[Mark_F]

There are a lot of classic holes that inspire designs around the world, be it the Redan, Road, Eden etc, but how far should an architect go in replicating a green on a piece of land that provides the oppourtunity for similarity?

If say a piece of land existed that allowed a similar hole to Prairie Dunes' 8th, would, or should the green be copied reasonably closely?  After all, isn't it the green that provides much of what makes a hole like this?

Would redoing the green be an abrogation of the inspiration if it didn't provide the hole with as much?

[Craig Sweet]

I think it would be like asking a plastic surgeon for Dolly Parton's boobs.  Make greens that fir the onsite situation.

[TEPaul]

I'd shy away from attempting to exactly copy any hole in a whole hole context but I wouldn't mind seeing an exact copy of certain greens in other iterations.

Just imagine in relatively flat land exactly copying the 7th green at NGLA and playing it as a par 3, for instance, of say 175 yards coming at the narrow end from the right, or as a par 3 coming at it from the fairway at about 150 yards or coming at it from the back left from about 200 yards.

It seems to me as a par 3 in any of those iterations you'd have an extremely STRATEGIC par 3 (all kinds of shot choices in approaching it from any of those iterations).

[Bill Gayne]

A question I would ask before copying any feature would be: Will the maintenance of the new green be similar to the original to allow it to play like the original?

Is there any sense in copying a green exactly in the construction  if conditions don't allow for the maintenance of that green to be consistent with the original? If not, I think it would be fair to say that the new green may be inspired by another green but it should be adapted to fit the maintenance.

[James Edwards]

Ridiculous, It should never be done - Move on, move forward!  Spend some time trying to create a classic design of your own is my assessment.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I agree with the sentiments expressed here.  Interpreting past models, and using those as inspiration for new design is a very important part of the process and the evolution of one's own design philosophy.  At some point though the individual will move beyond the initial stages of interpreting, which I think is still a premature stage of a designers development, and develope their own individual style that becomes much harder for an outsider to interpret in the context of past styles.  That is the realm I would hope to enter someday.  

[Craig Sweet]

Bill, what exactly do you mean by "similar maintainence"?  I gather from my short time here at GCA that "classic" greens and courses often evolve over time and are not allways maintained as the designer desired. In some cases they are now maintained in a manner that a vocal minority of club members desire.

[Bill Gayne]

Craig,

Great point about how the original will naturally evolve over time. The two sites will probably have two different evolution patterns for natural reasons and man made reasons.

To answer your question, by maintenance I meant more on the lines of mowing, watering, firmness, speed, how the areas directly surrounding the greens are also maintained.

[TEPaul]

Kelly Blake Moran said;

"Interpreting past models, and using those as inspiration for new design is a very important part of the process and the evolution of one's own design philosophy.  At some point though the individual will move beyond the initial stages of interpreting, which I think is still a premature stage of a designers development, and develope their own individual style that becomes much harder for an outsider to interpret in the context of past styles.  That is the realm I would hope to enter someday."

Kelly:

You've said that type of thing on this website often and the times I've heard you speak you mention it almost as a theme. Obviously you're talking about how (and why?) the architectural philosphies of a designer might and probably should evolve over time for various reasons. Obviously you're referring to how your philosophies have evolved in your career. I know this is a subject you think about often and I feel it's a wonderful subject to concentrate on in an interview. I think Ran should interview you for a permanent "Feature Interview" piece on that very subject! It's something those not in the business really need to hear and to know, in my opinion.

[Doug Siebert]

Are there any examples of architects trying to copy a famous green?  I mean trying to "clone" it as close as possible, as it were, rather than just copying the shape and general slope (i.e., the difference between a Redan and the Redan)

I would think that with laser mapping getting a very accurate topographic map of a classic green would be doable.  I'm sure it would take some time, but it'd be doable to clone it elsewhere (taking conditions in mind as some have mentioned)  Though I wonder if it might be a matter of "guys who have the budget to do this are either too talented or too egotistical to want to copy someone else's work"...

[TEPaul]

Doug:

I've never heard of any architect doing that and I'm glad they haven't. The only possible example of where I'd like to see this done is if PVGC ever decided to move Hugh Alison's #6 green back about 30 yards to the end of that ridge where it was supposed to go and where George Crump wanted to put it. The tee shot on that hole is one of the best and most interesting in golf, in my opinion, but once that's negotiated the appraoch shot does not come close to matching the interest and demand of the tee shot. Put that green at the end of that ridge (as Crump understood) and that hole's reputation would rise considerably!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Ferguson,

Isn't that what CBM, SR, CB and many other classic and modern day architects have done ?

To step back to your geometry days, just substitute similar for congruent, and the practice continues to flourish.

[Mark_F]

Patrick,

I don't know!  That's why I'm asking (you).

How close is the 7th green at NGLA to the original Road hole?  Is it 'better?'  'Worse?'

I just wondered whetehr the classic holes erved more as inspiration, or whether ummm, outright theft takes place.

Geometry?  Congruent?  If you're going to talk dirty to me, please keep the words to two syllables.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

I think the 7th green at NGLA is better then the road hole green due to the added value of it's elevated nature relative to the back of the green.  That depth, at the rear of the green adds to the value of the green.

Coore & Crenshaws 4th hole at Hidden Creek is a good example of similar but not congruent redan holes.

Take a look at the Hidden Creek website:
www.hiddencreekclub.com
and look at the pictures of the 4th hole and I think you'll get a sense of what I'm refering to by the geometry phrase, similar but not congruent.  Or, you can go to courses by country on this site and look at Ran's write up and pictures, then look at National's 4th hole and draw your conclusions.

Hope that helps.

[Tony Ristola]

An architect can draw plans and then hand them off to the builder...he will get close to what he asked for...but should he spend time there as the thing is being built, he may branch off into slightly different directions as he notices opportunities... emphasizes or changes parts which better suit that particular hole being built, or notices how it may better blend into the surrounds...just dozens of things can take you down a different road.  In the end the original concept was the seed of the concept, but the end product becomes somthing unique.

A while back I spoke with Tommy N about a certain hole and what influenced the architect...the original idea was a recognizable concept, but the green didn't conjure up that feeling in me when I played it.  Didn't matter, I did like the hole, though it was fun and challenging in its own right.  The seed ogf the idea was there, but it certainly wasn't a copy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony Ristola,

I believe that mirrors the similar but not congruent theme I was referencing.

Even CBM's/SR's/CB's redans are different.

One only has to look at Piping Rock, NGLA, Westhampton and others to see the theme, the similarity, but, the holes are far from identical.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Similar but not congruent??? My Ass! Aren't you the same guy who I heard last fall say; "It's probable but not possible"? Why don't you try speaking plain American English you big booby instead of some weird mathematesse?

[Mark_F]

Patrick,

Thanks. The green of the 4th at NGLA is obviously similar yet different - inspired by but not replicated.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Similar but not congruent??? My Ass! Aren't you the same guy who I heard last fall say; "It's probable but not possible"?
Once again, you've misquoted me, what I said, in a discussion about your ability to understand golf course architecture was:

One would hope that TEPaul's ability to comprehend was probable, but, sadly, that's not possible."[/color]

Why don't you try speaking plain American English you big booby instead of some weird mathematesse?

That's gramatically, mathmatically incorrect.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()