[TEPaul]

TomD:

I thought of this thread and question because of the thread on amateur architects.

My question to you is this;

If you had a project that was basically just your own or you had complete control over the architecture of it as apparently George Crump did at Pine Valley, would you do something different than you have ever done before or perhaps even plan on doing in the future?

If the answer is yes I am not asking you to explain what it might be or even why. I'm only asking if the answer is yes or no.

In my own opinion, you have been particularly honest in your opinions on architecture in the past and because of that I think this is a good question for you!

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

The answer to that question is yes.

At the start of every project, we consider carefully what is different about this project than others we have done, and what would be able to do here that we haven't been able to do before.

I've been lucky on a few projects to have what some of my clients have described as "total freedom" to design what I thought was best -- I'd say this was most true for me at High Pointe and Barnbougle Dunes, because the clients in both cases didn't impose themselves at any point.  However, even in those cases, I felt compelled to try and produce a course that would be profitable for them, whereas if I built one on my own, I wouldn't have that consideration, and I would be more free to build things that contradicted conventional wisdom.

You will be interested to know that I'm on the verge of having such a project, of sorts -- it is a two-course project and my condition on taking the job would be that I could do ANYTHING I wanted on the second course.  Of course I won't get the first choice of ground -- I will have to reserve that for the course that intends to be profitable.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Thanks for the answer and particularly the part about a second course on a project where you'll have the opportunity to do exactly as you wish with no restrictions on what you can and cannot do.

If and when you do it that way I think you'll find and feel what a guy like George Crump had in his years creating Pine Valley.

[Mark_F]

However, even in those cases, I felt compelled to try and produce a course that would be profitable for them, whereas if I built one on my own, I wouldn't have that consideration, and I would be more free to build things that contradicted conventional wisdom.

Tom,

Why do you have the belief that something that contradicted conventional wisdom would not be profitable?

After all, the 8th and 13th holes are Barnbougle are hardly run of the mill.

Or do you mean the course will have features that would take many rounds, and many tries, to begin to understand, and as public courses, the two you mentioned needed to provide the punters with an immediate rush?

I still don't quite see how going against the grain should affect profitability - or is it that the people involved in marketing golf courses are useless?  A good marketer should be able to sell anything, if the product is good and priced accordingly.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark F:

Barnbougle was probably the most freedom I've ever had to design a course.  Richard Sattler was happy to let me do WHATEVER I wanted, so once we settled down Greg R., it was a full go.  When we built that 13th green I remarked to Brian Schneider that I probably wouldn't have built it in the USA -- Mike Keiser certainly wouldn't have let me build it at Pacific Dunes, anyway -- but we could get away with it in Tasmania because we needed something to attract golfers and if it didn't attract them, nobody would notice, anyway.  

Still, I didn't go off the deep end.  I didn't build a 6200 yard par 68.  I didn't have holes overlapping each other as much as I might.  There were lots of crazy things we didn't try.  Someday, somewhere, I hope to try them.  But it'll be riskier than the typical venture, so I think it's wise to insulate most clients from that.

Ultimately, though, that is why Forrest Richardson was disappointed by the lack of "breakthroughs" in his other thread -- it is because everyone is playing it safe in building new projects and nobody seems to have the courage to do something REALLY different.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tom,  I have not played High Point in about fifteen years but sill remember most of the holes, especially 18 which I don't think I ever, in about five tries, parred.  It may be unfair but if you were to go back there what changes would you make.  Cosmetic changes to the bunkers?  Changes in the slope of some greens?  Routing?  Just curious because as far as I know it was your first course.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom D.,

In reference to the freedom you felt designing Barnbougle, I'm curious to know more about Clayton's imput. Just coming off a co-design deal, I can't imagine you guys were on the same page throughout the entire process. If you were, great!

I'm curious. Comment from you and Mike is appreciated.  

[Bill_McBride]

Tom, did you see anything at Painswick when we all played there that has influenced design thoughts later on?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeez, I feel like the prime minister, without the grunts of approval or jeers of disagreement.

Tommy:  I wouldn't want to change High Pointe much.  There are a few small things I've looked at over the years, and a couple of bigger ones, but it is a period piece and I don't think any of those changes would really matter at all to their clientele, nor would they be significant enough to change the Doak Scale rating of the course.  I wish I'd cleared more of the trees in the back of the property, but that's much too big a job now, and all the ferns and sumac underneath that I wanted to preserve has been crowded out.  So, other than fixing some rough finish work (which they haven't bothered to get to in twenty years!) and maybe avoiding the area of the 18th hole entirely, I would not rip it up.

Jeff:  I'm not about to go dissecting Mike's role at Barnbougle, any more than I will dissect my disagreements with Jack at Sebonack.  Let's just say that Mike and I were more on the same page to start with, so we didn't disagree all that much.

[Sean_A]

Mark F:

Barnbougle was probably the most freedom I've ever had to design a course.  Richard Sattler was happy to let me do WHATEVER I wanted, so once we settled down Greg R., it was a full go.  When we built that 13th green I remarked to Brian Schneider that I probably wouldn't have built it in the USA -- Mike Keiser certainly wouldn't have let me build it at Pacific Dunes, anyway -- but we could get away with it in Tasmania because we needed something to attract golfers and if it didn't attract them, nobody would notice, anyway.  

Still, I didn't go off the deep end.  I didn't build a 6200 yard par 68.  I didn't have holes overlapping each other as much as I might.  There were lots of crazy things we didn't try.  Someday, somewhere, I hope to try them.  But it'll be riskier than the typical venture, so I think it's wise to insulate most clients from that.

Ultimately, though, that is why Forrest Richardson was disappointed by the lack of "breakthroughs" in his other thread -- it is because everyone is playing it safe in building new projects and nobody seems to have the courage to do something REALLY different.

So Tom, did you consider building a sub 70 par/sub 6500 yard course at Barnbougle?  If not, why?

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

You have to extend the perameters of your question to Tom Doak.

The scenario you presented isn't the one Crump faced.

Crump was designing a chamipionship golf course for his peers and his friends in the general Philadelphia area.

A club that he would belong to.

A club with a purpose.

A club where every member could approach and question him on the prudence of each design feature.
[size=4x]
It's easy to spend someone else's money.
[/size]
Crump invested his own money in the project.

So, you can't get too quirky when you're money's on the line and you want to attract and retain a viable membership.

I like user friendly golf courses.
That doesn't mean that they can't present a difficult challenge for the better player, only that they're enjoyable to play.

WIDTH is a KEY factor in that equation.

WIDTH provides that margins of error needed by the higher handicap golfer.

WIDTH to the better player doesn't provide the incremental benefit.

Having said all that, if you gave Tom Doak free reign over the architecture, it would have to be in the context of spending his own money and designing a course that would need to attract and retain members.

 

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I think I have a pretty good idea what Crump was attempting to accomplish, even with various particulars, when he built Pine Valley, and I believe he basically had total control of the way the course would be, particularly as time wore on.

But if Tom Doak has the opportunity to design and build a golf course with total control of what it will be I certainly don't know that he would have any of the same ideas of what it should be that Crump had back then.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I thought the second paragraph of the passage you quoted explained that pretty well.  

No, we didn't consider a shorter course for Barnbougle.  We had to be conscious of attracting golfers to come way out of their way to get there from mainland Australia ... so the course needed to have some features that would be talked about, but it couldn't have been so unconventional in its makeup that most people would dismiss it without going.

The perfect place for a very short layout full of character is right in the midst of a bunch of longer and duller ones, where it will provide maximum contrast.

[TEPaul]

Pat (and Tom):

It appears one of the things Crump was most interested in getting from Harry Colt is a good and comprehensive plan of what kind of balance and variety to get on this course. By that I mean the kind of shot values and shot demands on particular holes and also one of Crump's particular inclinations seemed to have been to try to get those shot values and shot demands with particular holes in somewhat the same places on both nines. Of particular interest seems to have been how many so-called "drive and pitch" holes to have and Colt's recommendation apparently was one on each nine. This idea of basically testing every shot and club in the bag was very much on his mind and it was very much stated. A course with adequate length was also on his mind due to the change in the golf ball. (The originally planned length of PV (6700) in relation to shot demand and shot value of that time would probably be something akin to a 7500 yard course today).

Had Crump lived I believe some of Pine Valley's holes would've been somewhat different than they are today and I believe I know what most of those differences would've been.

And, in my opinion, some of the iterations for holes that he apparently considered but may've never done probably would've made the course even better than it is. This very much includes one iteration he apparently had considered with #14 and how that would've somewhat changed #15, #16 and even #17. And had he lived, I think #6, #7, #9, #11 and even #13 would've been quite to somewhat different than they are today.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I proposed a short par 4 where playing past the green on the drive was a realistic or even intended play.  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=32102

When you speak of trying new things, are you thinking of things on a magnitude as this?  Or as you alluded to, something more along the lines of TOC with reversible routings, crossing fairways, etc?  Or perhaps more holes along the likes of 6 and 16 at PD?

Kalen

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, Does total control imply picking the site?

Was Bobby Jones the last architect to search for the perfect site?

[TEPaul]

Kalen:

I proposed that exact same concept on this website maybe five or six years ago except I named it like I do most things in architecture.  

I called it the "playback" hole or concept and it's back there in the back pages somewhere. I'd try to find it for you and bring it up but I actually don't know how to use the search engine on this website---I've never even tried it.

I thought of the idea one time when I was playing Longue Vue in Pittsburgh and I turned around and looked back at one of the greens as I was walking to the next tee and I thought to myself----My God, that's a green that one could play passed and come back in some other iteration.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:

I proposed that exact same concept on this website maybe five or six years ago except I named it like I do most things in architecture.  

I called it the "playback" hole or concept and it's back there in the back pages somewhere. I'd try to find it for you and bring it up but I actually don't know how to use the search engine on this website---I've never even tried it.

I thought of the idea one time when I was playing Longue Vue in Pittsburgh and I turned around and looked back at one of the greens as I was walking to the next tee and I thought to myself----My God, that's a green that one could play passed and come back in some other iteration.

Tom Paul,

I found out that a few other people had proposed this as well including Paul Cowley, so we'll add you to the list, or me to yours I guess.  It looks like its gaining some momentum though.  

This same concept could also be implemented in a bit of a less radical manner if it was used on a short par 5.  On the 2nd shot, one could attempt to go for the green or play over the green to have the best look in for thier 3rd.  Perhaps this implementation would be more "accepted".

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

Control, and/or total control has to contexted within the framework of the objective or goal.

It can't be viewed as purely artistic, without limits or consequences.

Crump intended to design and build a championship golf course that would be populated with members who PAID their way into the club.  He didn't design and build PV to be viewed by outsiders as an exhibit.

While quirk may be a reflection of artistic license, it can't be overdone if one is intending to sell the finished product to prospective members.

[Tom_Doak]

Kalen:

Years ago, I had designed a par-5 with a "back door" entrance such as you describe.  Unfortunately, it was for a job I didn't get -- Karsten Creek at Oklahoma State University -- so I never got to build the hole.

The hole played along a ravine to its right, and the green was sited just beyond a narrow, deep swale that ran along its left side and then down in front into the ravine.  If you were going for the green in two, you had to risk the hazards to both sides, but you could take the swale out of play by going long and slightly left.

I have always had that hole in the back of my mind to build again somewhere, but I've yet to see the right place for it.

[TEPaul]

"This same concept could also be implemented in a bit of a less radical manner if it was used on a short par 5.  On the 2nd shot, one could attempt to go for the green or play over the green to have the best look in for thier 3rd.  Perhaps this implementation would be more "accepted"."


Kalen:

I don't know TOC very well but apparently this is a strategy Bob Jones figured out on one of the par 5 holes and wrote about although I think he elected to play more to the side of a green rather than past it. He also wrote about a strategy something like this that he was amazed that Joyce Wethered figured out at TOC and used frequently.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

That was Jones's strategy on the Road Hole; that is to play left of the green and pretty much ensure nothing worse than a 5.

[Kye Goalby]

The short par five with a "back door" already exists.  The 18th hole at Kokopelli GC in Marion, Illinois (the town where Pete Rose was in prison) has this exact option where the  best angle for a third shot approach  is the fairway long left behind the green.  It is reached by hitting over  a huge swath of bunkers, specialty of the architect, Steve Smyers.

Kokopelli is a great bargain, I played this summer for the Monday rate of $18, cart included- not bad to have when its 101 degrees at 11 am.

[TEPaul]

KYE GOALBY?!!!!

As I live and breath!!!

Very nice to see you on here again amigo! Don't let the fact that your post total after all these years is now over ten go to your head Kye.

Happy New Year

Oh yes, just one question---Have you made an honest woman out of her yet?

[Kalen Braley]

Just another quick thought as it relates to this topic of building whatever you want.

I know this has been brought up/mentioned before, but suppose a site with good soil became available but was basically flat.  And assuming one had the resources, one could go down to the local college on summer break, hire a couple of english majors, put em on a couple of dozers and let them rip up the property for a couple of months.  No instructions other than how to operate the equipment and to go f'ing nuts.  

Then after they are done, route a course thru it.  It would be interesting to see what could come of it.....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()