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.


Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Question for Tom D...
« on: August 12, 2009, 04:16:13 PM »
I understand if you choose not to answer, but I have been thinking of this since my recent trip. Which was a better site to work with Rock Creek or Ballyneal? I loved, I mean I loved both courses and think they are both VERY special so I understand if you do not want to make a choice. I was just curious which site screamed "I am a great course, find me" louder.
Mr Hurricane

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Question for Tom D...
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2009, 08:03:52 PM »
Jim:

I would be happy to answer that question, but I don't really know how to compare the two.

Both properties had an almost unlimited canvas to draw on, although at Ballyneal the clubhouse location was a fairly simple decision and at Rock Creek it was much more up to me.

For Rock Creek, we did some early routings that started from a remote location and wound up back at the lodge, thinking that a closed loop would require too much of a climb to be walkable.  (The elevation change from #7 tee to #17 green is 360 feet, so that's how much of a climb you make in the course of 18 holes, too.)  So from that standpoint, we considered more variables, and the process was a bit more interesting.

However, the elevation change had a lot to do with our thinking all the way through that project ... how to get up the hill, and where to cross the stream were big choices with limited alternatives.  Whereas at Ballyneal, you could choose to go in more different directions ... the only tricky part was finding a good way to get down the hill after you started out on top for #1.  We had to look for the way down for 2-3 site visits, until we eventually wandered off the map and found the third hole and fourth tee.

As far as building them, Ballyneal was certainly more fun to build ... working in the sand is a lot quicker and easier than working in the rock, and you can be more creative along the way because the work is easy to erase.  Rock Creek was the hardest construction job we've ever done, and it didn't happen quickly.  My thanks to all who worked there, but especially to Eric Iverson and Jonathan Reisetter who put in the most hours on the rock pile.

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Question for Tom D...
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2009, 08:14:18 PM »
As far as building them, Ballyneal was certainly more fun to build ... working in the sand is a lot quicker and easier than working in the rock, and you can be more creative along the way because the work is easy to erase.  Rock Creek was the hardest construction job we've ever done, and it didn't happen quickly.  My thanks to all who worked there, but especially to Eric Iverson and Jonathan Reisetter who put in the most hours on the rock pile.
This might be another difficult question - whilst Ballyneal might have been more fun to build, would you be able to compare the results of the  construction methods in other ways? 

Does having to spend a bit more time in planning make a more conservative less quirky course at all?  Or does it make a more balanced course where the concept of each hole is planned further in advance.

Do you give less free reign to associates, knowing you can't undo their work as easily?  Does this affect the character ofthe course at all?

I suppose what I am getting at is the following: Is there a difference in character between courses that you have had to plan more and those that you could work ad hoc more?
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Question for Tom D...
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2009, 09:50:52 PM »
David:

On the contrary, some of the most severe things I've built were greens at Lost Dunes that I had to draw out on paper so the shaper (Jerame Miller) could build them while I was elsewhere.  We were just starting and I was trying to give him some wild stuff to get him off on the right track ... I came back and toned them down, but they still wound up among the wildest I've ever done.

You may be right that Eric was less likely to build a wild green knowing how long it would take to fix if I didn't like it, but that doesn't explain the 5th or 6th or 11th or 15th at Rock Creek.

I think it's really just a function of personality.  For other architects, knowing they aren't going to modify the greens much in the field means staying conservative and making them 2% or less from back to front on paper.  And that's just not how we work.

And it's also a function of the green site, for sure.  If there is a lot of tilt there to begin with, and it's rock, you are probably going to whittle away at it until it is just barely under the maximum.  If it's sand, you could change it a lot more easily.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 09:55:00 PM by Tom_Doak »

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Question for Tom D...
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2009, 09:37:15 AM »
Thanks Tom, I appreciate the input. You have "10s" on the Franklin scale with both.
Mr Hurricane