[Don Mahaffey]

The challenge with building on a poor site is embracing the site vs trying to turn it into what we all group think here is a good site. Golf comes in all shapes and sizes, and creativity is limited when you take a site that is somewhat featureless and try to create a good site. The key in my totally not humble opinion is to make the poor site work for golf, not trying to create something that is not there.  It's why we always talk about massive earthmoving or huge budgets when trying to make a 2-3 site into a 6-8 golf course.  Too often golf becomes second to the aesthetic of what we think a good site is supposed to look like. Good golf can be created on all sorts of sites. 

[Ira Fishman]

If Woking or Maidstone or St.Andrews or Pasatiempo are classified as poor sites, then I’m more than happy to work with poor sites for the rest of my life…


The majority of modern golf courses are built on 180 acres of featureless farmland that doesn’t drain and has no interest in the topography.

Ally,


There is a broad spectrum between “poor” and “great”. I do not pretend to be an architect, but Woking’s site struck me as somewhere better than poor and short of great.


Your mention of farmland triggered some descriptions of Chicago GC. I have not played it, but perhaps someone who has can weigh in whether it is a DS 9/10 course on a DS 5/6 site.


PH2 strikes me as a course with a significant disparity between the quality of the site and the quality of the course. The site certainly is very good because of the soil conditions alone, but the course is all world. I could make the same case for NB which has only a couple meaningful land movements, but perhaps the finest and most distinctive set of holes I have played. Unfortunately, Covid canceled my trip that included your club, but it sounds as if Portmarnock is another course that coaxes greatness out of a very good but less than great site.


Ira

[Ben Hollerbach]

When admiring a masterpiece hanging on the wall it's nearly impossible to see the canvas below.
We try to compare what was there before by viewing the un-molested land that surrounds a course, but even then that can be less than truthful as a comparison. Oakmont has been brought up a few times before and I believe may be the best example of a course that is truly great despite the original site.

the land under the original Pinehurst no. 3 is much more compelling than that under no. 2. Yet as time progressed one course became a must see destination and the other became an afternoon add on, even though the same architect was responsible for both.

Not sure where Sweetens would fall into this question. It is completely manufactured, with 10-15 feet of sand being dumped across the whole property. I do not believe the budget for construction would be considered extremely high. Rob and Tad may have been fortunate they had a good access to get the sand on site, so its possible that "normal" construction costs should have been much higher.

[Ally Mcintosh]

If Woking or Maidstone or St.Andrews or Pasatiempo are classified as poor sites, then I’m more than happy to work with poor sites for the rest of my life…


The majority of modern golf courses are built on 180 acres of featureless farmland that doesn’t drain and has no interest in the topography.

Ally,


There is a broad spectrum between “poor” and “great”. I do not pretend to be an architect, but Woking’s site struck me as somewhere better than poor and short of great.


Your mention of farmland triggered some descriptions of Chicago GC. I have not played it, but perhaps someone who has can weigh in whether it is a DS 9/10 course on a DS 5/6 site.


PH2 strikes me as a course with a significant disparity between the quality of the site and the quality of the course. The site certainly is very good because of the soil conditions alone, but the course is all world. I could make the same case for NB which has only a couple meaningful land movements, but perhaps the finest and most distinctive set of holes I have played. Unfortunately, Covid canceled my trip that included your club, but it sounds as if Portmarnock is another course that coaxes greatness out of a very good but less than great site.


Ira

I was thinking Chicago might qualify myself (although I have never been there).


I think you can disqualify almost any links land: Building a course on sand with dune like topography - however small - is a dream for any architect.


Portmarnock is a great site - there is sufficient micro-movement with enough dune ridges and undulation. If we are going to look for a better example of a top-class links course, Muirfield might suit. After all, Andrew Kirkcaldy called it “nothing more than an old water meadow” when HCEG moved there. Far less micro-movement than Portmarnock.

[Mark_Fine]

When I walked around the courses in Pinehurst I was thinking how lucky to get to work on sites like this.  I have one project now where we are trying to make improvements and we are dealing with heavy shale right under the surface.  It is a nightmare and very expensive to dig/jack hammer it out so you can add/modify features.  Something as simple as adding closely mow grass on the side slopes of a green can be horrifically expensive as the super has to be able to maintain that kind of turf.  A sandy site is a Godsend for an architect. 

[Drew Harvie]

Garden city is a good site, sandy soil and great vegetation cannot be called a poor site


Oakmont has the weakest site among the best courses in the world... poor site


Weak site a good course : Essex GC in windsor, ontario. (Home course of Jeff Mingay) Flat site, pretty sure it's not sandy, but Donald Ross did a great job
I doubt it was a big budget

All clay at Essex. I believe that's why you see the drainage swales... clay doesn't drain so the swales help usher water around the property. It is a good golf course, but very far from a Doak 7.


A little closer would be Cherry Hill, which is obviously carried by Travis' green complexes.

[Michael Chadwick]

The South Course at Arcadia Bluffs is on a nondescript site but with I believe good soil conditions. Hurdzan and Fry’s homage to Chicago Golf Club is a worthy example of engaging architecture on tame terrain. Large, interesting greens, and cross bunkers used to dictate strategic angles and carry yardages.   


MacDonald/Raynor may be the best reference for how to overcome a limited site. 

[Mark_Fine]

Michael,
Would you say Macdonald/Raynor were a bit like Pete Dye?  All three just knocked their sites into shape.  They were builders and not so much finders.  Don’t know much about M/R’s budgets but I equate building vs finding as usually more expensive.  Any idea what Arcadia Bluffs cost?

[Jonathan Webb]

Well if we do a great job then you retroactively declare it was a good site, or tell us you wish you had budgets like that.


I’ve spent the weekend working on a plan for a new course in SE Florida - it’s a long, skinny flat site and you wouldn’t spend more than a few hours looking it over for natural features before giving up.  The goal is to build a course second to Seminole and I think that is possible (or I wouldn’t say so here).  We will move a lot of dirt to do so, but I think we could move half as much and still create something special, if the stakes weren’t so high in that neighborhood.


The site does have one big advantage over the other courses around there, though I have promised the client not to reveal it for now.  But it’s not something you would say made it a great site if you were anywhere else.

For that part of Florida my guesses on a big advantage would be; drainge / ditch sytem throughout site, lower water table, not a lot of existing vegetation or all of the above!

[Wade Whitehead]

I always like asking the question: Is this the best course that could have been designed and built on this site?
If it is, then it's tied with other courses that were the best possible layouts on their respective sites.

That doesn't translate to a Doak score, but it reflects that a given course is as good as it could have been.

In the end, isn't that all we can of an architect or builder...and isn't it a bigger accomplishment than an 8 on a site that could have yielded a 9 or 10?

WW

[Tom_Doak]

I always like asking the question: Is this the best course that could have been designed and built on this site?
If it is, then it's tied with other courses that were the best possible layouts on their respective sites.

That doesn't translate to a Doak score, but it reflects that a given course is as good as it could have been.

In the end, isn't that all we can of an architect or builder...and isn't it a bigger accomplishment than an 8 on a site that could have yielded a 9 or 10?

Wade:


I have never been a fan of "created from scratch" projects because there is no way to judge them.  In theory, you could build ANYTHING.


So, until recently, my goal in designing courses has been to produce a great course that's inherent to the land it was built on.  I prefer when pre-existing features of the site provide a lot of the character and challenge.
[/size]
[/size]After working on the Lido, though, I'm prompted to wonder if the next time I tackle the holes on a less interesting part of the site, if I should be more inclined to reinvent that area to make those holes not just fit in but stand out.  It's certainly possible if you do it right, and you have more chance of success if you are just trying to do it for a couple of holes, rather than all eighteen of them.
[/size]
[/size]It goes against my minimalist tendencies, but sometimes I have clients who want more than that.

[Mark_Fine]

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?

[JESII]

Would someone/anyone make the case that Winged Foot's West course is on anything other than mundane land?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
But Tillinghast moved a lot of dirt (relatively speaking) to make up for it and built (not found) one of the most amazing sets of green complexes out there.  Back then it had to have been an expensive build.  There was rock on the site as well that he had to deal with. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

The challenge with building on a poor site is embracing the site vs trying to turn it into what we all group think here is a good site. Golf comes in all shapes and sizes, and creativity is limited when you take a site that is somewhat featureless and try to create a good site. The key in my totally not humble opinion is to make the poor site work for golf, not trying to create something that is not there.  It's why we always talk about massive earthmoving or huge budgets when trying to make a 2-3 site into a 6-8 golf course.  Too often golf becomes second to the aesthetic of what we think a good site is supposed to look like. Good golf can be created on all sorts of sites.

Thank you, Don

[JESII]

Maybe Mark, but there’s nothing to suggest it would have been a blank check type job.


Your first sentence is really my point. Site matters but the architect is at least equal in the final result.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Definitely agree about the architect but even great architect’s can be limited.  I am curious about Memorial as that is a current one that has been discussed a lot.

[Jimmy Muratt]

Maybe Mark, but there’s nothing to suggest it would have been a blank check type job.


Your first sentence is really my point. Site matters but the architect is at least equal in the final result.

I agree with Jim's comments.  The final product at Winged Foot or Oakmont FAR outweighs the quality of the site.   As a raw site, there is nothing great about Winged Foot's site.  In fact, it had many hurdles to overcome with the heavy soil and rocks.  The fact that Tilinghast created two fantastic golf courses speaks to his architectural genius (with several other terrific ones nearby).


Oakmont is one of my very favorite courses.   It's land is indistinguishable from countless other pieces of farmland....nice rolling land with heavy clay soil.   Yet, what Fownes created is brilliant and unique.


So, getting back to the original question....it's much easier to end up with a great course when you start with a great site.   A scenic, sandy site has many inherent advantages over a nondescript heavy soil site.   That's what makes courses like Winged Foot and Oakmont so remarkable.

[Mark_Fine]

Jimmy,
Thumbs up!  Two great courses for sure. Would you agree that both courses had to be manufactured vs found?   Hard for an architect to be a minimalist on a poor site with limited funds and end up with something great. Oakmont took a lot of work (all those ditches for drainage for example and literally hundreds of bunkers at one point).   

[Jimmy Muratt]

Jimmy,
Thumbs up!  Two great courses for sure. Would you agree that both courses had to be manufactured vs found?   Hard for an architect to be a minimalist on a poor site with limited funds and end up with something great. Oakmont took a lot of work (all those ditches for drainage for example and literally hundreds of bunkers at one point).

Mark,


There certainly is some manufacturing at both of those sites.  When working with an average site, a good bit of manufacturing and creativity is a must if greatness is desired.  There still has to be some restraint, however...in my opinion.   When one visits Winged Foot or Oakmont, I don't ever feel that any of the manufactured features seem out of place or contrived.

[Mark_Fine]

Including the church pews 


I love them, built some myself for another Loeffler design but the key word is built 😉


When you look around Sand Hills you see golf holes in every direction both on and off the course.  When you look around Oakmont you also see an amazing golf course but one that man built not Mother Nature 😊. A lot of money was spent.

[Ally Mcintosh]

For those that know Oakmont or Winged Foot, when you look around I’m assuming that you are looking at built bunkers and greens. But that through the green has had little earth movement and still reflects the raw site? In other words, the essence of the raw site remains.


Or am I wrong?

[JESII]

You're correct Ally!


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


I haven't been to Sand Hills, but I would be surprised to learn that the greens were found as they are today only with longer grass on them. I suspect they was some "building" to prepare for the grass that's now there.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
My hypothesis was that it is really hard and usual to take a modest site and turn it into something great (7+) without moving a lot of dirt and a lot of money.  That is why I said blinding flash of the obvious 


Wondered what examples of exceptions might be out there and what others thought.  Several good examples have been raised. 

[JESII]

"I am talking about courses that would get a Doak score of at least 7 and above.  After two recent golf trips and interviewing for a couple new renovation projects I am more convinced then ever the quality of a golf course has almost everything to do with the site.  And if you don’t have a great site you better have a great budget if you want to build anything approaching a 7!  Pete Dye got some of the worst sites and “built” some great golf courses but the key word is built and he had a budget to do it.  Also you can’t be a minimalist and find golf holes if the site is poor and doesn’t yield them. 

Any exceptions out there that are 7 or above on poor sites with low budgets?  One of the Talking Stick courses might qualify but I don’t know the budget."


This is the opening post. Bold and Underline are mine.

I suggested the architect has to be at least equal to the site in the final result. How many great sites resulted in crappy courses?  A lot more than resulted in great courses, I'll guarantee that.



I wonder if you can think of a great course that had a bad architect...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()