Dick Wilson article

[TEPaul]

Willie and Wayne:

I too believe the routing is a really essential element---eg a bad one is a bother forever and a good one is a joy but the fact remains an architect can make the very same routing look like 20 different golf courses, particularly today. What I call the "designing up phase" of a routing is so much more important than most of us generally think of.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE
I know a little about the IMM and the BWT, but I don't know anything about the "designing up phase" - I don't even have an acronym for it. Can you give me an idea? How an architect can get many different courses from the same routing seems pretty important.  

Thanks
Peter

[TEPaul]

Peter:

If you'd like an acronym for "designing up phase" I guess DUP could do.  

What I mean by that is a routing is a basic configuration of the holes or sequence of the holes of a course---eg the direction, length, size and basic shape of the holes.

One can have a routing for a golf course on raw land before a single grain of earth is touched.

To me the "designing up phase" is all that follows the routing layout on raw land from the beginning of construction to the completion of the course.

You can imagine how many different construction arrangements could be put on a single set routing with varying bunker placement, size, shape, green configuration, size, orientation etc.

In my opinion, varying design and construction arrangements could make a single set routing look like a score of different courses.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE
thanks. If I understood it right, the DUP concept seems to potentially add quite a bit of nuance to discussions such as this one, and to any discussion about the role of "support staff" past and present in the design process and resulting golf course, i.e. contruction foremen, shapers, even superintendants.
Am I understanding it right?

Peter  

[TEPaul]

"TE
thanks. If I understood it right, the DUP concept seems to potentially add quite a bit of nuance to discussions such as this one, and to any discussion about the role of "support staff" past and present in the design process and resulting golf course, i.e. contruction foremen, shapers, even superintendants.
Am I understanding it right?"


Peter:

You sure are, although I'm not sure I'd call it the design process but perhaps the construction process, but who knows maybe a lot of both. This is an area that is without question probably so damn large and important as to be virtually incalculable. The only problem is almost no one who doesn't spend a considerable amount of time on a project will ever know. Basically records aren't kept about things like this nor have they ever been. What goes on with any golf course project and what the public eventually knows is almost always worlds apart.

There were architects like William Flynn who were designers who created very highly detailed plans and drawings and often insisted on following then to a "T". And then there are the types like Coore and Crenshaw who go about it differently with input just sort of constantly flowing.

I hadn't spoken with Bill Coore in a long time but I had a wonderful phone conversation with him just the other day about a lot of things including this and in the course of that conversation he actually did mention---again---how much they just draw plans in the dirt, if the particular project will allow them to.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I would agree with you that a typical construction crew member during the classic era would likely offer conceptual ideas in the field and that there would normally be some contributions that made it on the ground.  That seems especially so in the manner in which C&C, Doak and others seem to go about their work today.  

Yet Flynn's methods were very different.  After thoroughly inspecting a site and spending vast amounts of time on a single project, Flynn designed on paper multiple iterations of the hole designs before eventually coming up with the final plan.  The hole was to be built exactly according to the scale drawings and detailed instructions that Flynn produced.  Flynn had two work crews that built most of his courses.  They knew what he wanted and knew they better stick to the plans.  

Given the amount of time he spent on site and the few projects per year compared to his contemporaries, his methods allowed this to be a one man shop.  I'm not saying there wasn't any contribution at all, but it could not be nearly as much as Mark implies.  We have documentation on this matter.  Flynn was unique in his approach to design methods and I think that needs to be accepted before making surmises about input from other workers or comparisons to typical processes of the day.  A 7-year dedicated research effort on William Flynn results in an understanding of his method of operation and ought to be considered.  I may not be an expert on much, but I do know this subject.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I would agree with you that a typical construction crew member during the classic era would likely offer conceptual ideas in the field and that there would normally be some contributions that made it on the ground.  That seems especially so in the manner in which C&C, Doak and others seem to go about their work today.  

Yet Flynn's methods were very different.  After thoroughly inspecting a site and spending vast amounts of time on a single project, Flynn designed on paper multiple iterations of the hole designs before eventually coming up with the final plan.  The hole was to be built exactly according to the scale drawings and detailed instructions that Flynn produced.  Flynn had two work crews that built most of his courses.  They knew what he wanted and knew they better stick to the plans.  

Given the amount of time he spent on site and the few projects per year compared to his contemporaries, his methods allowed this to be a one man shop.  I'm not saying there wasn't any contribution at all, but it could not be nearly as much as Mark implies.  

Wayne,

I'm not attempting to quantify Wilson's work and/or contributions.

I'm just pointing out that his subsequent design and construction work was outstanding, and that fact would seem to qualify him as capable of lending design imput, especially in the field.[/color]

We have documentation on this matter.  Flynn was unique in his approach to design methods and I think that needs to be accepted before making surmises about input from other workers or comparisons to typical processes of the day.  A 7-year dedicated research effort on William Flynn results in an understanding of his method of operation and ought to be considered.  I may not be an expert on much, but I do know this subject.

I have no doubt of that.

However, it was and continues to be unusual to have architects craft field journals, like surgeons craft post-operative reports, detailing exactly what was done and by whom.

It would appear that Wilson had the talent to design features and holes, and that, as field foreman, he had the opportunity as well.

As to the amount of quality control exercised by Flynn, or the amount of leeway granted Wilson, I'm not qualified to address those issues.  But, it does seem logical that he would have influenced the designs, perhaps not in the global, routing sense, but, in the micro, feature sense.

And, perhaps he and Flynn had dialogue regarding design concepts before the product was finalized.

It would seem hard to believe that such a talented man would restrain himself from having any imput on these projects.

I've always been grateful to Lowell Schulman for writing,
"The Miracle on Breeze Hill" which chronicled the development, design and construction of Atlantic Golf Club.

"Building Sebonack" is terrific, but, it has a different flavor due to the unique nature of the design team.

I wish more developers/architects/writers would collaborate on chronicling the development, design and construction of today's golf courses.[/color]