News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Don_Mahaffey

Re: A genius routing
« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2011, 10:45:27 PM »
I'm glad I started this thread.

Tom Doak, your obviously a very successful architect with many great projects under your belt and many more to come, but you were damn good 25 years ago as well.  

Kelly, thank you. I enjoyed our ride together and I hope we get a chance to do something together in the future. I liked what you wrote about being amazed at what you have done in the past. I think sometimes it makes us feel good to think we get better with age, but that's only truly possible with an honest evaluation of our past. Sometimes we need that kid to kick us in the ass.

George, come visit.

Peter, I love that quote by Perlman. I think he and John Wooden were cut from the same cloth. I wonder if sometime true genius isn't grounded in grasping a hold of basic fundamentals and then using that framework to showcase our talents.  
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 08:00:41 AM by Don_Mahaffey »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2011, 06:41:32 AM »
Kelly

Not to put you on the spot, but I always feel these more esoteric conversations would have a more meaningful impact if brought down to the level of real circumstances.  I recall you saying at Lederach that if you had #9 to do again you would have mellowed on the shaping (I seem to recall the big shaped hill to the left of the fairway which blocks the view of the car park when on the fairway).  I would be grateful if you could point to a place or two on the course that you would do differently this many years down the line in your career.

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2011, 09:10:07 AM »
One of my favorite routings in the Philly area:

@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2011, 11:17:14 AM »
Kelly

Thank you.  As you know I like Lederach a lot in the main because of the shaping which creates a lot of hidden surprises/obscurity of the target/danger in going directly at the target. 

I figured the shaping around 9 & 18 was because of the pond and I must say that it isn't a bad idea to hide the parking lot even if things are a bit wild on the 9th.  The 18th though is well done.  Bold for sure, but in your face bold which is the best kind (rather than containment/view blocking bold). 

Yes, the third was an area I wondered about.  I can see the thinking in trying to create some visual interest in what would have been a pretty wide flatish area.  Unfortunately for me anyway, I like a wide expanse on a hole or two because its difficult for many golfers to focus on a desired line.  Let me ask, were the second shot centreline bunker and the mounding off the tee meant originally or did it just happen after fooling around a bit? 

Between the 4th & 5th is neither here nor there - I can't see a problem with huge mounding so long as you got something for it. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #29 on: March 24, 2011, 12:21:37 PM »
I guess much has to do with who you learned from.  I have always be proud of our routings because they were the premise of the design.  Much can be derived from pouring over a 2' topo map.  It doesn't lie.  I know many on this board get all misty-eyed at the idea of tromping around a couple hundred acres and "finding" all the "really cool" features/golf holes.  But, in my experience, this is harder done than said.  It is very easy to mis-judge scale. It's the GOLDY LOCKS syndrome. Flat land looks smaller than it really is, hilly/forested land looks/feels bigger than it really is.  And when you go through the various stages of construction, these "feelings" will change.  But if you plan it right and hold to that plan, in the end it will come out "just right".

I think it is the underlying desire for most architects to do as much with as little as possible.  But there are always trade-offs so I don't think a blanket statement is very useful.  Never deal in generalities when you have to work in specifics. Just look at Tom Doak's post where he stated he had his guys spend a couple of weeks moving a huge amount of material off just 1 fairway (probably more material than he moved in total at some courses) but, in his vision, it was what was needed in order for the course to be all it could be.  Will, as Don states, this large amount of earthwork make the course more expensive to maintain? I doubt it,  Heck, it might even end up being cheaper.  In many instances, maintenance's common denometer is a function of area. followed by drainage.  Luckily, this excess material had a home on C&C's course so the expenditure was shared and the benefit was by both courses.  Not bad for 2 firms that are held up on this board as minimalists extrodinair.  And my guess is, when done, no one will be able to guess what was there before.

As to the orignial question. I would be amazed if anyone knew of a high-caliber course that didn't have extensive earthwork done around the green complexes.  And for sites that didn't already contain a 2+ acre lake for irrigation, we were using 300,000 cy of excavation and 100,0000 cy of topsoil strip and replace when I first got into this business 35 yrs ago. Bear in mind that most of our site were flat farm fields. As the sites got smaller, the earthwork went up, mostly for separtion and safety reasons. But, like I said earlier, this didn't really expand the maintenance requirement, (in fact, many areas were planted in Fescue rather than the bluegree they would have been id left flat.  Then trees would have been planted and those, my friends, would have really driven up the maintenance costs.

Irrespective of the nature of the earthwork on a course, it is the ease of the routing in both crculation and use of the natural lay of the land that can make or break s design.
Coasting is a downhill process

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2011, 12:31:28 PM »

Mike,

I only move 200,000 yards at Ballyhack.  Given the severity of the site, I think the routing is the reason we moved so little.

Lester

Thank you Lester
I was asking about more than the earthwork
The greens, bunkers, shaping, irrigation, tees, grassing, expense...
Do you think if you had eliminated one square foot or one dollar spent the course wouldn't have been as good?
Cheers

Tim
I don't think anyone ever said one shouldn't use a topo map
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2011, 12:42:09 PM »

Mike,

I only move 200,000 yards at Ballyhack.  Given the severity of the site, I think the routing is the reason we moved so little.

Lester

Thank you Lester
I was asking about more than the earthwork
The greens, bunkers, shaping, irrigation, tees, grassing, expense...
Do you think if you had eliminated one square foot or one dollar spent the course wouldn't have been as good?
Cheers

Tim
I don't think anyone ever said one shouldn't use a topo map

Mike, what? Where did you get that?  I was referring to the use of topo maps as a tool to get a good routing.
Coasting is a downhill process

Peter Pallotta

Re: A genius routing
« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2011, 12:43:01 PM »
Tim - thanks, good and interesting post.  

Peter

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #33 on: March 24, 2011, 11:07:02 PM »
I may have just completed a new genius routing in the past 2-3 days, and re-learned an old lesson in the process.

We went out to the site with a series of overlapping routings on paper, and it only took one day to whittle down those possibilities and decide upon the one with the best potential holes.  We felt pretty good about it; there were clearly some awesome holes to be had.

But when we woke up the next morning, my associate and I both picked the same three holes [from two different parts of the course] as being the three weakest holes ... so we knew we still had work to do.  We met with the client, and asked him what was really important to him.  He said he didn't care whether par was 70 or 72, and he didn't need the course to be really long ... and he didn't even mention whether returning nines were important or not, which makes sense considering the location.

Our first-day routing had two loops of nine.  But, relieved of the need to make changes to both nines work out evenly, the number of possible solutions was far greater.  We quickly eliminated the two worst holes from the front nine, and split up a par-5 hole into a strong par-4 and a par-3, to wind up with eight holes on the front.  Then, we eliminated a par-3 on the back nine that ran east-west, and replaced it with two par-4 holes running north and south on some land we hadn't utilized before, and voila!  We're down to NO ordinary holes, all because we could go down to a par-70 and because it didn't matter if the loops were eight holes and ten.

Hopefully, it won't be too long before I can tell you where this one is ... or before they pull the trigger on building it.

Patrick Little

Re: A genius routing
« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2011, 01:08:06 AM »
A genius routing?  How about this.  Something imaginative which identifies what golf's mysteries suggest and all the while acting like 18 chapters of a great page turning novel.  It might open gently, then shock and end with clout.  If it stimulates the golfer's senses at the same time, it may even challenge sex!

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2011, 03:12:45 AM »
Tom

Its probably just me, but I prefer a short and long loop back to the house rather than 9 and 9.  I think 5/6 and 12/13 is ideal. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2011, 10:03:13 AM »
Tom,

Interesting insight into some of the process, thanks.

Out of curiosity, was the primary determining factor during that whittling down the number of routings to find the one that will deliver the most high level holes? This makes sense in that you can bring some lesser holes up to par as you build them but the killer holes will lift the entire level.

Peter Pallotta

Re: A genius routing
« Reply #37 on: March 25, 2011, 10:24:08 AM »
What Jim asks, Tom, but also:

you describe the inherent "balancing act" between the routing (easy and natural flow) and the quality of individual holes (with, ideally, no ordinary holes and many awesome ones).

In this particular case, a great solution presented itself because of the client's wants/flexibility; but in general every golf course you or  anyone else builds is an expression of the choices made re this balancing.   For example, with some courses I've played, it is clear that the architect chose (or felt compelled) to give very little weight to an easy and flowing routing in order to achieve as many good holes as possible.

I assume that you too put the emphasis on finding as many great holes as you can (and those golf holes on your various courses get praised often here) -- and yet I don't think I have ever read on here a negative comment about any of your routings in terms of easy and natural flow.

As I type this, I realize it sounds kissy-kissy and overly praising -- but from the outside and without having played any of your courses, it does seem that you have consistently been able to find the absolute right balance between the two elements.

Do you think you have? 

Is my assumption correct that you put the mosty weight on fidning great holes; and if so, do you think any of the final routings  you've done lack something/could have been better in terms of easy and natural flow because of it? 

Thanks
Peter

Lester George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #38 on: March 25, 2011, 11:08:40 AM »
Carl,

Yes the 11th hole at Ballyhack was the lions share of the earth moving on the back.  In fact, I was very concerned early on that we would hit rock there even though our tests indicated it was average and moveable.  I was prepared to shorten number 11 to a par 3 if need be. 

Your question brings up another consideration that was the dominant factor in my thinking.  Since this conversation started about ROUTING, here goes.....In the numerous routings I did, the 10th kept emerging as one of the holes I would not abandon because of its sheer beauty.  It set the tone for the back nine as well as used the existing land form as well as any on the course. That set the stage for the criss cross in the routing knowing I wanted to finish on the existing 18th.  Because of that, I needed to find and efficient way to get to 12 tee and then to 17 green.  It was clear that the connection had to go through 11 and the cross over would happen at 12.  So, had 11 become to cost prohibitive (rock) to build, I would have come off of the back of 10 green to the right, built a par 3 11th acoss the ravine and the move to the 12th tee up the hill.  This would have yielded par of 71 which was okay.  Thankfully, we got 11 in the way it is and it worked out. 

Mike,

I really want you to try to come to Ballyhack this year and please bring Don.  It is really hard to get the scale and drama of the site from pictures.  I dont think I would have saved much buy making the greens, tees, and bunkers less dramatic.  Because of the slopes I was dealing with, the speed and volume of water moving towards all of our features was a determining factor in how we deflected and arrested water and dealt with erosion.  With the exception of greens on numbers 2 and 12, we really had a major slope factoring into most green sites.  So, in essence, those areas were going to get shaped anyway.  Because of the size and frequency of the terrain, anything less than a minimal routing would have corrupted the site even more and caused more earthmoving and more expense.  That is partly why Carl (above) says he liked the way the holes on the front were routed along the sides of the ridges and not up, down and over.  I was not interested in busting a bunch of ridges and blowing up a bunch terrain to force something on that site, which would have cost alot more.  By the way, unless you already know, I would be interested in you trying to determine what the total construction budget was after you go around the property. 

Best,

Lester

Don_Mahaffey

Re: A genius routing
« Reply #39 on: March 25, 2011, 11:26:34 AM »
I guess much has to do with who you learned from.  I have always be proud of our routings because they were the premise of the design.  Much can be derived from pouring over a 2' topo map.  It doesn't lie.  I know many on this board get all misty-eyed at the idea of tromping around a couple hundred acres and "finding" all the "really cool" features/golf holes.  But, in my experience, this is harder done than said.  It is very easy to mis-judge scale. It's the GOLDY LOCKS syndrome. Flat land looks smaller than it really is, hilly/forested land looks/feels bigger than it really is.  And when you go through the various stages of construction, these "feelings" will change.  But if you plan it right and hold to that plan, in the end it will come out "just right".

I think it is the underlying desire for most architects to do as much with as little as possible.  But there are always trade-offs so I don't think a blanket statement is very useful.  Never deal in generalities when you have to work in specifics. Just look at Tom Doak's post where he stated he had his guys spend a couple of weeks moving a huge amount of material off just 1 fairway (probably more material than he moved in total at some courses) but, in his vision, it was what was needed in order for the course to be all it could be.  Will, as Don states, this large amount of earthwork make the course more expensive to maintain? I doubt it,  Heck, it might even end up being cheaper.  In many instances, maintenance's common denometer is a function of area. followed by drainage.  Luckily, this excess material had a home on C&C's course so the expenditure was shared and the benefit was by both courses.  Not bad for 2 firms that are held up on this board as minimalists extrodinair.  And my guess is, when done, no one will be able to guess what was there before.

As to the orignial question. I would be amazed if anyone knew of a high-caliber course that didn't have extensive earthwork done around the green complexes.  And for sites that didn't already contain a 2+ acre lake for irrigation, we were using 300,000 cy of excavation and 100,0000 cy of topsoil strip and replace when I first got into this business 35 yrs ago. Bear in mind that most of our site were flat farm fields. As the sites got smaller, the earthwork went up, mostly for separtion and safety reasons. But, like I said earlier, this didn't really expand the maintenance requirement, (in fact, many areas were planted in Fescue rather than the bluegree they would have been id left flat.  Then trees would have been planted and those, my friends, would have really driven up the maintenance costs.

Irrespective of the nature of the earthwork on a course, it is the ease of the routing in both crculation and use of the natural lay of the land that can make or break s design.
Tim,
I believe the ideal routing method is using the topo as a foundation or base to the process, combined with all that misty eyed tromping around as fine tuning. You mock that phase, I see that phase as every bit as important as the first phase where one studies the topo and begins to note the routing possibilities.  
I’ve had the opportunity to work and visit with a number of golf architects. I can say that without a doubt not all are trying to do as little as possible.  And, I do believe that extra earth work can create more maintenance. My experience has been growing turf on native, untouched, non-machine compacted earth is less expensive then growing grass on “manufactured” ground.
One of the biggest myths in all of golf is that all these out of play areas are low maintenance. Done right, they can be, but way too often a certain look is desired and that look is often not indigenous to that area. So, just like with creation of the golf course playing areas, you’ve created a landscape that needs to be maintained. There is not much maintenance involved in dragging a huge gang or pull behind rotary over some scraggly rough that needs to be cut once a month. But take that same area, convert it to some low maintenance plant material, but maintain it so its playable, and attractive, and tell me that’s low maintenance. If the architect uses native plant material and if ownership will accept that native look, even if that look means lost balls, then it can work. However, try to make the southwest look like Scotland or the high plains and then tell me its low maintenance. I’ve been there done that and it was a major pain in my side. Would have been much easier and less expensive to maintain as a scraggly Bermuda rough that was irrigated only when on the verge of death. Not to mention it would have played a whole lot better as well. I will say we seem to be getting better in this area, but without a doubt, if you want your native areas to look native and be legitimately low maintenance, don’t screw with them in the first place.  

BTW, how you like them ‘Cats. Bear Down.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #40 on: March 25, 2011, 01:55:44 PM »
I thought Bill Coore's quote on the GD website pertains to this thread.

"It's no contest: Mother Nature is a far better golf architect than any man. I mean, what are golf architects trying to do? We're trying to imitate nature. The variables in nature are never-ending. The ideas of any architect, of all architects combined, are finite."

Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2011-03/photos-golf-world-backspin#ixzz1HdR1RNQw
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #41 on: March 25, 2011, 02:10:34 PM »
What Jim asks, Tom, but also:

you describe the inherent "balancing act" between the routing (easy and natural flow) and the quality of individual holes (with, ideally, no ordinary holes and many awesome ones).

In this particular case, a great solution presented itself because of the client's wants/flexibility; but in general every golf course you or  anyone else builds is an expression of the choices made re this balancing.   For example, with some courses I've played, it is clear that the architect chose (or felt compelled) to give very little weight to an easy and flowing routing in order to achieve as many good holes as possible.

I assume that you too put the emphasis on finding as many great holes as you can (and those golf holes on your various courses get praised often here) -- and yet I don't think I have ever read on here a negative comment about any of your routings in terms of easy and natural flow.

As I type this, I realize it sounds kissy-kissy and overly praising -- but from the outside and without having played any of your courses, it does seem that you have consistently been able to find the absolute right balance between the two elements.

Do you think you have? 

Is my assumption correct that you put the mosty weight on fidning great holes; and if so, do you think any of the final routings  you've done lack something/could have been better in terms of easy and natural flow because of it? 

Thanks
Peter


Peter,

You are correct that there is always a balance between trying to find great holes and trying to keep the flow of a routing intact.  You can't concentrate all on one to the exclusion of the other.  I would say that early in my career, I put 80% of my focus on finding the great holes, but now it's closer to 50-50.  High Pointe was too tough a walk, and that's probably one reason it's no longer open.

The main thing, really, is to just be stubborn and to keep fighting for a perfect solution.  Most architects would have been very happy with the routing I'd come up with on Tuesday night -- most of the very best holes in the final version were already there, and the green to tee connections were pretty good, too.  In fact, I was very tempted to think that I was done and to show my work to the client.  But, I brought Eric along to keep me honest, and when we both agreed there were 2-3 weak holes, instead of just deciding we could fix them with earthmoving, we kept at it another day and found some better replacements.

Balancing the pull of a potential great hole is a difficult process.  Pretty much all of us, after working on a plan for a bit, get locked into thinking that there are certain holes which HAVE to make the final cut.  And of course, you want to include those holes if there's any way to make them work ... but when the plan as a whole is struggling, sometimes you have to cut one of your favorites in order to make everything else work out.  For instance, on the site I've been describing, there was a great green site for a drop shot par-3 hole, but it has wound up being the tee shot on a par-5 instead ... because even though the client was willing to give up a par-5 or two for the best routing, he didn't want to give up the BEST par-5 along with that.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #42 on: March 28, 2011, 05:03:57 PM »

Rereading Brad Klein's book, Desert Forest Golf Club. Interesting observation here:

"With only a few projects at the time keeping him busy, Lawrence was able to throw himself into the project extensively. He spent a solid month on site in early 1961 formulating a plan, walking the site for hours at a time to get the lay of the land. It is one thing to have a topographic plan, quite another to feel the contours and flow of the natural features so that the design would ultimately work with, not against, the site's existing contours.


Kelly:

Do you really think the above is true?

I can see how it would have helped immensely to have a month walking the site, but not for the reason Brad stated.  If you can read a topo well, you ought to have a pretty good feel for the contours and flow of the ground.  However, there are 1,000 little visuals about how things overlap -- and, at Desert Forest, about what vegetation to save and work around -- that could have had a big impact on the routing plan.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #43 on: March 28, 2011, 05:11:36 PM »
I have heard that Bill Coore spent a very long time walking the terrain at Friars Head looking foir the best holes.   Anyone know more about this?

Dan Grossman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #44 on: March 28, 2011, 05:42:28 PM »
A routing plan dated May 4, 1961, shows the plan of the course exactly as it would subsequently develop. There were no bunkers on the site map-they would be built later, located in the field as needed."

The bunkering comment is interesting.  I really liked Desert Forest and I thought it was extremely interesting.  However, in my opinion, one of the main items that is a major detractor is the bunkering around the greens.  It seemed like every bunker was at 4 and 8 o'clock and I don't remember any fairway bunkers, just the natural areas.  (A quite glance at the aerial seems to support my memory). 


Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #45 on: March 28, 2011, 06:13:53 PM »

In order to achieve great reward you must take some risk.


Lester,

I don't want to get in the middle between you and Don, but, I did want to say that your above comment is not always true.  Sometimes great reward is just laying there in the open, for the person who is smart enough to recognize it.


And therein lies the risk... expecting the average golfer to recognize greatness. H.L. Mencken may have been a golferl?

Don_Mahaffey

Re: A genius routing
« Reply #46 on: March 28, 2011, 06:55:44 PM »
If Mencken had been a golf architect, I doubt he would have cared what the magazines, or the average golfer thought about his work.

We are excessively quick to call something great, or claim to strive for something great, or market something as great. Great is the new mediocre in golf architecture slang.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #47 on: March 28, 2011, 09:47:46 PM »
I have heard that Bill Coore spent a very long time walking the terrain at Friars Head looking foir the best holes.   Anyone know more about this?

Perhaps Ran's review can help you on that.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #48 on: March 28, 2011, 10:28:02 PM »
I have heard that Bill Coore spent a very long time walking the terrain at Friars Head looking foir the best holes.   Anyone know more about this?

Perhaps Ran's review can help you on that.


That's most likely where I heard it.  Thanks.

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A genius routing
« Reply #49 on: March 28, 2011, 10:36:20 PM »
Tom D: Re Post #36 - my guess is course #2 at Dismal River.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back