Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on April 21, 2009, 11:20:18 PM
-
Reading the threads about Merion got me thinking about the five (5) plans that were originally drawn.
It also got me thinking about NGLA.
At NGLA it would seem that a routing would have to follow an "out" and "in" pattern, that the MACRO architecture was pretty much dictated by the property.
In thinking about "five" potential routings of Merion, and the perhaps, limited routings available at NGLA, I also thought of York CC in PA, where two eminent architects, Ross and Flynn crafted routings for the same property. There were some similarities and some differences in their routings.
I also thought of Pine Valley and the "creativity gap" in the mid to end holes.
Then, the property at Pebble Beach came to mind.
I've always been fascinated by the creative process that results in a workable routing, I've always felt that "routing" was the "first" genius in the design effort.
If the clubhouse location is established, doesn't that dictate a huge segment of the routing ? Doesn't it dictate the MACRO architecture ?
So let's get back to Merion.
Knowing the property, and knowing the location of the clubhouse, could those five (5) routings have been dramatically different from one another ?
Does the property, and Merion's property is fairly unique, dictate the MACRO architecture, the general routing ?
If so, then the genius of Merion and other courses, is in the individual hole designs, the MICRO architecture, since the MACRO architecture is achieved through default. ;D
Your thoughts ?
-
Yes. Absolutely.
If the property has clear limitations, which the Merion property did in terms of east west width north of Ardmore Ave. and north/south width south of it not to mention a public road running through it and a big hole up in the northern quadrant.
I'm still amazed that Macdonald/Whigham and Barker recommended it as a great site.
-
Pat
My opinion Routing is the Design, all else are just additions.
Features do not produce a course, although some fixed features may well persuade the earlier designers (with next to no real budget or serious earth moving machinery) to make the best out of the terrain. Today that no longer seems to apply. We tend to strip the land back to near the bedrock and re sculpture again – for me a classic example is the Castle Course outside St Andrews.
Question - is this the right way, it is certainly the most costly, but then I am not a designer and do not fully understand the full process. Yet I feel that design from the early 20th Century has evolved, not away from design but incorporating much more of the construction elements within the original design concept. This is, I presume because we still want or need to build golf courses in what I would describe as unsuitable locations.
In the 19th Century certain journalist believed that a golf course pr-existed within the landscape and it just need a good golfer designer of some merit to identify, then lay out the Greens and fairways. This was I believe the advantage of Virgin sites in good locations.
So for me the design is the routing – The feature whether fixed or Man made today can be shape to suit the pocket of the owner(s), unlike the 19th Century who worked with the constraint of the land, machinery and of course money.
Hence, why I believe the original period from 1840-1900 should be called the Golden Age of Golf Design – this was the period that all the basics were developed, standard and rules started and the introduction of Golf to the World. Nevertheless, Course Design is still exactly that Routing the Land.
Melvyn
-
Pat,
In the case of Merion, I agree that the routings had to have had some great similarities. Each leg of the L was only about 2 or 4 holes wide. If they wanted to use the hill tops for greens and tees the holes would have had to be similar. They might have been reversed in the same corridor in a few cases and there would have been some other differences. When the estate north of the second hole got purchased it may have just lengthened the holes past CBM's 6000 yard recommendation or eliminated some walkbacks to the next tee.
All of the above is just generalities of cousre. If they ever find those plans or show them to us, I could be proven wrong.
The property starts to dictate routing when it is small. In the case of PB where there was property for both homes and golf, there were probably numerous options, as it would be any time a property gets larger.
-
Yes. Absolutely.
If the property has clear limitations, which the Merion property did in terms of east west width north of Ardmore Ave. and north/south width south of it not to mention a public road running through it and a big hole up in the northern quadrant.
I'm still amazed that Macdonald/Whigham and Barker recommended it as a great site.
Maybe their talents allowed them to know something that others didn't ;D
-
Patrick,
Yes, as memory serves they both saw a sporty little 6000 yard max course with rote hole lengths.;)
-
Mike,
6,000 to 6,200 was the ideal length circa 1911.
But, you already knew that ..... didn't you ?
Let's not divert and dilute this thread by pursuing your "Philly" agenda ;D
-
Patrick,
Philly evidently wanted men's tees on their course. ;)
-
Patrick,
Philly evidently wanted men's tees on their course. ;)
Why?
-
Jim,
Because there evidently weren't any in NY. ;)
-
What's happened to this thread is a good example of how GCA.com has deteriorated.
-
Possibly Pat, and if any part of what you are saying is aimed at me I can only say that I never meant to dilute or divert this topic.
On the other hand, you narrowed this down to Merion's 5 routings ("So let's get back to Merion") and they are already a hot topic on another thread, so that might account for some of what you are seeing as dilution or diversion.
-
What's happened to this thread is a good example of how GCA.com has deteriorated.
Gee Patrick,
What I thought was happening on this thread was a few friends teasing each other.
We've covered every topic related to the history of Merion from every possible angle and it's truly to the point of absurdity.
I tried to bring a little humor as I sensed yet again things had reached a boiling point in too much of the dialogue.
I thought I was one of the people here still talking about architecture, architectural history, and architectural theory as well as doing research on golf courses.
If you think I'm part of the problem then I definitely think I need a break.
-
I have never worked on a site that did not have multiple routing options — many, many options. Even when it seems that things are "set" there always seems to be a slight variation. That is not to say that there is not one "best" routing — that does present itself.
-
Does the property, and Merion's property is fairly unique, dictate the MACRO architecture, the general routing ?
If so, then the genius of Merion and other courses, is in the individual hole designs, the MICRO architecture, since the MACRO architecture is achieved through default. ;D
Your thoughts ?
Patrick - I would think that in general a property that had very unique features would have some similarities in it's Macro architecture (ie The Routing) - but the architects vision & his ability to bring out the details makes the golfer stand up and take notice.
Look at Weed's update of Leatherstocking. No greens we're touched, the bunkers updated and added. I am sure the the pre-weed Leatherstocking course was a tremendous course. Guys ion this board (Jim Kennedy, Paul Cowley, Scott Wood) have all said this. I never played it, but the Weed re-do and the bunker features / green surrounds he updated make the course stand out. Have you played the course pre or post update?
Another great example was the recently completed routing excersize done over the topo of Erin Hills. There was tremendous variation on what was submitted on a property that had some (not as much as those you state) very unique features. A few routings we're similar, but the final product varied tremendously.
-
What's happened to this thread is a good example of how GCA.com has deteriorated.
Gee Patrick,
What I thought was happening on this thread was a few friends teasing each other.
We've covered every topic related to the history of Merion from every possible angle and it's truly to the point of absurdity.
Mike, this thread ISN'T about the history or authorship of Merion.
It's about the configuration of a property and clubhouse location dictating the routing of a golf course, making the process potentially less complicated, at Merion and every other golf course.
I tried to bring a little humor as I sensed yet again things had reached a boiling point in too much of the dialogue.
I thought I was one of the people here still talking about architecture, architectural history, and architectural theory as well as doing research on golf courses.
If you think I'm part of the problem then I definitely think I need a break.
Jim Kennedy,
This thread is primarily about the process of ROUTING as it's influenced by the property and clubhouse location.
And, the potential differences and similarities between the five (5) alternate routings presented for consideration at Merion, in the context of the constraints of the property and the clubhouse location.
It's a thread that shouldn't be tainted by blind allegiance or wild premises. ;D
-
Not all routings are dependent on the property.
For example, Chambers Bay had no limitations as to the routing as it was just a big gravel pit. The property effects the routing as they wanted to have some holes down by the water and the railroad tracks.
Other routings improve when more property becomes available. For example, Kidd had a routing for Bandon Dunes that did not include the land for the current 5, 6 and 7 holes. The course would not be as good if he did not have access this section of the property.
-
John Foley,
I've not played Leatherstocking, but intend to one day.
With respect to Leatherstocking are you making a case for elevating Micro Architecture over Macro Architecture ?
Or, that Micro architecture is the "icing on the cake" ?
Once the clubhouse is sitused, doesn't that determine or influence a good deal of the routing ?
-
Scott,
I''m not familiar with Chamber's Bay, but, it's hard to imagine that the property didn't dictate the routing. Unfortunately, my Google Earth feature isn't working. Is there a before and after aerial of the property ?
Why didn't Kidd have access to the land you mentioned, I thought that Keiser owned it all ?
-
To all:
What constitutes a different routing? For instance, taking the NGLA example, is it a different routing if everything runs the same direction in the same corridors, but with different starting and stopping points? Or do you really only consider it different only if there are many differences in direction as well?
-
Charlie,
I consider routing the sequencing and orientation of the holes.
Others may have a different view on the subject
-
Patrick,
Forgive the denseness of my question, but what exactly is meant by sequence in this context? I've always considered it to mean the order (in that sense, isn't the sequence always 1-18 ;)).
-
Patrick,
Forgive the denseness of my question, but what exactly is meant by sequence in this context? I've always considered it to mean the order (in that sense, isn't the sequence always 1-18 ;)).
George,
If the first hole is a par 4, the second hole could be a par 3, 4 or 5, that's a form of sequencing.
-
I think the property affects a good routing. I suggest two examples that baffle me as to their use of the property---Edgemont and Overbrook. Each seems to get caught in the up and down the hill trap rather than using the ridges as Flynn would. This leads to an awkward feel and for Overbrook too many blind shots. For Edgemont it is too many straight up the hill and down. I would need to spend some serious time roaming the courses to find a better routing. But, for Edgemont, in particular, just driving by it provides insight into better possibilities.
Then there is Cobbs. Here the routing has been changed but the green sites remain in their original place. As a result, you can clearly see how the use of the property was much better in its original form. The huge uphill #6, the drop shot par #12, the angled tee shot for#9, the uphill and side hill #11, the side hill and up hill #10 par three, and the interesting tee shot and blind approach to #13 are stunning uses of the property. Now this has been lost to several flatter approaches or more up and down the hill shots.
So, the routing is not determined by the property but a good one is.
-
At Sebonack, Jack's designers came up with an initial routing. Then Tom entered the picture, and routed the course differently. They went with Tom's routing. I wonder how similar/different the two were?
Also, how differently did Raynor route CPC, from Mackenzie?
At the opposite end of Merion are courses like Sand Hills, Ballyneal and Rock Creek. From what I've read, the architects could have chosen dozens of routings, or more.
I hope more architects will post on this. They know many times more than I ever will.
-
John Foley,
I've not played Leatherstocking, but intend to one day.
With respect to Leatherstocking are you making a case for elevating Micro Architecture over Macro Architecture ?
Or, that Micro architecture is the "icing on the cake" ?
Once the clubhouse is sitused, doesn't that determine or influence a good deal of the routing ?
Pat - W/ the case of Leatherstocking what I am saying is the Micro architecture improved the end product substatially. A different Macro w/out the same Micro would IMHO not have the same effect on the golfers experiance. So yes - in the case of Leatehrstocking IMHO - the Micro is the icing on the cake.
In Leatherstockings case once the Otesaga hotel was situated and the sloping property ( the old Feinmore farm I beleive) to the North was demed to be the land for the golf course that influnced 75% of the routing. In that case the final hole was always going to play along the lake.
-
Patrick,
Forgive the denseness of my question, but what exactly is meant by sequence in this context? I've always considered it to mean the order (in that sense, isn't the sequence always 1-18 ;)).
George,
If the first hole is a par 4, the second hole could be a par 3, 4 or 5, that's a form of sequencing.
Bear with me a bit as I'm trying to get a feel for what is really a different routing. Would a change like the one below at NGLA be considered a change in the routing? (imagine that #2 played along the yellow line and #3 played along the white line)
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/NGLA%20Aerials/NGLA2_3.jpg)
To expand on that, would a change like that have been considered a different routing if it was the only such change? How about if many of the holes had similar changes (i.e. only a green or tee location change; or perhaps both changing, but the hole occupies the same corridor)?
-
For those who claim the property dictates the routing, didn't the Erin Hills routing contest we had on here recently pretty much prove otherwise?
I don't think any 2 of the 10 or so routings I saw were similar at all. Yes a few holes played in the same corridors but that was about it.
-
Just for reference here are the several Erin Hills routings:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3634/3468657489_88600e0ca1_o.gif)
It goes:
1. Topo
2. Erin Hills
3-11. Contestants
Then reset
-
Of course...
Highest point = clubhouse = starting point, endpoint and middle point. The rest is just fitting a puzzle together to meet the location of your tremendous finanacial drain.
This stuff is so easy and yet we pay guys millions to do it??!!
Oh yeah ;)
-
Just for reference here are the several Erin Hills routings:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3634/3468657489_88600e0ca1_o.gif)
It goes:
1. Topo
2. Erin Hills
3-11. Contestants
Then reset
Charlie,
Thanks for taking the time to do that, those routings all over the place. I think that proves the point very well that the property does not dictate the routing.
-
Charlie,
That's a great feature, someday you'll tell us how to do that.
Kalen,
I'm not so sure that's the case.
Just because there are multiple routings available doesn't mean that they're of equal quality.
Erin Hills and especially York are interesting studies.
Jim Nugent,
I believe there were several similarities in the Doak and Nicklaus routing at Sebonack.
If Charlie could do his magical overlays for York and CPCC, that would be great.
-
Bear with me a bit as I'm trying to get a feel for what is really a different routing. Would a change like the one below at NGLA be considered a change in the routing? (imagine that #2 played along the yellow line and #3 played along the white line)
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/NGLA%20Aerials/NGLA2_3.jpg)
I don't know that your routing is realistic in terms of holes # 2 and # 3.
But, let's assume it is.
Is the routing different ? Yes, but to quantify how different, I'd describe it as "de minimus", or not substantive.
To expand on that, would a change like that have been considered a different routing if it was the only such change? How about if many of the holes had similar changes (i.e. only a green or tee location change; or perhaps both changing, but the hole occupies the same corridor)?
On the particular location you've cited, the routing would be generally the same with some "internal" differences
-
Awhile back, someone posted an "alternate" version of Merion that is very similar to what Charlie Georges just did with NGLA.
It features several new green and tee sites but followed along the general lines of the actual routing.
I really can't think of a way to answer "no" to this question, though how much of the routing is based on the architect's interpretation of the property.
-
Kyle,
Of course if we limit ourselves to properties like Merion, where it was already tight to begin with, then the answer will always favor the Yes side, but how do you explain Erin Hills? Or most other properties that are not limited by the tight boundry lines?
-
Kyle,
Of course if we limit ourselves to properties like Merion, where it was already tight to begin with, then the answer will always favor the Yes side, but how do you explain Erin Hills? Or most other properties that are not limited by the tight boundry lines?
Kalen,
That is what I'm attempting to cover in my second question. I'm not particularly limiting my own interpretation to the general "shape and direction" of the routing but of all the internal break points (read: the point between the hole and the next tee) in the golf.
-
Mr. Mucci, you pose one of the more interesting posts I've seen in awhile. Being new here, I don't want to step on anyone's toes...yet. Simple answer MACRO is not genius, MICRO is genius.
A quick look reveals MICRO architecture and a finishing of the product at the top level (we're talking PV, ANGC, CPC, Pac Dunes, Sand Hills) that way exceeds it's fellow courses to an extent. MACRO architecture is a work of the big genius upstairs. IMHO, its not possible for MICRO to trump MACRO. But thats the old good course on bad site vs. bad course on good site debate.
-
Patrick,
Would you say that the property of NGLA dictated what is essentially an out and back routing, or did CB Macdonald had other choices on the property that he didn't utilize?
I don't mean this as a negative...I'm asking how big the original size and dimensions of the property was that Macdonald had at his disposal.
-
Kyle,
Of course if we limit ourselves to properties like Merion, where it was already tight to begin with, then the answer will always favor the Yes side, but how do you explain Erin Hills? Or most other properties that are not limited by the tight boundry lines?
Kalen,
That is what I'm attempting to cover in my second question. I'm not particularly limiting my own interpretation to the general "shape and direction" of the routing but of all the internal break points (read: the point between the hole and the next tee) in the golf.
Kyle,
I would agree thats a good way to look at it, but I'm still seeing far more break points on a parcel like Erin Hills than something like Merion. If you look at an aerial, Merion is roughly shaped like Italy in that it has the shoe and leg pieces which are farily long and slender. So its pretty limited in terms of the potential hole corridors and thier respective green pads.
However when you look at EH, its a triangular parcel and now you have much much more combinations and permutations that can be devised and it proved out in the contest. I would think that piece of property did little in dictating or suggesting any type of preffered routing and based on Tom Ds comments his routing was very different than whats in the ground now.
Another course that comes to mind is Ballyneal. From what I discussed with Rupert he said they had literally close to 100 potential green sites if not more and it was a matter of just finding the best ones to use to make a routing. I'm sure they could have routed it half a dozen other ways and still had it come up aces. And from what I've read it was a similar thing at Sand Hills.
So a property can dictate a routing, but only if its restricted in size and shape that forces your hand to get most of the holes running in forced corridors.
-
Kalen:
The amazing thing about the Merion property is that the only really "dictated" breakpoints are around the clubhouse for the first tee and 18th hole, and within the quarry.
I think the reason the site is so ideal in terms of use for golf is that there are plenty of options despite a very constricted, awkwardly-shaped, site.
I will agree that the permutations are more numerous on a site like Erin Hills, however, I think it could be reasoned that the Erin Hills site also would lead to a much greater variance in quality - which is where I believe Pat was going with his response to Charlie.
-
Kyle,
Of course if we limit ourselves to properties like Merion, where it was already tight to begin with, then the answer will always favor the Yes side, but how do you explain Erin Hills? Or most other properties that are not limited by the tight boundry lines?
Kalen,
Don't limit routing dictates solely to the property lines.
Expand your thoughts/horizons/imagination to the third dimension, the topography.
Must I now send you to the dunce class and seat you next to TEPaul ?
-
Patrick,
Would you say that the property of NGLA dictated what is essentially an out and back routing, or did CB Macdonald had other choices on the property that he didn't utilize?
I think the site purchased limited the routing to an "out and in" routing.
Within that context, I believe other hole designs were available, but, when you add in the site of the clubhouse, either the temporary one or the current one, the die was pretty much cast.
I don't mean this as a negative...I'm asking how big the original size and dimensions of the property was that Macdonald had at his disposal.
If you add in the Sebonack property there was about 450 acres available.
The land was described as "worthless". Describing it as "hostile" would seem appropriate. It contained bogs and swamps and had never been surveyed.
Of the 450 acres, the company that owned it agreed to sell 205 acres to CBM on behalf of NGLA.
It's my understanding that CBM got the 205 acres that he wanted in the context of what he wanted to design and construct.
He rode the course on horseback for days and found the land form for many of the concept or template holes he envisioned.
It would seem that his decision to by that particular parcel was largely determined by his previous examination and study of the land, rather than the company selling him a random parcel, and him finding his holes through blind luck or pure genius.
-
Mr. Mucci, you pose one of the more interesting posts I've seen in awhile. Being new here, I don't want to step on anyone's toes...yet. Simple answer MACRO is not genius, MICRO is genius.
A quick look reveals MICRO architecture and a finishing of the product at the top level (we're talking PV, ANGC, CPC, Pac Dunes, Sand Hills) that way exceeds it's fellow courses to an extent. MACRO architecture is a work of the big genius upstairs. IMHO, its not possible for MICRO to trump MACRO. But thats the old good course on bad site vs. bad course on good site debate.
You cite ANGC as an example.
The MICRO architecture has been changed dramatically over the intervening 75 years, YET, the golf course was recently elevated to # 1 status by GD.
If the MICRO architecture has been changed so often and so dramatically over the years, how do you account for ANGC's lofty status as one of the best golf courses in the Country and World, for all these years ?
There's only one answer.
The MACRO architecture is brilliant and the MICRO architecture is of far less consequence.
Have you been to Sand Hills ?
Are you familiar with the "Constellation routing" ?
If you added or deleted bunkers on almost every hole, would it make a substantive difference ?
P.S. Welcome to GCA.com
-
Patrick, I'd be happy to do one of those graphics for the courses mentioned, I just need to get some images, or find out where they are exactly (and I wasn't aware of another routing for Cypress Point). On a lark I nearly did one of the old Pine Valley and current Pine Valley, but I didn't want to spark a nuclear "incident" ;).
It's good to get a working definition of what a different routing is, and while we can't know if the committee at Merion shared your definition, Patrick, perhaps we can begin to understand what kind of options there were.
Kalen, Kyle, Patrick et al:
The Erin Hills example works in favor of both sides of the example. For one, Kalen is right that a number of very different routings came about. While it is also true as Patrick and Kyle mentioned, there was probably a great variation in quality. That said, it's probably safe to say that at least a couple of the alternative routings matched or exceeded the real thing (at least according to some of the judges), and so at least a couple of viable alternatives existed.
The last thing I want to comment on is what Patrick said about the topography being a limiting factor much like the property lines. That is definitely true in my estimation (Note: once the results were finalized, I did my own routing). What I noticed happening in conjunction with the limiting factor of the topography was that with each successive hole I added to the routing it became exponentially more difficult to rout the remaining holes. And since I used the "best" land first, those remaining holes had to be routed over progressively less-ideal terrain and avoid that which was not usable at all. I enjoyed the activity greatly, but I don't envy the difficulty of what the pros have to go through.
-
Patrick, I'd be happy to do one of those graphics for the courses mentioned, I just need to get some images, or find out where they are exactly (and I wasn't aware of another routing for Cypress Point). On a lark I nearly did one of the old Pine Valley and current Pine Valley, but I didn't want to spark a nuclear "incident" ;).
It's good to get a working definition of what a different routing is, and while we can't know if the committee at Merion shared your definition, Patrick, perhaps we can begin to understand what kind of options there were.
Kalen, Kyle, Patrick et al:
The Erin Hills example works in favor of both sides of the example. For one, Kalen is right that a number of very different routings came about. While it is also true as Patrick and Kyle mentioned, there was probably a great variation in quality. That said, it's probably safe to say that at least a couple of the alternative routings matched or exceeded the real thing (at least according to some of the judges), and so at least a couple of viable alternatives existed.
The last thing I want to comment on is what Patrick said about the topography being a limiting factor much like the property lines. That is definitely true in my estimation (Note: once the results were finalized, I did my own routing). What I noticed happening in conjunction with the limiting factor of the topography was that with each successive hole I added to the routing it became exponentially more difficult to rout the remaining holes. And since I used the "best" land first, those remaining holes had to be routed over progressively less-ideal terrain and avoid that which was not usable at all. I enjoyed the activity greatly, but I don't envy the difficulty of what the pros have to go through.
Charlie,
Could you go through you process a bit? Did you actually start at the first hole and go in order or did you find a nice area of the property, route a few holes there and then attached them to the clubhouse with the remainder?
Do you feel that some sites dictate a "method" of routing over others? I can see a site like Merion's pretty much dictating the first and last hole's directions... but 2-14/15 are probably as close to a free-for-all as anything.
-
Mr. Mucci,
I humbly accept your reasoning, though I am still inclined to say that MICRO is what gets the courses their rankings. I am in fact impressed that you honed in on ANGC and Sand Hills. I have been to Augusta but not up to the C&C modern masterpiece in Nebraska. I so also see my err in not specifying definitions of MACRO and MICRO.
But to reengage with ears backed...
I may get hammered for this, but I account Augusta's ranking to solid topography, conditioning that cannot be ignored (though GD seems to think it can), and risk reward that has no equal in tournament golf. The pimento sandwiches are just icing on the cake. It's MACRO routing was, IMHO, dictated by the land that sat there. An architects job is to get the best combinations of holes with what he has to work with. In that respect, what Jones and MacKenzie did all those years ago can never be erased. I would argue that MICRO is what makes Pac Dunes so special. It's routing (though better than its comparing partner Pebble) is a consequence of location and Mr. Doak's desire to flirt with the Pacific in two distinct crescendos. What is more brilliant, his routing or his finishing that makes it look as if it's been there 100 years? The answer is very subjective.
I admit I am not familiar with constellation routing. I accept this fact with my head low.
The bunker question, well thats a hindsight argument. We could go all day talking about distances from tee, shapes, cuts of grass leading to the bunker, etc. The simple question of addition and subtraction of bunkers, I think, falls in line with the MICRO side of the equation. And it clearly dictates the quality of a course. So yes, it would change quite significantly.
Thanks for this opportunity.
-
Ben,
You should be aware that the 16th hole was totally redesigned and never a part of the original course.
In addition, the 7th hole was substantively redesigned as was the 10th hole.
Since you've been there you know how steep a hillside that course sits on.
It is the genius of the routing, not the individual features, that permits the golf course to retain its enduring qualities on that most unusual topography.
That routing brilliantly uses the slopes and inclines.
The use of Rae's Creek is also extraordinarily brilliant.
That's a product of the routing.
The addition or deletion of bunkers on various holes would have little effect on the overall quality of the golf course. That's because the routing is so spectacular. The routing is the "skeleton" that holds the architectural values in place, despite changes to the course's "skin"
Straighten up and fly right ! ;D
-
Patrick, I'd be happy to do one of those graphics for the courses mentioned, I just need to get some images, or find out where they are exactly (and I wasn't aware of another routing for Cypress Point). On a lark I nearly did one of the old Pine Valley and current Pine Valley, but I didn't want to spark a nuclear "incident" ;).
It's good to get a working definition of what a different routing is, and while we can't know if the committee at Merion shared your definition, Patrick, perhaps we can begin to understand what kind of options there were.
Kalen, Kyle, Patrick et al:
The Erin Hills example works in favor of both sides of the example. For one, Kalen is right that a number of very different routings came about. While it is also true as Patrick and Kyle mentioned, there was probably a great variation in quality. That said, it's probably safe to say that at least a couple of the alternative routings matched or exceeded the real thing (at least according to some of the judges), and so at least a couple of viable alternatives existed.
The last thing I want to comment on is what Patrick said about the topography being a limiting factor much like the property lines. That is definitely true in my estimation (Note: once the results were finalized, I did my own routing). What I noticed happening in conjunction with the limiting factor of the topography was that with each successive hole I added to the routing it became exponentially more difficult to rout the remaining holes. And since I used the "best" land first, those remaining holes had to be routed over progressively less-ideal terrain and avoid that which was not usable at all. I enjoyed the activity greatly, but I don't envy the difficulty of what the pros have to go through.
Charlie,
Could you go through you process a bit? Did you actually start at the first hole and go in order or did you find a nice area of the property, route a few holes there and then attached them to the clubhouse with the remainder?
Do you feel that some sites dictate a "method" of routing over others? I can see a site like Merion's pretty much dictating the first and last hole's directions... but 2-14/15 are probably as close to a free-for-all as anything.
Sure Kyle,
I followed your second example more so than the first. Basically I found what I thought, at the time, were the 5 or 6 best holes anywhere I could on the property. Then I tried to locate the clubhouse holes, 1, 9, 10, and 18 ( I would have done non-returning nines if that was the best option, but I started with some rough placeholders for those four holes). After this the process began to resemble sausage-making.
Of the first 6 holes I found, 2 made it to the final. And none of the rough placeholders for 1, 9, 10, 18 made it. I had to fight the tendency to do all of the cliches (Like the proverbial 18 downhill holes; every hole running in a valley etc.) and even so all three of my par 5s ended up between 540 and 560 from the back tees. I was surprised that I felt like I was running out of room on 360 acres!
I don't know much about routing methods, but I definitely think that the only way to fit a good or great course on a parcel the size/shape of Merion's, is to research/survey the available land and find the perfect piece first.
In terms of the very naturalistic method of just finding a bunch of holes and then narrowing it down, I think having the clubhouse location set in stone at the edge of the property severely limits the possibilities.
Take all that with a grain of salt, I don't know jack about doing this in real life. :D
-
Hot damn I'm being educated.
I was aware of the 16's history but failed to remember it. I STILL like points from both our arguments. Routing makes the course on so many great layouts. Cruden Bay, Augusta, Pine Valley, Bandon Trails, NGLA. These are but a few of the great courses that feature unique and amazing routings. But ;D, I still think Pacific's ragged bunkers blending with natural blowouts and its rumpled fairways, road and hell bunkers at Old Course, the waterfall slope of 16 green at Pasatiempo; these are MICRO features that contribute quite heavily to the overall experience of those layouts.
But Mr. Mucci, your points are very, very good and I am learning to see what you are talking about.
-
Ben,
Would David Kidd and Tom Doak have been taken to task if they didn't use the land adjacent to the high bluff bordering the Pacific ?
Certainly, you have to concede that that area of the property was an integral element, if not a focal element in the routing of the golf course.
I think Tom brilliantly used variations in routing the holes at PD to take advantage of the Western property line.
His routing has some holes coming at the Pacific while others flank the Pacific. I think that's a great routing feature only made possible by the property.
-
Mr. Mucci,
1) Hell yes they would've. Rhetorical nature of this question notwithstanding, it was imperative that the ocean be included in more than one encounter (a la Spyglass) for both courses to successful. The site dictated to Doak and Kidd that it be open to elements and views not found anywhere in the United States. IMHO, the player's ocean encounters at 4, 11, 13 make the round at Pac. And so does Kidd's layout at 4, 12, 16.
3) My argument merely centers on one key point. The MACRO architecture of that site, I think, have could been found to one extent or another by almost any architect that was blessed enough for that site. What makes it so special is Doak's masterful use of MICRO architecture (bunkering, undulations, natural flow to individual holes) that makes Pac stand out among most other oceanside courses. In this respect, the MACRO architecture is enhanced by individual holes creating a dominating theme. Rustic naturalness combined with effective, nay inspiring, routing to make it a walk to remember. Mr. Mucci, even Gisele wears makeup at the Vicki's Secret fashion show. Even if she doesn't need it.