[Jim Thompson]

Joe,

Maybe I didn't do a good enough job of throwing my question out there.  When you go to a course for the first time, to what extent does your eye see past the grass and cart traffic etc. to the contour beneath it?

The first time I played Hidden River I was immersed in the natural / oldness of the contouring and features.  They looked so natural that I thought they had been there forever.  It wasn’t until my third round, two years later – when I duck hooked my tee shot off five and drove on top of one of the mounds on the left side – that I saw what Bruce had to start with and how well he made it work.  This in no small measure led to him getting our job by the way.

I know I see things differently from most of the world.  Even in the coffee table books my brain discounts what my eye sees in the tall grasses reducing the plant level to the contour of the earth below.  Might be a bean counter thing or something.  This begs the minimalism question of the day – Is this minimalism concept the result of minimal change of existing landscape or the creation of minimal aesthetic eye fatigue?  Or perhaps, as one of my college philosophy instructors presented it, is art / architecture aesthetic or functional?

[Tom_Doak]

I forgot to say it earlier, but I think someone mentioned early on that the single biggest divide in the business is whether an architect learned the trade as an "office" guy or as a "field" guy.  I can't think of too many that started as one, and wound up feeling the other part was more important.

I was reminded of this by Jim Thompson's post.  Jim, to me the best time is right before the course opens, when the grassing lines are all in place [and hopefully hidden from view] but the course is unsullied by divots, except my own.  I've known a lot of great construction guys who were handicapped in the big picture because they couldn't really visualize how the vegetation would complement and accent the shaping -- some feel like they have to get everything to happen in the dirt, and overdo the shaping to get it.  But the golfers are never going to see it in the dirt.

RJ -- my ex wife could usually identify the designers of most courses after seeing just a few holes, even if she had only seen one or two of their courses previously.  And she didn't have much background in golf.  Sometimes golfers are too busy looking for "golf" ideas, whereas the similarities in shaping are more obvious to the untrained eye.

[Jim Thompson]

Tom,

I know exactly what you mean by "overworked dirt", I got to see that in a project a few years back. Even though the course turned out nice it begs of being a formulated / refined to death and by the end of a round there you feel like you just spent 4 hours with some terminally happy insurance salesman or listening to an album whose every track has the same constant dynamic level.  In the end you just feel fatigued but don't know why at the time, later you realize it was mental boredom / disengagement.  Cedar River comes to mind… I'm certainly not advocating "perfect" dirt.


Thanks for the response!

[George_Williams]

Brauer-

Just noticed this thread.  Do you remember the Design Lineage Charts they handed out At the Meeting a couple of years back?  Just found mine- It's scary, but you and I are in the same Chart No. 16- Robert Bruce Harris.

George

[Anthony_Nysse]

I was actually thinking about this topic today while at work. I work at Long Cove Club in Hilton Head Island and I was thinking about the next time there is a renovation...15-20 years. I'm not saying it will happen because there is no stopping Pete Dye, but what if he isn't around when the next renovation happens? Logically, one would think one or his protege' would do the changes, but of the designers that have worked for Pete and have gone on to head their own firms,(Doak, Coore, Hanse, Weed, Liddy,) Liddy is the only one that builds courses similar to Pete's. Is it just a fluke that Doak, Coore, Hanse and weed all seem to design courses that move little earth, have natural looking bunkers, native areas, fescues, etc....not or which Dye typically uses? Why is it all these gentleman design course completely different from the man who gave them their start? Does this show that they don't agree with Dye's designs? Or did decide to design completely different types of course to try to make a name for themselves?

[TEPaul]

Whoa, whoa, looks like I just happened onto a thread with two architects talking shop talk!

"Overworked dirt"?? Very interesting remark. I'd love to hear more about what exactly that means as well as all the examples on courses you might want to give to the layman contributors on here.

Most of the people on Golfclubatlas know how to analyze various things about golf courses and architecture but I seriously doubt the whole world of shaping and moving earth is one of them. How many not in the business (most on here) have ever gone out on a construction site and really payed close attention to this type of thing?

Tom Doak or Jim Thompsom or any of the other actual architects on here--I'd love to know more about what you mean by "overworked dirt".

I always thought it was the little things about the ground, made or found, the little naunces of the earth and ground in other words, that separated some great architecture from the not so good. To me that seemed obvious because with all kinds of nuance on the ground is what makes the ball do interesting and sometimes random things.

But obviously that must not be what you mean by "overworked dirt".

[Tom_Doak]

Anthony:

I expressed my own belief about this in reply #23 on the first page of the thread.  We all learned a lot from Pete Dye, and one of the things we learned was that imitation is NOT the sincerest form of flattery.  We are all out there every day trying to come up with something new and better, instead of rehashing the same old holes.

As to who should restore Long Cove, first call should go to P.B. Dye who did a lot of the shaping; second place to Bobby Weed, who was the construction superintendent for the course.

No offense to Tim Liddy, but I don't think he would be the right man for the job ... all his work for Pete has been done over the last 10-12 years, when Pete's style was a bit different than in 1981.  For that matter, Pete Dye himself shouldn't work on the course ... he did this at Crooked Stick and transformed it into something more modern.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  Just for the record, Gil Hanse never worked for Pete Dye.  His connection to Pete is only through having worked for me.

Tom P:  I think the general meaning of "overworking the dirt" is moving it back and forth during shaping until it's tired.  Dave Wilber would have another take on that, since moving the dirt around too much ruins the soil chemistry and structure as well.

[Brian_Ewen]

"We all learned a lot from Pete Dye, and one of the things we learned was that imitation is NOT the sincerest form of flattery."

Tom
How does Pete Dye feel when he see's his son designing copycat courses of his own designs in the Far East  ?.

I would have thought it a sore point if the above statement is true , but Perry managed to get his father down here to open them .

BE

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()