TEPaul:
Clearly, what an architect faces is a major importance to me. I've said in another thread not too long ago that today's sites which architects must deal with pose a number of issues that Tillie, Ross, et al, did not have to handle. Among those issues include various environmental permits, the need for other non-golf related support functions and the ever-increasing costs associated with construction and upkeep.
Tom, these matters concern me because they are hurdles any architect must deal with in order to satisfy the client. However, although I do look closely at these issues the proof of the pudding is the taste. In simple terms -- how good is the finished product???
Rees has explained to me the nature of what the local governmental community would permit and what it would not permit. Clearly, the routing had to take this into consideration in order to go forward.
My issue with Tattersall is that you have abrupt dog-legs in order to keep everything in a tight fit. You also have holes that defy reason -- what was behind the thinking of the 2nd hole??? What about the constant use of the Swiss alps type hole -- elevated tee hitting into valley followed by an approach to an elevated target. I mean you can certainly do such holes, but must we see the same thing time after time after time (i.e. 1st, 4th, 11th, 12th, 14th and 18th???).
You also have forced lay-ups that take away club choice (i.e. the previously mentioned 2nd, the abrupt turn at #6 and the wetland crossing at the 9th are three good examples).
Let's also not forget the overused concept of the downhill par-3 that too many architects continue to design. At Tattersall you get three, THAT'S RIGHT THREE of them at #8, #13, #17!!!
Tattersall has just too much elevation and because of town imposed requirements the layout is forced to do a number of things that defy, in my mind, overall quality and sometimes gravity.
I also think the interplay of carts is also way over the top. The drives are nothing less than a roller coaster hole after hole. The ride from the 9th green to the 10th tee is as long as the route Marco Polo took to the Orient. Ditto the ride from the 18th green back to the clubhouse. And, best of all, is the marvelous decision to have the 10th tee require on coming traffic from the 9th green!!!
Sometimes as Tattersall demonstrates even the best of architects are put into positions not even Houdini could get out of.
Tom, I would like to hear about the aspect of Keith Evans. If you can't respond publicly please e-mail me at mattwardgolf@hotmail.com.
Tom MacWood:
You ask an important question in evaluating land sites for courses. I agree with Tom Doak that certain states (i.e. Florida) are often featureless and home of the most nondescript flat land possible. There are other states that could be added as well.
What do architects often do -- they overuse the bulldozer and weave so much water into play in the case of Florida that the courses really lack inherent strategic elements that Mother Nature provides in other areas of the country so naturally. With the exception of a few courses in Florida (i.e. Jupiter Hills, Innisbrook, Black Diamond, to name just three) you can almost write-off what goes on in the Sunshine State. It's fast food golf -- just give the masses places to play.
I look at sites and see if the land is rolling without being overly so. A good example of a course highly rated by GD but not so in my book is Sanctuary in Vedalia, Co. I credit Jim Engh with the design, but the amount of elevation change is so abrupt and swift that clear shot values are distorted continually because of the massive change in elevation. The land should add to the routing and shot values without becoming an issue all by itself.
Among courses that I truly love with exceptional land is Shinnecock Hills, Sand Hills and Plainfield, to name just three. The land at each of the aforementioned courses has movement like the waves at the ocean that clearly influences your strategy from the moment you arrive at each tee. One element that always facinates me is how fairways are created. If courses rely on the straight razor cut approach with little movement the repetitious nature of flat lies from each fairway becomes quickly boring.
Among recent designs that I really enjoyed even though man's hand played a major role include Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV andArcadia Bluffs in northern Michigan. Man did add numerous elements but in my mind they fit with the other elements already present. Like a puzzle the different pieces fit without being at odds with each other.
The routing element should be one, in my mind, that literally uses all the available land in a site and avoids repetitive elements that keeps shotmaking from being predictable. Oddly, this situation doesn't always translate into courses that are too easy -- I've played courses where the routing can be simplistic although the holes may prove to be difficult like Firestone South.
The routing should be always about movement that incorporates wind direction changes. Muirfield in Scotland is often the prototype of a course that never gives the player more than two holes that go in the same direction. In addition, Muirfield has one nine that loops in the opposite manner than the front. Clearly, ahead of its time.
Pacific Dunes is also well done but Doak has nearly all of the holes in a north-south / south-north manner. Big brother course, Bandon Dunes, gives more of a 360 degree spread.
The routing should also mix up hole lengths and direction. Great courses are like great baseball pitchers -- they have the ability to throw hard fastballs, but can mix up pitches, speeds and placement at will. Too much of modern design today do not have routing plans -- they have housing plans with a golf course thrown in to create value for the developer. Among the best routing plans I have ever seen includes Shinneock Hills and Cypress Point. The player is always facing a changing shot demand ... a changing wind, the ball above / below your feet and targets that never give the same look.
I mentioned The Bridge before as a wonderful design by Rees Jones and clearly different than a number of past designs from years ago. The Bridge is blessed with superior land -- arguably the best on Long Island. The rolling terrain is sensational and the views, both on site and off, are beyond peer. Rees also created a routing plan that tests club selection and shot movement. At The Bridge you will find high quality uphill holes -- rarely do architects design such holes because they can often be overly demanding because of the shift in terrain and on shotmaking for the weaker player.
Finally shot values must test rigorously the ability to hit all the clubs in the bag with both direction and ball movement, provide options for the player to determine their line of play and reward / penalize proportionally the type of shot ultimately executed.
I believe the integration and utilization of natural features is an important element because it shows the architect is able to add to the quality of the site without overdoing man's hand in a unnatural manner. I concur with Tom Doak that flat land usually lacks the kind of natural features that many of the great courses have. I have no issue when other elements are added to bolster natural features created by Mother Nature but when man's hand goes over the top such as at Loxahatchee (an early Nicklaus design in Florida) you can see how the course clearly "stands out" rather than "fits in."
Rees Jones has clearly hit a stride with a powerful entry of superb courses in the last few years. I urge any GCA contributor to see Olde Kinderhook, Nantucket and The Bridge. Each of them possesses the qualities, in my mind, that keep your interest shot after shot and round after round. Given all the courses I've ever played I would not hesitate to include all three in my personal top 100 for what it's worth to anyone else.
Just a humble opinion ...
mw