Not using modern earth moving equipment to build a golf course...

[Mark Arata]

Question for the architects...

Other than the obvious ease of use, and probably time/cost, what are the inherent advantanges/disadvantages between the equipment available to the golden era architects vs. what you have at your disposal now? Is their anything they could do with their stuff that you have difficulty doing with yours and vice versa?

Dont know why this came to mind, I was reading Geoff's book on Cypress Point and the talk about "Fresno Scrapers" (I have no idea what that means, sorry). Just got me curious as to if the look of the older courses could be in some part to the equipment or lack thereof back in the day.

Also, would the level of authenticity achieved by building a course in such a manner (Old MacDonald comes screaming to mind) be worth the expected time/cost to do, and do you think anyone other than those who frequent this site would even understand what was being done if you did build a course that way..... Thanks.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

A very interesting set of questions; no wonder no one has responded to you!

A couple of years back some young architect built a green with horse and scrapers to see what it was like, but it was covered more like a publicity stunt than seriously.  (I can't remember who it was, Paul Albanese perhaps?)

Anyway, here's how I see it:

Old equipment was smaller and therefore the contours it produced were more finicky by nature.  It's possible to achieve the same sort of little quirks with modern equipment, but you really have to be good and be trying hard to do it, whereas it's much easier to build things bigger and smoother.  So it's no coincidence that's the direction that shaping has gone.

I think the one "advantage" of older equipment was that because you moved dirt slower, there was more time for the shaper or the architect to think about what was being done and to get the details just so.

Obviously, bigger modern equipment (more horsepower) allows you to do things faster, and that's a particular advantage for an architect like me who spends a few days at a time on a job ... I can actually witness a lot of work being done while I'm there, and make refinements in progress.  It wouldn't make sense to bring the horses out to Old Macdonald, my horses are much faster and much smarter.

[Pat Brockwell]

So you don't think the "D-9 Look" is authentic?  It seems to me that there are a few shapes that are pretty easy to make with big equipment, and those shapes dominate the golf landscape. Those shapes can make lovely views and some pleasant golf, but I've also had an OK meal at the Olive Garden.  

[Joe Hancock]

As TD alludes to, the use of a bulldozer doesn't have to result in a certain look.

The talent of the shaper goes way beyond having the dozer blade completely flat on the ground. In fact, it is quite often that I might only have a quarter or less of the blade actually moving any dirt.

The only reasons to ever go back to the horse and pan method would be:

1) No available talent to run modern equipment.

2) To force restraint onto those who can not show any with todays modern equipment.

Joe

p.s. TD, it was PA who did that work with the horse.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D's comment that it takes "smarts" is the best way to look at this. If you are looking to re-create a particular look, a smart shaper can attain that, even with modern equipment. It may not be large — a D9 is mostly for very rough work and pushing material. (Although we have a shaper that is great on a D8, and he can create very small bunkers even with the rather large blade.)

There are some other aspects to this...

The subtle ground undulations on some older courses are settled pockets and "mistakes" if you will. There is debate on whether every classic era designer would have wanted that, or whether they would — had they had the equipment and resources — made fairways smoother and more blended.

And, soils themselves create many subtle variations. On a sandy site it is nearly unavoidable to attain perfection as sand will blow and roll (like small ball bearings) and the result is dips, pockets, ripples, etc.  On clay and more stable soils it is possible to retain shapes and grades better. Also, it is more essential that these soils not have any birdbaths (small dips) as they will likely cause drainage issues. Whereas on sandy sites, dips and depressions that may hold water is not typically a problem.

[Jeff Doerr]

Are smaller devices used much? Say Bobcat types vs. the Big Cats.

[Forrest Richardson]

"As much" would imply that you arde looking for the norm. The norm is probably dozers — 450s, D5, D6, etc.  

The finesse builders and architects tend to use excavators, track-hoes, and smaller dozers. Forrest Fezler, who worked with Mike Strantz, almost exclusively uses track-hoes with buckets — even for fairway shaping. Bob Cats are used, but we don't see them much except for hauling gravel, sand, etc.

A shaper that we worked with liked to use a 950 loader to shape. That is rare, but he liked the fact that he could scoop up a large amount of soil and place it. He was magic with the 950 — I once saw him cut a 6-foot rattlesnake in half with the bucket. The snake had become a liability and was guarding a pile of rocks. This shaper had had enough and waited for the snake to rise up and attack — upon which he became snake meat. It was an unfair contest — but he would not have lasted very long with all the equipment and workers. I believe some of the Mexican laborers ate it for lunch.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I have seen some excellent shaping work done in Australia with a Bobcat on tracks ... but not often in America.

Of my own crew, four prefer to operate a trackhoe and three favor the dozer.  I never learned how to operate the hoe myself, but I'm amazed what can be done with them once you're proficient.

On a sandy site like Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal, nearly everything is finished with a sand pro and that's where the little contours can be added ... it's also possible to dump a couple of loads of sand here and there near the end and finish them with the sand pro.

[Ron Farris]

I have access to this earthmoving piece of equipment.  Unfortunately, right now I don't own a plow horse.  However, I bet could find one if I had to do so.

[Peter Zarlengo]

I ran around on a bobcat a good bit at Colorado GC last summer, but it was for grow-in work and not shaping. Mostly hauling around dirt and sand. Is there a big difference in equipment used in shaping the minimalist look?

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

I don't think it's the equipment, it's the people.  But I think the general attitude is that if you're not moving earth on a big scale that the course needs more small-scale interest, and if you're not blessed with that naturally, you will use smaller equipment to provide some more of the small-scale interest.

It's also where you choose to start moving earth vs. resisting the temptation.  There are many places on a course where it would be nearly impossible to hide a major cut (removal of soil).  If your definition of minimalism includes "hiding the work you have done," then you have to know how to work around those areas.

[Kyle Harris]

Is there a big difference in equipment used in shaping the minimalist look?

Yes.

No equipment.

 

[Forrest Richardson]

Kyle — I have never seen a minimalist project built with no eqipmnent. The closest, I think, is the occasion where a sand based site is smoothed out with light weight equipment and areas cleared. Even the most minalmist and natural site is worked with loads of equipment.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle — I have never seen a minimalist project built with no eqipmnent. The closest, I think, is the occasion where a sand based site is smoothed out with light weight equipment and areas cleared. Even the most minalmist and natural site is worked with loads of equipment.

Forrest,

Of that, I'm certainly sure. That was more tongue-in-cheek than anything really, unfortunately the smilie with a puffed up cheek on one side doesn't exist. Just found it oddly ironic (and hopefully enlightening) that a discussion of equipment used in a school that minimizes the shaping done to a course was being had.

[Forrest Richardson]

Well, among the available icons, you picked well.

I think one of the main misconceptions of many who frequent here is that, somehow, a natural site produces a minalmist course with almost no effort.

Forgotton amid this perception is routing, soil logistics, topsoil management, drainage, hazard creation, irrigation, and integration to the balance of the course/routing.

Over the past year+ I went out and visited a project that is regularly cited here as being "a natural course intergated to the land". Yes, it is beautiful — but many thousand yards of soil were moved to create this effect and make it a playable course. Among the 18 greens are only a couple that truly set into the natural terrain with only a bit of work. The others involved taking 5% and greater slopes and rendering then into putt-able green complexes. In some cases ten feet or more of fill was added to the backs of green areas so a ball could be held at the green. Painstaking re-planting of natural vegetation was added to make the finished product look as it it had been there for ages.

One of the benefits of GCA is for professionals and enthusiasts (and students) to learn from posts. This thread is an excellent opportunity to dig (pun ) into the matter of just what goes into making golf courses, and how — very often — we are led to believe that there is somehow a magic path that does not involve earthmoving or artificial effort.  

[Kyle Harris]

Forrest,

Very glad you picked my intent and ran with it.

[Ryan Farrow]

A question for the architects, how often do you find a proposed fairway that needs no earthwork at all? And to clarify we are talking about the beginning of the front edge of the FW to the approach lets say 20 yards before the front of the green. Do most sites have subtle undulations and bumps that a topo with 2' contours does not pick up?

[Forrest Richardson]

"No earthwork at all" — ? —  On a great site I think it is possible to fine 1/2 of the holes that really need minimal earthwork. By this, I mean just some clearing, smoothing and maybe a bit of sliding material to one place in order to accentuate a slope or assist drainage to a few areas. We are working a site now (11 hole addition — the existing nine is becoming 7) where, of the new 11 holes, about 5 are extremely "perfect" just as we found the land — at the fairways.

Topo is rarely 100%. I recall older topo — when technicians spent countless hours hand drafting lines — to be much more detailed. Today's electronic/automatic topos often wrongly record details such as low-lying vegetation, fences covered with vines (which appear as ridges!) and the occasional old and abandoned car that appears as a small hillock.

[Mike_Young]

I ran around on a bobcat a good bit at Colorado GC last summer, but it was for grow-in work and not shaping. Mostly hauling around dirt and sand. Is there a big difference in equipment used in shaping the minimalist look?

I would say there is a big difference between minimalism and the "minimalist look".....whichcould require a lot of earth moving.....
AND IMHO the difference is not modern equipment as much as the width of the blades that are used.....one can use some of the small mini excavators and acheive the same as yesterday....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ryan,

The number of natural fw varies from site to site, as Forrest says.  I have seen it range from 0 on a flat site that needs grading for drainage up to about 15.  Truthfully, we usually need some earth to build greens and tees, and while we like to balance it on site with dozers, we usually like at least one fw cut, esp. on areas away from the irrigation pond.


As to the horse and scoop, I once saw a demo of how those worked with the men riding the scoop.  I was told that if they hit a hidden stump, the driver would flip right over into the horse's rear end, so it was hard work.

Now, no one, including me, has built a course with  horse and scoop for over 75 years, but surprisingly, I have still run into a few horses' asses over the years while building golf courses...........

[Forrest Richardson]

Arthur Snyder (father of Arthur Jack Snyder) built several bunkers at Oakmont when he worked there during the early 1900s. I recall Jack relating that his father often remarked how they wish — back then — that they had had the modern (large) equipment we have today. It was always my understanding that the Fownes' were very innovative in equipment — using many of the earliest versions of mechanical equipment, including very eraly dozer-type equipment. Art Snyder also related using horses.

[Kalen Braley]

Thanks all for the thoughts on this with real experience in the field.  As an enthusiast myself, these are the real gem threads that I love to read and learn to try to get a feel for the real nuts and bolts of creating a course.

[Jeff Doerr]

Thanks all for the thoughts on this with real experience in the field.  As an enthusiast myself, these are the real gem threads that I love to read and learn to try to get a feel for the real nuts and bolts of creating a course.

Agreed!  Thanks to all for the input.

[Tom_Doak]

Ryan:

To answer your question of how many fairways can you find which don't require any grading, I thought I would go back and look at a handful of my own courses.  Here are the details for five of them:

High Pointe:  fairway was regraded on #1 landing area (using fill from pond), #10 (crest of hill in l.a.), #12 (for visibility to l.a.), and #18 (fill landing area).  Left alone 10/14.

Stonewall (Old):  fairways reworked on #1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 18.  (What can I say?  It's the Fazio routing.)

Pacific Dunes:  fairways graded on #1 (soften sharp contours at crest), #2 (slight change for visibility), #4 and 12 (sand cap, no real contour changes), #9 (improve visibility at top of hill), #13 (soften slopes), #18 (fill in behind big bunker).  Left alone 6/13.

St. Andrews Beach:  only changes at 13 and 15.  Left alone 12/14.

Stone Eagle:  there's hardly a spot in any fairway that is untouched ... a little portion of #2 and #8 and the saddle on #6 and the landing area on #18.

[Kalen Braley]

Thanks for that Tom,

When I think about the 7th, 8th, and 16th fairways at PD, and that they were untouched that is just amazing to come accross such natural sites to put a golf hole.