Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: JESII on April 26, 2005, 02:07:09 PM
-
THE FINAL ROUTING OF A GOLF COURSE
1) Are there any instances in which we can actually see two different final routings for one course? There is occassionally talk of an alternative routing for CPC (possibly Raynor) but the course was not built with that plan, so how could we possibly intelligently compare it with the final by MacKenzie?
2) How much does the routing matter in the finished product? I ask this assuming the course starts and finishes in relative proximity to the clubhouse for both options. I also assume all walks from green to tee would balance out for length and climb. The overall quality of the holes would also equal out.
3) How does someone analyze a courses routing?
-
There is occassionally mention of a courses routing being obvious, as though there were no plausible alternatives. I simply cannot understand this logic.
Do you start with one or two features you really want to utilize and build the course around it/them?
What role does the sequence of hole par (par 3's, 4's, 5's) play in a routing scheme?
I understand environmental issues are an increasing concern and frequently play much too large a role in today's routings. Does this add to or take away from the "genius" of what turns out to be a well routed golf course?
-
I don't know if CPC is as good an example as perhaps some old course that was documented before some other gca rerouted it completely as happened then and now.
Brad Klein said routing is destiny. I agree. Two routings could very well equal out, but they don't necessarily have to.
Most gca types will provide multiple routings, and each will have some great features. Most will also have both a numerical checklist and intuitive process for determining which is best. Numerically, you can measure variety of approach shots, changes of wind direction, etc. and examples are in various books. However, I'll bet most architects settle on the final (if not dictated by some outside source) more intuitively.
Perhaps its not wanting to give up one great hole (CPC 16th, for example) in order to get some type of balance on other holes, as it should be. After all, great courses are inevitably made up of great holes.
-
Shivas
I guess I am trying to identify what makes a good/great routing while keeping all other variables as even as possible. Maybe that's the point, the great routings find more/better features to utilize to their full potential. Maybe..
We can go back to the Seminole example.
There are but two primary features on that property, the dune line along the ocean, and the larger ridge line running through the opposite side. Due to the size of that property, I would have had no choice but to utilize both in some manner. Is there any reason to believe I would have created the course that exists today?
-
Sully:
On an interesting property regarding routing there are probably about a dozen ways to skin the cat just as well but most on here will never understand or admit that. They'll never understand either that it's possible to have virtually identical routings and two courses of 18 very different holes! ;)
-
JES II
One of my favourite courses was the Nchanga Golf Club in what is now Zambia.
The routing was almost pre-ordained. Gigantic ant hills, large hardwood trees and the Nchanga Stream running through the middle of the property presented the builders with a course that was perfectly sited upon first inspection. No other routing would have come close to equal success.
As an aside, I can remember the grass on the back nine being planted by a couple of thousand African miners, who had to be paid whilst the White mineworkers were on strike.
-
Bob
Did the anthills, trees and the stream dictate more than simply the direction to follow? Did the par 3 locations stand out, or a particular run along the stream that would make for great par 5? Does that come into consideration when routing, or is that after the "track" is defined?
p.s. How cool is it to be able to pick someones brain about Nchanga Golf Club in Zambia? Awesome! Ignorant Joy ??? ;D.
-
Frankly, I'm wondering how we can introduce giant anthills as a hazard on some of our American courses.
Bet you wouldn't hear much more bitching about unkempt bunkers...
-
JES II,
It's funny you should ask that question. The par threes were exquisitely sited. One in particular was situated between two minor tributaries of the Nchanga Stream which merged into the main flow in front of the green. A slightly down hill shot of about a hundred and sixty yards to a gently sloping green. The ninth was an absolutely brilliant hole...... I hesitate to say that I had my first hole-in-one there.
One of the par fives, a slight dog-leg ahd to be crossed twice en route to the green, a long hitter could reach it in two, but the stream was positioned close to the edge of the green, rather like NO. 13 at Augusta.
Bob
-
Sounds really special Bob, thanks.
By the way, I count six periods there representing the time you "hesitated" before mentioning the hole in one. Not bad, definitely three or four more than I would have. ;D
-
Jim,
We have the original drawings of CC York in PA by both Ross and Flynn. They were commissioned at the same time to provide drawings with a given starting and finishing point as the farmhouse was going to be converted to the clubhouse. It is a fascinating contrast. If you look at the two routings, Flynn's are often perpendicular to Ross. Where Ross would go with the slope, Flynn crossed it. Flynn's was a much tougher walk and probably a tougher course to play as well. In any case, Ross won the competition. We are doing a study of the two routings, not to come up with a better or worse analysis but a way to compare their routing tendencies. Bob Crosby and Scott Nye (Merion head pro and formerly 11 year head pro at CC York) are helping us. We think this will be a really interesting chapter in the Flynn book. Do you know the course?
-
Wayne
I was hoping you would jump in, knowing your collection of drawings and interest in the subject.
I played CC of York once, as a teenager, and therefore have a very limited memory of it beyond being a nice course with a very dramatic par 5 (on the back I think) that rolls down and to the left, with another 5 immediately following. Am I on the right course
I would be interested in eavesdropping on one of those discussions some time between you four.
-
I think routing is the backbone of a course.
For starters, the less work you have to do create golf holes the more money you save in construction costs.
However, this is not the say the most economical routing is the best routing, for sure. The key is finding that balance.
Mr. Paul loves to talk of Merion playing like a play in three parts. Cypress wanders away from the ocean, through the trees out into the dunes, back into the trees before crossing the dunes once again reaching the tremendous craggy oceanside climax.
To me, the routing of a course stirs up those emotions that bring golf writers to refer to a round as a journey. A journey must have a beginning, a destination, and a whole lot of adversity and excitement in between.
Some courses, such as Sandpines in Florence, Oregon are so devoid of any of the charm inherent in a good routing that it just feels like a collection of golf holes.
That does not equate to a stirring journey, in my opinion, and a great course should be a stirring journey.
-
Jeff Brauer
Thank you for your insight, it is clear, concise and very helpful. Does the bidding process allow an architect to fully evaluate the property (and presumably develop an intuitive routing) prior to placing a bid or at least accepting the contract?
Michael Dugger
We can all think of courses that leave us uninspired, and others (like Cypress for you) that leave us awestruck, but why do you blame the routing for the problems at Sandpines? Are the individual holes sound and enjoyable? Are there natural features on the property that were underutilized?
Considering the site, anyone would have used the "craggy oceanside" in a significant manner at Cypress, but would you have overdone it? Would I have used it as too much of a tease and not used it enough? Who knows how good the "journey" around a given property could be if it were different than was built (any property)?
-
Michael Dugger
We can all think of courses that leave us uninspired, and others (like Cypress for you) that leave us awestruck, but why do you blame the routing for the problems at Sandpines? Are the individual holes sound and enjoyable? Are there natural features on the property that were underutilized?
Considering the site, anyone would have used the "craggy oceanside" in a significant manner at Cypress, but would you have overdone it? Would I have used it as too much of a tease and not used it enough? Who knows how good the "journey" around a given property could be if it were different than was built (any property)?
I kind of think the answer to your question lies in the eye of the beholder, and I know that is a weak answer to some degree, but it it really and truly the case when it comes to what we think are the best courses.
I don't know how else to put it other than some people have it, some do not.
As far as Sandpines goes. There were not any natural features that were underutilized because they were all bulldozed away!!! Part of the problem, simply a fundamental difference between how different folks go about their practicing of the art form.
-
I kind of think the answer to your question lies in the eye of the beholder, and I know that is a weak answer to some degree, but it it really and truly the case when it comes to what we think are the best courses.
I don't know how else to put it other than some people have it, some do not.
Is that to say that all of MacKenzie's routings are of the highest order? Or that the architect / bulldozer driver at Sandpines has no chance of producing a good routing?
-
Good memory, Jim. 14 and 15 are back to back par 5s by Ross at CC York. 14 is a dogleg left that drops about 120 feet and 15 is fairly straight away.
I'll let you know when we're meeting again on that subject. Always good fellowship and wine when we get together. If you like, come by sometime and check out the drawings, it'd be a pleasure to show them to you. I live in Merion. Call me or email me anytime.
I think this study will surely be one of the most fascinating analysis in the book.
-
I kind of think the answer to your question lies in the eye of the beholder, and I know that is a weak answer to some degree, but it it really and truly the case when it comes to what we think are the best courses.
I don't know how else to put it other than some people have it, some do not.
Is that to say that all of MacKenzie's routings are of the highest order? Or that the architect / bulldozer driver at Sandpines has no chance of a good routing?
I would say Mac was quite a good router, I think there was more emphasis put on it "back in the day" when you did not have the Bulldozer available to you.
I don't quite understand your second question.
-
For some past designers, finding a route was everything. Literally. For some of todays designers, I am not sure finding a route matters much at all.
Posters on here sometimes like to note that MacKenzie spent very little time on some of his designs. This isnt surprising to me. Once he routed the course I am not sure there was much left to do.
-
"Once he routed the course I am not sure there was much left to do."
David,
While I believe that the routing the golf course is the determining factor of the subsequent designing up of the golf course, there's a heck of a lot more to do.
If you looked at John Reid's turn-of-the-century design at Atlantic City Country Club and compared it to William Flynn's subsequent redesign, the routing may be the same but the golf course underwent a huge improvement. Strategies changed quite a bit. Hazards and greens dictated a different approach to the same basic routed golf course. Routing matters but so does how the course is built up from that routing.
By the way, Tom Doak did some wonderful work to improve Flynn's design.
Another example is the Merion East course designed by Hugh Wilson and initially constructed by Frederick Pickering. There were some fairly significant changes made after Pickering was fired 3-4 years before the 1916 Amateur, apparently done by Wilson and Flynn. Afterwards the course was dramatically changed prior to the 1924 Amateur. Disregarding holes 10-13 that were re-routed after additional land was acquired, the remaining holes were in the same location but altered in their form, from the green back to the tee determining a different strategic approach.
In both examples, the routing is essentially the same but the intrahole designs changed the look and playability of both courses. The routing is the start and a strong component but do you really believe there isn't much to do after that?
-
For some past designers, finding a route was everything. Literally. For some of todays designers, I am not sure finding a route matters much at all.
Posters on here sometimes like to note that MacKenzie spent very little time on some of his designs. This isnt surprising to me. Once he routed the course I am not sure there was much left to do.
The point of my question to Bob Huntley when he mentioned the "almost pre-ordained routing" at Nchanga is valid for you as well based on the above quote.
Does the initial routing of a course include the sequence of the holes in regards to par? It seems to have been the good fortune in Zambia, but I would think that is a rarity.
What is the definition of a complete routing?
-
. . . In both examples, the routing is essentially the same but the intrahole designs changed the look and playability of both courses. The routing is the start and a strong component but do you really believe there isn't much to do after that?
Surely there is much more to do. Mowing for example. But there are courses out there for which the "genius" is in finding the route. Yes, one could always accentuate or mask the "genius" with the likes of the irrigation, bunker styling, mowing lines, maintenance, etc. But finding a great route was the prerequisite for a great result.
Crystal Downs is an example of such a course. I am sure there are post-routing bells and whistles, but the genius of the course is in how MacKenzie used what was already there. Or so it seemed to me.
A couple photos of No. 8, . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Crystal%20Downs/9thfairway.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Crystal%20Downs/9thgreen.jpg)
CD No. 8 may be the best hole on an outstanding front nine. Yet I am not sure just what MacKenzie did other than find it.
JES asked
What is the definition of a complete routing?
When we talk about routings, it is usually after the fact including all the bells and whistles. What I am talking about is determining the route of the course. Looking at a property and finding the golf holes. Golf holes meaning the greens, tees, fairways, features, etc.
Here is one fairly extreme way to look at it, I guess: Routing (a verb) is finding the golf course. All else is just making up for perceived deficiencies in the routing.
Bob calls the routing in Zambia "almost preordained." Do you suppose many modern architects would see it this way, or would they just doze it all and go from there?
-
D Moriarty
'or would they just doze...'
I think to doze means to sleep. Could be a suitable albeit unintended pun.
I may have covered this before, but...
MacK's re-routing of Royal Adelaide took a course that generally played around the sandhills in the middle of the property to one that played into and then out of these sandhills. That is the charm of the layout for nigh on 80 years. The change occurred because of concerns with the railway line that runs through it (I think some holes used to traverse it, whereas the very back tee tips on one hole now traverses it). MacK certainly saw a different routing.
The Golf Architecture Magazine (volume 3) has a picture of MacK's 1926 plan. The Royal Adelaide web-site has a pre-1926 layout. You probably need to know the site, and have the ability to print both of these together but they do provide a chance to see two different views of routing. The Mackenzie routing was not fully implemented.
RAGC pre 1926
http://www.royaladelaidegolf.com.au/guests/history/index.htm
GA Magazine vol 3 post 1926
http://www.sagca.org.au/journal2000/mackenzie.html
-
"For some past designers, finding a route was everything. Literally. For some of todays designers, I am not sure finding a route matters much at all.
Posters on here sometimes like to note that MacKenzie spent very little time on some of his designs. This isnt surprising to me. Once he routed the course I am not sure there was much left to do."
David Moriarty:
What course? Would you say at CPC creating the sizes, orientations, slopes and contours of greens and placing and creating all the man-made bunkering is something one could say 'was not much left to do' after the routing was set in place?
-
TE: I'm inclined to agree with David M. on that one. I think that on a good piece of property, the routing is more than 50% of my contribution to the design. If I left my associates with just the routing and a quick walk-through, I'm sure they would make a lot of the same choices I made about where to place the bunkers, what kind of contour to have in the greens (given the length of the hole and the slope of the green site), etc.
It is much more likely that I could have built the ninth hole at Cypress Point, given the tee and green locations by MacKeznie, than it is that I would have figured out how to work the eighth and ninth into the routing plan.
This would certainly explain why Ross and MacKenzie were able to do what they did without spending a whole lot of time on site.
As to routings being "obvious", I believe they are obvious only to the individual architect. I have frequently done plans for courses where I didn't bother with many alternatives because it seemed obvious to me what was the best way to go ... but any time I've looked at another designer's routing for the same property I've worked on, it blows me away how differently they saw it and how few holes we had the same.
-
As to routings being "obvious", I believe they are obvious only to the individual architect. I have frequently done plans for courses where I didn't bother with many alternatives because it seemed obvious to me what was the best way to go ... but any time I've looked at another designer's routing for the same property I've worked on, it blows me away how differently they saw it and how few holes we had the same.
Tom D
That paragraph seems as though it could work as evidence supporting Jeff Brauer (and Brad Klein) from post #3 on this thread, that routing is destiny. I take that to mean that once you are on-site the course falls into the routing you 'see' and that destiny determines whether or not that is the best possible routing. I would imagine it to be very difficult to design great holes on a property if someone else told me where to put them (in other words, I did not come up with or agree with the routing scheme). Thoughts?
-
James Bennett,
Thanks for the terrific links. The second in particular is must reading for anyone who doubts the significance of finding the route of the golf course.
And no, the pun wasn't intentional. But then it has been said around here that I have no sense of humor. I think less damage would be done if more modern architects would do more of the dozing you describe and less of the 'dozing to which I referred.
[Note: for the first link, go to David Moriarty:
What course? Would you say at CPC creating the sizes, orientations, slopes and contours of greens and placing and creating all the man-made bunkering is something one could say 'was not much left to do' after the routing was set in place?
TEPaul
For a wonderful description of just how important MacKenzie's routings were to his designs, take a look at the above referenced article. MacKenzie visited Royal Adelaide for a quick stop, and then for four days. While there he showed them how to build a grand total of one bunker. The rest of his contribution was all in finding the route and telling him where to put (and remove) bunkers to maximize the course's potential.
As for CPC, did MacKenzie create the 8th green and 9th greens, or find them? The 12th? the 13th? the 14th? Did he build the bunkers on 13? or did he just find and formalize what was already there?
He surely built bunkers on the stretch away from the dunes, and around the holes on the non-bunkered rocky coastline portions, and these tie together a route which meanders through three unique settings. Again, the extras might be seen as correcting or masking what some might see as a potential deficiency in the route.
-
David Moriarty:
The 9nth hole of CPC just may be the most completely natural holes I've ever seen before and after photographs of. And the other holes at CPC you mentioned are probably very natural landform holes too. You mentioned about 5-6 holes but what about the remainder of the course? What about all their green shapes, sizes, orientations and bunkering of the remainder of the course? Do you think MacKenzie just "found" all that in putting together his routing? Tom Doak is probably right that the routing of a course may be 50% or a little more of a course (the "bones" some call it), but the rest (the "designing up" phase of a routing) is surely extremely important. The routing of a course is very important but it is by no means 'everything'.
As an example of a considerable difference in detail in what can come after a routing, even a routing that's been largely agreed upon one only needs to look at the design and feature details of the Colt hole booklet of PVGC and the details of the course that actually got built.
-
TEPaul,
---First, I am not sure just what point you are trying to make. That some work was done at CPC after the course was routed? Conceded. But this thread is about "genius," presumably the ingenuity which makes great courses truly great. I posit that with one possible exception mentioned above, the genius of CPC comes from using what was already there.
So for example let's say MacKenzie shaped the second green a little, even assume the greensite was conceived and created entirely by the hand of man. So what? The greatness of CPC results from the ingenous incorporation of already existing features, not how MacKenzie might have pushed dirt around on a greensite here or there.
-- Second, I dont think it makes too much sense to focus on CPC. After all, some on here dont even think he was primarily responsible for routing the course.
Plus, MacKenzie spent an inordinate amount of time at CPC, as compared to some of his other great courses. Perhaps this was because of his relationship with Ms. Hollins, or because he knew that this would be the course for which he was remembered, or because he lived near there, or because he needed to cover up for Raynor's shoddy routing (just kidding Tommy)-- whatever the reason, his level of post-routing involvement at CPC was atypical.
So instead of focusing on solely on CPC, why not address MacKenzie's courses where he did little other than routing. For example, what about the excellent points raised above by Mr. Bennett regarding Royal Adelaide Golf Club? From his link to the the Golf Architecture Magazine article . . . .
. . . The secretary reported that Dr. Mackenzie spent 4 days in developing his plans for reconstructing the course. Dr. Mackenzie promised to send a rough plan before he left Melbourne.
The Captain, Mr. J. L. Lewis and Reeves, the head groundsman, accompanied [MacKenzie] on his rounds of inspection. A bunker was made at the 11th hole (present 13th) under his special supervision and at the same time he selected sites for further tees, bunkers and putting greens which were marked on the course. He strongly recommended that his suggested alterations should be carried out so as to achieve finality in the construction of the course.
All MacKenzie did was find the route, tell the club where to put (or eliminate) bunkers, and show the super how to build a bunker.
It is terrific that the club had the sense to impliment the vast majority of MacKenzie's suggestions, but I hardly think that this earned them equal (or near equal) credit for the greatness of the final result. From the sounds of it, it seems that MacKenzie ingeniously found greatness where others had not. You can assign whatever values or percentages you want to what happened after MacKenzie left, to my mind 100% of the genius and greatness is in MacKenzie's routing.
--Third, you are still greatly underestimating how much of CPC was there waiting to be discovered. You ask me to explain all the main made features, and frankly, I dont know what you are talking about. If you tell me which of the greensites are completely man-made at CPC, I'd better be able to address your point . . .
________
As for Pine Valley, I havent had the pleasure of seeing it in person. Nor have I seen the original Colt plans. Nor am I familiar with how the final result differs from the original plan. But still, even from my position of near complete ignorance, I wonder your comments about Pine Valley are rather beside the point. Perhaps you can set me straight . . .
Crump didnt strictly and completely follow Colt's routing, did he? Wasnt Crump still tinkering with the route long after Colt's initial involvement? The fact that a course was routed over a number of years by multiple architects doesn't lessen the significance of the routing process. In fact such a situation would tend to further support the proposition that when it comes to determing the ingenuity behind the greatness of a course, sometimes routing is indeed everything.
-
D Moriarty
further to MacKenzies ability to route well, and quickly.
On the same trip, he was involved with New South Wales golf course at La Perouse, again with a whistle stop visit. In what appears to be a common MacKenzie outcome, a second person of greatness follows on from the brief visit to complete the course (Eric Apperley I assume). Ran has a write up of the course which would reveal more of its pedigree than I can recall here.
The important thing for me for such a memorable course is that it is not the greens and bunkering that make it memorable (as good as they may be, although IMO they were not as outstanding as the Melbourne sandbelt), it is the routing. All four par 5's go in different directions, all four par 3's also play in different directions, there are holes that play aside the sand dunes, some that traverse the sand dunes, holes through saddles that then play to domed greens, holes that suddenly reveal the most magnificent backdrops of botany bay and others that tease you with sideways glances of the ocean. There are holes with tees and greens on separate sandhills, played across valleys whilst others play along the preciptous top of the sandhills. And then there are the unique quirky holes that you will never see anywhere else in the world (eg #3, dogleg left par 4, blind downhill shot, than a sharp left turn to an extrenmely elevated green with an open skyline. It had no bunkers 25 years ago, just as the 17th par 3 had no bunkers then).
As good as the greens and bunkering may be, it is the routing and the parcel of land that I remember 25 years on. If all of this is happenstance, then MacKenzie was a very lucky man.
GerryB and Ran might have a comment here about NSW's routing. I don't think I am 'over the top' here.
-
"TEPaul,
---First, I am not sure just what point you are trying to make."
David Moriarty:
Quite simple really. What is a routing? Or more apropos, what do you think a routing is?
To me, it's the basic plan or design of the length, direction and sequencing of the holes of a golf course. Most (old) routing maps show an X for the tee(s) placement, perhaps an X for the LZ and an X green site placement. Do you think a routing is more than that?
If that is what a routing is, ask yourself---is that the entire nuts and bolts, essence and be-all or even nuance of a golf course or golf course architecture?
Perhaps you think a routing includes green sizing, shape, slope and contour, orientation, bunkering, size and shape of fairway and mid-body hole bunkering and such.
I don't.
Possibly the best explanation and example of all this is to simply watch a golf course evolve from raw site, to routing design to conceptualizing and constructing the details (all of them) of what is produced.
Have you ever followed that progression in person as it happened, David?
Please try not to get offended that I'm asking the question---please just try to think about it and answer it for the sake of intelligent discussion
-
TEPaul,
I am not talking about "a routing," which is a noun and is used to mean all sorts of things on this website. I am talking about routing, a verb. I was asked this question above and am sticking with my answer, which I will try to rephrase and clarify . . .
Routing is the act of examining a property and finding the golf holes which will make up the golf course. While the router/designer might not find everything for which he is looking or like what he finds, routing is searching for and identifying the greens, tees, fairways, features, and everything else which makes up a golf course.
My slightly modified and more blunt version:
Routing (a verb) is finding the golf course. The rest of golf course design is merely an attempt to make up for any perceived deficiencies with the golf course the designer found.
Any chance you will address any of my inquiries regarding other MacKenzie courses or even which are the unnatural features at CPC?
Please try not to get offended that I'm asking the question---please just try to think about it and answer it for the sake of intelligent discussion
Historically you have proven that you arent very good at determining when I might be offended, so perhaps we should just leave that determination to me. Don't worry, I'll let know if my mental state ought to be of any concern to you.
-
Historically you have proven that you arent very good at determining when I might be offended, so perhaps we should just leave that determination to me. Don't worry, I'll let know if my mental state ought to be of any concern to you.
And people say you lack a sense of humor.... :)
-
"TEPaul,
I am not talking about "a routing," which is a noun and is used to mean all sorts of things on this website. I am talking about routing, a verb. I was asked this question above and am sticking with my answer, which I will try to rephrase and clarify . . ."
I guess you're serious about that and I'm not even going to touch something like that. Routing is a verb not a noun?! Jeeesus Christ!! ;)
"Routing is the act of examining a property and finding the golf holes which will make up the golf course. While the router/designer might not find everything for which he is looking or like what he finds, routing is searching for and identifying the greens, tees, fairways, features, and everything else which makes up a golf course."
Whatever, David Moriarty. Why don't you just make up your own definition of what-all golf course architecture is too and run with it in your own vacuum? I doubt it makes much difference to you what anyone else says anyway.
"My slightly modified and more blunt version:"
I can hardly wait---this ought to be good! ;)
"Routing (a verb) is finding the golf course. The rest of golf course design is merely an attempt to make up for any perceived deficiencies with the golf course the designer found."
Let me ask you something. Have you ever been out on a raw site that was turned into a golf course with or without an architect? Have you ever tried to route a golf course for anyone? Have you ever tried to add design features onto a routing? Do you think it's true to say that you won't really even attempt to answer this question?
"Any chance you will address any of my inquiries regarding other MacKenzie courses or even which are the unnatural features at CPC?"
I'll try to answer any inquiries of yours regarding other MacKenzie courses but frankly I haven't seen many Mackenzie courses---just a few of his more famous ones in this country and Alwoodley. But feel free to just fire away--I'll try to answer any questions you have about Mackenzie courses I can and if I have no answer I'd be more than happy to say so. With features that are man-made at CPC I'd be glad to address them----GeoffShac's book is one of the best pre and post construction photographic documentations I've ever seen. What would you like me to address specifically?
Please try not to get offended that I'm asking the question---please just try to think about it and answer it for the sake of intelligent discussion
"Historically you have proven that you arent very good at determining when I might be offended, so perhaps we should just leave that determination to me. Don't worry, I'll let know if my mental state ought to be of any concern to you."
David Moriarty---I haven't the vaguest idea when or why you're offended or not offended by what I say to you and frankly that's not important or interesting to me or I'm sure anyone else on this website. I only react to what you say on here. ;)
-
Hate to break up the start of a good argument, but to answer Jim Sullivan's question:
Yes, Jim, it's pretty uncomfortable to "design" and build a course from another architect's routing. I've done it once (Stonewall I) and found that all the holes I liked best were the ones I changed ... 4 (moved the tee), 6 (moved tee and green), 9 and 18 (completely new holes). Still, starting with Tom Fazio's routing is a lot better than starting with most land planners' routings ... I would never want to do a development course unless I could be involved with the land plan for both golf course and housing right from the start.
-
Tom Doak, I gotta tell you pal, you've been on this website, GOLFCLUBATLAS.com from the very beginning (and obviously long before that) and you are a trip---a real gem---it's virtually impossible to predict where you're coming from and what you might say next on any subject on any thread. To me that's a wonderful asset for this website! Obvously you've really hit your stride in the business and in the art form of golf architecture. Don't ever drop off this web-site---you're the best consistently contributing on-going asset it has! Kelly Blake Moran's free-flowing, evolving opinions and commentary are wonderful too, as are Jeff Brauer's. There are some other occasional architect/contributors on here----and I wish they'd contribute more---I guess time is hard to find. Keep it up TomD.
Paul Cowley, you're a trip too---but you're just weird because you get up earlier than I do and you're too cryptic. No one can understand much of what you say on here---except me, of course! ;)
-
. . . As good as the greens and bunkering may be, it is the routing and the parcel of land that I remember 25 years on. If all of this is happenstance, then MacKenzie was a very lucky man.
GerryB and Ran might have a comment here about NSW's routing. I don't think I am 'over the top' here.
James, thanks for another description which is 100% on point. I have read about MacKenzie's whirlwind tour of Australia, but it is always helpful to nice to hear the opinion of someone with a first-hand perspective.
I dont think you are 'over the top' at all. But then I may not be the best person to ask, since if you are then I am right there with you.
What I would like to hear is a defense of the contrary position . . . .
For those who think I am overestimating the preeminence of MacKenzie's routing choices as his determining contribution to the greatness of his courses, how do you explain that at some of his great courses he did little more than route, then was long gone before much else had had even begun?
-
I get a painful headache from reading some of this stuff.....
-
DMoriarty and TEPaul
I fear I am entering deep water, with limited experience. I acknowledge my limited exposure to any architecture outside of Oz, and a joy of MacKenzie. I look forward to understanding some of the other golden age architects in the future. But, out of the mouths of babes, sometimes you get something worthwhile (or words to that effect). ;D
My Oz experience is with Mackenzie making whistlestop visits. He then had several 'associates' undertake the work - different ones in each major city (remember, Oz is just as big as the US, just with 10% of the people. There is a long way between each city). Looking at MacKenzies history from Doak's book, this use of 'associates' is common.
I wonder whether in these cases the concept of routing is really one of 'concept design', with the 'associates' undertaking the 'detailed design'. MacK's Royal Adelaide 'concept design' laid out the holes, greens, bunkers, fairways etc. He only constructed a bunker, and I assume provided instructions on MacK style greens. I wonder how inspiring he must have seemd to his 'students/clients'.
However, the green complexes of Royal Melbourne, Royal Adelaide and NSW are all very different, probably in part to the passing of time and reconstruction (RA has had some Peter Thompson 'tweaks' over the last 30 years), and also due to the different builders/associates. I expect the current maintenance meld of all three are similar today - certainly RA has been the epitome of 'firm and fast' for all 35 years of my experience (generally without stimpmeter extremes).
Perhaps a significant element of MacKenzie's genius (or happenstance depending on your view) was his ability to find and inspire great 'associates' to complete the work, and to make the concept design a reality.
By contrast, I assume that some of his earlier work around Leeds, and later in California would have involved Mackenzie's concept and detailed design. I assume that the more elaborate greens and bunkers will be found here, through his more personal involvement at different stages of the courses' evolution.
I continue to be amazed at the similarity (almost mirror-image) of the teeshot and fairway bunkering at Cypress Point #2 posted here recently with Royal Adelaide #14. It is the use of smaller bunkers within a larger depression set into a facing upslope. Does anyone else do this? Was it happenstance that these features were at both places, or did MacK see on at RA and copy it at Cypress Point. I fear I am out of my depth here.
To summarize, perhaps MacK's Australian visit showed his genius at quickly delivering quality concept designs (routing), and at selecting/encouraging locals to complete the detailed design and construction.
-
TEPaul,
Your most recent post leads me to wonder whether we are heading down an all to familiar path. . . If so, perhaps we can nip this in the bud to avoid further acrimony and embarrassment.
You asked me to define routing "for the sake of intelligent discussion." I had just done so a few posts above, but I notheless tried to flesh out my previous definition. Apparently you did not like my answer . . .
I guess you're serious about that and I'm not even going to touch something like that. Routing is a verb not a noun?! Jeeesus Christ!! ;)
. . .
Whatever, David Moriarty. Why don't you just make up your own definition of what-all golf course architecture is too and run with it in your own vacuum? I doubt it makes much difference to you what anyone else says anyway.
. . .
I can hardly wait---this ought to be good! ;)
. . .
Let me ask you something. Have you ever been out on a raw site that was turned into a golf course with or without an architect? Have you ever tried to route a golf course for anyone? Have you ever tried to add design features onto a routing? Do you think it's true to say that you won't really even attempt to answer this question?
It may just be me, but this seems a bit more like non sequitur and feigned indignation than an attempt at intelligent discussion. Nonetheless, let me try once again to answer your questions . . .
Yes, I am serious, Routing is sometimes a verb and sometimes a noun. I double-checked the dictionary.
. . .
I did give you my definition of "routing," as I understand it. You asked me to. I didnt look it up anywhere so I guess you could say I made it up.
. . .
You are wrong about one thing-- It does make a difference to me what others say, provided that their points are well reasoned, supported by facts, and relevant to the discussion at hand. Like your comments I quote immediately above.
. . .
I don't think I have ever been on an entirely "raw" site, but I have been on raw portions of partially constructed courses, and on sites in various stages of construction, both with and without designers. Not nearly as many as I'd like, though. I have also freely offered my opinion on how specific courses, holes, and features should be designed, probably to the chagrin of the designers. But I am no designer, so mostly I try to stay of the the way and to figure out (through observation and questions) the how and why of it all. And I do, on occasion, stay at a Holiday Inn . . . .
I did try to improve upon an existing feature once. It is amazing the shaping one can do over time with nothing but an inverted sand wedge. . . .
You also ask . . ."Do you think it's true to say that you won't really even attempt to answer this question? "
Which question? I have attempted to answer all your questions of which I am aware. You just dont like my answers.
There. "For the sake of intelligent discussion," I answered your questions. Not sure what any of it had to do with the topic at hand, but you surely know better.
_______________________
With regard to MacKenzie's other courses, I thought that the excellent article linked by Mr. Bennett and the other points he makes were worth considering, whether or not you have played the courses he mentioned. Again, probably my mistake.
With regard to CPC, you have mentioned (a few times) that many of the features and green sites, sizes, shapes and contours are man-made. I am not aware the many to which you refer, so asked you to identify them. You deftly responded that you will be glad to respond, just as soon as I specifically identify the features to which you refer.
Touche! I must concede that you've got me here. Not sure how it happened but I've no response, so you must be correct in whatever point you are trying make. Well done!
________________________
David Moriarty---I haven't the vaguest idea when or why you're offended or not offended by what I say to you and frankly that's not important or interesting to me or I'm sure anyone else on this website. I only react to what you say on here. ;)
Finally, we are in complete agreement. Fantastic. I knew we could find some common ground, for the sake of intelligent discussion!
-
James Bennett,
You've got to get over this modesty. Your posts are a breath of much needed fresh air.
Concept Design vs. Detail Design seems a very helpful way of framing the discussion. If I recall correctly, in Spirit of St. Andrews MacKenzie writes that the designer should stay focused on the larger issues while the detail work should be left to specialists.
Perhaps a significant element of MacKenzie's genius (or happenstance depending on your view) was his ability to find and inspire great 'associates' to complete the work, and to make the concept design a reality.
Your link to the GA Magazine article on MacKenzie's work at your club really brings this point home. One really gets a picture of MacKenzie the salesman, stressing to the club that they should do all the work or none of it; explaining that peicemeal changes often produce a lesser overall result. Emphasizing that the course's potential greatness will only be achieved if the club impliments his overall plan, etc.
As for the "associates," I got the impression that the work at Royal Adelaide was done in house, directed by the Captain and the Superintendent. Was this the case? How about at the other clubs?
Another reason MacKenzie might have been so successful at getting his plans competently implemented might have something to do with the ease at which these satellite associates could implement his plans. He may have made their job alot easier by letting the natural features features speak for themselves.
-
David Moriarty:
Whenever I discuss things on this website and you don't like what I say for whatever reason you tend to respond that I'm not sticking to the subject or the original subject.
The subject of this thread seems to be routing whether it can be genius or happenstance. But yet you say;
“TEPaul,
---First, I am not sure just what point you are trying to make. That some work was done at CPC after the course was routed? Conceded. But this thread is about "genius," presumably the ingenuity which makes great courses truly great. I posit that with one possible exception mentioned above, the genius of CPC comes from using what was already there. “
This thread may be about genius, but genius in what? It looks to me like it’s about whether there can be genius in ROUTING or whether it’s happenstance.
So I hardly think it’s off the subject of this thread if I talk about routing and what I think routing is and isn’t. Would you not say that’s an attempt at an intelligent discussion on this thread? Or would you prefer to just discuss what it may be that indicates genius in something else-----or just what the word genius means in a dictionary definition or some such thing?
At this point, if the subject is possible genius in routing and how much that matters to the final product and success of a golf course than why don’t we start again by trying to agree on what the term “routing” means? I happen to believe that trying “to route” (verb, I suppose ;) ) a golf course is perhaps the single greatest education one can have in golf course architecture. To me it’s the single largest fundamental or essential of a golf course although it is not even close to being “everything” to a completed golf course---or I guess I should say every golf course I’ve ever seen.
You’ve given somewhat of your own definition of what you think a routing is. In an answer to JES’s question—“What is the definition of a complete routing?” you said;
“When we talk about routings, it is usually after the fact including all the bells and whistles. What I am talking about is determining the route of the course. Looking at a property and finding the golf holes. Golf holes meaning the greens, tees, fairways, features, etc.
Here is one fairly extreme way to look at it, I guess: Routing (a verb) is finding the golf course. All else is just making up for perceived deficiencies in the routing. “
Personally, I just don’t agree with that definition of what a routing is-----not unless an architect simply plants grass on completely unaltered topography for tees, fairways and greens and otherwise makes or conceives of nothing else. You say what you’re talking about is when someone finds the route (presumably you mean a noun here) of the course. That I agree with, but what else does ‘finding the route of a course’ mean to you?
To me it means finding the exact lengths and perhaps widths of what will become the holes and the sequence of the holes of a golf course. This certainly means their directions. In my opinion, a “routing” can be considered complete even if its in the form of what we sometimes refer to as a “stick” routing. A stick routing (very commonly used by almost all architects, particularly the old guys) is basically identifying the beginning of a golf hole by the placement of an X on a topo map (or on the raw ground itself), a placement of an X at what’s often referred to as the LZ (on par 4s and par 5s), the placement of an x on the topo map (or on the ground) of where the green site will be and the connecting of those Xs by a line (stick). When an architect has done that 18 times he has found or done the “routing” of the golf course, in my opinion, and in my definition of a routing. Has he had to touch, change, alter or enhance anything on the raw site to have found a complete “routing”? No, I don’t believe he has to have done any of that to have found or completed his routing.
But if you have some other definition of what else a “routing” or a complete routing is than I suppose we have no common ground with the definition of a routing to discuss the subject of routing or whether routing can indicate genius or happenstance.
When an architect begins to conceive of altering or enhancing that raw ground in any way by moving and altering earth with the man-made placement and formation of features (bunkers, mounds, shaping of the earth in any way for any kind of man-made contouring, the sizing, creating shapes, slopes, contours of greens etc, I simply call that “designing up” a completed routing. And I’ve often referred to that “design up” phase as the “next phase” of designing a golf course following a completed routing.
The point here is that two architects can take two totally similar completed routings and by altering and enhancing the ground in different ways can actually create and construct what can look like very different golf holes and golf courses, and yet they are on a completely similar routing. I’m sure you can easily imagine how this could be done.
So this is why I say the routing of a golf course, although very important is by no means ‘everything’ as you have said earlier on this thread you think it is.
Furthermore, I believe this subject of routing----what it is and isn’t and what follows it to create a complete golf course is one of the best and most education and fundamental discussions this site could ever have.
-
And also, I happen to feel, at this point at least, and for a variety of reasons that Alister MacKenzie just may have been the finest golf architect there has ever been. I think he was a good router, obviously, but he was a whole lot more than just that in the art and business of golf course architecture, in my opinion.
Do I think Alister MacKenzie was virtually a genius in golf course architecture? Yes I do. Do I think he was a "genius" in the art of routing a golf course? I'm not so sure I'd go quite that far.
-
A wonderful discussion going on here, but just how many angels can you get on a pin-head?
Bob
-
"....but just how many angels can you get on a pin-head?"
BobH:
The commonly accepted number is 1000. I'm very surprised you didn't know that!
-
I know you probably don't want to get into a detailed discussion and debate on that BobH, but the word on the street today is that in this new technological advancement age in all things in golf and I&B pin-heads have actually been getting bigger too as have angels but the number, astonishingly, is still 1000!
-
TEP,
Thanks. I needed that.
Bob
-
David Moriarty:
Whenever I discuss things on this website and you don't like what I say for whatever reason you tend to respond that I'm not sticking to the subject or the original subject.
The subject of this thread seems to be routing whether it can be genius or happenstance. But yet you say;
“TEPaul,
---First, I am not sure just what point you are trying to make. That some work was done at CPC after the course was routed? Conceded. But this thread is about "genius," presumably the ingenuity which makes great courses truly great. I posit that with one possible exception mentioned above, the genius of CPC comes from using what was already there. “
This thread may be about genius, but genius in what? It looks to me like it’s about whether there can be genius in ROUTING or whether it’s happenstance.
So I hardly think it’s off the subject of this thread if I talk about routing and what I think routing is and isn’t. Would you not say that’s an attempt at an intelligent discussion on this thread? Or would you prefer to just discuss what it may be that indicates genius in something else-----or just what the word genius means in a dictionary definition or some such thing?
At this point, if the subject is possible genius in routing and how much that matters to the final product and success of a golf course than why don’t we start again by trying to agree on what the term “routing” means? I happen to believe that trying “to route” (verb, I suppose ;) ) a golf course is perhaps the single greatest education one can have in golf course architecture. To me it’s the single largest fundamental or essential of a golf course although it is not even close to being “everything” to a completed golf course---or I guess I should say every golf course I’ve ever seen.
You’ve given somewhat of your own definition of what you think a routing is. In an answer to JES’s question—“What is the definition of a complete routing?” you said;
“When we talk about routings, it is usually after the fact including all the bells and whistles. What I am talking about is determining the route of the course. Looking at a property and finding the golf holes. Golf holes meaning the greens, tees, fairways, features, etc.
Here is one fairly extreme way to look at it, I guess: Routing (a verb) is finding the golf course. All else is just making up for perceived deficiencies in the routing. “
Personally, I just don’t agree with that definition of what a routing is-----not unless an architect simply plants grass on completely unaltered topography for tees, fairways and greens and otherwise makes or conceives of nothing else. You say what you’re talking about is when someone finds the route (presumably you mean a noun here) of the course. That I agree with, but what else does ‘finding the route of a course’ mean to you?
To me it means finding the exact lengths and perhaps widths of what will become the holes and the sequence of the holes of a golf course. This certainly means their directions. In my opinion, a “routing” can be considered complete even if its in the form of what we sometimes refer to as a “stick” routing. A stick routing (very commonly used by almost all architects, particularly the old guys) is basically identifying the beginning of a golf hole by the placement of an X on a topo map (or on the raw ground itself), a placement of an X at what’s often referred to as the LZ (on par 4s and par 5s), the placement of an x on the topo map (or on the ground) of where the green site will be and the connecting of those Xs by a line (stick). When an architect has done that 18 times he has found or done the “routing” of the golf course, in my opinion, and in my definition of a routing. Has he had to touch, change, alter or enhance anything on the raw site to have found a complete “routing”? No, I don’t believe he has to have done any of that to have found or completed his routing.
But if you have some other definition of what else a “routing” or a complete routing is than I suppose we have no common ground with the definition of a routing to discuss the subject of routing or whether routing can indicate genius or happenstance.
When an architect begins to conceive of altering or enhancing that raw ground in any way by moving and altering earth with the man-made placement and formation of features (bunkers, mounds, shaping of the earth in any way for any kind of man-made contouring, the sizing, creating shapes, slopes, contours of greens etc, I simply call that “designing up” a completed routing. And I’ve often referred to that “design up” phase as the “next phase” of designing a golf course following a completed routing.
The point here is that two architects can take two totally similar completed routings and by altering and enhancing the ground in different ways can actually create and construct what can look like very different golf holes and golf courses, and yet they are on a completely similar routing. I’m sure you can easily imagine how this could be done.
So this is why I say the routing of a golf course, although very important is by no means ‘everything’ as you have said earlier on this thread you think it is.
Furthermore, I believe this subject of routing----what it is and isn’t and what follows it to create a complete golf course is one of the best and most education and fundamental discussions this site could ever have.
TEPaul, you are entirely, 100% correct. About everything. No need to discuss it further.
_________________________
Bob,
I dont know much about Angels on a pin, but I have heard tell that around here the number of assholes is limited to 1500, give or take a few. Present company excluded of course.
-
"TEPaul, you are entirely, 100% correct. About everything. No need to discuss it further."
Are you OK out there pal? That must have REALLY hurt!
;)
-
"I dont know much about Angels on a pin, but I have heard tell that around here the number of assholes is limited to 1500, give or take a few. Present company excluded of course."
I hope you don't mind me asking but with a remark like that one could legitimately wonder what you are really on this website for. Did one of those clever Left Coast psychiatrists recommend you come on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com as some way to deal with your pathological defensiveness?
;)