Question for the architects...

Other than the obvious ease of use, and probably time/cost, what are the inherent advantanges/disadvantages between the equipment available to the golden era architects vs. what you have at your disposal now? Is their anything they could do with their stuff that you have difficulty doing with yours and vice versa?

Dont know why this came to mind, I was reading Geoff's book on Cypress Point and the talk about "Fresno Scrapers" (I have no idea what that means, sorry). Just got me curious as to if the look of the older courses could be in some part to the equipment or lack thereof back in the day.

Also, would the level of authenticity achieved by building a course in such a manner (Old MacDonald comes screaming to mind) be worth the expected time/cost to do, and do you think anyone other than those who frequent this site would even understand what was being done if you did build a course that way..... Thanks.

So you don't think the "D-9 Look" is authentic?  It seems to me that there are a few shapes that are pretty easy to make with big equipment, and those shapes dominate the golf landscape. Those shapes can make lovely views and some pleasant golf, but I've also had an OK meal at the Olive Garden.  

Tom D's comment that it takes "smarts" is the best way to look at this. If you are looking to re-create a particular look, a smart shaper can attain that, even with modern equipment. It may not be large — a D9 is mostly for very rough work and pushing material. (Although we have a shaper that is great on a D8, and he can create very small bunkers even with the rather large blade.)

There are some other aspects to this...

The subtle ground undulations on some older courses are settled pockets and "mistakes" if you will. There is debate on whether every classic era designer would have wanted that, or whether they would — had they had the equipment and resources — made fairways smoother and more blended.

And, soils themselves create many subtle variations. On a sandy site it is nearly unavoidable to attain perfection as sand will blow and roll (like small ball bearings) and the result is dips, pockets, ripples, etc.  On clay and more stable soils it is possible to retain shapes and grades better. Also, it is more essential that these soils not have any birdbaths (small dips) as they will likely cause drainage issues. Whereas on sandy sites, dips and depressions that may hold water is not typically a problem.

"As much" would imply that you arde looking for the norm. The norm is probably dozers — 450s, D5, D6, etc.  

The finesse builders and architects tend to use excavators, track-hoes, and smaller dozers. Forrest Fezler, who worked with Mike Strantz, almost exclusively uses track-hoes with buckets — even for fairway shaping. Bob Cats are used, but we don't see them much except for hauling gravel, sand, etc.

A shaper that we worked with liked to use a 950 loader to shape. That is rare, but he liked the fact that he could scoop up a large amount of soil and place it. He was magic with the 950 — I once saw him cut a 6-foot rattlesnake in half with the bucket. The snake had become a liability and was guarding a pile of rocks. This shaper had had enough and waited for the snake to rise up and attack — upon which he became snake meat. It was an unfair contest — but he would not have lasted very long with all the equipment and workers. I believe some of the Mexican laborers ate it for lunch.

I have access to this earthmoving piece of equipment.  Unfortunately, right now I don't own a plow horse.  However, I bet could find one if I had to do so.

Peter:

I don't think it's the equipment, it's the people.  But I think the general attitude is that if you're not moving earth on a big scale that the course needs more small-scale interest, and if you're not blessed with that naturally, you will use smaller equipment to provide some more of the small-scale interest.

It's also where you choose to start moving earth vs. resisting the temptation.  There are many places on a course where it would be nearly impossible to hide a major cut (removal of soil).  If your definition of minimalism includes "hiding the work you have done," then you have to know how to work around those areas.

Kyle — I have never seen a minimalist project built with no eqipmnent. The closest, I think, is the occasion where a sand based site is smoothed out with light weight equipment and areas cleared. Even the most minalmist and natural site is worked with loads of equipment.

Well, among the available icons, you picked well.

I think one of the main misconceptions of many who frequent here is that, somehow, a natural site produces a minalmist course with almost no effort.

Forgotton amid this perception is routing, soil logistics, topsoil management, drainage, hazard creation, irrigation, and integration to the balance of the course/routing.

Over the past year+ I went out and visited a project that is regularly cited here as being "a natural course intergated to the land". Yes, it is beautiful — but many thousand yards of soil were moved to create this effect and make it a playable course. Among the 18 greens are only a couple that truly set into the natural terrain with only a bit of work. The others involved taking 5% and greater slopes and rendering then into putt-able green complexes. In some cases ten feet or more of fill was added to the backs of green areas so a ball could be held at the green. Painstaking re-planting of natural vegetation was added to make the finished product look as it it had been there for ages.

One of the benefits of GCA is for professionals and enthusiasts (and students) to learn from posts. This thread is an excellent opportunity to dig (pun ) into the matter of just what goes into making golf courses, and how — very often — we are led to believe that there is somehow a magic path that does not involve earthmoving or artificial effort.  

A question for the architects, how often do you find a proposed fairway that needs no earthwork at all? And to clarify we are talking about the beginning of the front edge of the FW to the approach lets say 20 yards before the front of the green. Do most sites have subtle undulations and bumps that a topo with 2' contours does not pick up?

I ran around on a bobcat a good bit at Colorado GC last summer, but it was for grow-in work and not shaping. Mostly hauling around dirt and sand. Is there a big difference in equipment used in shaping the minimalist look?

I would say there is a big difference between minimalism and the "minimalist look".....whichcould require a lot of earth moving.....
AND IMHO the difference is not modern equipment as much as the width of the blades that are used.....one can use some of the small mini excavators and acheive the same as yesterday....

Arthur Snyder (father of Arthur Jack Snyder) built several bunkers at Oakmont when he worked there during the early 1900s. I recall Jack relating that his father often remarked how they wish — back then — that they had had the modern (large) equipment we have today. It was always my understanding that the Fownes' were very innovative in equipment — using many of the earliest versions of mechanical equipment, including very eraly dozer-type equipment. Art Snyder also related using horses.

Thanks all for the thoughts on this with real experience in the field.  As an enthusiast myself, these are the real gem threads that I love to read and learn to try to get a feel for the real nuts and bolts of creating a course.

Agreed!  Thanks to all for the input.

Thanks for that Tom,

When I think about the 7th, 8th, and 16th fairways at PD, and that they were untouched that is just amazing to come accross such natural sites to put a golf hole.