Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Kyle Harris on February 15, 2012, 08:13:14 PM
-
On the renovating classic greens thread, Tom Doak makes the almost irrefutable case that many great greens were built well before the advent or usage of GPS.
Simple question:
Can a great putting green be built with GPS?
Tom's tone almost suggests a nostalgia for the old ways, which while respectable, may gloss over the fact that not very many have actually "pushed the envelope" of a GPS's capabilities or have not been able to adapt the technology to the talent.
-
Who determines if it's great?
-
Who determines if it's great?
Jim:
Let's have the individual giving the answer provide that answer as well.
-
GPS is a tool. A fool and a tool is still a fool. An expert with the tool is still an expert. GPS doesn't build anything.
We used GPS extensively during the construction of Wolf Point. It was more like a note book. It recorded everything we put in the ground the day it went into the ground. It helped us measure quantities, and keep track of our daily process. It didn't manage us and it never made a decision. Its a tool, that's all.
-
GPS is a tool. A fool and a tool is still a fool. An expert with the tool is still an expert. GPS doesn't build anything.
We used GPS extensively during the construction of Wolf Point. It was more like a note book. It recorded everything we put in the ground the day it went into the ground. It helped us measure quantities, and keep track of our daily process. It didn't manage us and it never made a decision. Its a tool, that's all.
Don:
Exactly my rationale behind this post. It seemed odd to me that one could go one way or the other with regard to GPS and putting green quality.
I think there is an emerging ability for shapers to be able to shape a sub-grade for a USGA construction green that ties into the surroundings above it.
-
Kyle,
I spent the day with Mike Nuzzo looking over a green renovation project. Mike knows GPS. I'd put his knowledge up against anyone on this DG and anyone else in golf for that matter. Mike does not use GPS for contour or slope measurement. I have a feeling he'll see this thread and I hope he chimes in. IMO, GPS has many applications in golf construction and maintenance, but it does not replace the human eye and brain.
-
No.
-
Can it be done solely relying on GPS and having a CAD monkey do it in the office and not step foot on the property? Absolutely not that's ridiculous. Dons right it is only a tool. But tools are around and were invented to solve a problem and make something work more effectively and efficiently.
I did the as-builts for the greens renovations at Riviera for their first round of renovations. I did it the old fashioned way by physically laying out a 10 foot grid on each green using triangulation. I then used a Lincoln rod and a transit to get all of the elevations. We were doing USGA green expansions and used one of those Stanley digital yardsticks to analyze the slope percentages from the existing green into the new expansions. It took forever and we had to do it while play was going through.
Looking back in hindsight that is a project I wish I had known how to GPS and use AutoCAD. It would have taken 1/10 of the time and never interrupt member play. Plus I could have mapped it down to a 1 or 2 foot grid and been a million times more precise. Did they come out great without it? Absolutely. Would it have been quicker, easier and less intrusive with GPS? Absolutely.
It's a tool, not a replacement.
-
Ian:
Are you saying that the human mind cannot develop a talent for "seeing" contours on a map and being able to translate that into GPS relatable data?
Aside: Can a good shaper go blind and still be a good shaper?
-
Can it be done solely relying on GPS and having a CAD monkey do it in the office and not step foot on the property? Absolutely not that's ridiculous. Dons right it is only a tool. But tools are around and were invented to solve a problem and make something work more effectively and efficiently.
I did the as-builts for the greens renovations at Riviera for their first round of renovations. I did it the old fashioned way by physically laying out a 10 foot grid on each green using triangulation. I then used a Lincoln rod and a transit to get all of the elevations. We were doing USGA green expansions and used one of those Stanley digital yardsticks to analyze the slope percentages from the existing green into the new expansions. It took forever and we had to do it while play was going through.
Looking back in hindsight that is a project I wish I had known how to GPS and use AutoCAD. It would have taken 1/10 of the time and never interrupt member play. Plus I could have mapped it down to a 1 or 2 foot grid and been a million times more precise. Did they come out great without it? Absolutely. Would it have been quicker, easier and less intrusive with GPS? Absolutely.
It's a tool, not a replacement.
Ian:
While you were doing all that, what were Dave Axland and Dan Proctor doing?
The answer to the question you have posed is simple. Just name some examples of great greens that were built by AutoCAD and GPS, instead of by a shaper and an architect in the field. I have been asking this question for ten years, and I have yet to hear ANY examples, much less anywhere near as many examples as I could give you of great greens built the old-fashioned way in the last 5-10 years.
-
Tom:
But is that a limitation of the tool or the people using the tool?
A bunch of folk musicians likely thought the same thing about Les Paul's new-fangled noise maker.
-
I had this same kind of discussion with my grandfather who absolutely would not use Skype to not only talk to me from across the country, but able to see me. You just couldn't convince the guy to use anything but the old rotary beside his recliner.
-
Kyle and Ian:
I am not saying that it CAN'T BE DONE.
I am asking that if it is as easy as Ian says, then WHY HASN'T ANYONE BEEN ABLE TO DO IT?
There is a lot of information lost between the lines on a contour plan, even contour plans at the smallest of intervals. We had a 0.05-meter contour plan of one of the old greens at Royal Melbourne (East) which had been moved, and even then, I had to wad it up near the end and just finish the green by eye to restore it. I guess if I'd had a GPS, I could have rebuilt it "exactly" or at least pretended that I had. But I do not know anyone who draws contour plans at 0.05 meters and gets cool subtleties int he greens by that method. The architect who is most accomplished at it that I know is Line Mortensen, and she says she wishes her clients would let her build greens our way.
-
I feel like Joshua Bell* being forced to listen to a kids violin recital while he has a headache.
There are 4 types of GPS
The kind on your phone and in your car - they help you find a golf course.
Sub meter - measures within 3' horizontally, 6' vertically.
Decimeter - measures within 4" horiz, 8" verticallly.
Centimeter - measures within 0.3" horiz, 0.6" vertically.
There are 4 types of CAD
Vector
Wireframe
Surface
Solid Model
This is how Don and I used GPS at Wolf Point to the greatest effect
Planning & Construction - We flagged & staked the features & earthwork we needed into the ground - alone & faster than any contractor.
Irrigation - We measured the features we finished during the day - processed the data and updated the rotor spacing for optimum coverage that night over beers - then the next morning we flagged where the heads should go using cables and GPS
I highly doubt anyone has done what we did with such efficiency before or since.
Post - we recorded everything we did
The Greens at Wolf Point were not built with CAD or GPS by choice
Could we build a great green with CAD & GPS - sure - but why would we want to - you still need a bulldozer or sand pro - and putting a GPS unit on them is just silly for golf construction
If the green is great and we saved money who gives a shit how we built it?
*Joshua Bell thread:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50777.0.html
-
Most times talking to the old timers on here is like talking to a brick wall. In no way was GPS or AutoCAD brought up in a way where it replaced on the field experience and decision making. Like I said before and agreed with naysayers, it's a tool.
If you can prove to me that GPS and AutoCAD would have been a waste of time and/or detrimental to the project such as Riviera then I will concede. But let's get real that's not going to happen. Even
guys at Wolf Point who feel they hold the Holy Grail to golf course design and development can't bring that kind of proof to the table.
Before you guys take this out of context, once again, to fit your beliefs...I'm going to reiterate myself and say that it's a tool, like a shovel. It's never going to replace any shaper or a designer in the field. But it is going to do its duty as a tool to make the project more sellable, more precise with maintaining the broad topography and Making the project more efficient and valuable.
Just because Wolf Point was a success doesn't make it the blueprint to every other project out there. As well as any Doak course, just because the discussion board wants to sit in a circle and jack off over these so called idles of the trade.
If you guys cant acknowledge GPS as an effective tool for renovation/restoration then good luck with your mules and scrapes. Say what you want but don't twist my words or take them out of context.
I took a hiatus from this circle jerk and realize why I did so in the first place...
-
All I see is yet again the full willingness of certain people to take further steps away from the reality of a game called golf.
These same people see no compromise when using carts, distance aids or the latest technology in the headlong pursuit to destroy the heart and soul of the game of golf
Why not utilise GPS, after all you have already contaminated the game of golf with other aids just to make your life easy. I wonder if you feel the same about the commitment to your flag and country.
Quite frankly if you do not get it, or want to protect it then get the hell away from the game and leave golf to the traditionalist.
Not one word has been spoken about a duty of care or for that matter responsibility of maintaining if not the great,
then certainly older Greens that have stood the test of time. Just because modern golfer no longer seem able to
hack the courses or Greens that their fathers and grandfathers mastered, change is demanded using the excuse
that they are boring.
Architects and designers jump in to modify these areas without, what appears, concern for the quality or history of
the course and the underlying greatness of the Greens in question. Why has not one of you asked why or put up
a reasonable defence for maintaining the Green. Or has the constraints upon the golfing world meant that to earn a
little money we are willing to destroy what was once considered great, only laid low by the lack of controlling
ball/club technology.
Well the future will no doubt remember you destroyed a Colt or Ross Green for the sake of a hand full of coins.
There for the grace of God goes a man that used the excuse of feeding his family before destroying a work of such
skill and knowledge that was The Green at …..
Use your modern tools but that does not mean that your design is better, it just means you have taken the easy option. But don’t fret, you are doing what many, many others are doing, however the question is should you know better, do you know better, in fact are you doing it for golf or purely to make a living, no matter the cost to the game and the old great courses. Are you just plugging the gap until some consistency in controlling technology is achieved diminishing in your wake the great holes, in fact have you asked yourselves will your modification stand the test of time or will it too be modified within half a dozen years.
So use your toys, make life easy but unless you tackle the underlying problems within the game you will have achieved very little with or without you GPS.
Sorry just a passionate plea for some form of consistency in dealing with many old courses originally designed by past Masters otherwise we may just read about their greatness as most of their work will have been destroyed.
Oh by the way GPS should never be used in designing Greens, unless the said Greens will be affected by the tides!!
-
Can it be done solely relying on GPS and having a CAD monkey do it in the office and not step foot on the property? Absolutely not that's ridiculous. Dons right it is only a tool. But tools are around and were invented to solve a problem and make something work more effectively and efficiently.
I did the as-builts for the greens renovations at Riviera for their first round of renovations. I did it the old fashioned way by physically laying out a 10 foot grid on each green using triangulation. I then used a Lincoln rod and a transit to get all of the elevations. We were doing USGA green expansions and used one of those Stanley digital yardsticks to analyze the slope percentages from the existing green into the new expansions. It took forever and we had to do it while play was going through.
Looking back in hindsight that is a project I wish I had known how to GPS and use AutoCAD. It would have taken 1/10 of the time and never interrupt member play. Plus I could have mapped it down to a 1 or 2 foot grid and been a million times more precise. Did they come out great without it? Absolutely. Would it have been quicker, easier and less intrusive with GPS? Absolutely.
Ian:
I don't think I've taken your words out of context. It was the other concurrent thread where someone spoke of how easy it was to use GPS to rebuild a green perfectly ... Tim Nugent said it first, but then you chimed in and agreed, I believe.
Anyway, we don't seem to be saying things much differently, and my last post agreed with you for the most part, so I don't know why you have gotten so upset.
The only part of your argument I don't understand is whether you are saying it would have been way easier to REBUILD the greens at Riviera using GPS, or whether it just would have been easier to MAP them that way.
And, since I am an "old timer" ;) , I would appreciate experts like you or Mike explaining to me whether you think GPS equipment would make it easy to rebuild an old green's contours precisely, to new USGA construction. If it would, then I would love to let the computers do this work instead of having to pay such close attention to it, and it would free up my most valuable employees to go create cool new greens instead.
P.S. I remember when I was 20 and working for Pete Dye, how silly I thought he was for making fun of new technology. All he was really saying was that in the end, the important stuff is still up to the guy who's overseeing the technology, and he was mistrustful of handing off that responsibility to anyone, or anyTHING, else.
-
Slightly off topic but I suspect that this is the first time that my friend, Tom Doak, has been referred to as an "old timer". Congratulations Tom, welcome to the club.
-
Tom, I didn't say you could rebuild something perfectly. I was responding to 'how can you propose a modification and know the outcome will be as promised'. I believe it was in the context of soften greens where the greenspeeds had been dramically increased to the point where the original design concepts were no longer relevant.
The course I'm working on now has GPS on the brain. They measure everything on an as-built basis. Being old-school, I let them layout the perimeter of the green (materials are expensive, so size matters) and a maybe 4 internal points. Then I dozer the green. Of course I knock out half the stakes but that's okay, I got the rough idea. Next I fire up my CAT 247 track skid-steer and fine tune everything. After I think it looks good, I break out a lazer and measure the internal slopes ( I want to make sure drains). After I'm happy, Mr. GPS comes over and records the subgrade (with many, many points). After drainage is installed and recorded, I stake the internals for a 20-30cm coarse-sand sublayer. This is installed. Then I tweek the surface to get it all to flow. Then this is recorded and the final 30cm of rootzone mix is installed with internal staking of the highs and lows. The GPS checks for a uniform 30 cms. Then the final is done with a small Tractor. A sandpro will float out the final prior to seeding.
As you can see, a GPS is only a measuring and feedback tool. It can't replace the experienced field people.
Even those of us who do extensive plans know that they are not unlike Michelangeo's many sketchbooks. They provide a guide to illustrate the design concepts. But, until you put the chisel to the marble, you don't know which way the graining will take you.
I'll bet even those who "wing it" use some sort of device(s) to measure and get feedback. After 30 yrs of fieldwork, I got as good as eye as anyone when it comes to "readng" grade. But even I get fooled now and then, especially on hilly terrain. I can feel level on a dozer sometimes better than seeing it. We have many tools available to build greens, both mechanical and biological. Different people have their own systems. Not saying anyone is better or worse than the other. Although I would hesitate to try to use something as subjective as "great" to be a quantifier.
-
Tim:
X2 on everything you said.
Except for creating a record of what has been buillt, greens can be built using a transit and hand level, just to check the grades you have set by eye.
-
You guys have me all confused. I don't call staking or mapping "building" a green. Of course you can use GPS to map and stake properties. I think most do that but trying to program a drawing into a machine and have the machine build something is what I consider building. Am I right or wrong?
-
Tim:
Thanks for the clarification. I'm with you on how you described building things, and I agree 100% that even the most well-trained eye can occasionally be fooled. Slawnik and Schneider and Iverson are as good as they get at feeling how much slope they are building into a green, but it's fun to sit there with a transit and call them on it when they do wind up with something too severe! [My guys seldom err on the side of too flat!]
Mike:
I'm asking the same thing you are: whether anyone is actually using GPS to BUILD greens -- I think a few are, especially in Europe -- and whether anyone thinks those greens have turned out great.
-
Kyle and Ian:
I am not saying that it CAN'T BE DONE.
I am asking that if it is as easy as Ian says, then WHY HASN'T ANYONE BEEN ABLE TO DO IT?
Assuming that the assumption in your question is true, isn't the answer obvious? The technology is relatively new, and using it isn't the only skill that goes into building a green. Most likely, none of the great greensbuilders of today (and it isn't a vast #) have adapted to the technology yet. As the younger generation develops the skills to become greensbuilders, the odds that one or more of them will rely on gps technology will increase.
-
In terms of importance, the iPod is far more so than the GPS.
There is no substitute for building by the soles of your feet, and the lens of the eye.
Feel = results.
-
If feel is so much more important than technology, how did Mister Ross do so well with his greens? How did Raynor make a name for himself using templates? It isn't just feel - and here's the kicker - it never was. Not even back when they had to walk 5 miles to school in their barefeet in the snow, uphill in both directions.
-
Chris,
That is so true. Not just the feet. A good operator can tell very subtle slopes based on the resistance he feels on the machine.
I have never really heard of anyone actually using GPS ONLY to build a green and leaving it. If it happens, I think we can all agree the architect had a contract based on speed of construction or cost, and wasn't commissioned by the owner to build great greens, even by implication. It happens. There is even a logical market for such greens, but also, by definition, most would agree they gave up on greatness before the barn door was open to let the construction equipment out for the day.
-
I'm on the road and can't post it, but I recalled seeing as builts done by a subcontractor for the greens at Riviera when Ben Crenshaw came in and did his greens renovation. Specifically I am mentally visualizing the as-built for the 10th at Riv and from the points they mapped they used tiny arrows to show the direction of the slope at each point to show how water will drain and by extension, it's undulations.
Is Riviera not a great golf course? Is the 10th not a great green? Is Ben Crenshaw not a great architect? And is the 10th better or worse because they utilized some technology in their scope of work?
I recall this plan of the 10th specifically because I used it as inspiration for when I drew up the as-builts for the greens extensions in 2005. I'm pretty sure it can be found in the Riviera history book.
-
Ian:
That's why I asked you about Dave Axland and Dan Proctor earlier. Because whatever technology they used to map the greens -- and we've used maps on all the greens we've rebuilt, too -- in the end, Dan Proctor was probably the guy on the sand pro trying to get it just right, and the tenth green was ready when he was.
-
Ian,
The subcontractor you mention was Ed Connor and he went around shooting contour on many classic courses during that time. However, I think he was using a Theodolite instrument at the time. He did copy all the greens at Riviera before they did the work. But still I just see all of this as a form of mapping if one wishes to replace an existing green etc. When it comes to a new green, I think the best will always be built from a single stake in the middle of the green. JMO.
-
I would appreciate experts like you or Mike explaining to me whether you think GPS equipment would make it easy to rebuild an old green's contours precisely, to new USGA construction. If it would, then I would love to let the computers do this work instead of having to pay such close attention to it, and it would free up my most valuable employees to go create cool new greens instead.- Tom Doak
This type of greens "replacement" project is precisely the application that we (Frontier Golf) have found to be a great application for GPS regarding green construction. As a golf course contractor, the use of this technology (survey grade RTK GPS Rover/Base system concurrent with mmGPS laser system) gives us the most precise method to construct the greens to USGA Spec. when the existing contours are to be preserved.
Typically on this type of project, we will localize the site, map the greens and create the base maps showing .1' contours on the green surface. The CAD file is then loaded into the data collector and along with the rover unit and a skilled GPS operator used to check grades throughout the green construction process, telling the Operators where the cuts and fills need to happen to re-create the green surface. The GPS rover and operator are used for the sub-grade, gravel blanket and green mix to ensure each layer is a mirror image of each other. In the end, the result is a USGA Spec green, that is precisely the same contours as the existing green. Of course, the level of precision and accuracy lies in the density of the points collected during the mapping phase, along with the level of detail and attention given by the GPS Operator. In other words, the quality of the execution of the construction is the most important aspect of constructing a green, whether you are utilizing GPS or not. While the use of the GPS is a great tool in aiding the construction of the green by way of grade control, it does not replace the need for skilled operators during the process and for the final float.
We have completed many of these types of projects using this method for greens construction and they have all been a success for our clients.
I hope this offers a little insight from the contractor's perspective regarding the use of GPS for green construction.
-
Jason:
What is the best set of greens you've rebuilt with GPS equipment?
[Hint: if you say Olympic Club, I'm going to have to ask Gib Papazian and Joel Stewart how well you did, and they are among the toughest critics in these parts.]
-
I can see where rebuilding or restoring a green might be helpfull with GPS. Like what has been stated before there still must be a skilled operator on the gps controlled machine as well as the sandpro. On new construction I think it is a different story. One would have to assume that all the topos are correct and the architect can actually draw (CAD) exactly what he wants. I haven't had a green "staked" in over four years. Thats not because I don't want stakes its just I haven't had that highly detailed set of green plans. I prefer to look at plan/sketch and talk with architect, then procede to shape green. I use a eye/hand level to rough it in and then break out my laser to shoot final grades and make any tweaks.
I have never used a gps controlled or guided machine. My question to those who have is how does it work with the green core. Can you set it up so it will core out green? If not then you have still have to have a guy come back and core it out.
-
There is a huge difference between rebuilding greens accepted as great and building new ones for a project. HUGE!
In rebuilding great greens, you are copying, or trying to do so as precisely as possible. With new greens, it is an artistic venture. It is like comparing apples and elephants.
As for new, fresh work... and the original question... "How about can they be built "strictly according to plan"? The key word is... strictly.
Of a thousand tries you might get a couple... might, but you will never, ever get a set, and I doubt even a small collection.
Greatness is achieved like in any other artistic pursuit... by delving through initial concepts, picking one that you think will work exceptionally well and refining, refining, refining using the greatest super computer in the world... the human brain. I venture most cannot be built without the architect on-site either... anyone who has worked with builders knows most of the guys on the machines aren't schooled in great golf and have pet styles/habits. There is politics involved too, for a shaper who ditches the architect's concept runs the risk of pissing off the architect by making him look bad, so the shaper will act like a grade school student and color inside the lines. Following plans strictly is safe for the builder (it doesn't cost the construction company anything and they are business to get the job done and get out of there). In fact, a shaper for a company will try to get the boring green build to perfection so the architect who makes his rare site-visit is loath to change anything... just ask the guys who do it for a living. If the architect doesn't care about protecting the investor by being on-site, why should the builder sweat the design details? It's not their job, their responsibility.
Here comes a paradox...
The problem with the human brain, what I just called the supercomputer is it isn't that creative. Is not creative. We run our brain in patterns. For example, with 11 pieces of clothes there are some 3 million ways to get dressed in the morning. We have developed a pattern so we can get to the kitchen for the morning coffee without wearing a sock on our head, underwear as a t-shirt and our pants on with the zipper dragging on the ground. Golf architects who plan-and-run have it hundreds of times more difficult, as do their investors. The architects are responsible for multi-million dollar or Euro investments and the entire success of the project rides on this, therefore with the plan-and-run methodology, they tend to play it safe both by design and then add the uncreative brain and you can fill in the blanks... B _ _ _ _ _ G.
In the field pushing dirt around there are sparks flying all the time; those sparks are opportunities to break out of patterns and safety and get close to the cutting edge (if you want to for that particular green... or any aspect of the design), and this allows you to weigh the other greens and holes and create something that isn't repetitive. It provides opportunities you could never foresee at the drawing board, for if the architect could foresee them he would have planned them... in detail. Which brings me to another point. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DETAILED PLANS.
How uncreative are humans? Mike Nuzzo probably knows this study, and perhaps he was run through this test, but NASA developed a test for creativity for its engineers, etc. One involved how many uses one could find for a paper clip. They ran this test on 1800 or so children of kindergarten age, then when they were in grade school and then junior high. If you came up with 200 uses/ideas you were a genius. The result?
Test results amongst 5 year olds: 98% found 200+ ideas/uses!
Test results amongst 10 year olds: 30%
Test results amongst 15 year olds: 12%
Same test given to 280,000 adults: 2%
One would think the opposite would occur. We are schooled out of creativity. The mind gets narrower.
Think of the adult/architect who works in a hit-and-run manner... he is conditioned to think inside a small box. Look at the courses built in the last 30-years (and even longer), with all the advantages of technology, and how sterile and lifeless most of it is. For the same money and I venture for far less money, with more leadership during construction, and with less formal planning, there would be more excellent golf courses. And what do the golf architect associations sell? The school of uncreativity.
This isn't to say planning isn't necessary, to say otherwise would be idiotic, you need it for permits, general routing, nail down some engineering solutions, enviro boundaries, and calculate labor and materials. But selling plans as some form a security blanket or Holy Grail is false. Just look around at the banal courses that have resulted from it with limited leadership or in absence of leadership.
Einstein had a couple quotes that hit this right in the bullseye:
1. Imagination (opportunity seeking) is more important than knowledge (plans).
2. It's not that I'm so brilliant, it's that I stick with problems longer. (As a golf architect, he would be on-site rolling it all around in his well developed brain, seeking opportunities that pop-up as dirt is moving around, listening to the crew for sparks of ideas, looking at Nature, and looking for things he missed during the planning stages.)
Plans should come with warnings, and some in the know do just this.
-
Tony:
Wonderful post.
Indeed, one of the advantages of designing a green out in the field is that it takes longer to build one than to draw one, so you are likely to spend more time thinking about what you are doing. This is why I tell all of my interns [no matter what their skill set] that they will be more valuable to us and have more impact on the final product if they are out there on the finish crew, rather than sitting in the office "designing" things on paper.
-
The question is a bit misleading because GPS is not the builder, as mentioned its a tool.
GPS gives you the ability to replicate quite closely, if you feed in the mapping of what you have designed or want to copy/bastardise it means a 'non shaper' can do the work, so in some parts of the world might save, time, money and get the job done the architect wants..... next step I am told is a robot but I dont know how far that is away.
But never is the GPS substituting any architectural work.
-
Nobody's going to pay big bucks to go to Lincoln Center to see a computerized player piano regurgitate Mozart, no matter how mathematically correct....
-
Tony,
Thank you for that.
Just to give a real life example of "plans".
There is a reason we do an irrigation design on paper, and then do an as built set after its in the ground. It hardly ever goes to plan. And irrigation design is 2D. We don't have to worry about % slope, drainage, balancing cut/fill...etc....irrigation is just sticking pipe, wire, and irrigation components in the ground and connecting them back to a source. If there was any part of golf course construction that should go exactly to plan, that could be built with GPS, it should be irrigation. Yet, we always have to do an as built because it always changes.
Just as with new vs old, on a renovation its much easier to get it close because you know where everything is, and even then you have plans, and then an as built because it just never goes strictly to plan. And you don't try and force it because when you deviate from the plan its because your making improvements or dealing with site conditions. When you run into some unforeseen rock, you can go around it, or blast through it, deciding which is the best option shouldn't be based on a line on a page.
-
After reading Tony's post and the last few I realized another question. How many great greens have been built by contractors with plans vs. an architects personal crew? Now this isn't a slam at contractors but a question that came to mind when Tony began to discuss creativity. Developing a green onsite is most often going to lead to a much better green than giving a contractor a drawing and coming back every few weeks to check it.
-
The question is a bit misleading because GPS is not the builder, as mentioned its a tool.
GPS gives you the ability to replicate quite closely, if you feed in the mapping of what you have designed or want to copy/bastardise it means a 'non shaper' can do the work, so in some parts of the world might save, time, money and get the job done the architect wants..... next step I am told is a robot but I dont know how far that is away.
But never is the GPS substituting any architectural work.
Adrian:
But doesn't the GPS approach make it way easier [and therefore way more likely] that architects will just start copying their past work [or an ODG's work] EXACTLY?
-
After reading Tony's post and the last few I realized another question. How many great greens have been built by contractors with plans vs. an architects personal crew? Now this isn't a slam at contractors but a question that came to mind when Tony began to discuss creativity. Developing a green onsite is most often going to lead to a much better green than giving a contractor a drawing and coming back every few weeks to check it.
Mike:
Tony already nailed the answer. It's a question of incentives. Generally speaking, contractors have no incentive to try to make the course any cooler than what the architect drew [unless, as on occasion, they think that's what the architect wants]. Their incentive is to build something that works -- that they won't have to waste time revising -- and move on to the next job.
I really don't see how/why anyone would build an edgy green by a set of plans ... if you're going to work on the edge of being risky, you would want to be 100% sure you were there in the field at the end, to say it's okay or tone it down a little. Although, I will say that the most severe greens I built at Lost Dunes were the ones when I wasn't standing right there from start to finish, and had to leave a little sketch for the shaper, Jerame Miller. I found that I tend to draw things even steeper than I build them on site -- which is not a good idea, in my case!
-
Tom - Probably, but a lot of architects have been doing that for years anyway. Many have their own standard templates they just bring out of the rack. I personally dont like exact copy but the principals of something and mixing that principal into a new home I do like and I suspect is what most of us on this site sort of do. Probably a great skill of a golf course architect is to see something perhaps even 30 years ago, remember it then find a home for it later. A problem is more the ability to pass on whats 'in the mind' to the shaper, you work with a team on site, some of mine I get 6 site visits during construction, so I think it can have a place, but its just an aid.
Adrian:
But doesn't the GPS approach make it way easier [and therefore way more likely] that architects will just start copying their past work [or an ODG's work] EXACTLY?
[/quote]
-
Hi guys:
I think this question might be the most important question for the future of golf course architecture and construction. Every architect will have his own answer and technique -hopefully- best fitting to his work routine. Although I don't have as much experience as some 'old timers' here, I got to know three different ways to build a golf course in terms of techniques.
BUT: When working on a 'Build everything with GPS technology on machinery' - site, I saw how much the GPS is limited by the amount of contour lines, the architect drew in CAD. The CAD plan is just loaded into the GPS Software, the blade has two gps receiver on top (depending how wide the blade is, there will be no subtle contourlines in between) saying there is more material needed or not. This means the architect has to be super accurate, drawing even the super small contours, or you will get a boring, uniform green.
Tom mentioned Line Mortensen before and I met her through him last summer. At this time she was drawing 5cm (~2inch) contour lines for the greens and approach areas on one of her projects, since the construction company is building with GPS. She liked the idea of really designing the ground, knowing that it is working. It might make sense for someone who really can imagine how the contours are working even in super small detail (how is the break on the green), but then there are still some facts: In my opinion,
- 5cm drawn contour lines are still too little if you want to have a great green
- this is super time consuming for an architect (this leads to copy and paste...)
- the construction company might not care if it's not working (liability of architect) time is money...
and to be honest, I don't think every architect is able to image his own green and relied on the shaper's eye in the past.
On the GPS site I learnt a lot - in a negative way:
I was told by the boss that "this is the future and everyone could build greens from now on. There is no need for a well-paid shaper since I have the technology. This is cheap, fast and effective... I can put any cheap worker into a dozer and he doesn't even have to understand the game of golf." Furthermore he told me that gca's doesn't have a future, since he can easily paste every green he already built or just scan a really well working green.
I totally disagree!!! Building with GPS makes everything uniform and won't give you really interesting greens. Working with this technology is great to relocate pipes and wires. It is great to get an idea of the green which needs to get renovated, but in the end it is the shaper's eye or bud and his understanding, feeling and love to the game and especially the site which really builds the green how it's built.
-
Angela - I agree with your disagree.
I am only thinking that working with GPS can take you to the shaping stage of the subgrade. From that point I think it needs to return to conventional methods, I like the greens hand built, if your building USGA greens you probably only have an inch tolerance in working and grading the top mix, ofcourse if your not gravelling and blinding you have much more tolerance with your rootzone mix.
Its not zillions of work to produce a green plan to 50mm intervals (2 inches), maybe another 20 minutes for the green. Must be very hard to work inside 50mm though..........and this will mean you always need the architect.
-
Tom - Probably, but a lot of architects have been doing that for years anyway. Many have their own standard templates they just bring out of the rack. I personally dont like exact copy but the principals of something and mixing that principal into a new home I do like and I suspect is what most of us on this site sort of do. Probably a great skill of a golf course architect is to see something perhaps even 30 years ago, remember it then find a home for it later. A problem is more the ability to pass on whats 'in the mind' to the shaper, you work with a team on site, some of mine I get 6 site visits during construction, so I think it can have a place, but its just an aid.
Adrian:
But doesn't the GPS approach make it way easier [and therefore way more likely] that architects will just start copying their past work [or an ODG's work] EXACTLY?
[/quote]
Adrian:
Yes, it's rare that an architect doesn't ever work with a concept he has tried before. But without the GPS technology, the combination of an uncertain memory and a different base topography meant that we always have to adapt those ideas [no matter how old or how new] to our given site, and those adaptations are the essence of what we do.
If the GPS really allows a green to be copied precisely in a new location ... just keep adding dirt until it's there, as Angela describes ... then this will be sold as "more efficient" and more practical, and we'll see a lot more copy-and-paste design in the future. But, is it really more efficient to haul in however much dirt you need to build the Redan at North Berwick, than just building your own version with a shaper who wants to create something better?
-
Good post Angela.
Let's see: We have automatic lathes that can turn out wooden bowls as fast as you can place the block of wood on the lathe. But you still pay the artist for a one of a kind turned piece.
The same for the potter.
The same for the clothier.
Golf is just too small for such to ever become the standard. But we will see the design/build as the norm and even drawings will become very minimal IMHO.
-
Tom - The skill of the architect would still be there to tie the 'copy' into the surroundings which in all honesty is what we do anyway. The skill of the architect would still be needed to meet the budget constraints and calculate the soil movements. GPS would be more for the course that is fairly flat with a few lakes and big soil digs, your courses are much more in harmony with the land, mine are often flat squared fields with an oak tree that I try and use as a back drop 4 times!
-
As part of the generation of aviators that has bridged the gap between ground based NAVAIDs and GPS, I can tell you that GPS isn't going anywhere. And it is as pervasive as ever. When used correctly, it can provide more Situational Awareness than any addition to aircraft in 50 years. The problem with it is dependence. Our syllabi have evolved so that our young pilots are given the freedom to use the full capability of the system on ride #1. Basic control and stick/rudder skills have measurably declined as a result of this dependence. I hope GPS will not become a tool of dependence for greens construction in the future, because it is a replication tool and not a creation tool. It will--as it has with aviation--measurably change the architecture/construction skills of the newer guys.
However, I don't want to be too much of a grinch. There is beauty in the system. Anything can be input into it, even what we call "visual" flying. If the student is getting confused about some basic ground references in our pattern, he just throws in flightplan 5, an there's our pattern on the screen. He can replicate a visual maneuver even in instrument flight conditions. Something that definitely wasn't possibly a few years ago.
But again, this is replication, nothing more. There is no creative aspect to any of this. It is merely a tool to allow us to navigate. If you want a comparison to the type of greens building that might have been done on some the most highly regarded greens of the last 20 years, just take a look at the flying of Melissa Pemberton or the Red Bull Air Race guys. Doubtful they are using GPS to create their masterpieces.
-
Angela,
I often look back at something I've built and wonder if I could have done it at the drawing board. Usually the answer is no, often never, and I think my mind is pretty creative; I planned on being an artist from age 7 so I have decent visualization skills... but believing I'm creative could just be my falling into the traditional over-optimism of humans as noted by Demosthenes. This I temper by being my own harshest critic, because the easiest person to fool is yourself. That's why I'm on-site daily. I am an extreme pessimist when it comes to plans and other people's money, having seen too many shoddy courses created from "detailed plans", good land and absentee architects... I know my plans in the hands of someone else wouldn't do a whole lot better. It is because I played so many awful courses as a young pro that I got into the business!
To draw it to 5cm or whatever assumes the architect nailed the best solution (usually months or years before a spoon of dirt has been moved), and that they can bring these Commandments down from on high like Moses. The arrogance! You might get a functional green this way, but if you're seeking the exceptional, I'd lay down huge money that that's the sure way to come up short. Of course, many investors have no idea... get sucked into the false security of so-called "detailed plans" and learn the hard lesson... when it i$ too late.
To think, Dr. Mac warned of this 92-years ago, and the same mistakes are still being repeated (that's the cost of limited discussion in the industry, but that's another can of worms). Technology has simplified planning, but building golf courses isn't a science, it's an art. Technology aids design, but someone's brain has to do the actual designing, just like 100-years ago, and history is crystal clear, the best designing is done in the field. If it were my money on the line I would prefer the Master with freedom and flexibility to zig and zag, than a pain(t)-by-numbers kit (plans).
I wonder, if an architect were to build his own course, go all-in and put his life savings on the line, would he work in the pain(t)-by-numbers kit way for his investment of millions?
-
Tony,
to your last question: I wouldn't... With a lot CAD experience background (3D fly-throughs, elevation modells, etc) I would built my personal course by some hand sketches and then being on site 24/7. CAD is a nice tool to calculate the cut/fill and to print out the base map.
As I said before, I saw different ways to built a golf course and for me GPS is a nice tool to safe the location of a pipe. I even disagree with using GPS for building the base contours (of a green) since you'll get too much bound to those contours even when they don't feel right. Kye Goalby taught me to spin around with a sandpro looking from different angles and get a feeling with your bud. I haven't had a feeling for the green when I was just starring at the gps screen in the bulldozer...
- this is my opinion -
-
What is a great putting green?
Is it a green that the 1% of golf course architecture enthusiasts play, study and critique on Golf Club Atlas?
Or is it a green that the 99% of greens fee paying golfers can come away from saying that those were some fun greens to put on and would come back and pay to play again?
I say the latter. And with the 99%, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a green constructed with or without GPS. And quite frankly, they don't care. The people who care are on this website.
Any assertions that the use of GPS means the process always includes the use of a GPS operated robot bulldozers and that the use of GPS lacks the art of the human touch are completely false. The percentage of people who use GPS operated bulldozers are few and far between. The major majority of the industry still use a human and their feel for the shaping through the seat of their pants and the sizer tracks to get it done. There is not some contingent out there that is trying to take over the art form with the robotic manufacturing of golf courses. If there are those out there who feel golf should be manufactured by robots, they are also a small percentage. The human art form is well in tact and always will be.
There are also the assertions being made that if you use GPS to design a green complex, how evil, that when it comes to actually building the green it has to be built perfectly to the plans specifications and nothing less. And because of that you'll lose something in the details. Wrong...
The old (and new) guys used pad and pencil, a handful of soil or sand under their feet, plasticine models and yes; some sort of surveying instruments. There is absolutely nothing different than sitting at a computer and using a civil 3D AutoCAD program to brainstorm and create interesting contours for a fun and challenging green. It's an artistic medium. Nothing more nothing less. Paint brush and canvas, mouse and 16 gigabytes. It's all the same, just different methods to transport the imagination and creativity from your brain to the ground. To say the GPS method means designing it on a computer, using a robotic bulldozer to build the design and that the final product HAS to reflect the computer design EXACTLY...is just wrong.
GPS is used to map the existing natural contours prior to construction, it CAN be used as a creative medium to design the PROPOSED contours and to map the contours AFTER the builder has taken the plans as a guideline and executed the construction while making necessary creative and engineering adjustments that come up during the construction. It's called an as-built. It's not just for pipe or calculating area and volume. It's an artistic medium as well as a technological instrument. Either way it's a tool. A tool that does not and never will replace the human element. It's a tool that makes the process more precise and more efficient. Precision and efficiency should be important values for any successful project.
Great greens. #10 at Riviera. Was built in the field by Thomas and Bell. Decades later was renovated to USGA spec to better flush the coastal salts. The original, or topdressed modified, contours were mapped with a grid system and numerical values were assigned to each point on the grid. All in an attempt to preserve the original size, shape and internal contours. It doesn't matter if it was done by GPS or the oldest transit in the world. A tool was used to precisely place a numerical value at each point on the grid. That's all it is. A number. GPS, transit or triangulation using a piece of string. It's all used to create numerical values that are relevant to each other to show accurate size and scale.
Could somebody's imagination create something like 10 green at Riv on AutoCAD just like Thomas and Bell did in the field? Why not? It's on a flat piece of land. No severe existing contours around it to tie in to. 10's green site was a clean blank canvas for Thomas and Bell. They could create anything they wanted with their imagination just like someone can with AutoCAD. If you can take a plan of mapped numbers to replicate a green, you can take a plan of mapped numbers to create a green. Make whatever creative and engineered changes you want, and then map the final product for a precise as-built that can show preconstruction contours, designed contours and final contours.
I'm not sure why that's a bad thing. It's a tool. It will never replace the human touch. If you guys want to keep bringing up that point you're debating yourselves because nobody has made the case for replacing the human touch on this thread. The reality is GPS is here, it's a precision instrument to map. Just like the old dead guys used their transits. Technology can't be completely neglected.
-
Ian,
I tend to agree with a lot you write...but...
Post 1990 technology can be completely neglected, especially if you have a decent site and aren't going to rape it. Just because technology is there, doesn't mean you have to be a slave to it.
As for your opening, people on this website might care, because they have higher standards. Just because the masses don't, doesn't mean others should lower theirs... in fact, we would do well to continue fighting for higher standards. The game has been emasculated enough. Someone must lead and defend... today more than ever.
I also wonder, if the owners were asked if they could have more interesting green sites for the same money... would they say no? Because it usually doesn't cost anymore... the cost is time and attention by the architect, not money.
-
The reality is GPS is here, it's a precision instrument to map. Just like the old dead guys used their transits. Technology can't be completely neglected.
Ian,
I read your last post. Shovels to dozers are used to "build" putting greens. IMHO. Mapping is not building and the question was "Can great putting greens be built with GPS?" I don't have an argument re GPS and mapping but I do when it comes to actual building.
-
Mike I am in your camp. I think it is amazing what can be done with technology in the planning and design stage. but when building the green one needs the human eye.
-
Tiger,
You're in Mikes camp as compared to mine? Did you even read my post and the endless inclusions on this thread that GPS is not meant to nor never will replace a human being?
Mike,
I've never come across anybody in the industry that uses fully automated machinery that shapes using GPSed AutoCAD plans and there is no human present. And last I checked, just like a transit, GPS is a tool to map. It's not a tool with an 8 axis blade and tracks. Everyone has taken the context of the title of the thread loosely and differently. I don't see how there is or ever will be a time when a green will be manufactured by GPS and fully automated machinery sans the human factor. I'm saying a great green can be designed using a creative medium like AutoCAD instead of pad, paper, dirt or plasticine. And with the use of GPS can be replicated from computer screen to the field. That process includes a human with his GPS equipment and actually controlling the bulldozer or sand pro, rake and shovel. Once it gets to the point where there is no more human interaction in the process of building then it's gone too far. But I firmly believe GPS should play a major role in all phases of the design/build process. Before, during and after.
Tony,
Not sure I understand your post 100%. Using GPS in all phases of green design/build is by no means lowering any standards. Standards of what? The quality of the final product or the standard of the design/build process and the tools used? If Doak wants to hand his client a parchment scroll with green plans drawn with a squid ink feather pen he can do that. But the standard isn't any lower from someone who uses GPS and AutoCAD. Not in the process with the client nor the final product for the customer.
-
Ian,
IMHO all of the confusion is over the word "built" in the original question. GPS is one of several measuring devices and I agree one can choose this over other measuring methods. And it certainly is a great way to stake centerlines, bunker locations or if you measure cut and fill, even a great way to calculate. And for myself, I would even allow it might be a great way to mark a few perimeter points at a green site BUT that's it. I don't believe you can design great greens on paper. One might sketch a "great" concept on paper and create that concept on the ground. One might even use GPS to check pin locations etc. But I think the question is no different than asking: "Can great golf swings be built with video?" And my answer would be NO. Sure a video can be used to aid a teacher in developing a player but it has very little to do with whether or not the swing will one day be great. And that is how I would measure the place of GPS in great greens. JMO cheers.
-
If Doak wants to hand his client a parchment scroll with green plans drawn with a squid ink feather pen he can do that. But the standard isn't any lower from someone who uses GPS and AutoCAD. Not in the process with the client nor the final product for the customer.
Ian:
That's a fun analogy, but the truth is I don't hand anyone a green plan, full stop. I believe that if I try to draw the thing out, it won't fit in with the surrounds as well as if I stand there and work with my shapers to create it. Not many guys can get away with that method, but if your reputation is good enough, you can.
All I'm saying about GPS, computers, etc. is that they create a [false] impression that all the details have been worked out perfectly, to the point that sometimes even the architect believes it. When we have to do our plans in CAD nowadays, our friend who puts everything on CAD will tell us that the third green is 7,247 square feet, and sometimes the associate doing the budgeting will write down 7,247 square feet as if the green is going to turn out exactly that big! I have to keep reminding them that the precision is all an illusion, and since we are going to design the green in the field, they should use whatever average I tell them [whether it's 6000 or 7500 square feet] for figuring the quantities.
Of course, if we are on a restoration and trying to replicate a green that's already there, having the exact measurements via GPS and CAD will produce more accurate quantities.
-
If Doak wants to hand his client a parchment scroll with green plans drawn with a squid ink feather pen he can do that. But the standard isn't any lower from someone who uses GPS and AutoCAD. Not in the process with the client nor the final product for the customer.
Ian:
That's a fun analogy, but the truth is I don't hand anyone a green plan, full stop. I believe that if I try to draw the thing out, it won't fit in with the surrounds as well as if I stand there and work with my shapers to create it. Not many guys can get away with that method, but if your reputation is good enough, you can.
Why does the image of Tom with a long beard and rope sandals coming down from Mt. High come into my head? ;D ;D ;D
Seriously, this is like listening to Dems and Repubs argue about about how to balance the budget. Raise taxes or cut spending (when everyone knows the real answer is probably a combination of both).
Since I haveDsigned and built greens using just about every way described in the preceeding posts, all I can say is every job is specific to to the people and conditions placed upon it.
In some cases detailed plans were the way to go while handcrafting worked best on others. Sometimes the client insists upon detailed plans because, in his mind, that is what he is paying for. It is hard for some clients to wrap their heads around the fact that they are paying for a finished product qualitatively, not quantitatively. We don't pay lawyers based on how many hours they put into the plaintiff's side of a lawsuit, they get a percentage of the take. we don''t pay Realestate brokers per page of closing docs or by how many hrs they put into a sale, they get a percentage of the sales price. But for some reason, this doesn't translate well into GCA.
We used to always have a field architect on-site to actually do the layout for the builders. But then the builders realized they could "hide" that expense in the unit price for earthmoving or "shaping" and get that pesky architect off-site. Since Architects don't get paid as much as most people believe, they couldn't afford to have to eat the expense and had to try to convey the design intent more accurately through plans. And the thence began the death spiral until the recent slowdown of the past decade. This has given architects more time to be able to devote to a project and they figured out that the builders couldn't build if they didn't have plans and hence, figured out how to NOT supply that critical information. If the owner wanted it, he had to pay for it.
As Tom says, much depends on what your reputation is. But that also runs the risk of a Chicken or Egg conundrum. Of course he has the rep so of course why not perpetuate it? But, just how many greens on Tom's courses have been handcrafted personally by Tom? I'm not calling him out but rather just using him as an illustrative example of some the mindset on this site. As Tom has stated, he does have assoc. in the field building greens. So, it is either up to those associates to "know" what Tom wants or do something that they think is cool. Now, I imagine that the more they work together, the more comfortable the assoc will be with finishing Tom's sentences. This is not unlike how it works in any Master/Apprentice relationship. You will also find that at some point in time, the apprentice will have ideas that no longer mesh with the Masters (one or the other goes of on a different philosphical path) or feels he is doing all the work but getting none of the credit or a large enough financial inducement and goes off on his own.
Personally, I like to start with some planning but nce the rough shapes are in place, free-lance the shaping myself (not through some surrogate) and then check what I have done to make sure the slopes actually work the way I intended.
If I use a GPS or a hand level and tape measure, it really doesn't matter. Whatever is at hand and the easiest/quickest. Just like what piece(s) of equipment I use to build the green. A dozer, a skidsteer, an excavator, minihoe, , a tractor and box sand pro and a landscape rake. I've use all the above and in various combinations. The tools has some impact on the final outcome but not to the extent that the outcome is dependant upon the tool.
-
Tim:
That's a fascinating look at the conflict between builders and architects, which I've fortunately been isolated from.
But it makes me even less likely to go the builder route in the future!
-
Since I haveDsigned and built greens using just about every way described in the preceeding posts, all I can say is every job is specific to to the people and conditions placed upon it.
Tim
This topic is about great greens.
Are you saying all your greens are great - as compared to the masters - Pine Valley, NGLA...
Please share some of your greatest greens.
Cheers
Mike
-
Since I haveDsigned and built greens using just about every way described in the preceeding posts, all I can say is every job is specific to to the people and conditions placed upon it.
Tim
This topic is about great greens.
Are you saying all your greens are great - as compared to the masters - Pine Valley, NGLA...
Please share some of your greatest greens.
Cheers
Mike
Is that a loaded question? I don't think Tim was saying that. I think it's more than fair to turn the question back to you Mike.