“The original lie of the ground has been retained in all cases”.

[Michael Blake]

Melvyn,

I'm afraid your views on most things are in black and white.  In reality, decisions are usually made within the gray area.  Included are reasons why a GCA chooses to accept a project, if fortunate enough.

As Archie alluded to there are only a handful of GCA's that have the luxury of working on truly great sites where possibly the original lie of the ground can be retained. (And as Tom states, he's only seen two modern courses that are close to that)  Among those not as fortunate (most,) choosing a job based on the site is probably lower down on the rungs.

What if I told you I've played a course that was extremely fun and challenging AND that the golfer THINKS 'the original lie of the ground has been retained?'  Could that be considered one of the highest goals in design?  I certainly think so.

[Alex Miller]

You would have to be pretty lucky to find 18 nice flat areas of grass in the right places for the tees.

Why do tees have to be flat? Chambers Bay purposely allowed teeing areas to not be flat. Clearly you don't want steep slopes, but why is flat a necessity?

"Reasonably flat" would be a better characterization; there has to be a bit of a crown for drainage.

Ever try to hit a drive off a sidehill lie?  Flattish is better, and on the tee is the only place where you are guaranteed a flattish lie.

How much slope and/or bumpiness is there on the tees at Chambers Bay?  I can't imagine the USGA is planning two national championships on a course with tees that were "purposely allowed....to not be flat."   Please post a few photos of those purposely non-flat tees.   l

Thanks.

And just because the tees aren't completely flat, doesn't mean there aren't flat spots. And if there aren't now, I'm sure there will be by the Open.


Also, great point Michael.

[George Pazin]

Imho, one of the most difficult things in the world to do is show restraint. That goes for just about everything, not just golf course architecture. Too many people think like Alex - at least in his first post - and confuse restraint with laziness, disinterest, or downright ill intentions.

I think there is far more room for improvement on the side of doing less than doing more. But hey, I'm an anachronism in life, a crusty old man who believes in all the wrong things.

Fwiw, I don't read Melvyn's posts as saying "No land must ever be moved", just that it is a nice ideal to keep in mind as a goal as one designs. Unfortunately, intelligence does not always imply wisdom - in fact, I'd argue it rarely does.

[Alex Miller]

Imho, one of the most difficult things in the world to do is show restraint. That goes for just about everything, not just golf course architecture. Too many people think like Alex - at least in his first post - and confuse restraint with laziness, disinterest, or downright ill intentions.

I think there is far more room for improvement on the side of doing less than doing more. But hey, I'm an anachronism in life, a crusty old man who believes in all the wrong things.

Fwiw, I don't read Melvyn's posts as saying "No land must ever be moved", just that it is a nice ideal to keep in mind as a goal as one designs. Unfortunately, intelligence does not always imply wisdom - in fact, I'd argue it rarely does.

I think that is a nice ideal as well.

My beef with Melvyn's statement is from the idea that a GCA should be proudest of this. I think it's a GCA's job to enhance the land and the natural feature in a site. If the site is so perfect, that absolutely nothing needs to be done, then I am personally more in awe of the site and not what the GCA did (or didn't do).


Restraint is definitely a good thing, but if there's no paint on a beautiful canvas, is it art?

Likewise, if Nothing has been done by the GCA, is it even architecture? In this ideal case, I praise the site much more than the architect.

[JESII]

Alex,

I would bet you'll find more of the holes you consider great would be less so if the architect did more...

[Alex Miller]

Alex,

I would bet you'll find more of the holes you consider great would be less so if the architect did more...

Yes, but do I consider them great because of the architecture or just the hole as its own entity?

There are different reasons to like a golf course or golf hole. I think some of you may be missing this. It doesn't always have to be the GCA that I'm admiring, it can be the land itself.

So yes, I would praise a GCA for showing restraint, but would it be the most praise I could give? No

[Garland Bayley]

You would have to be pretty lucky to find 18 nice flat areas of grass in the right places for the tees.

Why do tees have to be flat? Chambers Bay purposely allowed teeing areas to not be flat. Clearly you don't want steep slopes, but why is flat a necessity?

"Reasonably flat" would be a better characterization; there has to be a bit of a crown for drainage.

Ever try to hit a drive off a sidehill lie?  Flattish is better, and on the tee is the only place where you are guaranteed a flattish lie.

How much slope and/or bumpiness is there on the tees at Chambers Bay?  I can't imagine the USGA is planning two national championships on a course with tees that were "purposely allowed....to not be flat."   Please post a few photos of those purposely non-flat tees.   l

Thanks.

And just because the tees aren't completely flat, doesn't mean there aren't flat spots. And if there aren't now, I'm sure there will be by the Open.


Also, great point Michael.

Alex,

Of course there are flat spots. However, if the tee markers are not set at the flat spot, how can you use it? Don't be so sure that Mike Davis is not going to set tee markers for the US Open on flat spots exclusively.

Also, I believe if you go back to the Meet thread for GCA KBM, you will find him stating that he prefers non flat tees for par 3s. He reasons that if your approach shot on the rest of the holes is not guaranteed to be flat, then why should your approach to a par 3 be flat.

[George Pazin]

Yes, but do I consider them great because of the architecture or just the hole as its own entity?

There are different reasons to like a golf course or golf hole. I think some of you may be missing this. It doesn't always have to be the GCA that I'm admiring, it can be the land itself.

So yes, I would praise a GCA for showing restraint, but would it be the most praise I could give? No

I think you need to think about your own statement a bit more...not less.

 

[JESII]

I don't know, but I think you have to assume the architect had full range over the prperty to do with it as they please...and as such they get all the credit and all the blame.

When I say "they" I mean the entire team.

[Alex Miller]

But most times the architect does not choose the property, correct?

I can't give credit to anyone for the land itself. I feel like I'm repeating myself.

[Garland Bayley]

...
My beef with Melvyn's statement is from the idea that a GCA should be proudest of this. I think it's a GCA's job to enhance the land and the natural feature in a site. If the site is so perfect, that absolutely nothing needs to be done, then I am personally more in awe of the site and not what the GCA did (or didn't do).

Ever hear of Bill Coore?

Restraint is definitely a good thing, but if there's no paint on a beautiful canvas, is it art?

Apparently you didn't see the same exhibit at the Guggenheim that I did.

Likewise, if Nothing has been done by the GCA, is it even architecture? In this ideal case, I praise the site much more than the architect.

Routing, dude, routing

[Alex Miller]

Granted, there are a lot of things that go into building a golf course, including getting the right routing over that site. This is something that I have overlooked.

I acknowledged it. I'm not saying I wouldn't give the GCA any credit at all, just not as much as if he had DONE more on a site that needed it.

[George Pazin]

I acknowledged it. I'm not saying I wouldn't give the GCA any credit at all, just not as much as if he had DONE more on a site that needed it.

Therein lies your problem.

[Garland Bayley]

But most times the architect does not choose the property, correct?

I can't give credit to anyone for the land itself. I feel like I'm repeating myself.

Alex,

I believe the majority of the great courses in the US are on large parcels of land. Why do you get great courses on large parcels of land? Because, there is more great holes to be chosen from on the large parcels. The architect has to have a vision to do the proper selection. Great architects are better at doing this than others. Consider Erin Hills. Great land, huge parcel, but course under lots of revision. What does that tell you? Compare that to Tom Doak's example of Sand Hills!

[Bill_McBride]

You would have to be pretty lucky to find 18 nice flat areas of grass in the right places for the tees.

Why do tees have to be flat? Chambers Bay purposely allowed teeing areas to not be flat. Clearly you don't want steep slopes, but why is flat a necessity?

"Reasonably flat" would be a better characterization; there has to be a bit of a crown for drainage.

Ever try to hit a drive off a sidehill lie?  Flattish is better, and on the tee is the only place where you are guaranteed a flattish lie.

How much slope and/or bumpiness is there on the tees at Chambers Bay?  I can't imagine the USGA is planning two national championships on a course with tees that were "purposely allowed....to not be flat."   Please post a few photos of those purposely non-flat tees.   l

Thanks.

And just because the tees aren't completely flat, doesn't mean there aren't flat spots. And if there aren't now, I'm sure there will be by the Open.


Also, great point Michael.

Alex,

Of course there are flat spots. However, if the tee markers are not set at the flat spot, how can you use it? Don't be so sure that Mike Davis is not going to set tee markers for the US Open on flat spots exclusively.

Also, I believe if you go back to the Meet thread for GCA KBM, you will find him stating that he prefers non flat tees for par 3s. He reasons that if your approach shot on the rest of the holes is not guaranteed to be flat, then why should your approach to a par 3 be flat.

Garland, I think Kelly said he would LIKE to do that, not that he actually does do it.  Like it or not, flat tees with a gentle crown for drainage are the standard in golf, whether it's Scotland or America.  I've never played a course with tees that weren't unless it was Goat Hills.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Also, I believe if you go back to the Meet thread for GCA KBM, you will find him stating that he prefers non flat tees for par 3s. He reasons that if your approach shot on the rest of the holes is not guaranteed to be flat, then why should your approach to a par 3 be flat.

Garland, I think Kelly said he would LIKE to do that, not that he actually does do it.  Like it or not, flat tees with a gentle crown for drainage are the standard in golf, whether it's Scotland or America.  I've never played a course with tees that weren't unless it was Goat Hills.

Where in my statement did I say that Kelley does that?

Perhaps you need to play more at Goat Hills.

Check out Blasi and Charlton's article in the Paul Daley series. Chambers Bay has "ribbon tees" and they explicitly allowed for non flat areas in the ribbon tees so that it could be set up for non-flat tee shots.

[Alex Miller]

But most times the architect does not choose the property, correct?

I can't give credit to anyone for the land itself. I feel like I'm repeating myself.

Alex,

I believe the majority of the great courses in the US are on large parcels of land. Why do you get great courses on large parcels of land? Because, there is more great holes to be chosen from on the large parcels. The architect has to have a vision to do the proper selection. Great architects are better at doing this than others. Consider Erin Hills. Great land, huge parcel, but course under lots of revision. What does that tell you? Compare that to Tom Doak's example of Sand Hills!

That quote was addressing a different issue, go back and read it. I was discussing appreciation for the land being there, not just the land used for each hole. I appreciate the importance of routing a course, but I feel more could be done by the architect for him to feel his proudest. 

As for Sand Hills, we can call this site nearly perfect. And yet I think we can agree that it is a better golf course because of the work that Coore and Crenshaw did. If the land as it was found was just grassed over in places, it would have been a fine golf course. But because of the work they did the course is MUCH better for it.

Importantly they used restraint as well.

[Tom_Doak]

Alex:

I have just spent most of the day walking around our new site in Florida, tweaking what I thought was already a pretty good routing, and making it even better.  We relocated two of our par-3 holes entirely, turned the 4-5 finish into a 5-4 that should be much better, and thought through a lot of issues of how to do earthwork on six holes that really need some. 

To me, all of this is what a golf architect does.  But if I could have figured out a way to move a couple of holes so as to require LESS earthmoving and artificial work, and still produce a great golf course, I would have considered that an improvement, whereas you've implied that having to do less work means the architect should get less credit.

By all means, you've got to give credit to the guy who thought of building on this dramatic site ... where a huge amount of earth has been moved around in beautiful and creative ways by a team of guys who had no thought of creating a golf course there.  But then it takes real work and real creativity to figure out the best way to lay out a course over the ground.

[Garland Bayley]

... But because of the work they did the course is MUCH better for it. ...

What work did they do that made the course "MUCH better for it?"

[Mac Plumart]

erased...

[Bill_McBride]

...
Also, I believe if you go back to the Meet thread for GCA KBM, you will find him stating that he prefers non flat tees for par 3s. He reasons that if your approach shot on the rest of the holes is not guaranteed to be flat, then why should your approach to a par 3 be flat.

Garland, I think Kelly said he would LIKE to do that, not that he actually does do it.  Like it or not, flat tees with a gentle crown for drainage are the standard in golf, whether it's Scotland or America.  I've never played a course with tees that weren't unless it was Goat Hills.

Where in my statement did I say that Kelley does that?

Perhaps you need to play more at Goat Hills.

Check out Blasi and Charlton's article in the Paul Daley series. Chambers Bay has "ribbon tees" and they explicitly allowed for non flat areas in the ribbon tees so that it could be set up for non-flat tee shots.

Here's what you said:

"Also, I believe if you go back to the Meet thread for GCA KBM, you will find him stating that he prefers non flat tees for par 3s. He reasons that if your approach shot on the rest of the holes is not guaranteed to be flat, then why should your approach to a par 3 be flat."

"Prefers" and "likes" are somewhat synonymous.

I am getting real tired of your contentious wordsmithing and won't banter with you anymore.  Wordsmith that!

You never did post a photo of what you consider a "non flat" tee but no need to now.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Also, I believe if you go back to the Meet thread for GCA KBM, you will find him stating that he prefers non flat tees for par 3s. He reasons that if your approach shot on the rest of the holes is not guaranteed to be flat, then why should your approach to a par 3 be flat.

Garland, I think Kelly said he would LIKE to do that, not that he actually does do it.  Like it or not, flat tees with a gentle crown for drainage are the standard in golf, whether it's Scotland or America.  I've never played a course with tees that weren't unless it was Goat Hills.

Where in my statement did I say that Kelley does that?

Perhaps you need to play more at Goat Hills.

Check out Blasi and Charlton's article in the Paul Daley series. Chambers Bay has "ribbon tees" and they explicitly allowed for non flat areas in the ribbon tees so that it could be set up for non-flat tee shots.

Here's what you said:

"Also, I believe if you go back to the Meet thread for GCA KBM, you will find him stating that he prefers non flat tees for par 3s. He reasons that if your approach shot on the rest of the holes is not guaranteed to be flat, then why should your approach to a par 3 be flat."

"Prefers" and "likes" are somewhat synonymous.

I am getting real tired of your contentious wordsmithing and won't banter with you anymore.  Wordsmith that!

You never did post a photo of what you consider a "non flat" tee but no need to now.

I specifically wrote my post to not say Kelley makes those tees.

You criticized my post for saying Kelley makes those tees (The operative word being "does").

I asked where I said he "does" that?

You respond with ""Prefers" and "likes" are somewhat synonymous."   

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is extraneous to the misunderstanding.

Also you write "I am getting real tired of your contentious wordsmithing".

My wordsmith of that is that the "contentious"ness was introduced by you contending I wrote something I didn't. I am sorry if attempting correct a mistake is "contentious" and "wordsmithing".

Furthermore, I admit I didn't grab my camera and drive to Chambers Bay to take the picture you asked for. However, I did give you a reference where you could verify my statement.

[Alex Miller]

Alex:

I have just spent most of the day walking around our new site in Florida, tweaking what I thought was already a pretty good routing, and making it even better.  We relocated two of our par-3 holes entirely, turned the 4-5 finish into a 5-4 that should be much better, and thought through a lot of issues of how to do earthwork on six holes that really need some. 

To me, all of this is what a golf architect does.  But if I could have figured out a way to move a couple of holes so as to require LESS earthmoving and artificial work, and still produce a great golf course, I would have considered that an improvement, whereas you've implied that having to do less work means the architect should get less credit.

By all means, you've got to give credit to the guy who thought of building on this dramatic site ... where a huge amount of earth has been moved around in beautiful and creative ways by a team of guys who had no thought of creating a golf course there.  But then it takes real work and real creativity to figure out the best way to lay out a course over the ground.

Thanks Tom,

I wonder if Pat Mucci will like that Florida course. I think people are inferring from my statements that I don't have as much appreciation for what GCA do as some other people. That may be true and it may not, but I definitely give them credit for routing a golf course and leaving certain things alone on a site that warrants it.

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 am NOT saying that a manufactured golf course is better than a more natural one. My arguments concern only how the GCA feels, as in the original statement.

I appreciate the conversations that go on here, and while I have not strayed from my position, I'm glad I can get everyone else's take on the matter. Especially those involved in the production of a golf course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In my continuing quest to fulfill my 2010 resolution to tee off the tree house, I offer the following ideas:

First, I would think the statement "I really enjoyed your golf course" would be more satisfying to most gca's.  We don't work for the land, we work for golfers, eh?

Second, I wonder if the ideals of the early gca's have been misinterpreted to a degree.  No doubt they worked with the land because they had to but are we really sure they didn't realize early on that changing some contours, like leveling off hill tops for greens at TOC made for a better golf course?

And, has our following the mantra of "using the land" been interpreted sort of like the constitution guaranteeing religious freedom now being interpreted as not allowing any religious displays in any public place?

[archie_struthers]

   

Melvyn  I didn't mean to say anything hurtful, certainly not seeing you as sinister.  My point was more that only the very successful architects tend to get the budgets and more importantly the land to "find" a great golf course. 

It's possible that you might not ruin your reputation by doing something on less than a perfect site, you might enhance it!

I like Jeff's post , a thank you from the golfers is quie nice indeed