[JC Jones]

In the Pete Dye thread, it was noted that he was known for being able to create something out of nothing.

Who are the current architects that can make a good course out of less than spectacular land?  Who are the architects that seem to need a spectacular site in order to do something good?

[Dan Herrmann]

I'll give Gil Hanse a nod.

At my home course, French Creek, he did great work with what is far from great land.  It's intersected by protected land, very hilly in spots, rocky land, in three townships, and divided by a state highway.  Also bordered on the north by the PA Turnpike. 

All that, and I think he did a great job.  The course won't ever hold a major, but that's A-OK.  To me, it's a perfect course for a private club - fun, always new, great ground movement, and wonderfully constructed greens.  Great bunkering too.

[Kevin_D]

I'll give a second to Hanse based on Tallgrass (the first and only Hanse course I have played).  Not a great site - very flat - but I found the course just terrific when I played it a few weeks ago.  Interesting greens, and the bunkering was just fantastic, without seeming like it was trying too hard.  Felt like something built 100 years ago in GB&I rather than 10 years ago in the middle of Long Island.

I'd add that I think the course deserves an "honorable mention" in the list of best courses < 6500 yards.

[Tom_Doak]

JC:  I think I'm about to get a chance to show what I can do with less than spectacular land.

Generally, though, I wouldn't trade the spectacular sites I've had just to prove a point to someone who doesn't appreciate my work.

[Jud_T]

Tom,

Wasn't the Rawls course a pretty pedestrian site? 

Talking Stick North is the best course I've seen on an uninteresting site.

[Tim Gavrich]

JC:  I think I'm about to get a chance to show what I can do with less than spectacular land.

Generally, though, I wouldn't trade the spectacular sites I've had just to prove a point to someone who doesn't appreciate my work.

Tom--

Wasn't the Legends (Heathlands, anyway) site pretty flat as well?

Strantz did a great deal with an originally flat site at Caledonia. Hell, and at True Blue. Double hell, and at Bulls Bay.

[Eric Smith]

Who are the current architects that can make a good course out of less than spectacular land?

You can certainly add Mike Nuzzo to the list. See http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56254.0.html

Although Brandon Johnson and Thad Layton can't take credit for the routing at Wexford Plantation, they were able to take what was a flat and completely forgettable golf course and turn it into a most memorable one with some clever use of classical design features. See http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51073

[JC Jones]

JC:  I think I'm about to get a chance to show what I can do with less than spectacular land.

Generally, though, I wouldn't trade the spectacular sites I've had just to prove a point to someone who doesn't appreciate my work.

I'm not really sure I understand this post.  The first part doesn't really answer my question and the second part doesn't really make any sense.  

Who would you be proving yourself to?  The client?  Presumably, they wouldn't be hiring you if they didn't appreciate your work.

I'm not sure High Pointe was a great piece of land and yet, in my opinion, it was one of the top 3-5 courses in northern Michigan.

[JC Jones]

What about Fazio?  I know the cognoscenti don't like him but his courses are all above-average to very good, seemingly irrespective of the site.

[Tom_Doak]

Who are the current architects that can make a good course out of less than spectacular land?  Who are the architects that seem to need a spectacular site in order to do something good?

Sorry, I figured your second question was aimed at me.  There really aren't very many architects who get enough spectacular sites to qualify for the latter category ... it's pretty hard to get such a job unless you've already got a good track record, as you noted.

I think that lots of architects can make a good course out of less than spectacular land ... virtually every architect we discuss on this board made their living doing that.  Very few can make a great course out of such land, in my opinion.

[Lou_Duran]

Generally, though, I wouldn't trade the spectacular sites I've had just to prove a point to someone who doesn't appreciate my work.

e.g. the nice cotton fields in Lubbock, TX.

[JC Jones]

Who are the current architects that can make a good course out of less than spectacular land?  Who are the architects that seem to need a spectacular site in order to do something good?

Sorry, I figured your second question was aimed at me.  There really aren't very many architects who get enough spectacular sites to qualify for the latter category ... it's pretty hard to get such a job unless you've already got a good track record, as you noted.

I think that lots of architects can make a good course out of less than spectacular land ... virtually every architect we discuss on this board made their living doing that.  Very few can make a great course out of such land, in my opinion.

Aimed at you?  What would make you think that?

There are plenty of one hit wonders with courses in the Top 100 and nothing much else to speak of.

[Sam Morrow]

Go read about Wolf Point

[Tom_Doak]

There are plenty of one hit wonders with courses in the Top 100 and nothing much else to speak of.

Like who, exactly?  You were really looking for George Crump and Jack Neville as answers to this?  There is zero evidence to suggest they wouldn't have done a good job with a lesser site.

[Bill_McBride]

The poster child for a solid course out of nothing is usually, here on GolfClubAtlas anyway, Talking Stick North.  Coore and Crenshaw build a very good course on dead flat land without a lot of major earth moving.  

Wolf Point has taken over first place.

I guess runners up would have to be Shadow Creek and the Rawls Course, where a lot of earth was moved.  Nothing wrong with that if there's a market and a customer willing to pay.  I don't get to Las Vegas often and never to west West Texas, but would like to see those two one day.

[Sam Morrow]

I think the better question is, "Something out of nothing without spending a fortune." While a place like Shadow Creek is incredible Fazio had a fortune to build it. How about doing something great on a realistic budget.

[JC Jones]

There are plenty of one hit wonders with courses in the Top 100 and nothing much else to speak of.

Like who, exactly?  You were really looking for George Crump and Jack Neville as answers to this?  There is zero evidence to suggest they wouldn't have done a good job with a lesser site.

David Kidd and Rick Smith/Warren Henderson come to mind.

I'm also not sure why you're being so defensive.  I told you my second question wasn't aimed at you and I think most here would agree you've got some good/very good courses on lesser sites. 

To me, your response to this entire thread feels completely out of left field.

[JC Jones]

The poster child for a solid course out of nothing is usually, here on GolfClubAtlas anyway, Talking Stick North.  Coore and Crenshaw build a very good course on dead flat land without a lot of major earth moving.  

Wolf Point has taken over first place.

I guess runners up would have to be Shadow Creek and the Rawls Course, where a lot of earth was moved.  Nothing wrong with that if there's a market and a customer willing to pay.  I don't get to Las Vegas often and never to west West Texas, but would like to see those two one day.

I haven't played Talking Stick North but I agree, C&C come to mind often.  I'm thinking of Hidden Creek as well.

[Brian Finn]

Coore and Crenshaw build a very good course on dead flat land without a lot of major earth moving.  

Totally agree on this one - see:  Chechessee Creek for the East Coast evidence of same.  The site certainly isn't without some nice features, but it is flat as possible (I doubt there is +/-10ft) and they did an incredible job building a course many in this group love.

[Eric Smith]

JC,

David Kidd is hardly a one hit wonder!

[Matthew Petersen]

As mentioned previously, Talking Stick North is what jumps to mind. That's just a tough site, the vast majority of the course was dead flat. What you have in the end is a course that still feels appropriate to the site, but the humps and rolls they did built to add interest don't feel out of place there.

[Peter Pallotta]

JC - what's interesting to me about this question is the half-conscious judgements/claculations we tend to make (on some ad hoc and sliding relative scale) regarding how much/how good a "something" we expect given how much/how poor a "nothing" was there to begin with, and how much/how effective the earthmoving or lack of it proved to be. Personally, I tend to feel that all architects, on all sites, tend to do too much to make sure that neither they nor the resulting 'something' is criticized for doing nothing. Which is to: even if you got a consensus on which architect can make the most out of the least, I'd still be left to ponder whether or not that "most" is what I would've liked the best.

Peter

[JC Jones]

JC,

David Kidd is hardly a one hit wonder!

Perhaps one hit wonder isn't the proper term but is challenge you to show me a course he ha done worth note on less than a phenomenal site whereas Dye, Fazio and C&C have all produce "top 100" courses that weren't near an ocean.

[JC Jones]

JC - what's interesting to me about this question is the half-conscious judgements/claculations we tend to make (on some ad hoc and sliding relative scale) regarding how much/how good a "something" we expect given how much/how poor a "nothing" was there to begin with, and how much/how effective the earthmoving or lack of it proved to be. Personally, I tend to feel that all architects, on all sites, tend to do too much to make sure that neither they nor the resulting 'something' is criticized for doing nothing. Which is to: even if you got a consensus on which architect can make the most out of the least, I'd still be left to ponder whether or not that "most" is what I would've liked the best.

Peter

Peter,

Leave it to you to bring some thing deeper to a thread

I agree, we do tend to judge things on a sliding relative scale.  However, I think the statement you made is considering only the moving of dirt as the "doing something."  Perhaps those who are given fantastic sites an spend months walking and routing the property are "doing" as much as those who spend that same time moving dirt.

I do also agree that our expectations change based on the property prior to construction.

[Eric Smith]

Jason, my friend. I read your opening post to mean you were asking who is building or has recently built good courses on less than spectacular land? If the standard has changed to who is building Top 100 courses on less than spectacular land then I'm pretty sure this thread is finished as they've all been named! Haven't they?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()