[Dan_Callahan]

Has anyone read and/or formed an opinion on the new book Selected Golf Courses by Hurdzan/Fry: Photos and Essays Vol 1? I have yet to see a copy and was wondering if it is worth purchasing online. (It's a hefty $80, but I am a sucker for golf architecture books.)

[Steve Lapper]

Bill,

Do you?

[ian]

Dan,

I have a copy of the book.

Mike did all the writing and Dana picked all the photos.

The photos are by a Husband and wife team and are spectacular. The photographs dominate the book and make this a wonderful coffee table book.

Mike wrote a description of what it was like to put the project together, what the owners are like, and some of the adventures they had on site. I found his writing warm, and often ammusing to read.

As far as picture books go, this is one of the best I have seen, the quality of the photos is higher, and there are few of the "artsy" flag back photos I hate.

One interesting thing about the book, is you get to see what styles Dana has taken on and to watch the progression of work from the Pulpit to the present.

If you like there work, buy the book, you will not be disappointed.

Ian Andrew

[JohnV]

Amazon has it for $52.50, but they say it ships in 3 to 5 weeks.

[Steve Lapper]

Steven

My experience is about 10 or so courses and I find no clear architectural malpractice, that head shaking sort of thing that makes one wonder.  I find options, well-thought out modern construction, but I rarely find persistent levels of passionate golf architecture.  

As has been stated by many here before, the architect doe not work in a vacuum, but must work for the ones who pay the bills. (Personally I think it would be great if at some point in his or her career every architect get to build a "(Joe Blow) Golf Club" in which no one but the architect has full design control.)

All in all, yes but I don't have my blood truly stirred more than an "average" sampling the new courses I see.

Hope this is clear.

Bill,

It is clear and achieved my intention of draggin you out in public with such an illumination...

PS.. I don't disagree with you at all!

[Dan_Callahan]

Do you find their architecture stimulating?

Unfortunately, I haven't played enough of their courses to form an opinion. I was very impressed with Widow's Walk in Massachusetts. They were able to transform a depleted quarry (that was an eyesore on the Scituate coast)  into a challenging and enjoyable golf course.

I think that even if I didn't like their courses I would want to read a well-written and photographed books. For me, it makes the game more interesting knowing why certain design decisions were made, what the architects were trying to accomplish, etc.

Ian:

Thanks for the info. I think I'll make the investment.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Whatever one may think of Hurdzan & Fry's Architecture, I really liked this book because the courses really jump out bold and provocative in both the pictures and the text.

This is a very beautifully published book with some great photos and of course well thought out writing by Dr. Mike and Dana, and I can tell you from knowing both of them that they both practice their craft with the utmost passion, sincerity, and professionalism. If you want to get right deep down into it, they design the best engineered golf courses in this modern age.

As a team, for all of Dr. Mike's vast agronomic knowledge and ability, Dana Fry equally posses a diversity that challenges him at every course they design and build--they are also both PURISTS for the Game, and I think in this day and age, thats a GREAT thing.

Plus, they're really great guys!

As a book, I can tell you that it is one that you should want to add to your collection.

[Matt_Ward]

I've had the pleasure in playing quite a few of their layouts over the course of time ...
 
Blackthorn GC  
Blue Ash
Cobblestone Creek
Cooks Creek GC
Desert Willow
Devil's Paintbrush
Devil's Pulpit
En-Joie Golf Club
Eagles Landing
Eaglesticks GC
Fieldstone GC
Glenmaura National  
Hamilton Farm
Harbor Links  
Ironhorse GC
Jericho National
Keystone Resort
Lassing Pointe
Little Mountain CC  
Olde Stonewall
Raven @ 3 Peaks
Sand Barrens GC  
WeaverRidge CG
Widow's Walk
 
I have also enjoyed quite a few of them -- Desert Willow's Firecliff in Palm Desert is certainly unique and one of the best / affordable designs you can play in the Coachella Valley. No one will ever confuse Firecliff with being a course that fits the "Palm Springs" profile.

My only downside is that at times there is a tendency to simply overwhelm the landscape with man's hand and the results can sometimes be easily seen. I really like Hamilton Farm in my home state, however, there are a few holes there where man's hand simply engulfs the naturalness of the site. Sometimes, it's not nececessary to overtouch / outdo what exists already -- more emphasis on letting the finished product "blend in" with what is already in existence. Sometimes the flair for the dramatic can be overdone and unnecessary.

I also like Eaglesticks in Zanesville, OH. The site is especially cramped but here the desire to insert man's hand is well done and you have a good mixture of holes. The course isn't especially long, however, it succeeds in giving multi-skill players a fun alternative. Sand Barrens is also quite good given the fact that plenty of southeast Jersey is quite "barren" and needs the interjection of man's hand in an artful manner.

If you look at the courses where the site has been less than good the finished efforts have worked well because the duo of Hurdzan & Fry clearly has the "imagination" to create. The flip side is that when superior sites are available it may be necessary for them to scale back the imagination of man and let the wonders of nature speak more loudly.

P.S. Best of all -- Hurdzan & Fry have clearly added to the sophistication of design within public golf. One other note -- a real sleeper of a course is Cobblestone Creek -- just outside of Rochester, NY. The course has hosted the NY Amateur and is really quite good. However, it gets little attention because of its relative isolation.
 

 

 

[DPL11]

I have a copy that was given to me as a tournament at Sand Barrens GC. It is a very nice coffee table book, as someone already said. The photos are very well done, but I have not had a chance to read yet.

Doug

[George Pazin]

My only downside is that at times there is a tendency to simply overwhelm the landscape with man's hand and the results can sometimes be easily seen. I really like Hamilton Farm in my home state, however, there are a few holes there where man's hand simply engulfs the naturalness of the site. Sometimes, it's not nececessary to overtouch / outdo what exists already -- more emphasis on letting the finished product "blend in" with what is already in existence. Sometimes the flair for the dramatic can be overdone and unnecessary.

Lordy, Matt, you're not actually commenting on the look of a course are you? I thought you saw well past that and were able to only focus on playability!

My only experience on a Hurdzan/Fry course was Olde Stonewall north of Pittsburgh. I will say I really enjoyed playing it, but it's way out of my price range, to be able to play it on any sort of regular basis. I thought it looked pretty artificial (they actually have metal cutouts on animals scattered around the course! Like we don't have actual animals on courses here in western PA!! ), but the greens complexes made play fun. If it were, say, $100 cheaper, I'd actually play it a few times a year!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Doug, You should read it because the text is well written, mostly talking about the courses featured in the book as well as the experiences of designing and building them.

Matt Ward,
I agree with ou about Desert Willow-Firecliff. I think its very different for the Valley in the same way that Cimarron is different for the Valley. Their Unique, and no in anyway like the seemingly 100-Palmer Courses or 200-Ted Robinson courses that are there. (an exageration, but it was trying to make a point)

There is really only one problem with the Desert Willow Firecliff course--the containment mounding. And even then it was designed that way in hopes of entertaining the Bob Hope, and I have to say, I really do think they are missing the boat by not taking it to a really nice facility such as this.

As far as the Mountain View Course, well many will lambast it for what it is, but in Dr. Mike's words, "it's his style of golf architecture"--which I presume him to mean, nothing too overt or too gimmicky. Something that is easy to maintain and won't cost the city an arm and a leg in doing so.

I think its a good alternative then playing a more time consuming round on Firecliff, and the course would even probably be a perfect fit for city-owned parkland or good farmland just outside of Columbus, Ohio, where it doesn't break the bank in terms of cost to build and develop as well as maintain and attract a crowd of golfers who want to play the game of golf

[DPL11]

Tommy,

Its on the list of things to do over the 2 week holiday. I have a few stacked up.

Doug

[woof]

I have looked at the book but never really registered what I was seeing, because my course is one of the courses in the book and that was all I saw.  With the wonderful reviews it seems as if it is a great book just as a book as well as a great review of H/F courses.  I'll have to go out and get it.

Regarding their architecture, I enjoy playing the course because it it different from our original course.  This raises the question:  how much is my opinion altered because I have a second course to play?  If I only had the H/F course would I feel the same?  Possibly not, as there are aspects of the design I dislike:  I find many of their bunkers contrived, and I don't like the slopes eating into portions of the greens.  On the other hand, the greens are larger and its fun to have a long putt every once and a while.  Have any others with multiple course clubs thought along these lines?

[JNC Lyon]

Matt Ward:

 I would be interested to know why you like of Cobblestone Creek. I have only caddied for a friend in a tournament there, but from that perspective it was a fine layout, although walking and housing was an issue. I thought is was a quite an original course for the area. It has great variety of parkland, marsh and wide open, fescue-hewn holes. The only real bad hole is No. 3, with a forced layup with a mid-iron to an elevated green. Some of those greens were built upside dowm

[A_Clay_Man]

Funny how I've never golfed one of thier courses yet I feel as though I know alot about them. Mostly Dr. Hurzdan, but from what Tommy and Matt says here, I suspect that they miss the mark on the Art side of the equation. Technically these guys appear to be the guys you want to build for you, IF, you can afford it and afford the high fees needed to recoup. The upside being that the courses should have a very long expected life span, with minimal maintenance to retain the architecture.

Woof- Could you elaborate on these hills intruding on the greens that you dis-like?  I find hillocks, knolls or any gravity inducing feature on or near a green to be quite useful. You?

[Matt_Ward]

George P:

Got to help me out -- where did I use the word "look" in my description of their work? I simply stated that sometimes there is a tendency to overpower a site with a heavy handed approach that says we must add all the heavy duty contours and shapes. On good to superior sites the land simply needs to speak for itself -- man only needs to play a supporting role.

Take Olde Stonewall -- the layout is really two different courses. The front nine fits well to the land there but the back nine is really "forced" into the rigorous hills you find there. It's not bad though, however, I would not want to play it everyday if push came to shove.

Adam:

Help me stop laughing will you -- you've never played one of their courses but you're quick to chime in that somehow Tommy and I have missed the mark on the "art equation."  

My good friend in NM -- I didn't miss that part -- you need to re-read what I posted. I commended the tandem for their ability to "create" when they have faced sites that needed it. On the flip side -- I was quick to point out a few instances where they have simply overpowered a good to superior site with the misguided notion that one needs to "add" to what is already there.

Adam -- play the courses BEFORE you opine on what people think. You're much better than that ...

JNC Lyon:

If memory serves I believe Cobblestone Creek was the work of Craig S(can't spell the rest of his name) and Dr. Hurdzan. I don't know if Dana Fry was involved with the site.

Cobblestone has some unique holes. The dangerous par-4 at the very beginning of the round -- is very demanding and when you play the hole from the tips the angle for the tee shot becomes even more exacting.

Cobblestone does have some demanding green targets and putting on a few of them is quite taxing if your stroke happens to be just a bit off. I liked the site for the course and believe there's plenty of variety with the individual holes, the nature of ow the routing blends them together and the wherewithal NOT to overpower the site. Far too few people likely have played the course because of its location and because the season in the Rochester, NY area is quite short.

I'd certainly recommend anyone to play it if they get on because it certainly has element of fun and demanding golf.

P.S. I played the course in its earliest stages so the housing issue you mentioned wasn't really a factor. I just hope they have not shoe-horned them toooooooooo close to the character of the course. As far as the walking is concerned I believe it can be done without too much difficulty.

[George Pazin]

Matt -

The quote I chose sounds a lot like you're discussing aesthetics as much or more than playability. There's nothing wrong with that, it was just surprising coming from you. I guess you must have been discussing playability all along & I just wasn't able to see it in your post.

BTW, Adam's "they" isn't referring to you - it's a slightly awkward sentence, but I think he's saying that based on your post & Tommy's, H&F sound like they've missed the mark.

[Matt_Ward]

George P:

Fair point -- but my mentioning of "overpowering" the site deals with strategic / playable elements as well. One doesn't need to leave behind one's fingerprints in such a loud manner. Sometimes you can add strategic design elements that simpl "blend" into the existing land -- this then adds to the "play" characteristics and its visual appeal.

When you have a great site -- one doesn't need to to overdo the make-up. I've seen a good deal of H&F work and I believe there is a tendency to leave a clear "mark" to prove one was there. As talented as they are -- it's not necessary across the board IMHO.

[A_Clay_Man]

George is right again. I was not refering to you, Matt, other than your descriptions. George has free reign to decipher and translate my inferior writting skills, and when he's missed the mark, I'll tell him.
 Matt- saving my opines wouldn't teach me a thing, so keep correcting me, please.
Plus, I have seen some recent pictures that would show that perhaps H/F are getting into the art. i.e. centerline green front pot bunkers. I was hoping to promote discussion, not tear down a team of archies. I'd also like YOU to think about the art because a person need not see everyting to know what they like.

I hear the 14th at Shinethingy is a fine example of a quality golf hole. (hi bill)  

[Matt_Ward]

Adam C:

In fairness to anyone who designs courses -- I come from the old-fashined school of thought that one needs to
a-c-t-u-a-l-l-y play courses before opining. I agree -- I don't want to tear anyone down -- or build someone up either -- until one has played a fair sampling of their work to provide some sort of meaningful commentary.

I don't doubt people may i-n-f-e-r something from an aerial or photograph, however, I place greater emphasis on the personal experience. Fogive me if that sounds like a quaint idea.

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy and everyone else,
What do you think if Mike's book on Golf Course Construction?  
Mark

[woof]

Adam C:  about the hills intruding on greens.  Several greens are cut into adjacent slopes, but in some instances the slopes run into a portion of the green, rendering that portion of the green non-usable as traditional putting surface.  While visually appealing in some instances, I would prefer that the entire green surface function.  

[JNC Lyon]

Matt Ward:

The housing is not too intrusive, believe it or not. The lots are separated by fescue from the course, so it is not really a factor. Unfortunately, the back tee at No. 3 has been elimated, the reason I do not know.

[Matt_Ward]

JNC Lyon:

I'd be curious as to how locals from Western New York assess Cobblestone Creek when compared to the likes of Oak Hill / East, Crag Burn and a few of others in the area.

I really liked the course but like I said previously I played it right after its opening several years ago.

Thanks ...

[JNC Lyon]

Matt Ward:

  Cobblestone does not compare well with Crag Burn, Oak Hill, Monroe or Brook Lea (Ross). This is probably because of pure tradition, and the fact that there is simply no course like it anywhere in Western New York. I was certainly surprised when seeing it that it did not get as much credit. When the best in Rochester are mentioned, Cobblestone is rarely included. This may change as more people play it. Let me ask how it compares with a course like Eagle's Landing or Lassing Pointe, both of which are public.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()