Tee to green or green to tee designing?

[Thomas Dai]

Once an architect has determined an initial course routing what approach is taken to the design of each individual hole?


For example, would the architect look at things from a predominantly tee to green or a green to the tee aspect?


Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

I know its fashionable to say you work backwards, but you really have to consider a lot of things as a whole.

Consider standing on a prospective tee site and "seeing" a cape hole tee shot.  I think you would start there if it was a stronger feature than anything you saw at the green.  Likewise, a bland fairway LZ, and a dramatic green site suggesting a hazard or feature somewhere would make you design from the green back.

And if the entire hole has equal potential?  Count your blessings........

Each hole must be considered in light of the others.  What if two par three green sites have potential as Redans, Fortress Greens, or whatever?  Certainly, you would make them different, even at the expense of a bit of earthmoving (hopefully picking the easier one to change)  Similarly, if you need an irrigation pone (about 99% of the time, you do) and you had two similar green sites the one near the best potential pond site would become your water hole, in all likelihood, and the other would become something else.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know if I design things more often from tee to green or from green to tee.  [Sometimes, I also think from the landing area outward in both directions, which you didn't mention as a possibility].  As Jeff says, every hole is placed for a different reason, and those features determine the nature of the design.


Thank goodness I sorted out how not to build an irrigation pond in play on 99% of my courses, though!  I think my percentage is somewhere under 50%, and continuing to fall -- though we did have to build one in Bordeaux to collect enough water to keep the course alive!

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks for these insights Jeff and Tom.


Jeffs mentions 'fashionable'. Was there a previous period in design history when it was deemed fashionable to design backwards and if so who would the main folks involved have been? As to outward from the landing area(s),  I didn't mention this Tom but I did ponder this aspect as well as considering from other points such as outside lateral aspects and diagonals too, particularly in relation to wind directions, slopes, run-offs etc.


Its always interesting to hear the thoughts of those directly involved, one of the best aspects of GCA, so thanks for your responses.


Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,

I have seen it written somewhere by architects, probably some golden age and maybe even in one of Tom Doak's books, but not sure.  It just sounds like some architect trying to make it all sound more mysterious than it is.  Not a lot of real magic, just hard work to really get details good to great, strategically speaking.

I thought about it and can't recall starting in the middle, although it isn't inconceivable. As to looking from far right or far left, I visited Pete Dye on a job once.  Client asked what he was going to do.  He paces around, looking from all sorts of odd angle, way left, way right, nearby hill, etc.  He does this until the client gets tired and walks away, and then tells me he knows exactly what he is going to do.  All part of the myth making.

On the other side of the coin, the Tour Pros I have worked with tend not to look at big picture strategy like I do. They wander around to specific spots and ask "What happens if I hit it here? Do I have a shot?"  I started a topic on that years ago. I hate that concept of designing, trying to eliminate every sort of "unfair" shot.  Can't be done.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Also reminds me of a time at ASGCA, playing with Bob Cupp and one other architect in Scotland. Paired with a  member/local, the poor guys says he has heard architects design holes backwards.  Bob looks at him and just breaks out laughing.  Tells him that is all myth making.

In my mind, I am thinking, well, critics tell me I have things designed backwards (or otherwise all messed up) I'm not going to give them the ammo to do it!

[paul cowley]

Why waste time myth making? The effort seems somewhat dishonest to me.

[Tom_Doak]

Also reminds me of a time at ASGCA, playing with Bob Cupp and one other architect in Scotland. Paired with a  member/local, the poor guys says he has heard architects design holes backwards.  Bob looks at him and just breaks out laughing.  Tells him that is all myth making.

Jeff:


So is it a myth that you've ever designed the green on a hole first, and then decided on the fairway bunkering afterward, based on the green contour?  [Or are you speaking for Bob Cupp?]  I think that was the point of Thomas's question.


To clarify about starting in the middle, my point was that the key feature of a hole could be anywhere on the hole.  Sometimes I'll have a hole that has a severe feature in the landing area, so I will work off of that in determining where the tee should go and then what sort of features or hazards to have up at the green end.  I would have thought other architects would sometimes take that approach as well, but if you're saying I'm one of a kind, I'll accept the compliment. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

It happens all ways in the real world, of course.  I, perhaps cynically, think its one of those quotes architects put out there to make sure the laymen thinks there is more to golf design than there really is. You know, make it seem just mysterious and hard enough that they won't be tempted to try it themselves......

The original question presumed the basic routing was in place, so I didn't consider that a landing zone might be fixed, and the entire hole, or parts thereof could be moved around, or even distance adjusted too much.  In certain situations, I could see figuring out just how far various tees should be from a carry slope or what not, or what the exact best angle to approach that might be.  In the "fixed routing" context, I couldn't think of a hole I had consciously designed from the middle out, but we architects minds work in mysterious ways, you know. I was probably thinking of it on a much deeper level, but just couldn't express the concept adequately with words.......

As to Bob, I can't say exactly how he designs, but he does have a capacity to see irony and humor in many ways and likes a good laugh.  We are similar that way.  So was Jay Morrish.