Do most golf architects improve with experience?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

I resemble those remarks.  I felt I was falling into a pattern.  And while many here bemoan the use of "formula", I found that if I kept studying, and developed a hip pocket list of ideas I wanted to use in appropriate places, that I could get MORE variety, not less.  Of course, the land does have to speak to you, but it doesn't have a lot to say sometimes. And when I worked in Asia, perhaps I didn't get the translation! Anyone who thinks it's better to start routing a golf course and designing it's features without some ideas from experience about what the final product might be is, shall we say, being a bit romantic! Would that person go to the airport and board any plane without regard to where it was going?

So, like it or not, from experience and study, I have developed about 2 dozen favorite strategic tee shot patterns and rationale for using them in certain winds, hole lengths, etc. (so far - I keep adding) and figure my courses should not have more than one of each, unless perhaps one favors hooks, the other fades.  I also have a list of historically inspired greens, etc. like fortress, punch bowl, valley of sin, etc. etc. and a certain list of crtiria for bunker patterns, green contours, etc. which I work hard to incorporate.  If I don't, then I find the natural tendency to repetitiveness starts to kick in.  So, call me "Seth Junior", but it seems to be working, though.

Of course, the original question has turned to creativity in architecture, but I'll bet when you and I read it, we said "Hell, Yes!" - I've learned the technical side that keeps me from making mistakes.  This site, as Tim Jackson said, doesn't generally recognize what a large part of the business that is.

In the case of Frank Lloyd God, I hear that while his creative side kept evolving, his roofs leaked from beginning of career until end, meaning his experience didn't necessarily make him a better architect in that regard.  Of course, he had the benefit of Taliesin, where he seemed to continually bring in young students for a song to get a chance to work with him.  It's possible that he didn't keep making the same mistake, but that it was a new mistake for that year's crop of draftsmen.

[Tony Ristola]

Tim Jackson:  Restrictions imposed by officials form the starting point of the project.  Unless the architect, or those carrying through the permitting had been negligent during the process you can't blame the architect for what he cannot do or use.  After the starting point has been reached the architect is responsible for getting the most out of the property...attending to the details, educating the staff.  

If permitting creates a bad situation, one where a poor golf course will result, the architect should inform the owner of the difficulties and walk away.  It's in the best interest of the investor and the game.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
We'll probably never know!  But don't most owners shoot for 8's?  What they don't seem to realize is that 8's and even 7's and 6's are hard to come by.  8 to me is top 50 and 7 is boarderline one of the 100 best courses in the country (at least on my scale).  You don't just build those a dime a dozen I don't care who you are or what kind of site you have.  There are too many issues to deal with these days that really complicate the design process.  I think it was Tom Doak who said on one post way back the much of how the course turns out is out of his control.  He may chime in and clarify what he meant but it was in that general context.

If I had to guess at Pine Hill it was the difficultly factor.  For example, as the greens are now, if you had the guys from my old golf league play their nine hole league matches on that course, each nine holes would be pushing 2 1/2 to 3 hours.  Add more difficulty to those greens and most guys wouldn't finish given the speeds they like to keep greens at these days!  

I'll say again, I think Fazio was just being conservative with the putting surfaces.  That golf course is Hard especially if you play the wrong set of tees.  The guy I played with that day was an 8 handicap and didn't break 100 and he played from the middle set of tees.  He must have lost a dozen balls.

The game is supposed to be fun right  

Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

I don't know...perhaps that was the thinking.  

BillV and I played together and played pretty poorly but trekked around in under 4 hours, even trying extra shots, etc.  We didn't really find it THAT penal, almost the opposite, in fact.  Yes, some holes played quite long, but there was a lot of fairway room, the woods were fairly cleared, and there is not much water in play out there.  Where do you think the difficulty lies?  I would also agree with you that the "fun" factor isn't very high, although there is definitely an emphasis on creating pretty views.

I think a lot of the issue of slow play is due to the routing.  So that others can have a look, you can see it at the following link;

 http://www.golfpinehill.com/images/overview_large.jpg

As far as shooting for 8's, I truly don't believe that many projects have such lofty goals and expectations.  However, in the case of Pine Hill, don't forget here...we are talking about a course built next door to the greatest golf course in the world, on very similar (even MORE rolling) land, by the greatest architect in the world, with massive PR and generous funding.

I think the fact that it's a 5 to you and me and Bill has to be a disappointment on a rather large scale to all involved.      

[Tim Jackson]

Tony Ristloa:

True, most of the limitations faced on a project should be known before the start if the proper due diligence has been performed.  And true, the architect should be able to absorb those limitations and still attempt to maximize the design for the owner's program.

My point was that we never know what went on behind the scenes, so to speak.  What was the architect forced to compromise on that affected the end result?  In this day and age there are probably very few projects undertaken without some form of compromise, unfortunately.

I still love the romanticism of the artistict and strategic side of design.  I still feel it is by far the most important aspect.  However, the technical side of design affects the end product all most as much these days.  I just feel an appreciation for how difficult these issues are some times is never represented here.  To reference the question of the thread, architects learn as they go, but at times their hands are tied.

[TEPaul]

Just read carefully Mark Fine's first paragraph in his 9:36am post. Do you not see a real illogic in that paragraph when it comes to the way the architecture of courses is analyzed when applying this rating and ranking process and doing it comparatively instead of looking at the actual architecture in and of itself?

Mark Fine, is trying to find reasons why a course may not be as good, or as good as it could be because of the complexities of the design process, possibly something to do with the owners, permitting, what have you.

Can't you see that comparative rating is a self-winnowing process? Mark says you can't build courses that are 8s a dime a dozen. Of course you can't because in Mark Fine's equation there can only be less than 50 of them at any time anyway!

Let's just say miraculously 50 great sites became available and no restrictions were there, the owners were great too and the architects produced 50 really great courses, maybe 10s (8s,9s,10s??). Well, what then, just happened to the courses that were 8s previously. Who knows, but now they'd probably be down to 6s or 5s by mathematical necessity.

Did something go wrong with their architecture? Did it become less good for some reason? Of course not! Matter of fact it could even be better than ever! But most everybody thinks something's wrong with their architecture because now ther're down to 6s and 5s!

This to me is why Rich Goodale's idea of a more non-comparative rating is better, the Michelin System of 3 stars, for instance. In this system the amount of great course that are top rated can actually increase! That's more real to me and a much better way to analyze architecture properly!

It can also show more easily if the entire world of architecture is cumulatively getting better or getting worse.

[Brad Miller]

Tom, sure makes sense to me, lets just hope that there are a lot more 8-10's done in the next few years. (or 3 stars)

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I beg to disagree.  The rating of a course is a result of looking at it!  Where do you think the number comes from?  Furthermore, I only rate what I find.  I could really care less why something turned out the way it did (when it comes to giving the course an overall rating).  I don't give "compensation" points because the architect had a tough owner or whatever.  The course is what it is and what you find is what you rate.  Mike and I were just wondering why Fazio designed the greens the way he did.    

Moreover, look at it this way, if you've only played ten courses and have to rate them from best to worst, one will be on top and one will be on the bottom.  This is not that hard to figure out!  As you play more courses and continue to rate your top ten, some new ones will come on your list and some old ones will go out (even though nothing changed with those courses).  At somepoint your original #1 course might not even make your list!  

Eventually I might see enough courses that only 9's are top 50.  Again this is all personal preference and based on my opinions.  What is wrong with that?

Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Oh and Rich, of the 500 or what ever number it is 3 star courses out there, could you please tell me which 50 are the best  

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

The expectations for Pine Hill have in many ways created the kind of responses you and BillV have made. I do agree that Pine Hill could certainly have been much better than what was eventually created given all the reasons you stated. But, since pre-buzz expectations were so high (many courses face this problem when they go wild with the hype before openings) does that mean that the course should be looked upon as some sort of failure or even a major disappointment?

A five on the Doak scale is not an indicator of a poor course. Could it have been much more? Yes, but the site is a solid one and there are a number of holes that do deliver. I still believe it's one of the best (now that others --i.e. TD, Architect's Club, et al have entered the picture) public courses in NJ. I know ownership had much higher goals than being the best in the Garden State.

Pine Hill is still a testing and fun course -- albeit with a few holes that are lacking. But, nobody to my recollection was trying to elevate Pine Hill in the league with other TF heavyweight designs (I'm sure some will say which ones are they?). The terrain and off-fairway vegetation makes for a difficult trek for many golfers -- even with greens that are fairly tame and I'm sure some will say a bit lame.

I guess when all is said and done we are close to agreeing but coming at the discussion from different starting points. Fair to say?

[George Pazin]

Mister Rich can correct me if I'm wrong here, but my recollection is that he only feels there are 30 or so 3 star courses.

Something about designing your course for speed of play, or, rather, dumming it down for speed of play rubs me the wrong way. The slowest course I play is one of the easiest - I play it once a year with my father in law & it is slow bordering on torture - 6 hour plus rounds every time.

I can accept that archies deal with enviro restrictions & meddling owners - I have a hard time accepting making greens too easy for faster play.

[Mike_Cirba]

George,

You're absolutely correct.  

Most of the slowest rounds I've played have not been on inordinately difficult golf courses.  That's just so much bullshit.

Tough courses don't create slow play...slow players do!

I find this whole idea of dumbing down courses for public play to be really patronizing.  The slowest round of golf I ever played was on a course of less than 4,800 yards, (Walnut Lane - profiled here) where I walked off on the 14th tee after 5 and a half hours.

Conversely, we played Twisted Dune (a public course that has interesting greens) two weeks ago as a six-some in under four hours, taking plenty of time to look and see what Archie built.

[Tim Jackson]

George and Mike:

Undertsand that by the simple fact of contributing to this site you put yourselves in a very small, very perceptive group of golfers who attempt to discern the characteristics of architecture.

Also, I am sure you understand that golf course designers work for a client who has an intended program for the piece of land he is developing.  Any architect would rather work on a development that is pure golf, but that is rarely the case anymore.  So for public, private or resort a designer has to input the intended play.  They do design diferently for the program.  I am sure designers would love to design based on maximization of the pure golf experience, but that may not be responsible to their owner.  

A 7000 yard, strategy laden design will satisfy the better or  more perceptive golfer, but if it is at a resort where the majority of the play will be that of higher handicaps, he may not satisfy the clients need.  Make no mistake - this is a business.  I would love for all designs to be free of restrictions either by the owner, government, or program, but that just isn't reality.

I had the tremendous fortune of playing Cypress Point on Wednesday.  Between studying, being awestruck, and enjoying a wonderous day, I couldn't help but think (and know) that there would be zero chance of that golf course being built in that location today, zero, and it made me very sad.

I do believe that architects strive to make a design that incorporates many aspects which appeal to the better golfers, but they still have other responsibilities.

[TEPaul]

MarK:

How can I disagree with anything much you say in your last post about rating which was just that you go look at courses  and play them and that you just look at the course as you find it?

But then you also say if you play ten course and have to rate them from best to worst, what's wrong with that? And that's not hard to figure out!

No, it isn't in the slightest hard to figure out! Didn't say it was! What I'm saying is why to you HAVE to do it that way? Why don't you just go play them and rate their architecture period, like with one, two or three stars, or great, good or medium good, etc etc? To have a rating service that explains why a particular course is given a certain rating would be extremely helpful too--to both the golfer and to the club! Why do you have to rate them all against each other?

Why do you have to rate them comparatively the way you do, like from best on down the number chain? You don't really have to answer that! I already know why you have to do it that way.

Because that's the easiest way for the magazine to do it. And it's easy and quick for the public to see although there is no architectural reasoning or analysis done with these courses relative to each other. That would take way too much magazine space so they can't be bothered! There is no architectural education in your rating process and the way it's presented to the public at all. It's no more than a general perception which is vague both in its comparative presentation and very much so in architectural explanation or analysis!

All I'm saying is that is not the best way to do it, in my opinon! It's misguiding to the public and also very much to some clubs and courses!

We had a number of people even on this website which has a far more architecturally informed level of understanding than the general reading public or Golf or Golf Digest magazine wonderiing what Pine Valley had done to itself to fall from #1 to #2! So I guess you should be able to see why I say these things!

We all know that Pine Valley hasn't done a damn thing wrong to itself recently or from last year but it sure comes out looking that way to the magazine reading public and possibly to the course itself!

This doesn't have to be! A system such as Rich Goodale's would not have this happen! If a Pine Valley fell from 3 stars to 2 stars the reason for it would be explained. And under Rich's system a Pine Valley and a Pebble would be 3 stars anyway and the one would not suffer comparative to the other.

You really don't need to tell me anymore what you look at when you go play a course. Just tell me what's wrong with Rich Goodale's star system and why you think it can't work better than a comparative numbers system from 1 to 2 to 3...

Why does something always have to be best or better than something else. What's the matter with a group of courses that are just plain great--like three stars---period?

[THuckaby2]

Tim - you must have caught a BEAUTIFUL day at CP on Wednesday.  One of my good buddies was playing Pebble that day and he was awestruck by the weather as much as anything!

But do tell - why couldn't Cypress be built today?  I THINK I know, but I am interested in the take of those who REALLY know.  All part of my education, you see.

Thanks!

TH

[THuckaby2]

Hey Rich:  each of NGLA and Cypress are "greater" than Dornoch.

Still don't care?

 

TH

[TEPaul]

TomH:

There you go! There's a test of Rich's Star System for Rich himself. Could Rich rate NGLA, Cypress and Dornoch all at three stars and be happy about it? Or would he be squirming to rank Dornoch at maybe 3.1 stars and NGLA at 2.9985,  perhaps?

But my point is they're all world class architecture and should just be at 3 stars, period!

Don't let me down on this one Rich! This star system thing seems something we are in total agreement on! As to the actual numbers of 3 stars we probably are in total agreement too although our lists may vary somewhat. The notion of 500 three star rankings, as Mark Fine mentioned in his post seems semi-ludicrous to me. Both of us could search every nook and cranny on earth and not come within shouting distance of a number like that!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

TH

YES (NO CARE).

RG

[THuckaby2]

RG - ok, you pass.  Damn.  I was most definitely thinking along the lines of what TEP said...

You SURE you don't want to make Dornoch a 3.1... add Shinnecock in there at 2.9986 ahead of NGLA's 2.9972???

 

TH

[Tim Jackson]

Tom

I also think you know.  Most simply, in three words:

California Costal Commision

More complex:

Most likely, harbor seal habitat, native flora and fauna habitat, historic cypress groves, etc., etc.

I would guess permitting Cypress today would take no less than 15 years and at least $10,000,000 before one spade of sand was moved.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

NGLA, alas, is only a 2** course.  But, as it has apparently improved significantly over the past 20-30 years due to better maintenance practices, it might just get that third star some day and join Shinnecock, Cypress, Dornoch, Merion, Royal Melbourne, etc. in the pantheon.....

I'll invite you to the investiture.

Cheers

Rich

[THuckaby2]

Got it - thanks, Tim.  That's what I thought, and you are 100% correct, that's for sure.  I just thought something about the design might be prohibitive today... But what the hell, it would take so long to get permitted, if it ever went forward design would be the least of one's worries!

That is kinda sad.  Chalk that up to another weakness of our "great" state.

TH

[THuckaby2]

You're not gonna ensnare me that easily, Rich!

Very valiant effort though.

But I started it, I deserve it.

Well done!

TH

[TEPaul]

Awww, Jeesus Chriiist Almighty, RICH!! Now NGLA is 2 stars?!

The Hell with you and your 3 Star System!! Both of you are FIRED, RIGHT NOW--Get out of here IMMEDIATELY and don't come back until NGLA is 3 stars and you get down on your knees and give us all your best 3 star apology!! And our forgiveness will not take effect until you get down on your knees by your bed (make sure the covers are folded correctly) and pray to Old C.B. hisself for forgiveness and you better mean it!  If we even catch you peaking, you're outta here for a minimum of six months!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

CheeseOh, Tom

In 6 months I'll be back in Scotland playing golf rather than talking about it.  What am I supposed to do in the interim?  Work? (Insert best Maynard Krebs accent here) Work!!!!

Cheers

Rich

PS--if you really want to change things, just join the Michelin rating team and have your views considered.  AS LBJ once said, I'd rather have you inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in!