Build vs Find - Maybe this is the truest test?

[archie_struthers]

 




I think Tim hits it on the head as to the greens. Never played a great course that didn't have a superb set. Tying them in and finding the right green to match the difficulty of the hole is key. I would think it fairly easy to build really difficult greens. The trick is to find the correct balance of difficulty relative to the hole you are building. A difficult tee shot and approach matched with a brutally tough putting surface doesn't make for the best result. Too easy would be better.


Then there is the charge the architect has from his employer as to what kind of course they wanted. It would be interesting for Tom to comment on this . At what point in his career, if ever , where he had free reign to do whatever he wants?




 I'm guessing that very few architects don't have some governors on their work. Maybe Pete Dye was an exception to this.

[JMEvensky]

Wouldn’t the ultimate display of architectural genius be to do virtually nothing and have the course be tremendous?

Couldn't the opposite be equally true?


Riffing on Mark Fine's point that you don't really know what the land was like before the golf course--if you were unaware that the golf course was built on unsuitable land yet it turned out a Doak Scale 8 due to massive earth moving, etc., why wouldn't that also be architectural genius?

[Peter Pallotta]

To me, it seems that the 'builder' and the 'discoverer' have to do many of the same things and possess many of the same skills/talents -- i.e. be able to conceive/understand and make manifest on the ground an engagingly strategic test of golf IQ and of shot-making abilities that provides a variety of challenges & opportunities for golfers of different levels in an aesthetically pleasing package, one that suits the landscape and that doesn't look like hundreds of other golf holes, and that also functions well in a practical sense when it comes to drainage and maintenance.

As I say, both the good builder and good discoverer have to be able to *do* all these things; but the discoverer (unlike the builder) also has to be able to *see* these things already there, existing in latent form. That's the main difference, I think.

And that ability/process, while it is time consuming and challenging, brings with it significant rewards. 

Both types of architects might create excellent golf holes, as golf holes -- indeed, even two remarkably *similar* golf holes as far as most of us could tell, both of which achieve all the objectives stated above. But the discoverer will have a golf hole that, in the context of the course as a whole and even more so the broader context of *all* that surrounds the golf course, will be a better & more natural 'expression' of the landscape, and seem to be inherent in/to it.

And necessarily so: since that's precisely why the discoverer has opted to be a discoverer instead of a builder, ie because he/she is striving to provide the golfer with that kind of 'completeness of experience'.   

[Tim Martin]

Wouldn’t the ultimate display of architectural genius be to do virtually nothing and have the course be tremendous?

Couldn't the opposite be equally true?

Would Shadow Creek be the opposite?

[Mark_Fine]

Yes Paul Kimber - my bad!  Posting too early in the morning.

[JMEvensky]

Peter, the point I was trying to make (I think), is that a lay person would never know if the architect was a "builder" or "discoverer".


 Again, using Mark Fine's comments as a premise.

[Ian Andrew]

Just about every architect outside of Pete Dye would choose to start with great land because it gives you the best starting point for achieving something exceptional. The more interesting question to me is whether that will yield the best result with each designer. I don’t think it would and here’s why...

I’m going to start by defining what I believe is “finding a hole.” I see this as finishing the hole without moving any features.

It’s my own opinion that only a few select architects are capable of teasing an existing hole out of a great site. It doesn’t mean you can’t get great holes with a more aggressive approach. But I believe that doing "so little" is really hard and not in most people’s wheelhouse. I believe the vast majority of architects can’t leave enough natural ground untouched to meet that “minimal” level of input set out in this question. They have the internal instinct to control as much of the landscape as they can. While they may control the urge enough to maintain the framework of a great setting, they will inevitably shape the living daylights out of everything in between. The vast majority of architects prefer to make the landscape fit their view of how the ground should treat the player. Whether receptive, collective, repelling of flat out sinister, they like to control the bounce and run of the game. They all do, only the degree varies. The problem is once you begin to manipulate the site to suit your own needs, you begin to change the essence of what is there.

For the record, I’m not arguing that there should never be any manipulation, but my point is that once most begin to tinker, the instincts are too strong and the smallest undulations will give way to new larger features. There are very few exceptions to that rule. It becomes even more pronounced when architects highly value aspects like visibility or fairness that are used to justify larger scale changes to a great natural setting. It’s a slippery slope that can easily take the result from natural to imposed.

Doing as little as just “teasing out the hole” takes absolute conviction to a simplistic approach. Almost every architect in existence struggles to show that much self-control or finding the places capable of supporting that approach. It’s just easier to push some dirt around when needed.

My point is I see this as a more interesting question - as a philosophical choice - if it's between extremes. So I wanted to paint the extremes carefully and precisely to answer the question the way I saw it being most interesting.

It’s really hard to build a golf course out of nothing and that’s why I said everyone would intuitively choose a great site. How do I know that? Because I was tasked to build 18 holes out of a site that was almost 200 acres and absolutely dead flat with only two small sections of trees. You are given no starting point which makes it difficult to begin. But there is also an advantage. You can build the golf course in any style you want. You can create or re-create any hole type that you thought would be interesting to play. It all comes down to the limitations of you budget, of the natural drainage and your imagination. There’s something very exciting about that.

The advantage of a clean slate is complete freedom and no responsibility. The mindset is, “what do I feel like creating and how do I want it to play. The disadvantage of a great site is you get all the responsibility of having a perfect setting with minimal creative licence if you want to tease out the holes. It’s often a great measure of what you don’t do and restraint is often a key part of the process. If you’re serious about this approach, the mindset is simply, “don’t fuck it up.”

That’s why I would argue that most architects are better suited to begin with a blank slate. It’s not a better setting and not the ideal starting point, but it is the best opportunity for them to be free with their ideas and to build exactly the type of golf hole they always thought would be best. For many that’s an easier task than excepting what you’ve found.

Again, I'm intentionally comparing extremes to make a point about the different creative processes found in different personality types.

[Sven Nilsen]

Peter,
The routing is sooo important but great sites (not all) likely yield many possibilities.  When I think of great sites with different routings I always think of Cypress Point.  We all know Raynor’s original routing was not used by MacKenzie.  Which one would have been greater?  We will never know.
Mark

How do you know Mac didn’t use Raynor’s routing, or part of it?  We know 15 to 18 were routed prior to Mac showing up.  And there’s pretty good evidence most of the rest of the course was as well.


The only way you could make that statement is if you’ve seen Raynor’s routing.  Have you?

[Tom_Doak]

once most begin to tinker, the instincts are too strong and the smallest undulations will give way to new larger features. There are very few exceptions to that rule. It becomes even more pronounced when architects highly value aspects like visibility or fairness that are used to justify larger scale changes to a great natural setting. It’s a slippery slope that can easily take the result from natural to imposed.

Doing as little as just “teasing out the hole” takes absolute conviction to a simplistic approach. Almost every architect in existence struggles to show that much self-control or finding the places capable of supporting that approach. It’s just easier to push some dirt around when needed.

I agree completely with this.  There is always the temptation to change a feature here or there. 


The hard part is, once you start manipulating things, where do you stop?  And how do you tie things in, if your goal is to make it look like you didn't do anything?  You just keep making it harder and harder on yourself to get it done, and it's easier just to blow up everything from wall to wall.


And then it doesn't matter if you had a good piece of land to start with or not.   

[Tom_Doak]

Then there is the charge the architect has from his employer as to what kind of course they wanted. It would be interesting for Tom to comment on this . At what point in his career, if ever , where he had free reign to do whatever he wants?

Archie:


I think there has to be some general agreement at the beginning about what kind of course the client wants, or you're not going to get hired to begin with.


After that, a lot of my clients would probably say they gave me free reign, but some are freer than others; most of them wanted to have some input during the process.  I would say I had three, or four, projects where the client gave me free reign.


The first was my first course, High Pointe.  And I learned that having free reign was not necessarily the smartest approach, because after the course was done, when golfers came in and lodged their usual complaints, the owner took them seriously, because he hadn't been involved enough in the design process to just dismiss most comments as griping.  Ultimately, they changed some things on the course that I didn't think needed to be changed.


So, since then, I have tried to have clients involved enough to feel like the course was theirs, and defend it that way.


I did have two clients who weren't golfers at all, and just kept encouraging me to make the course fun.  And you could say those two turned out pretty well:  Barnbougle Dunes, and Ballyneal.


Tara Iti was a bit different.  Mr. Kayne was an avid golfer and wanted to be involved, but because he had wanted to tie a bonus payment into the course being ranked, I noted that he couldn't really stop me from doing what I thought was best, unless he wanted to just pay me the bonus!  So, he would come out and see what we were doing, but his comments were always positive.  Then, right at the very end, he said he thought we should make the 17th hole tougher than what we'd shaped!  I considered that for two or three days, agreed with him, and tore up the green just as the grass was sprouting in order to tighten the hazards around it and give it some more contour.


So, overall, I think you'd have to say the track record for giving me free reign has been pretty good.   

[William_G]

just as a trusted winemaker doesn't fkkk up the wine when given great grapes, and brings out the character of the grapes to the fullest


yet, we can't drink the great stuff all the time, or maybe we can, but I love it when I find someone who has produced something great out of nothing, and does it over and over again, like a great playground where it was once just a dump, TF? CGC? ML?


cheers

[Tom_Doak]

Peter, the point I was trying to make (I think), is that a lay person would never know if the architect was a "builder" or "discoverer".

Right after we built Pacific Dunes, Jim Urbina took Ron Whitten around and quizzed him on whether he thought certain features were natural or whether we had built them.  He guessed right less than half the time.


On the other hand, on most golf courses, even someone who doesn't play golf can tell pretty easily where the artificial work starts, because the builder didn't try very hard to hide his tracks.  Some shapers WANT YOU to know they were there.

[JESII]

Great post #31 Ian, thank you!

[Tim Martin]

Peter, the point I was trying to make (I think), is that a lay person would never know if the architect was a "builder" or "discoverer".

Right after we built Pacific Dunes, Jim Urbina took Ron Whitten around and quizzed him on whether he thought certain features were natural or whether we had built them.  He guessed right less than half the time.


On the other hand, on most golf courses, even someone who doesn't play golf can tell pretty easily where the artificial work starts, because the builder didn't try very hard to hide his tracks.  Some shapers WANT YOU to know they were there.

I would suspect the greens surrounds and tie-ins would be among the most difficult land forms to disguise as natural.

[Ira Fishman]

Great post #31 Ian, thank you!

One of the most informative posts I have read.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Great post #31 Ian, thank you!

One of the most informative posts I have read.
Ira

It is.
And, while I'm not sure, I think i know the course that Ian refers to, the one he built on flat land/a clean slate.
I played it often, years ago (when I was a beginning golfer and gca was only a glint in my eye).
And I played it with a group of better golfers, to varying degrees.
To a person it was our favourite course around (even though it was almost wholly lacking in 'great setting').
You know why? Well, I'm sure you can guess.
Great greens.
Not flashy. Not even overly contoured.
But, even to untutored eyes like ours, they made 'great sense' -- strategically, interest wise etc.
P

[JMEvensky]

Another thank-you to Ian.

[Ian Andrew]

Thanks Peter ... that means a lot to me.


Btw, I appreciate the other posts above too.
 

IA

[Sean_A]

Great post #31 Ian, thank you!

One of the most informative posts I have read.

Ira

Yes, great post!

I wish I took detailed photos of Burnham's 6th hole side by side with temporary. It was a perfect lesson in the differences between a discovered green and a built green to a personal plan. For one, it's very easy to see how built greens can quickly look and play samey.

Happy Hockey

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

Excellent thread subject, i'm loving the comments so far and Ian thanks for that last post as well, just terrific.

My only input here is to share some thoughts/observations about living in the Western US my whole life.  Born and raised in the Bay Area, but also lived for several years in the Spokane, WA area and now northern Utah.  I've logged tens of thousands of miles in various drives between those 3 places over the last 25-30 years and taken lots of little side roads to see different terrain, in addition to countless weekend drives.  Even long before I joined this site, I would constantly scan for interesting land forms, terrains and locations where I wonder if a great golf course could be built.  I have a few specific spots I've seen several times where i'm convinced, but i'm guessing I error on this side of thinking too many of these sites are actually good! 

P.S.  Drives my wife crazy because we can't go more than a hour or two before i'll start carrying on about how "wouldn't this spot  be perfect, you could fit in a nice little par 3 right there, yada, yada"....until she finally tells me to shut it! 

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
I think lots of us look at land in that manner.  I always remember my first time to Prairie Dunes.  As you get within several miles of the golf course (can't recall exactly how many), the terrain on both sides of the road starts to get really exciting.  You just know you are in for something special. 
Mark

[Ira Fishman]

I would not know a good site if it bit me the rear, but it is impossible for me to not speculate on drives in remote areas. This summer we drove from Buena Vista, Colorado to Denver on state highways. I must have found at least 3 Top 50 courses.


Ira

[Ally Mcintosh]

It was a great post by Ian but if he is correct with his lack of faith in the majority of other architects, it’s really disappointing.


It’s the one and only negative with having a team full of expert shapers. You have others to keep in line in order to make sure you do less.

[Thomas Dai]

I wish I took detailed photos of Burnham's 6th hole side by side with temporary. It was a perfect lesson in the differences between a discovered green and a built green to a personal plan. For one, it's very easy to see how built greens can quickly look and play samey.

Me too. That lay-of-the-land temp on the 6th was wonderful. In fact I think there were at times two different temps and both were delightful. And the seemingly lay-of-the-land 7th green, which presumably hasn't had much done to it other than maybe a bit of smoothing, is I've always thought an absolute gem.
atb

[archie_struthers]

 


Great analysis Ian of a really excellent subject (thanks Mark) ! When I first started reading Ians' post was ready to quibble mightily. As I got further into his latest post it just got better and better.