly that was the architect but what I don't know was what the budget was to do so.  The budget for example at Sand Hills was very minimal, I have heard as low as one or two million.  They could do that because the site was amazing.  No one is discounting at all how critical the architect is to the whole process. I was just saying even the most brilliant architect can sometimes only go so far.  I asked the question as an example, why is Memorial only a 6?  No one has commented.  The architect was brilliant and the money was there.  Why only a 6?  Was it the limitations of the site?  Maybe, I don't know, I am asking. 

[JESII]

Hmm…how many great courses are dependent on the budget? Serious question.


If the…say, Top 100, how many would have construction budget as a greater reason than architect or site?

[Mike_Trenham]

I am very surprised to hear so many on here saying Oakmont’s land is nothing special.


The site has some very steep slopes, it’s far from gently rolling.  If anything the credit should go for making the land work while not overworking the playing corridors.  They do have some newer championship tees that look to have utilized a lot of fill.


I don’t see this as a site where during boom times many of the leading architects would have declined the engagement.  Also very minimal natural wetlands so it could likely be built nearly unchanged today.

Mike,


I reference Oakmont because, in my opinion, it's a 10.  Looking at the site, it's certainly decent but no different than countless other parcels of heavy-soiled farmland, perhaps a 5-6 max.   So, that's quite an improvement to go from a site with a grade of 5-6 to a 10.....in my opinion.

I’d like to hear what 5 non sandy / waterfront sites in the Mid-Atlantic states are clearly superior.

[Jimmy Muratt]

I am very surprised to hear so many on here saying Oakmont’s land is nothing special.


The site has some very steep slopes, it’s far from gently rolling.  If anything the credit should go for making the land work while not overworking the playing corridors.  They do have some newer championship tees that look to have utilized a lot of fill.


I don’t see this as a site where during boom times many of the leading architects would have declined the engagement.  Also very minimal natural wetlands so it could likely be built nearly unchanged today.

Mike,


I reference Oakmont because, in my opinion, it's a 10.  Looking at the site, it's certainly decent but no different than countless other parcels of heavy-soiled farmland, perhaps a 5-6 max.   So, that's quite an improvement to go from a site with a grade of 5-6 to a 10.....in my opinion.

I’d like to hear what 5 non sandy / waterfront sites in the Mid-Atlantic states are clearly superior.

That's the point....Oakmont is built on pretty generic farmland.   I'm in Virginia and we've got countless sites with similar or better topography and heavy clay soil.  What grade would you give the site for Oakmont?   Do you think the site itself is better than a 5/6 as I said above?   


My point in referencing Winged Foot and Oakmont is that a truly exceptional golf course can be built on pretty nondescript land.   The site doesn't have to be a 9 or 10 for the finished course to be a 9 or 10.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Architect is first and foremost.  But if we are looking at modern courses where we might have some idea of budget I would say most of Pete’s courses were dependent on budget such as TPC Sawgrass and Whistling Straits.  If he doesn’t get the money, highly doubt those courses make any Top 100 list.  Shadow Creek was on a flat piece of desert - $40MM to build.  What does he build with $3MM - the small scale mock up 
Muirfield Village was extremely expensive to build.  Does Jack build his dream course there for $5MM?  I think budget was key.  Estancia was built in the desert and very expensive construction budget.  Boston Golf Club, tough site and high $$$$.  I heard the tunnel alone was $1MM.  Bayonne was also built on a very challenging site and lots of rumors about how much was spent to build it.  Just a few examples of modern courses where the sites were maybe not God meant the land to be a golf course. 


Jimmy,
I am agreeing with your statement that a great golf course can be built on less then ideal land BUT it takes a lot of money in most cases to do so.  I will go out on a limb and say I believe Oakmont and Winged Foot had some of the largest construction budgets for their time when they were built. 

[Mike_Trenham]

I am saying Oakmont’s site was an 8 to start and they tuned it into a 10 with the creation of the greens, bunkers and ditches.  A Doak 10 is about 5-10x greater than a Doak 8 as I recall based on a logarithm scale.


I would really like to hear what sites are similar to Oakmont that excel without any water features.

[JESII]

Mike,


While Oakmont certainly has more movement than Winged Foot, making the case that the land itself would equate to an 8 (I think there are less than 100 golf courses that received an 8 in the world, no?) seems a stretch. Jimmy's point is that it doesn't stand out in any way. How would you distinguish the site at Oakmont from the 20 other courses within 100 miles of it that are 4's, 5's or 6's?

[Tom_Doak]

Several including Tom himself gave Memorial a 6.  The site had a huge eight figure  budget and one of the best architects in the business.  What limited it?

Partly I gave it a 6 because I do not believe in overhyping my work.  It doesn't compare to places like Stone Eagle [a 7] because the land is very flat and saving most of the trees prevented us from trying to change the world - not that anyone thought that was the right thing to do.  The site was a limiting factor.


Now, some might think that the detail work makes it surpass that, but that's harder to say when you only build 17 bunkers, and when you have to keep the greens toned down so the PGA TOUR design guys don't lose their marbles.  Honestly, the PGA TOUR makes it very hard to build a course I'd consider great.  They don't want you to take any risks.


Also -- a 6 is a fine course, it's just not a contender for the top 100 in the USA.  [There's only room for so many of those.]  If you ever managed to build a 6 [with a big budget or a small one] it would be the best thing you'd ever done.  But it's also kind of my minimum standard    . . . if I didn't think we could build a 6, I wouldn't take a project. 

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
How many U.S. Open courses or British Open courses does the PGA tour play that are not at least a 6?  What about Augusta National?  Your answer sounds like a cop out.  At least you did say the site was a limiting factor.  That is in part what I was getting at with this thread.  Does Common Ground meet your 6 minimum? 

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


Tom can respond to your trolling of him although I give him credit for responding at all to your previous posts.


My purpose here is to say that I will concede that if you were given either (a) a great site and/or (b) a big budget that you would design a DS 7 or above IF you concede that many of us have offered examples of DS 7 or above that were not designed or built with big budgets on average or at least than "great" sites.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
Thanks for the response.  I was not trolling Tom.  He posted a 6 for Memorial and I asked him an honest question about what limited him on that project given it didn't seem to be money.  Why is that trolling?  We talk about his courses ad nauseam on this site so what is the big deal?  What do you take away from his answer?  Was it the site?


I said several times that there were some great examples given here about tough/less than ideal sites where great courses resulted.  I actually listed the first one in my initial post - Talking Stick.  Did you miss that?  So yes I concede that it can happen.  What I don't believe is that it is often. 

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

I think the more interesting question to me is:  How many of the courses that started on DS 2 or 3 sites,  basically remained that once the course was put in the ground? Sure 7 or better sites are always great, and in raw numbers, I would think that only reflects a very small % of the total courses built. 

But for the tens of thousands of DS 1-3 courses, that effectively serve the golfing masses, couldn't more have been done, even on a limited budget to turn a DS 2 site into a DS 4 or 5 course on a more frequent basis? As one who has played most of my golf on public courses, it seems like most were just putting another course in the ground in turn-key fashion, instead of getting the most out of it.

If attempting to evaluate the body of work of an architect,  I would probably look more favorably on one who took DS 1 or 2 sites and consistently got 4 or 5's out them...over one who primarily worked on 4 or 5 sites, and turned out 5s and 6s.