News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Fine

  • Total Karma: -5
Ira,
Be careful what you say or suggest here as there are many who frequent this site and embrace what they read.  I can see it now, some committee member telling me, “Well on Golf Club Atlas, they said we shouldn’t worry about trying to return a course to its original intent.”  Basically that is telling a committee - who cares what was there before or how it has been bastardized by committees in the past.  It doesn’t matter and there is no reason to try to restore it as it is a “fool’s errand” to try to do so  :'(


Committees and architects will just do as the please with no worries about the past. 


I am sure you will say, just return it to what was there before and don’t change or move anything.  That is easier said then done as we have discussed many many times.  Courses naturally evolve.  At what point in time do you “restore” the course to?  That is very subjective.  People talk about the course’s “high water mark”.  Read Bill Coore’s comments about that for Pinehurst #2 as just one example. 


Also remember most here agree very few courses deserve pure restoration.  Very few are perfect designs that should have a dome over them.  But that doesn’t mean complete disregard for the past.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2021, 07:53:02 PM by Mark_Fine »

Ira Fishman

  • Total Karma: 2
Mark,


My post 39 views a PH2 as the exception that proves the rule. And if any Green Committee were to cite or rely upon my view as a reason to screw up a course, they have bigger problems than imaginable. I have never pretended to be anything more than a curious but rank Gca amateur and no amount of research that I conduct will change that fact.


Ira

Peter Pallotta

« Last Edit: March 21, 2021, 10:25:20 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Sean_A

  • Total Karma: 0
Damn VK. I missed your few lines about the importance of the walk.

If it's tough to walk it's tough to play. If it's a grueling walk it's grueling to play.

These words sum up my thoughts on the walk quite well. Controlling the walk over tough land is a lost art of design because of the codification of golf. The ideas of necessary total par, number of each par, total yardage, no blind shots etc etc. This is why I like old hilltop courses so much. I am consistently impressed by how walkable these courses are despite harsh terrain.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Mark_Fine

  • Total Karma: -5
Sean,
I love to walk and those courses that are designed for it and allow it are extra special.  But we both know, on some sites/locations and for some golfers walking is not a real option.  I guess the alternative is no golf or no golf course. 

Ken Moum

  • Total Karma: 0

Einstein was correct about the physical world, but I doubt Charlie Parker or Toni Morrison or Banksy based their work or intent on the physics that led to semiconductor chips.

Ira


That strikes a chord with me because my father was a very good jazz saxophonist and an educator.


I didn't inherit his ear, so my music career went nowhere but we did talk about jazz and, like a lot of improvisation masters, he said understanding the "rules" were what made it possible to play coherent jazz.  Even if you couldn't think about them while playing.


When he was teaching school he played in a trio with a banker (drummer) and a weil driller who played Chordovox and talked like the characters in the movie Fargo.


I asked him why he liked playing with the well driller.  He said, "Because he doesn't make any mistakes." Then added something like, "When you're playing jazz, you need someone who'll be where you expect them to be when you come back to the melody."


Parker, Morrison and Banksy never wandered off into the wilderness without some kind of map.
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Jeff_Brauer

  • Total Karma: 3
Damn VK. I missed your few lines about the importance of the walk.

...... Controlling the walk over tough land is a lost art of design because of the codification of golf. The ideas of necessary total par, number of each par, total yardage, no blind shots etc etc.

Ciao


I will challenge this idea, believing it is sort of a generalization.  I am sure we could find many modern courses that used topo quite well to make it an easy walk.  I think everyone is aware of the problems of routing severe uphill holes, etc.  It's probably just a much a rule as the other things you listed. 


I'm with Mark F - we can find examples of good and bad in all eras.  Where your generalization is closer to right is the general acceptance of cart use does allow us to take tees to higher hilltops, while leaving greens lower for visibility or whatever other rule we might have.  But, immediately, Ross's Northland CC comes to mind.  When he remodeled it, he took away several flatter lake front holes, and moved them uphill over 100 feet to the other side of the course.  It was the land he was given (I believe the lake front became too valuable for golf, and the sale of that land may have paid for the entire project and more, but just a guess)


So you have an awkward uphill second and less awkward downhill 16th.  It is what he was given, just like it is for all of us.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Sean_A

  • Total Karma: 0
Damn VK. I missed your few lines about the importance of the walk.

...... Controlling the walk over tough land is a lost art of design because of the codification of golf. The ideas of necessary total par, number of each par, total yardage, no blind shots etc etc.

Ciao


I will challenge this idea, believing it is sort of a generalization.  I am sure we could find many modern courses that used topo quite well to make it an easy walk.  I think everyone is aware of the problems of routing severe uphill holes, etc.  It's probably just a much a rule as the other things you listed. 


I'm with Mark F - we can find examples of good and bad in all eras.  Where your generalization is closer to right is the general acceptance of cart use does allow us to take tees to higher hilltops, while leaving greens lower for visibility or whatever other rule we might have.  But, immediately, Ross's Northland CC comes to mind.  When he remodeled it, he took away several flatter lake front holes, and moved them uphill over 100 feet to the other side of the course.  It was the land he was given (I believe the lake front became too valuable for golf, and the sale of that land may have paid for the entire project and more, but just a guess)


So you have an awkward uphill second and less awkward downhill 16th.  It is what he was given, just like it is for all of us.


Mark


I am sure you are right, there is surely good and bad in all eras of design. Its just that many of the hilltop courses I admire were not enslaved to the rules of modern design. So today, these old hilltop courses are considered quirky, short, not fit for the modern game etc. I don't think many archies would take these sights on without massive expansion and using carts to cover the expansion...something which would strip the charm from these designs. I tend to look at these old hilltoppers as good....no need for a qualifier.


Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Jeff_Brauer

  • Total Karma: 3

Sean, I do not feel "enslaved to the rules of modern design."  A lot of what has become more or less standard is probably still subjected to individual review on any specific site by gca's.  And, a lot of what has become more or less standard has become that precisely because several hundred years of design flubs and successes have taught us that.  As I always say, its good to break long held rules occasionally because they don't always apply.  However, I feel like if I break them too many times per course, I know it will get called goofy golf or some such.  I mean, avoiding blind holes is a reaction to golfer preference. Including them because they were more common in "the old days" is a false design criteria.


At any rate, I am having trouble picturing your ideas of hilltop courses.  Do you have any specific courses or holes in mind?



Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jason Topp

  • Total Karma: 1

The objective factors are table stakes considerations.  There is some opinion in each of these but they can be objectively measured. 

1. Safety
2.  Drainage/conditioning - architect does not maintain but the design should allow course to be maintained without unnecessary expense.   
3.  Variety - hole lengths taking into account ground and weather conditions, shots favored, advantage associated with length.
4.  Tempts good player while allowing lessor player to avoid hazards at the cost of an extra stroke to get to the green. 
5.  Walkability.  I guess this is opinion based but can be objectively measured.   To me a great golf course must be reasonably walkable.   There are good financial reasons for not doing so but I believe the quality of the course sufffers.




6.  I think financial success is a factor to be considered as well.   Ultimately, a design is an investment in a business.  Return on that investment has to be a consideration even if that return is affected by many more factors than course design.

Sean_A

  • Total Karma: 0

The objective factors are table stakes considerations.  There is some opinion in each of these but they can be objectively measured. 

1. Safety
2.  Drainage/conditioning - architect does not maintain but the design should allow course to be maintained without unnecessary expense.   
3.  Variety - hole lengths taking into account ground and weather conditions, shots favored, advantage associated with length.
4.  Tempts good player while allowing lessor player to avoid hazards at the cost of an extra stroke to get to the green. 
5.  Walkability.  I guess this is opinion based but can be objectively measured.   To me a great golf course must be reasonably walkable.   There are good financial reasons for not doing so but I believe the quality of the course sufffers.




6.  I think financial success is a factor to be considered as well.   Ultimately, a design is an investment in a business.  Return on that investment has to be a consideration even if that return is affected by many more factors than course design.

Jason

All those points strike me as subjective in the broad picture except for RoI.

Ciao
« Last Edit: March 25, 2021, 04:44:03 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Tom_Doak

  • Total Karma: 10

Jason

All those points strike me as subjective in the broad picture except for RoI.

Ciao



RoI can be just as subjective as any of the others!  ;)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Total Karma: 3

The objective factors are table stakes considerations.  There is some opinion in each of these but they can be objectively measured. 

1. Safety
2.  Drainage/conditioning - architect does not maintain but the design should allow course to be maintained without unnecessary expense.   
3.  Variety - hole lengths taking into account ground and weather conditions, shots favored, advantage associated with length.
4.  Tempts good player while allowing lessor player to avoid hazards at the cost of an extra stroke to get to the green. 
5.  Walkability.  I guess this is opinion based but can be objectively measured.   To me a great golf course must be reasonably walkable.   There are good financial reasons for not doing so but I believe the quality of the course sufffers.
6.  I think financial success is a factor to be considered as well.   Ultimately, a design is an investment in a business.  Return on that investment has to be a consideration even if that return is affected by many more factors than course design.


Jason,


You are getting sort of close to my approach, but agree with Sean that these can be considered facts, as long as the reviewer accepted the premises as facts, or at least objective factors.  In my master plan reports (and "Practical Designs" book, I figure a hole is good enough, unless I can show it doesn't meet certain criteria, notably:


·       Aesthetics
·       Length – With multiple tees allowing all golfers to play comfortable yardages.
o   Width - Wide corridors that reduce lost balls. Generally, tree to tree width is considered narrow at <200 feet, average at 225 feet, generous at 250 feet, wide at 275 feet, and at 300 or more feet, safe for adjacent land uses.
·       Challenge – But, just enough to allow golfers to shoot about their normal score.
·       Playability - Avoid unplayable shots for “D” level golfers, like forced carries, extremely small or narrow targets, etc.
·       Target and Hole Visibility - For strategy, safety, and comfort, especially for public courses that expect new and “occasional golfers”
·       Receptive targets – i.e., greens and fairways that hold.
·       Agronomic Conditions – Including drainage, adequate sunlight and air circulation that support good turf.
Obviously, some of these are subjective, but by narrowing down the subjectivity, I believe they become more objective.  And, you not only have to agree to the rules, but IMHO, know that there are some spectacular examples of holes that break these rules and are still good.  However, they tend to confirm the rule in most cases.
And, of course, we think a routing is one that has 18 good holes, conforming generally to the rules above.  I guess a passing routing would be 70%, or at least 13 out of 18 good by definition.  Plus, some other things as well.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach