[Mike_Young]

Tom D says in the "great greens " post

"Great greens are sculpture that fit uniquely into their locations.  I believe I have still have yet to see a great green that was built strictly according to a detailed plan."

Man that says alot.....I tend to agree with him.....BUT what does that do for all the "restoration/old plans/dead guy wanted this"  phenomena that is going on today....
It certainly is anti-justification for all of the "mindreading" we see going on in the cottage industry of restoration today.  And it sort of justifies the macro vs micro architecture method when it comes to rework.  
JMO

[paul cowley]

....wait a second Mike, we build greens all the time from highly detailed plans that closely follow the age old recipe for 'stone soup'.....or brick soup or coot soup or any soup recipe thats similar.

[ed_getka]

Mike,
   What are you talking about with the micro vs. macro architecture during rework?

[paul cowley]

You do have an excellent point Mike, because I shudder to think that someday someone might be holding up a set of my plans as proof of how I wanted something to be built [or restored to].......scary thought indeed.
Now an as-built set of drawings would be OK, but who ever has [or had ] them done?
I have never seen a single set from any era.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
   What are you talking about with the micro vs. macro architecture during rework?

Ed,
I say macro is where a dead guy would say "build a green about 80 feet long and 40 feet wide that is 4 feet high in the back right and 1 foot high in the front left and has a gradual right to left slope across the surface"   vs micro where a restoration expert would say "Mr. dead guy built this green at a length of 81 feet moving from 4ft 2inxhes on the back right corner and moved it toward the front left corner which was 19 inches in elevation.  He subtlely placed an undulation 42 feet from the front edge 4 and 1/2 inches in height moving from left to right( actually where an old stump rotted) yada yada yada....JMO

[Mike_Young]

You do have an excellent point Mike, because I shudder to think that someday someone might be holding up a set of my plans as proof of how I wanted something to be built [or restored to].......scary thought indeed.
Now an as-built set of drawings would be OK, but who ever has [or had ] them done?
I have never seen a single set from any era.

Paul,
I sometimes shudder to think of how many courses have been restored to a set of plans that the original architect altered in the field and chose not to build in the first place.....same thing you are saying towards the future.....
Keep my boy Jeff Jones straight....

[ed_getka]

That is a very interesting point Paul brings up about plans that I hadn't given much thought to before. Although I am not in the pedantic camp that thinks to original is always the best and only way. I have yet to see a course that couldn't be improved upon IMHO of course.

[Forrest Richardson]

I have seen great and interesting greens built (developed) in almost every way possible. I count six ways a green is created:

1. From detailed plans.
2. By working / tweaking the rough shaping of a green site.
3. By creating a green on a totally natural site, devoid of any "plans" beyond the selection of the site.
4. From a combination of two or more of the above.
5. By allowing a shaper to "have at it" and hope that it comes together in the end.
6. By accident — either during construction, or through some type of event or happenstance, such as settling, poor maintenance, years of topdressing, or through the hand of the superintendent (expanding, reducing, changing a bunker, etc.)

Professionally, I have been involved in each of the above types of greens. I have no favorites. By default, however, most of our sites tend to bring up #1, #2 and sometimes #3/4. Our renovation/remodeling/restoration work often encounters #6.

My preference is usually to begin with detailed plans — at least plans which show what we intend in the surface. This will depend on the site and how we are building the course.

On entirely flat terrain we might spend considerable time creating plans and details ahead of shaping...while on a natural flowing site we might wait until we rough in green sites.

On some greens sites I have simply found perfect greens and not done anything until the equipment is in place and we tie everything in to the approach and surrounds.

The problem with so many of the contributors here on GCA (non-architects or non-construction/greenkeeper personnel) is that they have very little first-hand experience — the result is a perception (many times) that the only great green is one created during the classic or primitive era of GCA ..or one which has been entirely developed in the field.

The trend — in many cases — is for the lay person to believe that the golf course architect is incapable of envisioning a green before it is created...that the numerous (indeed, exponential) thoughts, and the  sequence of thoughts, involved in conceptually dreaming a green and bringing it to life...could not possibly be handled by a human designer...excpet in the field, and at full-scale.

[ed_getka]

Forrest,
   I think you are off the mark with your next to last paragraph. There are certainly worshippers of certain styles here, but I feel like most of the guys that have been around this site for a while have a pretty realistic idea of what the variables are and that there isn't one perfect way of ending up with great greens. IMO, of course.

[Forrest Richardson]

Ed —

With all respect, I disagree completely. A MAJORITY of the contributors to this site are arm-chair golf architects with the perspective of being players, enthusiasts and critics. While I agree that there is not just ONE way of developing a great green, I think you would discover that a poll of contributors here would reveal that almost all would like to believe that detailed plans are hogwash, and that any respectable designer does his/her work in the field to a ratio of about 80% or better.


This does not mean that contributors here do not know what they are talking about...it is just that their experience is limited to what they know and how they view golf architecture.

The fact is that a majority of people — not just arm chair architects — have very little ability to visualize a three dimensional design in a two-dimensional perspective (e.g., "plans".) The result is that non-designers tend to appreciate and get much more excited when they see something in full-scale come to life in the field...that is a common response, and a reality.

While it is fun to speculate and weigh in on golf course architecture (creating greens in this instance) there is no decent substitution for actually taking the process from beginning to end — and from doing that over and over and over again as part of a career.

[Mike_Young]

Ed —

With all respect, I disagree completely. A MAJORITY of the contributors to this site are arm-chair golf architects with the perspective of being players, enthusiasts and critics. While I agree that there is not just ONE way of developing a great green, I think you would discover that a poll of contributors here would reveal that almost all would like to believe that detailed plans are hogwash, and that any respectable designer does his/her work in the field to a ratio of about 80% or better.


This does not mean that contributors here do not know what they are talking about...it is just that their experience is limited to what they know and how they view golf architecture.

The fact is that a majority of people — not just arm chair architects — have very little ability to visualize a three dimensional design in a two-dimensional perspective (e.g., "plans".) The result is that non-designers tend to appreciate and get much more excited when they see something in full-scale come to life in the field...that is a common response, and a reality.

While it is fun to speculate and weigh in on golf course architecture (creating greens in this instance) there is no decent substitution for actually taking the process from beginning to end — and from doing that over and over and over again as part of a career.

Ditto to both of FR post  and with respect to all....

[Mike Nuzzo]

Forrest -

It would be great to see some of your favorite examples.
Those you made predominately from plans.
And those that were more improvised in the field.

Pictures and plans would be super.
Thank you.

Mike Y. -
I've also seen very few contractors transfer a green drawing to the dirt very accurately - not that there is anything wrong with that...

Mike

[paul cowley]

Ed....I hope my spokesperson Forrest hasn't been too rough on you....he really is excellent , although he failed in my instructions for his list of greens and forgot to include #7...the 'stone soup' green, with is the green analogous with the soup that is boiled and brewed and stirred and labored over and in the end the stones are dumped and one just drinks the broth.....now I have heard all sorts of regional  variations of this recipe [that's why I can compare it to greens]....in the South they use bricks and when I was working in Monterrey they used the local Coots [which is a constantly pooping bird that used to enjoy #18 fairway at Pebble].

....anyway, I feel better with this inclusion that makes the list even more complete.....I might even use it in my book!

[Forrest Richardson]

Mike — Until our new FTP site (and web site) is up and humming, I am at a loss to be able to post or cross-reference images. Sorry.

In the meanwhile...you will have to do some traveling!

- - -

Favorites from plans:

No. 6 Grande Valley, AZ ("X-Marks the Spot)
No. 17 Coyote Lakes, AZ
No. 5 Phantom Horse, AZ
No. 6 Phantom Horse, AZ
No. 17 Phantom Horse, AZ
No. 11 Links at Las Palomas, MX
Putting Green Commons, SaddleBrooke CC, AZ
No. 12 Buenaventura, CA
No. 16, Olivas Links, CA
Putting Green No. 1 (NLE) Phantom Horse, AZ
No. 18 Wigwam Gold, AZ
No. 2 Coldwater, AZ
No. 8 Coldwater, AZ
No. 11, Coldwater

- - -

Favorite from field work:

No. 6 Buenaventura, CA
No. 4 Links at Las Palomas, MX
No. 6 Links at Las Palomas, MX
No. 8 Links at Las Palomas, MX
No. 14 Links at Las Palomas, MX
No. 9 Phantom Horse, AZ
No. 9+18 Olivas Links, CA
No. 9 Arizona Biltmore Adobe, AZ
No. 3 Hideout, UT

- - -

Favorites (almost) entirely by nature:

No. 4 Links at Las Palomas, MX
No. 6 Hideout, UT

- - -

Favorite by Shaper:

No. 10 Phantom Horse, AZ (William Howard)
No. 6 Concho Valley, AZ (William Howard)
No. 19 (bonus hole) Links at Las Palomas (Tim Taynor)

[ed_getka]

Paul,
  No worries. I am expressing my opinion and Forrest is expressing his (even if he is wrong)

Forrest,
   Guys who have been around on this site for a while include:
   Patrick Mucci
    TE Paul
     Bob Huntley
     Tiger Bernhardt
     Ace McBride
     Shivas
      Peter Pittock
      George Pazin
      Bob Crosby
      Paul Daley
      Craig Disher
      Lou Duran
      John Foley
      Jeff Fortson
      Jeff Goldman
      Tommy Naccarato
      Pete Galea
      Rich Goodale
       Mike Hendren
       Dan King
       Jonathan Cummings
       John Krystynak
       Brad Klein
        David Kelly
       Pete Lavallee
       Wayne Morrison
        Tom MacWood
     Mike Cirba
      Noel Freeman
      Gene Greco
      Mike Sweeney
       Neil Regan
        RJ Daley
        Joe Hancock
        David Moriarty
        Matt Ward
        Redanman
        Paul Turner
         Adam Clayman
         Tom Huckaby, etc....
         
         You are trying to tell me that the MAJORITY of these guys don't know what they are talking about? These are all regulars who have been on this site for a long time. When you talk about detailed plans is this before or after you have seen the property? Why wouldn't someone be able to come up with detailed plans after seeing the ground and figuring out where greensites are going to be? Are you trying to tell me you can come up with detailed plans that can be followed without modification 50% of the time and end up with a good result?

[Forrest Richardson]

I did not say that anyone did not know what they are talking about. Rather, that what they know is simply limited to what they know.

Perspective is just that — perspective.

[ed_getka]

Ed —

I think you would discover that a poll of contributors here would reveal that almost all would like to believe that detailed plans are hogwash, and that any respectable designer does his/her work in the field to a ratio of about 80% or better.


This does not mean that contributors here do not know what they are talking about...it is just that their experience is limited to what they know and how they view golf architecture.

The fact is that a majority of people — not just arm chair architects — have very little ability to visualize a three dimensional design in a two-dimensional perspective (e.g., "plans".) The result is that non-designers tend to appreciate and get much more excited when they see something in full-scale come to life in the field...that is a common response, and a reality.

While it is fun to speculate and weigh in on golf course architecture (creating greens in this instance) there is no decent substitution for actually taking the process from beginning to end — and from doing that over and over and over again as part of a career.

Forrest,
   See my questions above that I added to my last post please. Secondly, with no disrespect intended, I just want to point out that your last paragraph in the quote smacks of arrogance to my mind. Just how much more do you think you really know than the guys listed above? I am NOT talking about perspective, I am talking about actual knowledge of golf course architecture.

[Forrest Richardson]

Ed — It is not arrogance. It is a fact.

There is no substitution (no good one) for actually doing the work of a golf course architect. It doesn't make the opinions of an enthusiast, historian or critic necessarily wrong or unworthy when it comes to golf architecture. But it does make those opinions swewed. You cannot have the perspective of a golf course architect until you become one. You can guess, imagine, conjure, surmise, etc.

I am aware that my opinion may not be a popular one. It was not intended to be arrogant at all. Consider it frank commentary. Isn't that what is supposed to be at play here?

[Joe Hancock]

In general, I agree wiith Forrest r.e. experience.

 The unknown factor is what the motivations, abilities and knowledge of the working architect are. Doing a lot of work doesn't make the work good. What could be worse than a prolific architect who has become efficient at producing crap? It reminds me of why I don't practice putting....

 Possessing a great deal of knowledge but not being able to put it on the ground isn't good either. Doing a bunch of schlock to make sure the boat payment is paid isn't worth discussion.

A healthy amount of pride is required to produce great results....arrogance is usually a bad thing.

Joe

[Forrest Richardson]

Joe — Good comments. Professional practice does not guarantee great results in any endeavor. I do believe, though, that professionals have perepscetives that allow them to make decisions in a much larger context than the non-professional.

What we typically find in society is that the professional who practices "crap", as you call it, will generally find work difficult to attain. "Crap" is going to depend on who is giving the definition, Not to mention what it is being applied to.

This, of course, does not answer the question of mainstream product vs. those special works which are created in a not-for-the-masses approach. To say either is necessarily better — or worse — involves a host of other influences...and sub-discussions.

[ed_getka]

Forrest,
  I appreciate the frank commentary. I just happen to have a hell of a lot of respect for the guys I know on this site. I have no problem agreeing to disagree. However, I feel fairly confident that I could pick 3 of the above listed regulars and they could design a course (using the same complement of shapers, engineers, etc... that most archies use) that would certainly hold its head high in the company of most courses built in this country today. That is not to diminish what you and your peers do, but to illustrate how knowledgeable I think these guys on the site are.
   Golf course architecture is not rocket science. If your thesis that building golf courses is the only way to get good at it, then why are so many mediocre golf courses built? Why isn't the twentieth course not significantly better than the 1st course an architect builds? Yes I know there are land considerations and client wishes, etc... When someone does something over and over again poorly I don't see how they are that far ahead of the armchair architects. As the saying goes in my field, what do you call the guy who graduates last in his medical school class? Doctor (do you want that guy/gal caring for you?)

Congratulations on the book you and Mark Fine did together, I look forward to reading it while I'm traveling next week. I sincerely do appreciate you expressing your opinion. I am always interested in learning from everyone here.

[Forrest Richardson]

Ed — The fact is that three non-golf course architect contributors to this site are not likely to ever collaborate and build a golf course...that is, without the involvement of a golf course architect. I will climb out on a limb and say that if this ever does occur, one of the three will, by such time, probably be a pseudo-professional. That is, one of the bunch will likely have already had some practical experience beyond being a player, green committee member, interested club member, historian, or whatever.


To your question "...why are so many mediocre golf courses built?" One must first agree or disagree with your premise. I am not convinced that there are so many mediocre courses being built.

Why should golf courses be subject to a different standard that any other category of our built or designed environment? Building architecture, signs, fashion, websites, cheese graters, hotel rooms, silverware, CD covers, front yard landscaping, SUVs...there are loads of mediocre design examples all around us.

Frankly ( good word again!) it is my view that, for the most part, golf courses are being very well designed and built in today's world. At least compared to many of the other designed environments and products I have listed in my very short list.

Next..."Why isn't the twentieth course not significantly better than the 1st course an architect builds?" Ask Frank Lloyd Wright about his buildings...if we could, I think he would describe each one being a product of the site and the client and the moment. One does not have anything to do with the other. But after 20 it certainly gives the designer a larger volume of experience to draw from.

The choice to hire one professional over another is an entirely new sub-discussion. I do not have the perspective of a client any more than you probably do. You and I can only guess what goes through a client's mind.

Enjoy the book. Anything you really enjoy was probably written by me. Most of the errors and hard to understand bits are likely Mark's words.

[Tony Ristola]

There have been about 1000 courses built worldwide annually in the past 10-15 years. In the US (not so many years ago) "42.8% of (US) golf architects found it difficult to find qualified builders for their projects."

How can you be sure to accomplish great greens with inexperienced builders, and plans alone?
You can't.

Some guys will be able to take a set of plans and improve on them. Jeff Brauer gave a great example of this; he had one of his staff produce the same plan for a par-3 to be used on 2 different courses. One course the shaper nailed it, the other did a poor job.

Plans are important, but like Clausewitz's claim about plans and war, this holds true for golf course design. No architect can or ever will nail it everytime, and even if one did, 10 builders would build 10 variations when left alone.

Clausewitz's definition of genius holds true here too.  That's why some guys here could get it done. It may take a little longer, perhaps not; but they have the knowldege that might produce genuis-like results.

Does George Bhato qualify?

In fact, I'd bet there are a bunch of guys here who never designed a golf course that could go to continental Europe and do a better job than 85% of what has been produced there. Forget about greens, but 18-holes, so long as they followed the construction process.

And in continental Europe you have "experienced designers" that can and do produce plans. With indifferent results. Mainly because 99% of the builders don't play golf, their foremen play golf, and the architect is only present a handful of times during this most critical and permanent phase of design...construction.

[ed_getka]

Forrest,
   Very good sir, I enjoyed the discussion. Except the tapdancing around the 1-20 question.  
    If you let me know what parts you wrote in the book, I can just save time and skip Mark's.

[Ryan Crago]

In fact, I'd bet there are a bunch of guys here who never designed a golf course that could go to continental Europe and do a better job than 85% of what has been produced there. Forget about greens, but 18-holes, so long as they followed the construction process.

And in Europe you have "experience designers" that can and do produce plans. With indifferent results.

Interesting comments Tony (ed and forrest too..).  

your comments above regarding europe are particularily strong.  can you tell me why you feel that way?  

what is it that puts europeans BEHIND north american designers?  is it the available land (or lack thereof)?? is it cultural differences in design theory?? is it technical knowledge?? is it a learning curve??

this is purely curiosity.. not leading, or challenging..

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()