GCA and tastemeking

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
First of all as you know in the desert, those “dried up creek beds” are a dime a dozen.  The flash rainstorms create wash areas and runoff areas everywhere.  They are not that hard to create when and where you need them!  

#2 on The North Course is an outstanding hole but not one of the three best par fives I’ve ever played.  You have to admit out of bounds is not the greatest attribute on a golf course and out of bounds is the primary defense for this par five.  Not sure the risk of trying to play close to the out of bounds off the tee is worth the reward of a better angle in (even though the greenside bunkers are perfectly placed to guard an attack on the green from the right side)?  You know what most of the dead guys said about out of bounds right??  I still give the hole an 8 or 9!

I’d have to give some more thought before agreeing with you on #11 being the greatest par three.  If I remember correctly it strategically played somewhat like #16 at Cypress Point (is that why you liked it so much) but it is even longer.  I think the first time around we played it at like 220 yards (does that sound right) then the next time we played from the tips which was something ridiculous like 265 yards or so.  Depending on the wind direction, it can easily play like a short par four forcing even the best golfers to have to bail out left.  If that is your idea of a great par three, so be it.  To me it is one of those “great tests of golf” holes but not necessarily one that wowed me and I couldn’t stop talking about.  

Tommy, take another look at your overhead picture of Talking Stick and tell me how “natural” all those long patches of green look in the desert?  If you could throw homes around the South course and it would look like most of the others, just another pretty resort track.  My feeling is C&C spent most of their time and energy on the North Course.  It was night and day to me between the two.  Didn’t take much thought to play the South while the North was just the opposite!  I think I gave the South about a 5 and the North a solid 7!

Finally, if you thought the South Course is better than Estancia, you are just too closed minded about Fazio to make objective evaluations about golf courses.  I don't like a lot of things Fazio does either, but when I'm playing a golf course, the architect of the course shouldn't really matter.  If you don't like the architect, you start looking for the negatives and miss the positives.  And who cares whether Fazio spent $30MM (or whatever it was) building the course vs. $2MM for the other.  You can't let that sway your oppinion of the course itself.  If you do, then you are evaluating far more than the golf course architecture!    

Kelly,
Didn't Ross set a precedent for some of what you are talking about?  I believe he had over 700 people working for him at one time or another?  

Mark

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark,
I think your first sentence says it all. Yes, those little dry creek beds do exist all over the desert, and architects like Bill Coore know exactly how to use them to their fullest. Do you not feel that your words are contradictory to your previous statements?

Your interpretation or what you describe as a "Classic Architects" definition of out of bounds is quite interesting also. How would describe the architecture of The Road Hole, #5 Carnoustie, #8 at Pebble Beach, #16 @ Cypress Point, and the #14 Long Hole-In on TOC where the risk of losing a shot and adding penalty from going out of bounds can be avoided by simply choosing a path of less risk?

Are those holes bad architecture in your mind?

Also, I didn't say that #11 at Talking Stick was one of the greatest par 3's in the world, I said in the "Southwest." (My meaning was Nevada, Arizona, and SOUTHERN California) I can also say that I never saw a comparison of it to Cypress Point #16, but it is in fact an interesting comparison that is worthy of observing next time I'm there. Somehow Mark, with your length off the tee, today's equipment and so many other modern variables, I'm surprized it pains you to have to hit driver one time, off of the tee on a par 3. Considering the varying lengths and offerings of the one shotters at TS-North, I only consider that a plus. Besides, isn't that what the left side is for? To offer a safer route to get to the final destination? A modern day Riviera #4 could be just as worthy of a comparison. (Only in reverse and where the Kikuyu has virtually eliminted any chance of the run-in)

"And who cares whether Fazio spent $30MM (or whatever it was) building the course vs. $2MM for the other.  You can't let that sway your oppinion of the course itself.  If you do, then you are evaluating far more than the golf course architecture!

Mark trust me, it doesn't sway my opinion one bit of the architecture, but you do have to admit that when you see the cost of GREATNESS at $2 million dollars, compared to the cost of AVERAGE at $30 Million, something is wrong. Please tell me that you can see inside those numbers and facts for the BIG picture.***

(***Please set the Golf Digest Critieria aside for one moment and analyze it.)

Kelly Blake Moran,
There is little doubt in my mind that you have the perfect work ethic, and the pride of workmanship. There is no better in feeling in the world for that sense of accomplishment, knowing that you gave it your very best, given all of the circumstances.

It used to be called Quaility Craftsman. and while it may not be as glamorous as winning golf tournments and flying in private jets from tour stop to tour stop, there is a certain accomplishment knowing that YOU did the work, despite who gets all of the credit and praise.

[BillV]

Mark

You must really be a short knocker.  AZ is about 1 1/2 clubs difference from sea level.  I hardly had to change clubs from Colorado on my visits there.  That par 3 at TSN is a 2-iron at 265.  

I don't get the greatness of TS North except "the Look".  there are a few good holes and a lot of ho-hum stuff.

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
1 1/2 club difference in Phoenix???  I've never played nearly that much.  It's only 3000 feet above sea level isn't it?  Also don't forget the wind!  

Tommy,
What do Doak ratings do you give those three courses?  

You know what I am saying about out of bounds.  I love #2 at TSN but I just don't think it's perfect.  Not sure the reward justifies the risk especially on a par five.

I do think the cost of a course influences your opinion of it.  Of course I could be wrong    
Mark

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark, It really doesn't.

To me the architecture is most important. I would hope all of my rumblings and ramblings of the last 6 years would have sealed that.

I mean, how many guys set up at night looking at pictures of bunkers? (Last night, I actually was studying the two pictures in Tom's MacKenzie book of The Jockey Club and just how badly that green in the pictures is interpreted today.)(See, you aren't the only one that mis-interprets things!:))

Another thing is that placing creedence on every Doak rating could be tiresome don't you think?  What I mean is that while the book is one of great works from this day and age, you do in fact have some different opinions of his ratings don't you?

I don't think for one moment that Tom wouldn't want someone to express his or her's opinion. After all the book sure opened up a lot of them didn't they?

To me, Talking Sick #2 is and will be for a long , long time, High Art. It has nothing to do with "Look" but has everything to do with principles. The look is much, much more then the bunkers. It is everything about how simple a golf hole can be, yet so perfect from tee to green. The shaping on the right side of the hole is PERFECT. The bunker placement is PERFECT.

While typing the previous post out, I was thinking to myself of what would happen if they ever built any type of structure left of the fence line. Talk about killing a hole! It is here where #2 would lose all sense of purpose and meaning.

How many times have you seen the chance for an architect to utilize a property line like that with such a definite meaning?

Will we ever see it again?

I can only hope for more opportunities that offer all sorts of different and new propositions for architectural creativity, thrust to the forefront. The game needs it.

Color ouside of the lines Mark. Color outside of the lines.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Have you ever played or walked NGLA ?  YALE ?
Are you speaking from your own experiences, or hearsay from other sources ?

It's nice that Travis thought the land NGLA sits on is beautiful,
it is, rising from the bay to offer some beautiful vistas, but that doesn't mean that the golf course that was placed on it wasn't manufactured.  And if you're going to rave about the job CBM did in duplicating holes from other courses in his creation, don't you have to rave about the job FAZIO did duplicating holes at Pine Valley, not moving much dirt at all.

TEPaul,

I'll answer all of your questions, so we'll set the tempo for your being wrong, starting with your last statement, at the begining of this post.

Post was a typo, I meant Pre, and the reason I indicated I hadn't seen the course Pre construction is that Tom MacWood asked me a question that could only be answered by someone who saw the course pre-construction.  Since I hadn't, I told him I couldn't answer the question.

Since I've played the 8th hole 100 plus times, and since I photoed it extensively even submitting pictures of it on this site, and since I made it a thread topic, how did you conclude that I never studied it ?  You may even recall that over a year ago I debated the fairway elevations and prefered angles of play with some on this site, you, I believe were a participant, and I provided the elevation differences from the right side fairway bunkers, right side fairway, center fairway, left side fairway and leftside fairway bunkers.  
My contributions in discussions on the hole were extensive, so I don't understand how you could think I never studied it.

I have stated on this site, many times, that I do not have the trained eye of others when it comes to evaluating golf holes.
Some, who saw Hollywood after Rees's renovation alleged that he ruined the 4th and 7th holes by placing his mounds on them.  The fact that those mounds existed 40 plus years prior to Rees setting foot on the property was a prime example of predisposed bias, and the lack of a true eye.

With regard to the specific questions you raised about the 8th green, from looking at the green I could never answer those questions, and neither can you or anybody else.
You can do as we both have done, READ about what was done, and redone, but if you're going to sit there and tell me that you and Kye, without any prior knowledge, looked at that green, and determined with unwaivering certainty, the answer to all those questions you posed, then I take one of two positions.
A.  I don't believe you.
B.  I don't smoke that stuff    

With respect to natural looking green sites, I already stated that the 5th green flows from the fairway, as many of the greens at GCGC do.  While many of the green sites look natural from their fairways, views from the next tee or other angles give one a different impression, and one can clearly detect that they were manufactured.

With respect to Crump and Pine Valley, you've missed the point by miles.  The issue had to do the the residence or genesis of ideas, and whether, as some implied, they were only found in the sole domain of seasoned architects.
My counterpoint was, Was Crump a SEASONED architect when he embarked upon Pine Valley.  That question only needs a ONE WORD answer.  The answer, which you finally conceeded is NO, which would support my contention that good architectual ideas and/or concepts don't solely reside in the mind of SEASONED architects.  It is that simple of a question, requiring that simple of an answer, without going off on a wild tangent about Pine Valley.

With respect to Shadow Creek.  Have you ever seen the surrounding area in person, or played or walked the golf course, or are you forming your opinion form hearsay from third party sources ?

Do you consider a flat, barren piece of land, void of any features and vegetation, lying on a FLASH FLOOD plain a good piece of property upon which to buld a golf course ?

Do you like the sight of golfers struggling against the current, without even a cactus to cling to ?  Do you like golf carts modified to serve as PT Boats ?

An oasis in the desert is true to natures form isn't it ?
And Steve Wynn created a beautiful oasis of a golf course in the desert, and the way he did it, you could think you're in Aspen, Montana, Vermont or North Carolina, and it doesn't detract from the architectual values or beauty of the golf holes.

The questions you pose regarding Shadow Creek are clearly questions from an individual who hasn't seen the site.  If you had, you would realize how foolish the questions are.  And,
If you haven't seen it, you're unqualified to comment on it, just like I was at Notre Dame, and quoting third party references is okay as long as you provide that credit.

More of the I haven't seen it, but I'll bash it anyway syndrome
God forbid someone did that to Pine Valley.

Tommy Naccarato,

Now you know NGLA is my favorite golf course in the world, but for you to say it and YALE are purely natural, or that they just revealed the land is more than just a stretch.

One only has to stand at the rear of the 2nd tee and look at the first green to you know it was manufactured.

But, I think it was manufactured brilliantly.

I repeat an earlier statement.  If you give credit to CBM and/or Raynor for great work at NGLA and YALE then you have to give FAZIO credit for great work at the 10 hole course at Pine Valley, YOU, TOM PAUL, AND TOM MACWOOD, can't have it both ways.  

FAZIO'S use of the natural land to duplicate eight holes and create two new ones is exceptional.

Now, Tommy, Tom Paul, and Tom MacWood,
REPEAT after me.  FAZIO did a great job in utilizing the NATURAL land features to create and duplicate holes at PV.
Say it now, altogether please.    
Come on, you can do it !

[Rich_Goodale]

Patrick

Amen.

PS--my first thought on getting a glimpse of the 1st green at NGLA after walking up the hill, was "WOW!"  However, I never thought it was anything but a very inspired piece of "manufacturing."

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Why interject Fazio? It's not like you to change the subject to avoid answering difficult questions. Well actually its a pretty common tactic that you use, but what the hell.

The fact is I have not played Yale and NGLA, and have only seen NGLA. And I have never claimed to have. What does that have to do with you not answering my very simple and direct questions? If you are unable to answer the question because you are not familar with the pre-construction course, than you are unqualified to speek of the unnaturalness of NGLA and the fact that Yale is totally manufactured - you may not be interest hearsay, but I would still be interested in your thoughts. Disregard.

Another interesting tactic, in the past when you had difficulty making an arguement, you would turn to the disqualification card, now when you are asked a difficult question that might require thinking outside your comfort zone, you now also turn to the disqualification card. Too bad. If you are not comfortable articulating your thoughts or if you don't have any thoughts on this particular subject or you don't have the answer, simply say so - its no crime.

I'll take your word that Fazio at PVGC. Man you sure are all over the board lets try to stay focused. Do you see a difference in what Macdonald did at Yale (removal of tons of trees and rock) and what Rees did at Atlantic (creating containment mounding)?

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
Are you telling me the hole would be ruined if they built housing up the left hand side of the hole?  I'm surprised to hear that from someone who I thought was only focused on the "architecture".    The housing would not be part of the architecture would it  , so why would it "kill" the hole?

Think about how many other straight holes like #2 you have played that are similar to #2 but just disguised because they have housing up the left hand side!  I bet there are many of them!  The beauty of #2 like you correctly state is the simplicity of the hole AND (and I repeat) AND the fact that the entire left side is just barren flat desert and tumbleweed!  
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

And by the way, I was not implying or asking for Doak's ratings.  I was asking for your ratings of those courses using the Doak scale, that's all.  Of course I don't agree with all his numbers.  My numbers reflect my opinions and that's the way it should be!  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark, I do think structures would affect the architecture because

1- It would serve as a wind break.

2-The entire scope of the hole would no doubt be shifted right by either the planting of trees or other incidentals, all for safety concerns on its left side. The liability of the hole with sturctures on its left side would certainly change it.

3-I do think that there is a certain thrill being able to try to go for that left side. It is the thrill of the CHALLENGE, and that is something a lot of new golf courses don't offer simply because so many perceive Challenge as unfair. I also think that mentally, people would never challenge the left if there were structures there simply because the houses would make the hole not neccesarily claustraphobic, but seemingly much narrower. Mentally a golfer isn't going to want to pull one into the houses and the only way they are over there is if they accidently do pull the shot.

I think the 2nd at Talking Stick is a hole that SHOULD be played a variety of ways everytime it is played. I also think that this is a way for the hole to be so attractable to every form of golfer, no matter how tough or easy it may be playing, no matter what the conditions.

4-(Purely hypothetical) If any sort of structure had been planned for that area, and it was done by MOST architects, you would more then likely have a huge cut for the entire fairway, or a huge fill for foundation pads for the structure to rise up into the air, in an attempt to get it more out of the way. This of course would mean trees riding the entire left side as well as the cart path for the entire golf hole. Thats the way I see MOST dealing with it. Another thing is all of that subtle and phenominal shaping on the right side of the fairway would be non-existant.

Bill Coore had the gotchies to challenge the boundry, and in a way that hasn't been seen in many years.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I see what you said or implied about good ideas not necessarily coming from seasoned architects. I'm sure they come from unseasoned architects too, did I ever say they didn't? Let me qualify that; a good idea, maybe some good ideas most certainly can come from an unseasoned architect and it probably helps the issue if he has some talent for architecture too. Almost an entire golf course of good ideas, even a golf course that goes on to become the #1 course in the world, even if the architect was unseasoned, can come from an architect with immense talent, like George Crump!

I appreciate your brilliant thought and point on that though, and I could not agree more--and certainly since I've been saying that on here constantly for a couple of years now! And generally making my point with the examples of Crump, Hugh Wilson, Herbert Leeds, the Fownses et al!

Also on Crump, you said I mentioned that Crump did the routing and then later I mentioned that many others were responsible for the routing. Do you really believe I said that? Absolutely not, absolutely never! I guess you didn't follow the topic on the famous Colt routing. In my opinion, it never existed!

Fazio with Pine Valley's Short course? Extremely good! A bit of a collaboration of Ransome and Fazio! I also think the Short Course makes a great point about the importance between the architect and those contracted to do the work. Not any contractor will do, in my opinion! Wasn't that one of your points, that if you tell almost any architect or contractor exactly what to do, exactly what you're vision is in detail, everything will turn out fine?

I have no problem with Fazio at all, except for the manner in which he goes about some restoration projects, but for some reason you seem to imply that I do have a problem with him. I think he's got real talent. I think he would be able to show it better if he stretched himself more, took some more risks and stopped this stream of products that pander to what the golfing public supposedly only accepts. His apparent beliefs and statements as to what the golfing public won't accept does bother me, since it includes many of the features and character of the classic courses.

As for Shadow Creek, again, I've never been there, never played it, only seen photos of a few holes and an aerial of it. The only guy who played it I ever spoke to about it (before this website), whose opinion I do trust, said it's an amazing creative and technological feat--and that's all he said. I'm sure it must be an amazing technological and creative feat! One helluva an interesting vision. I'm just not really that partial to a North Carolina fantasy in the desert of Nevada! I'm not too crazy about Las Vegas either--sorry about that.

Personally, and I'd love to go out there and look, but I think it might have been more interesting if Wynn had taken his vison over to those desert mountains about a mile and a half from Shadow Creek, and if he was going to spend all that money, maybe shape the course coming out of those mountains  somehow. And also maybe if he didn't make it look like North Carolina but something more indigenous!

There was another course once that was an amazing technological and creative feat, probably thought to be, at the time, about as amazing a feat as Shadow Creek today--MaDonald and Raynor's Lido! The only difference with the Lido was it looked like it belonged where it was!

And on NGLA's #8 green-site, if you, 1/ Don't believe me, or 2/ Don't smoke that stuff; heh, that's cool too. I don't really care what you don't smoke or don't believe--no problem at all. There are some tricks on how to pick up some of those things that are available and evident on some sites and not on others but sometimes you have to do a bit of unique research to detect them. But, no problem, if you're not inclined to believe me then I'm not going to tell you!

And whatever your primary subject, secondary subject or tertiary subject back on the seasoned architect issue was, I guess I do see that the secondary point on Pine Valley or the tertiary point on Crump was indeed a tangential gist. Matter of fact, I promise now and in the future to never question  you again on your tangential gists. I can't really follow them sometimes but you are without doubt the King of all Kings on the Tangential Gist!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood

You inserted Wilson and Rees Jones into the discussion, but I'm not allowed to insert FAZIO, even though its germane to the issues you brought up.  Okay, emperor Tom.

There is a very simple and logical reason why I inserted FAZIO.
The theme of your questions has been about blending golf holes in with nature.  Yet, others, including perhaps yourself, have lambasted FAZIO for failure to do so on his work.  
Yet, you ignore a wonderful example of creating holes that blend in with nature done recently at Pine Valley.  
It is also germane to the issue of duplicating holes and avoiding a manufactureed look.  I think it is an important item to mention.  The fact that it may pain biased FAZIO bashers is of little interest to me.  It's a matter of FAIRNESS.

I didn't avoid or deflect your questions, you just didn't like my answers.

You asked me an abundant number of questions about some courses you've never played, and some you've never even laid eyes on,  so I'm interested in what context you would evaluate my answers.

You asked a question that noone younger that 100 years old can answer, and then take me to task because I clearly stated that I didn't know the answer because I never saw the pre-construction site.  Why would you ask a question that nobady knows the answer too, including you ?   And, by the way, you asked the question over and over again.

I don't have any difficulty making a case or argument on almost any issue, but for you to hold yourself up as a judge and jury when you've never seen or played a golf course that you're debating with me is a little presumptuous or pompous to say the least.  You'd be disqualified as unqualified by any prudent standard.  But, you have the right to voice your opinion, despite the lack of first hand knowledge.

Without emailing or calling all over for help, tell me how the containment mounds that Rees did at Atlantic differ from the containment mounds bordering the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th holes at C & C's Friar's Head.  By the way, have you ever played Atlantic ?

TEPaul,

I think we're actually a lot closer to maintaining the same views then you may think.

From day one I've been saying that you must also examine the influence of the prime mover or owner, and not look at the architect and architecture in a vacuum.  Ernie Ransome, working with Fazio is a prime example.

I agree with you regarding Fazio's track record on restorations, and his outlook on some of the classics.

Regarding Shadow Creek, I believe Tom Doak and perhaps either Brad Klein or Ron Whitten came on this site and praised the golf course.  I'm not saying their word is Gospel, but it certainly must be given adequate weight.  My opinion after I played the golf course, was diffenent from my pre-conceived notions, and I think yours will be too.  I hope you get to play it, because pictures and hearsay can't convey the totality of the golfing and architectual experience.  I think it's something you have to see to appreciate.

Lido was manufactured, but hard by the Atlantic, with its vistas and breezes it's a far cry from barren featureless desert.  The Atlantic Ocean sure is a desireable backdrop.

You know that I feel you have a good eye, a discerning eye. but I don't feel that you or anyone else, without previous knowledge, you could pick out the construction features, work order changes, and alterations from 1911 to current date, that you allude to, tricks or no tricks.

With prior research, I would agree that they MAY be legitimately noticeable, but that's a hell of an edge.

For fun, I'll take you to my course in N.J. a 1927 Tucker course, let you play it, examine it as much as you want, then you tell me which greens are original, which ones were altered, which greens were completely rebuilt, and which greens had a combination of the above after 1927.   And, include in that exercise, those questions you asked me about
the 8th at NGLA.

[Mike_Cirba]

Boy, am I torn on this discussion.

I think we're starting to miss something with the focus on "natural" vs "created" features.  Although my tastes are definitely in the minimalist, natural school, I've played golf courses that were completely natural and quite dull as bricks, and others that were completely manufactured and even incongruous to the native environment that have provided scintilating, consistently interesting play.  

Even a practicing minimalist like Tom Doak talks about the true measuring stick of a great golf hole is one that is consistently interesting, challenging, and something that you'd like to play over and over again because of the blend of shot requirements, scenic interest, variability, and playability.

Earlier this year I played Twisted Dune in southern NJ.  Similar in many ways to what Pete Dye did at Whistling Straits, Archie Struthers took a dead flat site and created something that might have been airlifted from the shores of Great Britain. If there's a natural feature on the property, it might be the sand quarry located at the far end, but that's about it.  Still, I know I didn't play a better modern course during the year, because virtually every hole was interesting and fun.  More importantly, it is virtually seamless, the way I'd imagine Shadow Creek is.  From the time one drives into the parking lot, any view of surrounding, disparate terrain is simply shielded from view, and the vision is uninterrupted by anything besides the golf course.

On the other hand, both Struthers and Dye started with very little in the way of superb natural features, as did Fazio at Shadow.  All too often, however, architects today take land that DOES have natural interest, and move immense amounts of earth simply because they can.  

In no way can man's efforts equal great natural features, and the courses I mention stand out simply because they are sooo well done in trying.  

I am equally impressed when I see something like Kelly Moran's Hawk Pointe, which is on similarly dull land, or Talking Stick (which I haven't played), where the architect is still able to create an exciting and strategic course on land ill-suited to the purpose without resulting to the easier choice of moving tons of earth willy-nilly.

I believe, in the final analysis, what we're talking about is simply either the creation, or the leaving alone...features that fit...fit the eye...fit the golf...fit the challenge...fit the purpose, and those unnatural features that stand out as affrontive to those purposes are what bugs most of us.

It's not really important if earth was moved to create NGLA or not.  The important question is, if you were an architect charged with doing anything you want to improve NGLA, would you be wise enough to just let it be?  Too many of today's architects would answer no to that question.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
I dislike the term minimalist and I have no problem with many differing degrees of creating -- but the one thing all those who are most successful have in common is profound respect for nature -- including Macdonald, Raynor, Langford, MacKenzie, Travis and many others who would hardly be considered minimalists. But they knew best how to maximize the existing natural features of a site and blend those features with their particular style. Might Yale and NGLA be examples of that skill? I do not believe I have done a very good job of explaining my viewpoint - it doesn't have to be an either or proposition (for those who see things as only black or white). But there is no substitute for Nature.

Pat
Wilson? I think you've entered the wrong thread. I could really care less about any individual holes at Atlantic, I was only trying to get an honest answer from you regarding your philosophical view - my mistake, I forgot you don't have philosophical view, well at least not when Rees is involved. A poor example on my part. Never mind.

One of these days it would be nice to get into a philosophical discussion without the emotional lightning rod names being interjected -- I'm probably as guilty as anyone. That will be my New Year's resolution.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I indicated that I felt that CBM left alone that which needed little in the way of amendments, and crafted that which needed assistance in order to develop the best possible golf holes.  The determination of which is site specific rather than omnipresent.

And, what does it matter which methodology is used if the result is good architecture evidenced and represented through good golf holes.

Why the need for tbis elitist perspective that if it's not as nature left or intended it, it can't be good  ?

Tom MacWood,

After one and one half years you haven't discerned my philosophical views, alleging that I have none.  
Surprisingly, I do have views, I thought this site was replete with them.  I would be happy to share them with you or anyone else who might be interested, who somehow didn't pick up on them from my many posts.

One of my views is to try to be fair when discussing:
a golf course
a golf hole
an architect
a developer/owner
a golf club

I try to look at things from a practical perspective, looking at collateral issues that effect the primary issue in subtle and not so subtle ways.

I try to look at golf course architecture, not in terms of the rigid acceptability of right and wrong, but in preferences relating to style, but above all, to PLAYABILITY.

I love the "classic", the "Golden Age" courses and architects.

I think many changes made to those courses have been for the worse.

I'm not so quick to be biased toward, nor brutally or unfairly critical of men who currently make their living through golf course architecture.  When terribly negative, non-factual statements or personal attacks and biases are hurled with abandon at people trying to make a living as architects,
I'm quick to defend them, and I've never met FAZIO.

NGLA is my favorite golf course, I've said it often, I find the architecture brilliant.

I believe you must play a golf course to fully and credibly evaluate it, and I made the mistake of violating my premise with respect to my dear old alma mater' course.

Mounds are not a bad architectual feature.  
It depends on their use and scale.

I love to discuss and debate issues, favoring the taking of the underdog or unpopular view in the face of the thundering herd.

Architects, writers and critics are just people, like all of us, specially talented at their particular craft, an Art, not a science.  Like all of us they are fallable, and like many Artistes, ego plays a part in their success and their shortcomings.

Clubs do things to their golf courses that sometimes defy logic, and I'm always curious with respect to the genesis and evolution of a project, especially one that is misguided, or that suffers poor results.

I think owners/prime movers have almost as much to do with the outcome of the design of a golf course as the architect in many instances, especially when a residential development is involved.

These are but a few of my philosophical views, views that I thought were clear to those who have read my posts over the last 18 months.  I'm sorry if I haven't been candid enough, I didn't mean to obscure my philosophical positions.
If you would like to know my views on any other facets of golf or golf architecture, I'll try to provide them, just ask.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
All very valid positions. But other than the fact you love classsic or golden age architecture, the only specific design philososphy you mentioned is your belief mounding is not inherently bad - which I agree with. Perhaps you didn't want to get into more detail. One of the problems with regularly being the devils advocate is a tendency of not a having a positive or well defined philosophy - but I could be wrong.

Hell I was just the devils advocate on my own post.

You ask what does it matter which methodology is used if the result is good architecture evidenced and represented through good golf holes. Isn't that reason for this site to discuss and analyze the different methods and the wildly differing results? Isn't that why Hutchinson, Low, Colt, MacKenzie, Thomas, Behr, Ross, Tillinghast, Macdonald, Doak, Fazio, Jones, etc., wrote about and studied the subject? Thats almost like saying who cares what Travis did at GCGC or how he did it, will let RT Jones re-design this course and as long as the result is a 'good' golf course...

You ask why the need for this elitist perspective that if it's not as nature left or intended it, it can't be good? That is not this elitist's perspective. My perspective is that Nature comes first; find the outstanding Natural features of a given site utilize them to the maximum and then design in harmony with those features. And when you design/create attempt to replicate the variety, haphazardness and randomness found in Nature (this is especially key when you are stuck with a featureless site) - and there are many different ways and individual styles from a number of periods. It is my opinion that the golf courses with the most enduring strategic interest maximized the use natural features, and share a certain randomness and variety. Designs that have variety and that utilize natural features are nearly always the most exciting and interesting to play (again and again) and isn't that definition of a great golf course? And my last thought would be if you have certain rules and tendencies, be sure to break them every once in a while - Nature is unpredictable.

[TEPaul]

Look at this, will you? The antagonists seem to be turning into protagonists! Things are moving towards a decent discussion, some philosophical clarity, greater understanding of architectural distinctions and maybe even some interesting conclusions, maybe even a modicum of agreement--God help us!--will there be anything left to talk (argue) about?

Mike Cirba:

That's a really great post! The central point I get from it is if a site has no natural features or none that are interesting an architect might have to make things. I use "might" very carefully! Obviously he absolutely does have to make something--he has to make the necessary and essential features for golf! But what and to what degree? Exactly how he goes about doing that can be extremely relative to many things and encompass an extremely wide spectrum. It could span all the way from the relatively minimal alterations of the ground at the back nine of Easthampton (a very flat natural scape, BTW) to the other end of the spectrum which might be Twisted Dune (or Shadow Creek).

In this context, to me, Twisted Dune is no different in its effect and juxtaposition with the natural site than Shadow Creek. In effect both courses are a "micrososim world" in relation to their  natural sites! In other words, inside the boundaries of both courses are about as different from outside the bondaries as you can get! Is this good or bad, right or wrong? Probably neither, maybe a little of both. But what does it matter? It probably doesn't. The point is they are both about as different from what was done at Easthampton as you can get. And the important thing to focus on is all three were created out of very flat rather "featureless" natural land!

Pat Mucci's points, maybe his philosophies and some of those of the others may be moving closer together. I think Pat has been a bit stuck on an issue though that none of those he seems to disagree with intended to get him stuck on. And that is if an architect moves ground that it has to be unnatural!

That's not the point, not my point anyway! The point is that whatever he moves, whatever he does, should strive to look as natural as possible somehow! But natural to what? I would prefer that it look natural to the site and its surroundings, but that may be just me!

What if the site is really really boring--really really flat and featureless? Well then the architect has a bit of a problem to overcome. He can try real hard to create something extremely low profile onto the site anyway and hope it works out. Always to do this (on any site) I think you have to figure out how to match or meld the lines or even the "aura" of the golf features (and the golf course) to what's around it somehow!

Personally, I think Coore and Crenshaw did that brilliantly at Easthampton and I think most who have seen the course think so too. And it's interesting as well that the back nine looks entirely different both naturally and completed than the front nine. In a way there are some similarities in front nine/back nine "aura" to Crystal Downs this way! Not that the holes look the same but the feeling of entirely different nines and how they both meld with the natural site are the same.

Twisted Dune and Hidden Creek are about ten minutes from each other and on natural ground that is relatively similar. Actually Hidden Creek's was probably more interesting naturally than Twisted Dune but C&C went very light on the land with construction and chose to take a "heathland" style because the natural site looked to them like an American heathland. To me that's doing what I would call a "natural site meld".

Archie at Twisted probably had much less to work with naturally so he chose to create a whole different feel to the natural site as did Shadow Creek! That's OK, except, personally I would have tried to go in the opposite direction and do something even more minimal than Hidden Creek. But you know what, that would have been even harder to do and it probably wouldn't have worked out as well in the end! When you start to consider the importance of what Pat calls "playability" it might not have worked out so well. And Pat's point about "playability" (not his own point and certainly not one he thought up) is extremely important to the golf course--it's what people primarily come there for!!

Again, Pat, I've never said anything derogatory at all about the architecture of the golf course at Shadow Creek. I did say though I don't really feel comfortable about how it diverges so from it's natural site. But as you say, if I went out there and saw it and played it maybe my impression would change. Personally though, if it were me, I would have moved Shadow Creek up next to those desert mountains and worked off of them for some natural interest and site naturalness. And what I would shoot for would not have been a North Carolina fantasy melding off Nevada desert mountains! I'm not the Fantasy creating visionary of Steve Wynn (or Bugsy Siegal) though and maybe my vision would not have worked out half so well as theirs. But at the very least I would have tried to make the golf course more "site natural".

That's just me though and I guess I have a lot to learn. Plus I don't have any clients to work with, certainly not a visionary like Steve Wynn. In my case and with my argument and philosophy it's just me.

On this ongoing discussion on Fazio, we really should look at PVGC's short course in detail, how it came to be, how it was designed and built and how it turned out and also the architectural details of the holes and philosophically, and  what that means.

Pat, why don't you start that off? Tell us what you think of it and tell us also what you know about the details and how it came to be!

Not to fracture this newfound goodwill among us but Pat, did you mention again "containment mounding" at Friar's Head on something like holes #4,#5,#6 and #7? My friend, we're either going to have to reopen the discussion of what "containment mounding" is and isn't or you're going to have to get your eyes checked! You should retract that statement right now in this glorious new aura of relative compatibilty or you're in danger of losing all your credibilty in one statement!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I think some of our views may be seperated by degrees of natural or the definition of natural.

Citing # 12 at GCGC, you could say the hole fits in with its surroundings, with nature, but it sure doesn't fit in with the other 17 holes on the golf course..  Technically, the hole would satisfy your desire for blending with nature, but fail the continuity test.  Hence I don't feel the fit with nature is the sole standard by which to judge architecture.

Additionally, if one looks at most greens at NGLA from the next tee, I think you could make a strong case that they look unnatural, far more manufactured than the 12th at GCGC.
Yet from the players angle most greens blend in with the land (even though it may have been considerably altered) nicely.

I think talented architects leave the land alone where they deem it satisfactory, and change the land where they feel modification is necessary.  

I don't understand how they would do it and it would look.....
UNNATURAL, and would need some specific examples to get a grasp on what you're trying to illustrate.

When we view courses in most of Florida, I think we have to alter our views on the desireability for mirroring nature,
when nature was basically swamps, the edges of the Everglades, and flat farmland, with water table and severe drainage problems.

TEPaul,

I knew that sooner or later you'd come around to sharing my views, it's just that it was a longer journey than we expected.

Regarding Shadow Creek, one doesn't simply waive a magic wand and transport a golf course from the middle of a flash flood plain in the middle of the desert to the foothills miles away.  First you have to find the acreage, then you have to be able to afford the acreage, then you may have substantially different environmental criteria to satisfy from a different jurisdiction, then, and this is a big then, you have to acquire the water rights.  You have to remember, you're in the REMOTE desert area of Las Vegas, not Philadelphia and New York,   How much more REMOTE do you want to get ?
With all the golf courses built after Steve Wynn's vision, how many were built up in the foothills that you recommend
NONE, why  Probably because one or several of the above impediments.

To compare where C & C worked in Easthampton to where Fazio worked outside of Las Vegas is Apples to Oranges.
Where would you prefer to build a NATURAL looking golf course?   Which would be the easier task ?

I think you would like Shadow Creek, especially if you could disregard your predispositions.  Hopefully, you'll get the chance to see for yourself.

On to Pine Valley.

I was struck by how well Fazio/Ransome duplicated the eight holes at Pine Valley on the new short course.  I thought it was marvelous work, matching the big course's terrain and holes while at the same time moving very little dirt. I thoiught the two additional holes retained the continuity of the other
eight holes.

I thought the bunker work was very good, the greens, surrounds, fairways, the wHOLE nine yards, or ten holes, depending how you look at it.

It told me that FAZIO was  capable of producing the kind of work, you and others on this site admire.

Why the difference at Pine Valley ?
My theory..... the direction and collaboration of a forceful, powerful owner/project manager, Ernie Ransome.  

Plus, had FAZIO created an inferior product, it would have seriously damaged his reputation since he was working on such a high profile course, and he knew it.

FAZIO can produce the quality and style you admire.  But,
Does he want to pursuit that style, or his own ?
Does he have the Ernie Ransome type alter ego as a partner, guiding light, and employer on his other projects, directing and collaborating with him to create special golf courses ?

You know, I've always felt that the driving force, the visionary, the man behind the project, has a much greater impact on the outcome of a golf course than many here are willing to accept.  If more Ernie Ransome's, Ken Bakst's, Mike Keiser's and others venture into the realm of creating golf courses, together with the architects of their choice, I think more very good golf courses will be built.

With respect to Friar's Head, Okay, I'll call them berms, large berms used to hide the road and traffic from the golf course, and to hide the golf course from the road and traffic.  
A very valid use of mounds, containment or otherwise.
Do you feel better now ?    

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

For what it's worth I can say with total conviction that some of the most boring land for golf is in South Jersey (not including PV before all start to push the panic buttom!). I chuckle when I hear people pop off with the "in" phrase "minimalism" because often those particular courses are as Mike Cirba said so accurately deadly D-U-L-L !!!

The only three "must" play courses in South Jersey (i.e. the immediate AC area and below including the counties situated adjacent to the Shore) are Galloway National, ACCC and clearly Archie Struthers wonderful design at Twisted Dune. There are others of note (I like Blue Heron Pines / East and a few others) but the flat as can be land makes for a whole series of yawn type holes on so many other layouts in the area. Yes, many are natural to their existing terrain but sometimes less is less.

I agree with someone who previously posted that whether a hole is natural or unnatural the bottom line in my book is does the hole keep your interest to play it time after time. Does that same hole reward / penalize proportionally to the type of shots you execute and fail to execute? To be totally honest, all the rest of this banter is just a game of semantics and one-upsmanship in word play.

Tom, you have walked Hidden Creek and really are on high on its promise. I respect your take because you have seen many quality courses. Are there other courses you have played that are as flat as the site as Hidden Creek and do you believe featureless sites have the qualities necessary to compare favorably with courses located on more rolling and define terrain?

Do you see Hidden Creek with the potential to be in the same class as Galloway, ACCC and though somewhat presumptious Twisted Dune???

I'm looking forward to seeing Hidden Creek to see how this condition of South Jersey blandness is faced.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Your post to 1/5/12:06am is a very good one and I think we all are coming to quite an understanding on some complex and tough subjects. I know you're being cute when you say we are coming around to your way of thinking. I think some of us are coming to understand a bit better what it is you are thinking, particularly about the subject of "naturalness" and the designers attempt at it. And I think you are coming to understand our thinking better.

The best and most interesting remark you made is the one behind greens and such!! This is telling when an architectural analyst on a walk examines exactly how an architect attempts to tie in his golf course and it's features (greens!!) to the naturalness of any site feels when he examines some greens and such from behind them!! This is something that has always struck me, particularly on many of the old courses, and particularly at NGLA! The rear of greens are sometimes very telling and frankly so are the sides sometimes--mostly one side but occassionally both--and very much depending on how well the green sits into the natural topography or not. When it does not sit in naturally this is the time and opportunity where there is a ton to learn, in other words!!! This area is where the rubber really meets the road in a design sense and it's interesting to see what the old guys did about it. Many many time the answer was--not much (when it came to a truly natural "site tie-in")!!

As to hiding his hand vs the natural site these particular areas are the most complex and are dictated by and restricted often by what was possible (expense and dirt moving) as well as other limiting complexities like drainage necessities and the obvious reality that the old guys had to design surface drainage even more efficiently than the modern guy did or do simply because they did not have the sophisticated sub-surface techniques available today--and that in their day surface drainage was where the "meat" needed to be!!

In this particular area it could be said then that modern architects have far superior tools to acheive this end (natural tie-ins)--and in many cases they have succeeded and in other examples they have not probably because they may not understand the necessity of it or even understand the attempt at naturalness!!

This all is a fascinating subject and one we should discuss in detail another time and I think that ultimately the real answer and the true limitations to this attemtpt and desire will be best understood in the context of Robert Hunter's writing and his ultimate conclusion of what is possible in golf architecture in the context of the requirments of golf and it's necessary features, in other words, tees, green, fairways, and bunkers!!

Regarding Tom Fazio and Pine Valley, I think now we are in almost total agreement. He does have the talent--and I, for one, have never said he didn't! I feel, however, that Fazio does not extend his talents the way a C&C do! He can, certainly, but he doesn't as often as they do but I only mean this in a particular way, and it's very important to me that you understand what I mean by this and that you don't freak out and think I'm bashing Fazio because I'm not!!

He does, however, extend his talents in other ways much more than they WOULD and probably COULD! And in that lies some of the real distinctions between them. Pine Valley's short course is a good example of what Fazio can do and I wish he would do more of. By his own admission that was a project that he was very hesitant to take only because of the risk involved to his overall reputation (could he or did he want to compete with some of the best holes in the world, was his original thinking!!). He did it, did it well and frankly one of his two original holes is as good as any of the others, in my opinion!

Fazio basically is not the type of architect to take real risks in adventurous "envelope pushing" architecture, he's the type of architect who is very good at producing a known product (and even on sites and projects that include some real technical obstacles) and that is probably one of the primary reasons for his impressive success! His clients seem to reflect that modus operandi too. Fazio is also extremely technically competent and efficient (in product if not necessarily cost). He can and will solve and overcome various problems and obstacles amazingly well that other architects, certainly including Coore and Crenshaw would never attempt to do! And in that I believe lies much of the difference in their architecture and their approach to it.

I do agree with your assessment of the owner/client. But I would add some important distinctions. Fazio, I believe, is both willing and prepared to do almost anything any owner wants him to do. Hurzdan and Fry, Rees, probably others like Ron Fream seem to be too.

Coore and Crenshaw do not happen to be that type, in my opinion. There appears to be certain things they seem unwilling to tackle and feel actually that they are even structurally or technically unprepared for. Personally, I think this is true to an extent but is also a reason given to not get involved in certain projects that do not interest their artistic beliefs!! They are not prepared (so they say) to overcome the mindbendingly complex obstacles of drawing, detailed design specifics (before breaking ground!!!!), environmental problems, permitting complexities etc. And if presented with these things they tend to demure and pass on some projects.

I'm not sure how you feel about that approach but I feel good about it! It's honest and it also says everything about their unwillingness to be pinned down and prevented from really interpreting in the field!

I hope I'm not saying anything I shouldn't but I think Friar's is a good example of what I mean here. Tom Fazio is both willing and able to build a golf course on that site no matter what the natural topographical problems, the permitting and environmental problems may have been. This is only my feeling but I believe Fazio would have found a way to build a golf course there no matter what, but Coore, on the other hand, came extremely close to not FINDING the necessary holes or routing up in the dunes and consequently passing on the project!

Very fortunately that did not happen and it was done and most brilliantly, in my opinion, but I think you can see where I'm going with this example! It doesn't necessarily mean that either Fazio or C&C are right or wrong in their approaches and their modus operandis, but at least I think you can get a glimmer of the distinctions between them and the way the operate and produce architecture!

Got to go.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I agree our views may be seperated by degrees of natural or the definition of natural or where we are lokking for nature. I look at a golf course as a colaboration between nature and the architect. Each situation is unique sometimes nature doesn't provide much assistance other times she is the major force.

If I were to analyze a particular golf course I would first look at what nature provided -- maybe interesting undulations and contours (some bold; some gentle), eye catching broken gound, ridges, valleys, ravines, streams, wetlands, trees, sandy patches, dunes, etc.. Did the architect embrace what nature left and did he incorporate it strategically into the design? For me the tell tailed sign are the interesting natural contours and they don't necessarily have to be bold. If I see soft flowing curves and flattish fairways that look to be graded so that a small aircraft might land upon them - my suspicions are raised.

After that, I look at the features the architect created - the tees, the greens, the bunkers, etc. Here I think one must give plenty of leaway - every architect has a different style or signature. This where the designer is able to reveal his character. Some like to blend or tie in their features so that they indistiquishable from nature. Others seem to prefer to create a contrast or a juxtaposition with the natural features - which when done well brings even more focus/attention to the natural features. Neither is easy to pull off, especially the contrasting style. But the one characteristic hopefully both approaches share is a certain haphazard or randomness.  

As far as examples of unnatural designs without getting into specific names/courses -- I'd say courses that have fairways that are far too regular and share no realtionship to the quirky irregularity found in the real world, man-made features that are of a repetitive form, size or shape, symmetry, and the lack of an occasional odd, unorthodox or ugly feature.

And I'm not crazy about an abundance of man-made lakes and ponds.

TE
Very well said. I agree that Fazio is exceptionally talented, perhaps too talented. He seems to see little need to work with what nature has provided - he believes he can do it better or at least just as well and be in total control. I wonder if his success at Shadow Creek was ultimately a positve or negative development in his career?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

You appear to be suggesting that C&C would not take on serious environmental permitting challenges and cite the Friar's Head project as an example.

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by this.

To my knowledge, Friar's Head is a prime example of the extraordinary lengths, i.e., years of work and millions of dollars in legal fees,  developers must sometimes go to in order to secure environmental permits.  The time and expense was much greater than say Tom Fazio's Sand Ridge project.

Not being familiar with all the project details, specifically, the roles and responsibilities of each project member, I really have no clue how significant Bill Coore's contribution was towards allowing this project to move forward.  But, if you sit down with Bill Talmadge I'm sure he will tell you, that from the perspective of the property owner, things weren't easy.  The overall effort goes back about fifteen years, I think I heard Bill say.

My tour of Friar's Head was quite brief, but sufficient to feel confident in saying that people who love golf architecture will be excited by what C&C and the Boys have accomplished.  Nonetheless, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that bringing projects to fruition is a team effort often involving the contributions of people we typically never hear about.  That's what leads me to believe we sometimes have an overly romantic view of golf projects.  That's what lead me to believe that we sometimes make distinctions between say  C&C and the Fazio organization, that are a bit simplistic, at least when you look at the total process of bringing a project from inital vision to completion.

My apologies if I've misrepresented your views.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

Sorry......my comments should actually have been adressed to Tom Paul.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I agree that you have to view each project, each golf course serperately, but you also have to view the motives behind their creation seperately as well.

I would look differently at a golf course built for the resident community it is to serve diffenrently than a golf course built strictly for membership play.

In some if not many real estate developments the home sites usually come first, hence the architect may not have a blank canvas to work with, (forgetting about environmental issues)
With strictly a golf course, on the same piece of property, the architect would have more latitude, a blank canvas.

Can you compare the two resulting courses, sure, but give weight to the impediments inherent in the project on the real estate course.  And, remember the owner is focusing on selling homes that will have access to a golf course.
On the golf course only project the owner must sell memberships, and the only thing he has to offfer is a golf course, hence that us usually the sole focus.

Sometimes blending with nature may be detrimental to the home sites and real estate project, and sometimes that may be the reason unnatural features find their way into real estate golf courses, including fountains, waterfalls, etc.,etc..

TEPaul,

Instead of quessing how FAZIO uses or doesn't use his talents compared to how C & C use or don't use their talents, lets look instead at their courses in the context of what their employers wanted to accomplish in each and every situation.

Compare the intent of Ken Bakst at Friars Head and
Mic Humphreys at the Vintage Club in Palm Springs.

And then ask yourself, how can you compare the golf courses, or how the architects achieved or didn't achieve
goals that YOU, TOMMY NACCARATO, TOM MACWOOD, OR I have established for them in the context of classic architecture ?  Difficult ?  Unfair ?  

The sites are different, the goals are different, the end product is intended to be different.  Kind of like comparing a humvee to a jaguar convertable ?

What I'm saying is that you have to adjust your evaluation when viewing golf courses in the context of their intended use or market.

With respect to your take on C & C, I can only speculate, and I would venture to speculate that if Bill Warren was actively involved at ND, the way Ernie Ransome was at PV, and he had some good architectual ideas or concepts on certain holes at ND, that C & C would consider and probably incorporate those concepts rather than reject them because
C & C didn't think of them.  I think they have the confidence in themselves to understand that every good or great architectual idea doesn't reside soley in their brains, and the flexibility to incorporate good ideas from third parties into their designs.

It would be difficult, if not impossible for me to believe that if Ken Bakst came up with a great idea at Friar's Head that it would be automatically discarded by C & C.
What do you think ?

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.