[Mike_Young]

Forrest,
  I appreciate the frank commentary. I just happen to have a hell of a lot of respect for the guys I know on this site. I have no problem agreeing to disagree. However, I feel fairly confident that I could pick 3 of the above listed regulars and they could design a course (using the same complement of shapers, engineers, etc... that most archies use) that would certainly hold its head high in the company of most courses built in this country today. That is not to diminish what you and your peers do, but to illustrate how knowledgeable I think these guys on the site are.
   Golf course architecture is not rocket science. If your thesis that building golf courses is the only way to get good at it, then why are so many mediocre golf courses built? Why isn't the twentieth course not significantly better than the 1st course an architect builds? Yes I know there are land considerations and client wishes, etc... When someone does something over and over again poorly I don't see how they are that far ahead of the armchair architects. As the saying goes in my field, what do you call the guy who graduates last in his medical school class? Doctor (do you want that guy/gal caring for you?)

Congratulations on the book you and Mark Fine did together, I look forward to reading it while I'm traveling next week. I sincerely do appreciate you expressing your opinion. I am always interested in learning from everyone here.

Ed,
In the spirit of frank commentary I think it could be clasified as arrogant to feel that all of these guys can design a golf course...I enjoy and respect the opinions of many on this site so I hope that statement is not viewed as arrogant.  
I do know there are several thousand green chairmen that feel as though they can design a golf course and as a matter of fact I am working for a developer right now that has declared that he has designed the course we are doing and wishes his name as codesigner....so all this tells me is that deep down there is really not much respect for golf architects and what they bring to the table...

If I read a medical site chatroom and discuss heart surgery there for several years.....can I perform the surgery??? sure I can..will anybody let me??  No.  same goes for law, computer science ,coaches (especially)  and anything else.  
I have always felt that most sucessful people surround themselves with smart, qualified people and it makes themselves better.  So i don't consider Forrest arrogant in the least with his remarks....
This just explains why more in the industry care not to post.....Why should they???
Oh and if some of the names you mention were to design.....what would the cost be?  I bet the architect would be $$$$$$cheaper.

[Forrest Richardson]

I think one of the distinctions in this thread is the term "design" — what does that mean?

I can "design" a better cheese grater. But I do not have the skills to engineer it, know the plastics and resins and metals that might be used; nor do I have any experience in developing sophisticated CAD models that can be used to mold and mass produce the product. I surely do not have the skills to sell the idea to OXO and bring it to market...nor to undetrstand the market considerations of the investment. Product Designers deal with such issues...they live and breathe this...for it is their profession.

Some product designers will be good...with loads of graet work under their belt. Others will produce mediocre work. Same as any profession.

I, Forrest Richardson, am a longshot in the pursuit of developing a better cheese grater. But, I remain an arm-chair product designer and when it comes to "design" of a cheese grater, sure, I can (sort of) do that...

[Tony Ristola]

Ryan,

Is it the land? No.
(Golf) Cultural? Yes.
Technical? Hmmmm. No. Overly technical...pure reliance on "plans"? Yes.
(Lack of) Design theory? Yes.
Learning Curve? Yes.

I've spent a considerable amount of time in the central/northern part of the continent. I separate the Continent from the Island (Great Britainia). I was speaking about The Continent.

On the continent there was a boom that started in the late 80's, and a number of landscape architects with little or no golf knowledge got into the business. How can you tell? look at the land they had and the end result. They got the jobs because they had "papers"...were usually landscape architects. Some have done decent work, but most haven't, and as they compiled a list of projects, it added to their crediblity. Most they sold there services to those who didn't know golf. This is still a problem.

I spoke with a developer (who plays well) who interviewed the known architects and builders in a certain country. He visited their projects, and ended up hiring none of them, deciding to do it on his own with three imported shapers. They built, figured out the holes as they went along.

Added to the problem are the builders. With 42.8% of US architects unable to find qualified builders, what do you think the chances are in a country that has one-half-of-one percent participation (vs. 10 percent in the US and 18% in Canada)? Not too good, as the majority of these golfers are wealthy, older, and their kids? No chance they'd get within 10 miles of doing such work. Now, the builders on the continent can do the work. They are professionals, but golf courses are different from road construction. Someone has to lead them through the process, as most builders don't play golf, and have never studied great courses. So, on the continent, you have a case of the blind leading the blind; and it shows.

Another problem comes from builders that have built some and are left to work alone with just the plans for the project. With their limited knowledge, and having worked in a couple of styles (with the 80's and 90's boom it was virtually all faux links grass faced everything) you end up with guys with the "everything is a nail, so I'll use a hammer approach. Novel designs do not appear when someone isn't around to train and monitor.

To have success someone must comminucate and monitor their progress. Daily. But that hasn't happened, and it shows.

That's why I believe a number of lifers here, the fundamentalists, could do a better job if they're on-site working hand in hand with the builder. But try getting that first job. Even a toe in the door. Without "papers" or projects, you've got nary a chance.

[ed_getka]

Mike,
    I have complete respect for the job you guys do. Obviously not every architect performs at the same level. I am not saying a group of three from here could hang with their favorite architects, but I still maintain they could come up with a decent course. I don't see how my comments would keep someone in the industry from participating here. I am voicing an opinion, I am not attacking anyone personally, and I am not condemning architects that do good work.
   I happen to think many of the guys I listed are very intelligent and successful at what they pursue. I have no reason to believe that they couldn't produce a good golf course. I am not talking Sand Hills, I am talking about a solid golf course that golfers would enjoy.
   Sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent.

Tony,
    Why do you think the greens would be so much more difficult than the rest of the course? I know I would have a problem coming up with them and perhaps others here would too, but I am curious why you think greens are so hard to design for a "layperson"? Just curious, I am in no way trying to offend anyone here.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Since Tony mentioned my name, I guess I will reluctantly dive in.....

I wonder how Forrest determines the ratio of plans to field. I will agree with Tom D that great greens become great in the field. I almost always draw plans, but the final tweaks often determine greatness.  Not always.

First, lets determine what "great" is?  For some, its determined by the contours, with random contours being the only test of greatness.  However, in the right case, it could be a plane slope green in conjunction with the approach that makes it great.  Or a small, flattish green whose greatness lies in how hard it is to hit.

For me, its determined in part as part of the golf course composition.  For example, a flat green might be great if put between two rolling greens as a change of pace, and if it fits the hole, even if in and of itself, it may not be great.  

Even a manufactured Seth Raynor green can be great if it inspires someone to play golf and makes a statement.  Many different types of greens can make a statement - an elevated green inspires fear on the approach, a highly contoured green inspires fear on the putt, while a flat green inspires doubt, etc.

I also think there are some greens that are great (or at least very good) for their role., ie, a high play public course doesn't want the tricky contours but needs a certain size to survive and that type of green might be great - or at least a great match to its intended purpose.

In fact, in all of the above, perhaps the answer is how does it fulfill its intended purpose?  And there are a lot of ways to do that and be great.

To morph over the wandering discussion, most folks - including some professional golf course architects - don't have the artistic vision to create something really great.  A lot of designers can get it close by copying what others do, but if you see a green you like, it was probably designed by someone with talent and vision, whether on plan, on the dozer, or whatever.  You can't explain it, but you can feel it.

I will side with Forrest in the debate whether any one on this group board could design a great green on their own.  If only a portion of the people so inspired to devote their lives to the study of gca and invest their time and money to do it get it "right" I can't imagine others who have sacrificed much less could do it better in even half the proportion.  It could happen, to be sure, and has, so its not black and white, but the % would be very, very low.

Just my $0.02

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
    I have complete respect for the job you guys do. Obviously not every architect performs at the same level. I am not saying a group of three from here could hang with their favorite architects, but I still maintain they could come up with a decent course. I don't see how my comments would keep someone in the industry from participating here. I am voicing an opinion, I am not attacking anyone personally, and I am not condemning architects that do good work.
   I happen to think many of the guys I listed are very intelligent and successful at what they pursue. I have no reason to believe that they couldn't produce a good golf course. I am not talking Sand Hills, I am talking about a solid golf course that golfers would enjoy.
   Sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent.

Ed,
I am not offended.....in anyway.  I don't doubt the intelligence and success of the people you mention.....as a matter of fact I am sre they could also manage a team that wins a World Series.  But the odds are out there.....I think anyone can do anything they wish if they set teir mind to it.

[ed_getka]

Jeff,
   I'll ask you the same question I asked Tony, what is so difficult about building interesting greens in your estimation? It must be hard to do since there are so many courses with uninteresting greens. I just don't understand how someone who has seen a lot of interesting greens in their travels couldn't come up with something halfway decent. Does it take some innate vision to be able to build cool greens that simply can't be learned? I totally respect what you guys do, and I know I personally can't do it, so I am trying to learn here. Thanks.
   Also, just for clarification I never said any one of the GCA'ers here could design a great green. I think 3 guys working as a group (assuming you could get them to get along ) could come up with some interesting stuff. I could be totally wrong, and you guys with the experience certainly know about things that I am totally unaware of I'm sure. However, you all have built/designed/constructed/engineered (or whatever word Forrest is looking for) something when you started out. Was it horrible? If so, how did you get another job? Or does everyone start out apprenticing under somebody until they have an idea of what they are doing? Help me here please.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ed,

Yes most of us do apprentice under someone who teaches the basics.  And, probably the worst greens (and possibly the best!) are done by associates getting ready to leave and figuring they will try something new, and let the other guy take the blame!  (Only half kidding here.  When I left Killian, I stayed to finish one job and did try out a few new theories)

What is so hard about building a great green?  Go ahead and answer my second post here about defining a great green and then I will tell you.  It really isn't hard to build a great green - as long as that is really the goal.  As mentioned before, most often the goal is maximum cup space, speed of play, etc.  Things like USGA construction method do not hold back creativity, in my view.


BTW, I don't think you offended anyone in any way.   However, please reread my first post - there are a slug of very practical things to consider to make a green buildable and maintainable that I take care of before even thinking about what great things I can do.   If there are frustrations in our posts, it's that very few have any idea about how much the practical aspects shape a green.  

That perhaps comes from having a Tour Pro, Owner, or other interested party look at a roughed in green, where we did 90% of the work to get it there, make minor changes or add an idea (which are sometimes very good) and walk off thinking they "designed" that green!

I won't discount that any architecture buff could make a nice contribution or even concept, but my mind, probably like Forrest's, runs to the really bad ideas we have heard uttered with complete conviction on sites, which somehow stick with us more than the good ideas contributed.  Again, maybe its just human nature to remember the bad stuff.  

Believe it or not, golf architects are human, too!

[wsmorrison]

Mike's original question was whether or not great greens (somewhat subjective) can be created via plans.  Perhaps a large percentage of great greens are done in the field if the architects and their crews work that way, but I found it interesting that Forest agrees that some greens are built according to plans and that some of these are quite good.

I know Flynn's methods of design and building pretty well.  He didn't always stick exactly to his plans (or maybe we don't have examples of his final plans) but he did design according to accurate drawings and he did build greens based upon detailed plans with measurements down to the fraction of an inch.  I've posted examples of these drawings in the past.  Some greens surely settled over time, some were changed in the field (a large boulder or other subsurface constraint might have forced changes) or he made changes in the field.  He usually drew the intended changes as we have multiple examples of this.  

I hope everyone understands that Flynn, if not others, designed intricately and accurately on paper from hole concepts to green details.  That's how he did it.  Just because nobody else did or very few others did it that way in no way undermines the concept that that was Flynn's method of operation.  Like many, I think Flynn built some terrific greens this way.

[ed_getka]

Jeff,
   All set to see Sand Creek Station on Wed. What were the features to check out besides the Alps? Chris said that the Alps was on #12.

  A great green to me (this is all assuming relatively generous fairways) is oriented so it is more receptive to shots coming in from a proper angle (this doesn't have to happen on every hole), this receptivity can be because of contour/slope or by the green angle to the preferred line of play.
   Internal contour so greenreading and handling breaking putts is tested (since I can't hit a straight putt at what I'm aiming at)
   Contour along the periphery of the green and into the surrounds that can help a perceptive golfer get his ball near where he wants to go when he is out of position. Thinking sideboards, backboards here.
   Green is receptive to aerial attack or ground/running shots (preferably the opening to the green is not all the way across so that position is important to take advantage of the opening). However the aerial shots should be quite well struck to be able to hold the green. None of that green is so soft any shot will do stuff.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ed,

You and I seemingly agree on what makes a good green generally. I suspect you are also of the belief that breaking those rules every so often is okay, as well.

At Sand Creek, I think you will like the set of greens, based on your comments.  When I do cover green fronts, I leave back boards as a way to get another way to play.  I like holes, as you do, where you "hit it here to get it there."

The Alps is 12.

The 11th is a Gull Wing Green a la Riv 15.

The 16th is a rendition of the Road Hole Green

The 17th is loosely based on the center hazard genre (think Sand Hills 5)

The 4th is a sideway Biraritz with the swale exteding down the fw (that is up in the NW corner by the rail yards)

The 2nd has a fronting grass bunker and a backboard

No. 7 is a small, liberty bell shaped green.

No. 9 is a small, perched green. I wanted fw around the banks, but the super thought rough would be easier to maintain on his budget.

Those are some highlights.  I hope you like it!

[ed_getka]

Breaking the rules is encouraged. Just not for the whole course.
    I like greens that test your short game, such as having a seemingly obvious bailout side for an approach shot that is REALLY much more difficult to get up and down from.
   I am probably forgetting some stuff. What else goes into great greens in your opinion?

Thanks for the Sand Creek info, I'll let you know next week when I return. Have you been over to check out Cottonwood Hills at all when you've been in the area?
    I noticed on your website about PD consulting. What have you worked on over there?

[Forrest Richardson]

Jeff — Nearly all our greens begin with a plan. But, on a few projects in the past year we have had the forture to have such great natural sites that some greens just presented themselves. The note on the grading plan reads something like: GREEN AREA TO BE SET AND PREPARED IN THE FIELD BY GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT AND SHAPER; NO GRADING OR CLEARING TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN AREA DEFINED.

I agree...nearly all golf designers have worked under someone and have learned from mistakes, by looking to work they admire, and by going through the process over and over.

One of my assistants is going through a phase now in which he has great ideas, but it is difficult for him to put all the pieces together without more practical experience. If he were to go out and build a green — or try to without any planning or plans — he would spend a lot of someone's time and money. Why? because slopes, breaks, tie-ins and the relationship to the domino of the fairway, views and even the tees would not work the first — or second — time. This doesn't make him bad or of malpractice...it just takes time to put all of these things together at once.

Desmond Muirhead once made a remarkable comment, "You know, most people cannot get more than one hole in their hear at a time..." He was referring to routing, where even the best appreciator of golf course architecture finds it difficult to concentrate on any more than one hole at any one time. The exponential nature of a routing — where multitudes of components are all at odds or at play with one another — can be overwhelming.

The same is true of a green. It is not just one surface and one thing...but literally hundreds. I'll name some: Drainage, slope, eventual maintenance, micro climates, visibility, playability, enjoyment, differentiation, pinnable areas, access by players and equipment, wear and tear (patterns of entrance and exiting), irrigation, safety, views, sunlight, cart path proximity, next hole proximity, etc, etc, etc.

This is not to suggest it is rocket science, as someone remarked. But it may well be as complicated — all-be-it on a different plane.

[Brendan Dolan]

My experience is limited, to greens that were designed 100% in the field.  I am curious when you design greens with plans, whether you architects approve them before seeding?  Or if the construction company seeds them once they are to grade?
Thanks,
Brendan

[paul cowley]

Brendan...I can't speak for all architects, but I think its highly unusual that a green is grassed without some kind of approval.....I'm sure it happens due to schedule constraints and the like, but its hardly the norm on a course that is being designed and constructed by a 'professional'.
....but now if the green is being designed by the shaper or the contractor, well then it happens all the time.

And Ed, if you and two others want to get together to design a few greens, I would be happy to help.
....for just a small coordinating fee .

[Forrest Richardson]

We do not allow anything to be grassed before it is approved, in person. I think that is standard practice for most.

[BCrosby]

"Nearly all our greens begin with a plan. But, on a few projects in the past year we have had the forture to have such great natural sites that some greens just presented themselves."

Ross's field sketches for Athens CC do not include drawings for 4 or 5 greens. Not even the outline of the greens are given. Nothing. For those greens Ross's notes read:

"Build on natural contours".

For other greens, however, his drawings are very detailed. Some extremely so. Ross wasn't around for constuction. Even if he had been, no doubt he would have changed some of his specifiations in the field. But he thought it worth the effort to produce detailed plans for at least some of his greens. When he had something specific in mind, he drew something very detailed.

The bottom line is that it sounds like architectural practices regarding green design and construction haven't changed much in the last eight or nine decades.

It sounds like a healthy mix of planning, revisions on the fly and a sprinkling of making it up as you go.

Come to think of it, I don't know how else you could do it.
 

Bob

[ed_getka]

Paul,
  I am MOST definitely not one of the three, but how much would the fee be.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brendan,

I approve greens in phases, and don't let topsoil on the banks and mix in the greens go back on until all the green and green surrounds are approved.  Sometimes, contractors try to put topsoil on in advance and pressure us to accept something before it is really final, but that is just life in the putty knife factory.

Bob,

I am surprised that Ross built greens on natural contours.  Most Ross plans I have seen talk about cutting the front bunkers to make the fill pad.  Those five green sites at Athens must have been pretty perfect for greens, and I still bet he moved at least a little earth around or smoothed it.  Could be wrong, but as Forrest alludes, there still has to be some clearing and root stumping, which means the ground needs to restored to grade at the very least.  And, in this day and age, with sub 2% green slopes, I imagine there would usually be at least a few inches of grade change on any green.

[Forrest Richardson]

On the sites where we have had not much to do: one has been on pure dunes sand (nothing much to clear); and the second site is in high desert...also not much to clear. But Jeff makes a good point: There will always be clearing and grubbing (root debris removal). Not to mention rock picking, which always involves a shift in subtle grades.

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

That's what Ross's field notes say. I have the drawings at home. I think there are actually four greens.

None of the greens  in question had greenside bunkering. All are on ridges.

I don't disagree that some degree of shaping would be required. His notes are silent on the matter, however.

Bob

[Brendan Dolan]

Thanks for the responses.

Brendan

[Philip Spogard]

Tony,

What about the more severe laws that protect the environment in Europe? They seriously limits your possibilities as an architect. The restrictions on how much you are allowed to change the landscape are so severe, that many sites are more or less restricted to using their original, natural features. And with a huge focus on environmentalism golf on Continental Europe is restricted to flat, featureless farmlands.

In my opinion, as an European architect working in Australia at the moment, I am confident that many European architects are as capable as the Americans. They are however more often limited by bad sites, low budgets and (too) severe law regulation.

I agree with the problem that many countries suffer from architects, doctors, lawyers, etc. taking up the practice of golf course architect without the proper education. What is your solution to that problem?

Philip

[Phil_the_Author]

I am very surprised by some of the conclusions being reached on this thread. The question is can great greens be designed by detailed plans. Isn't the answer an obvious yes? Or how would one explain courses such as the National Golf Links where the greens were built based upon plasticine models, as were the greens at 5 Farms in Baltimore and countless others?

Both Donald Ross, Tilly and I suspect a few others designed greens for courses site unseen. Heck tilly used to advertise in golf illustrated that plans and models for green designs could be purchased for use in construction projects without his ever going on site or being involved in any other part of the design process.

I am pretty certain that somewhere in all of these greens there are a number that most would be able to pronounce as "Great."

By the way Ed, 699 posts and I'm still a "new boy" poster? At what number do I reach "veteran status?"  

[Philip Spogard]

Philip Young:

I agree. Of course you can build great greens by detailed plans only. The risk is obviously that the green does not fit the site or looks misplaced. It is not the way to do it if you want a high succes rate but of course it is possible.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()