I was surprised yesterday at how many features that could be considered classical popped up at Hulman when they started to remove the trees and open things up.  The 11th hole has a perfectly placed hogs back in the lay up area that can only be described as found by dumb luck given how the hole has stood as a monument to poor design for the last 30 years.  What are other examples of well known features that are there because they had to be and not because of design.  I'm thinking the entire 18th at The Riviera is a prime example...It's not like the course wasn't going to go back to the clubhouse.

Somebody said something yesterday about how classic courses were routed through the weakest enviornment for tree growth.  I'm not sure that makes any sense in the light of day.

JK,
Not trying to be a wise guy but doesn't 'found by accident' imply that they weren't looking for such 'stuff' in the first place?

I'm sure that all great architects make the best use of the natural features of the land when considering the routing.  Shoreacres is a simple example of this concept.  It's clear that Raynor made great use of the meandering ditch on both nines to create interesting cape holes and one with an amazing split fairway.  He also made good use of the ravines on both nines.  His first, ninth, and eighteenth holes are relatively benign in appearance, but this was necessitated by the location of the clubhouse.  The classical features that he placed on the golf course (the so-called template holes) seem perfectly suited to the terrain in retrospect, but they must have made sense to him at the time.

I don't know if I would seek out the weakest environment for tree growth to route holes, but to put some where there are no trees - less clearing $$ - might be the same thing in reverse.

John -

I must be misunderstanding you, because all I can think to say is that "there's no there there".  That is, except for the fact that a golf course exists, any naturally occurring feature would simply be present "somewhere", but certainly not "there"; the "there" you're speaking of is somewhere on a specific golf course, and while the naturally occurring features on that course exist and abound, they can’t be said to exist (or at least, to be situated) "there" independently of that golf course's design (or redesign/renovation). In other words, they've been put "there" (and are not just "somewhere") by virtue of the fact that an architect routed and designed the course around or over or through those features, thus giving them a very specific and identifiable location we can handily describe as being "there".

I said that I must be misunderstanding you because a) I think you know more about all this than I do, and b) your question still seems like one that merits/warrants an answer based on something more than word play.  But that’s what it seems like to me.

Peter

Phil -
thank you. It's a fine article, and just goes to prove that talent always trumps theory.

But to be fair to my theory (and this may be where I'm misunderstanding John's post), I thought he was talking about features that were utilized, not those that might've been but weren't. It's in that context that was I suggesting that the very existence of meaningful features on a golf course can't really be separated from the process of designing the course (happy accidents and all) or from the course in its final form.

Peter    

In my opinion, a lot of good features occur by accident.  A smart architect should be able to recognize these and not try to fix (eliminate) them but where possible, take credit.

John, I'm curious as to the Hulman you refer to.  It wouldn't by chance be Hulman Links in Terre Haute would it?

"John:
It doesn't necessarily invalidate your point, but there is a sketch in George Thomas' book which shows that the second half of the 18th at Riviera was built with an enormous volume of fill.  So, the hole had to go there, but they had to do a lot of deliberate work to make it happen."

TomD:

Really? I was under the impression that the green site, at least, of the 18th of Riviera was a massive "cut" (up into the hillside below the clubhouse). Maybe that's where the "fill" came from for what leads up to the green.

I wouldn't call this "by accident" but the famous "Quarry Hole" of Merion (#16) probably never would've happened if one on the committee hadn't had the bright idea in the middle of the night to trade land to make the first half of that hole happen. The next day they blasted the top off the quarry and the green site was born.

Quote from: Tom_Doak on August 01, 2007, 01:14:23 PM

John:

It doesn't necessarily invalidate your point, but there is a sketch in George Thomas' book which shows that the second half of the 18th at Riviera was built with an enormous volume of fill.  So, the hole had to go there, but they had to do a lot of deliberate work to make it happen.

Thanks for clearing that one up for me.   Any idea how much higher the ridge that I just can't seem to carry was made...Of course I always play from the wrong set of tees into a head wind.

John (and Tom Paul)

from my understanding from Shackleford's book on Riviera, the 'work' was necessary near the green and the approach to the green.  IIRC, there was a large wash which covered the area short of the #18 green which flowed trhough where #3 tee and #2 green (and, so to a lesser extent #10 tee and #9 green).  This was filled in and shaped, and the whole area is now difficult to pick as 'man-made'.

I am not aware of whether there was any 'cut-in' into the hill for #18 green.  It may have occurred but I am not aware of it from my reading to date.

I am not aware of any amendment to the tee-shot on #18 though John.  However, without the work on the wash by the green, the resulting second shot would not be what it is today.  So, perhaps the tee-shot on #18 was there, but the quality of work from the shot point to the green is what completed the hole, and made #2 and #9 greens to be part of what they are today.

By the way, #18 is an amazing hole.  Looking down from the clubhouse, it looks so simple.  A pushover, almost.  So easy to fantasise about where you will be able to get your tee-shot, and then play a shaped wood or a long-iron to the green - the card yardage shows it won't be that impossible, will it?  Then you actually play the tee-shot up the hill and suddenly you discover that you are playing beyond your means, and out of your league.  Such a long way to the top of the hill for your tee-shot, then such a long way to the green for an accurately shaped second, then an embarrassing, longish, uphill third that plays longer than you think after your inevitable failure on the tee-shot and/or second shot.  That memorable 4 that you fantasised about from the clubhouse earlier on is more likely to have become an (unfortunately) unforgettable and tired 6.

The quality of Allenby's three-wood second shot on the 72nd hole there one year became more apparent to me from my visit to Riviera.

I wonder how different modern architects would have bunkered a hole such as Riviera #18 today?


James B

I would like to know how much of Yale was found by accident because of the blasting.

Patrick,

I don't believe that blasting technology in Yale's day was percise enough to eliminate accidental random luck.

James Bennett,

Are you suggesting that the 18th green at Riviera sits on a natural plateau cut into the side of that hill, absent man's involvement ?

Patrick

I don't recall whether blasting was involved or not.  I do remember from the drawing the filling in of the wash in front of the green.  So, it may be that the green is built partly on fill at the front, rather than blasted out of the hill at the back.

It also may be that you are right  (ie cutting into the hill).

I will check Shackleford's book later this evening and check Thomas's sketch of the #18 earthworks.

James B