[Steve_Lemmon]

One of my favorite courses is located near my parents' house in Spring, Texas.  It was, I believe, built by an oil company guy who took early retirement.  He did it all, or almost all, himself on a dozer, with no real training.  It is jammed into a small, swampy spot.  It drains poorly, has small, patchy greens, has holes which run into each other, and has some tee boxes the size of the bed of my pick up.  However, it is golf just as much as any of the nicer daily fee places and I salute the guy.  Decent is in the eye of the beholder.  

[George Pazin]

On a more serious note, sure plenty could do it, but without years of learning in one form or another, it probably would exhibit a multitude of errors. I'd be willing to bet the first efforts on paper of even someone as talented as Tom D probably showed many errors, upon further review.

The landscape is littered (pun intended) with golf courses that were designed by relative novices. Some of them are even ranked.

I'm a math geek with a modicum of experience in finance, yet I learned to print t shirts to a level where my clients are happy and I've been in business for 13+ years. And trust me when I say printing t shirts is not always easy, nor is surviving in a brutally competitive industry.

You can learn just about anything if you're properly motivated and interested.

I'll tell you one thing: I do intend to find out someday if I can design a golf course. And I'll likely learn it the same way I learned how to print t's: trial and error, the hard way.

[Adrian_Stiff]

[quote author=TEPaul link=board=1;threadid=31204;start=35#msg607739 date=118

But the thing I resist and think is actually pretty funny is how and how often these professional architects seems to try to imply that you have to be a professional to come up with interesting conceptual ideas in architecture.

I don't believe that at all. I think it's very true on the technical side but not on the conceptual side.

TEP- I think there is not much new in golf course architecture and everything is a form of bastardization or part copy of something already, so in some way if you have played a lot of courses and you have a good memory of recalling a certain feature as you say its not that hard to come up with conceptual ideas. An ability to draw a certain green complex that you have played or want to create is a rareish skill, if you spend a lot of time on site the ability to communicate that idea over to a shaper is also a rareish skill, some of these things just take time and once you have built several courses with the same shaper things become naturally easier. From the posts I read on here I think many can come up with a 'decent' course. Would they make it better or as good as a seasoned architect, probably not. I had a conversation today with a former Ryder cup player where we are building a new green and he was trying to convince me to build a very small green, he was knowledgable and probably right about the principle of a small bumpy green for a short par 4, but it still needs to be maintained and I could not go as small as he wanted, he hadnot considered those aspects.

[Norbert P]

 Yes.

"Somewhere over the rainbow
 blue birds fly . . .

 . . . Why oh why can't I?"

[RJ_Daley]

I didn't read all these, escuse if this was already said...

Many of us GCA.com geeks have read many important books on the matter of construction issues, the seminal primer being Hurdzan's book.  Many of us have befriended archies and have visited construction sites often.  Some of us have studied GCA from an historical perspective, reading many of the books of architects who have written fine ones over the years and thus, if you aren't a moron, you absorb bits and pieces of design and construction issues they describe.

Some of us have tried it to one degree or another.  I know for my part, I have gotten fairly far in the golf course developement planning stage from a business plan prospectus, projected budgetting, projected plan of phazinng, to preliminary course drawings with assistance of a practicing golf course architect.  That includes permitting processes.  Some of us, including me have taking seminars in construction techniques, design and remodelling, and turf grass education.  Some have background in water and irrigation issues.  

All of these efforts by various GCA.com contributors, to what ever degree of their own individual efforts, all probably would start out with a better general knowledge than say, The Fownes, Crump, Wilson, and a number of one-trick ponies that did pretty well by themselves... or with gentle helping hands from archie friends from their day.  

Assuming that several of us could get a good design off the ground, and into the ground, the issue may become how much will have to be gone over, reworked, and readjusted because technical and maintenance issues would have been overlooked to some degree, and endless tweaking may insue.  

But, for a large part, from some of the folks I have known on GCA.com, from the standpoint of basic understandings, there is plenty of design creativity, and no off switch on enthusiasm and good ideas.  I think the permitting process, water acquisition, use, land use, zoning, septic, off site impact, environmental impact is what would put most of us into the looney bin.

[Dan Kelly]

Yes.

"Somewhere over the rainbow
 blue birds fly . . .

 . . . Why oh why can't I?"

Because you're not a bird!

Though, as George observes, if you were determined enough to be a bird, you'd probably figure out how.

The trial-and-error part might be a little more perilous than in the T-shirt game, though.

[George Pazin]

The trial-and-error part might be a little more perilous than in the T-shirt game, though.

Certainly would be more costly.

Probably more fun, too.

[Norbert P]

 For Sale :  Parachute, New, Never Opened, Only used once, slight stain.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

Given the cool temps, low humidity and lack of trees, the Dell hole would work fine today in that climate, and a few others. I was thinking of wooded valleys. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

TEPaul,

Most of the gca's reading this cringe at your idea of us doing the tech work and an amateur doing the conceptualizing. In reality, this job is only about 10% creativity (the fun part) and we hate to give that up, even if there are some out there who could in fact supply a few good ideas, even if not a whole course worth, while tying them all together.

As to the formula, I remember the esteemed Patrick Mucci opining on this at one time - when does a good idea worth repeating morph over to "formula?"

Some of the oft lamented "lost features" here, like blind shots and reverse slope greens may not be good ideas still in the big picture.  They are interesting only as nostalgia to those who favor them, at least to some degree.

[Ray Richard]

Yes, but after you get the plans all set then the fun starts.

Day one everybody realizes the plans don’t  fit exactly into the reality of the golf course. Many site corrections need to be addressed  involving dirt, drainage and shaper technique. You have to fix these issues quickly or you will have a nice fat change order from the contractor for delaying the project.  You can expect plenty of “in your face” discussions about what you want. These discussions are frequently done while standing on the tracks of a bulldozer yelling at the operator because he still has his earplugs in.

 Then the owner will stop by and say “ would you mind moving those three completed bunkers a few yards,for free?”. Soon, the owner’s son will stop by and say “Green #2 doesn’t look right!” Meanwhile you have to be cognizant of all the specification details that are flowing around, items like green mixes, bunker sand tests, loam quality etc. If bad materials are brought in then you may have some serious legal issues.

And this assumes that the project is properly funded.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ray,

Yes the simple truth is, you aren't a golf course architect until you have mastered the "hat slam" in all its nuanced glory!

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Most of the gca's reading this cringe at your idea of us doing the tech work and an amateur doing the conceptualizing."

JeffB:

I realize that would make you and all your professional fellow travelers on here cringe and that's probably the primary reason I said it. The fact that it might be true will probably just have to hang out there for a while longer in the land of Winkin', Blinkin' and Nod where all you pros would like to see it remain for the foreseeable future. Frankly, if you guys didn't secretly agree with that I doubt any of you would even be on this website

[TEPaul]

"Some of the oft lamented "lost features" here, like blind shots and reverse slope greens may not be good ideas still in the big picture.  They are interesting only as nostalgia to those who favor them, at least to some degree."

Jeff Brauer, that is a remark for which you should be sent to your room for a week with no breakfast, lunch or supper!

[Garland Bayley]

...
Some of the oft lamented "lost features" here, like blind shots and reverse slope greens may not be good ideas still in the big picture.  They are interesting only as nostalgia to those who favor them, at least to some degree.

You know they just have to quit playing the US Open at Oakmont. I am sure the only reason they do it is for nostalgia, and to make George Pazin happy.
 

[Michael Moore]

Ray,

Yes the simple truth is, you aren't a golf course architect until you have mastered the "hat slam" in all its nuanced glory!

And you are not a tournament golfer wannabe / poseur / hacker / dreamer until you have mastered the "trunk slam" !

[Mark Bourgeois]

I'm warming to this notion, especially if I get to create a carbon copy of the original ANGC.

(Full disclosure: like so many great ideas, this one was stolen from Tom Doak.  Which reminds me of the Woody Allen joke about his life flashing before his eyes as he faces imminent death...a gingham-check dress flashes before him...a screen door slams...Aunt Bea's pies -- until he realizes it's somebody's else life! And there will be one difference from the original ANGC: the flagsticks all will be of a different size.)

What I really need is a fancy "Topo Map Analyzer" to feed endless quadrangle maps into, until it rings up a match.

[Kirk Gill]

Short answer:

Me: yes
You: no.*

*There could be exceptions to prove the rule, however!

What I think would help make someone an exception to that rule would be living on the site, interacting with the course as it is being created, every day. Go all George Crump on it. Then there might be a chance to achieve a "decent" course.

But hey, I work with computers in my job, and a lot of you probably have enough expertise in the subject to do a lot of what I do, but you'd be amazed at the minutae that makes me really good at it. When it comes to golf course design, what I don't know is substantial, but since I can't really know the exact extent of what I don't know, I'm willing for the sake of my fantasy GCA life to believe that I don't need to know it !

 

[Chuck Brown]

I am certain that I could design a passable golf course.  And in the process, I would make enough design, construction and other mistakes that at the end of the process, everyone would say, "I wish we had paid Tom Doak, instead of letting Chuck do it for free.  It would have been a lot cheaper, and much better, to have paid Tom."  (Not to mention, a much bigger attraction to prospective players.)

I will say, however, in my own defense, that it is not quite the same thing as letting Tom Doak in to my office to practice law for a month.  He's certainly smart enough to figure it out, and if he had spent a day or two per week, for half the year, every year for the last 38 years in a law office, plus a week of uninterrupted study (at the University of St. Andrews, of course) here or there, plus some weeklong seminars and year-round reading of the law,  I'd expect him to know a good bit more than the average layman, and to perhaps do a passable job with some things.  We'd just want to add him to our malpractice coverage first, to insure against the mistakes.

And if there are any jokes to be made about Tom having spent any time in a lawyer's office already, I will leave them to him.  I hope and pray that Tom has not spent that much time with lawyers.  Land for golf courses is so much more interesting, and much better conversation...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

The missing piece to the puzzle in your snide answer is whether or not the course you would be designing would be for the US Open, or a membership that thought it could play well enough to build a course that tough.

Most gca's over time build easier and easier courses, realizing that we already have enough US Open venues in this country, and seeing how average players who foot the bill do on tough designs. (That may be part of TEPaul's formulaic remarks)

Seriously, any time we get an intern in here, he wants to design the world's toughest course.  We have to knock that notion right out of him at the earliest possible convenience.  So the question you would have to answer designing your own first course would be, is the difficulty of a reverse slope green or blind shot appropriate HERE, even if I think its a cool concept.

Why does every one hold up the idea of tournament courses every time we talk about designing a new course (which in truth would never have a tournament?  

[George Pazin]

Some of the oft lamented "lost features" here, like blind shots and reverse slope greens may not be good ideas still in the big picture.  They are interesting only as nostalgia to those who favor them, at least to some degree.

Yikes!! I hope you don't really believe this.

I'm currently reading a dumbed-down version of The Merchant of Venice, because I simply do not have the patience to wade through Elizabethan language, but I wouldn't for a second try to suggest that Shakespeare's many fans forego the original.

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

I think you are selling the average player short!

Put in a blind approach with a group of conifers behind the green. I would say there is a good chance an average player will have a better shot at picking the appropriate conifer tip to shoot at and making a good shot than he would if the green was in full view.

Put in a green or two that slopes away from the approach, and give the average player a chance to realize he should not try to constantly replicate the aerial game he sees on TV.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George and Garland,

I do believe its true, to some degree.

I also believe that there is a place for all those old kind of features, even if only for variety and nostalgia.  But, the trick is to put them in the right places, not force them in because you think its neat.  

Lastly, I believe many members of this board would stumble trying to force ideas on the ground, just as almost any first time designer does.  Again, with interns, it seems like they want to get all 1000 ideas they have into their first 18 hole design (maybe because they think it may be their last) when in reality, most holes suffer from compound ideas.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Hole 7 172/162/138 Par 3

The seventh plays up hill to a green behind a little rise that makes you think the green may slope to the back until you get there and find it actually doesn't.


...

As a very average player, I was disappointed that this green did not slope away from me. I played my shot to hit the bank in front of the green and roll onto the green.

Say aren't Redans slopping away on the approach? What kind of heresy is Jeff espousing?
 

[Gib_Papazian]

Jeff,

You need to pick your interns more carefully is how it reads to me.

Look, wisdom does not live - and will not die - solely with experienced golf course architects. Sometimes a pair of fresh and enthusiastic eyes are just what a project needs.

Everybody gets into a groove of repeating things no matter how they make a living. If executing ideas from an "amateur" makes most architects want to retch, then how do you explain the contributions of a guy like Crenshaw to Bill Coore?

Maybe I am an arrogant ass, but I love and study the subject of architecture and have developed an excellent eye for what works and what does not.

The lack of a plaid jacket in my closet does not invalidate my ideas. I'm the first to admit that it is necessary - at least the first few projects - to work with an experienced designer. However, eventually you can fly on your own if you so choose just like Weiskopf . . . . . or dare I say it, Raynor.

George Bahto dug around for years researching the subject, but he certainly did not graduate from Cornell. With help from Gil Hanse (who is legitimately great), he redesigned a golf course that came out an absolute blast to play.

Now, in many ways, if I had a Raynor or Banks course that needed some work, he would be on the short list of those interviewed. Why, because I feel like he has learned the technical end of it well enough to bring his artistic concepts to fruition.

As far as fall-away greens and putting surfaces in low spots . . . . . well, the point about the Dell was made earlier and #16 at NGLA is my favorite hole on the golf course. Maybe C.B. was smart enough to put the Punchbowl atop the hill, so the only rule to follow is that every situation demands a fresh perspective; it is impossible to get me to believe that an overworked architect flying in once a month is better than a well versed amateur who is there every day nudging things around with his feet in the dirt.

The only danger in some amateur architects is not so much to make the design too difficult, but the tendency to throw everything but the kitchen sink into every single hole.

The Lido contest is a perfect example. Every year, some incredibly intricate hole wins the prize - congrats to Bo Links BTW, if you read this my friend - but sometimes subtle, simple little features are best.

A strange little hump, bump or fall-off can be every bit as intriguing as huge-a-saurus bunkers or many other out-of-context features just to draw attention to themselves.

But that is why you work with somebody to save you from yourself until you've got enough sense and experience to know the difference between a really salient original idea and a white elephant in the middle of the fairway.  

 
 

[George Pazin]

The Lido contest is a perfect example. Every year, some incredibly intricate hole wins the prize - congrats to Bo Links BTW, if you read this my friend - but sometimes subtle, simple little features are best.

For everyone who thinks those of us who criticised Mr. Links were simply jealous, I offer you the wisdom of this simple sentence, which communicates my thoughts better than I can.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()