I'm begining to think it really doesn't matter

« **Reply #25 on:** February 11, 2006, 10:36:14 PM »

Andy,

With respect to "extreme", Webster's Dictionary can provide ample assistance.

There are so many variables when it comes to a golf course that I'd prefer you to view it as Judge Potter Stewart viewed obscenity.

You'll know it when you see it.

« **Reply #26 on:** February 11, 2006, 10:58:05 PM »

Pat,

Corn in that part of the country is irrigated most of the time and you are not going to put a center pivot irrigation system or a combine (mechanical harvester) on that rough of ground. I haven't been to Google Earth but from Terra Server it looks like Wild Horse is on approximatly 300 acres or a half section of land with no sign of a center pivot irrigation system ever having been there. Just because the land around it is corn doesn't mean that Wild Horse was corn. Dick Daley could probably give a better history. I believe that Axland and Proctor with the help of some of the local farmers around Gothenburg enhanced the landscape and I don't think they were cutting down corn stalks to do it.

Gary

« **Reply #27 on:** February 11, 2006, 11:17:07 PM »

What this discussion is missing is the third, perhaps most important factor, money. Give Pete Dye, the budget that Core and Crenshaw created Sand Hills with and you wouldn't have Whistling Straits, you wouldn't even have whistling Dixie, you would have squat. Give an architect that has no designs of distinction a terrible piece of land and an unlimited budget, and chances are he will create a pretty darn good golf course. The lack of fame and budget may have been all that was holding him back. After all, who heard of this Tom Doak character until he got the budget and land for Pacific Dunes?

Everyone thought he was a some kind of golf writer.

« **Reply #28 on:** February 12, 2006, 04:53:07 AM »

Patrick,

Wild Horse is hardly a cornfield and if it ever was one, certainly not the best of cornfields. From what it sounds like, Andy is not referring to the type of topography that Wild Horse presents. While I wouldn't compare walking Wild Horse to climbing a mountain, it's got plenty of elevation change to keep things interesting.

Also, if it can be considered a part of the "land" for the course, the wind obvoiusly allows for plenty of variety in playing conditions. I don't think it applies as a "flat cornfield".

Finally, I don't see how a better site does not yield a better golf course, all else being equal. If you give the same architect the same budget, timeframe, construction company, etc. with one site in the sandhills of Nebraska and another in the flatlands of Florida, it seems pretty obvious that the better piece of land would allow for a better course.

That being said, I think it's also fairly obvious that with nothing being held equal, except the architect, it's possible that the same guy will come up with a better course, but the better site would produce a better course more times than not.

« **Reply #29 on:** February 12, 2006, 08:26:35 AM »

Quote from: Gary_Mahanay on February 11, 2006, 10:58:05 PM

Corn in that part of the country is irrigated most of the time and you are not going to put a center pivot irrigation system or a combine (mechanical harvester) on that rough of ground.

If you'd view Google Earth, you'd see that the golf course is surrounded by pivotal irrigation systems.

If you've never been to Wild Horse how are you qualified to determine how rough the ground is ?[/color]

I haven't been to Google Earth but from Terra Server it looks like Wild Horse is on approximatly 300 acres or a half section of land with no sign of a center pivot irrigation system ever having been there.

What signs would remain if a golf course was built on the property ?[/color]

Just because the land around it is corn doesn't mean that Wild Horse was corn.

Yeah but, it's a pretty good indication that it probably was.[/color]

Dick Daley could probably give a better history.

Which came first, Dick Daley or the golf course ?[/color]

I believe that Axland and Proctor with the help of some of the local farmers around Gothenburg enhanced the landscape and I don't think they were cutting down corn stalks to do it.
How do you know ?[/color]

« **Reply #30 on:** February 12, 2006, 08:45:24 AM »

Ben,
Good post...I can't say whether or not Wild Horse is what I'm thinking of or not, but if it does have some elevation changes its probably not. I looked at a few pictures and its honestly not my favorite style of golf course, but that is a personal preference as opposed to adding to a debate about land for golf.
Since Pat has given me the capability of determining "extreme sites" by my own eye, I certainly would not label flat featureless land as an extreme, but I couldn't find anything in Webster's to assist with further research into the matter

Garland makes a good point as well...the budget issues with a course certainly have a large impact as well. I personally think that land has the largest impact, but the hand of the architect and the budget provided certainly cannot be negated.

« **Reply #31 on:** February 12, 2006, 08:46:36 AM »

Quote from: Ben Voelker on February 12, 2006, 04:53:07 AM

Wild Horse is hardly a cornfield and if it ever was one, certainly not the best of cornfields. From what it sounds like, Andy is not referring to the type of topography that Wild Horse presents. While I wouldn't compare walking Wild Horse to climbing a mountain, it's got plenty of elevation change to keep things interesting.

How would you compare the topography at Sand Hills to that of Wild Horse ? Wild Horse does have some elevation changes, but, it's a relatively flat site.[/color]

Also, if it can be considered a part of the "land" for the course, the wind obvoiusly allows for plenty of variety in playing conditions. I don't think it applies as a "flat cornfield".

The wind has nothing to do with the topography.
If you'll look at Google Earth you'll see cornfields immediately adjacent to the golf course.

Doesn't the wind blow on those cornfields ?
Or, does it avoid the thousands of cornfields in the area and only blow on golf courses ?[/color]

Finally, I don't see how a better site does not yield a better golf course,

It depends upon what the architect creates, the final product, and not the relative quality of the land.[/color]

all else being equal.

But all else isn't equal[/color]

If you give the same architect the same budget, timeframe, construction company, etc. with one site in the sandhills of Nebraska and another in the flatlands of Florida, it seems pretty obvious that the better piece of land would allow for a better course.

Not necessarily.

How would you evaluate Dick Wilson's products at Pine Tree and Deepdale ?

It would depend upon the quality of his creative juices while he was involved with each golf course.

Are there other golf courses in the Sand Hills ?
How do they compare to Sand Hills ?
Are there other golf courses not that far from Wild Horse ?
How do they compare to Wild Horse ?

But, again, this isn't the issue.

You and others continue to fail to grasp the concept, which is, the land doesn't matter, it's the architect's creative genius that determines the quality of the golf course.

Dead Flat land can yield a great golf course, but, only if the architect has the creative talent to design it.

Pine Tree and Boca Rio are perfect examples of dead flat land yielding great golf courses

Please stop viewing the thread in the context of relativity.[/color]

That being said, I think it's also fairly obvious that with nothing being held equal, except the architect, it's possible that the same guy will come up with a better course, but the better site would produce a better course more times than not.

A "better site" tends to be a retrospective determination based on the quality of the final product produced, and nothing more.

[/color]

Andy,

You're missing the point, way off base, cold and getting colder.

See, see the ball, be, be the ball.

Go to courses by country, look up Boca Rio, a dead flat site, and see what was produced. Look up Garden City and Hollywood, relatively flat, unremarkable sites, an see what was produced.

It's not the land, it's the architect, if the land was the determining and defining factor, you wouldn't need an architect, any armchair idiot would be able to design a good golf course.

Then

« **Reply #32 on:** February 12, 2006, 08:51:30 AM »

One needs to look no further than the evolution of Sebonack to know Pat is right.

Did I say that out loud?

« **Reply #33 on:** February 12, 2006, 08:55:57 AM »

Pat,
How would you compare the Rawls Cse to Pacific Dunes? As Mr. Doak I believe said, the Rawls was somewhat of a blank canvas (seemingly the flat type of land being described), whereas Pacific Dunes is considered to be a wonderful site? What percentage of people do you think prefer the Rawls Course of those two?

« **Reply #34 on:** February 12, 2006, 08:56:17 AM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on February 12, 2006, 08:51:30 AM

One needs to look no further than the EVOLUTION of Sebonack to know Pat is right.

Did I say that out loud?

I hadn't thought of that, but, it's a good point and a worthwhile exercise.

Would Nicklaus's original routings and hole designs have yielded a better golf course ?

After all, the land is admitedly GREAT

Thanks Adam.[/color]

Andy,

I've never seen the Rawls course, or site, so I"m unqualified to comment.

And preference isn't the issue.

Nor are the views.

You still aren't grasping the concept.

See the above comment by Adam Clayman and my response, then maybe you'll begin to understand what I'm referencing

« **Reply #35 on:** February 12, 2006, 09:07:46 AM »

Patrick,
I think I understand the concept, the land doesn't matter. A good architect will design a good course no matter what the land, and a poor architect will design a poor course no matter what the land. Is that your basic point?

« **Reply #36 on:** February 12, 2006, 09:15:50 AM »

Quote from: Andy Troeger on February 12, 2006, 09:07:46 AM

I think I understand the concept, the land doesn't matter. A good architect will design a good course no matter what the land, and a poor architect will design a poor course no matter what the land. Is that your basic point?

You're getting warmer.

But, it's more complicated than that.

Is every work an architect produces equal in architectural value, allowing for the differences in the land ?[/color]

« **Reply #37 on:** February 12, 2006, 09:23:24 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on February 12, 2006, 09:15:50 AM

Quote from: Andy Troeger on February 12, 2006, 09:07:46 AM

I think I understand the concept, the land doesn't matter. A good architect will design a good course no matter what the land, and a poor architect will design a poor course no matter what the land. Is that your basic point?

You're getting warmer.

But, it's more complicated than that.

Is every work an architect produces equal in architectural value, allowing for the differences in the land ?[/color]

To me the obvious answer is no...but I'm curious what you'll say that that

« **Reply #38 on:** February 12, 2006, 09:46:57 AM »

Andy,

If an architect's product varies because of the particular uniqueness of his creative process wouldn't the collective of his work be more representative of his talents, rather than a select number of his better works ?

Can anyone hit a home run ?

« **Reply #39 on:** February 12, 2006, 10:18:41 AM »

Pat,
I would agree with your first statement, although its certainly more complicated than that, but continue on...

And no...I think there are many people who are not capable of hitting a home run, literally or figuratively.

« **Reply #40 on:** February 12, 2006, 10:44:53 AM »

"TEPaul,
Just because one site may have advantages over another doesn't mean a thing. This is not a comparitive exercise."

Patrick:

Golf course architecture sure as hell is a comparative excercise, unless you just choose to disregard reality which frankly you are pretty good at with some of the things you float on this website.

The advantages of one raw site over another sure as hell does mean something unless you're trying to bury your head in unreality and just disregard the collective opinions of most every good architect in the history of the art form and business.

Can one architect screw up a great site while another can maximize it architecturally? Of course

Can one architect build a better golf course on a shitty piece of raw land than some other architect? Of course.

Neither indicates that the quality of the raw site is meaningless.

« **Reply #41 on:** February 12, 2006, 11:31:55 AM »

TEPaul,

Not surprisingly, you still don't understand the thread.

Look at York.

Look at Sebonack.

Look at Pine Tree

Look at Seminole

Do you not see that the land doesn't really matter ?

It's what the creative genius within the architect formulates within that land that is relevant.

All too often the quality of the site is judged in the context of the finished product that's been created on that land.

If a site had to be sand capped, would it be considered a good site ?

« **Reply #42 on:** February 12, 2006, 11:36:50 AM »

TEPaul,

Easthampton is a terrible site, yet C&C, in combination with the original routers designed and built a wonderful golf course.

So, again, the site doesn't matter.

It's the creative genius of the architect that produces good golf courses irrespective of the site.

« **Reply #43 on:** February 12, 2006, 11:41:40 AM »

I never got my initial post on this thread, must have been a snafu. There is no single answer for the land mattering as there are so many different styles of architecture and definitions of good to great that true, it only matters what your taste is. We all have greatness in our minds.

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on February 11, 2006, 08:09:46 PM

Quote from: Paul_Turner on February 11, 2006, 07:17:38 PM

No architects are overrated- it's the land that matters.
Shadow Creek ?

Shadow Creek is an engineering marvel, showing that an architect can only be limited by a budget. SC is a marvel, but not an architectural marvel. It was exactly what Steve Wynn wanted, but great architecture is is not.

I can't comment on Lido, when were you there, Pat?

p.s. I especially like the second nine at Easthampton, but the first nine had so many pre-exixting limitations that only kool-aid drinkers will call it great.

« **Reply #44 on:** February 12, 2006, 11:51:39 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on February 12, 2006, 08:26:35 AM

Quote from: Gary_Mahanay on February 11, 2006, 10:58:05 PM

Corn in that part of the country is irrigated most of the time and you are not going to put a center pivot irrigation system or a combine (mechanical harvester) on that rough of ground.

If you'd view Google Earth, you'd see that the golf course is surrounded by pivotal irrigation systems.

Yes, and see the corners of that land that those center pivots are on? The corners of Wild Horse except for possibly the northeast and maybe the southeast corner of the property don't look like that.

If you've never been to Wild Horse how are you qualified to determine how rough the ground is ?[/color]

Well, I did stay at a Hoiday Inn Express last night. Pat, on Terra Server the topo map of the property for Wild Horse shows some elevation change and there is a creek maybe dry that is labeled the Gothenburg Canal that runs through the property. Now I'm not qualified to read topo maps but those contour lines are pretty close together. So if some farmer could get a center pivot irrigation system to jump that creek and climb those contours then he ought to win Nebraska's corn farmer of the year.

I haven't been to Google Earth but from Terra Server it looks like Wild Horse is on approximatly 300 acres or a half section of land with no sign of a center pivot irrigation system ever having been there.

What signs would remain if a golf course was built on the property ?[/color]

Maybe the corner of the property would look different.

Just because the land around it is corn doesn't mean that Wild Horse was corn.

Yeah but, it's a pretty good indication that it probably was.[/color]

No, it really isn't.

Dick Daley could probably give a better history.

Which came first, Dick Daley or the golf course ?[/color]

Well, I thought that Mr. Daley was in his late 50's or early 60's and Wild Horse opened in 1999 so if my math is correct Mr. Daley came before the golf course.

I believe that Axland and Proctor with the help of some of the local farmers around Gothenburg enhanced the landscape and I don't think they were cutting down corn stalks to do it.
How do you know ?[/color]

From Dick Daley's comments in the My Home Course section and the segment in the Wandering Golfer series on the Fine Living Channel yesterday afternoon.

« **Reply #45 on:** February 12, 2006, 11:59:59 AM »

I'm not so sure I would consider Sebonack and Seminole's sites as boring or bad sites considering how close they are to the water.

I also don't think that anyone would disagree that the higher quality the architect the less the site matters in the overall architectural quality of the course. However in the eyes of the player that does not look closely at or notice architecture then the quality of the site matters a ton.

I can't help but think of things I've read about TOC as an example. I understand that for many recreational golfers playing it for the first time they feel like they are going around some flat goofy muni course!

« **Reply #46 on:** February 12, 2006, 12:18:25 PM »

It doesn't matter, and it shouldn't matter.

Remember, the type of ground favored today developed from the placement of courses on the ground available. There was no "ideal" golf ground 200 years ago. We came to that ideal through trial and error, and as technology and construction techniques allow us to adapt to different terrain - we may find more ideal golf ground.

Furthermore, the adaption of golf to other forms of terrain does, and will continue to, usher in new hole and course types. If we stick golf courses on similar terrain as done in the past, the game's designs will stagnate.

Architects using the crutch of an ideal site, to me, aren't as creative... sure, they may be able to copy what's been done in the past and there is talent and art in being able to fit golf to an ideal site... but how much of the work is actually seminal?

As a third point, golf can no longer afford to he be choosy and picky about the site it is played on. We can't afford to wait out the ideal site and make our 300 acre footprint on the land. Architecture needs to be more adaptable and more creative to survive.

« **Reply #47 on:** February 12, 2006, 01:02:07 PM »

Pat,

I hate to sound too supportive of your views because more often than not I like to find myself disagreeing with you. On this point however you are right, a fine architect can make a miserable site wonderful.

Taking up on Rans thread a bit, I would like to throw Greywalls out there as a perfect example of this. The site originally was a rocky waste of a hilltop. We used to hike, climb, and bike up there when I was young. There is no way in hell anyone would have thought "golf course" when they looked at that property in the seventies.

Today it is lauded as an excellent golf course "well sited" and "taking advantage of the stunning lake views". Only a good architect could have even envisioned the course let alone turned out such a gem.

As I said earlier, a great architect can make a great course from next to nothing, a mediocre architect could ruin a great site.

As an example of the latter, I would not dare say that MCC was a course that ruined the sites potential, but if you look at the rework that Mike Stranz did there, he clearly improved the way the course takes advantage of the property.

My vote would be architect first, property second. That being said however, I am sure every architect out there would rather be working with a fine dunes property along the ocean, than a waste dump on a hilltop in the middle of nowhere.

« **Reply #48 on:** February 12, 2006, 01:20:42 PM »

Quote from: Gary_Mahanay on February 12, 2006, 11:51:39 AM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on February 12, 2006, 08:26:35 AM
Quote from: Gary_Mahanay on February 11, 2006, 10:58:05 PM

Corn in that part of the country is irrigated most of the time and you are not going to put a center pivot irrigation system or a combine (mechanical harvester) on that rough of ground.

If you'd view Google Earth, you'd see that the golf course is surrounded by pivotal irrigation systems.[/color]

Yes, and see the corners of that land that those center pivots are on? The corners of Wild Horse except for possibly the northeast and maybe the southeast corner of the property don't look like that.

Only because they've been allowed to go fallow.[/color]

If you've never been to Wild Horse how are you qualified to determine how rough the ground is ?[/color]

Well, I did stay at a Hoiday Inn Express last night. Pat, on Terra Server the topo map of the property for Wild Horse shows some elevation change and there is a creek maybe dry that is labeled the Gothenburg Canal that runs through the property.

It doesn't run through the golf course, it runs south of it.
Please, do your homework before commenting on the golf course.[/color]
[size=4x]
Now I'm not qualified to read topo maps [/size] but those contour lines are pretty close together. So if some farmer could get a center pivot irrigation system to jump that creek and climb those contours then he ought to win Nebraska's corn farmer of the year.

There's no need to jump the creek, it's not part of the golf course.

The golf course is to the north of it, just where the land is suitable for irrigation.[/color]

I haven't been to Google Earth but from Terra Server it looks like Wild Horse is on approximatly 300 acres or a half section of land with no sign of a center pivot irrigation system ever having been there.

Then you need to go to google earth.[/color]

What signs would remain if a golf course was built on the property ?[/color]

[size=4x]
Maybe [/size] the corner of the property would look different.

Just because the land around it is corn doesn't mean that Wild Horse was corn.

Yeah but, it's a pretty good indication that it probably was.[/color]

No, it really isn't.

Dick Daley could probably give a better history.

Which came first, Dick Daley or the golf course ?[/color]

Well, I thought that Mr. Daley was in his late 50's or early 60's and Wild Horse opened in 1999 so if my math is correct Mr. Daley came before the golf course.

Dick Daley is from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where he's lived and continues to live. He came to Wild Horse after the golf course was built.

Besides, he hangs out with nefarious, ex-marines who wear paisley colored shirts, why would you take his word for it ?[/color]

I believe that Axland and Proctor with the help of some of the local farmers around Gothenburg enhanced the landscape and I don't think they were cutting down corn stalks to do it.
How do you know ?[/color]

From Dick Daley's comments in the My Home Course section and the segment in the Wandering Golfer series on the Fine Living Channel yesterday afternoon.

But, Dick Daley never saw the property before the golf course was there.[/color]

« **Reply #49 on:** February 12, 2006, 01:30:42 PM »

Quote from: Dave Bourgeois on February 12, 2006, 11:59:59 AM

I'm not so sure I would consider Sebonack and Seminole's sites as boring or bad sites considering how close they are to the water.

Where did I EVER say that the sites at Sebonack and Seminole were boring or bad sites ?

You need to re-read the thread, you apparently don't understand some of the posts.[/color]

I also don't think that anyone would disagree that the higher quality the architect the less the site matters in the overall architectural quality of the course.

But, some have disagreed with that.[/color]

However in the eyes of the player that does not look closely at or notice architecture then the quality of the site matters a ton.

This is not a "players" site, it's an "architectural" site.[/color]

I can't help but think of things I've read about TOC as an example. I understand that for many recreational golfers playing it for the first time they feel like they are going around some flat goofy muni course!

What's the source of that information ?

Was that their understanding when they requested tee times ?

Was that their understanding when they walked off the 18th green ?[/color]

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Gary_Mahanay

Garland Bayley

Ben Voelker

Patrick_Mucci

Andy Troeger

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

Andy Troeger

Patrick_Mucci

Andy Troeger

Patrick_Mucci

Andy Troeger

Patrick_Mucci

Andy Troeger

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

redanman

Gary_Mahanay

Dave Bourgeois

Kyle Harris

Paul Payne

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci