[Phelps Morris]

C&C, Doak, Hanse, DeVries, Brauer, etc...

Given the option (i.e. the firms had enough projects in the works to pay the bills), would any of these guys willingly take on a TPC project?  

If yes, what are your thoughts on how the project would turn out?  Would we simply see more the same within the TPC genre? Or could one of these guys deliver a new and different spin on the concept?
 
If no, why?  Is it simply a bad fit?

Your thoughts.

RPM
   

[Tom_Doak]

I can't speak for anyone else on your list, but yes, sure I would want to design a TPC course in the right circumstances.  I spent a lot of time with Pete Dye at the first two TPC events at Sawgrass, learning what he was thinking there, as well as a bit of time with Deane Beman who was the other originator of the concept (and also another of the people who wrote a recommendation for me to get that overseas scholarship).  And then I worked on the planning for the Stadium course at PGA West, so I have a pretty good idea about the gallery-flow ideas that went on top of the playing characteristics the Tour wanted.

I know some architects have felt their hands were tied on what they could or couldn't do in designing a TPC course -- Tom Weiskopf felt that way, but his feud with the Tour brass preceded all that.  Right now I can't think of what they wouldn't let me do, but the Tour would be a "corporate" client, which means that sometimes you're being told something and there's no one to argue with about it; we would always prefer to have an individual as a client.

The one criterion I would have for taking on a job like that is that the project weren't too constrained by development requirements ... Scottsdale and Sawgrass are golf courses first, but many of the others sacrifice more to the surrounding housing developments than they do to being a TPC.  I'm not saying we wouldn't do a course with development -- we're working on two right now -- but both of them have creative land plans so the golf isn't dominated by the houses.

I would love to take a shot at designing something which made the Tour pros work ... it would make me think out of the box for a change.  And I think it could be done, although I think it would have to look radically different than most of what's being built today.

[paul cowley]

...tom ,your last statement was a surprise because you already possess in your 'box' all that a tour player needs to be challenged  .......just refine the minutiae.

for them it's similar to slalom skiing ,where to gain the most advantage one must carve closest to the poles [but the designer sets the course !]...and doesn't mean a skier of lesser ability can not enjoy the same slope.

 they are not really challenged by the excessive 'more' of anything , pissed off really [especially when it borders on the unfair]...Fancourt versus #2 would lose every time.

its the refined subtleties that really make them work and still appreciate the hole......and these don't have to exclude the lesser player....the grand challenge[and why some TPC courses have failed].

...i get nervous when the stated design goals are to really challenge the tour players because alot of the results exclude enjoyability for the masses [and the tour players as well].

the best courses don't do that....and i'm not saying yours would [hope you get the chance].

....hey,you wouldn't want to trade a world class site for a TPC ,would ya?....

[Jeff_Mingay]

They were trying to break ground on a new TPC project near San Antonio a few years ago, I think. Two courses, one by Pete Dye, the other by Coore & Crenshaw. If I recall correctly, something to do with an affect on the city's water source prevented the project from happening.

Since then though, I've often thought it would have been neat to see what Coore & Crenshaw would have built in consideration of the pros.  

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

When we were working on the Stadium course at PGA West, one of Pete Dye's primary interests was to build stuff which would piss off the Tour pros.  He had learned from the complaints about the TPC Sawgrass that the pros were more bothered mentally by certain things than amateurs were, so he figured he would make it harder for the pros by including those things which pissed them off ... semi-blind approaches, half-wedge shots, etc.

If I were going to build a TPC course I would certainly include those kinds of things, plus a lot of contour in greens.  As Pete always said, what he was trying to do was let the pros show just how good they really are ... hitting 8-irons to ten feet all day does not accomplish this.

I believe such a course would still be playable for average golfers, though probably more difficult than most.  I doubt that would be a detriment to its financial success, judging from the works of Pete Dye.

[A_Clay_Man]

TD- How would these things that piss them off differ from what you built in Lubbock?

and,

Are the things you're being told, done so prior to the dotting of i's and crossing of t's, or do they come down the pipe, after you've begun working?

the Tour would be a "corporate" client, which means that sometimes you're being told something and there's no one to argue with about it;

[Art_Schaupeter]

Jeff,

The San Antonio project site is above the Edwards Aquifer, which is the main water source for the city.  I haven't been in San Antonio much in the past year, but it was a real heated battle trying to get the project approved a couple of years ago.  I was under the impression that the two courses were going to be a Dye and a Nicklaus course, but I might be mistaken.

Art

[Jeff_Brauer]

Would I do a TPC.  In a minute.  Why wouldn't I?

There are certain things the players like to see designed in that wouldn't necessarily be my first choice, so there would be some compromises, thats for sure.  ON the other hand, there always are, so whining about any collaborative thinking from the Tour versus the normal stuff (as in don't block views from housing with mounds vs. don't block a square inch of the green from the spectator mounds) wouldn't be right.

Colbert Hill started as a TPC course.  I had no trouble incorporating one more point of view in the design.  Subsequent negotiations between the Tour and University later stopped that arrangement.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam,

The Rawls Course has a lot less fairway hazards than my TPC course would have.  In fact I would be likely to roll out my first sod wall bunkers for a TPC, if they would let me.

But Jeff is right, the Tour is not going to just let you do anything you want.  They would probably assign a "player consultant" to make the politics tricky if you started building wild stuff; and at some point "the authorities" would just let it be known that they did not approve of the bunkers in the middle of the fourth fairway.  Of course you can leave them in and stand by your design; but of course they could go ahead and take them out the day after the course opened, too.

Nothing like that happened at The Rawls Course, which was built for a public institution rather than a corporate client, but it still was a lot different than just building the course for Jerry Rawls would have been; we had to deal with several people we would have bypassed with a single owner, and that changed the finished product if not the "design" itself.

[Lester George]

Phelps,

Under the right circumstances, I would do one.

 I would have to respect the "player consultants" desire to learn and he/she would have to show up more than the standard to isure the TOUR as a client that they were not just getting the rubber stamp.  

The TOUR would have to let me do my thing.  

The site would have to be better than most.

LG

[Phelps Morris]

Lester,

You comment that the site "would have to be better than most was interesting".

Given the fact that by nature you would have to move a lot of dirt for spectator mounds, etc. wouldn't it make the quality of the site less important relative to a course without the need for the additional design requirement inherent for a TPC course?

RPM

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()