[Tom_Doak]

   Tom Doak,

How many NLE's do you have?  I know of two up in northern Mich which are NLE due to owner issues, definitely independent of the gca..   

Any others?   

It's a long list:


High Pointe
Black Forest [I think; they were still scraping along until last year]
Charlotte Golf Links [that's 3 of my first 5; it was only a 25-year lease so it was destined to close from the start]
Beechtree


The Sheep Ranch
Aetna Springs 9 holes [had it stayed open it would have been destroyed by fire this summer]
Bay of Dreams [finished but never really opened]
Wicked Pony [abandoned due to financing issues during the financial crisis in 2008 with nine holes grassed]
Simapo Island [finished but never opened due to Chinese government mandate]




So that's 20% of my new designs, gone.  Capitalism at its finest I guess.

[Sven Nilsen]

I think I have said similar things, i.e., take Ross's supposed 400 course list, many of which he never saw in person. 

Jeff:


Since you posited the above as fact, could you please tell us what Ross courses he never saw in person?


Another myth that needs to go by the wayside.


Sven

[Bernie Bell]

I think I have said similar things, i.e., take Ross's supposed 400 course list, many of which he never saw in person. 

Jeff:


Since you posited the above as fact, could you please tell us what Ross courses he never saw in person?


Another myth that needs to go by the wayside.


Sven

Sven, I don't pretend to any knowledge, but Donald Ross Society website says:

Of all the courses that bear Ross' name, either as original designs or as renovation projects, he probably never even saw a third of them, and another third he visited only once or twice. Given the constraints of train and car travel in those days, repeat visits were difficult to arrange. Though Ross was a voracious traveler, he did much of his design work from his home in a cottage behind the third green at Pinehurst. There he worked from topographic maps, drew up blueprints, and wrote simple but sharply-worded instructions that his construction crew knew how to implement.

[Tom_Doak]

Sven, I don't pretend to any knowledge, but Donald Ross Society website says:

Of all the courses that bear Ross' name, either as original designs or as renovation projects, he probably never even saw a third of them, and another third he visited only once or twice. Given the constraints of train and car travel in those days, repeat visits were difficult to arrange. Though Ross was a voracious traveler, he did much of his design work from his home in a cottage behind the third green at Pinehurst. There he worked from topographic maps, drew up blueprints, and wrote simple but sharply-worded instructions that his construction crew knew how to implement.

Bernie:


For what it's worth, I drew the routings for Sebonack and St. Andrews Beach before I had ever visited the property.


Sometimes there are a lot of features that won't show up on the topo maps -- views off site, specimen trees, native vegetation you want to save, etc. -- that you can't incorporate until you have walked the site a couple of times.  But sometimes there isn't much of that; Ross laid out a lot of courses on fairly open farm fields where a site visit probably wouldn't have made much difference.


I'm sure there were some sites Ross never saw, but I doubt it was as many as even the DRS thinks.  As Sven says, there are lots of myths in this business that just keep getting repeated.  That one may have been started by one of Ross's competitors.

[Tom_Doak]

That won't happen.  But, I wouldn't put it past Tom to taunt his protege's from the grave (or at least threaten to while he is alive) if they don't maintain his design principles when renovation his work when that time comes, LOL.

After the past couple of weeks, I think I will just write into my will the wish that Mark not be allowed to visit any of my courses after I'm gone, just to be on the safe side. 


I'm pretty sure there are at least a dozen of my former associates who will be very protective of the work as long as they are around, not least because it's their work, too. 

[Thomas Dai]

One aspect of the modern times vrs earlier generation periods in golf is going to be the amount of information whether writing, photos, videos etc of courses. A great resource for keeping courses etc as they ‘are’, ‘once were’, ‘should still be’ etc etc.
Indeed one thing I’d like to see is a couple of large photos on every tee of every hole of every course showing how the hole looked when it was built.
Atb

[Sven Nilsen]

I think I have said similar things, i.e., take Ross's supposed 400 course list, many of which he never saw in person. 

Jeff:


Since you posited the above as fact, could you please tell us what Ross courses he never saw in person?


Another myth that needs to go by the wayside.


Sven

Sven, I don't pretend to any knowledge, but Donald Ross Society website says:

Of all the courses that bear Ross' name, either as original designs or as renovation projects, he probably never even saw a third of them, and another third he visited only once or twice. Given the constraints of train and car travel in those days, repeat visits were difficult to arrange. Though Ross was a voracious traveler, he did much of his design work from his home in a cottage behind the third green at Pinehurst. There he worked from topographic maps, drew up blueprints, and wrote simple but sharply-worded instructions that his construction crew knew how to implement.

Jeff:


I think we've proved the DRS doesn't always know what they're talking about (Lake Wales and CC of Orlando being two examples).


Ross saw far more of his courses than people give him credit for.  I'm still waiting for someone to put together a list of courses that he never visited.


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
I am not going to get into another long drawn out battle over something none of us will ever be able to define definitively but Brad Klein does a nice job listing all the Ross designs that at least he was aware of, etc.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,
I am not going to get into another long drawn out battle over something none of us will ever be able to define definitively but Brad Klein does a nice job listing all the Ross designs that at least he was aware of, etc.

Mark:


I'm well aware of Brad's list.  It was composed a number of years ago and is fraught with the same errors that the DRS listing has had.  The DRS listing's last update, which was done with a goof bit of information I provided them, is the best resource today, but there is still a good bit of work to be done on it.


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
I am sure you did a good job with that new list.  So how many do you think he never set foot on?  I promise I won't argue with you 

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,
I am sure you did a good job with that new list.  So how many do you think he never set foot on?  I promise I won't argue with you 

Less than the mythical 1/3 number.  Search around Mark, I've discussed this before on this site.

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
Thanks.  I will try to look as it would be a nice number to know.  I always was a believer it was a very high number but never knew an exact amount.  Just an approximate.  I will look.  Thanks. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Mark:


If you're going to dive into the research on this, you might think about including a read of this thread in your efforts -


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65481.0.html


Sven

[Sean_A]

be better in 100 years than they are now?

I doubt Doak's courses will be better than not long after their opening. We are in the grip of old is good right now, but golf is a top of the wave, bottom of the swail thing. There are enough people in power who think they know best. When it comes to the best archies, sometimes the power people are right, much of the time they are not.

Happy Hockey

[Bernie Bell]

Sven,
I am not going to get into another long drawn out battle over something none of us will ever be able to define definitively but Brad Klein does a nice job listing all the Ross designs that at least he was aware of, etc.

Mark:


I'm well aware of Brad's list.  It was composed a number of years ago and is fraught with the same errors that the DRS listing has had.  The DRS listing's last update, which was done with a goof bit of information I provided them, is the best resource today, but there is still a good bit of work to be done on it.


Sven

Sven - If you've already done all that work, what do you think is the real number or % of courses Ross never or very briefly visited?  BPB

[Tom_Doak]

We are in the grip of old is good right now, but golf is a top of the wave, bottom of the swail thing. There are enough people in power who think they know best. When it comes to the best archies, sometimes the power people are right, much of the time they are not.

Probably the one thing I've got in my favor is that golf courses nowadays are marketed on the basis of the architect's name much more than they were previously, and I don't think the trend of wealthy people favoring designer labels is going to suddenly reverse.  Of course, that doesn't stop a future architect from claiming to be an expert in my work and changing it all around because that's what I would do, even though I've made clear in this thread that I would not do that . . .


That's one reason I made a book out of some of my posts here, so it will be harder to erase my thoughts on the subject.  But there will always be some dude who thinks he knows better -- especially where there is a financial incentive to try.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I think you are right about the "financial" incentive.  That drives a ton of unnecessary change.  I do, however, think most people mean well and want to do what is best for the golf course.  As pointed out, the biggest advantage courses have today is very clear documentation.  Very little guessing who did what when and why.  It is all very well laid out for most courses. 

[Ira Fishman]

We are in the grip of old is good right now, but golf is a top of the wave, bottom of the swail thing. There are enough people in power who think they know best. When it comes to the best archies, sometimes the power people are right, much of the time they are not.

Probably the one thing I've got in my favor is that golf courses nowadays are marketed on the basis of the architect's name much more than they were previously, and I don't think the trend of wealthy people favoring designer labels is going to suddenly reverse.  Of course, that doesn't stop a future architect from claiming to be an expert in my work and changing it all around because that's what I would do, even though I've made clear in this thread that I would not do that . . .


That's one reason I made a book out of some of my posts here, so it will be harder to erase my thoughts on the subject.  But there will always be some dude who thinks he knows better -- especially where there is a financial incentive to try.

Tom,


Before Pac Dunes, you probably did not have much of a brand name. The same is true for C&C before Sand Hills. And I am sure the pattern holds back through at least Colt. Unlike literature, music, art, or even sports, golf does not seem to have middle men whose job it is to discover, or at least promote, potential stars. So how does a Keiser take a bit of a leap of faith on you, Youngscap on C&C, Hollins on MacKenzie, etc? I am sure that each has its own backstory but are there any common elements?


I probably should have started a separate thread, but already typed.


Thanks,


Ira

[Sean_A]

We are in the grip of old is good right now, but golf is a top of the wave, bottom of the swail thing. There are enough people in power who think they know best. When it comes to the best archies, sometimes the power people are right, much of the time they are not.

Probably the one thing I've got in my favor is that golf courses nowadays are marketed on the basis of the architect's name much more than they were previously, and I don't think the trend of wealthy people favoring designer labels is going to suddenly reverse.  Of course, that doesn't stop a future architect from claiming to be an expert in my work and changing it all around because that's what I would do, even though I've made clear in this thread that I would not do that . . .


That's one reason I made a book out of some of my posts here, so it will be harder to erase my thoughts on the subject.  But there will always be some dude who thinks he knows better -- especially where there is a financial incentive to try.

Your book may help, but honestly, I think it is the nature of humans to screw with stuff. Which is why I don't believe the long ball is the over riding reason for changing so many courses today. It's an excuse to make changes just as health and safety is. Not that it matters much to me 😎. I will be long dead.

Happy Hockey

[Mike_Young]

We are in the grip of old is good right now, but golf is a top of the wave, bottom of the swail thing. There are enough people in power who think they know best. When it comes to the best archies, sometimes the power people are right, much of the time they are not.

Probably the one thing I've got in my favor is that golf courses nowadays are marketed on the basis of the architect's name much more than they were previously, and I don't think the trend of wealthy people favoring designer labels is going to suddenly reverse.  Of course, that doesn't stop a future architect from claiming to be an expert in my work and changing it all around because that's what I would do, even though I've made clear in this thread that I would not do that . . .


That's one reason I made a book out of some of my posts here, so it will be harder to erase my thoughts on the subject.  But there will always be some dude who thinks he knows better -- especially where there is a financial incentive to try.

TD,Don't forget the ODG guys who are glad to make the changes a membership wishes in the name of the ODG of original course. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()