[Jim Colton]

From Matty G's blog, DMK talks about a potential project in the dunes of central Washington. Does anybody know of this site or have any additional info?

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/blogs/wheres-matty-g/2011/02/catching-up-with-david-mclay-k.html

Design question: Kidd mentions that he's had to go back at the Castle Course and Tetherow and soften things up on more than a few holes. Do you think it's a good design strategy to push the envelope to the extent that you know multiple holes will have to be tweaked once the dust settles? Or should we expect those things to be identified and fixed by an architect up front if he's truly doing his job correctly? Any chance a course ends up better In the long run using this kind of two-step process?

[Brad Klein]

Anyone who saw Castle Course the first time and wrote about it as I did could see the course needed "fixing" right away. Makes you wonder why the architect didn't. Then Tetherow had to be fixed and softened immediately after opening.  Isn't that the architects job the first time?

I hope by "dust settling" they don't mean the "greens settling" because properly built features don't settle. That's a myth I've heard in the past from others who just built stuff that was too severe to begin with.

[Jim Nugent]

Anyone who saw Castle Course the first time and wrote about it as I did could see the course needed "fixing" right away. Makes you wonder why the architect didn't. Then Tetherow had to be fixed and softened immediately after opening.  Isn't that the architects job the first time?

As I understand it, most Doak 10s in the U.S. got reworked, over and over, for years, starting shortly after they opened.  This includes Merion, Pine Valley, NGLA, Crystal Downs and Pinehurst #2.  Why is this a problem if Kidd or other modern archies do it?   

[MikeJones]

One of the things that sets apart great course designers is that they try new things either in construction methods or hole design. I think it's inevitable that occasionally they'll get it wrong or overdo things.  That they go back and make modification to make the course better rather than just leaving it, is a good thing is it not?

DMK are certainly getting some great locations to work with!

[Jud_T]

Machrihanish Dunes was a perfect site?  Was that before or after the environmental police were on site?

[JC Jones]

Anyone who saw Castle Course the first time and wrote about it as I did could see the course needed "fixing" right away. Makes you wonder why the architect didn't. Then Tetherow had to be fixed and softened immediately after opening.  Isn't that the architects job the first time?

As I understand it, most Doak 10s in the U.S. got reworked, over and over, for years, starting shortly after they opened.  This includes Merion, Pine Valley, NGLA, Crystal Downs and Pinehurst #2.  Why is this a problem if Kidd or other modern archies do it?   

I've pointed this out several times in the past.  The criticism that an architect or someone else has to make changes later in the course is one aimed at modern architects, particularly those not named Doak and/or C&C as a way of implicitly discounting their architectural abilities and the quality of their courses.

You could add several to your list including Augusta National, Oakmont and Shinnecock Hills.  The notion that a course can't be great because it has had some subsequent work is a flawed one, at best.

[George Pazin]

...The notion that a course can't be great because it has had some subsequent work is a flawed one, at best.

I think you and Jim are greatly oversimplifying what Brad said. Virtually all courses get worked on, no one would dispute that. But one of the things we see when one engages in "frank commentary" is that there is a certain amount of critical judgment that goes into separating the great from the very good, etc.

Brad can obviously speak for himself - and quite well at that - but he seemed to be saying it was surprising DMK felt the earlier work was finished and ready for play. This is not the sort of tweaking that the PVs and Oakmonts of the world have received over the years, imho.

[Adam Clayman]

Shouldn't cost be the justification for expectation?

In today's world the cost to design and build are in the millions. With all the resources available, why shouldn't WE expect the archie to get it right the first time.?

As for Doak and C&C, hours on site and competent crews, saves a lot of waste. Doesn't it?

[JC Jones]

...The notion that a course can't be great because it has had some subsequent work is a flawed one, at best.

I think you and Jim are greatly oversimplifying what Brad said. Virtually all courses get worked on, no one would dispute that. But one of the things we see when one engages in "frank commentary" is that there is a certain amount of critical judgment that goes into separating the great from the very good, etc.

Brad can obviously speak for himself - and quite well at that - but he seemed to be saying it was surprising DMK felt the earlier work was finished and ready for play. This is not the sort of tweaking that the PVs and Oakmonts of the world have received over the years, imho.

I think "tweaking" greatly oversimplifies the work that has been done at Pine Valley and many of the elite courses.  They were "done and ready for play" and yet major changes happened shortly after completion.  Many holes at Pine Valley were changed, Merion had holes re-routed, Maxwell changed greens at ANGC.  The list goes on.  In fact, one of the things that separates many of the elite courses from the next tier is the amount of work they have done on them over time to make them great.

Adam,

While I certainly understand the "bang for the buck" argument you make in that it is better, economically, to have a flawless design from the day the doors open, I don't think the cost to build should factor into the evaluation of the golf course.  And while I understand the perception is that all of Doak's courses are flawless from the time they open, I think the number NLE and otherwise financially struggling designs suggests that the market might have a different opinion.  Certainly economic factors are not entirely within the architect's control but Kevin Costner told us all "if you build it, they will come."

[Anthony Gray]

  I agree with Brad here.Can't you just look at it and know?

  Anthony

[George Pazin]

I think "tweaking" greatly oversimplifies the work that has been done at Pine Valley and many of the elite courses.  They were "done and ready for play" and yet major changes happened shortly after completion.  Many holes at Pine Valley were changed, Merion had holes re-routed, Maxwell changed greens at ANGC.  The list goes on.  In fact, one of the things that separates many of the elite courses from the next tier is the amount of work they have done on them over time to make them great.

And at that time, golf itself was experiencing great changes, from significant equipment changes to major agronomic changes and construction method changes. And there wasn't nearly the body of overall experience/history in golf course architecture to draw from for folks like CBM, Hugh Wilson, Mackenzie, Fownes, Crump, etc. They didn't have the shoulders to stand on that today's guys have!

Someone - either Mike C or Joe B (I think Joe) - posted an engineers overhead from really early on at Oakmont and I was flat out amazed at how little it has changed.

[Pete_Pittock]

I've known about the site for about three years and seen some pictures of the property. Have not been there. That's all I can say.

[JC Jones]

Since your post is justifying the extensive work done to those great courses I'll assume you saying that "tweaking" was an oversimplification of the work that was actually done.

There are many problems with your explanation.  Not that it isn't plausible, just that it undermines many of the other conclusions and assumptions on which we (the GCA.com crowd) operate.  Namely, that CBM, Dr. Mac, etc. were great architects and more so, better than anyone we have today.  In fact, it challenges the golden age bias that we apply here, which has caused the high regard many of those courses share.  Are we over inflating their abilities by judging their courses in their present, modified form?  Perhaps we have stumbled on to something.

In any event, my guess is that if you took an overhead of the Castle Course 100 years from now you'll probably not be able to tell much difference either.  Particularly if the work that they are doing is simply a softening of features.

[Don_Mahaffey]

JC,
Just because an older course has had some editing and updating through the years does not excuse a new course requiring significant alteration after a single season. A slow evolution to greatness is one thing. Thinking your pushing the envelope by building something that does not function, is barely maintainable, adds nothing positive to the playability of a course, and requires surgery while the course is still in its infancy is not taking a chance or striving for greatness. Its arrogance and shows a lack of common sense.
Some of these guys needs someone on their team to remind them to keep their feet on the ground.  

[Chris Johnston]

First, there is only one Sand Hills.  There will never be a "next".

Improvements are natural and I have never seen a course that doesn't alter or modify.  It's how all organizations go from good to great.  Can anyone name a recent course that hasn't changed or modified?  I honestly can't.

[JC Jones]

Don,

I don't disagree with your point that unnecessary risk taking is not productive.  The problem that I am referring to is using post-design changes as a proxy for, generally, bad architecture and eternal damnation of a golf course.

I also think there is a romanticizing of the amount of work done on classic courses.  I'm not referring to editing and updating, I'm talking about completely re-doing several greens and other projects at many of these courses (i.e. Pine Valley, Merion, ANGC, etc., etc.)  such that the original product no longer exists.  

[Anton]

As others have stated before.....all the great courses are "tweaked" at some point.  Whether it is right after opening or years down the line, it needs to be done at some point in order to keep the course fresh and playable.  Of course changing technology brings more changes.  But look at some of the great courses that had MAJOR renovations.  Augusta National is a prime example.  Even the nines were reversed at its very beginning.  And we owe a lot of praise to RTJ for his beautiful 16th hole upgrade.  Pine Valley is constantly tweaking things and has since it first opened.  I don't think that Kidds repairs are that unusual or cause for alarm.  

I will def be checking out the "next Sand Hills" article and following that closely.  Lots of places step forward and proclaim themselves the next SH so it will be interesting to see how this one pans out.  

[Peter Pallotta]

It's the 'Heaven's Gate" question.  At 4 hours (or then at 2 1/2 hours) was it really the disaster the critics first deemed it? Was it even just a bad/mediocre film? Did it lack craft, i.e. did Cimino forget how to tell a story and make a movie?  Or did its huge budget and years in the making and sprawling (and at the time, anti-commercial) attitude and ambitions makes it an easy target for anyone with any kind of ax to grind? I think it's a good movie, not a great one.

Peter

[Ian Andrew]

Some of these guys needs someone on their team to remind them to keep their feet on the ground.  

We're better when there is a second opinion that offers some counterbalance to our tendencies.

My favourite shapers will inevitably go too far at some point, which is awesome, because I enjoy the push. I see their role as not only help me achieve a vision but to test the boundaries of that vision at the same time. That creative tension makes us all better.

[Adam Clayman]

 And while I understand the perception is that all of Doak's courses are flawless from the time they open, I think the number NLE and otherwise financially struggling designs suggests that the market might have a different opinion.

JC, I assume you are being cheeky here?

I will relate the question I asked Tom after an inaugural dinner. "How do you see yourself tweaking this design over the years?"

He stated that with the crew that he had (Implying trust) that the man hours spent going over every aspect was such that most of the tweaking was done prior to seeding.

Now, I can see how some will only see arrogance in that response. I however did not. I thought it was an honest assessment of how he and his team treat the design process, which is differently than most of the others.

As for the markets opinion, based on closures, I see nothing substantive in that, and if I follow your logic, McDonald's hamburgers are the best. Is that what you were saying?  

[JC Jones]

Adam,

Like I said to George, doesn't that philosophy serve as an indictment against all of the golden age architects we revere that had many aspects of their courses changed? 

I think the notion that what is created from the outset is perfect and not in need of changing doesn't reflect arrogance.  I think it reflects insecurity.  I have no doubt their design process is meticulous and deliberate.  I think Doak is the greatest architect ever; I don't think that making changes to a design is a bad thing if it is done with the intent to create a more perfect product.

The market has not indicated that McDonald's is the best hamburger and you know that. 

[Jaeger Kovich]

First of all, I think DMK's overall body of work is pretty solid and should be mentioned along with the criticisms. I've seen 3 of his designs, really liked 2.

Queenwood in Surrey England has undergone a few changes since it opened as well, mostly on #'s 1 and 10 tee shots. Last I was told the club was leaning towards a total re-grassing of all 18 greens because Poa was taking over, there was a thought to convert to all Poa, but I think that got voted down. Should be open again by the spring, if not already. This website kills me for it, but I always enjoy playing Queenwood!

Hasn't Bandon changed a bit to over the years? At least visually?

A thought on having to make changes... Its cheaper to take the risk and push the envelope, then completely rebuild the greens before opening, especially if they don't realize how unplayable until grassed (this is would be the real mistake). The publicity of Bandon's designer building crazy greens may make it worth it in the end for some, just a theory.

[Jim Nugent]

From the thread about NGLA, CBM says in Scotland's Gift that he altered almost all the holes.  He made the 14th and 17th thirty yards longer; and added bunkers.  He made the 2nd about 60 to 100 yards longer.  He says on a number of holes he built entirely new greens.  He says he lengthened some holes and shortened others.  It sounds like he used the advice of Horace Hutchinson to change/add contours on a number of greens.  

That, to me, sounds like a whole lot of changes.  While Kidd is more vague, he says, “I’ve been back to make some small tweaks, softened some greens and improved playability."  Links says he worked on four holes.  

So one made some small tweaks on four holes.  The other changed almost every hole, built new greens, added lots of new bunkers, lengthened holes dramatically, shortened others, and changed the greens contours.  

If it's ok for Macdonald, why is it not ok for Kidd, who apparently has made far fewer changes than CBM did?  

[Mike_DeVries]

Anyone who saw Castle Course the first time and wrote about it as I did could see the course needed "fixing" right away. Makes you wonder why the architect didn't. Then Tetherow had to be fixed and softened immediately after opening.  Isn't that the architects job the first time?

As I understand it, most Doak 10s in the U.S. got reworked, over and over, for years, starting shortly after they opened.  This includes Merion, Pine Valley, NGLA, Crystal Downs and Pinehurst #2.  Why is this a problem if Kidd or other modern archies do it?   

Jim,
Crystal Downs has not been reworked, at all.  Have the grassing lines changed? Yes.  Have bunkers grown in over time and then been reclaimed? Yes.

Just a correction to your generalization.
Cheers,
Mike

[JC Jones]

From the thread about NGLA, CBM says in Scotland's Gift that he altered almost all the holes.  He made the 14th and 17th thirty yards longer; and added bunkers.  He made the 2nd about 60 to 100 yards longer.  He says on a number of holes he built entirely new greens.  He says he lengthened some holes and shortened others.  It sounds like he used the advice of Horace Hutchinson to change/add contours on a number of greens.  

That, to me, sounds like a whole lot of changes.  While Kidd is more vague, he says, “I’ve been back to make some small tweaks, softened some greens and improved playability."  Links says he worked on four holes.  

So one made some small tweaks on four holes.  The other changed almost every hole, built new greens, added lots of new bunkers, lengthened holes dramatically, shortened others, and changed the greens contours.  

If it's ok for Macdonald, why is it not ok for Kidd, who apparently has made far fewer changes than CBM did?  

It should be ok for any architect to do so.  There is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with continuous improvement.  Often times in my professional life I can get in a rut thinking the way I do things or the way I've done them cannot be improved upon.  Every time I've felt that way, however, I've either had someone point out or found myself a way of improving.

I can understand why an architect would feel this way and I certainly don't think Doak is alone in his mindset.  In fact, I think any of us who have served a client are hesitant to admit there might have been a different way of doing things.  The fear is that it might lead the client to believing they didn't get their money's worth.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()