[TEPaul]

With some really good topics now on the first page and particularly one by Tom Doak, "Is strategy obsolete?", I thought this might be a good time to ask Tom Doak something about Stonewall2 and maybe offer a little constructive criticism (hopefully).

Having been out in the area of French Creek and Stonewall2 (side by side and both under construction) it seems to me that Stonewall2 (certainly the ridge area that incorporates maybe #11 thru #17(?) which is actually the only area I've really looked closely at) has potential to do and be something really interesting--and certainly strategically!

This entire area (11-17 and maybe the rest of the course) is open, windblown and it appears of the routing width (that's been done and the holes are well into construction) and also the overall ground interest to offer some really interesting and exciting golf by simply utilizing for the golf almost all the available width in this area (and/or the rest of the course other than this ridge?)!

So far the routing looks good in that area, the greens look really good and the bunkering looks really great!

This is apparently going to be a quite short course anyway but one hole (the one over the constructed pond and along rte 345 which has a lot of potential useable width to its overall body seemed to have a fairway width that is planned to be quite narrow and maybe the standardized 30-35yd. The really long hard looking a par 3 coming alongside it in the opposite direction looked to be designed in a sort of constricted playable way from tee to green too!

Maybe some of the other holes are fairly narrowed down tee to green too as to fairways or playable widths.

So my question is if the space is there and the ground is good for golf topographically why not use that available width to  create some really good strategic possibilities? There are no trees at all out on that big ridge and the opportunity to do something along the principles of Max Behr with really interesting and wide "lines of charm" fairway and playable areas, some really interesting risk/reward stuff inside some much wider fairway lines, maybe near the middle (Behr's "line of instinct") with some low risk/low reward stuff on the flanks  and such. Or at least widen out the bodies of the holes with much more fairway area that's featured up to fall in line strategically with the angles of the greens and the greenside bunkering!

But I can just hear the response! Too expensive, too much maintenance, owner might not go for it, wanted to try something else etc, etc!

But did you ever think of this unique opportunity to really finally use some width or all the available width to go out on a limb and create something really unique strategically and maybe even outside the box, to a small degree? Did you even consider it? If so did you try to convince the owner of the potential uniqueness of this principle and design approach? And if not, why?

I hope you and the owner consider this because it sure looks to me like a rare and unique opportunity to really do some great things with width utilization! Very private course, probably super low play etc etc!

At the very least consider widening out that hole along Rte 345 as to it's available body and width with some good things going on throughout a wider fairway to match down at the green-end with strategic implications. From where I thought I saw a narrow fairway going in, that alone makes the hole even look bad in that big broad area and expanse! If you do that it would be logical too widen out that par 3 going the other way too--maybe even everything on the whole ridge!

That's my constructive criticism for the day--hopefully!

[Michael Dugger]

I'm sure Tom Doak is going to do just fine on his own.  With all those ideas why aren't you designing courses yourself?  Considering you penchant for environmental courses I'm surprised you would advocate something that demands that that much turf be maintained.  3000 posts still doesn't give you the right to second guess TOM DOAK.  Let's keep to bashing Fazio and Rees ok?  

[ed_getka]

I will be interested to hear T.D.'s response to your points. Tom is not adverse to using width from what I've seen at Pac Dunes and Lost Dunes, but if he has some narrow holes I'm sure there is a good reason. I look forward to the response.

[JSlonis]

mdugger,

I don't think Tom is second guessing anything...he is merely making an observation and asking an insightful question.  Regardless of 1 post or 3000, doesn't someone have the right to ask a question concerning something that interests them?

[Brian Phillips]

MDugger,

Not only were the questions from Tom good and worth asking they were asked in a professional manner.  I have made mistakes on this site sometimes in the way I have made my opinions but I don't think I have ever been critical to a person for asking questions.

I know both the men in question. Both are two of the nicest men I have met in the business and both are willing to help most people in anyway they can.  Tom Paul doesn't need to design courses as he likes the work he has now which is everything from looking after Gulph Mills to doing research for books and just out of interest.  Here is the man that said to me over dinner one night that his mentor was Geoff Shackelford.  Tom Paul is I am sure much older than Geoff but was still willing to learn from a younger person, hell, he even listened to me sometimes!!

Tom D is also a great guy who loves this sort of question and again will answer anything you ask him as long as it isn't a stupid or just being asked to be controversial.

One thing you are going to have to learn in this business is that you are never ever finished learning.  And everyone and anyone is allowed to question your designs ethics.  Your job as an architect/designer is the switch on the brain to try and pick out the good ideas from the bad ideas.  That is one thing I am still struggling with but Jeremy Turner who is now a partner is brilliant at it.

There is only bad question in this world, the one that doesn't get asked!!

Don't shit on your own doorstep...

See you in Edinburgh next year hopefully with a bit more tact.

 

Brian.

Ps have you heard from Mike yet?

[TEPaul]

On second thought instead of pissing all over the discussion group section at someone else I thought it wiser to copy my furious post to mdugger and just send it to him and delete it off of this topic.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Thanks Tom

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I have not yet seen Stonewall 2, so I can't comment on the substance of your questions to Tom Doak.

But, I do recall Tom and I discussing "what was still missing in the field of golf architecture literature". Our discussion touched on Geoff Shackelford's Cypress Point book and the Fazio/Wynn book on Shadow Creek. We both agreed these books were as good as it gets. We also thought the only way to top them was to incorporate the best of both.

That is to say what is still missing is much documentation on what is going through the architect's mind during the design process, especially on sites what aren’t a “blank piece of paper”. We know Tom intends to contribute with his Pacific Dunes book. Still, it would be great if he – and other architects – could share more of their design thoughts while key projects are underway.  For example, wouldn’t it be great if Bill Coore would share his thoughts on the routing plan for Friar’s Head.

Your post is a worthwhile attempt to create an interactive, electronic version of what Tom Fazio and Steve Wynn shared with us about creating Shadow Creek. It would be great for Golfclubatlas if we could intelligently discuss prominent projects and leave out personal attacks.

Good Luck!

[TEPaul]

Tim:

My God, you're not kidding that only if more architects would jot down for posterity what was going on during creation and construction of courses, concept developement of the architecture, where things emanated from in their minds--the more detail and nuances the better!

Can you imagine if George Crump had done that?

I think it would be just great but in a strange way maybe it takes some of the mystery out of it all! What do you think about that?

[Will W]

good god, how many volumes of crumpiana would there be??

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I'll be happy to live with giving up the mystery.  Yes, I'd be thrilled with a first hand account of George Crump's thoughts or how about CB at NGLA or Mackenzie at Cypress.......

If we can do some of that here, it will really be great.

[Brian Phillips]

Tom and Tim,

I thought about posting all the photos and thoughts and routings of the site of my nine hole course that I have just finished here in Norway but just don't have the guts to show off such a small project.

The budget is small the course is short but beautiful but not really much when compared to Sand Hills etc.

I am working on about three projects at the moment and all I would love to post but does it look arrogant?

Brian

[Tim Weiman]

Brian:

We are here to discuss golf architecture. I, for one, appreciate practicing architects sharing their thoughts and their work. Anyone not interested in your project can just tune out of that thread.

My understanding is that a fair amount of golf course construction is going on in Norway....or maybe I should say Sweden. Not sure.

The point of this discussion group is to share and learn from each other. We still have nowhere near enough European participation.  So, jump right in. My only advice would be to focus on a couple points (or holes) that are likely to have the braodest appeal. We are still largely an American crowd and not to many of us will ever make it to Norway.

[TEPaul]

Brian:

Do it--post it! You're really not the shy type anyway. Your ideas are terrific, that drawing you sent me is most interesting too!

Your work has got to debut anyway--why not here?

Post it.

[ed_getka]

Brian,
  Please do post and with the pix include what your objectives were for the holes or course as a whole. I would not find that to be arrogant in any way.

[Will E]

Would Tom Doak's work be better if he had a "player" consultant helping him with his designs?  How much impact does Crenshaw have with Coore?
Tom,
I'm happy to help, just think of how good Doak and Shooter sounds.

[TEPaul]

Brian:

In case I never told you, although I think I did, I think you have very strong opinions on architecture and in my book that is most always a very very good thing.

Shooter:

I do recall that Doak once said on here that speaking to really good players, some tour pros, I think he said, about how they look at architecture and approach it helped him a lot. I believe it was him who said he learned a lot from how much goes into it for them as players or how instinctual they were, or something like that. Doak also surprised me for sure by saying one time on here he was picking up more and more about using backdrops and such, horizon lines and things, interesting lines and such in the backgrounds more in his architecture--that too sort of surprised me! But who really knows what some of these guys know or think about unless they say it?

[David Wigler]

TEPAUL,

I do not know how Doak and Shooter sounds but having played with him, I would make him the favorite if we ever did a GCA Invitational (And I have played with Todd Eckenrode and Josh Taylor and watched David Eger).  One of these days Shooter is going to become another of the ex-pro's who weasels his amateur status back and then go on a roll ala Dillard Pruit.

[TEPaul]

Shooter's that good huh? Wow, that's impressive!

I know Eger's game from some tournaments (can't be remotely a slouch if you managed to be ranked #1 in the US), I've seen Eckenrode swing on a few holes (gorgeous swing) and I do know from being there that Josh Taylor scared the beeejeesus out of Doak at PD by flat decking a few of Tom's par 5s.

Actually, I'm extremely impressed by the very level-headed and all inclusive (all levels of player) attitude and understanding that all of those guys seem to take to architecture generally, despite how good they might be!

And I guess I should fairly add that the player that really impressed me that way with his understanding of the capabilities and very much the limitations too of all golfing levels was Nick Faldo!

[guest]

bringing it back...

[Tom Doak]

Guest,

Thanks for bringing this back or I would have missed it.  Urbina and I were out looking at a couple of new golf course sites this week, and didn't have much time to get to the computer!  (The sites we saw were so good we didn't miss it much, either.)

Re:  Stonewall Two:

As I've said elsewhere I have not really been on site here as much as I would have liked ... it's been a hectic summer of planning our next two years and fixing greens at SFGC and Mid Ocean and getting engaged.  And I've had so much talent on site there and things have been looking so good that I haven't wanted to interfere too much.

However, I've been there twice since getting back from New Zealand and am headed back again next week, and one of the things I have concentrated on was NARROWING UP the fairways on holes where the width was superfluous.

We do have some holes where the fairways are extra wide because they provide different angles to the green:  as it happens these were some of the first holes we built, including the 11th and the short par-4 12th.  But, I thought that the boys were losing sight of the budget and the simple character of the design by putting wide fairways on other holes which had no need for them -- particularly the 470-yard 16th hole, where you obviously want to hit it as close to the pond as you can to get the best angle to the green.  Giving the players who bail out a wide fairway is just costly to maintain.

This goes back to the initial discussions about the course with the clients.  Stonewall Two is supposed to be fun to play, and strong enough that the new members don't all just want to play the original course.  The first course was deliberately constrained -- I wouldn't let Gil put more than two capes in a bunker, and usually held him to one -- because we wanted it to appear "classic" as we understood the term ten years ago.  For this course we have tried to make the greens and bunkers a little flashier (if not a lot), but keep the design relatively straightforward.  I think there is plenty of movement in the greens to call for strategic play depending on the hole location.

The new course is also supposed to be LESS EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN, so if the club ever sees tougher times they can back off the maintenance of the second course before harming the first.  Anyway, most of the members wonder why the fairways of the original course are so wide compared to their other clubs in Philadelphia (Pine Valley excluded):  they didn't believe me when I told them Stonewall One has the narrowest fairways I have built so far!

But wide fairways in Lubbock just cost a bit more to mow, so we've made them wide, and they can be narrowed for tournaments.  Wide bentgrass fairways in Philadelphia are expensive, so I'm only going to make them wide where I think the strategy is really important (holes 3, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 12), and try to keep them down everywhere else.

I will save my "Max Behr type holes" for some other projects where they make more economic sense:  for example, a certain site in the sand hills which we hope to be selected to design.

P.S. to Shooter:  I'll be back at Stonewall on the 4th-7th of September.  Come on out and let's see what you can contribute.

P.S. to everyone:  Stonewall Two is very nearly exactly the same length as Stonewall One, both par 70, although I think it will feel a bit shorter because there is more length in the par-3's and less in the par-4's.  (That's just what the property gave us, not a deliberate decision.)

[Steve Lang]

Shooter,

If you ever talk with Coore and Crenshaw... ask them who's idea it was to have a 491 yard par 4 at Blaketree National in Magnolia, TX... I parred it, but had to play it like a par five and roll in a long put.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

Thanks for the responses on Stonewall2. I'm glad to hear you're at least varying the widths of the fairways and it sounds like quite a bit--a wide variety, in other words. It also looks like the par 4 that parallels (in the opposite direction) #3 at Stonewall 1 is a very interesting fairway hole with lots of interest in and around the middle of it!

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

I'd like to ask you something that I'd very much like to know and I'm sure many other contributors to this website would like to know too!

You can see from the second post on this thread that at least one contributor feels it's a poor idea to even offer "constructive criticism" on something you might be doing because apparently he feel that none of us "have the right to second guess TOM DOAK!"

How do you feel about that?

Certainly you yourself have offered much "constructive criticism" on many other courses of many other architects in your books, particularly the "Confidential Guide". You've also mentioned more than a few times that you believe in a real free flow of constructive criticism and have even said that one of the things that troubles you is there isn't anywhere near enough of it.

So certainly I can't imagine that you'd want to discourage it in anyway even if its concerning your work. You may not necessarily accept it or even respect it when it comes to your own courses but again, I can't imagine you wouldn't encourage it. Is that true?

And regarding my questions about the width of the fairway on #16 Stonewall2 (I think #16 is the one over the pond) I hear your response on the budget of the course and keeping down maintenance costs and I certainly accept your answer.

But that aside, I'm really only most interested in your opinion in strictly an optimum architectural and strategic sense and that would involve things like the hole's strategic implications with a wider fairway as opposed to a narrower one. And you also said that other holes on the course were analyzed as to the functional use of wider fairways but strictly for strategic reasons naturally.

You say that the strategic idea and concept of #16 is to play the drive as close to the pond as possible. From what I can see of the demarcation of the fairway width on that hole and also the width of the pond and the distance of carry over it there's no other option in a DIRECTION SENSE than to play the drive as close to the pond as possible. The only way I can see to NOT play the drive close to the pond is to hit the drive one helluva lot farther, period!

That's one reason I mentioned the interest of a wider fairway. The other reason is the green itself, its orientation and coming at it from much farther to the right or the left (if there was fairway there). It doesn't seem to me that coming at the hole from out to the right would be at all optimum, so for going out to the right on the drive (or even the left which I really didn't look at closely) would be taking on less tee shot risk and consequently getting much less reward for the approach to the green!

Strictly an architectural question not really intended in the context of budget! I'm also aware, though, that creating fairway out to the right might complicate things somewhat with the par 3 coming the other way. That's another reason I thought that par 3 could use a bit more playable latitude out to its left. That's just one reason on that par 3! The other reason is that par 3 in both length and overall narrowness looks to be monsterously hard if going right at that green which appears to be the only way to play the hole!

[Tom Doak]

Tom:

I don't mind "constructive criticism" at all, and don't know why that one poster thought I would.  When I worked for Pete Dye he didn't always have time to answer my questions, but he was never offended by them.  Likewise, I'm busy as hell now, so when I don't answer do not infer that I was offended ... I just don't always have time.

When I was working for Pete I was just as enamored with width as you are today.  During the construction of Riverdale Dunes I flagged some of the fairways enormously wide, one in particular a short par-4 with concept similar to the tenth at Riviera.  Pete agreed with my strategic analysis of the hole but told me it wasn't necessary to give too much fairway to the left -- that the rough would be quite tame so that the average player would be better off with that angle from the bluegrass than with the wrong angle from the bent.

Likewise, on both those holes at Stonewall you mention, the strategy you outline is all there -- it's just that those who bail out too far are going to have to play their next shots from inch-and-a-half rough.  It may be a little more difficult, or it may not (many players would rather hit their 4-woods on the 16th hole from short rough than the fairway), and it is a lot less costly to maintain.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()