GCA Book Club - Golf Architecture in America Book Club Forward - Chapter II

[Sean_A]

Thomas starts by staying "there are not enough good golf architects for the tremendous amount of golf construction under way and to be developed during the next few years."  He then goes on, in the appreciation, to list roughly a dozen well known architects of the day.  So was the statement an accurate statement?  Is it true there were not enough good golf architects in the 1920's for the number of courses built during the time period?  Are there enough good golf architects today (I'm guessing many will say there are too many good golf architects today for too few jobs)?

There were not enough good golf architects in the 1920's.  There were certainly more than the dozen Thomas named, but most of the best of them were spread very thin ... and the busiest of them weren't necessarily the best.

There are more than enough good golf architects for the amount of courses being built right now ... and probably for the next 5-10 years.  Sadly, just when the business really picks up again, many of those good architects will have had to find something else to do, and a lot of them may not return when they are needed. 

Tom

You can never have enough good architects, engineers, doctors, lawyers, chefs etc.  I see evidence of that all around me everyday. 

I really like this line: "The essence of golf strategy is diversity." I am not convinced archies have taken this bit of wisdom on board and I suspect most that have only do so theoretically.  I would love to be on site of a good project sometime to experience first hand how difficult it is for archies to fight the temptation of just one more bit there or one more bob there.  I can only surmise the pull to do so is nearly impossible resist.  I suspect only the most comfortable and confident of archies are consistently successful.

Ciao

   

[Tom_Doak]

I really like this line: "The essence of golf strategy is diversity." I am not convinced archies have taken this bit of wisdom on board and I suspect most that have only do so theoretically.  I would love to be on site of a good project sometime to experience first hand how difficult it is for archies to fight the temptation of just one more bit there or one more bob there.  I can only surmise the pull to do so is nearly impossible resist.  I suspect only the most comfortable and confident of archies are consistently successful.

Ciao

Sean:

You are welcome to come out and see a course we are in the midst of building anytime you have the chance.  Hopefully, it will be a good one.

Even the most comfortable and confident of architects have been guilty of a bit of overkill on courses over the last 10 or 15 years, when clients asked us for greatness and provided however much funds we needed to achieve it.  In hindsight, even though I generally agree with your thought that "you can't have too many talented people", I think that having so many talented people on jobs, each of whom wanted to contribute something, has sometimes led us to do too much.  [And of course it's so much easier to do too much with a D-6, than it was with a team of horses.]

Perhaps now that budgets are much tighter, we'll get back to building less decoration and just stick to the golf.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Not sure diversity necessarily relates to "overdone."

I recognized long ago that perhaps my designs weren't as diverse strategically as they might be, perhaps because I am a visual type person.  Humans are so much a creature of habit, that it was easy to put in a good looking target bunker, for example.  Or, just rely on the standby's because you know they work.

My solution, as it were, was to sort of pre-identify some strategic concepts I like (and some I don't favor, but which work) as part of my design process.  This is not unlike CBM's pre-thinking his "Ideal Course."  You can see some of it in the second (?) Paul Daley book.  Then, I search for the landforms to fit those strategies in.  While most archies have done that, it didn't seem like a very popular notion around here, as many were concerned that those sorts of things are "forced on the land".  Doesn't have to be that way!

BTW, in general, Thomas' book was always my favorite, perhaps in part, because he did the same thing.  Things like preferring the back of greens to be "fairgreen" or the tee sometimes merely being an extension of the fw are all things I have adopted into my designs.  Just not every time, because I didn't find the proper location/situation for them all.....

[Steve Howe]

Thanks to those responsible for setting this up - it's my first read of Thomas' book. Really interesting and well written.

Going back to Joe's comments earlier regarding interest vs. ease of play in the design of munis and his feeling that these design goals might be 'partially mutually exclusive' I think it's important to remember that for beginners and infrequent golfers the game is pretty difficult. Even in this day of vastly improved ( ) equipment hitting the ball solidly is still a significant challenge, so the strategy of hole doesn't need to be complex - there just needs to be some strategy. Tillinghast's less is more approach to bunkering touched on by Garland is a good case in point. A straight par 4 with one front left greenside bunker clearly dictates a strategy off the tee to the rhs of the fairway. If a beginner achieves this and gets a good look at the green they have good reason to be elated, if the advanced player doesn't they have good reason to be disgusted.

First point of interest for me is Thomas' pre-determined 'ideals' for hole length, par and sequence in a round. When I first startded thinking about GCA a little while back I must admit that these are the the things I also considered to be critical to a 'great course'. But reading the comments of architects on GCA.com I see much less focus on this kind of ideal course structure and alot more focus on finding the best holes, or as Jeff relates, incorporating his preferred strategic concepts into the course. I wonder how much of the decision making on a design is influenced by an ideal structure or flow to a course, particularly as it relates to hole length, par and sequence?

Secondly, I was interested in Thomas' distaste for misses in front of greens being too easy and those over the back being too harshly treated - unduly penalizing the player 'making a bold stroke'. I havn't played any of Jeff's courses but coming from the Mornington Peninsula I can think of very few holes on the sandbelt or peninsula where being long is better than being short - and the ones I can think of are all at St Andrews Beach (3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th). Does anyone have any good examples of this type of design?

[Garland Bayley]

Who agrees with the philosophy of extending the fairway behind the green? To me it makes most sense if the green is level or sloped front to back. With the predominance of back to front sloped greens, it seems to me that going over the back means you pay for what you attempted given the advantage already given to you by the slope of the green.

Beside for us high handicappers going over the back is far more often due to a missed shot, just like missing either side.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

If I understand GT, he used it mostly on long par 4 holes, where a long miss is really a better shot than a short miss, mostly to encourage bold play. I am all in favor of encouraging bold play on hard holes, whereas most encourage conservative play to the middle of the green.

[Joe_Tucholski]

Joe, the first comment about munis (in one of your previous posts) seemed to me to be related to maintenance more than playability/strategy.

I agree he does make mention of maintenance practices when discussing large sectioned greens, and mats on tees.  But I thought he was very clear when he said "The municiple course should first of all consider congestion; everything hinges on that."  So my take is he proposed the removal of design features to increase playability.

This is where we differ, philosophically.  Many people in the world today seem to think that running a business allows one to rationalize ANYTHING they want to ... including things that are dubious from the standpoint of ethics or law, and sometimes things that aren't even dubious, but brazen.  Indeed, there are many CEO's of public companies now who seem to tell us they HAVE TO do these things because they owe it to the shareholders to be as sneaky or cutthroat as they can get away with.

Tom,

If Mac isn't disagreeing with you I guess I will (I think).  I'm not going to say running a business allows one to rationalize ANYTHING, but I will say it should allow someone to compromise.  I would guess you agree with that statement.  I fully understand there are times you should walk away from a course (there was a thread stating such recently - and Thomas mentions walking away from a course at land he thought was too severe) but I also think there are times when you will depart from you ideal order to meet the objectives of the course.  Maybe I'm completely wrong when I inquired about Common Ground vs. Pacific Dunes.

As Pete Dye has been mentioned I believe the first course constructed bearing his name as architect is Wind Creek Golf Course at Sheppard AFB.  The course was my home course for a short period and is very different from any other Dye course I've played.  I'm also going to assume the requirements laid out by the client were probably very different than most of the other clients Dye worked for.  The big bad dollar probably required Dye to compromise on the design but in my mind those compromises are acceptable.  Like most things in life an acceptable compromise vs. an unacceptable compromise is not clear and is at a different point for everyone.

If you read his recommendations for one shotters and three shotters, he is recommending no course with par more than 69. Did he ever build courses of par 69 and less?

Garland I had the same question four posts earlier (maybe my posts are a bit too long) and my thought was maybe the two longer par 4's requiring full woods referenced by Thomas would generally be consider reachable par 5's today, making the ideal course he describes a par 71?

You can never have enough good architects, engineers, doctors, lawyers, chefs etc.  I see evidence of that all around me everyday.  

Sean...I certainly know many people who think there are too many good lawyers.

Secondly, I was interested in Thomas' distaste for misses in front of greens being too easy and those over the back being too harshly treated - unduly penalizing the player 'making a bold stroke'. I havn't played any of Jeff's courses but coming from the Mornington Peninsula I can think of very few holes on the sandbelt or peninsula where being long is better than being short - and the ones I can think of are all at St Andrews Beach (3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th). Does anyone have any good examples of this type of design?

Steve I think a lot of holes with a hazard (like a stream) right in front of the green would meet the description of better miss long.

[Garland Bayley]

If you read his recommendations for one shotters and three shotters, he is recommending no course with par more than 69. Did he ever build courses of par 69 and less?

Garland I had the same question four posts earlier (maybe my posts are a bit too long) and my thought was maybe the two longer par 4's requiring full woods referenced by Thomas would generally be consider reachable par 5's today, making the ideal course he describes a par 71?

Not having played a George Thomas course, and not being very familiar with any one of his courses, unlike those young video game players that can describe Riviera for instance in extensive detail, I would think that if he actually designed courses that were put into play with par 69 would answer whether the two long two shotters were to be considered par 4s or par 5s. His ideal course has a 250 yard hole, presumably as one of the 5 one shotters. But, that would likely be rated par 4 except for the best of players. So if you can't reach with an iron, then the par goes up one perhaps.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Not sure diversity necessarily relates to "overdone."

I recognized long ago that perhaps my designs weren't as diverse strategically as they might be, perhaps because I am a visual type person.  Humans are so much a creature of habit, that it was easy to put in a good looking target bunker, for example.  Or, just rely on the standby's because you know they work.

My solution, as it were, was to sort of pre-identify some strategic concepts I like (and some I don't favor, but which work) as part of my design process.  This is not unlike CBM's pre-thinking his "Ideal Course."  You can see some of it in the second (?) Paul Daley book.  Then, I search for the landforms to fit those strategies in.  While most archies have done that, it didn't seem like a very popular notion around here, as many were concerned that those sorts of things are "forced on the land".  Doesn't have to be that way!

BTW, in general, Thomas' book was always my favorite, perhaps in part, because he did the same thing.  Things like preferring the back of greens to be "fairgreen" or the tee sometimes merely being an extension of the fw are all things I have adopted into my designs.  Just not every time, because I didn't find the proper location/situation for them all.....

Jeff

I was referring to a lack of diversity probably meaning that one or two elements are over-done.  The usual suspects are bunkers, water and harsh rough - all quite penal features.  As you mention, the pull to continue doing what works without exploring other ideas which are risky, but potentially may be excellent is a habit in all walks of life.  Although, I understand that architecture is a way to earn one's crust and that theoretically it shouldn't matter much if there are obvious shared ideas between designs.  It could be that the modern concept of top 100 drives more golf travel and thus a necessity for archies hoping to score big design successes to always be in search of new ways to apply concepts and projects which take one out of the comfort zone. 

I have a lot of time for archies thinking outside the box in design, maintenance or turf selection.  This is the one thing I have come to realize in the past 20 years when I first set eyes on a links; the three areas must be thought of as a package if the best results are to be achieved no matter what sort end product one has in mind.  I spose this is why I think the design must fit its environment.  For example, if an area gets a lot of rain, don't fight it, design a course which suits aerial golf.  It doesn't matter if that goes against the developer's/archie's idea of what is ideal.  Ideal is what works best given the circumstances.  I sometimes forget this in my zeal to play dry golf.  Luckily, I live in a country where my zeal can be realized - tee hee.

I find it hard to believe that lay persons would not understand that (I would think) all archies retain a bank of ideas either formally or informally and look for ways to utilize them or maybe just wait for it to click in when in the right frame of mind.  It must be a great thrill when an archie gets to actually slap in a long languishing idea, especially one he is not terribly keen on, and see it work a treat.   

Tom

Maybe one day I will take you up on your very kind offer.

Ciao 

[Stephen Davis]

I am a bit behind on the discussion, but I have been traveling a bit lately and am almost caught up. I did want to say that I was reading these chapters on the plane and I wish I had a pen and paper by me, because there were so many great points made, as well as places where I disagree completely (like his opinion that the first hole be a long par 4. I very much disagree and lean towards the idea that the first hole should be shorter, but require an exacting tee shot with less than a driver). There were many things and I am going to have to go back and reread the chapters to remember what they all were. I also enjoyed reading your discussion of the chapters.