How much follow up is needed or should be needed by the architect?

[William_G]

Funny, but I know conscientious architects like Crenshaw and Doak keep following up on their courses as the years go by to see if changes are needed etc.... Is that a standard practice or expectation?

How much remodel is expected post construction?

Heck, Crenshaw recently joined a random threesome at Trails just to play it and see how it was doing!

Thank you.

[Tom_Doak]

William:  There are a lot of architects going back to their own courses now to check up on them, because most of us are looking for something productive to do ...

I have spent a lot of time at a few of my courses, and hardly any at others; it just goes with the territory if you are building courses all over the planet.  I wish I had half as much time to enjoy some of them as others on this web site do!  But, I'd rather have a new challenge than keep on tweaking an old design trying to "perfect" it.  I like to believe I'm doing a good job to begin with, and I have concluded that "perfection" is all a matter of opinion, anyway.  We haven't done or had to do much remodeling of our finished courses, and I take some pride in that.

[David_Elvins]

 We haven't done or had to do much remodeling of our finished courses, and I take some pride in that.

St Andrews Beach could do with a remodel.  Its a pity that it might be someone else that is doing it. 

[Mark_F]

St Andrews Beach could do with a remodel.  Its a pity that it might be someone else that is doing it. 

What would you do, David?

[Colin Macqueen]

David,

"St Andrews Beach could do with a remodel."

I am interested that you say that I as am making a special visit there this Christmas to play my first Doak course ever.  What elements of the course do you think need re-modelling and why?  I was assuming that as the course evolved from being "private" to being "public" that it would be unlikely that changes had been or would be made due to lack of cash. Given this I was hoping to play on an unadulterated Doak layout.  I am wrong in thinking this?

Cheers Colin

[Tony Ristola]

In developing golf nations it is important.

All it takes is one unsympathetic manager (board) or superintendent to destroy the design-intent.

.

[David_Elvins]

What would you do, David?

Mark,

In a perfect world it would be the original architect that reviews the playability of the course and makes changes as required.  IMO it would be great for the course if Tom was to visit the course and review the course and how it played today, compared to how he invisiged it would play. 

IMO, there are playability issues of varying importance at the 3rd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 15th, and 17th holes.  Giving the original architect the chance to review these (and other issues as he sees fit)  and the budget to make changes as he thought necessary would be ideal.  Unfortunately I don't think it is going to happen.

Colin,

As far as I know the course is as designed, although it has lost the firm greens that accentuated the architecture.  As far as I understand things, the group that has bought the club includes a local golf architect.  I have no idea whether he would make changes to the existing course although one would think that it woululd reduce the probability of Tom Doak returning to the site. 

[Mark_F]

In a perfect world it would be the original architect that reviews the playability of the course and makes changes as required.  IMO it would be great for the course if Tom was to visit the course and review the course and how it played today, compared to how he invisiged it would play. 

David,
I agree, but unfortunately, it isn't going to happen.   

IMO, there are playability issues of varying importance at the 3rd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 15th, and 17th holes. 

I disagree there are playability issues with 3, 4 and 10, unless you mean the mass of excessive vegetation. 

The 7th green has always been my least favourite there, and is fairly poor. 

The last time I was there we actually played the 17th from the straight ahead 430 metre tee, from where the hole works surprisingly well.  It doesn't set up as well with the tee back and left.

[David_Elvins]

I disagree there are playability issues with 3, 4 and 10, unless you mean the mass of excessive vegetation. 

The 7th green has always been my least favourite there, and is fairly poor. 

The last time I was there we actually played the 17th from the straight ahead 430 metre tee, from where the hole works surprisingly well.  It doesn't set up as well with the tee back and left.

I don't want to make this a thread about specifics, just saying there is plenty there worthy of review. I am not surprised you liked the forward tee on 17, you can't hit over a jam tin. But seriously you are right, the back tee was apparently a late addition, partly due to the addition of 16 and I think also to get the par up to 70.

[Tom_Doak]

IMO, there are playability issues of varying importance at the 3rd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 15th, and 17th holes. 

David:

Those playability issues are a matter of opinion.  It's possible the holes are exactly the way I intended them to play, and they just don't suit your particular tastes [or the prejudices of your own golf game].  But, I can't really say for sure, since I have not seen the course since it "opened".

The one thing your comment DOES do is get back to part of the problem with William's question, which is that the architect is only able to follow up to the extent that the client wants him to ... it's the client's course.  If we did a good job, or if they have financial issues, or possibly for any of several other reasons, then they may not want to pay to fly us in for a checkup ... especially if we are 10,000 miles away.

[Of course, my co-designer for the course has a summer house 1/2 mile from this particular project, and they haven't called him about it, either.  But he may not be so quick to return calls as the original developer fell apart owing each of us a lot more than a first-class ticket to Australia.

[Ryan Farrow]

In developing golf nations it is important.

All it takes is one unsympathetic manager (board) or superintendent to destroy the design-intent.

.

Tony, I couldn't agree more.....


Our Mission Hills Haikou project is a great example. Out of 10 courses, we are still shaping the last 1 or 2.... There is play on a few of them and over the last 6-8 months I have been keeping an eye on them, adding/ adjusting fairway lines, mowing patterns, grass plantings in bunkers.....Its amazing how much things can change in a few weeks out here. We had some square greens, square edges that have totally disappeared, fairway lines that start making some awkward turns, irregular bunker edges that start to get rounded out.... Luckily  our office is only 30 minutes away and I am on site a few days a week to keep an eye on things when Brian isn't here. Sometimes I'm out playing a round, get up to the tee and can't see the fairway bunkers because weeds have grown up 6-8 feet out of the lava rock....

Once a course is finished and getting playable, we always try and get out there and play a few rounds..... working in lava rock, you try and cap as much as necessary  but sometimes you don't image all of the shots and all of the bounces, then you have to go back in and cap a little more here, or pop in a catch bunker there, tree plantings etc... Its a lot easier to do when when the construction equipment is just down the haul road and the shapers are still on site.

[William_G]

Tom,

I agree the question of follow-up does hinge upon the relationship one has post-completion. Sorry to hear about this debacle for you.

I quess the main thing is that you believe that you are avvailable etc..., but that little follow up and little re-modeling is preferred as your style.

Thanks

[Tom_Doak]

In developing golf nations it is important.

All it takes is one unsympathetic manager (board) or superintendent to destroy the design-intent.

.

Tony, I couldn't agree more.....


Our Mission Hills Haikou project is a great example. Out of 10 courses, we are still shaping the last 1 or 2.... There is play on a few of them and over the last 6-8 months I have been keeping an eye on them, adding/ adjusting fairway lines, mowing patterns, grass plantings in bunkers.....Its amazing how much things can change in a few weeks out here. We had some square greens, square edges that have totally disappeared, fairway lines that start making some awkward turns, irregular bunker edges that start to get rounded out.... Luckily  our office is only 30 minutes away and I am on site a few days a week to keep an eye on things when Brian isn't here. Sometimes I'm out playing a round, get up to the tee and can't see the fairway bunkers because weeds have grown up 6-8 feet out of the lava rock....

Once a course is finished and getting playable, we always try and get out there and play a few rounds..... working in lava rock, you try and cap as much as necessary  but sometimes you don't image all of the shots and all of the bounces, then you have to go back in and cap a little more here, or pop in a catch bunker there, tree plantings etc... Its a lot easier to do when when the construction equipment is just down the haul road and the shapers are still on site.

Ryan:

What exactly is the design intent of those square edges that they keep trying to round off?

[Ryan Farrow]

Tom,

To be honest, most of it is just visual. One of the courses we were going with a kind of "old school" style. Flat bottom bunkers, unfinished looking hand work, some odd quirky things here and there. Square tees, Up and back mowing patterns, square green edges.... things like that. Typically when we did it on other courses it was mostly to open up pin position on a corner of a green. Going square on an edge gives you the extra room to do it sometimes.

My main point there is after only a few months, we were seriously loosing our original green surfaces. And believe me, China is a place where the super might not even know that there is a wire around the edge of the green that can be picked up with a metal detector. Or they just don't care.

[Mike_Young]

For the majority of the courses out there..the owner has no interest in paying the architect to come back and give him a review....in as gentle a tone as I can put this....the owner and the supt in most cases feel as thought they know exactly what is needed and may in many cases feel they can improve upon such.....this state of mind comes about from daily discussions between the two when the architect is not around...most courses are influenced much more by the supt than the architect.....many times I have been to a project where the supt is telling me how the last architect didn't do a particular hole or area properly and then the pro will follow up with Johnny tour Player was in here and he said it shoul be this way....reality is that most courses could care less about the architect..
Supts..please don't slap me for the above...you know there are some that go this way...

[David_Elvins]

David:

Those playability issues are a matter of opinion.  It's possible the holes are exactly the way I intended them to play, and they just don't suit your particular tastes [or the prejudices of your own golf game]. 

 
Definitely, that is part of my point, that is why I would encourage the architect to come back to the course to make changes, to remove the prejiduces of the owner/committee etc.  The changes made should generally be where the course does not play like the architect intends it to.  Intent is ,IMO, the major factor in the redesign process.  I just don't belive that, no matter how good an architect is, the playing characteristics of the course will turn out 100% as he intended.   I used St Andrews Beach as an example because of the dramatic contours in and around the small greens.  Because of this, it would be a particularly difficult course for the playability to turn out exactly as intended. 

The one thing your comment DOES do is get back to part of the problem with William's question, which is that the architect is only able to follow up to the extent that the client wants him to ... it's the client's course. 

  I would see the client issue as being no different to buildinga course from scratch or doing a re-desiign masterplan.  THe better clients would give you more free reign. 

[Of course, my co-designer for the course has a summer house 1/2 mile from this particular project, and they haven't called him about it, either.  But he may not be so quick to return calls as the original developer fell apart owing each of us a lot more than a first-class ticket to Australia.

EDIT: An amusing story, a couple of years after the course openned but whilst still under the original ownership, Mike dropped in for the game.  As he was about to lave the proshop, the golf manager said "So Mike, have you played here before?"   

Of course, my co-designer for the course has a summer house 1/2 mile from this particular project, and they haven't called him about it, either.  But he may not be so quick to return calls as the original developer fell apart owing each of us a lot more than a first-class ticket to Australia.

So when the course openned to much acclaim it was a Doak design but now that it gets a bit of criticism you now have a co-designer?    (Sorry, low blow)

[Mark_F]

So when the course openned to much acclaim it was a Doak design but now that it gets a bit of criticism you now have a co-designer? 

Who has been criticising it?

[Colin Macqueen]

David,
I understand that you were using St. Andrew’s Beach as an example but I echo Mark’s thoughts and wonder where any criticism is coming from? It seems strange to me that when a group (e.g. Golf Services Managenment and Turnpoint) acquire a course designed by one of the ostensibly first rate modern architects that they would set about re-jigging the damn thing. I get no impression of any revamping of the course from local press or gossip. Why would an owner do that when presumably part of the beauty is precisely the small greens and dramatic contouring. This would surely be part of your branding. It seems daft to change things before there has been a reasonable time for golfers to become acquainted with the style of this sort of course. As the architect I would be loathe to come and change things as I would suspect that the changes were probably going to cater to the lowest common denominator and in dumbing the course down remove its inherent charm.

Maybe I am  just too much of a romantic that possesses not a scintilla of business sense.

Colin

[David_Elvins]

Who has been criticising it?

I have.  

That was the joke part of the post.  You are probably better responding to the rest of it.  

[David_Elvins]

I get no impression of any revamping of the course from local press or gossip.

I don't know of anything official with the new owners but ever since the course first went public 4 years ago, there has been talk of making it more accommodating to public golfers.   Not everyone knows who Tom Doak is and there are plenty of golfers that will take a whack at the course.  It cops far more criticism from the average golfer than much worse courses located nearby and even Golf Digest managed to rank it outside Australia's top 40 courses.  It is easy to sit back and say that these guys don't know what they are talking about (they obviously don't) but it is worth noting that there is no predominant respect for leaving the course the way it is in the general golfing community.  Even most of the people who know something about Golf Architecture want to change stuff on the course.  It is a course that confronts and confounds a lot of people.  It is controversial and it generates discussion.  Which is why the course architecture needs to be defended by good stewardship.  As far as I know, the course has never had this, which is a pity. 

If you have a spare spot when you are palying it, feel free to send me a PM, it's much easier to explain the course in person![/quote]

[Mark_F]

That was the joke part of the post.  You are probably better responding to the rest of it.

I'll try, but untangling your mangled syntax could mean something is lost in translation, so forgive me if it is.

Definitely, that is part of my point, that is why I would encourage the architect to come back to the course to make changes, to remove the prejiduces of the owner/committee etc. 

The previous owners' only prejudice was that the money members invested in the project should go into their back pockets, not the course. 

The course was supposed to have been oversown with fescue, which would have helped with the bounce and run of the ball in some instances, although I don't suppose that is what you mean.  Their modus operandi also saw a very cheap method of re-vegetating the course, which was generally a disaster, especially on the 3rd, 10th and 13th holes, but I know that is not what you are getting at either.

The changes made should generally be where the course does not play like the architect intends it to.   I used St Andrews Beach as an example because of the dramatic contours in and around the small greens.  Because of this, it would be a particularly difficult course for the playability to turn out exactly as intended.

There are just eight small greens.  Only four of those - 1, 10, 14 and 16 - could be said to have dramatic contours in and around them.  1 and 14 call for pitch shot or less approaches, so the dramatic contours could hardly said to inimical to the player.  10 is the only can't miss green, so is hardly an oppressive task.  The vegetation around the green is  the worst on the course, so it has always been impossible to truly know what the hole would play like.

but it is worth noting that there is no predominant respect for leaving the course the way it is in the general golfing community

So the owners/committee's prejudices are fallacious, yet the nebulous entity that is the general golfing community should be seen and heard?

.
Even most of the people who know something about Golf Architecture want to change stuff on the course.

The same could be said of any course in the world.  Gunnamatta needs a little fine tuning, but there is nothing wrong with the philosophy behind the design.

.
It is a course that confronts and confounds a lot of people.

Holes like 8, 9 and 10 are more difficult when downwind, which is somewhat unexpected.  A green like 3 exposes perhaps the most common misconception of golfers, that they should be able to hit at any pin from any position in the fairway, something I've witnessed you do on at least two occasions.  That the correct route to the hole isn't necessarily what it appears to be from the tee. (1, 5,  15, 17)

[David_Elvins]

Mark,

Your coloured writing is rude.

You have completely missed the point of what I was saying. 

[Rob Swift]

I have had a close connection with St Andrews Beach from the time it was constructed and for years after. I would have loved for Tom to come back out after 6 months or so to tell us good and bad things that we were doing and where he would have loved the course to go from there, but obviously the owners were not in a position to get him out. I believe this would be the same at most newly constructed courses, but as Tom said it is the client's course .

I have played the course more than 70 or 80 times. Unless you are talking about the vegetation, I don't believe there are any playability issues with the course at all. The 7th green is probably the closet thing to being an issue, but there is a lot more room than what it looks like to get your ball up there. Holes like the 3rd and the 10th are great golf holes , maybe all these golfers or people that are criticizing these holes just don't have the imagination needed to play them well.

I believe St Andrews Beach is a great golf course that gives golfers of all levels a chance to score well. I would be happy to play it everyday as is.

[Mark_F]

I have played the course more than 70 or 80 times. Unless you are talking about the vegetation, I don't believe there are any playability issues with the course at all. The 7th green is probably the closet thing to being an issue, but there is a lot more room than what it looks like to get your ball up there. Holes like the 3rd and the 10th are great golf holes , maybe all these golfers or people that are criticizing these holes just don't have the imagination needed to play them well.

I believe St Andrews Beach is a great golf course that gives golfers of all levels a chance to score well. I would be happy to play it everyday as is.

Well said, Rob.

Mark,

Your coloured writing is rude.

No it isn't, David.  This is rude:

I am not surprised you liked the forward tee on 17, you can't hit over a jam tin.

You have completely missed the point of what I was saying. 

That's probably because you aren't aware what point you are trying to make. 

Your first post on the matter is a clear statement of belief:

St Andrews Beach could do with a remodel.  Its a pity that it might be someone else that is doing it.

A great pity. A travesty. Obviously Mr Anonymous Chinese Businessman didn't conduct enough due diligence.

There isn't much room for doubt as to what this sentence means, either:

In a perfect world it would be the original architect that reviews the playability of the course and makes changes as required.  IMO it would be great for the course if Tom was to visit the course and review the course and how it played today, compared to how he invisiged it would play.

Agreed. Except, aside from vegetation, I would surmise it is playing as he intended.

IMO, there are playability issues of varying importance at the 3rd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 15th, and 17th holes.

It might help clear up the confusion if you could elaborate on what those playability issues are.  Vegetation?  The current maintenance practices undermining the architectural intent?  Or is it because (some of) those greens repel shots instead of lovingly caressing them like Barnbougle's greens do?  Note: I paraphrased you since I can't remember where you stated something very much like that.

However, it all falls to pieces with this crepuscular paragraph:

Definitely, that is part of my point, that is why I would encourage the architect to come back to the course to make changes, to remove the prejiduces of the owner/committee etc.  The changes made should generally be where the course does not play like the architect intends it to.  Intent is ,IMO, the major factor in the redesign process.  I just don't belive that, no matter how good an architect is, the playing characteristics of the course will turn out 100% as he intended.   I used St Andrews Beach as an example because of the dramatic contours in and around the small greens.  Because of this, it would be a particularly difficult course for the playability to turn out exactly as intended. 

So are the dramatic contours in and around the small greens not playing as intended because of maintenance practices, vegetation issues or construction issues?

[David_Elvins]

Mark,

you have been so determined to take offence on behalf of St Andrews Beach that you have taken  everything I have read out of context.

Your posts make little sense. 

Maybe just delete them, have a cool shower,  and then read what I wrote in the context of the thread topic and the other posts in the thread.