Designing golf holes and designing golf courses....different birds.....

[Mike_Young]

The "flat course" thread got me to thinking....
Are there some architects that have gone thru a career designing good holes but bad courses.....and while I think you can't have great courses with bad holes...I do think one can have great holes on a bad course....
And if you say no then you don't place much value on routing.....
and issues???.....lets just begin with drainage integrated into an entire course vs. a entire hole....uh uh.....


This is one of the hangups i have had with so much of the restoration stuff and people taunting so much of it as architecture when it is more like a furniture refinisher refinishing a piece of furniture that he could not begin to  build.  (Now nobody get their little underwear in a wad )

[JESII]

And that is why I feel confident that, conceptually, I could improve a hole / course but could not create a good one...

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
It would be interesting to hear which architects YOU think  .."have gone thru a career designing good holes but bad courses"... and which of the "restoration" architects ..."could not begin to build"  a course from scratch.

You are always harping on this subject, and it has merit, but you never give us the skinny on who you feel the 'offenders' are.

You're the Pro, please enlighten us, seriously. 

[Bill_McBride]

His lips are sealed.

Actually, moving but sealed. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bill,
I suspect they'll remain tighter than two coats of paint. 

[Garland Bayley]

Well, I certainly have never played a good routing from Mike Young.






















But, then I have never played any routing from Mike Young.

[Bill_McBride]

Well, I certainly have never played a good routing from Mike Young.

But, then I have never played any routing from Mike Young.

No problemo.  Fly to Atlanta, rent a car, drive 2 hours east to Madison, go south a few miles, balls in the air at Longshadow, you will love it.  And a lot more reasonable than anything we'll play at the Kings Putter.

Well maybe not, Rustic Canyon is certainly reasonable and I'll bet Soule Park will be too.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

This is one of the hangups i have had with so much of the restoration stuff and people taunting so much of it as architecture when it is more like a furniture refinisher refinishing a piece of furniture that he could not begin to  build.  (Now nobody get their little underwear in a wad )


This I totally agree with.

[Mike_Young]

Jim,
Probably nothing for me to gain by unsealing my lips as far as good holes on bad courses go but we all have them.  I can readily tell you the worst golf course I ever did and why.  Maple Ridge in Columbus Ga.....  It was one of my first  designs and the owner would use me instead of a "signature" if we could use/find a builder that had worked for a "signature".....well, I wanted the job and I did not have the balls to argue with the landplanner and the builder used his status to bully the owner and myself.....AND it was my fault for allowing it to happen.  I only know of one good hole on that course and the routing was bad.....
Now having said the above...I think it happens many times especially with some of the land planner designed routings which are handed to "signature designers"....
I know for myself...after it happened to me that one time and once more afterward.....I will not accept a landplanner routing if it is just so bad I can't get the holes and shots I want from it.....(now whether Garland would like my routings or not....I don't know) but I am confident that myself and any other architect out there has improved on his routings the more work he has done.  
As for naming names.....the late 80's thru early 2000's are littered with bad courses/good holes due to housing and developers not  compromising.  Many of the "signatures" accepted these jobs where a landplanner had already placed the course and all they could do was shape the area they were given.....

NOW..as for "restoration experts"........some of these guys have done there own work and have screwed up enough to know it....I have no problem there..... But often on this site guys start drooling all over some guy... we will see websites of guys that come out of the woodwork and call themselves an architect.  I guess we all do that at sometime.....ANYWAY....you can decide the guys I speak of.....saying one does a masterplan of some place, saying someone went out and instructed a guy on a new "Tille"/Ross/McKenzie" bunker ......having no idea how to do it or get it done and relying completely on some contractor to tell him what he needs to do.......doesn't cut it.....it used to be most people started out doing whatever they could find in order to get to where they could do their own work.....and some in doing so decided they would like to restore....no problem there with me......but if some guy reads this site for a few years....decides to print a card....does a website.....and has no body of work.....only hype.....that is bad for this business......WHY...because club boards are basically stupid when it comes to this stuff and they can spend 10 times what it could/should cost especially when they have some guy that all he knows is to call a contractor and ask him what he should do.....when one looks closely they will find that most of these types could not make a living in this business....they either are retired or have another income.....always find a guy that can make a living at this stuff if not...why should you use him?   If a guy has never designed / built a course and just done a hole here or a green or a bunker then he doesn't know what he doesn't know.
WELL HAVE I UNSEALED MY LIPS ENOUGH???

Jim,  Does any of this make sense to you?

[Mike_Young]

Well, I certainly have never played a good routing from Mike Young.






















But, then I have never played any routing from Mike Young.

Garland...me neither.....I try to play holes and walk routings.....and be careful with me....I'm sensitive

[Jim_Kennedy]

Yes Mike, it makes very good sense, and thank you for responding.

I was a building contractor for a number of years in Ct., a state with its fair share of regulatory bodies. It always amazed me that the ONLY requirement necessary to practice home building was registering with the state's consumer protection department,  Learned Bupkus could become a contractor if he paid the required fee. Something else that always amazed me, even though the public was provided this minimal modicum of protection, some were still dumb enough to hire unregistered  contractors.
If some mythical club is silly enough to hire someone who: ..."reads this site for a few years....decides to print a card....does a website.....and has no body of work.....only hype",  then they deserve what they get. 
In the long run though, I don't think it's bad for business. The guy who sells a bill of goods and then produces crap makes those who know what the hell they are doing look even better.

[Jim_Kennedy]

..Mike, I just wanted to add one thing, once you gain some architectural knowledge the idea of portraying yourself as someone who 'does' course restoration/renovation seems like a natural, even for those  who don't need the money, and they can point to all the 'gentleman' architects from the last century who did the same.   

Another reason for you to grumble about the ODGs.   

[Mike_Young]

..Mike, I just wanted to add one thing, once you gain some architectural knowledge the idea of portraying yourself as someone who 'does' course restoration/renovation seems like a natural, even for those  who don't need the money, and they can point to all the 'gentleman' architects from the last century who did the same.   

Another reason for you to grumble about the ODGs.   

Jim,
I hope you don't think I grumble about the ODG's.....I just try to be a realist as it pertains to them instead of an idealist....
Now what you say above probably irritates the legit restoration guys much more than it does me.....also.....I have no problem with one that might be a "restoration historian" who has studied and can convey issues regarding such....just say so ......reading books re the subject and getting it done are two different things ....don't you think so?   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
How many people w/book knowledge but little practical knowledge do you see invading your 'trade'? I don't think I could have irritated more than a couple of people, tops. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

It wouldn't be too hard to name names among this group - the "restorers" include Hanse, Forse, Pritchard and maybe Spence.  Foster, Silva and a few others would be on that list, but have plenty of new courses before undertaking restoration work.

Given that Gil Hanse did and does design some superior courses when given the chance to do new 18 hole courses (I haven't played new work of the other restoration specialists) I would take that as an indication that they probably have the talent to do it all, but chose, found, or were forced into a market niche of restoration.  But, then, I look for the positive......

But, Mike is right in that routing is as different an animal to feature design or restoration as the long game is to putting.  It could be quite possible for a gca to excel at one and stink at the other.

I like to think I have very few bad holes out there.  I once spoke to a gca who lamented matter of factly that every one of his courses had a few bad holes.  In his mind, he "couldn't avoid them."  I shook my head because I think part of the battle starts with attitude and ends with never giving up on a routing or a hole design until I, as Tillie said, "beat sufficient character into the hole."  Others would call it making lemonade out of lemons!

The post reminded me of the phrase, "A good collection of holes."  Now, what does that mean, and can a good collection of holes not be a good golf course because they don't have a theme?  I gather a well done replica course could go either way.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
How many people w/book knowledge but little practical knowledge do you see invading your 'trade'? I don't think I could have irritated more than a couple of people, tops. 

Jim,
I would say you are probably correct.....in reality I rarely think about it unless I get to reading some reply on here .....I am just amazed at some of the hype.....

Jeff,
I'm not speaking of the guys you mention.....most have actually done some of their own work.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I do see where you are coming from.  I did a humorous "Top Ten Trends" bit at ASGCA a few years back.  Among the trends was -

"Old requirement to get a remodel job - must have written five spec books for construction"

"New requirement to get a  remodel job - must have read five golf architecture history books"

In some cases, it does seem as if knowledge and experience in and of the business and construction side of gca is being devalued as historians and "wannabes" make their sales pitch to restore courses.  I agree with you that anyone can have ideas about how to best remodel/restore a course, but being Larry the Cable Guy and being able to "Git er done" is where clubs have traditionally been willing to pay the bucks.  While sometimes necessary, certainly adding "perspective" often just adds confusion and another fee to the project.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
You seem to be more poltically correct than myself

[Lester George]

Mike,

Some years back I agreed to completely rebuild a course a friend of mine had bought as part of a subdivision.  It started out as one of the worst I had ever seen.  Only 9 holes and not one of which I would have crossed the street to play.

I was constrained by the routing which I could not change so I convinced the owner that we should move a good bit of dirt and add some links flair because there were no trees to speak of anyway. (Moving the dirt at least solved the million drainage issues anyway)

He said go. 

I must say that there are six or seven holes on that course now that I actually think are very good.  Some of which I would be proud to build anywhere. 

I guess I am saying there is a possibility of building good holes within a bad routing.  But I would always like to start from scratch.  Seems my most accepted work has been the routings I have done versus renovations where my options were few.

I guess you can put me in the group that thinks the routing is part of the genius of the good courses and yes, I think there are many in the profession who are way out of their element when they are expected to "route" something great. 

Lester

 

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

When you said, "I have no problem with one that might be a "restoration historian" who has studied and can convey issues regarding such....just say so ......reading books re the subject and getting it done are two different things ....don't you think so?" you make a terrific point.

As one who might now qualify as a "restoration historian" I can definitively state that unless one is getting their hands dirty with soil they can't fully advise a client on what decision they should make in "recreating" a golf course.

One might make the comparison to an interior designer versus a board certified architect. Small things such as load-bearing walls, plenums and building codes are oft-times overlooked by those who are simply "envisioning" a finished product. Yet the reality of this comparison is both unfair and a bit incorrect for many "restoration historians."

For example, recently I spoke and corresponded with an architect who was hoping to work on Tillinghast restoration. He mentioned that a "true" Tillinghast greenside bunker was always grass-faced. In fact, he even told this to the club whose work he was soliciting, citing examples of Tilly courses where this style was used. I told him that I wish for his sake that he had asked me about it beforehand because he was incorrect. A few minutes later he received an email containing photos of the courses taken in Tilly's day that he had referenced showing bunkers grass- faced, sand-faced and several versions of a mixture of them at these very courses. Unfortunately for him he didn't get the job.

I believe that a number of architects sometimes make the mistake that they "know" an ODG's "style" simply from having seen, played and even worked on some of their courses. This thinking, though, is akin to the opposite of Mike's statement that "reading books re the subject and getting it done are two different things..." for these "get things done" DESPITE how the books and study show their understanding to have been wrong.

What I believe is needed are architects who are also students of history. If they are not, it is incumbent upon them to work with an "architectural historian" if they truly want to restore a course to what the designer had in mind for it so many years ago. The "historian" can supply the why and the concept of "what" while the architect supplies the practicality of "how" and the reality of "what" that is needed to make a course once again feature the art that shone forth in the ODG's original intent.
 

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I look at the restoration thing a bit differently than you do.

I think anyone who's well read can put together a good restoration plan -- because if you are really RESTORING a golf course you don't even need a plan, you just need good documentation of what used to be there to begin with, and a knack for explaining why it was better than what's there today.

However, as Phil suggests above, being able to get something in the ground is another matter entirely.  Trying to precisely rebuild greens while preserving contours, or building bunkers which blend seamlessly with the rest of the course, is VERY difficult and you have to be VERY practiced at it to do it right.  There are some good golf course contractors out there, but I do not really trust many of them to keep working at it until it's perfect (instead of "good enough") ... especially if they're being supervised by somebody without a lot of construction experience.  As you know, contractors will take advantage of an architect without much experience ... because the architect needs THEM more than the other way around.

[Mike_Young]

Phil,
I can live with what you say.....I don't see us that far a apart.....

TD,
I don't see us being that different in how we look at restoration.....you might explain it better than myself....

BUT you have it on the biggest issue and that is the contractor....I would assume you prefer to have your guys shaping and finishing.....I would.....and would you not agree that you can often tell which contractor did which job for a specific architect.....so often the contractor vision is what is left moreso than the architect in some of these projects and definitely in new stuff.....

You and Phil are saying the same thing as myself...I'm just more rude