CAN I ASK THIS QUESTION?

[Jerry Kluger]

I think that nearly everyone who participates on GCA agrees that Sand Hills and Ballyneal are truly great accomplishments in golf course architecture and here's the question I would like to ask without offending anyone or causing any controversy as it my attempt to learn more about great architecture:

If Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw were given the land in Holyoke to work with and Tom Doak was given the land in Mullen to work with how would the courses have differed.  Is there anything which can be pointed to as characteristic of the respective architects which would have likely resulted in a difference from what was done by the original architect.  I think the routing of both courses was brilliant so I doubt that anyone could point to a difference there but would there be a difference in the fairways, the bunkering or the greens? 

From my limited knowledge I don't see that there would be any significant differences where someone could say that C & C would have done this feature differently or TD would have done this green differently, etc.  My objective is not to be critical as I really don't know enough to do so rather I am curious if there is something which can be identified as characteristic of an architect.   

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry,

I don't know how anyone but me or Bill Coore could answer that question as more than conjecture.  And I really don't know if either of us could answer it, either.

Bill and Ben supposedly found 100+ potential holes to choose from at Sand Hills.  I would guess I might have found a fair percentage of the same holes, and perhaps a few they didn't consider (since tastes vary).  But I think it is highly unlikely that I would have wound up on the same routing plan, or even something close to it, given the amount of property to choose from and the number of options presented.  The same is undoubtedly true if Bill had done a routing for Ballyneal.

I can tell you from working closely with Bill on the routing for our 36 holes in Florida, that we both admire what then other guy sees, but we don't always see the same thing.  There might be situations where we would wind up with a similar routing, but it would only be likely on a smallish property where there weren't so many ways to go.

[Bill_McBride]

Tom, I think Jerry was asking about how more than the routings would have differed, and on into hole design differences.  It's an interesting question.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Not to take this off topic, but when I saw the routing in FL, with holes mixed rather than split, say, east and west, I wondered how much you had to work together on the routings, and if there was a battle over any specific holes where they came together.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: I recognize that the routing could have been different for both courses but that wasn't really what I was driving at.  I was just wondering if any of the features on the holes would have been different because some of the more knowledgeable guys see some type of characteristic in your design work which would have been seen at Sand Hills or C & C at Ballyneal.  Allow me to point to a possible difference and that would be the 8th hole at Sand Hills - that green complex has been seen a number of times in C & C's work but perhaps you would have designed it differently.

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry,

There would be lots and lots and lots that would be different.

Just for the example you cited -- I had the rare privilege of walking Bill's routing at Sand Hills with Jim Urbina just before they started cinstruction of the course.  The greens and fairways were all flagged out, and there were 12 or 13 greens out of 18 which were just laying there ready to be grasses.  But the 8th green was not one of those.  It was at the end of a valley, and the green site was in a low spot, well below the current green, and neither Jimnor I had any idea what Bill was going to do there.  What he did was core out all those bunkers around the back, and use that fill to lift up the green, and then dig his little central bunker into the fill pad.  I never saw that coming ... but it is sort of the same way we built the 7th green at Ballyneal years later.

Still, I will go back to my original point.  The routing determines the golf holes.  If we wind up with substantially different routings, then our two courses will be nowhere near the same.

[Chris Johnston]

I wonder...with the simple passage of time (and added experiences) would C&C or TD do the same routings they did originally?  Or, today, would they do things differently? 

[Tom_Doak]

TD,

Not to take this off topic, but when I saw the routing in FL, with holes mixed rather than split, say, east and west, I wondered how much you had to work together on the routings, and if there was a battle over any specific holes where they came together.

Jeff,

Bill had done two or three different versions of an 18 hole routing for the center portion of the site, before we both agreed that it would be better to try and get 36 holes there than to use any of the other potential  locations for the second course.  Many of those holes were incorporated into the final plan, but several of them wound up as part of the Blue course (holes 3-4-5-6-8 and 15).  Whereas, a few of the holes on the Red course are pretty close to my first attempt to get 36 holes out there.

It would have been easier and neater to just divide the property north and south, but Bill and I both felt the viruses would give up something that way in terms of variety of terrain, and we both wanted as much variety as we could get.  The interlocking routings came together when I did a routing that had both 13th greens come together (it is now 13 Red and 12 Blue), so that the courses could go either way at that point.  Bill contemplated that for a while, and suggested a change to two holes so that the exchange point was unequal and we HAD to cross through each other's plans; and we agreed itmwas the right thing to do for the 36 hole solution even though I think it changed which of the two golf courses Bill preferred to build.

My own two favorite holes on the plan before we started were the 15th on the Red course and the 15th on the Blue, both of which were Bill's idea to start with.  I am just glad I get to put my name on one of them.

It was a really interesting exercise in collaboration and I hope it will prove the best solution for all of us.

[Carl Rogers]

Think about another course in another location ....

Rawls Course at Texas Tech.  On the same very flat site would C & C have overtly created a different landscape and then overlayed the game on top of that?

I do remember that while at the Bay of Dreams, Tom called the 11th hole his "problem child" because of what it took to create it.

Only through pure guess work and observation of pictures on this and other sites, I do think that Tom is in some cases willing to move more dirt than C & C.

[Tom_Doak]

Only through pure guess work and observation of pictures on this and other sites, I do think that Tom is in some cases willing to move more dirt than C & C.

Carl:

I think that is probably not accurate.  I have taken a couple of jobs where I had to move more earth, than anything Bill has taken on; but I don't think we are much different in that regard on any given location.  Bill is certainly going to prove in Florida that he is not afraid to build some holes which required BIG earthmoving.  Heck, on his fifth hole he filled in a 15-foot deep pond to create his fairway.  [NOTE:  the water bodies on site were supposed to be filled according to the reclamation plan, so they are technically not wetlands until we are finished with construction.]

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: You said: " If we wind up with substantially different routings, then our two courses will be no where near the same."  I think the next obvious question is: If the routings are substantially identical, will the courses be the same? My answer is no, but that is where we go back to my original question - how will they be different?  For example, if you had wound up at that same spot on number 8 at SH would you have created a different green complex - it appears from you comment that you would have done something different - I asked the guys what they thought you might do based upon how you've treated a similar situation at another location.  The answer could be that there is nothing which they could point to in order to suggest how you might treat it. 

[Matthew Petersen]

Tom: You said: " If we wind up with substantially different routings, then our two courses will be no where near the same."  I think the next obvious question is: If the routings are substantially identical, will the courses be the same? My answer is no, but that is where we go back to my original question - how will they be different?  For example, if you had wound up at that same spot on number 8 at SH would you have created a different green complex - it appears from you comment that you would have done something different - I asked the guys what they thought you might do based upon how you've treated a similar situation at another location.  The answer could be that there is nothing which they could point to in order to suggest how you might treat it. 

It's an interesting question as to whether you can separate the design of a single hole from the routing. Is there much of any precedent of a course where a routing was determined by one party but the actual hole design was done by someone else? (I suppose remodeling work can fit this idea.)

The way Tom talked about the 8th at SH--saying neither he nor Jim U could even figure out what Coore's idea for the green was--suggests that he would probably never have thought to route a hole in that same area. If Tom doesn't see a green in that spot, he never routes a hole there. If forced to use that routing, he still might significantly alter the hole based on not seeing the same kind of green site potential--he might have built a long par 4, or a par 3 based on other landforms in the same general area.

[Tom_Doak]

Jerry,

I guess the only answer to your question is that there are six holes on my course at Streamsong which were really based off Bill's routing -- so HE could tell you whether the holes we are building are anything like what he was thinking.  But I doubt you'd get an answer from him, and I KNOW you're not going to get one online!   

Or, I guess I could say that I have been looking at Bill's routing for months, and though I did not bother to try and figure out exactly what sort of green I would build on this particular hole or that, I have been surprised and amazed by a lot of what they've built so far.  There are greens I might have done differently, but there are also greens I wish I was crazy enough to come up with on my own.  I might have to call in the reinforcements to help us finish the rest of our own greens.

[David_Elvins]

Jerry,

I haven't seen a lot of their work but will have a stab for the sake of discussion.


Doak likes holes to have a natural ending slightly more than C&C.  eg.  More greens are situated on or before rises in the ground,  whereas C&C build more holes where the green sits relatively flat at fairway level with less imediately behind the green.  

I think that C&C do this a lot more than Doak.


And Doak does this a lot more than C&C.



And when they do end there holes at natural landforms, I think that Doak pushes his green sites back an extra 5-20 yards compared to C&C.
I think this is quite typical of C&C, sitting distinctly before the dune


And this is more typical of Doak, pushed back into the Dune and interacting with the Dunes more.

[Adam Clayman]

Jerry, I'm sure there was a learning curve on the construction side, and it may not be fair to compare because of the scale of the dunes, but, one of the major differences between SH and BN, is that in the spring, Dave Hensley doesn't spend a whole lot of time recovering the course from the winter winds. i.e. bunker re-shaping etc. He does take preventative measures on a few of the higher spots where sand is exposed. And this year might experiment with covering some greens, to prevent the harsh wind from drying them out too much. At least that's what I suspect the reason is.

[Jerry Kluger]

David: In thinking about Sand Hills I really don't see where C & C stopped short of the land forms in creating the green complexes starting with hole #1.

Tom:  With respect to my original question I am wondering if your parallel project with C & C will be the answer to my question - I presume the land will be similar so the question is if we will be able to see a difference in design between the two courses. Let's say we examine the holes on each of the courses - would we then be able to reasonably speculate what the differences would have been had the architects had been reversed.  Or how would the courses look if only one of the design teams did all 18 holes. After we went through that exercise we could possibly speculate how SH and BN would look if the designers were reversed.  BTW: I am again taking routing out of the equation. 

[TEPaul]

Jerry:

The kinds of questions you're asking on this thread have been asked before on this website about other courses and other architects. They are fascinating questions for sure but on all of those threads Tom Doak has pretty much said the same thing he did on this one on his first post. And in my opinion, there are a number of really good reasons he has said the same thing.

Nevertheless, these are fascinating questions but to me the even more interesting question is the various reasons it is so hard and perhaps impossible to ever actually answer your original questions. Some of the answers to the latter question, are, in my opinion, a real and fundamental education into the complexities of golf course architecture itself.

[Jerry Kluger]

TEP: I imagine that this question is fascinating for the same reason that trying to understand any great talent is fascinating.  How did the composer come up with the music, how did the painter see that scene, how did the architect see that building.  Of course, there is no simple answer as it is a combination of a God-given talent and hard work.  I want to believe that without the God-given talent you can work as hard as you can but still never get the same fantastic result otherwise I have no excuses for areas where I did not succeed.  Anyway, we gca geeks are always trying to understand how great golf holes are conceived and hopefully this exercise will somehow aid in that quest. 

[Bill_McBride]

Jerry,

I haven't seen a lot of their work but will have a stab for the sake of discussion.


Doak likes holes to have a natural ending slightly more than C&C.  eg.  More greens are situated on or before rises in the ground,  whereas C&C build more holes where the green sits relatively flat at fairway level with less imediately behind the green.  

I think that C&C do this a lot more than Doak.


And Doak does this a lot more than C&C.



And when they do end there holes at natural landforms, I think that Doak pushes his green sites back an extra 5-20 yards compared to C&C.
I think this is quite typical of C&C, sitting distinctly before the dune


And this is more typical of Doak, pushed back into the Dune and interacting with the Dunes more.

David, those C&C holes/greens don't look much like say Austin Golf Club or Friars Head at all, so I'm thinking their approach is more site-dependent - which I think would be true of almost any architect.

What I like most about both Doak and C&C courses is that neither team forces holes onto the site, but adapt to what's there to start with.

[TEPaul]

Jerry:

I completely understand your #17 and I agree with it.

However, it has long been my feeling that if you took a dozen architects (including the dozen best of any era) and gave them the very same land to work on whether it was naturally interesting or even not, and asked them to produce a golf course on it without collaborating or being aware of what any other was doing, they would come up with golf courses (both routing and what I call the "designing up" phase) as to be virtually unrecognizable the one from the other.

I have actually seen this happen to one degree or another and the results are just amazing, as are what I believe to be the reasons they naturally diverge as much as they do.

[TEPaul]

Jerry:

To elaborate a bit on the second paragraph of that last post----eg I have seen this happen to one degree or another----one of the most interesting developments and particularly on a site or property that really does have a lot of natural interest and features, is that two architects frequently tend to find many of the same landforms to use as similar holes but they actually go in reverse. Another situation just came up last week that shows how this happens.

[John Kavanaugh]

I wish C&C would show the same restraint on the green contours of their latest courses that they used when building the greens at Sand Hills.  The evolution of the design of C&C's green structures somewhat mirrors that of Meg Ryan's face.  Sadly, it is perfectly natural for neither time nor design to stand still. 

In all honesty, the work of Tom Doak in the early 90's would not have boded well at Sand Hills.  I would however love to see what he could do today.

[Jerry Kluger]

I am just wondering if architects feel that their designs have to get better or perhaps "change" as they get more experience and more work?  Sometimes they are given the opportunity to go back and tweak their designs but would the designs have been demonstrably different if they had started 10 or 20 years later?  Certainly Nicklaus has changed dramatically over the years but I think that is the exception rather than the rule.

[Adam Clayman]

John, Your comment doesn't seem to make sense to me because there have been a couple of greens at SH that needed softening since the first year.
What was this restraint and where have they gotten away from it?

Jerry, These guys design with nature. What's to tweak? The Rawls course being somewhat an exception only needed their cart paths tweaked. Unless there have been other changes I'm unaware of.

Why isn't it a more fruitful exercise to compare and contrast what C&C did, versus JN designs did, on similar property? Or, What BN would look like if Jim Urbina had been on the crew, rather than just the point man?

 

[Jerry Kluger]

Adam: I would suggest that there is no such thing as the perfect golf course and there are some changes which an architect would make after a few years of play to any design - I'm not saying anything major but just a tweak - like softening a green, moving a bunker, adding a tee box, etc. 

I think the comparison with JN has been done already and is not nearly as subtle or interesting as C & C versus Doak.  I have no idea how Ballyneal would be different if Jim Urbina had worked on it - do you?

[Tags:]

Tags: