[Ally Mcintosh]

Bill Coore could be the “best” router in the world on all kind of sites. I’ve no idea. Do you?


Everything is connected of course. Everything works back to routing. But it’s really quite hard to compare how well architects shape up against each other at pure “routing”. And it is blinkered of Mike to write off anyone who doesn’t have multiple 18 hole courses in the ground. That includes most of the people that have worked for you over the last 20 years.

All that said, you’ve no doubt seen a whole lot more projects and concepts from different architects at early stage than I have. So you’ll be in a much better position to compare and contrast.

No doubt, if you're more practiced at doing routings on small ground, you'll be quicker at those and vice versa, but it's still the same skill I think; it just matters on some sites more than others.


To be honest, I think these comparisons are pointless.  Bill Coore has built some of the best golf courses in the world, so he must be pretty good at routings, and that's what matters.  If somebody else thinks they're as good as him, they should build some golf courses to prove it.  I recognize that there are a lot of people who don't get the chance -- I was there once, too -- but it's silly to compare unbuilt doodles to finished golf courses.

The comparisons are probably pointless indeed. And I’m not looking for a league table of good routers. But there is probably a lack of appreciation for some great solutions on difficult sites that have resulted in very good (but not great) golf courses.

[Tom_Doak]

The comparisons are probably pointless indeed. And I’m not looking for a league table of good routers. But there is probably a lack of appreciation for some great solutions on difficult sites that have resulted in very good (but not great) golf courses.

That would be a very good thread . . . take the focus off the designer and just look at the solution to the puzzle.


One of my favorites in that regard is Rye.  I love how it utilizes the dune ridges in so many different ways.  I was very surprised when I learned that many of those different ways were in fact the work of different designers [or even club secretaries] over a very long time scale . . . but then again maybe it is not surprising that no one designer would see them all, because we all have own own biases of how to use a feature.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure my thoughts will be coherent, and maybe they can’t be, but love the thread.
Yes, routing and features are two different skills.  That said, and from my limited exposure working in one office, heading my own office that did produce a few that went on to success, and having collaborated with a few fellow golf course architects, in most cases, someone artistic enough to be a good router, was also pretty good at features.  But, not universally.
Each routing is unique, hardly ever to be repeated again.  With features, many have repeated past used features (whether their own or replicas/interpretations of others) and the biggest problem I have seen is really approaching feature design as cut and paste problems, whereas its harder to do with routings, other than on a flat site.
With my own routings, I have tended to judge them most by the number of good holes, further refined by the number that required no earthmoving other than to build tees and greens.  Not needing to build many fairway hazards can be a sign of great routing, or at least using everything you have.  As time goes on, I even measure the total distance from greens to next tee as one test.  A perfect 18 hole course shouldn’t have more than say, 200 feet x 17 connections, or 3400 LF.  I will say, I have at least one course with 10X that, but sometimes sites are split and it is necessary, if not good.
I also have listed criteria for good routings, as well.  Minimize sun problems, etc. etc. etc. that all have proven to be a big advantage in golf enjoyment.  That said, even after applying those criteria to a routing, it is usually the gut feel that prevails in the end, as to which I choose to present to a client.  Sometimes, they just “feel right” on plan.  For instance, a plan of gentle bends nearly always looks better and more graceful than a back and forth of straight holes, both on paper and in field.  But not always.
So, for both aspects, which are about as different as driving and putting in actual golf, I still go back to an inherent instinct towards the creative approach, modified by real world considerations.  Basically, you just have to think a certain way overall, plus have received some training for someone who knows what they are doing to be really good at this profession.
Historically, most architects have partnered with those who complement their best talents, i.e. Langford and Moreau, but many others as well.  Others simply hire complementary talent, but several kinds are necessary.

[Sean_A]

Bill Coore could be the “best” router in the world on all kind of sites. I’ve no idea. Do you?


Everything is connected of course. Everything works back to routing. But it’s really quite hard to compare how well architects shape up against each other at pure “routing”. And it is blinkered of Mike to write off anyone who doesn’t have multiple 18 hole courses in the ground. That includes most of the people that have worked for you over the last 20 years.

All that said, you’ve no doubt seen a whole lot more projects and concepts from different architects at early stage than I have. So you’ll be in a much better position to compare and contrast.

No doubt, if you're more practiced at doing routings on small ground, you'll be quicker at those and vice versa, but it's still the same skill I think; it just matters on some sites more than others.


To be honest, I think these comparisons are pointless.  Bill Coore has built some of the best golf courses in the world, so he must be pretty good at routings, and that's what matters.  If somebody else thinks they're as good as him, they should build some golf courses to prove it.  I recognize that there are a lot of people who don't get the chance -- I was there once, too -- but it's silly to compare unbuilt doodles to finished golf courses.

The comparisons are probably pointless indeed. And I’m not looking for a league table of good routers. But there is probably a lack of appreciation for some great solutions on difficult sites that have resulted in very good (but not great) golf courses.

I agree Ally.  I have been saying for years that a great design may only result in a good course. You get holes like St Enodoc's 4th. Many people see it as a crap hole wedged into an awkward space.  I see the hole as a brilliant solution to a routing challenge, but the end product is at least very interesting, and I think great. Look at the 3rd, I don't think that challenge was dealt with nearly as well in terms of the final product, but it may have been a case where there weren't many options.  I don't know, so its difficult for me to say it was a design issue.  It could well be that was the best design solution given the realities the archie faced. It still doesn't mean the hole is good. Plus, when it was designed, the ball didn't go as far which is the main problem with the hole today.  I like it though because its so outrageous. A lot of interesting design decisions were made at St Enodoc which I can see leading one to think its a great course or a seriously flawed course...or both.


Happy Hockey

[Mark_Fine]

Like someone said, there is usually one critical piece of the puzzle and when you find or identify it, it makes all the difference.  And sometimes it is that quirky hole that people shake their heads about but it is that puzzle piece that allowed the 17 other great holes to come together.  I always try to look for that when studying any golf course I am on. 


An interesting thread would be how many great/noted courses have been built that were a team or collaboration effort?  In reality I guess they all are because you can probably count on one hand the number of courses designed and built by just one person.  Most every one needs a collective team with different skill sets to make something special. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - I understand what you're saying, and I know we're using the terms differently, but I'd say:

"A great design always equals a great course; but sometimes a great architect can only manage to design a very good one"

I think the confusion stems from architects wanting it both ways: ie when a course is great, focus on the architect, when the course is merely good, focus on the architecture !

A good and fulfilling new year to you and yours

Peter

[Forrest Richardson]

Interesting topic. A golf course architect has to be many things. Certainly much more than "Artist" and "Engineer", that's much too simple. The pie chart of the profession is broken up by many small pieces, and the way they get proportioned depends on many factors — the site, the client, the clientele, the climate, the type of course — and that list goes on.

The most successful in my view are those with many other interests besides golf. Maybe it's writing, film, baseball, SCUBA diving, travel or even music.

Where does the talent lie? It may be someplace you can't see or explain.

[Mike Nuzzo]

To further qualify my previous example, of Tom's last puzzle piece at Memorial, and to add an additional skill, consider the following:
The final puzzle piece required a significant amount of abstract thinking. The new tee location required changing par for the hole and placing it on the other side of the ravine requiring another route and eventually a new bridge.

Many of the other changes, that seem minor afterwards, were also a product of changing par and locations. Tom and I were walking around the old location of the 12th green and Eric Iverson basically went off in another direction, almost in the woods, and found the current location. I thought he was getting lost or going to the bathroom.

Putting the 17th green on the pump station location, before the pond shape was designed, and changing 9 to a par 3. Those are all examples of abstract thinking - to some degree.

Seeing what isn't there three-dimensionally and solving puzzles are probably skills enhanced by abstract thinking.

Tom has described being a good photographer, what first caught Pete Dye's attention (and probably Tom's persistence), and being able to compose a fine image. He is also able to do the same with golf holes before they are built.

Peter,
Here is my list of highly refined and complex skills that require lots of experience and persistence to excel at routing & design:
3d visualization
puzzle solving
abstract intelligence
composition

I'll add one more example that lies more in the area that Mike Young often exemplifies, getting the job. I've seen Tom land a job, and it required lots of thought out planning and an abstract understanding of what the client needed. Tom's abstract expressions are often illustrated here by his fine writing.

Cheers

[JMEvensky]

Another good Peter P thread--anytime the architects discuss the inside baseball of turning an open field into a completed golf course is a worthwhile read.


Thanks to all taking the time to type.

[Tom_Doak]

I've seen Tom land a job, and it required lots of thought out planning and an abstract understanding of what the client needed. Tom's abstract expressions are often illustrated here by his fine writing.

You've seen me NOT get a job, too.     The difference was that the guy who hired me was an entrepreneur who liked hearing that I didn't want to toe the line with the PGA Tour, that I was open to input from players, and that I thought we could get the thing built in record time.  The other group were the dead opposite of all that, and probably had their minds made up beforehand.  [Although maybe the first guy did, too?]

[Sean_A]

Sean - I understand what you're saying, and I know we're using the terms differently, but I'd say:

"A great design always equals a great course; but sometimes a great architect can only manage to design a very good one"

I think the confusion stems from architects wanting it both ways: ie when a course is great, focus on the architect, when the course is merely good, focus on the architecture !

A good and fulfilling new year to you and yours

Peter

Pietro

You seem to have flipped the idea to focus on the archie more than the design. I don't believe a great design always equals a great course, but I also don't worry about it. My focus tends to be what exists, rather than how it came to be. If I do care how a course came to be it's usually because

1. The site is good/great on sandy soil. Why do I think the design didn't yield a great course?

2. The land is fine, maybe has a few good features, but not exceptional nor well draining. How then was a great course the end result?

Happy Hockey

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think Sean nails the two main questions we should ask when thinking about the design:


1. Was this a missed opportunity on a great site?
2. Is this course a lot better than I would have expected from such a poor site?


Course 1 may still be better than course 2 but the designer in the second case sounds like he deserves more praise.


Question is who knows enough to really judge this? The list of Top-100 architects is a faintly ridiculous notion.

[Sean_A]

I think Sean nails the two main questions we should ask when thinking about the design:


1. Was this a missed opportunity on a great site?
2. Is this course a lot better than I would have expected from such a poor site?


Course 1 may still be better than course 2 but the designer in the second case sounds like he deserves more praise.


Question is who knows enough to really judge this? The list of Top-100 architects is a faintly ridiculous notion.

Ally


For sure. In reality, very few people know enough about specific projects to make definitive statements about the overall quality of the design work. For the most part, stick with what exists, ask some questions, but try to steer clear of archie judgements without a ton of project specific knowledge and/or experience. 


Happy Hockey.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think Sean nails the two main questions we should ask when thinking about the design:


1. Was this a missed opportunity on a great site?
2. Is this course a lot better than I would have expected from such a poor site?


Course 1 may still be better than course 2 but the designer in the second case sounds like he deserves more praise.


Question is who knows enough to really judge this? The list of Top-100 architects is a faintly ridiculous notion.

This is exactly right. Us lower end archies have to make the best we can out of an average site. I looked at Thracian Cliffs and wanted to buy that site, my course was much better IMO than what got made, the big difference was I had 8 holes under 280 yards and could only manage 6500 yards par 70 and for some that would not have been any good. years ago I had a site in Syria which was 1000 metres by 1000 metres, there was not one change in metre verticals over the site and it had no vegetation, perhaps the best architect would be the one to make the best job of that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()