News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

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


Brett_Morrissy

  • Karma: +0/-0

Have a look at this at this slide show of Dormie Club with some elevated and aerial shots: http://dormieclub.net/the-course/course-gallery/
- when looking at this the other day, I was reminded of the following quote which appeared on my desk calendar at about the same time...

"Few golf course critics are able to separate the art from the canvas", Tom Doak, golf architect and write

Are you able to do this?

Can you easily decipher the design work from the original ground contours and recognise existing features compared to man-made features?

Do you actually think it is important or even reasoable to expect to be able to do this? Does it even matter?

Why is it so important to criticise a hole's design or an entire course's design/layout becuase some of the ground movement may or may not be as the GCA first encourntered on his first inspection?

Did CB Macdonald (happy to be corrected on this? ;D) have the solution, somthing like "if a hole lacks character - beat the character into it until it satisfies" ?

If the quality of the "art" is of a premium nature, with oodles of character, then should I be able to separate the end result from the designer's original canvas?
@theflatsticker

Andy Troeger

Re: How hard is it to separate the work from the land & does it matter?
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2012, 09:58:59 PM »
Brett,
I don't think it matters. Most folks here are likley interested in terms of taking a piece of raw land and turning it into a golf course, but in terms of the overall quality of the finished golf course its not important. The key, and I believe Tom Doak has said this many times, is making the finished work look natural.

Granted, there are some designs that I find to be pretty fun courses and even attractive designs that aren't natural and don't attempt to be. I think there's something to be said for having a theme and sticking to it. There's certainly a market for the excess of some of the Trump courses, even if they don't appeal to everyone.

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How hard is it to separate the work from the land & does it matter?
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2012, 11:02:09 PM »
It depends on if you are measuring the golf course or the creation of the course (architect/builder/super/owner)
Do you have more of the quote?
I'm not sure he is talking about existing vs. man made.

Why did these pics remind you of the quote?
Almost all of the greens are built at grade.

Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Greg Chambers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How hard is it to separate the work from the land & does it matter?
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2012, 12:03:57 AM »
great use of short grass in those pics...wow
"It's good sportsmanship to not pick up lost golf balls while they are still rolling.”

Brett_Morrissy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How hard is it to separate the work from the land & does it matter?
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2012, 05:31:11 AM »
Mike, not sure if I see the difference between golf course or the creation of a course, existing or man made. To compare the end result with what was there before - this is the point of the quote, few 'critics' can separate the two.

The pictures of the C&C Dormie course are very stylish and appealing to the eye, and to my eye - beautiful (always in the eye of the beholder!) - some of the pictures appear a little touched up, and certainly I find the images creative and i didn't think it too long a bow to draw, to say that this is what triggered TD's quote.
@theflatsticker

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: How hard is it to separate the work from the land & does it matter?
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2012, 06:23:43 AM »
Who the heck is quoting me on desk calendars?  And where do they get their material, here?

I might have meant a couple of different things, depending on the conversation:

1.  Whether or not the details of a course look natural, people are likely to rate it highly if they like the setting.  Or,

2.  People who claim to judge architects' WORK, as opposed to their courses, are generally just guessing because they often have no idea what was done.  Indeed, if the architect is really good at doing routings and good at concealing his work, he will make it look much easier than it was. 

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How hard is it to separate the work from the land & does it matter?
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2012, 08:35:23 AM »
Generally if the course is meant to be completely natural (read links courses for the main) then I like to spot as little shaping as possible. I don't mind bold features which are obviously created but I don't like features / tie-ins that are obviously created in an attempt to look natural / fit the existing land.... So it matters to me... But maybe it should matter less if the hole plays as intended and looks good to almost everyone else...

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How hard is it to separate the work from the land & does it matter?
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2012, 05:03:25 PM »
Doesn't matter to me.  I would also say doing nothing to a part of a hole is the work of an archie.  It makes no difference if the course was routed and just left or totally manufactured, the archie designed the course. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing