Go ahead and subtract drainage and the myriad engineering aspects, and the artistic side of golf course architecture is still a maddening puzzle.  Some of you guys may be giving yourselves too much credit.  

Just start with designing a playing field that must accomodate players of such wildly varying skills that many aren't even playing the same game.  That's the basic math of the thing, and the guys who are good are doing calculus and beyond.

A good drummer can have four different things going on all at once, any of which may or may not be simple, and make the whole conglomeration make sense.  Same sort of thing our pals are out there doing.

Were the artistic aspects of gca easy I don't think we'd be wasting our time here, 'cause after all, who really cares about drainage?

Would anybody be willing to give a shot at it? We could organise the 1st golfclubatlas.com Amateur Design Contest or alternatively "design" something for the pro's on the site to have a look at.

I think I could provide most of the materials for such a task, including the necessary maps, basic soil data, some photos, some weather data, etc.

Guy's in the business wouldn't be allowed to participate but someone would have to give feedback on the outcome, otherwise no point, of course.

Would something like this be doable?

In 2000 I moved to Houston.
For the next five years I helped every architect, developer, superintendent and contractor that would let me - anywhere for any price.
During that time I did cultivate some existing clubs as clients.
I got my first new course design project over 1 year ago.
Just last night I redesigned 1 hole on paper (it hadn't been built yet) to fit better into the course - it was a nice hole individually, but the new one will fit better with the course.  We will begin building it next week - and I will be making modifications in the field.
I am about 2,000 hours into the project.
I am not doing it alone.
Hope that helps.
Cheers

Disclaimer:  I am far from average, and was far from average when I worked with a bunch of rocket scientists and engineers.

I smell a goat. Barney re-builds his Bendelow!

Would anybody be willing to give a shot at it? We could organise the 1st golfclubatlas.com Amateur Design Contest or alternatively "design" something for the pro's on the site to have a look at.

I think I could provide most of the materials for such a task, including the necessary maps, basic soil data, some photos, some weather data, etc.

Guy's in the business wouldn't be allowed to participate but someone would have to give feedback on the outcome, otherwise no point, of course.

Would something like this be doable?

We've had a few.  It was fun, but nothing like the real thing.  Unless someone creates "simgolf course design" we will never know what it is like to consider

budgets
weather
clients wishes
realities such as the materials you want to use are unavailable
what is the property like

just for starters

Scrawling out 18 strategic holes on a piece of paper just doesn't cut it.

Michael,

How did those amateur designs turn out? Or did the professionals also participate?

Do you think that such an exercise could be taken to next level by having all the data an architect can normally obtain from the client, such as topography, soil specs for the site, budget, cost of local supplies, complete weather date, imaginary client wishes, etc? Some architects even work this way in the real world, right?

I wrote this about Pacific Dunes for an article in Travel +Leisure Golf:

Could you step outside the box?

There are many things to admire beyond the beauty of Pacific Dunes. For me, I find it most admirable that Tom Doak resisted much of what is considered standard practice in modern design. He built a course well under 7,000 yards and used an unconventional placement of one shot holes throughout the round, all in order to get the best routing from the existing land. But Doak didn’t stop there—he also used extra wide fairways to keep the course playable in high winds. He bunkered the interior of some holes to challenge good players and kept the width by taking the fairway around the outside. He built two greens on the ninth hole and two tees on the 10th hole rather than compromise either excellent option. Finally, he didn’t worry when the card had only two par fours on the back nine—he stood firm, knowing that he had found the best eighteen holes regardless of what conventional wisdom might dictate. I think the results speak for themselves.

Losing money to Doyle Brunson or being continuously stopped by Martin Broduer is a lot different than having the skill to play against them. Those are skills that are honed with time. Anyone can call themselves an architect, and practice tomorrow, but it is takes a lot of knowledge to be good. And that goes well beyond understanding great holes from good.

One small note, did you notice that almost all the great single course architects did the job for no pay. Would you?

Forrest,


As someone once said, I can see things before they are there.....which either makes me a candidate to be a designer, or for the nut house.

Very few people have that ability.  For that matter, most golfers - including Tour Pros who consult, and posters on golf club atlas - can't imagine golf holes from nothing, but they can sure imagine a gca should have done something different....... The ability to critique something after its there is a marginal talent compared to the talent required to put something on a piece of ground.

We are working with an owner now who has great ideas, but no idea on scale or space. He thinks there is room or space, but it seems impossible for him to visualize the spacial volume from a geometric point — as for the third-dimension (topo)...forget it! To me, that often is the dibilating factor — not being able to "see" the land and changes to it, in tandem with the many factors listed, including the geometry.

JSlonis — It would be "easy" on an ideal site, or one with so many options and natural sites for features that dropping stakes from a helicopter while watching the latest Britney Spears photos on a less-than-ideal internet connection while drinking Scotch would yield a decent golf course, provided, of course, you were handed a capable and excellent crew of shapers who could work on their own and make you look good. Oh, and you had a small black saddle bag with several hunderd thousand dollars (U.S.) inside to use as contingency should you need to re-build a green or two.

Where did I say anything about design being easy?  I don't think I did at all.  In fact I said it is extremely difficult.  I wouldn't let 99.9% of all the amateur golfers I know anywhere near a potential site.  But I believe there are a few guys that could do a very good job regardless.

I've seen plenty of very good sites screwed up pretty well by so called professionals.  Easy sites aren't easy either.

I side with those who think that it wouldn't be easy even on a good site for an Am to design a course.  As noted, the experience and mistakes the pros have made to get where they are would probably be made in too big a number.

Some guys couldn't come close to imagining a golf course, no matter how enthused they were, and others would make far too many mistakes, the first of which would be ignoring professional help.


As much as I love hockey, as much as I understand it, as much as I watch it, I couldn't strap on the skates and play against the worst junior team.  Loving something to the degree you want to do it is just not the same as talent for doing it.  In sports its pysical skills, but there are mental skills involved as well in gca, and the principle is the same.

Its not impossible, but those who pull it off are the rare exception.

JSlonis — I was answering your plea...that original question you mentioned..."how hard is it, and is it possible?"

Allowing  .1 % of golfers to try it would be a huge number...are you certain you would consider allowing that many to try it?

As a whole, very few golf course sites get "screwed up" as you put it. Of course, this is a matter of subjective opinion in the majority of cases. What you consider "screwed up" may not meet the definition of an owner or developer who feels that what they have created is truly good or worthy.

I think the litmus test for whether a significant number of sites "get screwed up" would be a massive assualt against the golf design business — one in which golf course design professionals are no longer favored and, instead, another group begins designing golf courses. Landscape architects, land planners, plumbers, wealthy men with a first name of Donald, or train conductors.

The reality is that golf courses are primarily designed by professionals. And, I submit, it is the exact opposite that occurs: The occasional course created by a novice is the one that is most apt to contribute to the small catagory of courses that are considered "screwed up". It is this minority of courses at which we see the most problems, the most errors in construction and the highest percentage (based on incidents per course) of litigation involving everything from errant balls to cart accidents to construction faults.

Forrest,

I didn't mention .1% of all golfers, I said .1% of amateur golfers that I know.  Over the years, I've been lucky enough to meet a lot of very good amateur golfers, the majority of whom don't really have a big interest in golf course architecture.  There are a few guys that do have a passing interest, and fewer more that I would think capable of producing a good golf course.

Perhaps "screwed up" is too harsh an assessment, I should have said "not nearly up to the potential of the site".   But I really don't agree with you that it is easy, even on a "can't miss site", like you mentioned.  I don't think the work of designing a good golf course is easy for a professional given a good site, I'm certainly not saying it would be easy for an amateur.

Unless I misread all my posts on this thread, I think it was quite clear that I expressed that although it would be an extremely difficult task, it can be done.  It doesn't matter if it's the exception and not the rule.  To me, it's obvious that the accomplishment would be the exception.

Jeff,

Your analogy to hockey doesn't quite equate.  Reaching the highest levels of Professional sports is both physical and mental, but predominantly physical.  I don't care if a guy loves a sport more than anything, and has the mental makeup to play professionally, if the physical tools are not there, the rest of it doesn't matter.

Becoming a professional architect and possessing the ability to create a golf course is not the same thing.  If one has the love of architecture and the intellectual capacity to study and learn just like most of you have, what is the difference?  You had to begin somewhere.  Quite a few of the early golf course designers were professional players, or very good amateur players FIRST, after exposure to different courses and a good deal of study, they made themselves into very good GCA's.