Build vs Find - Maybe this is the truest test?

[Peter Pallotta]

"Adding:  sorry Peter, I might have just contradicted your last point there."

But of course you would -- that's the *next* step in the evolution! And a bridge too far for the likes of me 

[Tom_Doak]

"Adding:  sorry Peter, I might have just contradicted your last point there."

But of course you would -- that's the *next* step in the evolution! And a bridge too far for the likes of me 

Well, I think you were comparing golf course architecture and writing, but there is a big difference between the two in terms of capital investment, and also environmental impact.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I am sneaking in some posts and getting yelled at in the process     But just quickly to respond, aren’t you in some ways validating my point on the other thread about aesthetics being the most critical aspect of most great designs?  It is really hard to get there (especially economically) if you aren’t starting with an amazing site.  However, sooo many architects don’t have that luxury are stuck with making the best of a farmer’s cornfield or some open land near an airport.  Maybe they won’t be able to get the course to a Doak 8 or 9, but many do a remarkable job to get those sites to something worthy of more acclaim and attention then they often receive.  So back to my original point, if you start with a site that is an 8 or 9 and end up with a golf course of that same pedigree, did you do a better job than the architect who started with a cow pasture and built solid 7? 


Back to cooking 😉
Mark

[Kalen Braley]

By strict definition, I think every course is "built", because the greens, tee boxes, fairways, etc sure as hell aren't naturally occurring.

For this exercise, perhaps establish a ratio of found vs built to determine which category a course is placed in? For example, there is no doubt Kingsbarns or Chambers is in the build category, but for Pine Valley or Oakmont is there an approx % that could/should be used as a benchmark/cutoff? 

Found vs Built
90% vs 10% ?
75%  vs 25% ?
66% vs 33% ?
51% vs 49% ?

Do we need to take a poll to establish this? 

P.S.  Dinner at our place this year as well.  Thankfully i only have setup duties and perhaps to peel and mash the taters.

[JESII]

There’s a lot here I’d like to get into, especially the PV part, but to Marks last (and really his first, and the thread premise) question...wouldn’t you rather play the 8/9 course than the 6?


That’s really the answer to me. The end result is most important...the rest is kind of inside baseball to me.


We could compare this to other walks of life...would you rather have Zach Johnson’s golf career (he built a 7 career out of 3 level talent) or Mickelson who built a 9 career out of 9 talent?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
I am sneaking in some posts and getting yelled at in the process     

Yes, that's part of my plan.      You started the thread.

However, sooo many architects don’t have that luxury are stuck with making the best of a farmer’s cornfield or some open land near an airport.  Maybe they won’t be able to get the course to a Doak 8 or 9, but many do a remarkable job to get those sites to something worthy of more acclaim and attention then they often receive.  So back to my original point, if you start with a site that is an 8 or 9 and end up with a golf course of that same pedigree, did you do a better job than the architect who started with a cow pasture and built solid 7? 

You moved the goalposts pretty quickly there, from Bayonne to a farmer's cornfield.


There aren't many solid 7's built under those conditions, and that is part of my point here.  It seems like every designer wants to be proclaimed as a genius, and they won't be happy to just take what they are given and make it better.  Instead, they try too hard for a goal they'll fail at, because they think they have to be better than everything around them in order to succeed.  You can build a very good 5 or 6 on the Doak Scale on a non-awful site without breaking the bank, and that should usually be the goal.  The Jockey Club, mentioned earlier, is a really good example of that.


If the client really wants something a lot better than that, then he should probably spend a little more time looking for land, instead of listening to the first guy who tells them he can turn the cornfield into a top 100 course if you give him enough $$$.

[Tom_Doak]

By strict definition, I think every course is "built", because the greens, tee boxes, fairways, etc sure as hell aren't naturally occurring.

For this exercise, perhaps establish a ratio of found vs built to determine which category a course is placed in? For example, there is no doubt Kingsbarns or Chambers is in the build category, but for Pine Valley or Oakmont is there an approx % that could/should be used as a benchmark/cutoff? 

Most of Sand Hills' greens are actually found and only micro-shaped; same for a lot of them at Dismal River and St Andrews Beach.


Generally, though, my definition of minimalism is that we have to shape greens and bunkers, but I'm trying to limit earthmoving or extensive shaping in fairways to maybe a couple of spots, the way everyone used to in the Golden Age, and, honestly, right up until Pete Dye.  The earthmoving Pete did at Crooked Stick raised the bar, although not really because not many people recognized what he'd done there.


If you use that standard, then you're pretty much going to say everything before 1970 is "found", and everything after 1970 [except by a few favored architects] is "built", and how does that promote discussion?


I was trying to tease out which projects were pushing the limits for their day and age.  Yale and Banff and Lido, everyone knows about, but most people don't recognize that Pine Valley and Oakmont were daring for their day.


Today, it's pushing the limits to NOT do that kind of stuff.

[Ira Fishman]

As a general matter, how much earth did Colt and Ross move?


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I meant I was getting yelled at for posting by my wife not by you     The turkey is in the oven so I am good for now but guests are coming soon.


I am not sure I moved the goal posts.  I know you understand the gist of what I am asking.  I wonder what Doak rating you would give a Talking Stick North or a Desert Forest (DF has been sadly changed from what was once there so maybe that is not the best example) or Fazio’s Estancia or Weiskopf’s Troon North but those courses were designed on barren desert with not a lot going on.  I believe they were all truly built.  Those sites weren’t cornfields, they were cactus fields 


Jim,
We would all of course rather play 8’s and 9’s and 10’s and most on this site are probably spoiled in that regard. But that is not where the FAR MAJORITY of golf is played.  I once read that the average golfer plays 1 or less Top 100 golf courses in their lifetime.  I wonder what the average number is for those who frequent this site.  My guess would be well above that but maybe only 10 (maybe 20 if we are lucky).  As such most are thrilled to get out and play a Doak 6 for $35 a round that was built on a mediocre piece of property by an architect with exceptional vision and creativity. 


I am not sure what most architects would do if they were blessed with a piece of property like at Bandon Dunes.  It is really hard say but I am sure some of them would surprise us in a very positive way.  For me personally, I would love to trade one of my “renovation projects" at a Doak 3 property with Tom for one of his 8 or 9 level sites and see how we both do.  I am willing to bet that my course would end up higher on the Doak scale than his     So back to the original point of this thread - If in this hypothetical case I end up with a Doak 8 on that site and Tom ends up with a Doak 7, who is the better architect?  I would argue probably not me. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The threads premise makes perfect sense. To build a great course on a bad site may be the ultimate test for an architect.

Doesn't it say more about the budget than the architect? Legitimately asking.

TPC Sawgrass wasn't a great site, but many like the course that was built there. How much was "there" versus "moved/put there" by Pete?

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
Budget considerations is a great point and a huge factor.  There are tons of variables that impact the outcome of any project (most of which the golfers will never know).  Almost all of my experiences are with restorations and renovations, however, in some ways I think these projects can be much more difficult than building a new course from scratch. 

[Tom_Doak]

For me personally, I would love to trade one of my “renovation projects" at a Doak 3 property with Tom for one of his 8 or 9 level sites and see how we both do.  I am willing to bet that my course would end up higher on the Doak scale than his     So back to the original point of this thread - If in this hypothetical case I end up with a Doak 8 on that site and Tom ends up with a Doak 7, who is the better architect?  I would argue probably not me. 

Many people have already come to that conclusion, and I doubt any of my clients would be okay with making the trade just so I can prove it to your satisfaction. 

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I respect your confidence and of course we will never know (unless they let me go back in a fix up that one in CO)   


But getting back to the topic, the architects who build something great from nothing deserve strong accolades. 


Mark

[Adam Lawrence]

As a general matter, how much earth did Colt and Ross move?


Ira

It's not a question of how much earth they moved really. There were no huge bits of fairway grading back in the Golden Age -- no-one was removing a hilltop to create visibility, for example. But there was a lot more work done than we now often think. Tom talked about Pine Valley, where the clearance of the vegetation would basically have destroyed the surface contour; the same must have been true, for example, for Colt at St George's Hill -- we have pretty good descriptions from Darwin and others about the scale of that build. Additionally, Colt did some quite large earthmoves, by the standards of the day, to build some of his greens. If you look around you can often still see where the material came from. The eighth at Swinley Forest is a good example, there is a substantial pit visible from the back of the green which must have been where he got the muck to build the putting surface from. Or the eighth at St George's Hill; the tee complex of the ninth is clearly constructed. Another, less famous example, is the par three seventeenth at Canterbury GC in Kent, a fine par three built on basically bland ground. Colt dug out a load of muck to the side of the green and used the fill to build it up, and the remnants of the earthworks created a quarry effect, above which he sited the eighteenth tee. Very clever.

[Ira Fishman]

As a general matter, how much earth did Colt and Ross move?


Ira

It's not a question of how much earth they moved really. There were no huge bits of fairway grading back in the Golden Age -- no-one was removing a hilltop to create visibility, for example. But there was a lot more work done than we now often think. Tom talked about Pine Valley, where the clearance of the vegetation would basically have destroyed the surface contour; the same must have been true, for example, for Colt at St George's Hill -- we have pretty good descriptions from Darwin and others about the scale of that build. Additionally, Colt did some quite large earthmoves, by the standards of the day, to build some of his greens. If you look around you can often still see where the material came from. The eighth at Swinley Forest is a good example, there is a substantial pit visible from the back of the green which must have been where he got the muck to build the putting surface from. Or the eighth at St George's Hill; the tee complex of the ninth is clearly constructed. Another, less famous example, is the par three seventeenth at Canterbury GC in Kent, a fine par three built on basically bland ground. Colt dug out a load of muck to the side of the green and used the fill to build it up, and the remnants of the earthworks created a quarry effect, above which he sited the eighteenth tee. Very clever.

Adam,


Many thanks. I would have guessed Number 8 at St. George’s Hill but not Number 8 at Swinley Forest. Please do not disillusion me by informing me that Number 10 at St. George’s Hill is built although it is such a great hole that it really does not matter.


And Ross?  The relative amount of built v found?


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I trust you know that Ross never even set foot on roughly 1/3 of all the courses he designed.  We or at least I call those “topo” courses.  He was given a topographical map of a site and mailed in a design/routing.  It was then up to someone else to build it.  On roughly another 1/3 he might have been on site once or twice and on the last 1/3 he spent quite a bit of time.  His style and design preferences changed over time as well.  I couldn’t begin to tell you how many holes he built vs found but he was a Greenskeeper as well as an Architect and had a practical nature about him.  Like all architects be built a lot of holes but he was concerned about cost and maintenance and utilized the land and existing features probably as well as anybody did during his career.