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.


Ryan Farrow

Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2010, 10:05:56 PM »
First off!!!!! Everyone need to back off of my man ALEX!

He raised some very legit points and should not have to defend himself like he is doing (just walk away). I think your question is a good one for architects, as what they take more pride in? great golf course on great land or great golf course on something mediocre. I'm not sure.

There I sites I have walked where I thought it was too nice to put a golf course in a certain area. In some instances I would rather convert a poor, cultivated area into a great, scenic golf course, than to disrupt something that is already beautiful. I think something Melvyn is not thinking about is  if golf is really all that important. Does golf always come first?  In new resort developments or master planned communities or remodels even? When does safety or habitat, or something of cultural significance trump the need to locate the best freaking green site the world has ever seen. 



Melvyn, what course qualifies under your description?



“The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.  Outrageous and 99.999999% of the time WRONG!

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2010, 10:16:46 PM »
Ryan...

I don't get you at all...at freakin' all...with comments like this one...

 "is if golf is really all that important"

Huh?  What?  Who are you?  Where do you come from?  Dude man, I just can't get my arms around what would drive anyone to say something like that.  Whoa?!?!?

 :) ;) :D ;D
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2010, 10:33:36 PM »
Alex (and Ryan):

I take more pride in building the course that takes less work.

Hypothetically, if I could create the greatest course in the world all through my own creativity, that would be terrific.  But nobody's ever really done anything approaching that ... the closest thing I've seen to that is Shadow Creek, and there are 50 courses I would be more proud to call my own than Shadow Creek.

If you don't think finding a great course that takes no earthwork is really "architecture," that's for you to decide.  For me, that's nirvana.  I know that Stone Eagle and Rock Creek were more difficult to build and in some ways they are a better testament to what we are capable of creating, but the bottom line is that I don't care what people think of my ability ... I only care what they think of my finished product.

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2010, 10:59:36 PM »
 8) Tom D.. for what its worth.. every summer, second to jumping into Blue Lake,  I can't wait to get back to play the Black Forest at Wilderness Valley, which I first saw in construction.. i still really like it, though Ballyneal ain't bad either..
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Ryan Farrow

Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #54 on: January 14, 2010, 12:06:46 AM »
Tom,

you said:

"I only care what they think of my finished product."

I can't argue at all with that. At the end of that day, it is really all that matters.


If we could find 18 holes w/o earthwork we wouldn't have jobs. Everyone would be a golf course finder!

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #55 on: January 14, 2010, 01:27:56 AM »
Kmoum

I would not praise a designer for building a course on either site, but you know my position on Land Fit For Purpose. There are sites where course should NOT BE BUILT UPON no matter how much money is involved, but if an architect wants to sell his soul to the Devil who am I to stop him. This has always been at the heart of my argument regards location of a golf course. Yes there are parts of the world just not suitable for the game of golf – cart ball or any other deviatory word for golf, perhaps but not golf.

Sorry, but I can't accept that answer.

If the people where I grew up thought like that, I would never have been introduced to the game at the young I was, in fact I might never have seen a golf course... EVER.

In a whole lot of America there simply isn't any land that will support a golf course without intervention from the hand of man.

Telling the people who live there that they can't have a real golf course isn't good enough.

K
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #56 on: January 14, 2010, 02:55:10 AM »
I think what George and Tom allude to, restraint, is what I find critically important in GCA.  The holes I admire the most are those which are routed over average/poor ground with seemingly few interesting features yet produce a fine a hole.  For me, along with details, its the holes on the less interesting land which can make or break a course.  This is when I can see where the archie is coming from and incidentally if I think the work is any good as a whole.  This is something many people don't fully appreciate, the variety of terrain producing very different golf and how satisfying this can be when done well.  Instead, most lament about the flatter holes and to be fair, a great many archies are heavy handed with faltter land.  They sex it up too much in an effort to disguise what the land really is rather than celebrate these poorer bits as a way to bring balance to a course - if done well. 

Ciao     
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Kyle Harris

Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2010, 05:35:46 AM »
Tom,

you said:

"I only care what they think of my finished product."

I can't argue at all with that. At the end of that day, it is really all that matters.


If we could find 18 holes w/o earthwork we wouldn't have jobs. Everyone would be a golf course finder!

Sure you would.

Ryan, I'd think you'd agree it takes considerable skill to balance the objectives and challenges of golf's meta-game across 18 holes regardless of the need or lack of need for the hand of man.

At it's most basic level, golf architecture is all about determining the starting and end points.

This is surely one of Melvyn's best topics. Why can't golf architecture have a Holy Grail?

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2010, 07:32:05 AM »
First off!!!!! Everyone need to back off of my man ALEX!

He raised some very legit points and should not have to defend himself like he is doing (just walk away). I think your question is a good one for architects, as what they take more pride in? great golf course on great land or great golf course on something mediocre. I'm not sure.

There I sites I have walked where I thought it was too nice to put a golf course in a certain area. In some instances I would rather convert a poor, cultivated area into a great, scenic golf course, than to disrupt something that is already beautiful. I think something Melvyn is not thinking about is  if golf is really all that important. Does golf always come first?  In new resort developments or master planned communities or remodels even? When does safety or habitat, or something of cultural significance trump the need to locate the best freaking green site the world has ever seen. 



Melvyn, what course qualifies under your description?



“The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.  Outrageous and 99.999999% of the time WRONG!

The whole point about a discussion board is that we discuss things.  That includes, if you express an opinion, being willing to accept it being challenged and defending it, if you can.  THis is a great thread, in some ways going to the core of what GCA is about and none of the posts have been intemperate or rude.  It's what this board should do more of.  Of course Alex should have to defend his position.  The nearest we get to rudeness in the whole thread is the last sentence, where you appear to be having a dig at Melvyn.  Ironically, of course, the quote you object to (99.999999% of the time WRONG?) is just that, a quote from an old article which Melvyn cited to start this thread.  You also appear to be operating under the belief that the quote means that no earth at all has been moved.  To me it simply doesn't say that, so perhaps it's you that's wrong?
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2010, 07:47:11 AM »
Ryan,
If you could 'find 18 holes without any earthwork' you would be a rare commodity, and the busiest man in your chosen field.  ;)





"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2010, 07:54:08 AM »
Ryan,
If you could 'find 18 holes without any earthwork' you would be a rare commodity, and the busiest man in your chosen field.  ;)


Exactly.  You'd just have to be really, really good at FINDING golf holes, instead of really good at drawing plans or doing earthwork.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2010, 09:24:29 AM »
As a point of comparison, I went through my latest course in my head as to grading:

Total cut and fill hauls were about 90,000 CY, although LUI built many greens and tees with on site dozer balance cuts and fills.  Holes 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 13, 14, 16-18 have virtually no grading, save greens, tees and bunkers. 4 of those are par 3 holes.  Since most of the site rolls at 7-15%, which is 4-12% greater than we would like for a putting surface, and 6.5-14.5% greater than we would like for tees, we found no “natural” green and tee sites that required no grading.
  
Of the fairway bunkers, those on holes 1-2, 6, 12, 15,and 17 required some import fill, while  those on 3, the centerline bunkers on 2, and those on 8, 9, and 10 were built into natural slopes.
 
Holes 3, 4, 11 have fairway cuts through a substantial hill for vision and 15 fairway got some fill placed, but didn’t need it, but LUI preferred to get rid of excess lake cuts in the closest location.  At holes 6 and 14 we filled and piped small valleys that crossed the first LZ to keep it playable.
Now, that being said, there were probably just a few tweaks in all fairway after all was said and done.  

For examples,

We cut a swale above the first fairway to divert many acres of drainage from crossing it, but the fairway contours themselves are natural.
On 5, 8, 9 we added one or two fairway catch basins where the length of the natural slope showed that water was concentrating in erodible quantity and volumes.

On hole 12, we cut a deep valley in front of the green both for fill, a la Donald Ross, and to create a distance illusion.

17 drained naturally, but it looked just a bit dull to the eye after clearing, so we cut a small valley to direct the eye.

18 is a double fairway hole and we did extend the green shaping out in front of the fairway to define the fairways and take away the middle option to un-reward a wild shot.

In modern terms, I think that is about as natural as you get.  Yes, the greens are “built” and a few appear artificial like the 6th, where we combined Mackenzie’s boomerang green with an artificially built valley.  (I had intended to sink it into the highest hilltop, but surprisingly, drainage became an issue so we built it up artificially and it shows.  Add in a tribe requested “Buffalo” bunker and it sort of bucks the natural theme……)  Another example is 17, which also sat near a crest and where we wanted to balance the valley look of the cut on 11, using the background mounds of 17.  However, the shaping also came out a bit stiff because of circumstances and the green doesn’t mesh as well as some of the others.  In some other open areas of the site, just plopping a green in wouldn’t have been too attractive, so we did add some gently rolling ridges around some of them, while others just fall off the back.

So, if anyone wants to think the course would have looked better with less grading, then they are entitled to their opinions.  I tried to leave as much natural as I could, but in the end golf holes are artistic creations and the art is part of what satisfies the golfer.  As hinted above, there were some cases where I could have left the ground as is but my artist’s eye told me that a little tweak here and there to “organize” the scene for human eyeball consumption would make it better.  Overall, I think that is a higher objective than leaving the land as is, even if leaving the land as is often works best in creating a golf course for cost reasons, and for the human connection to nature.
 
But, when it doesn’t, it doesn’t.  The job of the golf course architect is to create a place for human enjoyment, and thus, to know when to change the earth and when to leave it as it is.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 09:27:24 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2010, 09:46:42 AM »
Alex -

I believe I understand your point, I just disagree with it and am trying to explain why. I believe you are using a false criterion for measuring success - the "amount" of work done. Tom D provided an excellent example, and you could even take it a step further and say, what if less "work" (read: earth moving) and more "work" (read: thought) resulted in a markedly better course?

How about this, which architect would you admire more:

1) The guy who takes a lousy, flat course, call it the equivalent of Doak 1 land, and builds a Doak 3 or 4

or

2) The guy who takes tremendous land - Doak 9 - finds 18 wonderful holes, only moves a few shovel fulls of earth, and builds a Doak 10?

No question which one I think more highly of. The bottom line is I think the way you are defining "amount of work" is flawed. It seems like ideal sites always result in masterpieces - yet somehow in crediting only the site, we overlook many missed opportunities.

At any rate, it's an interesting question, thanks for defending your point.

Ryan -

I'll pretty much second Mark Pearce's post. I'm not ripping Alex, I just think he is misguided in his method of evaluation in this case. It's his opinion, he's entitled to it, and we're all entitled to object; it is a discussion board, after all.

Sean -

Nice thoughts, couldn't agree more.

Jeff -

The job of the golf course architect is to create a place for human enjoyment, and thus, to know when to change the earth and when to leave it as it is.

Under Alex's criterion, you're not getting any credit for those times you choose to leave it as is... :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2010, 10:34:19 AM »
Kyle,
I think golf already has a holy grail, it's located in a small and very Scottish college town that's hard by the sea.  ;) It also doubles as a rosetta stone when it's not grail-ing.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #64 on: January 14, 2010, 10:37:12 AM »
George,

Here is Alex's last quote

My contention, which is still being ignored, is about what an architect is PROUDEST of. I think an architect who turns an all-world site in to an all-world golf course should be commended. First, that's a lot of pressure to not screw a task such as that one up. Second, they have to do all the things that people on here are discussing: rout the course, use restraint, find the best golf holes available on such a property.

I assert, however, that a GCA should feel proudest of turning an average or below average site into a Great golf course. Obviously the same things go into doing such a thing. There are likely still features to be left alone, but some things need to be done to improve the site given to them.
[/i]

I think he and I are pretty much in agreement.  There is pressure on a great site, and it is perhaps a greater testament to a gca's total skill package to turn an average site into a good course. And, lets face it, for most of us, most of the time, the Sand Hills, PD sites etc. are once in a lifetime opportunities.  If TD dies tomorrow he should die happy (at least for his professional accomplishments) at somehow securing a half dozen great sites and doing a great job with them. Its the greatest run since Mac in the 20's with CP, Australia, CD and ANGC. 

But, when I answer or post, I am always thinking of the average sites, not the great ones, since I view them as more typical for both gca and golfer. I get the idea sometimes that most here are almost always thinking of not the top 1000 courses in the world, not the top 100 courses in the world, but maybe the top 10 courses and sites in the world when imagining golf course design theory.  I am not!

Short version - it is what it is, which is a lot of different things. Hard to encapsulate all of gca in a few pithy sentences.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2010, 10:58:38 AM »
Again, I understand all of that, but I still think Alex's fundamental premise is flawed. He is equating more earth moved with more and thus better work.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Melvyn Morrow

Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2010, 11:44:22 AM »

Gentlemen

We need to understand history, certainly our golfing history if we intend to get involved in some of the debates or discussions on this or any other site. To sit on ones high horse and complain about others when ones own knowledge appears to be nonexistent is a bit rich.

The New Course was constructed, it did not suddenly appear, it took well over a year and was not just plucked out of the links.  The Greens being constructed by George Coburn (later of Portmarnock) and his brother under the supervision of Old Tom. Again this is recorded so I would suggest its goes to show that it is a very proud boast for a designer to have its said that  “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.

It might also be worth noting that Old Tom was actively involved in the selection of the site and the design of the new golf course called the New Course and although a contractor was appointed for the general work Old Tom took it upon himself to work closely on the main parts of the course i.e. the Greens.  The article published by Tony in his topic The New Course appeared in the main Scottish papers the day after the opening of the said course.

The selection of the site and design was by Old Tom, so I feel that the reporter was giving high praise indeed plus in his own words  “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”. I believe it to be a very proud boast, but perhaps not it appears in the eyes or minds of many of the current designers. Wonder if that is down to contempt for the early guys, the current state and standard of the industry today or general quality of the modern style of courses, leave it to you to suggest or submit a different opinion. 

Melvyn

Michael Blake

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #67 on: January 14, 2010, 12:03:38 PM »
As a point of comparison, I went through my latest course in my head as to grading:

Total cut and fill hauls were about 90,000 CY, although LUI built many greens and tees with on site dozer balance cuts and fills.  Holes 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 13, 14, 16-18 have virtually no grading, save greens, tees and bunkers. 4 of those are par 3 holes.  Since most of the site rolls at 7-15%, which is 4-12% greater than we would like for a putting surface, and 6.5-14.5% greater than we would like for tees, we found no “natural” green and tee sites that required no grading.
  
Of the fairway bunkers, those on holes 1-2, 6, 12, 15,and 17 required some import fill, while  those on 3, the centerline bunkers on 2, and those on 8, 9, and 10 were built into natural slopes.
 
Holes 3, 4, 11 have fairway cuts through a substantial hill for vision and 15 fairway got some fill placed, but didn’t need it, but LUI preferred to get rid of excess lake cuts in the closest location.  At holes 6 and 14 we filled and piped small valleys that crossed the first LZ to keep it playable.
Now, that being said, there were probably just a few tweaks in all fairway after all was said and done.  

For examples,

We cut a swale above the first fairway to divert many acres of drainage from crossing it, but the fairway contours themselves are natural.
On 5, 8, 9 we added one or two fairway catch basins where the length of the natural slope showed that water was concentrating in erodible quantity and volumes.

On hole 12, we cut a deep valley in front of the green both for fill, a la Donald Ross, and to create a distance illusion.

17 drained naturally, but it looked just a bit dull to the eye after clearing, so we cut a small valley to direct the eye.

18 is a double fairway hole and we did extend the green shaping out in front of the fairway to define the fairways and take away the middle option to un-reward a wild shot.

In modern terms, I think that is about as natural as you get.  Yes, the greens are “built” and a few appear artificial like the 6th, where we combined Mackenzie’s boomerang green with an artificially built valley.  (I had intended to sink it into the highest hilltop, but surprisingly, drainage became an issue so we built it up artificially and it shows.  Add in a tribe requested “Buffalo” bunker and it sort of bucks the natural theme……)  Another example is 17, which also sat near a crest and where we wanted to balance the valley look of the cut on 11, using the background mounds of 17.  However, the shaping also came out a bit stiff because of circumstances and the green doesn’t mesh as well as some of the others.  In some other open areas of the site, just plopping a green in wouldn’t have been too attractive, so we did add some gently rolling ridges around some of them, while others just fall off the back.

So, if anyone wants to think the course would have looked better with less grading, then they are entitled to their opinions.  I tried to leave as much natural as I could, but in the end golf holes are artistic creations and the art is part of what satisfies the golfer.  As hinted above, there were some cases where I could have left the ground as is but my artist’s eye told me that a little tweak here and there to “organize” the scene for human eyeball consumption would make it better.  Overall, I think that is a higher objective than leaving the land as is, even if leaving the land as is often works best in creating a golf course for cost reasons, and for the human connection to nature.
 
But, when it doesn’t, it doesn’t.  The job of the golf course architect is to create a place for human enjoyment, and thus, to know when to change the earth and when to leave it as it is.


Jeff,

Thanks for the refreshing dose of realism.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #68 on: January 14, 2010, 12:39:15 PM »
Melvyn,  

You say

"We need to understand history, certainly our golfing history if we intend to get involved in some of the debates or discussions on this or any other site. To sit on ones high horse and complain about others when ones own knowledge appears to be nonexistent is a bit rich"

So who are you referring to, you or me? ;)

I admit I know little more about TOC and TNC than what I have read and what I once heard when there from the superintendent and others who supposedly knew the history.  You may have forgotten more than I ever knew and I admit that.

But, I merely added some facts about the history of golf drainage, and appreciated hearing from others about the agricultural drainage hall of fame!  If nothing else, that shows the importance of the topic.  From my perspective, having seen perhaps 1-2% of the worlds 20 something thousand golf courses is that historically, drainage has become more sophisticated via experience of many who have actually built them.

I don't hear any contempt for the old guys in any of the posts here, quite frankly.  History shows that those who followed Old Tom built upon nearly all he did, strategically, construction and turf wise, which is a great tribute to him.  We can always debate what he or others might have done if they lived forever.  But we can't debate that history also shows that others later figured out that the bigger opening of underground drain pipes carry more water than the pore space of soils, and that surface water flows down hill, and its best to make your land slope down hill if it doesn't do it naturally, to speed it up, and flatten it when necessary to slow water down, where erosion is a problem.

We could also have a spirited debate about whether the quote is a proud statement, or whether Old Tom was an early master of the gca cliche.  From my point of view, its probably a little bit of both, but I don't really know.  If, as you say, that Old Tom "took it upon himself to work closely on the main parts of the course i.e. the Greens", that sounds like shaping them, perhaps not to the degree done today, but apparently he admits that the greens actually weren't left as is, right?  There is some shaping on 99.9% of all greens EVER built, which means that in virtually no case has a green ever been left as is, much less in all cases.  And, there is no reason, too.

That is why I believe your (and many others here, believe me) are a bit overromantic about the origins of gca theory.  But, like you, I think it would be fascinating to have heard some of those old disussions to get a better sense of what Old Tom and the other old guys were really thinking.  No doubt, based on the product on the ground, lasting hundreds of years relatively unchanged, and at least as the framework for all that has happened, they had some great thoughts.

I just don't think using some technological advancements diminishes their achievements at all.


Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Michael Rossi

Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #69 on: January 14, 2010, 12:43:29 PM »
Melvyn

“The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”. I wonder how many designers/architects care to answer how many of their courses comply with the above statement. Let’s make it easy, say over the last 10 projects how many of the ten have their original lie of the land?

http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/doug-carrick

I give you this architect to consider. Ian Andrew worked with him and could definitely give you the best info as to the site pre and post on the projects listed.

... do not understand the importance of LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION (I use the expression Land Fit for Purpose). Tell me would buy a beautiful expensive picture then go about changing it to blend in with your home, when buying a car would you take your time in choosing your Ferrari then immediately customize it? (Many do depending on what their purpose is for the Ferrari, bad examples in my eyes) ....

Also you speak of location, location, location which makes sense for any successful business, if we look at the Bandon package or a course in a major center. Bandon is prime in the sense land fit for use, but look at Doug's Eagles Nest for example, the location is "prime" for a business, and it could only be used for a couple of purposes, should he have refused the project because the property would only yield a couple of worthy holes for golf as it was found, or do what he did instead and move mountains of earth to create an excellent course. The business is successful and many people get to enjoy the place and perhaps get inspired to seek that style of course elsewhere throughout the world. One could argue golf is better for it.

When you compare projects, they are different in styles by design, due to the "lie of the ground", and the clients desires. Does this make it "wrong" Because the location was not ideal for golf, you suggest walk away a let some other GCA of less quality do the job? The GCA, business, owner, player and one could argue the game as a whole could be worse off. 

Alex should he be most proud of this project above all other work? How could a GCA be more proud of one project than another? It is often liken to choosing one of your offspring over another. Could you decide between your daughter and your son to be more proud of.

All that rant out of the way....

If courses are only put on land that was meant for golf only a small portion of the population would ever play. If golf was not as accessible as it is perhaps there would be no game.

Great golf comes from a combination of great land, location, GCA, maintenance and owner. I don't think it matters if the land was useless or meant for golf to begin with.



« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 01:04:41 PM by Michael Rossi »

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #70 on: January 14, 2010, 12:52:11 PM »
Again, I understand all of that, but I still think Alex's fundamental premise is flawed. He is equating more earth moved with more and thus better work.
I'm not equating more work to better work. I'm equating more improvement beyond expectations of the given site as better work.

Also, the implication that a site that REQUIRES physical work, should be given more mental work or thought doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me. If given a site that needs more physical shaping, thought should go into that, as well as using other natural features of the land. Using natural features on a lesser site might even be MORE important than on a good one.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #71 on: January 14, 2010, 01:05:43 PM »
Michael,

IMO, you win no arguments with those pictures! I hope Alex would not be proud (had he done it) of the result of that work. However, I hope Alex would be proud (had he done it) of the work C&C did in a potato field at Friars Head.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Michael Rossi

Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #72 on: January 14, 2010, 01:12:30 PM »
Garland

I am not trying to win, just illustrate a site that was not ideal land for golf, but the work put in provided great golf. 

Friars Head is another good example. the lie of the land was altered.

Not to beat up on Alex, and I may have miss read, but didn't Alex say a GCA should be most PROUD of the large amount of work to as opposed to less work?

If you like I can remove the photos.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #73 on: January 14, 2010, 01:19:35 PM »
I'm not equating more work to better work. I'm equating more improvement beyond expectations of the given site as better work.

Also, the implication that a site that REQUIRES physical work, should be given more mental work or thought doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me. If given a site that needs more physical shaping, thought should go into that, as well as using other natural features of the land. Using natural features on a lesser site might even be MORE important than on a good one.

Thanks for the clarification, I like your last sentence especially.

Fwiw, it's your first post and post #37 that I think show mistaken premises.

-----

No one should ever remove pix unless requested by the owner of the copyright! :)
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 03:05:53 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: “The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.
« Reply #74 on: January 14, 2010, 01:31:03 PM »
...
If you like I can remove the photos.


Please don't. I think they provide a great contrast with Friars Head.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back