THE DEFINITIVE frank and open discussion about either course Dismal River

[Tim_Weiman]

BTW - Tom Doak is right.  Almost no "Civilian" has an idea what goes into routing a course (myself included).

Dan,

That is the most unfortunate thing about golf architecture discussion. A good case can be made that routing is the most interesting or important part of golf architecture, but it is the hardest part to discuss in any significant detail.

[William_G]

I am (slowly) starting to work on my own book about routing ...

This is just another in a long line of book teases....

LOL

great marketing

[William_G]

BTW - Tom Doak is right.  Almost no "Civilian" has an idea what goes into routing a course (myself included).

Dan,

That is the most unfortunate thing about golf architecture discussion. A good case can be made that routing is the most interesting or important part of golf architecture, but it is the hardest part to discuss in any significant detail.

Why is that the case?

[DMoriarty]

Hi John.  Interesting post above, and one that I think gets to the essence of the matter.

First of all, one would have to define what a traditional routing is.  Is it returning nines, out and back, concentric circular nines?  There are several so-called traditional routings.

I was working with David Elvins' three rules above:  A course consists of 18 holes, each hole starts near where the last one finishes, the course returns to where it started.  These seem pretty basic. Of these the one I'd gladly discard is the first, but that rule seems to be the most enduring (with the proviso that 9 holes are allowed but not taken seriously.)

There are aspects of club and course design which one would like to have, but would you really sacrifice the quality of the golf holes to start and finish in the same place?  Is that a sufficient answer to the question of the day?

This question/answer really gets to the heart of the matter for me, but I'd suggest that your question presupposes the answer.  I try to let history be my guide on these questions, and so, while your question is a loaded one, I'd still answer, 'yes.'

On sites well suited for golf, history suggests that the best courses manage to finish near where they started. Surely opportunities for great holes were missed along the way.  But great golf courses have a coherence and a cohesiveness and a balance that goes beyond the number of great holes.
- Did TOC sacrifice the quality of the golf holes to start and finish near the same place? 
- Did NGLA? 
- Did about every great course built in the past few centuries sacrifice the quality of the golf holes to start and finish in the same place?
- Is Sand Hills a compromised course because it manages to try and finish somewhere near where it started? 

You don't really think it was just serendipitous that almost all of them happened to end up back near the start, do you?   Obviously "compromises" were made and great opportunities passed up.   We've all heard about how there were 137 million great golf holes at Sand Hills.  Would it be a better golf course if C&C had just aimlessly followed the absolute best holes and called it quits when they got to the 18th?   Would it be better if this final location happened to be next a nice place for a cooler of beer and a fire pit?    I don't think so.   

Do you?  Really?

Chris Johnston has written numerous times that he often wonders about how many of the old courses would be even better if they didn't have to conform to conventions concerning the proximity of golf holes.  I think it an interesting query because, like your question, it presupposes that great golf courses are little more than collections the best golf holes in the area.   I don't see it that way, and I don't think the history of gca supports that definition of a great golf course.

____________________________________________________

Tom Doak,  While I appreciate your opinion, I am not sure it advances the conversation to engage in hyperbole about anyone's position.  I don't think anyone has said that you are "ruining golf," or that "the sky if falling."  As you are well aware, your approach at Dismal is a departure from what you term as "convention."  For that reason alone I think it worth exploring.  And as you acknowledge, it is really a discussion about routing, a subject where you think we are all woefully lacking, so maybe we can learn something.  With that in mind, is there any chance you will address my pending questions about Rock Creek? 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,  While I appreciate your opinion, I am not sure it advances the conversation to engage in hyperbole about anyone's position.  I don't think anyone has said that you are "ruining golf," or that "the sky if falling."  As you are well aware, your approach at Dismal is a departure from what you term as "convention."  For that reason alone I think it worth exploring.  And as you acknowledge, it is really a discussion about routing, a subject where you think we are all woefully lacking, so maybe we can learn something.  With that in mind, is there any chance you will address my pending questions about Rock Creek? 

David:

Sure, let's open up even more of my designs to hostile criticism.

On second thought:  no, thanks.  If this had been a friendly discussion up to this point, I might feel different, but you seem more like a police interrogator on the matter than a cross-examining lawyer:  I am in the position of DEFENDING my design, and you haven't considered the possibility that my solution might be BETTER, instead of worse.  You have no idea of the answers to any of your questions to John about other courses.  You assume they've given up something in the name of finishing near the first tee, and you define that as a virtue.  None of those courses had a clubhouse set-up like Dismal or a limitation on what property the architects could use.

Building a course that returned to the first tee would have required giving up on a single hole -- the 18th, which Mac and others have identified as the most iconic hole on the golf course.  But there was no way to get back out from that riverside green site with another good hole, in my opinion [and I certainly looked for one].  If you think I should have given it up, that's your opinion, but I don't agree.

I've answered plenty of questions about the design of Dismal River, to almost everyone else's satisfaction, except yours.  Since you are a lawyer, I will revert to my Fifth Amendment rights [assuming they still exist in this country] and rest on my design, unless I'm charged with a real crime.  And as far as I know, there's no statute about finishing the course near the first tee.

[Keith OHalloran]

Tom, with due respect to your previous books, if you wrote a book explaining your routing of courses, it would be your book that interested me the most. I am keenly aware of my inability to judge a routing. I am also aware that I normally understand what I am learning when there are real life illustration (which is why all my books have pictures in them). In any event, I know JC says you are just teasing us, but I hope not.

[DMoriarty]

Hostile criticism?   I invite you or anyone to point out where I have ever offered any hostile criticism of any of your courses ever, including Dismal River.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Objection, Your Honor. He's Badgering The Witness....


 

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom, with due respect to your previous books, if you wrote a book explaining your routing of courses, it would be your book that interested me the most. I am keenly aware of my inability to judge a routing. I am also aware that I normally understand what I am learning when there are real life illustration (which is why all my books have pictures in them). In any event, I know JC says you are just teasing us, but I hope not.

Keith,

Tom certainly has no need for people to speak for him, but a while back we did discuss the book project Tom mentioned. My personal opinion is that such a book would address one of the biggest gaps in the field of golf architecture literature, maybe the biggest.

[Kevin Lynch]

At a certain point, when multiple people have mentioned that you seem hostile, wouldn't you take a second to consider whether, maybe, just maybe, they're not all oversensitive?  That perhaps it's not just a coincidence that you always seem to have "frank discussions" with oversensitive people?

Or perhaps pause for a second to consider whether it's a bad time to call people out for using hyperbole one post after throwing out the hypothetical of an architect who "aimlessly followed the absolute best holes and called it quits when they got to the 18th?   Would it be better if this final location happened to be next a nice place for a cooler of beer and a fire pit?" 

Really?  Do you really think that's the best time?

[Dan Herrmann]

David - there would have been absolutely no advantage in terms of logistics at DR to have 18 finish near the first tee.   None.

Additionally, it provided Doak the ability to go across the road and build some killer holes.  Who the heck, apparently other than you, cares if the 18th requires a little walk back on the unpaved/natural road to get back to your cart to bring you back home? 

To borrow a line from ESPN's Chris Carter:  "Come On, Man!"

[JC Jones]

Tom, with due respect to your previous books, if you wrote a book explaining your routing of courses, it would be your book that interested me the most. I am keenly aware of my inability to judge a routing. I am also aware that I normally understand what I am learning when there are real life illustration (which is why all my books have pictures in them). In any event, I know JC says you are just teasing us, but I hope not.

I dont think he is intentionally teasing us, I just think he has great books in the works but his day job gets in the way (or a medallion toting coffee book does...).

One day when he hangs it up, my guess is we will see a lot of literature being produced and I hope this is one of them.  Like you, I can judge the quality and strategy of the holes in the ground and even the routing as completed but cannot read a topo nor determine given the land whether there was a better or different way to route the golf course.  I just dont understand routing until after the course is designed.

[Keith OHalloran]

JC, glad to see you are OK and didn't harm yourself! 

[Tom_Doak]

I dont think he is intentionally teasing us, I just think he has great books in the works but his day job gets in the way (or a medallion toting coffee book does...).

One day when he hangs it up, my guess is we will see a lot of literature being produced and I hope this is one of them.  Like you, I can judge the quality and strategy of the holes in the ground and even the routing as completed but cannot read a topo nor determine given the land whether there was a better or different way to route the golf course.  I just dont understand routing until after the course is designed.

I'm not teasing.  I have been trying to work on The Confidential Guide this weekend, and this discussion keeps getting in the way.  It's getting there.

The routing book will take a bit longer.  I'm going through projects one at a time with my different interns and associates, when they are in the office and don't have something more important to work on.  Their task is to understand the project well enough to explain it back to the reader, complete with overlapping routings on the topo map and on an aerial photo of the finished course, so that others may understand the various holes contemplated.

I think students and architects would benefit most from our producing a DVD version of it, with the base topo information for each course included, so they could try their own version(s) before going through mine.  However, I'm not certain whether the base topo is proprietary information for my clients, and I'm a bit concerned that if I go that far they'll start building knock-offs of my best work somewhere in China.

[John Kirk]

David Moriarty writes:

I was working with David Elvins' three rules above:  A course consists of 18 holes, each hole starts near where the last one finishes, the course returns to where it started.  These seem pretty basic. Of these the one I'd gladly discard is the first, but that rule seems to be the most enduring (with the proviso that 9 holes are allowed but not taken seriously.)

On sites well suited for golf, history suggests that the best courses manage to finish near where they started. Surely opportunities for great holes were missed along the way.  But great golf courses have a coherence and a cohesiveness and a balance that goes beyond the number of great holes.

- Did TOC sacrifice the quality of the golf holes to start and finish near the same place?  
- Did NGLA?  
- Did about every great course built in the past few centuries sacrifice the quality of the golf holes to start and finish in the same place?
- Is Sand Hills a compromised course because it manages to try and finish somewhere near where it started?

The answer is "I don't know" to all four questions.  Sure, there are a few benefits to starting and finishing in approximately the same place.  I think the benefits become less obvious where the start/finish occurs away from the clubhouse.

You don't really think it was just serendipitous that almost all of them happened to end up back near the start, do you?   Obviously "compromises" were made and great opportunities passed up.   We've all heard about how there were 137 million great golf holes at Sand Hills.  Would it be a better golf course if C&C had just aimlessly followed the absolute best holes and called it quits when they got to the 18th?

Compromises are likely (but not necessarily) made to return many, if not most, golf courses to their starting position.  But since compromises are likely made, isn't it fair to also suggest that our veteran architect probably made the right decisions at Dismal River, especially given that he decided the best golfing ground was away from the clubhouse?

I'm moving into thread killer mode.  It's pretty clear where everybody stands on these issues.  We're beating a dead horse.

[Tim_Weiman]

John Kirk,

I think Tom Doak makes an interesting point: the rule about starting and finishing in roughly the same place does not necessarily mean compromises were made.

The course that immediately comes to mind on this point is Ballybunion, where it appears the rule was followed and did so to provide close proximity to the town (I am referring to the original start, now the 6th hole).

Ballybunion is a small piece of property. It has the aesthetic advantage of sitting by the sea. But, you can't go that far inland to exhaust the good stuff - land with interesting contour.

Whoever did the routing (I am not sure we know who that is) didn't make any compromises that I am aware of.

I think it all goes back to the basic point that routing discussions ultimately come down to a site specific assessment.

I like the rules, but we don't hire an architect to simply follow a rule book, do we?

[John Kirk]

Tim,

I see I made a mistake, being inconsistent about compromises.  I intend to say compromises are likely made.  For you (and Tom) to say "compromises are not necessarily made" is saying the same thing.

[William_G]

David M:

I think Tom Doak actually earlier addressed the key point: he wasn't trying to win a routing contest. Rather, he was trying to design what made the most sense for this site. I agree with Tom.

Let me also add another point: ever since I have been participating at GCA and it's predecessor traditional golf.com there have been very few, if any, good threads about routing, IMO.

It is not something this discussion group does very well. I even question whether we could. Doing so would first take the generosity of project participants, certainly including the architect and maybe also the developer. They would have to share a lot of information. It would be a lot of work.

The same problem exists in golf architecture literature, I think. I have a pretty good library, but not one of my books really allows me to get inside the architect's head on routing decisions.

Do you have this one?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471434809/qid=1152908698/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6015765-2055130?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

ordered it, thank you

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,

I see I made a mistake, being inconsistent about compromises.  I intend to say compromises are likely made.  For you (and Tom) to say "compromises are not necessarily made" is saying the same thing.

John,

We are near the point of exhaustion on this thread. But, I'd like to mention one other thing in support of rules for routing. It isn't just starting and finishing in roughly the same place that typically makes sense, doing so right close to town was probably also very important in times past. Circa 1930, I doubt anyone in Ballybunion would have appreciated the site of the current #1 tee and #18 green.

Back then, not many people in town had cars and the extra walk would not have been fun, especially in the rain.

So, I guess the discussion has to be both site and time specific!

[William_G]

Tim,

I do think that timelessness is an important aspect of great architecture and other things I value greatly...this is not like an iPhone, even though I do value my phone, I value golf much more

thanks

[JC Urbina]

It was suggested that I take a look at this discussion and chime in. 

I thought I would comment on the idea about the golf course starting in one location and ending in another and as my long time idle growing up as a young kid, radio announcer Paul Harvey’s tag line always said, tell “ the rest of the story”

The trademark name I coined and Tom refers to was called "Base Camp Golf".  The idea as Tom described I formulated over a period of time but as he mentions I did talk to him about the idea many years ago.   We debated my topic for years and during our traveling days visiting sites and walking different properties I found that some of the most scenic and prettiest properties had inherent situations that needed to be worked out.  For example a few sites, one we toured one just north of Beechtree in Baltimore, had a view and land that was unbelievable but I thought had a dilemma, once you got down close to the waters edge with the routing you had to work your way out and back up. Another property in Canada would have had a series of holes that would have made any golf calendar but the problem was once you got to the bottom I believe by a river, you had to come back up and those holes would have been a hike.  I tried several routings and the last three holes were the worst; it could have been the first 15-hole golf course.  Routings are so hard, people can single out holes they like or dislike and want to change the routing, problem is they forget they may have to fix the other 17 holes along with the one they think is undesirable.   We laid out a routing in Cabo San Lucas and another property I looked at in Western Canada may have benefited from the Base Camp golf idea,  Apache Stronghold has so many holes sitting out their in the high desert you would never want to come home.

So after thinking about the problem I solved it with a very unusual answer.  Start at one location and end at another.  When we first toured the site at the Dismal River site with the developers from Denver and way before Jack was hired to do the first course, I saw the same possible dilemma starting to appear on the piece of property we were shown.  The dunes were awesome but trying to start and finish in the same place would have been tricky to figure out.  I have a photo of the Dismal River site in the snow when we visited years ago before any golf was conceived, the developers drove us up towards the western edge of the property looking east from one of the highest points,  I thought in my mind what if you started up here and ended down at the river.  That would be interesting but not very mainstream and some would see it as a problem.   Not sure if Tom remembers this but I leaned over to him riding in the back seat of the large SUV during our tour and as we finished up heading out of the gate  I pointed back with my thumb and said, Base Camp Golf!

 I could name a lot of golf courses where the last couple of holes are not the best ones in the routing as they try to work their way back up the hill.   I am sure some would see it as a routing fault.   One of my favorite golf courses in the world The National Golf Links of America as it sits today, has a finishing hole that is one of the best uphill holes ever conceived.

Tom is right he did use the remote start at Wilderness Valley long before we met but it started and ended in the same place, Base Camp golf was based on starting at one location and ending in another. The golf and the walk would be like a hiking trail and hence the name Base Camp.  What family would not want to take a hike?


In my first interview on GCA back in 2002, I posed some topics for discussion on the last page and one of them was Base Camp Golf, Please don’t get caught up in the name, but give the idea some thought, it was just a phrase, just like my corridor golf theme.  Put the clubhouse up on a big hill for the view and you potentiallyhave an instant routing problem.


David M

I understand that playing down hill for 18 holes would be repetitive and I appreciate uphill holes as much as the next person but I thought the idea would solve some of the negative discussions that playing up hill brings with it.  For that matter I think some of the most creative holes require a slope of at least 6- 8% uphill to stagger features that are the basis of strategic design, the 13th hole at the Valley Club as one example.   In the Base Camp idea I would have turned a few holes up hill to reduce the repetition.  Wandering aimlessly was never my intent, it was a solution to a dilemma that arose infrequently but never less was a factor in some  of the routings. The biggest problem today with many of the  Golden Age designs is the uphill holes, many of the classics greens had sloping greens that conformed with the natural terrain but at today's greens speeds require that the greens be unnaturally flattened out.  A dilemma in uphill holes.

Take a look at many of the links courses in Scotland, they took off down the coast away from the starting point and at some point someone said S&^%$  we got to get back from whence we came.  Are they good courses because they returned or could they have been better if they continued on?  At Prestwick or Troon, I would have been happy to jump on the train and return back to the car park when I was done., just saying.  It's just about the convenience.

The best routings as you state followed the standard rule with the idea of returning nines only because golf deemed it so.  What if the grand game started out with routings as I have  described in Base Camp golf and someone in the modern era thought,  wow if we returned at the 18th hole this destination golf would be so much easier.  Would it be easier for all the participants on here to understand,  All food for thought.


BTW,
Played City Park Nine yesterday in Fort Collins, Colorado with my son and another couple.  Great walk, affordable golf, packed with happy golfers of all ages and some of the most fun I have had on a golf course.  Care to have a “frank discussion” about this course? 


“Now you know the rest of the story, good day”

[DMoriarty]

Kevin, I appreciate your post and have considered your point many times, and one will continue to consider it. I've gone back and looked at all my posts in this thread and the last to try and determine what role I have played in all the hostility. I don't have clean hands in the matter.  I regret that a post to Mac in the last thread was unnecessarily hostile, for example.  I do know my intentions, though, and while I am no angel I have tried to stay on topic and engage in a productive discussion.

I invite you or anyone else to actually go back and look at my posts and others, and actually consider from where the hostility emanates.  But please try to do so without first assigning an ill motive to everything I write.  Whether you do or or not, I do appreciate your post and understand that at this point, some of this is on me.   But I don't think that ought to give everyone who disagrees with me carte blanche to flame me or to mis-portray well meaning posts as attacks.  They aren't attacks.

As for your example, I don't understand. I know my intent and didn't mean it as hostile, and I am not even sure why you think it hostile.  It wasn't about "an architect." It specifically referred to C&C at Sand Hills. Do you have a problem with the word "aimlessly?"  It was meant to convey not aiming for the first tee.  Is it the allusion to the fire pit at Dismal? The fire pit at Dismal sounds idyllic, so why would suggesting a similar stopping point for a hypothetical course be considered hostile?  I think you are inferring a hostile intent that just isn't there. Regardless, let me try to rephrase it because I think it is an interesting question and it was not meant to be rhetorical, hyperbolic, or hostile.

What if, instead of trying to return to the proximity of the first tee, C&C had instead followed a line of great holes to a remote and idyllic location?  Would Sand Hills be a better course?

[DMoriarty]

The answer is "I don't know" to all four questions.  Sure, there are a few benefits to starting and finishing in approximately the same place.  I think the benefits become less obvious where the start/finish occurs away from the clubhouse.

I agree that the benefits become less obvious when we take a clubhouse or clubhouse equivalent out of play.  Tom has said this a number of times and I understand it and agree with it, to a point.  I also think the benefit becomes less obvious when you accept that people are going to be running around in carts anyway, either when playing or before/after.  But of course these things bring up other issues that have been somewhat covered elsewhere.  I wonder if at Rock Creek, if the clubhouse had been remote, whether Tom and Eric wouldn't have gone with the open-jawed routing other than going with Eric's routing to make ends meet.   

OK, yes, compromises are likely made to return many, if not most, golf courses to their starting position.  But since compromises are always made, isn't it fair to also suggest that our veteran architect may have made the right decisions at Dismal River, especially given that he decided the best golfing ground was away from the clubhouse?

Sure it is fair, but I don't think I have ever said Tom made the wrong decisions at Dismal. I am at a loss as to why that is so hard for people to understand this.   

I'm moving into thread killer mode.  It's pretty clear where everybody stands on these issues.  We're beating a dead horse.

Probably a good idea. But here is one key issue we haven't discussed in a productive way, and that is what are these supposed "benefits" of returning to the first hole? I think there are such benefits, and could name some, but I am not entirely convinced that I understand exactly why they are so important.   That is one reason I have kept at this issue.  I am trying to understand it myself.

[Jud_T]

JC,

Thanks for chiming in.  I think the idea of base camp golf has merit, subject to the specific site and build brief.  Perhaps solving the returning loop puzzle is more traditional and has a certain level of difficulty due to its constraints.  But the constraints are due to clubhouse location and history as much as finding the best ground for golf.  I haven't visited Dismal, but frankly this specific topic makes me want to visit more.  

David,

I'm not sure if Sand Hills would be better If it were base camp golf (and it's a silly argument without walking another routing) but on the face of it I don't see a big difference between taking a cart out and back from the clubhouse and taking a shuttle from 18 green back to 1 tee, except that it offends some folks' sense of tradition.  Frankly the American game of golf often bears little resemblance to the way the game was played in GB&I.  This issue, again unique to each particular situation, is conceptually pretty far down the list of affronts to the traditional game IMO.

[Tim_Weiman]

David M:

One of the benefits on old courses had to be it made sense to start and finish close to town. At Ballybunion I suppose they could have built what Jim Urbina calls "Base Camp" golf by incorporating the land on which the Cashen course now sits.

But, I doubt people circa 1930 would have liked the idea. Not many people had cars and it would have been a long walk home, especially in the rain.