[Jason Topp]

Several Designers have deliberately taken an approach that varied from the prevailing designs of their time in order to make a mark:

1.  Pete Dye went "small" at Harbour Town to distinguish the course from the "big" courses being built by Robert Trent Jones Jr.

2.  Tom Fazio made courses more welcoming to the eye to distinguish his courses from the harsh in your face look of courses by Pete Dye and others.

3.  Doak and Coore/Crenshaw created minimalist courses with wild greens in stark contrast to the prevailing design approach up to that time.

Now - many architects are creating courses that at least look a lot more like Doak and Coore/Crenshaw courses.

One might quibble with the specifics of my examples, but I don't think one could argue that creating a fresh approach to design has been a successful strategy for launching some significant careeers.  

If you were looking to make a name for yourself with a new style of course that would distinguish you from the Doak, Coore/Crenshaw look, what would you do.

[Bill_McBride]

Over the top a la Mike Stranz would probably get the most attention. I think it's worked for Jim Engh.

[Kalen Braley]

Quirk, quirk, and more quirk here..

[Mac Plumart]

I think I would go with Askernish/Machrihanish Dunes meets the United States.

More natural, more rugged look...and I would market that as a good thing.

Educate my patrons/members/consituents about the virtues of brown courses, fast and firm, slower more natural greens, etc.

And my whole mantra would be sustainable golf...good for the environment...and good for the club's pocket book.

I would hire a great Keeper of the Green (and I would use that term) and I would make him front and center at the club.  Always visable, always interacting with golfers before during and after their rounds.  Hopefully this would instill a feeling of how important and special the actual course is and, therefore, inspire golfers to take care of it and treat it like it is special.

I would have "club" work days where we all get together for a nine hole match on the weekend end and then spend the other 2 hours (that normally would be spent playing the other nine) and I would assign a foursome (at least) to a hole and have them help the Keeper of the Green with maintenance on that hole.  Ensuring divots are repaired, ball marks are fixed, etc.

Then after that a community type dinner.  I am thinking once a month on this type of thing.

I could go on and on...but I will stop.  I think you can see my "mark" wouldn't really be a design concept but a mindframe of what golf is all about.

And then once a year, we would offer a club trip to the most natural "Land fit for the purpose", understated, TRUE golf course...


SHADOW CREEK!!!!!

Well, all of that was true until the last sentence or so.   

[JESII]

No Bunkers - but I wouldn't try it unless I had a pretty dramatic site...

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

A course with no bunkers is IMHO a poor and sorry course that has lost its way. Its like demanding that all courses be No Walking. Retro fit the bunkers by all means if its is aimed to trap the long hitters but not fit them. Well, we loose contact with the beginnings of the game of golf on the links course if we do. Bunkers are as much part of golf as the golfer and the holes.

Mac

I totally support your cause, natural, a little rough at the edges and I too love the name ‘Keeper of The Green’. I feel it conveys more about their responsibilities, their in depth involvement and work undertaken for and on behalf of Golfers and the Golf Club. Respect where respect is due.

Melvyn

[George Pazin]

One of my local mom and pop-ers I frequent - during those rare times I actually play golf - has no bunkers, and frankly I don't even miss 'em, and the site is not at all dramatic. Actually, I would say it has grass filled bunkers.

A course full of green sites like this:



would get my attention regardless.

I'd like to think I'd build a Wolf Point, but then again, I'd like to think Adriana Lima would find me endlessly fascinating in every respect...

[Ronald Montesano]

We, too, have a sand bunker-less course in western New York, but that is due to the proliferation of felines in the area.  The growing cat population has rezoned those hazards from damned hazards to sh#tty hazards.  A la Mac, the first part was true.

I can't really say that we miss or don't the bunkers.  The piece of property is a decent one and makes good use of the rolling (not quite heaving) topography.  Certainly, a specific shot is missing from the course.  Could a world-class course be bunker-less?  I doubt it.

To the thread question:  what's left?  would you have to out-do what has already been done in order to make your mark?

Break it down:  isolate an element of the golf course, isolate a particular shot, isolate a particular beginning point, isolate a receiving point, isolate a particular conditioning/maintenance element.

I think that I would hearken to deception and camouflage, in the Al Mac tradition.  I would also utilize as much openness and width as possible, to encourage bashing of the driver.  Finally, I would encourage the carom where available, allowing wayward shots to have an opportunity to return to play, albeit not to as prime a position as that of the well-struck ball.

How I would accomplish this is currently unknown.  After all, I'm less than an amateur!!
 

[Philippe Binette]

here's the real answer... get a job, any job

honestly, there's only one way to make your mark, be yourself.
to me, it would be a more quiet but smart style.

[JESII]

Jim

A course with no bunkers is IMHO a poor and sorry course that has lost its way. Its like demanding that all courses be No Walking. Retro fit the bunkers by all means if its is aimed to trap the long hitters but not fit them. Well, we loose contact with the beginnings of the game of golf on the links course if we do. Bunkers are as much part of golf as the golfer and the holes.

Melvyn,

I think you're mistaken. Bunkers are surely an interesting part of the game, but are by no means as important as the golfer and the holes...

Who cares about the long hitters?

[Jason Topp]

Thanks for the comments.  I am not sure what I would do but the following ideas spring to mind:

1.  Try to emulate Australian Par threes - no reason they cannot be built elsewhere.
2.  I am always attracted to the more crude angular appearance of older courses.  I might try and emulate that look.
3.  My greens would not be wildly undulating.  Instead, my greens would tilt with the natural terrain and then have some spines within the greens that make green reading more interesting.  The greens I like the best are of this type - usually old push ups that have developed over time.
4.  I would have a cleaner bunker style rather than blowouts or frilly edges.
5.  I would feature fewer fairway bunkers but make them deep - real hazards with rewards for risking entering them off the tee.

[Ronald Montesano]

and ladders, Jason, don't forget ladders/sod steps, for the aged.

[Mike McGuire]

A 12 hole course with no rough and random, 1/2 shot penalty,  bunkers raked weekly. Dry conditions persist in play areas out of play areas maintained with invasive plant control and wild life habitat in mind.

[Ben Sims]

Let's face it gents, the field is shrinking.  Good and reputable folks are hurting for work.  Market saturation in this country dictate that larger company's that need income to support large payroll's go overseas to work. 

Where does that leave us in the US of A for making a mark?  It is my humble--if slightly controversial--opinion that guys like Mike Nuzzo and Tony Ristola and other smaller firms will be hard pressed to compete with the Pete Dye's and Greg Norman's for big, publicity earning contracts. 

This is where market differentiation reveals its beautiful face.  How to differentiate in this over populated golf course country?  Bring golf back to the people.  I think that a guy could take the lessons of municipal golf in the British Isles and bring it to America.  Rather, try to make entire living out of what Mr. Doak did at CommonGround.  The Dept of Defense has tons of money in their MWR (morale, welfare, recreation) to take overblown and/or boring courses and make them strategically interesting, easier for the average hack, and more fiscally maintainable.  This could be done with countless facilities.  Take a flat field in Elk Grove, CA, make 18 wide holes with interesting and slightly quirky green complexes.  Give it a 15-20 station range and a Himalyas style putting green. 

Far fetched? Yes.  But where there's a will, there's a way.  Quite frankly, the reason golf doesn't grow is because rounds take 5 hours; because people are taking 6 strokes per par 4 and losing a 12 dollar sleeve of Titleists per 9 holes; because ribbon fairways, water hazards and forced carries dominate public golf; because that's what looks good on a website.  If more beginners and hacks could play somewhere like Rustic Canyon or CommonGround weekly, then golf would be just fine without Tiger.

[Rob Rigg]

www.thewalkerscourse.org

It's a dream - but we are getting some local and national support already from people who know how to get things done.

If it ever happens, it could be exportable to other cities.

[Eric Smith]

Wow.  That's beautiful stuff RR.  I salute you and David for your passion and your resolve.

I look forward to learning more as you go.  Best of luck!

[Michael Taylor]

+1

Amazing stuff you're doing there Rob.

 

[Brett Morris]

I'm interested in this question, and asked something similar some time ago:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35201.msg709866/#msg709866

The way courses are at present (maintenance cost wise) should mean that they need to be self sustainable to survive in the future.

Therefore, lower maintenance costs.  So why don't we see more courses with hazards like ditches like Oakmont which help with drainage.

Why not more courses which have grass bunkers or mounds instead of sand.

Design something that is easy to maintain with cool greensites to provide a bit more challenge with the approach shot.

[Ronald Montesano]

I support Rob's notion, as he approaches his "mark" not from the course first, but from the spirit of the golfer/game. 
--The heathland model supports the walking experience well;
--The tee time gaps ensure moderate play and an unhurried experience (albeit not a glacially-paced one);
--The inclusion of the junior program, especially one like the first tee that looks beyond golf to education, potentially ensures the passing of the walking (etc.) torch from generation to generation (although I'm not sure how the intimate bar fits in--do the kids get one, too, with soft drinks?);

My first question for Rob is this:  with the course tipping at 6500, would there be enough emphasis on the ground game to ensure that even the longest hitters might be forced/encouraged to learn to run the ball in on occasion, versus driver-high pitch all day long?
--whoops, just found my answer on the Concept page:  Interesting green complexes that welcome the bump and run

My second question for Rob is this:  when you say no man-made ponds, do you mean as in-play hazards alone?  If none at all, how will you store water for irrigation?  Does a man-made water space work contrary to the notion of walking?  My thinking would be, no all-consuming ponds (those that eliminate options.)

[Rob Rigg]

Eric, Mike and Ron,

Thanks for the kind words and support - we obviously hope that this becomes a reality and are excited about the direction that it is moving in.

Ron,

Per your first question - I think the challenge for the architect will be making the course interesting for the bomber at 6,500 yards and we see a lot of that dynamic coming around the green complexes and via strategic cross bunkering in the fairways.

Per the second question - The goal would be to have irrigation ponds on the property, as necessary, that are out of play (or as out of play as possible).

I am not a fan of penalty strokes for bold play - I think recovery should always be an option (at least as often as possible), even if that recovery is daunting. Few things in golf are more enjoyable than a brilliant recovery from a dark place.

[Tom_Doak]

If you were good enough to be confident of success, the next way for someone to make their mark is to abandon par 70.  The first guy who takes 100-120 acres and turns it into a great par-68 or 69, where people don't argue about it being par-68, will really wake people up.  But you have to pull it off, or you'll be ridiculed for not understanding the direction the game has been going.

Some might think this wouldn't work, because other guys would just follow your lead, but it would be hard for most architects to follow because the big-time clients just won't go for it.  I've suggested it on a couple of occasions, and they just can't fathom the idea.

[Tony Ristola]

Several Designers have deliberately taken an approach that varied from the prevailing designs of their time in order to make a mark:

1.  Pete Dye went "small" at Harbour Town to distinguish the course from the "big" courses being built by Robert Trent Jones Jr.

2.  Tom Fazio made courses more welcoming to the eye to distinguish his courses from the harsh in your face look of courses by Pete Dye and others.

3.  Doak and Coore/Crenshaw created minimalist courses with wild greens in stark contrast to the prevailing design approach up to that time.

Now - many architects are creating courses that at least look a lot more like Doak and Coore/Crenshaw courses.

One might quibble with the specifics of my examples, but I don't think one could argue that creating a fresh approach to design has been a successful strategy for launching some significant careeers.  

If you were looking to make a name for yourself with a new style of course that would distinguish you from the Doak, Coore/Crenshaw look, what would you do.

I don't think it is style oriented if you want to make a "name". Especially for most, as they're working with constrictions; time and money.

It is more about application; focus during construction which allows for absolute flexibility during the process and clarity of communication that cannot be achieved abandoning the site for days and weeks, leaving the builders to following plans.

After that, if you select design ideas suitable for the site, and apply yourself repeatedly (to each individual project), then you've got a chance at making a name.

As far as style, I'd say it's not having one to lean on like a crutch.

.

[Mac Plumart]

Weird...

I just had a conversation about someone designing a course that was a par 69 or less...and then I see Tom D's post this morning.

I think that would be cool and a watershed moment in golf course architecture.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Rob,

I applaud what you are trying to do but you've set yourself a whole bunch of parameters that you might not be able / not want to meet...

You haven't got a location yet you've effectively already routed a course in your mind with minimal earth movement on what will likely be a flat clay based site... You have designated Par, Length, type of hole, small green to tee walks and firm and fast conditions...

I suspect you will be making some considerable compromises along the way...

Still, nice website, nice idea and I really hope you succeed in getting it off the ground...

[Troy Alderson]

I think I would go with Askernish/Machrihanish Dunes meets the United States.

More natural, more rugged look...and I would market that as a good thing.

Educate my patrons/members/consituents about the virtues of brown courses, fast and firm, slower more natural greens, etc.

And my whole mantra would be sustainable golf...good for the environment...and good for the club's pocket book.

I would hire a great Keeper of the Green (and I would use that term) and I would make him front and center at the club.  Always visable, always interacting with golfers before during and after their rounds.  Hopefully this would instill a feeling of how important and special the actual course is and, therefore, inspire golfers to take care of it and treat it like it is special.

I would have "club" work days where we all get together for a nine hole match on the weekend end and then spend the other 2 hours (that normally would be spent playing the other nine) and I would assign a foursome (at least) to a hole and have them help the Keeper of the Green with maintenance on that hole.  Ensuring divots are repaired, ball marks are fixed, etc.

Then after that a community type dinner.  I am thinking once a month on this type of thing.

I could go on and on...but I will stop.  I think you can see my "mark" wouldn't really be a design concept but a mindframe of what golf is all about.

And then once a year, we would offer a club trip to the most natural "Land fit for the purpose", understated, TRUE golf course...


SHADOW CREEK!!!!!

Well, all of that was true until the last sentence or so.  

Hi Mac,

You and I think alot alike.  I would add the challenge to the architect to layout the course without bunkers.  There was a famous architect in Scotland that stated that challenge, to design a great course layout without bunkers.

I will say that you are expecting a very very busy keeper of the green and his/her involvement with the golfers.  It is possible, but high expectations.  Remember, the keeper of the green needs to focus on keeping the green, golfer involvement should definately be second.

I have stated the same idea with my future golf course, that the golfer will be educated to the beauty of tawny turf and less than "perfect" conditions.  My perfect conditions would be in fast and firm in-play turf.  How the ball bounces off the turf and how the ball rolls.

I like the idea of an annual trip to Shadow Creek.  In order to keep your dream grounded and on the straight path, opposite of Shadow Creek "I think, never been there".

Troy

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()