[Padraig Dooley]

Have you ever come across a course and felt the only thing for it was to tear it up and redo it from scratch?
I played a course a few months back, I'm not going to name it, but it was on a wonderful piece of terrain, yet the course itself was terrible, practically every approach shot was to an elevated green where you couldn't see the contours of the green nor readily figure out how to use the contours.
One of the par 5s has a broad sweeping fairway, quite long with the green on top of a dune, nicely contoured green but no way to tell where the flag was on the green from the approach. Yet, if the green was at the base of the dune instead, the potential for an exciting approach was quite high with the ability to watch the ball taking the contours to or away from the flag, whereas the green on top of the dune eliminated this.
This theme was quite common through out the course. Has there been many courses where a complete remodel was needed, implemented and successful? Or the opposite, where a complete remodel was done and didn't work out?

[David Wuthrich]

Yep, I have played many courses where I thought what were they thinking!

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

If this is the same course I'm thinking of, I think it could be a world class course if totally redone from scratch.

[Tom_Doak]

Honestly I do not recall ever seeing a mediocre course and thinking that it should have been a top-100 caliber course instead.


But, I try hard to limit my critique of courses to what the architect did, instead of suggesting things he did not do.  That might come as a surprise considering I'm in the business, but I don't really think about what I would do with a site unless someone asks me to.  If it's not a real job, it's just a lot of posturing about whose ideas are better.


I am curious, though, which course you think has that kind of potential.

[Ronald Montesano]

Pacific Dunes ...


Give Thanks for dolts like me

[Ronald Montesano]

I'll try to make amends. Take a course like Astoria, in northern coastal Oregon. It's a quirky-as-hell course, fun to play and photograph, but not a top-shelf course. Could it be?

[Tom_Doak]

I'll try to make amends. Take a course like Astoria, in northern coastal Oregon. It's a quirky-as-hell course, fun to play and photograph, but not a top-shelf course. Could it be?

Astoria's a cool place.  The property is pretty severe, I think generally they did pretty well with a routing, though I have never studied it on a map.


It doesn't have cool greens or sexy bunkering, so it could be better.  If you did that, and made it walking-only so you could eliminate the cart paths, it might be a contender for the top 100.


And then if you added one of a handful of designers' names to it, it would be a more likely contender, which just goes to acknowledge that a certain % of the top 100 conversation is not really about the architecture at all.

[Andrew Harvie]

I'll try to make amends. Take a course like Astoria, in northern coastal Oregon. It's a quirky-as-hell course, fun to play and photograph, but not a top-shelf course. Could it be?

Astoria's a cool place.  The property is pretty severe, I think generally they did pretty well with a routing, though I have never studied it on a map.


It doesn't have cool greens or sexy bunkering, so it could be better.  If you did that, and made it walking-only so you could eliminate the cart paths, it might be a contender for the top 100.


And then if you added one of a handful of designers' names to it, it would be a more likely contender, which just goes to acknowledge that a certain % of the top 100 conversation is not really about the architecture at all.

Having a name brand is a lot of what matters in rankings, which is pretty sad.

[Tom_Doak]

Having a name brand is a lot of what matters in rankings, which is pretty sad.

It is, which is why I mentioned it.


That said, some of that bias is deserved . . . there are a limited number of designers who have ever built a great set of greens, plus a handful of amateurs who managed it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There are plenty of examples of what they call "total blow ups" where a new course is built over an old one of low merit.  I did a remodel on a course near Kilgore a few years back.  When I first stepped on the site, my reaction was that the existing course was the worst course I had seen, on the best piece of property.  (They decided the local pro and an engineer were all they needed to lay it out.)  So, it happens.


Generally, it's hard to find a course where the original gca missed.....absolutely.....every.......good hole.  But, there are some.  I won't mention names, but one of the lesser lights of the Chicago School had hit on a design method (I think on plans, where those control points were easy to see because of lack of contour lines) of locating all tees, greens, and landing zones on hilltops, which wasn't great for the 99% who miss those ideal landing zones some or most of the time.  I was asked to renovate one of his courses, and my comment was that he had "missed every natural golf hole out there by at least a few yards."  So, that is a case of a professional architect who somehow built a course mostly lacking in merit.  (Although I think it is still out there)


And at least one signature architect has had 2 or 3 of his courses remodeled before they even opened, although I'm not sure exactly why, so big name architects aren't totally immune.

[Brock Lynch]

Honestly I do not recall ever seeing a mediocre course and thinking that it should have been a top-100 caliber course instead.


But, I try hard to limit my critique of courses to what the architect did, instead of suggesting things he did not do.  That might come as a surprise considering I'm in the business, but I don't really think about what I would do with a site unless someone asks me to.  If it's not a real job, it's just a lot of posturing about whose ideas are better.


I am curious, though, which course you think has that kind of potential.

Sandpiper?

[Pete_Pittock]

I'll try to make amends. Take a course like Astoria, in northern coastal Oregon. It's a quirky-as-hell course, fun to play and photograph, but not a top-shelf course. Could it be?

Astoria's a cool place.  The property is pretty severe, I think generally they did pretty well with a routing, though I have never studied it on a map.


It doesn't have cool greens or sexy bunkering, so it could be better.  If you did that, and made it walking-only so you could eliminate the cart paths, it might be a contender for the top 100.


And then if you added one of a handful of designers' names to it, it would be a more likely contender, which just goes to acknowledge that a certain % of the top 100 conversation is not really about the architecture at all.

I am a member at Astoria, but of a one-year, no renewal status.
      I can't see much of an improvement of the routing since there is a primary dune and two secondary 30' to 40' high dunes running N/S lengthwise along the course dividing it into three sections. Only one hole has fairway bunkering (#2) and I think about 5-6 could be added.  It should be noted that fairway separation used to be coastal pines about 10' high, bit the majority were blown down in the 1990s when hurricane force winds stayed in the area for more than two days. Greens are smallish but sufficiently contoured. Little could be improved on them, except maybe 7,8,12,14.
       Walking only? Major change of culture needed as there are probably 100/200 private carts with a membership which tends toward retiree and second coursers from Portland.
       Peter Jacobsen started a Mon/Tue pro/pro tournament called the Fred Meyer Challenge with a pro-am. The first year they scheduled the first pro-am day at Astoria, I think as a set lure for Jack to go salmon fishing. Arnie. Lee. Greg. Nobody went even medium low. Charter flight from PDX to Astoria, later over the Cascades to Bend for trout fishing and another pro-am

[Steve Salmen]

The first name that came to mind was Mirabel.


https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcnew/article/2001sep11b.pdf

[Ira Fishman]

Since when has it become so common to not name names on here? Happened on Putting Green Variety thread today too and several other recent threads.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

Since when has it become so common to not name names on here? Happened on Putting Green Variety thread today too and several other recent threads.

Ira

Ira,

Seems to me sensitivity has always been the rule of thumb when discussion kicks up around an unsavory topic like tearing out a course and starting over because its that bad.

But in the last few years seems like more and more are reluctant to share info on current projects/jobs based on potential poaching or other negative effects, which I can't blame them.

[Tom_Doak]

Since when has it become so common to not name names on here? Happened on Putting Green Variety thread today too and several other recent threads.

There must be at least ten architects now that, if I said I didn't like something they did on this board, I'd be hounded by trolls who accuse me of knocking down my competitors unfairly, being biased, etc. etc.  [some of those beyond criticism:  David Kidd, Bill Coore, Gil Hanse, Jim Engh, Jack Nicklaus]  Apparently it is impossible in some people's minds for me to just not like something they've done.


So, I'm not going to go out of my way to mention their work here, pro or con.  I guess that's fair since I could be accused of bias for bringing up what I don't like about the work of one, but not another.  When I write in The Confidential Guide I will say what I think of the courses I have seen, same as for everyone else.  But here it's a different matter:  I think it's too bad I can't say what I think, but I'm tired of dealing with the trolls.

[Mark_Fine]

Padraig,
Hope you are doing well.  I had a two week tour of Southern Ireland planned this summer canceled due to Covid.  I have a good friend who bought a second home down your way and I can't wait to get over there again, hopefully in 2021. Maybe we can catch up. 


The nature of golf course architecture is that most architects think they can do better or at least add to or improve what is there.  Designs constantly get changed and evolve and sometimes in a major way.  It always has and always will be that way.  I work mostly on "renovations/restorations" and I have reworked the work of many different architects. Some have been complete redos and sometimes it is changing the work of noted current architects.  One of my mentors is Gil Hanse and I have even reworked some of his past efforts.  The designs/changes made by all architects will always be subject to question and criticism and if nothing else normal evolution will take its toll and cause change. Also the goals and/or ownership of a club might change and the result might be a complete renovation.  We talked about that on an earlier thread regarding Raleigh CC.  It had recently been "restored" but was torn up again because of new ownership.  Someone felt that was justified and was willing to pay for it.  It is the circle of life (of a golf course) 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()