News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


ian andrew (Guest)

Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2001, 12:25:16 PM »
There has been many land reclaimation/golf course projects that have had spectacular results. There are many envirmentally based developments which succeed in giving great golf with-in a great natural envionment. I'm not going to say which is the best/most influential, but this is more in line with the future of golf design. The courses people have listed are courses that I admire greatly, but technically there may be a course that has pushed where we can build even further than these gems. I'm just throwing the thought out there.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2001, 01:17:32 PM »
One way to determine which course or courses of the 1990s has had the most influence on what comes next is to poll the archies and poll the frequent golfers and ask what really trips their triggers.  

When we ask what course in the 90s had the most influence, that is a bit too premature as I think Dan K., stated above.  If it is to be influencial, it needs to be studied and emmulated for years.  We just left the 90s!  To have influence, it must be widely experienced and understood and studied.  How many archies that are producing good work in these past few years have even seen or played Shadow Creek?  I'm going to hazard a guess and say a substancial number of archies have never seen the place other than photos.  And, just playing the course one time isn't exactly time to study and be influenced by anything more than the "wow factor".  The same holds true of frequent golfers.  It is a discouraging thought that golfer's tastes in design are influenced by ultra expensive golf courses that they may only play once or a few times.  That isn't proper eposure to form a "cultured" taste in design or playing quality of features and conditions.  I think that an architect or student of the game in the form of frequent player who is part of the formation of a preferred style that drives the market to develop more of the same, must come from repeated play and study of a particular venue.  Sand Hills has been more accessible (until last year) to a wider range of people than Shadow Creek, but not by enough to be truly influencial to the wider acceptance of the golfing public's tastes and desire for more of like quality and style to be produced.  Heck, by that definition, Wild Horse will be more influencial in the future merely through accessibility!

Maybe the most influencial are the courses featured in "best new" lists and are vicariously experienced by the wider body of golf consuming public and designers, and for that reason of disconnect between not really experiencing and studying golf courses habitually and merely reading and seeing pictures of them, they believe what the list makers tell them is great, and those are the ones copied, thus most influencial.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2001, 02:18:53 PM »
David Wigler writes: "[T]he golfing public at large . . . would rather see a beautiful faux falls than a perfectly placed cross bunker setting up an approach to a natural greensite framed by a sand dune. If you concede that point, than I think Shadow beats Sand Hills on influence."

I do not concede that point. No one should concede that point -- at least until it's proven!

What evidence is there to prove that the public likes faux falls better than natural greensites, well done? Is it "evidence" that a lot of courses with faux falls (etc.) are being built, and that the public is patronizing those courses?

No! That's no evidence at all!

OF COURSE the public will play at these Country Clubs For A Day -- because, let's be frank about this, even with the excessive green fees and the ubiquitous cart paths and the pretty little cart gals and the faux falls and the cutesy tee markers and the GPS systems and the five-color scorecards and all of that, these new courses tend to be at  least as well designed as the run-of-the-mill municipal courses that, in many places, they're supplementing. And the pampering they offer you is fun. It works perfectly for those kiss-behind corporate outings.

It's very simple, if you ask me (remember: I'm a simple guy): The public will play where the public is allowed to play. If
you keep putting the best classic designs on private land for private clubs, how is "the golfing public" ever going to learn to appreciate them?

I, for one, think "the public" has much better taste than it's given credit for in the minds of those who typically invest the money to appeal to the public (and not just in the golf business). The men and women with the money, and the urge not to lose it, seem eternally smitten with the cynical "wisdom" of H.L. Mencken: No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence (or was it "taste"?) of the American people.

I play at these reviled CCsFAD several times a year, at their inflated prices, as a break from the standard public courses. But would I choose, if I could, to play Interlachen, Minikahda, White Bear Yacht Club, Somerset, Oak Ridge, Woodhill, North Oaks, Wayzata, Spring Hill . . . any of a dozen other classic and modern country-club layouts?

Yes, I would. In a New York minute. And most of the rest of the so-called "golfing public" would be right behind me in line.

Look at the queues at Bethpage Black, and then tell me "the golfing public" has no taste, nor no hunger for outstanding design.

If you build it, they will come.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

john_f (Guest)

Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2001, 02:34:38 PM »
Grand Slam for Redanman!!!!

Great point w/ Troon North and it was right at the start of the 90's. I don't know if anyone remebers the site pre-housing boom, but it was like playing golf on the moon!!! Pretty incredible landscape. They fill the place up w/ houses and it's the biggest dissapointment of my golfing career.

At that time and what they did the CCFAD fad took off. Here we are 12 years later and it appears somewhat that the growth rate of the high end $125+ walkie-talkie, club washing monumental clubhouse places is slowing for a more laid back golf-centric place. Not going awayall together, just at a slower growth rate. Would love to see some NGF data on green fee's courses opened in the high end comparing in the 90's. It may signal this, but disecting the data could reveal many things.

As for SH vs. Shadow Creek. It's a tough call because both images and people who have played them is very limited. I took the C&C route becasue us as fans of architecture really were treated to a much different game because of what they did. Yes, they did it first at Kapalua and Yes, Rees, RTJII, Jack, Arnie & Art Hills seem much more "popular" because of their plays to the masses. But consider the Doak, Hanse, Devries, Smyers, Silva and others we consider fans of the minimalistoca style and how much more people are open to their idea's becuase of the C&C influence.

The other way to look at it is the most influential course in the 90's for us as a group is the one that first showed each of us something that gave us the architectural "bug".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ian andrew (Guest)

Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2001, 03:42:11 PM »
john,

to answer your question...World Woods (Pine Barrens)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2001, 04:27:59 PM »
Bill V,

I was new at Killian and Nugent, and green as a can of peas, when Kemper was designed.  I always felt Kemper was the first upscale, but that may be a midwestern perspective.  There were probably others somewhere in the same boat at the same time.  I recall the conversation leading to bent grass fairways, which went against the conventional wisdom of bluegrass for public, bent for private.

Someone said that you could charge an extra 20 bucks a round if a course had fairways of bent, but figured it would cost $40.  When they calculated that bent fairways would only cost another $2 per round, based on 35-40K rounds, the economics looked pretty good, and the CCFAD movement was off and running.

I assert that an influential course would have to be a course that could be repeated somewhere, and then WAS repeated somewhere - otherwise, how could you say it influenced anyone?  So, Kemper Lakes and those few others were the most influential in shaping the nineties.

This theory takes out Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes etc., at least architecturally, as they were built in one of a kind situations. By the same token, Kemper has never been influential for its archtitecture as for its concept, and these have been influential in site selection parameters, at least.  By the same token, Bandon and WS may influence a trend back to walking, even if the seaside look can't be replicated.  Could someone do a walking only CCFAD on a non seaside site, and without imitating Ireland?  Time will tell if an inland Ross copy with walking only will fly.....

As for Shadow Creek, it is the kind of course concept that can be replicated, at least to the degree the owner can afford it, in many locales.  And, in effect, Fazio and others have repeated the concept.  There are not many Fazio courses built now without some water features and a slug of landscaping, and many others put more of those features in to play catch up.  Every time Tom convinces an owner to spend millions extra, it makes it  easier for other architects to convince an owner to spend hundreds of (well, at least tens of) thousands extra....

Following Ian Andrew's theory, either "The Pit" in Pinehurst, or any of the many "The Quarry" courses, are likely to be influential protoypes for future courses for land cost and environmental reasons.  Once we (and environmentalists) saw it could be done, it opened up lots of formerly "off limits" sites.  And there are courses like Old Marsh, with its recollection and filtering systems to keep golf course maintenacnce "inputs" on the course and off neighboring property, which is now nearly standard practice, that have been emulated repeatedly, but with little notice from golfers

To me, entire bodies of work are influential more than any particular course.  Fazio probably had the most influence through his entire body of work.  I don't see many replicating Pete Dye's style, but many architects have emulated Tom's style of moving more earth, but in gentler and more flowing lines, versus the framing mounds of the 80's. Of course, each architect puts his own twist on it.

Similarly, if Doak and Coore and Crenshaw have had influence, and I think they have, it is for their body of work in minimalism and restoration OTHER than their minimalism on the most spectacular sites.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

A_Clay_Man

Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #31 on: December 13, 2001, 05:57:28 PM »
Jeff- I understand what your saying about Kemper's midwestern rep back in the day. but wasn't it built before the nineties? I think Pine Meadows doesn't even qualify having been voted GD's best new public in 89', You are correct that the bent grass certainly contributed greatly to the enjoyment and improvement of Chicagoland public golf. And even that greatly expanded with the birthing of Kohler Wi. into golfdum  ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2001, 06:39:24 PM »
rjbay,
I think your statement - "For me both were inspirational, I love the look of Sand Hills, the raggedy windswept feel of mother nature. But I can really appreciate what Shadow Creek is all about, and why" is right on.  Very well said :)  :)

David,
You make some compelling points about Shadow Creek as do others and I buy into most of them.  To some extent I agree with the others about Sand Hills.  Like rj, I loved playing both the courses for different reasons.  But that gets me to my point about being the most "influential"?  Yes most GCA people know about these two courses but my guess is that 99.9%+ of the rest know very little about them, have never played either one (and never will).  Moreover, they aren't likely to hold the U.S. Open or some TV tournament so their exposure to the masses will be minimal.  I also believe that the majority of golf architects have not even seen both courses (I could be wrong and I'm sure someone will research this and tell me so  :) ).  So in that regard, do you still stand by your opinion?  

BillV makes an interesting point about Troon North and I'd bet the numbers who have played or will play there are far far higher then Shadow Creek or Sand Hills will ever see!  Troon North is an interesting candidate and it could get my vote!
Mark



  

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

jim__janosik

Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #33 on: December 13, 2001, 06:44:30 PM »
If  I  may  expand  the discussion  beyond  the golf  course
to  include  the entire  facility  I think that  Pelican Hills  as
a  facility  was the most influential  for several reasons.

#1.  They broke the barrier for  construction  budgets by
sodding  both courses because of  the ability to recoup  the
$$$$  quickly.

#2  They  were the first in  Southern CA in the  80"s  to  charge more than  $100 per round  and  raked in the revenue.
PGA  West  may have  preceded  them.

#3   They were the first to overcharge  for a mediocre  
sterile experience and get away with it.

#4  They  opened  the door for  Western Golf Properties
to  get paid $20,000  a  month to manage the facility  
all the while  the Irvine Company  covered  all  the expenses.
Troon and others  have subsequently duped owners into such
deals.

#5  The  above set the stage for the financial failure of  
Rancho San MArcos, Talega, Cimmaron and  multiple others who built  facilities on  pro formas based on  them  being
the next  Pelican Hills.

After Pelican Hills  developers thot if they followed that formula they would be successful.  They  failed to realize
luck  had  alot ot do with it.  If you put  Pelican Hills
in the Coachella Valley it would just be another high end course  for  $85.00.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Don_Mahaffey

Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #34 on: December 13, 2001, 08:39:04 PM »
Jim,
Some very good points. I've seen a few pro formas go south in the last two years. I've also seen a couple of NGF market surveys that made me wonder if they are in the construction business. Just saw one that said there was a lack of courses with green fees in a certain price range in the immediate area. But, there are 10 courses with in a 15 minute drive in the same price range, and most of those were losing money.

#4. Makes you wonder, call me optimistic, but I think some are begining to see the light.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2001, 05:53:57 AM »
Mark Fine and Jeff Brauer,

The arguments you make for Kemper Lakes and Troon North are extremely compelling.  In my mind, I was framing the question around architectural influence as opposed to total influence.  Would Shadow Creek have been built without Kemper Lakes? Maybe.  Will more people see and be influenced by Troon North than either Sand Hills or Shadow Creek?  Most definitely.  Do I think the trend towards artificial features to enhance property is more influenced by Shadow or Troon?  I think Shadow but certainly cannot prove it.

I have no raw data either Mark but in the limited amount of time I have spent with golf architects, they all seem to be fans of golf.  I would venture to guess that most of the successful ones either have been to or studied Shadow.  Heck, Tom Doak lists it as one of his 31 best in the confidential guide and says that "...is now the standard by which all other works of this kind will be judged."  

Pelican Hill is the same team of Fazio and Banfield that did Shadow Creek.  I think that the fairway construction, artificial vista's, green complex's, etc. at Pelican were directly influenced by Shadow.  Furthermore, I think that given the proximity to Vegas and the relative wealth in Newport Beach, Shadow had a lot to do with convincing Pelican that they could charge $100+ and get away with it using Fazio since these people were driving to Vegas and paying $1,000.  Pelican is one of the places where the Shadow influence is most evident.

Dan,

I appreciate your zeal for the intelligence of the average person and I have no empirical data to prove my point so I will try with a story that has greatly framed my belief.  There is a course in Stateline California called Primm Valley Lakes.  As I have heard the story, part of Fazio's deal when he built Shadow was that he would not build another competing course in Nevada.  Stateline is 1 mile over the Nevada border and 40 minutes from Shadow Creek.  MGM I think threw a lot of money at Fazio to build themselves a poor mans (Relatively speaking) Shadow Creek.  Primm used a very similar routing with almost all of the same features.  Unlike Shadow though, the course feels extremely artificial.  As Gib would say, don't look back or you will turn to salt.  Every year I end my golf season by going on a golf trip with 16 - 24 friends.  Four are professionals and all are avid golfers.  Shooter went with us this year from GCA.  The previous two years we played at Primm.  Everyone loved it.  They could not stop talking about the beauty of the golf course and the immaculate conditioning.  The Faux falls they have if gorgeous.  There were less than three of us who felt the lack of a soul.

To contrast, every year I start my golf season by going on another trip with the same group (We all know our wives are saints).  We have gone to Georgia the last four years and played Cuscowilla each year.  Most of the group are impressed with Cuscowilla and enjoy the round but I do not hear the raving that I do about Primm.  If I did a survey (And I will on the plane in February) I'll bet it is 10 - 6 Primm.  To make this even worse, I am comparing one of the best natural courses to a mediocre faux effort.  I really believe that GCA is a vacuum and I truly thing that the public will choose the faux falls over the sand dune.  I am glad you disagree and I definitely am not arguing that the public is right but if you look at the courses being built today, I will bet there are 25 in the Fazio style for every one in the C&C style.

Tom Paul,

Yours is the one argument that I cannot refute.  I would not be one bit surprised if part of Fazio’s direction from Wynn was that he wanted a course that made his high rollers feel as good as they felt at Augusta.  I still think Augusta is disqualified for its original construction was long before 1990, but any course that prides itself on fairways that you could eat off has obviously been heavily influenced by Augusta National.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

A_Clay_Man

Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #36 on: December 14, 2001, 06:22:21 AM »
Dw- I was always under the impression that Pelican pre-dated Shadow??
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #37 on: December 14, 2001, 06:26:04 AM »
David,
On your point about GCA being in a vacuum - I've addressed this in the past as something I call my "99% rule" (and at times got butchered for it).  I believe 99% of all golfers are not concerned about what we discuss here.  Pretty features and well manicured green grass is most important to them.  Ask most golfers what they think about a golf course and generally the first thing the mention are the conditions.

But that isn't to mean anything negative about GCA or diminish golf architecture in general.  I like to think I'm in that 1% and hope we all can bring that number (what ever it really is) UP.

We just have to empathize (not necessarily agree) a bit more about what is really important to the average golfer out there!  
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #38 on: December 14, 2001, 06:53:18 AM »
Jeff,
     You asked if anyone could do a walking-only CCFAD on a non-seaside site, and without imitating Ireland.  Well, one course fits all of the description except it's not a CCFAD, it's a muni.  It's Bethpage (Black).
     But you point is taken.  That is actually my dream (that will never happen unless I win the lottery), to build an all-world, minimalist, public course, walking-only, with optional caddies subsidized 75% by the club.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #39 on: December 14, 2001, 07:31:39 AM »
A_Clay_Man,

I am not certain of this and maybe someone from the left coast with some knowledge could confirm, but I believe the first course at Pelican opened in 1991 and the second in 1993.  Shadow opened in 1990.

As for the walking CCFAD, Northern Michigan tried with The Tradition at Treetops.  Rick Smith designed it.  It turned into a train wreck.  No one who went to the resort wanted to walk and most were not willing to pay for caddies.  They claimed the problem was people were trying to get in 36 or more a day and couldn't do it walking (I am just the messenger, do not read that I agree).  They ended up abandoning the idea and now have carts and it is a regular resort course.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

BillV

Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #40 on: December 14, 2001, 08:31:40 AM »
I appreciate the particular support which I received here for my theory.  Those 2 replies john_f and Jeff Brauer are particularily meaningful.  It was a case of timing for me to see it as I left Chicago in 1980, so that was the latest that Kemper Lakes opened as I was a resident then.  It was at that time an incredible addition to the public golf scene in Chi-town, and really a solid golf course for what was being done then.  I played it within a week of its opening and played it regularily.  It is much maligned here, unnecessarily (Although I haven't played for at least 10 years).

John's comments on the landscape at Troon North (Monument) are the heart of that course's success.  Pinnacle is one of the most abysmally bad evolutions of the CC-FAD on the planet. IMHO.

Somewhere I have the original Chicago Trib article on the Kemper course and its detailed architectural drawing of the par 5 11th hole.  (Jeff, any chance that's your drawing?)  There are also in the redanman archives photos of TN pre housing especially (! spooky) the par 5 11th hole and its incredible mouth dropping beauty.  (Twilight Zone theme here)

I will someday scan and post both of them here.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #41 on: December 14, 2001, 08:59:23 AM »
BillV:

Interesting reading your thoughts on Kemper Lakes.

Kemper, as you stated, has been much maligned on this
website.

In actuality, it is still the second-best public course in the
Chicagoland area (after Cog Hill #4, of course).

Kemper has always been expensive, but, in general, has been
well-groomed.  There are many interesting holes, and quite
a few good shot values are called for.  

It's biggest minus is all of the shots that must carry over
water.  It gets kind of old after awhile.

However, because it is usually very windy there, the course
always plays tough.

My biggest disappointment with the 1989 PGA contested
there was that the pros just destroyed the course.

Unfortunately (at least for me having played there 10 times
that summer beforehand in preparation for attending the
tournament there), the tees were placed on about the
blue tees.  The pros played a really short course.  I remember
playing the dastardly 17th from 210-220 yards, and then, at
the PGA, the grandstand was on the back tee!  

Also, the weather couldn't have been more perfect.  I don't
recall ever playing there without nasty wind.  However, at the
PGA, they got 4 straight days of 80 degrees and dead calm.

No wonder those guys shot the scores they did, and from that
point on, Kemper Lakes became known as incredibly
overrated!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #42 on: December 14, 2001, 09:07:04 AM »
Paul,
I sure hope Kemper Lakes is not the second best public course in the Chicago area.  Isn't that the place where they offer you a boat and a ball retriever to drag behind your golf cart  :)  I haven't played there for many years so maybe things have changed and/or improved.  
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BillV

Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #43 on: December 14, 2001, 09:55:50 AM »
Paul, see what I mean? Marrrrrrrrrrrrkkkkkkkkk.........  ::)

I learnt the game in Florida so I expected water and wind in those days.  There is a bit of water there, 16, 17, 18 are brutal, but boy-o-boy  :D did we have fun trying to drive the 18th green.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2001, 10:21:45 AM »
Bill,

I may have done that drawing, as the young guy in the office did more of that PR stuff than being trusted with actual design!

I played there a lot, as K and N had a farm house office of the 5th green, and we instituted "summer hours" to take advantage of our playing privileges.  I got quite good because we played match play, knowing we usually couldn't get in a full 18, so I stopped worrying about total score!

I recall playing with a guy who tried to drive 18, took a penalty and then made it on the second attempt, then one putting for par!  The hole was originally supposed to be a cape, with the green right of the far pond, but someone decided it should be closer to the clubhouse, valuing views over play.  It was never intended to have a driveable option.

It was not well received for the PGA, because of no tradition, but really is the type of straightforward course the pros would like week in and week out.  It couldn't have been calm all week, as I recall Curtis Strange blurting out obscenities on TV when an official wouldn't call play with rain in the area.  Of course, I am sure damp greens allowed them to play darts, further lowering the score.  

It really illustrates that putting hazards in doesn't really affect the top players, but does make life miserable for the average guy, at least in the score department.  It begs the question, "What type of course would really, really, accomodate all level of players?"

I also recall another Chicago course - Medinah - took a reputation hit after the open in 1973.  Lou Graham won, which wasn't the result they wanted, but many were in contention, including Jack Nicklaus, and he lost it on the 90 degree dogleg 13th (now 16), made some derogatory comments, and the course dropped like a rock in subsequent ratings. (Of course, the emphasis shift from difficulty to interest also helped)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

john_f (Guest)

Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #45 on: December 14, 2001, 10:27:23 AM »
Bill,

Would love to see that pre housing picture of #11 at Troon North - Monument.  I would also love to see a current picture of the compound (not house, because I beleive there is a geust house behind the gates which you can see from the green) tyo see how the housing can destroy a grreat golf course/hole.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BillV

Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #46 on: December 14, 2001, 10:29:48 AM »
Jeff

Interestingly enough, KL opened just after I got to play Medinah #3, my first real honest-to-God BIG GD Top 100 course.  Those two courses got me interested in architecture as K&N gave out a philosophy of design/tips to play printed hand-out when the course first opened.  I still have it and actuallyknow where that is.

Those two courses with Cog#4 got me really started on Architecture and redanman was born! (Although he didn't learn his true name until the summer of 1990). 8)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #47 on: December 14, 2001, 10:33:30 AM »
Bill,

If you can copy that, I would love it.  I may have even written it, since I was considered the silver penned prodigy....

If you ever saw the old "Planning and Building the Golf Course" book by NGF, that was yours truly, under the K and N name.  That evolved from Dick Nugent's "Design Philosphy Statement" that he gave every client.  I have continued this trend to this day, with a much expanded version.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

BillV

Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #48 on: December 14, 2001, 10:43:03 AM »
Jeff

Interestingly enough, KL opened just after I got to play Medinah #3, my first real honest-to-God BIG GD Top 100 course.  Those two courses got me interested in architecture as K&N gave out a philosophy of design/tips to play printed hand-out when the course first opened.  I still have it and actuallyknow where that is.

Those two courses with Cog#4 got me really started on Architecture and redanman was born! (Although he didn't learn his true name until the summer of 1990). 8)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Stettner

Re: The most influential course built in the 1990'
« Reply #49 on: December 14, 2001, 10:53:02 AM »
I'm going to take a different stance on this question, and prove (he-he) that Sandpines is the most influential course built in the 90's.
The 1993 (I think) best new course winner was lauded throughout the golf world when it first opened; jeez, it was even on the cover of the USGA's book: Golf, The Greatest Game and featured prominantly inside in the article of golf architecture by Tom Doak.
Now, however, the course is regarded largely as a flop, a wasted site that failed on multiple levels.
How is this influential?
Since that time, I see golf architects focusing very hard on not messing up a good site. Yes, The Preserve might have been better, but it's certainly not the bad golf course that Sandpines is. Time will only tell, but this course is the Waterwold of golf, a big budget disaster that all in the field will hope to avoid.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »