[Don_Mahaffey]

"I do think Ballyneal is unique in one respect.  I've never before played a course where large natural undulations are such a big part of the greens and green complexes, and affect the strategy as much as they do at Ballyneal.  This was not a concept we started with; it just evolved over the process of construction."
That’s a quote from Tom in Adam's mutation thread. I didn't want to hijack that thread so I started this one.

I found this quote very interesting. If a young or inexperienced architect made a comment like this to a potential client prior to construction, wouldn't he get blown out of the water by all the guys who think, if you build it you can draw it, or draw it and put a gps on a dozer and build it...

Obviously Tom and his guys know what they are doing and their record speaks for itself. But I can't believe we'd ever hear such an honest comment from the "drawing" architects.  

Think of how different Ballyneal would be if built in a “traditional” manner. Associate architect routes it in an office somewhere, plans are drawn up, contractors bid, course gets built, and there you have it.

Has technology and formulizing the GCA profession really helped golf course architecture? Or, are the best golf courses in the world built by talented guys in the field who have been trained by experts not only to make good decisions, but to be great communicators with others in the firm. I don’t think anyone was out there flying by the seat of their pants as much as knowing how much freedom they had and when they needed to discuss items with the boss.  

After many years in the golf business I’ve come to some conclusions I wanted to share. Prompted by a thread I wrote in 2001 and brought up for Ian’s “Best of the decade on GCA” thread. In that old thread I describe my method for irrigation management. I tried the method I described for a number of years and finally came the conclusion that it didn’t work for me. I no longer try and do the math to irrigate. About the most scientific thing I do on a golf course anymore is take soil samples with the occasional tissue sample. Other than that, the #1 technological, scientific thing I do to manage my course is get my butt out on the course as much as possible. Sensors, weather stations, whatever else, nothing can compete with a motivated human brain. You simply can not manage a golf course well from an office.
I think it’s the same with building a great course. The fewer constraints you bring to the job (like being tied to a set of plans), combined with bringing the best talent possible, throw in a good site, a client who leaves you alone, and you build a great course.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Don,
It's probably site oriented, give an architect fantastic ground and he should be adaptable and allow things to unfold.
How much is there to 'unfold' on most sites?

[Adam Clayman]

How much is there to 'unfold' on most sites?

Looks like Ballyneal is unique in more than one aspect.

Don, Happy New Year and wonderful post.

It's become obvious to me over the years that the supers who play their course, know the game and it's finer points, are the ones who have the best overall long term conditions and presentation.

These kids who think the textbook and gadgets are all they need to know, truthfully, need a dose of humble, realizing their egos are getting in the way of presenting a golf course which maximizes enjoyment for the end user.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

First kudos on your management approach.  Before cell phones, I used to judge superintendents by whether or not I could reach them on their office phone, with a low % of phone availability rating a higher % approval rating.  While it gets more scientific all the time, there is no substitute for the super being on site.  And, ditto the gca.

I don't think the plans/field distinction is as dramatic as you make it.  I bet Ballyneal had some kind of paper routing plan, drawn before, during and after field visits.  And at least in my case, even if I have greens plans drawn, that doesn't stop me from making field changes, and I often redraw the plans, either with red marker for small changes, or whole new plans if site conditions warrant, to make sure I get my ideas recorded, in case I am not there when reconstruction starts.

And, I would say the site selection for Ballyneal was the first and foremost reason the cousre was great.  Second would be that the gca put lots of thought and time into it, to make the most of the opportunity.  As long as the final thought goes into it in the field, I don't see any reason why planning ahead of time isn't of benefit.  Some things you can see on plan and some things you see better in the field, but there is no hard and fast rule about when and how you have to think about anything.  I believe RTJII used some plans at Chambers Bay (revised often in the field, to be sure) because of pemitting and process normally followed, and came out with a great product.  Woulld it have been any better done solely in the field?

I will say that I had a discussion with some well known gca's (who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty) and we privately admitted that at the time Sand Hills was built, we might not have been at the point of our careers that we could have gotten equal results to what CC achieved.  Others admitted that they simply didn't have the mindset at the time to have done a Sand Hills and CC certainly showed us a few things about working on once in a lifetime, spectacular sites.

[JC Jones]

When I read "large natural undulations" I'm assuming they weren't touched and were left as is.  If that is the case, how is this possible with the need to till 6" to create the right growing conditions for the grass?  Does the builder just remember which features were where and recreate them with the dozer?

My apologies to Joe Hancock who has explained this to me several times already.  It just seems to me that the only way to utilize "natural featuers"

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jim,
Site oriented? Maybe there was more to unfold at Ballyneal than other sites, but I think there is a lot to unfold on all sites. In fact, I'll bet there was a lot to unfold, or create in the field, even at the Rawls course. Is it site dependant, maybe, but I think it's more of a way of doing business. I hope Tom chimes in.

Adam,
The thing I want to stress is, I did the analytical method. I tried to let science drive every decision and so I have that experience. I think that helps me a lot as I revert back to doing what works best for me. I have my degree, I have my CEUs, and I have my experiences. What's different now is I trust my instincts a lot more and don't feel the need to scientifically verify all my agronomic decisions. There is no "program" that works for me. I'm not a "systems" manager, I'm a greenkeeper and although I have a strong scientific background like most modern Superintendents, I work best when I don't let the science drive everything I do. I wish I could explain it better, but I think you know what I'm saying.

Obviously, Tom and his guys are very educated and experienced. I think they all have formal higher education and so they have that foundation. I just found that quote by Tom so enlightening because he's probably assembled about as technically trained a bunch as you can find, yet they seem to still let their creativeness drive their decision making. This in an industry that strives to standardize, quantify, and formulize. I think an inexperienced banker might struggle with Tom's approach if a client brought him in and said these are the guys who you need to fund so I can get my project built. But, if you go on track record not only of ranking success, quality of construction and dollars spent, wouldn't Tom's approach be the best?

I just find it very interesting that in a world where most are trying to nail down every outcome and cost everything out to a knat's ass beforehand, some of best courses are being built by guys who seem to only focus on getting every detail right as they build the best course possible.   

Jeff,
I know all architects make field changes. And I know the site at Ballyneal is special and like Jim wrote dictated much of the methodology…maybe. But c’mon, a great golf course gets built and the guy who builds it says the greens complexes are what help to make it special and they built/designed them in a way they hadn’t considered beforehand.
That’s not dramatic?

[Tom_Doak]

JC:

Most of the "natural features" to which I referred were, in fact, modified from their original form so that a ball would eventually come to rest in certain parts of the green.  Some of them were that steep!  But the natural contours dictated the form of nearly every green, and all of the finished contours tie in to the natural contours on the exterior, so that you can still use the natural contours to get your approach shot into position.

[Sean Leary]

JC:

Most of the "natural features" to which I referred were, in fact, modified from their original form so that a ball would eventually come to rest in certain parts of the green.  Some of them were that steep!  But the natural contours dictated the form of nearly every green, and all of the finished contours tie in to the natural contours on the exterior, so that you can still use the natural contours to get your approach shot into position.

Tom,

Were you ever worried about the greens being too severe, as you were building them?

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think the plans/field distinction is as dramatic as you make it.  I bet Ballyneal had some kind of paper routing plan, drawn before, during and after field visits.  And at least in my case, even if I have greens plans drawn, that doesn't stop me from making field changes, and I often redraw the plans, either with red marker for small changes, or whole new plans if site conditions warrant, to make sure I get my ideas recorded, in case I am not there when reconstruction starts.

And, I would say the site selection for Ballyneal was the first and foremost reason the cousre was great.  Second would be that the gca put lots of thought and time into it, to make the most of the opportunity.  As long as the final thought goes into it in the field, I don't see any reason why planning ahead of time isn't of benefit.  Some things you can see on plan and some things you see better in the field, but there is no hard and fast rule about when and how you have to think about anything.  

Jeff:

Seems like people have been betting against me all week here, but here again, the house wins.  There was indeed a routing plan for Ballyneal at the start ... actually, a few different versions of them.  But we never actually had a finished routing drawn up ... the one they used to market the course was before the last set of changes.  And once we started work, nobody ever looked at a plan or re-drew anything.  [At Barnbougle Dunes, there wasn't even a plan, because I didn't trust Greg Ramsay with one before we had been paid anything; we just built the whole course in the field.]

Undoubtedly, you are right that we had a great site to work with, and that's a huge part of what made the golf course so good.  I would not have taken the same approach with The Rawls Course, where everything started from flat and there was a lot of very finicky engineering involved ... although I saw Pete Dye take that approach on a lot of sites that were not as blessed as Ballyneal, and he always did okay.

Why we could take that approach at Ballyneal [and indeed, why it worked for Pete] is that we had complete control over the job site.  There weren't any contractors running around doing things without us watching; nobody started on a green site until Bruce Hepner or I told them they were okay to start and had flagged outlines of where the bunkers would be.  That, and we had one of the best construction crews ever assembled for a job; everyone down to the interns [Jonathan Reisetter and Mike McCartin] was a star.

I can tell you for certain that many of the best ideas at Ballyneal were either someone else's, or didn't happen until I was standing right there with a piece of equipment idling next to me.  If we had started the seventh green based on a plan of what I was thinking at the start of the project, we would have ruined it before I ever had my great idea, and I would have spent that day trying to make a different idea work instead of coming up with another, better plan.  

I suppose in theory you are correct that I could have spent much more time on the ground earlier, and had my great idea earlier, and drawn it up the right way at the start; in this particular case, I was reacting to something we were building at Sebonack, so I doubt I would have come up with the idea earlier.  I just know from experience that our best work has come about in the field, and not on paper, no matter how much time I think about a green in advance.

I never draw greens plans anymore.  I find that if I try to be too specific, I will give the shaper one too many instructions, and there will be some conflict, and he'll get off track.  But if I just tell him the ESSENTIALS of what I want [medium-sized green, two soft tiers, back tier bigger, angled left to right, very hard to approach from the right], and let the shaper fit the rest to what's out there, it usually turns out very well.  If I tell him to make the difference between the tiers exactly one foot, then the terraces themselves might turn out too flat or too steep, or the tie-in to existing grade in the fairway will be too steep, even though it didn't matter at all whether the tier was eight inches or sixteen.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Yes, we were always concerned about whether the greens we were building were TOO steep ... you have to be on guard when you've got Brian Schneider and Kye Goalby building greens for you!  [Those two shaped the majority of the greens, although Eric Iverson and Brian Slawnik and Dan Proctor and I all shaped at least one of them.]

But that is another thing about why I don't like to work from plans, because on plans, you will never take any chances.  In the field, I can keep looking at the green in 3-D and walk over it and try to figure out how I could putt from Point A to Point B, and there is much more chance that I will build something really original; and there is never any real danger because I know right up until I approve the green for planting, I can change my mind and soften it as necessary.  [That's a great advantage of building native-soil greens over USGA greens, as well.]

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Most of my big field changes are a result of something else I have seen during the course of a project that get me to reassess short or long held assumptions about how a particular green ought to be.  No doubt that thinking, and then rethinking multiple times right up until the soil is turned usually gets the best greens built.

I understand about the 1 foot tiers. One drawback of plans is that it seems real easy for those tiers to become a simple one foot (two contour lines)  After building too many of those, I went back to some plans and tried to figure out how to draw more random and rolling tiers for the next time.

Its always done finally in the field, but in many cases, not only do some engineered aspects of most greens work out in general better on paper, but some of us have to work to specific quantities if building USGA greens, and then, plans are necessary.  

[Tom_Doak]

Some of us have to work to specific quantities if building USGA greens, and then, plans are necessary.  

You really have to work to specific quantities?  If the greens come out 5% smaller or larger in the field, you don't pay the contractor based on the materials actually used?  And if you think the 18th green needs to be 10% bigger, you have to make another green smaller, or forget about it?

[Kyle Henderson]

I’ve spoken with many who do not hold Ballyneal to be quite the equal of other modern masterpieces such as Sand Hills because the greens in Holyoke are “over the top.”  I disagree with this assessment. Provided they don’t stimp above an 11, the greens are more than playable in strong winds. Sure, it’s tough to make putts, but the course is designed for match play (there are no tee markers, for instance). Each green is distinctive, memorable, and fascinating, not only for putting, but especially for chipping, pitching and approaching from wedge to wood distances. The daily pin position often dictate playing strategies from tee to green. Generally, the difficulty of a recovery shots is proportional to the magnitude of the error associated with the previous shot.

To my mind, the greens are criticized because they defy convention, but that boldness is the very source of their greatness. Certainly, I don’t think many if any other courses should try to copy Ballyneal’s putting surfaces. But, based on my limited travels, I consider these greens, as a complete set, to be ground-breaking “products” that tie in perfectly with their surroundings.

There are very few courses for which I have vivid memories of the green contours (even after several rounds) on more than a handful of holes. At Ballyneal, I can see the faces of 18 long-distance friends when I close my eyes.


Now that I’ve waxed all poetic...

Do the greens at Barnbougle Dunes bear any similarities to their Holyoke cousins?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Some of us have to work to specific quantities if building USGA greens, and then, plans are necessary. 

You really have to work to specific quantities?  If the greens come out 5% smaller or larger in the field, you don't pay the contractor based on the materials actually used?  And if you think the 18th green needs to be 10% bigger, you have to make another green smaller, or forget about it?

Sadly, yes but we have to find other budget offsets, yes since the Contractor may have ordered just the contract amount of green sand and getting in small shipments would cost much more that the owner doesn't want to pay, and yes so we often make the putting green smaller than we originally intended if somehow the on course greens get bigger, or just forget about it.

Its called a budget. Welcome to the real world....

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I know a bit about budgets.  We are 27 for 29 in winding up at or under budget.  And I know that when we worked with Landscapes Unlimited on Lost Dunes, it was both the smallest budget course they had done for 2-3 years, and the most profitable to them, by percentage.

I have just never had to have costs nailed down to the point where there was not sufficient flexibility in the design.  I try to build enough contingency into the budget that a little thing like getting more sand for a green will be no problem, and the language in the contracts is always that the contractor is paid for the unit price quoted times the amount of sand brought in [which we calculate by the final square footage of the greens, so the wastage is on them].  But, of course, 2/3 of the time we have cut the golf course contractor's profit out of the equation, which leaves us a healthy amount of room for improvements.

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle:

There are a handful of greens at Barnbougle which I would say are in the same style as Ballyneal's ... notably, #4, #5, #10, and #13.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff and TD and others,
Interesting to hear the different input on preplanned greens vs. greens built on site and comments on "budget". 
Don't you think it is fair to say that there is more than one way to skin a cat....
I build most of my stuff in the same manner as TD....whereby I might give a budget for 125,000 sq ft of green and measure as we go....knowing we can adjust...and the same for dirt move and irrigation heads etc.....and have had the same results with remaining under budget in those cases.   But the other way of doing such is to preplan all the details and that works extremely well for many....I just know that for me..once we start to "peel the onion" on the property..then I start making all types of adjustments and changes that would destroy much of my planning above the routing stage...it all works for somebody.....and no one can say any of it is the wrong way to do it....
Happy New Year....

[Jud_T]

Kyle,

Haven't made it out to Ballyneal (yet!), but if you want to see wild Doak greens and haven't made it to Lost Dunes yet, you owe it to yourself to swing by and check those puppies out...

TD,

Are the shapers the Left Tackles of GCA? (i.e. most important players after the obvious name guys)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I don't think those making the distinction between "pre-planned" and "on site" planning know how indistinct those two methods are, or can be.  While I draw green details to get the contractors started, I also make field changes.  I still say that getting one idea that works and then letting it evolve is the same whether the first idea comes months ahead of construction during design, or later when starting construction.  The more and earlier you start thinking about a green, the better off its likely to turn out.

That said, if I have a project budget of 125,000 SF for greens, I try to stay to it, since I have a reputation for staying under budget, as well.  Everything is in a constant state of flux, but usually, buying more materials for discretionary design changes is an area we stay away from.  Contractors will shape all day (or until repeated changes start to affect the schedule) but won't buy extra material that costs them reall $$$$, and no one likes to go back to the owner with change orders if they can be avoided.

And, on those occaisions when I ask the owner for 5K more green area, so that I can do an unusual big honkin green somewhere, most question whether its really necessary.  As we all know, there is more way to skin the cat, and the owner naturally wonders why the way we select - building a 20,000 SF green, for example - has to cost him more money.

I have proposed such big greens (kind of like 18 at Lake Orion, MI) but so far, none have made it to the final design.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Now I agree with you [and Mike], that if we give a budget of 125,000 sf for greens, generally we try to stick to it.  I can't recall ever going over our general budget for materials.  The only difference in our methods is that I don't try to plan in advance exactly which greens will be how big, I just use a round number target as Mike does.  Old Macdonald's greens are huge -- way bigger than I expected when we started -- but there were no greens materials involved there, so it didn't add to the construction costs, just the maintenance costs.

One problem I do have with plans (ESPECIALLY computer plans) is the false sense of accuracy they give.  For example, on the project in Spain I had looked at last month, a landscape architect had drawn up plans for 27 holes for preliminary permitting, several years ago.  Their plan was pretty crazy (110-degree doglegs crazy) and not entirely to scale, but, they used the CAD to measure areas of greens and fairways, and submitted that for water needs.  They had 7 acres of greens for the first 18 holes, and huge fairways as well, so their numbers were vastly overstated.

This worked out well in the end, though ... I think it has given us the leeway to build 36 holes using the water they had requested for 27!

[Tim Nugent]

Tom, you make a good point about CAD, but remember, like a dozer, it's just a tool.  In the hands of a rookie, it can be just as dangerous.  I've followed this thread with some interest as I've done it your way and I've done it JB's way.  I've come to the conclusion that a) given the chance, give me a dozer and I'll shape it myself.  It takes about as long as doing a 0.5' or 0.25m 30 scale green detail.  If I have a contractor, AND I know I'll be onsite, a 2' grading plan is enough.  He can get his quantities and rough it in from that.  then I can work with a shaper and get it finished in about a half day.  He makes money 'cause he knows that when I walk away, he can immediately move on to finishing the complex. Or if I must do details, I prefer to wait until after the green has been roughed-in.  Then I'll do it, incorporating any field modifications. 

But, I have to say, the best ones are the ones that I have the most on-site time with.  But, I can afford to spend the time because I don't have an office to run and employees to babysit.  And my clients get exactly what I want, not what some associate "thinks" I would like, or something he likes irregardless. Plus, conflicts are non-existent.  Many times, I have stopped a shaper saying, "stop, don't do anymore, I like it just like it is".  I call this "what just fell off the blade".  It may have nothing to do with what I was going after but...it just fits, so we go with it.

One problem with detailed plans is, when you field change them, unsavey owners/supers, will question it.  They think plans are "cast-in-stone".  My dad has a favorite way of explaining this to owners. "Plans are like Michelangelo's sketchbook,  but when he put his chisle to the marble, the veining told him which way to go. And in the end he got The David". Golf course design shouldn't be paint-by-numbers.

Also, contractors HATE it when they are told "get 3 or 4 shaped then I'll come out and tell you what I don't like."  This 'hurry up and wait' is a schedule killer.  Plus, the uncertainy of how much rework will be necessary and will it require an addition site visit.  The material costs are fixed so the only to make money is to get it done as fast as possible and messing with the schedule is messing with the profit.

Here's an illustrative story from a Big contractor.  During the end of the 80's, they were doing a job in AZ for a Big Name designer.  After getting several greens ready, a Design Associate (DA) flys out.  He doesn't like one of the greens and thinks a different green would work better.  The contractors super is pissed and says, "I built what you drew, I don't have a crystal ball, if you want something different, build it yourself - I'm going home".  The next morning, the super finds an entirely different green complex and a note on the seat of the dozer from the DA - who had flown back to NC.  It says, "Liked the first one better, can you put it back, I woulda, but it got dark, thanks - see ya in a month".


As far a contractors and quanities go here are some stategies.  a) stake out the greens perimeter and then move the stakes in 1". you now have , on a 6000sf green 300 sf to bank.  You can even take this one step furtherand cut the core at a 45 degree angle.  This will save another 300 sf of materials but keep the "mowed" green the same size, since the collar will be on the angled section.  USGA purist will cry but...I have never had the USGA offer to make up the difference.
b) show more bunkers than you really need,  Then if you need something to "trade" convert some to grass hollow. They already have drainage, so it works fine.  Plus the super will be happy cause it's that many fewer bunkers he has to maintain.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Like Tim says, garbage in, garbage out with CAD and whoever is running it.

One problem I have with the field only method is that whenever I have tried to wing it, things tend to come out too small.  I also feel more comfy if I have a plan showing the 5% ADA ramp. Here in TX, we have to have those submitted for permits as well and then they check later. If I have it on plan, and it doesn't get built, then at least I have some evidence it ain't my fault.  Ditto if the elevation is tied to being above the floodplain, or I want an elevated green for vision or play qualitiy, or I need to get a generalized cut and fill balance plan for a specific area (which I often do).

In non critical situations, like Tim says, most contractors would be happy with a general size and angle of the putting surface and a few base elevations so they know about how much to fill.  I have no trouble providing that much info to start.  As mentioned, I start thinking about what type of green I want in routing and refine that in feature design, as to size, angle, elevation, bunker placement, etc.

However, I don't really draw the green plans any more until the trees are cleared and I can see the site.  Then, I redo the conept sketch, add contour lines, etc. based on field condtiions.  I do give certain shapers some freedom but that can be a crap shoot - they can tend to repeat things that I say I like rather than try something new.  And, I generally try to explain what I was thinking (or as its usually phrased, "What the hell was I thinking" on at least the major points.

So, I continue to plan ahead but by no means are any plans drawn in the permitting or design phase final.  That is why I don't think there is that big a distinction between guys who draw plans and guys who don't.  In both cases, the field is where the final decisions are made, and over time, I have been going that way, and the industry has been going that way on all but a few projects that for some reason require building exactly to some plan.

One advantage of plan view is that I can consider balance, variety, aand avoid repeating things (which I and I think most designers tend to do when creating in a short stretch of time)  For me, thinking about it during site walks, then on plan, then after clearing and then during shaping tends to get the best results.  Of course, there are quicker thinkers than me......

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff, Mike & Tim
What greens have you built that are of a similar quality to Tom's at Ballyneal?

Don's point wasn't about technology but about an architect strong enough to go in undecided and come out with a set of world class greens.

I found this quote about a month ago:
"If you know what you are going to write when writing a poem, it is going to be average" Derek Walcott http://bit.ly/3Csb9g

[Kyle Henderson]

Kyle,

Haven't made it out to Ballyneal (yet!), but if you want to see wild Doak greens and haven't made it to Lost Dunes yet, you owe it to yourself to swing by and check those puppies out...

Noted. Michigan is definitely high on my wish list.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

My point wasn't about technology either.  It was just the question of whether deciding quickly in the field is any better than having decided quickly on the plan? Or if deciding slowly using different ways over many month is more likely to result in a better green most of the time?

Its not as if "stroke of genius" can only occur with a bulldozer idling nearby is it?  Or are you one who believes that it is more likely to occur when on a deadline to get started?  I am sure some people work that way, including creative types like poets and gca but I don't think its necessarily the only way to work.

And I know that when taking tests, often your first, gut feel answer is often the correct one, but that is on multiple choice tests.  Good essay tests require some diligent thought, and I have always thought of the design process of being part inspiration, part perspiration.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()