[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Having had the chance to play Bali Nirwana in January, I have been wondering whether Bob Harrison is the best “unknown” golf architect. While this is not a slight to the likes of Jim Lipe, whose deflection of credit for his great work at the likes of Mayacama is refreshing.
Clearly Harrison's role with GN Design in Australia and Asia is of key importance. While quality work has been produced at a relatively constant level, GN Design in the U.S. has not been able to make the same claim. Even Wente Vineyards – which Harrison was involved in - has a completely different (much better, in my opinion) style than Norman's Florida and Palm Springs courses.

Bali Nirwana is really rather exceptional, with some world-class golf holes. The Indian Ocean borders the course and the holes along the coast are arguably as good as they could be, with two par threes and an excellent short par four. Had I not read Ran's interview with Harrison, it would have been difficult to imagine that the rice terraces were manufactured as part of the design. The course moves across rolling land and affords a number of good opportunities to exercise the ground-game options - even during the "rainy" season.

The course is able to challenge the better golfer without excessive length, through a combination of tough angles and punishing hazards. Yet with the exception of a few forced carries in front of greens, the course allows the resort golfer bail out points. Undoubtedly one of the finest resort courses I have played in my travels and surely among the handful of America's best public courses.

Herewith is the seventh hole, a 214-yard par three, which is as wonderful as it is dramatic. However, this hole, which boasts an ideal setting overlooking one of Bali's most famous temples (Tanah Lot) is exceptional in more ways than one. The green's contours and two bunkers are ideal and leave the first-time golfer who has cleared the abyss scratching their head with bogey. Simply reaching the green is hardly enough and that is the overwhelming joy of the course.



With the great acclaim for National Moonah and Ellerston, I have to believe he is one of the great architects producing work today who outside of the GCA receives little of credit. Is he remotely celebrated in Australia?

[tonyt]

Outside of us archie junkies, few golfers here in Australia have heard of Bob Harrison. National Moonah was described as the best course constructed in Australia since WW2 by Mike Clayton and a few others who's opinion should count. And Ellerston by all accounts is phenominal too.

Yet we hear about Norman missing the mark in the US and with courses like Doonbeg. Only TPC at Sugarloaf gets mild praise consistently compared to the projects in Australia, and being a "tall poppy" nation, we certainly don't give him an automatic free pass.

It has been discussed on these boards before that different crews in different regions result in different results for big name architects. And it pretty much proved that the leading members of the crew make the difference.

[SPDB]

I think there are plenty of these architects, who are unheard of simply because they elect not to strike out on their own.

Another one I would add is Andy Banfield.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Interesting post, Ben.

I had the pleasure to meet Bob Harrison a few years ago. He's a wonderful, mild mannered, unassuming guy who Greg Norman is obviously lucky to have working for him.

Unfortunately, I've yet to see any of Bob's work in person. Nonetheless, the photos I've seen of his work have impressed me very much.

I've done quite a bit of writing on golf architecture, and it's always been my gut instinct to delve into the subject of who was really involved with golf course design and construction - to write about guys like Dave Axland and Rod Whitman, for example, when discussing a Coore and Crenshaw job; or Hepner, Placek, Slawnick, et. al. when writing about Doak's work. If nothing else, it makes the story more interesting.

That said, I can't believe more Australian golf writers don't delve into the fact that Bob Harrison has had a lot to do with the quality of Shark's work in Australasia, and publicize it. It's too bad.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Sean,
What has Banfield done without strong influence from Fazio? Have they been markedly better than Fazio's other work when say Strantz was with him?

Jeff,
In all fairness, I considered Dan, Dave and Rod, but all have relatively celebrated solo designs. If you looked at the GW list or Canada's best courses you would find those three guys. I did not post a definitive on this because I felt there was lots of room for discussion and you brought up some good points.
I wonder if the lack of press on Harrison in Australia is a result of not wanting to detract from the native son's work, having said that - Darius Oliver gives Harrison his due.

TonyT,
I agree and am happy that at least there is some Aussies on the bandwagon.

[SPDB]

Ben - As i understand it, Banfield is the savant of the office, and has had a vast impact on Fazio's public perception/reputation (for better or worse, wherever your views happen to fall).

More than anyone else (including Faz) he has the ability to see routing/golf holes where few can. Better put, he can weave a sow's ear (and not just a sow's ear, a sow's ear that has been dragged through the mud, trampled and spit on) into a silk purse. Probably why he was the main man on Black Diamond and Shadow Creek. His contribution vis-a-vis Fazio at Shadow Creek cannot be underestimated.

[Andy]

I have seen a few of Greg/Bob's work in Australia, Glades, Brookwater, Pelican Waters, Moonah, all quite good.  My opinion is that his Australian work is better because Bob is just a step up from Greg's American team.  I am a little surprised that Greg has not noticed the vastly different perceptions of his work in Australia versus America, or, maybe his USA team insulates him from the negative.  Just a guess.

Andy

[David_Elvins]

I think Bob Harrison is getting alot more publicity in Australia than he he would if he was in a similar position in America.  It was interesting to see that in Darius Olivers recent publication "Australia's Finest Golf Courses" -a book produced for a wide market and available in almost every Australian bookshop (but written with a relatively high degree of architectural intelligence), Bob Harrison, and not Greg Norman is listed as the Architect of record for Ellerston, Brookwater, National Moonah and the other Greg Norman Design courses featured in the book.  I may be wrong but I couldn't see a book doing the same to Jack Nicklaus.

[Andrew Summerell]

I have played 5 of Bob's designs, 2 of which were before he worked for Greg. I've even been a member of one.

We talk about what Greg has gained from having Bob on his team, but not what Bob has gain by being on Gregs team.

All the Harrison courses I have played have had similar qualities, but the ones done with Greg have been a few steps up in quality. This has probably been because of experience as well as exposure to better land & higher budgets.

Architects need the opportunity to work on better land with bigger budgets, so working for a 'big name' is a great way to do so.

There are a lot of architects running their own small company who do nothing more than a green remodeling here & a bunker redesign there, never getting the chance to do a decent project. Working for Greg Norman has given Bob Harrison the chance to do full course design & gain recognition for it. If he were to strike out on his own, he would have a reasonable CV.

[TEPaul]

I like the "look" of that 7th hole in that photo very much. I like the "look" of the green, I like the seemingly natural "lines" of the entire green and green-end and I like the way those two bunkers I can see there sit into the land and into the upslopes---the whole thing has a natural look to it.

But I have just one question about that hole. At 214 yards in that "situation" ((position) of apparent danger all around) which must be tough as hell and super windy at times, is it strategically necessary or even advisable to have that big flashed up bunker immediately guarding the mid front of that green? 214yds  over all that area between the tee and the green looks demanding enough for any level. To add a bit of optional strategy to that hole (not generally an easy thing to do on a par 3) I think both the "look" and the optional playability of that hole might be a lot better, maybe a whole lot better, without that bunker at the mid-front of that green!

[Andrew Summerell]

I don't have a problem with the front bunker. It does not cut the eye line of the golfer to the green & seems to be on heavily sloping ground, possibly saving a short ball from roling back into the jungle.

You would probably find that the green has more width than you can see from the photo, as Bob tends to designs greens that have either width or length, without too much comprimise.

[A_Clay_Man]

I see what TP is saying about the hole depicted. However, I would probably disagree, if and only if, there is room to bounce it in from the left. Over the bush that seems to rise slightly.

[TEPaul]

Hard to say just looking at a photo but with a hole in that area, that long, I think I'd try to use whatever area there is between the front of the green and the cliff for golf instead of penalty where that mid-front bunker is. If the hole was 50 yards shorter the bunker would be fine. But it's hard to tell from just that photo and no real big deal anyway. The bunker is set in well and looks good up into that upslope but still with a hole that long I'd prefer that area for a golf shot rather than just looks---or looks and penalty.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

There is room on both sides of the bunker, but the picture does not depict two things. First, the green is quite wide and very deep, with a fair amount of slope from back to front, which makes it receptive to the longer club. Secondly, there is a lot of fairway short of that bunker - the water does not really hug the green site in front. I would imagine there is 40-50 yards there.

Lastly, the picture I took is from the farthest angle on the left (not the back tee) and the other tees are generally to the right with a more favourable angle, even the back tee. From that tee, I think the hole player 175-185. The green is so deep that there is no real need to run the ball in and the front slope is severe enough that it probably would not run in anyway.

[Brian Walshe]

I have a feeling that Bob may have been involved early on with Sugarloaf as well.  His work with GN Design in the last 5 or 6 years in Australia has been consistently good and it's nice to see him getting a bit of credit for his work.

With regard to the Norman is very lucky comment, I think it may work both ways.  Besides Greg's name helping Bob get some good pieces of land, I think some of Greg's input might help as well.  I remember changes to the 2nd hole on the Moonah course at the National that occurred after one of Greg's visit that improve the hole dramatically.

Brian

[Tom_Doak]

Bob Harrison is a super guy and I think he is a perfect complement to Greg Norman ... he's the most skilled at the aspects where Greg is the least skilled.

But, as I have said before, I don't know how any of you can pretend to parcel out credit for a golf course between members of the design team, for designers present or past.  It's simply a matter of rewriting history to suit your own agenda.  You don't have any idea who does what.

Part of being a great architect is to know how to use the talents of other people to make the project even better than you could do on your own.

P.S.  This week, at least, Brian Slawnik and Eric Iverson are the most underrated architects in golf for their last two months of work at St. Andrews Beach.  

[TEPaul]

"It's simply a matter of rewriting history to suit your own agenda.  You don't have any idea who does what."

Tom Doak:

I could not agree with you more. There's a lot of rewrting of history on here even from those who have the availability of excellent research material. In my opinion, when it gets back into the subject of the "Golden Age" these researchers are often incapable of putting themselves into the perspective of the way things really were back then. They tend to look too much at the details of that earlier era through the prism of our present day eyes---and I agree there's far too much "agenda managing". Generally it gets into "icon advocacy" at the expense of fact.

But that's why many of us are on this website---to find out how things really did happen and why way back when--and certainly today as well. And in present day architecture a guy like you mentioning the importance and contribution of people like Slawnik and Iverson is very valuable--matter of fact you should go into as much detail about them in this vein as you possibly can.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()