Discovered vs Designed - Which types are generally regarded as the best ones!

[Kalen Braley]

Given Masters week typically generates a lot of threads, I thought I would start one based on what I recently found on the Masters site.

I was looking at hole histories and the Green Jackets have this to say this about 13:

"More discovered than designed, this hole was originally an open field. Virtually all that Alister MacKenzie had to do was to build a green on the far side of the stream."

https://www.masters.com/en_US/course/hole13.html

I was thinking discovered vs designed (aka built) is an interesting premise that I certainly haven't fully explored. I was wondering if we were to compile a list of generally accepted best holes in the world, are they typically discovered (found) or designed (built)?  Or perhaps a balance of both?  I understand many holes could be debated as to how much work was required to transform them into golf holes, so for this discussion I was hoping we could agree to some type of consensus for "mostly discovered" vs "mostly built"

P.S. 2 other examples come to mind - Pebble Beach 8, and Cypress 16, both of which that seem to be in the "discovered" category, and are both oft mentioned in the best holes in the world discussion along with ANGC 13.

Thoughts?  Examples?

[Tom_Doak]

Kalen:


This is true of most courses, although I would use the term "Built" instead of "Designed".  [Leaving something alone is part of design.]  I will use a couple of my most familiar courses for examples:


PACIFIC DUNES


Discovered:  13, 16, 7, 10, 18, 9, 6, 2
Built:  8, 17, 11, 4th green




BALLYNEAL


Discovered:  3, 4, 8, 12, 16
Built:  7, 9, 11, 14, 17




I have noticed on reflection that sometimes the "built" holes surpass the "discovered" ones, because I tend not to want to embellish a discovered hole too much.

[Kalen Braley]

Thanks for the post Tom. 

Having played both, PD certainly has a nice mix of my personal faves between your found vs built selection.  I think 7 just may be my #1 fav.

However with Ballyneal, I prefer by a wide margin the discovered list of holes to the built list, with the exception of 7, which i'm a bit surprised at.  I know you built that one-of-a-kind E green, but I was thinking most of everything else was basically as you found it.  Assuming that most greens need a fair amount of dirt moved to get what you want I sort of excluded that part in my head, but perhaps that's not a good rule of thumb.

[Tom_Doak]

I know you built that one-of-a-kind E green, but I was thinking most of everything else was basically as you found it.  Assuming that most greens need a fair amount of dirt moved to get what you want I sort of excluded that part in my head, but perhaps that's not a good rule of thumb.

Indeed, the rest of the hole was undisturbed, as opposed to #2 or #17 where we had to do a ton of work in the fairways.  But we changed the green site so much [even though it did not involve much earthmoving] that I would certainly say it was "designed" rather than "found".  I don't think many other architects would have thought of that green in that location.

[Tommy Williamsen]

When I think of discovered, I immediately go to 14 at Shinnecock. The first time I played, I thought, "This hole designed itself."
Although not as well known, 10 at Ballyhack was just built.
I remembering asking Bill Coore about the 13th green at Sand Hills. He told me, "We just smoothed out the ground and threw grass seed down."

[Adam Lawrence]

Niall C and I had an argument about built v found on the Coul Links thread, Niall saying that found basically didn’t exist.


I think this is a bizarre position. How was Sand Hills anything but a found course? How could Machrhanish Dunes, where literally the only disturbance of the surface was to build greens and tees and dig out bunkers not be considered a found course?

[Tom_Doak]

Niall C and I had an argument about built v found on the Coul Links thread, Niall saying that found basically didn’t exist.


I think this is a bizarre position. How was Sand Hills anything but a found course? How could Machrhanish Dunes, where literally the only disturbance of the surface was to build greens and tees and dig out bunkers not be considered a found course?

Most greens are built, so if that's enough to disqualify a hole as "found", you won't find many.  I hit balls around Sand Hills before they built anything out there, and by my count, there were 14 "found" greens, but even on really good sites you are lucky to get more than a couple that you really don't have to shape.


I count it as "found" if all I have to do is shape a green and dig some bunkers.

[Thomas Dai]

The Ballyliffin story I’ve mentioned before.
Chatting with an old local gent in the Clubhouse about both courses. His summary ..... the Glashedy was made by lots of men with lots of big machines. The Old course was first laid out by a man with a hand-mower.
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

I think the real feather in the caps of today's award-winning architects is their ability to so effectively blend the discovered and the built -- a quality that golden age courses have (at least in part) because of their old age and the passing of time. In other words: skill, talent & technique are nowadays able to seamlessly mimic the effect of natural & 'evolutionary' processes -- making it hard for us to distinguish one from the other. Max Behr would be very impressed, and I think he'd feel quite gratified-justified, ie his long ago (and often convoluted) theories about which courses golfers like best and why seem to have been proven right by the critical & commercial success of our top new naturalistic courses. And it also goes to show that 'minimalism' and 'naturalism' are not necessarily synonymous.

[mike_beene]

Kingsbarns is the first course which comes to mind as built. However, my unskilled eye would not have figured it out. The Old Course seems the other extreme. Those are two of my favorite courses in the world.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the real feather in the caps of today's award-winning architects is their ability to so effectively blend the discovered and the built -- a quality that golden age courses have (at least in part) because of their old age and the passing of time. In other words: skill, talent & technique are nowadays able to seamlessly mimic the effect of natural & 'evolutionary' processes -- making it hard for us to distinguish one from the other. Max Behr would be very impressed, and I think he'd feel quite gratified-justified, ie his long ago (and often convoluted) theories about which courses golfers like best and why seem to have been proven right by the critical & commercial success of our top new naturalistic courses. And it also goes to show that 'minimalism' and 'naturalism' are not necessarily synonymous.

It's easy to forget that the entire industry basically fell in love with built features, basically, pushing the limits of bulldozers in an effort to see what could be done.  As the famous landscape architect Hideo Sasaki said, "the earth is putty."  I suspect the more naturalistic approach came about mostly because of the theory that every action has an opposite and equal reaction.


I suppose an independent party could find a measuring system to quantify each.  One big goal of earthmoving for many was creating shadows that sold real estate and led to best new course awards.  Of course, Sand Hills had an effect, when Dick Youngscap had the revolutionary idea to build a course in the most spectacular setting Nebraska had to offer, and where any earthmoving would look puny in comparison to nature (stolen quote)  But, it goes to show there can be some real value in earthmoving, even when it's earthmoving for earthmoving's sake. 


I guess most of us figured even the real estate value of shadows had approached the limit, i.e., if you spend $100,000 per hole in extra grading, but can sell the surrounding 20 lots for only $5000 more because of it (over and above the intrinsic value of being on a golf course) that $10,000 doesn't provide an adequate return on investment (and I doubt huge waste bunkers and other common design traits of the '90s do either.

[Kalen Braley]

So if we were to nominate holes for a list of the top 10 pars 3s, par 4s, and par 5s.....would most of them be "discovered" like the aforementioned, Pebble 8 and CPC 16?  Or would there be an even mix?  I know this is a bit of a loaded question, but I am generally interested to at least attempt to determine if the best of the best weren't built by Mother Nature.

I'm thinking we should have some old threads on GCA that would provide some good nominations...

[Tom_Doak]

I guess most of us figured even the real estate value of shadows had approached the limit, i.e., if you spend $100,000 per hole in extra grading, but can sell the surrounding 20 lots for only $5000 more because of it (over and above the intrinsic value of being on a golf course) that $10,000 doesn't provide an adequate return on investment (and I doubt huge waste bunkers and other common design traits of the '90s do either.

Your math is off there by a factor of ten, but frankly I doubt that your estimate of "the real estate value of shadows" [LOL] was low enough, so the two mistakes cancel each other out.

[Tom_Doak]

So if we were to nominate holes for a list of the top 10 pars 3s, par 4s, and par 5s.....would most of them be "discovered" like the aforementioned, Pebble 8 and CPC 16?  Or would there be an even mix?  I know this is a bit of a loaded question, but I am generally interested to at least attempt to determine if the best of the best weren't built by Mother Nature.

I'm thinking we should have some old threads on GCA that would provide some good nominations...

Kalen:


I'll do the math for you:


Found:  don't forget the 18th at Pebble Beach, the 8th at Crystal Downs, the Alps at Prestwick, and the 3rd at Mauna Kea [if you don't count transforming lava to turf as "built"]


Built:  the Road Hole at St. Andrews [although they didn't build the road or the stationmaster's garden strictly for golf]
   the 11th on The Old Course [assuming the Hill and Strath bunkers are not natural]
   the Redan at North Berwick [and most of the copies]
   the 17th & 18th at the TPC at Sawgrass
   the Lido [and pretty much everything else by Macdonald and Raynor]




I think the Built encompasses more than you realize, but it is hard to compete with Nature in terms of grandeur.  However, is the 8th at Pebble Beach really a great hole if you take away the setting and made it with ponds in Palm Desert?
   

[Ira Fishman]

Found or built?


Lahinch 5
Ballybunion Old 11
Royal Dornoch 14
Old Mac 7
CPC 9
NB 13


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Found or built?

Lahinch 5
Ballybunion Old 11
Royal Dornoch 14
Old Mac 7
CPC 9
NB 13

The 7th at Old Macdonald was definitely built -- the green is a 15- or 20-foot cut!  All of that material is out on the 6th and 7th fairways now.


I'm only guessing, but my guess is that the 9th at Cypress Point had more shaping than most realize.  I think the green was built by excavating the front bunker, and I wouldn't be shocked if the one flatter deck in the fairway @ 175 yards off the tee was shaped as well.


I've always found it interesting that the earthwork done on the 11th at Ballybunion is never mentioned in discussing the hole.  That two-tiered landing area in the fairway is anything but natural.  Not sure about the green complex, but I'd call that hole built, albeit built from a dramatic starting point.

[Neil Regan]

I've always found it interesting that the earthwork done on the 11th at Ballybunion is never mentioned in discussing the hole.  That two-tiered landing area in the fairway is anything but natural.  Not sure about the green complex, but I'd call that hole built, albeit built from a dramatic starting point.

Actually, Ran discusses this a bit in his recent (2020) profile of Ballybunion.


Quote from Ran’s profile, 2020


Additionally, a transformation event occurred within the property in the later half of the nineteenth century. Before there was any thought of golf, the site was used as a sand mine. As Ireland grew, sand became in high demand, especially by farmers. Ballybunion’s dunes were a prime source for the aggregate, not only regionally but throughout the country. Portable tracks were laid down to enable rail cars to reach deep into the property. As pockets of the property were exhausted, the rails were moved. The work emanated from town and there are two known consequences. First, the northern part of the property near town has less dunes as a consequence and two, some of the unique landforms that the course enjoys today are a direct result from the sand mining.



And Ran then asks this question about the 11th:


Looking back up towards where the journey started, would any modern architect have the guts/wisdom to build this unconventional hole today?




——-


I’d say that countless features on many of the great old links were man-made in some way, by pre-golfers mining, dumping, digging, sheltering, playing, hunting, training, smuggling, ....

[Ally Mcintosh]

The diagonal ridge on 9 at Lahinch is most likely built, it playing directly along the line of a pre-MacKenzie hole.


5 on the other hand, Ira, is almost certainly fully found. Most I can imagine being done to that hole is a slight filling of the green site. Probably not even that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just in case this was meant as a trick question since the title says which are generally "regraded" as the best ones, I will say built holes are generally "regraded" the most.  Given my spell check won't let me type "regraded" without correcting it to regarded may be a tip-off that this is a late April Fool's joke?

[Kalen Braley]

So if we were to nominate holes for a list of the top 10 pars 3s, par 4s, and par 5s.....would most of them be "discovered" like the aforementioned, Pebble 8 and CPC 16?  Or would there be an even mix?  I know this is a bit of a loaded question, but I am generally interested to at least attempt to determine if the best of the best weren't built by Mother Nature.

I'm thinking we should have some old threads on GCA that would provide some good nominations...

I think the Built encompasses more than you realize, but it is hard to compete with Nature in terms of grandeur.  However, is the 8th at Pebble Beach really a great hole if you take away the setting and made it with ponds in Palm Desert?
 

Tom,

The 8th hole at Pebble is kind of the point and we're agreeing I think. 

There is certainly land "fit for golf" and most everything else not so much, and that's why we talk about how the 8th at Pebble is one of the best par 4s on the planet, and not the 8th hole of some other course in the desert.  As discussed at length on GCA, its impossible to separate a hole from its environment in evaluating it, and if anything it would seem to be an injustice to invalidate the 8th hole because it has both the benefit of a cliff/chasm to provide an epic 2nd shot AND also resides in an epic location!

As it pertains to say TPC Sawgrass 17 and 18 vs the 8 thru 10 stretch at Pebble, I have no doubt those are all iconic holes to both GCA aficionados and causal golfers alike, though I'm not sure I would consider the ones at TPC to be necessarily great even if they are certainly notable/recognizable/famous.

[Kalen Braley]

Just in case this was meant as a trick question since the title says which are generally "regraded" as the best ones, I will say built holes are generally "regraded" the most.  Given my spell check won't let me type "regraded" without correcting it to regarded may be a tip-off that this is a late April Fool's joke?

Jeff,


Hilarious!  Thanks for that, I read it 3 times before posting, but obviously I saw what I wanted it to be.  I'll fix it!   

[John Mayhugh]

I’d say that countless features on many of the great old links were man-made in some way, by pre-golfers mining, dumping, digging, sheltering, playing, hunting, training, smuggling, ....

This is a really good point. It's strange, but I'm almost certain to like holes that use features from past quarrying work, but if pits were dug on another site to add interest, I probably wouldn't like it. Not sure what that says about me.

[Mark Mammel]

For the "built" category, an extreme example has to be the Straights course by Pete and Alice Dye. 800,000 cubic yards of firt and sand were moved onto a flat and bland site, and the course was created by the artistry of the Dyes. It almost falls into the category of sculpture! I'm sure there are those who dislike the course for this very reason- I was in that camp originally- but I see it as an amazing creation now.

[Tom_Doak]

For the "built" category, an extreme example has to be the Straights course by Pete and Alice Dye. 800,000 cubic yards of firt and sand were moved onto a flat and bland site, and the course was created by the artistry of the Dyes.

Mark:


You have this slightly wrong.  The majority of the site was a plateau 90 feet above the lake to start with.  The holes along the water, like the 17th, are the result of a 30- or 40-foot cut, with all that dirt moved inland to create "dunes" on the west side of the site.


I am not sure if they trucked in sand to "cap" the holes or if they found sand as part of digging around, but the shapes were not all created with imported material.

[Tom_Doak]

Neil:  So the fairway decks on 11 at Ballybunion are the result of quarry works, and *not* someone trying to build a landing area in the right place for that hole?




Kalen:  My point in bringing up the 8th at Pebble is that if you built a lay-up tee shot like that in the desert, followed by a second shot over a pond and not a chasm, you'd be branded an idiot, not a genius.  The setting creates the foundation for a great second shot, but it also causes most people to forgive the fundamental weakness of the tee shot.  I am not saying they shouldn't have built the hole -- it's a great solution for what they had to work with -- but that does not mean it's one of the greatest golf holes on earth.


Your definition of what is a great hole seems to rest a lot on the setting, so you lean very hard toward the "discovered" side of this argument.  I don't have a problem with that; I think most people do, they just fail to acknowledge it.