[Mike Nuzzo]

To clarify I was talking about the processes not the end result.
I'd be a loon to compare my routing skills with Tom or Bill.

In this case I don't think efficient means making more courses, but maybe managing the details more effectively.
We also lay out the irrigation - with Don's knowledge and experience.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Don:

Efficiency is great, but nobody should imply they get better results than Bill Coore, and most of his clients are happy to pay him to walk around all he wants.  [I'm sure he could figure out that many more courses per year if he was more efficient, but hopefully Mike is as grateful as I am that Bill doesn't want to do more by being more efficient!] 

I'm not sure what you use all of those "base layer" maps for, but the ones which have holes you didn't use in the final plan are not adding anything to your efficiency.  For that matter, when Bill says he has come up with 70 holes on a site, I usually think it's only the 18 he decides upon that matter ... except when I get to take a few of his leftovers for my own course!

I never would infer or imply Mike or anyone else would achieve better results than Bill Coore.
But you shouldn't infer that because Mike uses a different technique than you or Bill that he walks the site less. The base layers become valuable as you fine-tune the routing. It's simply a way of compiling great notes while one studies the property. No surveyors, no one walking around with a plan making notes, no one needed to transfer notes onto a grading plan for permits....etc...
I have the greatest respect for what you and Bill do and I think you know that. Nevertheless, often it is inferred here that somehow technology is bad, used for short cuts...fact is Bills' methods work for Bill. Your methods work for you. To imply that because a guy uses technology to better compile data means he doesn't spend the time on site is false. It's up to the individual and I believe Mike uses a better pencil. I wish he had the opportunity to walk the site with you.  He's one of the good guys who doesn't just view GCA as a way to make a living. He lives it.
BTW, he did get a chance and he hit a home run.
I’ll spare you the quotes but Mike’s first course has received some pretty good reviews.

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

You are taking my comments way more personally than they are meant.

Perhaps I took Mike's claims of "greater efficiency" that way, too.  I've just reached the point in life where I am happy to let everyone take whatever approach they want to design, as long as they produce great results.  From everything I've seen or read about Wolf Point, Mike got the results ... but if he were really comfortable with that, then he would not feel the need to claim "efficiency".

I always think when other designers talk about the "efficiency" of their plan sets, etc., that they are just trying to make it sound like someone else's approach is inferior or wasteful.  But, I can attest that some of the best design ideas I've ever had came to me while I was just out wandering around a hole we were going to build while waiting for the construction crew to get finished with something else.  Jack Nicklaus is extremely efficient with his time, but he never has time to get into a creative flow.

[Keith OHalloran]

Tom Doak, the following quote is very interesting
" Jack Nicklaus is extremely efficient with his time, but he never has time to get into a creative flow."
On another thread, Matt Ward seems to imply that Crenshaw should almost be criticized for only taking a few projects a year and sort of cherry picking good sites (my words).  And in the alternative he wonders how Nicklaus would do if he only had to do a few projects a year.
It seems from your quote, that you believe that Nicklaus would be better served if he had more time to devote to a particular course. That being said, shouldn't someone likeCrenshaw,  or another GCA with his work philosophy, actually be commended for being selective and not spreading his time too thin?

[Thomas McQuillan]

my initial thought when I heard that he folllowed the animals was that it was extremely weird. I then began to think that maybe he was on to something and am now questioning the actual origins of golf.(it was the racoons not the scots!)

[Tom_Doak]

Keith:

I don't know if Jack Nicklaus would benefit from taking fewer projects and putting in more time on each, or not.  He can obviously choose to do whatever he wants; for the last 20 years he's chosen to be as busy as he can be.  He likes making decisions quickly; he jokingly said that I should be penalized for slow play at Sebonack for taking much more time to decide what I wanted to do.  He's just not the kind of guy who sits around and daydreams ten different solutions to a problem, so I'm not sure if taking more time would really change what he does or not.

Obviously, my philosophy is more like Ben's in regard to how many projects I want to do at any time.  But I don't mean to tell others how they should work ... in fact, I hope nobody else works like we do, because that makes us stand out all the more.

[Tom Ferrell]

I am the person to whom Bill C. originally told the animal trails story, during the earliest days of exploration on the CGC site, and I am the one who brought it up in the news conference last Wednesday.  As Bill said, and I think most people gather, he doesn't simply follow animal trails to route the golf course.  It is part of his familiarization process with any give piece of property.  He and Ben spent more than a week on the property, walking, studying (the animal trails being one element - along with drainages, vegetation lines, natural features and client input - taken into consideration.  I thought it was fascinating, simply because it demonstrates one way that one designer attunes himself to the land.

He certainly didn't say, nor ever implied, that that's how he "routes the golf course."

And obviously, every designer evaluates property differently and individually - thank goodness.  That's part of the creative process, to interpret a site and determine how best to work with it.  Not to speak for any designer, but I would guess that few have a site interpretation method that is set in stone.  As with artist/architect/engineer - method at any given time is a culmination of all experience that has come before.  So it's always fluid, in a sense.

That said, I really do love the routing at CGC.  I think it achieves an incredible sense of intimacy and continuity, even as it traverses a vast and varied site. 

It was a great experience to watch the seniors play it this week, and I felt the course performed very well.  At the beginning of the week, it was a little softer than usual, but it firmed up throughout the warm, dry, breezy week, just as it naturally would.

I spoke extensively with Ben, Bill, Kerry and many of the competitors throughout the week, and the general verdict on the golf course from all the diverse viewpoints - architectural, strategic, playability and setup - was more than positive.  Most of the competitors truly enjoyed the golf course - a great compliment to Bill, Ben and Kerry.  It delivered eagles and doubles/others in roughly the same numbers and made for exciting and fun golf.

Really, really great experience.

[Carl Rogers]

Funny how JN would penalize some one for slow play (design), when he more or less was one of the inventors of the 5+ hour round.

The issue of working style becomes a issue when technology, process and schedule overwhelm the result.

In the world of building design speed demons are always the most formulaic.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()