Grading Plans and Routing Plans

[Derek_L]

The two go hand in hand, together like peas in a pod.  However, there have been great routing plans and grading of a site done when only the routing plan and a few ideas for features were left for the foreman.  Take Tom Bendelow for instance, I am sure everybody is familiar with "18 stakes on a Sunday".  Maybe we pick on him too much, but then he probably gets too much credit for some great courses.  As we look at some of these courses that have been built when all that was available was a routing plan or a few simple schematics and the finished product is phenominal.  I know some of the archictects of yester year made site visits, but what about when the only thing a foreman had to go on was the routing, and those darn schematics.  Now don't get me wrong, Ross, Tillie, and The Doc were all great, but aren't we missing something here, unless you have the eye of Dana Fry or are a Dye it is darn possible to create an excellent golf course.  Now maybe I am wrong in my thinking as I am an engineer, but wait a minute Raynor was technical too, as were many other archies.  I guess the two fit together for some and for others they just have it, but do they really have the creativity to think on a whim.  I tend to get better ideas after many iterations of something whether it was on paper or in my head, but if I can't communicate that to the shaper do I take all the credit for a fabulous golf course that was actually created more by the shaper and the foreman.  I could go on and on, but I have always wondered who really should get the credit, yeah the million dollar name that has a lot of experience deserves something but what about Mike what's his name, yeah the dozer operator that has built over a 1000 green complexes and over 10,000 bunkers, yeah you know the one I am talking... well I will shut up for now, but I think  there is more importance in the link between the grading plan and the routing plan.

[RJ_Daley]

Derek, I'm sure you are correct. There are probably a handful of shapers that have helped to make some of the big name architects famous.  Perhaps we ought to have a hall of fame or at least a registry of these artist shapers listing their course credits, so we can pay them due respect.  Of course all the big name architects have a rolodex with their names on file.  

[Tyler Kearns]

Derek L,
         Without a doubt, a good golf course is a collaborative effort between architect and shaper. The architect must be able to communicate his/her vision so that the shaper can create the desired landscape. To me, overseeing the construction of the golf course is the sole means for an architect to bring their ideas to fruition. If an architect simply provides a routing plan, and leaves the rest up to a shaper, he/she certainly cedes a great deal of control over the project to the construction crew, as well as the subsequent criticism and/or credit for the course.
          It seems quite obvious that to ensure a quality product, architects must scale back their number of contracts they pursue so that they are able to work closely with the shapers. This means numerous and lengthy site visits, and time.

[RJ_Daley]

Does this get down to which archie can give the best arm-waving and hand signals? :-/

[Jeff_Brauer]

I always try to visualize feature grading of a hole when I lay it out on paper - from nothing to some corrective grading that may be necessary.

I agree that field time, i.e., hand waving, is important, but gradiing plans and cut/fill calculations are essential - to me at least - in getting the basics down.  I have never laid out a green in the field only w/o it coming out too small, for instance.

With computer 3-D graphics now, the architect, and shaper can better visualize the intent, although, we can't seem to get really subtle nuances in 3-D, at least yet.

I'm not sure shapers make the real good architects famous.  They are more likely to "save" an architect who really doesn't know what he/she wants, usually either early in the career, or through plain lack of creative vision, or a personality that is afraid to take chances.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I am interested in Doaks view on this. Jim and his construction side make the team. And a great shaper goes with great work.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Shouldn't this topic read, "How A Good Routing Can Virtually Eliminate A Grading Plan?"

Just my take. That is unless you are building a course on the side of a hill, and we know that could never happen, right?

Instead of creating these parabolic/bowled foundations for golf holes with all sorts of containment that is mistaken by way too many architects as shapings for strategy, how about utilzing featues that already exist? It seems to me that the best way of identifying these features is by actually seeing their natural dynamics.

Take a walk around the Valley Club sometime and tell me if that routing isn't a work of art. Here is a perfect example of seeing a site for its natural worth and how all of its greatest features were in the ground without the need of a massive earthmoving.

[Forrest Richardson]

It really boils down to the site. Plans aside, a great site which need little earthmoving is always ideal. But...even so, greens details and drainage are very real concerns in most locales. The best grading plans for a natural site (or portion thereof) is to leave natural contours where possible (in essence, no real plan except for greens/features). But few sites, including the Valley Club, are 100% "ready". Hence the grading plan and its careful development and realization.

[Tom_Doak]

My take on this would be a combination of Jeff Brauer and Tommy Naccarato's.  I don't just draw a routing plan for a golf course without thinking about how the green is going to be graded.  I'm trying to eliminate the need for grading, but if I can't, I've got a pretty good idea what I'll want to do when we get there.

But I don't really draw detail plans for those greens.  I will make a few notes to myself, and include them on the grading plan if I'm going to change the level more than a foot or two; but we hold off work on them until I'm on site, or at least until I've been over them in detail in the field with Jim or one of my guys.

Having good shapers with whom I have a rapport is very important to me -- that's why I have six guys on payroll, why I've taken them all around to see other cool courses, and why I pay them more every year (combined) than I keep for myself.  I won't do my best work if I have to spend some of that time teaching a new guy the ropes, or arguing with a guy who thinks he knows better than I do.  

If I only wanted to do one or two courses a year I could do it without them, like I did for my first couple of courses.  I don't think it would be as much fun as I'm having now,though.

I agree with Jeff -- the shaper should always get a little bit of the credit, as should the design associate (my guys are all sort of in between).  But he should only get a lot of the credit if the architect really didn't know what he was doing.  And that would not be true of most of the people whose work we have come to admire.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, Then it is true, this miracle of golf course architecture called "surface drainage!"

What are some of the best case uses of surface drainage any of you have seen?

[Joel_Stewart]

Take a walk around the Valley Club sometime and tell me if that routing isn't a work of art. Here is a perfect example of seeing a site for its natural worth and how all of its greatest features were in the ground without the need of a massive earthmoving.

Tommy:
Do you know if Mackenzie did the routing or was it Hunter?